Thread: Enforcement landlords a misguided 'solution'

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3960698


Article Launched: 6/21/2006 12:00 AM


Enforcement landlords a misguided 'solution'

Conor Friedersdorf, Columnist
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

(Editor's note: This is a twice-weekly column written Conor Friedersdorf, who is managing the Daily Bulletin's blog, or special Web site, on immigration issues. The blog is designed to provide a forum for opinions and information on immigration. The blog is at www.beyondbordersblog.com)
Every city has its criminals. Tax cheats, fathers who shirk child support payments and parolees breaking the terms of their release are three varieties. Sometimes police catch these bad guys. Other times they go uncaught. Meanwhile they rent apartments or condominiums. I've yet to hear anyone suggest that their landlords should take responsibility for determining their criminal status.

Apparently illegal immigration is a different kind of crime.

This year several cities have considered ordinances that would penalize landlords for renting to illegal immigrants, reasoning that if they're deprived of a place to live they'll leave the city.

Hazelton, Pa., has already passed a law that levies $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. San Bernardino voters will decide whether to follow suit in an upcoming election.

Given the costs imposed on municipalities illegal immigrants, it's easy to sympathize with the desire to hasten their departure. If upheld by courts, it seems possible that these ordinances will trigger a mini-exodus. But it's nevertheless bad policy that San Bernardino voters should reject.

Here are the strongest 10 objections:

1) Many illegal immigrants will simply move to neighboring cities or county areas where fines aren't imposed on landlords. Over time they'll be increasingly concentrated into immigrant enclaves where assimilation slows and crime rates rise.

2) Honest landlords will be burdened the requirement that they faithfully ensure the legal status of their tenants, a function they're currently unqualified to perform. Widespread document fraud ensures frequent mistakes. 3) Dishonest landlords can knowingly rent to illegal immigrants after a cursory look at forged documents is performed as legal cover. Their bad faith effort will give them an advantage over their more honest competitors.

4) Fines imposed without tolerance for landlord mistakes will create an enormous financial incentive for landlords to discriminate against all foreign-looking tenants. In our zeal to make life difficult for illegal immigrants, legal immigrants will suffer and grow understandably angry at the society suddenly erecting unfair barriers to their happiness.

Latinos and Asians born within the United States will suffer, too. Better to tolerate slightly higher levels of illegal immigration than to adopt policies likely to stoke racial discrimination.

5) Apartment-wary illegal immigrants will instead pack themselves into single-family homes where landlord-focused enforcement efforts are ineffectual.

6) Since many evicted illegal immigrants will lose their homes without being deported, either homelessness or residence elsewhere within the United States will inevitably ensue.

7) Effectively enforcing this law requires that local police raid apartment houses where illegal immigrants live. In San Bernardino, where the high rate of violent crime is a far more troubling problem than illegal immigration, those raids would be a profound misallocation of resources.

Landlords will be wary of calling police to their premises when increased police scrutiny raises the chance of a $1,000 fine.

9) A more effective way to fight the worst consequences of illegal immigration using police resources is to check the immigration status of those detained and arrested officers, and to root out illegal immigrant gang members for deportation. A policy focusing on illegal immigrant tenants puts equal emphasis on finding illegal immigrant criminals and illegal immigrant workers, an approach that makes sense only if you have sufficient resources to vigorously pursue both groups. San Bernardino lacks those resources.

10) Many landlords will suddenly be put in the position of either evicting longtime tenants that they know to be good people, or breaking the law. When possible it's best to avoid passing laws that create unnecessary crises of conscience for citizens whose normal impulse is to follow the law.

In a poor city like San Bernardino, illegal immigration is a tremendous burden. Schools already short on money must teach students whose lack of English fluency requires extra resources. Hospital emergency rooms already serving poor residents go from overburdened to the verge of collapsing. Illegal immigrant gangs exacerbate an already high rate of violent crime.

Thus illegal immigration is properly within the purview of municipal laws.

In this case, however, the zeal to run illegal immigrants out of San Bernardino risks clouding sober judgments about the likely effects of a policy that uses landlords to help fix the illegal immigration problem.

Even San Bernardino residents who want to use municipal resources to fight illegal immigration can find far more effective approaches than enforcement by landlord, particularly given the costs I've mentioned.

I am not a landlord and never have been. I can see where there would be problems expecting landlords to verify is someone is in this country legally unless they were given the means to do so.

That being said, the rest of this article is bunk. Every one of his reasons not to do this are already happening. So how would this propasal change any of these things that are already evident not just in this community but in communities all across the country?

I expect that the means to verify one's status are already included in the ordinances, and if not- I'm sure that all it would take is a phone call to the city in order to secure the information necessary in order to proceed. The same means used to verify work-status (the voluntary program available to companies- could and should be used. I
It's just a procedural matter after all.

