5
Identity theft is not a soft crime
The upper left-hand corner of a Social Security card
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Bill Radke: The Supreme Court did something this week that will make it harder
to kick someone out of the country for stealing an identity. The court ruled you cannot be guilty of "aggravated identity theft" if you didn't know you were using someone else's Social Security number.
Los Angeles Times business columnist David Lazarus is here. David, what's the story behind this decision?
David Lazarus: Well, the Supreme Court was tackling the use of the aggravated identity theft charge by the Bush administration to crackdown on illegal immigrants, essentially raiding plants and saying, if you guys are using Social Security cards of other people, we're going to charge you with identity theft among other things because it would expedite the deportation process. So it was a way to fast-track getting these guys out of the country. The Supreme Court looked at that and said, we don't think that's the exact way the identity theft rule was supposed to be used. And so they said this law will not apply to people who did not quote unquote "knowingly" steal somebody's Social Security Number.
Radke: David, you speak of this news topic with an unusual passion, because you got your identity stolen.
Lazarus: Well exactly. Let's put some context on this -- this is the fastest-growing crime in the country. Roughly 10 million people every year are victimized by identity theft. And in my case, a guy who was an illegal immigrant from Jamaica was living in the Connecticut area, so this was a number of years ago, and according to the police, he pulled a Social Security Number out of the air -- he simply made it up using the three digits for Connecticut as a prefix and then putting all the rest together. Little did he know that he was inventing the number of an investigative reporter, and so down the road, when it turned out that he had been running up bills on nine different credit cards, passing bad checks at Indian casinos, and when his mess made his way into my credit file during a refinance, I then set out to find the guy. Which I did, and working with law enforcement, managed to get him arrested and deported. Under this new ruling, he would not be guilty of aggravated identity theft, because by having pulled my Social out of the air, he did not, quote unquote, "knowingly" steal my Social Security Number.
Radke: And you feel about that how?
Lazarus: I'm a little cheesed off! I find that extraordinary. For a crime of this magnitude, which causes so much damage and so much hassle to the victims -- and I hate using the word victim, but let's face it, there's a lot of them -- anything that takes away law enforcement's tools in its arsenal to crack down on it seems to me a step in the wrong direction. And the notion that my identity thief could have skirted the law because he would have said, "Oh, well, I didn't know it was David's Social Security Number," I find that extraordinary.
Radke: David Lazarus, LA Times business columnist. I hope you feel better now.
Lazarus: I'm feeling a little better.
About the author
Steve Chiotakis was the host of Marketplace Morning Report until January 2012.
Andrew - Yes, the perp knowingly committed a crime. But the crime he committed wasn't "aggravated identity theft." It's like if you were speeding and the police gave you a ticket for running a red light. (Good to see someone else from Como!)
I wanted to say I'm also disappointed in Marketplace's decision to let David Lazarus do this piece. I feel his pain, but with such an obvious bias, he should have been a source for the story at best, not the reporter.
As an immigration attorney who has represented both people who have had their identities stolen and people who have used fraudulent social security numbers, I can assure you that identity theft is far from a victimless crime and Ms. Lazarus is rightfully upset with the person who used his SSN to open bank accounts, credit accounts, etc.. He has my sympathies, as do some of my clients for whom I have to sort things out with the IRS and various banks and creditcard companies.
However, Mr. Lazarus' outrage at the Flores Figueroa decision is highly misplaced and is based on an understanding of our immigration system that is typical of most people in this country, which is to say, minimal at best. He appeared to indicate that the decision was "taking away a tool used to expedite" deportations.
The US government has plenty of tools available to "expedite deportations" and was overreaching with its application of the federal identity theft statute at issue. This decision will not make one bit of difference in the amount or speed of deportations in the US. They continue unchecked and are largely a symptom of a broken system in need of reform. Let me be clear - there are some folks I have no problem deporting but the current system does not work and will continue to result in situations such as occurred with Mr. Lazarus.
I'm surprised and appalled that Marketplace would allow Mr. Lazarus to unload his wrath all over the airwaves. If either of you had read the decision you would have realized that the criminal would stole Mr. Lazarus' identity could still be prosecuted today for identify theft. This decision in no way allows immigrants who fraudulently open credit card accounts or take out loans under a made-up SSN# number to escape prosecution for identity theft. The decision only applied to people who use fraudulent SSN#'s to obtain jobs. That's it. End of story. You should all be chastised for spreading false rumors and needlessly riling people up!
Sirs/Madams:
I listened to the story this morning and was dumbfounded. Not that it seems to take much to get me there anymore with everything that is going on, but the idea that the court ruled that someone "knowingly" has to be using someone's SSN is the criteria? I'm sorry, but the person "knowingly" made up a random set of numbers and happened to get Mr. Lazarus' number. Doesn't matter to me that he didn't know Mr. Lazarus. The individual still "knowingly" committed a crime. Period. How can the courts be so blind? I suppose there is a lesser law to which these felons will be held, but the victims of these crimes are still hurt the same way whether the felon knew whose identity he was stealing or not. It seems the penalty should be the same when a crime is committed with such forethought in either case.
Thank you for your time.
