2008 Agendas and packets - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Bill Malinen Fe_bruary 25, 2408 Page 3 Other arguinents that were raised in that caurt related to procedural and substantive due process concerns under the U.S. Constitution, equa� proiection clause cancerns, and that the ordinance violated the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution by potential impairment of contractual ab�lity. We could also see potential 1S` Amendment issues of speech and assaciation being present. A).1 o�these are issues that would need to be looked at in more detail were the Council to dete�-mine that an ordinance of the nature proposed in �his case is one that they would like to look at further. There is a provision of federal law, at 8 U.S.C. § 1�24, which makes it a felony for a pezson to knowingly ar in reckless disregard of the fact tlaat an individual is i4lcgally in the United States of America, harbor or conceal that person, ii�cluding in any bui�ding. That law provides circumstancES under which a landlord cauld in faet be prosecuted for renting or leasing property to certain individuals who are illegally in the United Stat�s of America. We bel�eve the Council should cons�der, albeit as a policy decisinn for it ta make, whether it wish�s to prvhibit a landloxd from requesting infonnation that they could say aids them in avoiding any fact pattern that would put them within the prosecutorial reach �f that statute. Granted, prohibiting by ordinance a landiord froin obtaining such information could be raised as a defense to a landlord who in fact harbored persons illegally in this country, as they could indicate tha# they could not possibly "know or be in reckless disregard of the fact" of the status of the individual. Be that as it may, the praposed ordinance coul� be seen to conflict wi�h federal law and the congressional ohjec#ives as expressed in the Immigration and Naturalization Act through the provision cited above. By the same taken, standard credit and background checks could pose problerns in terms of the above-referenced federal statute. Landlords regular'ly conduct credit chccks to cnsure the abilit� of applicants to pay, and background checks to deterrnine whether th� potiential tenant has been a gaod tenant and has been a good renter in the past, datnaged the property, etc. In doing these checks, it is �assible that a lane�lord may obtain i�formation regarding #he i�nmigration status of applicants. Under the language of the proposed ordinance, while there is an exemption for reguesting information to determine financial qualiiications, such infonnation could be "campiled." Furthernnore, the ordinance would prohibit landlords from "providing any information" that fihey have gathered, and thus potentially create a problem under 8 U.S.C. § 1324. We are also concerned about the eff�ect of such an ordinance an housing assistance. Hausing choice vouchers (Section 8 assis�ance) are available only to U.S. citizens and certain individuals and families with an eligible immigration status. See 24 C.F.R. § 982.20 �. Similarly, Minnes�ta law requires the Commissioner of I Iuman Services to conduct ianmigration status verifications on any individuals applying far state housing assistance, including group residential housing. See Minn. Stat. § 256.01, subd. 1 S.