Originally Posted by jimpasz

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3960698


Article Launched: 6/21/2006 12:00 AM


Enforcement landlords a misguided 'solution'

Conor Friedersdorf, Columnist
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

(Editor's note: This is a twice-weekly column written Conor Friedersdorf, who is managing the Daily Bulletin's blog, or special Web site, on immigration issues. The blog is designed to provide a forum for opinions and information on immigration. The blog is at www.beyondbordersblog.com)
Every city has its criminals. Tax cheats, fathers who shirk child support payments and parolees breaking the terms of their release are three varieties. Sometimes police catch these bad guys. Other times they go uncaught. Meanwhile they rent apartments or condominiums. I've yet to hear anyone suggest that their landlords should take responsibility for determining their criminal status.

Apparently illegal immigration is a different kind of crime.

Yes, this is a different crime due to the refusal of the federal government to enforce laws to protect its' citizens in favor of corporate interests. This is not the best solution by far, but we need to improvise.

This year several cities have considered ordinances that would penalize landlords for renting to illegal immigrants, reasoning that if they're deprived of a place to live they'll leave the city.

Hazelton, Pa., has already passed a law that levies $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. San Bernardino voters will decide whether to follow suit in an upcoming election.

Given the costs imposed on municipalities illegal immigrants, it's easy to sympathize with the desire to hasten their departure. If upheld by courts, it seems possible that these ordinances will trigger a mini-exodus. But it's nevertheless bad policy that San Bernardino voters should reject.

Here are the strongest 10 objections:

1) Many illegal immigrants will simply move to neighboring cities or county areas where fines aren't imposed on landlords. Over time they'll be increasingly concentrated into immigrant enclaves where assimilation slows and crime rates rise.

Again not the best idea, but a sure way to cure the sanctuary cities which are already immigrant enclaves. These sanctuaries just don't have enough illegals yet.

2) Honest landlords will be burdened the requirement that they faithfully ensure the legal status of their tenants, a function they're currently unqualified to perform. Widespread document fraud ensures frequent mistakes. 3) Dishonest landlords can knowingly rent to illegal immigrants after a cursory look at forged documents is performed as legal cover. Their bad faith effort will give them an advantage over their more honest competitors.

Honest landlords will be pleased as punch to screen for illegal aliens and keep their single family dwellings from becoming communes. The dishonest will reap their rewards in property damage and end up with an enclave that will be all too obvious to local officials.

4) Fines imposed without tolerance for landlord mistakes will create an enormous financial incentive for landlords to discriminate against all foreign-looking tenants. In our zeal to make life difficult for illegal immigrants, legal immigrants will suffer and grow understandably angry at the society suddenly erecting unfair barriers to their happiness.

Latinos and Asians born within the United States will suffer, too. Better to tolerate slightly higher levels of illegal immigration than to adopt policies likely to stoke racial discrimination.

Landlords will screen all tenants without discrimination because it's the law. There is nothing unfair about denying housing to those illegally in the country. US citizens and legal immigrants will be proud to display their status.

5) Apartment-wary illegal immigrants will instead pack themselves into single-family homes where landlord-focused enforcement efforts are ineffectual.

The neighbors and city officials will be able to tell when this happens, and this is every single family dwelling leasors nightmare.

6) Since many evicted illegal immigrants will lose their homes without being deported, either homelessness or residence elsewhere within the United States will inevitably ensue.

Another possibility would be to leave the country. Illegals should reside in sanctuaries where they are welcome or federal law enforcement could do their job. Bingo no homeless.

7) Effectively enforcing this law requires that local police raid apartment houses where illegal immigrants live. In San Bernardino, where the high rate of violent crime is a far more troubling problem than illegal immigration, those raids would be a profound misallocation of resources.

Maybe not unless all crime is committed by the homeless.

Landlords will be wary of calling police to their premises when increased police scrutiny raises the chance of a $1,000 fine.

Only if they are dishonest and rent to illegals. This is a landlord choice.

9) A more effective way to fight the worst consequences of illegal immigration using police resources is to check the immigration status of those detained and arrested officers, and to root out illegal immigrant gang members for deportation. A policy focusing on illegal immigrant tenants puts equal emphasis on finding illegal immigrant criminals and illegal immigrant workers, an approach that makes sense only if you have sufficient resources to vigorously pursue both groups. San Bernardino lacks those resources.

Don't house criminals and illegal migrants. Rid San Bernadino of illegals and there'll be money to go around.

10) Many landlords will suddenly be put in the position of either evicting longtime tenants that they know to be good people, or breaking the law. When possible it's best to avoid passing laws that create unnecessary crises of conscience for citizens whose normal impulse is to follow the law.

Good people obey laws. Good people don't put others in crises of conscience for their personal gain. Landlords and illegals will face decisions, they'll just have to make them.

In a poor city like San Bernardino, illegal immigration is a tremendous burden. Schools already short on money must teach students whose lack of English fluency requires extra resources. Hospital emergency rooms already serving poor residents go from overburdened to the verge of collapsing. Illegal immigrant gangs exacerbate an already high rate of violent crime.

Thus illegal immigration is properly within the purview of municipal laws.

In this case, however, the zeal to run illegal immigrants out of San Bernardino risks clouding sober judgments about the likely effects of a policy that uses landlords to help fix the illegal immigration problem.

Even San Bernardino residents who want to use municipal resources to fight illegal immigration can find far more effective approaches than enforcement by landlord, particularly given the costs I've mentioned.

Yes, San Bernadino can get the federal government to do its' job.