2008 Agendas and packets - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Bil! Malinen February 25, 2008 Fage 3 Other arguments that were raised i� that court related to procedural and substantive due pracess co�cerns under tl�e U.S. Constitution, equal pratection c4ause concerns, and that the ordinance viatated the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution by pal:ential impairment of contract�al ability. We could also see potential lst Amendment issues of speech and assaciatian being present. Ali oithese are issues that wouid n�eed ta be looked at in more detaii were the Council to determine �hat an ordinance of the nature proposed in this case is one that they would like to look at furiher. There is a provision of federal law, at 8 U.S.C. § 132�, which rr�akes it a felany for a pexson ta knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that an individual is illegally in the United States of Ainerica, harbor or conceai that person, including in any building. That 1aw provides circumstances under which a landlord cauid in fact be prosecuted far renting or leasing property to certain individuals who are illegally in the United 5tates af America. irVe believe the Council should consider, albeit as a policy decision far it to make, whether it wishes to prahibit a landlord from reyuesting information that they could say aids thern in avoiding any fact pattern that vwould put them within the prosecutorial reach of that statute, Granted, prohibiting by ordinance a�andlord from abtaining such information could be r�ised as a defer►se to a landlord who in fact harbored persons illegally in this country, as they could indicate that they could not possib�y "know or be in recklcss disregard of the fact" of the status of the individual. Be that as it rnay, the proposed ardinance could be seen to canflict with federal taw and ihe congressional objectives as expressed in the Immigration and Naturalization Act through the provision cited above. By the same token, standard credit and baekground checks could pose problems in terr�s of the above-referenced federal statute. Landlords regulariy conduct credit che�ks to ensure the ability of applicants tfl pay, and background checics to determine whether the potential tenant has been a good tenant and has been a good renter in the past, darnaged the properiy, etc. In doing these checks, it is passible that a landlord may obtain information regarding the immigration status af applicants. Under the language of the proposed ordinance, while there is an exemptivn for reyuesting information to determine financial qualifications, such information could be "compiled." Furthermore, the ardinance would prohibit landldre€s from "providing a�ny information" that they have gathered, and thus potentiaily create a problem under 8 U.S.C. § 1324. We are also concerned about the effect of such an ordinance on housing assistance. Hausing choice �ouchers (Sectian 8 assistance) are availabie only ta U.S, ci�izens a�nd certain individuals and families with an eligible immigration status. See 24 C.F.R. § 982.201. Similarly, Minnesota law requires the Commissioner of Human Services to conduct immigratian status verifications on any individuais applying for state hausing assistance, including group residential housing. See Minn. Stat. § 25b.U1, subd. 18.