Posted on 09/30/2006 9:14:20 AM PDT by radar101
ESCONDIDO – A proposed ordinance that would penalize landlords for renting to illegal immigrants was released by the city yesterday, and it is “entirely consistent with federal law,” City Attorney Jeffrey Epp said.
The controversial ordinance, which will come up for a City Council vote Wednesday, would allow the city to suspend the business licenses of landlords found to be housing illegal immigrants. It also would fine landlords who don't comply, and allow misdemeanor charges for subsequent violations.
The six-page ordinance says “the state and federal government lack the resources to properly protect the citizens of the city of Escondido from the adverse effects of the harboring of illegal aliens, and the criminal activities of some illegal aliens.”
Under its provisions, an action against a landlord would begin when a written complaint is submitted to the city by a resident, an official or a business. A valid complaint would include an allegation that “describes the alleged violators,” as well as the actions constituting the violation, and the date and location where such actions are happening.
“A complaint which alleges a violation solely or primarily on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, or race shall be deemed invalid and shall not be enforced,” the ordinance says.
After a valid complaint, a landlord would have to provide documentation of a tenant's immigration status. The city would then submit the paperwork to the federal government to verify the status of the person or persons in question.
If renters were found to be in the country illegally, a property owner would be notified of the violation. If the owner fails to “correct a violation of this section” – in other words remove the renters – within five days, the city would revoke or suspend the business license allowing the property to be rented.
During the suspension, the owner will not be permitted to collect any rent, payment, fee or any other form of compensation from the tenant or occupant of the unit in question. For each day the illegal immigrants are allowed to stay, unspecified fines would accrue.
Epp and other city lawyers have been working on the wording of the amendment to the city's municipal code since the council directed him to do so Aug. 16, following an emotional public hearing.
If the ordinance passes Wednesday – from previous comments by council members it appears that it will be adopted on a 3 to 2 vote – Escondido will become the first California city to enact such a law. It will also be by far the largest city in the United States to do so, Epp said.
The city is also likely to become a defendant in a number of lawsuits. Critics of the ordinance say it could end up costing the city hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in legal fees.
In Epp's explanation of the ordinance to the council, he says it will be the business license division of the city that enforces the requirements of the code. The approach taken by Escondido would be similar to an ordinance enacted in Hazleton, Penn., earlier this year that is being challenged in court.
“We mostly looked at existing federal law, some Supreme Court and 9th Circuit cases,” Epp said in an interview, referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals that covers California. “We focused on ones that overturned Proposition 187 and tried to avoid those pitfalls.”
In 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187 by a vote of 59 percent to 41 percent. The measure attempted to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits or public services. But after two rounds of litigation in the federal courts, nearly all of its provisions were invalidated.
In his report, however, Epp says the courts have left “considerable room for states and municipalities to act in the field” and that Escondido's ordinance “is consistent with federal law on the subject of harboring illegal aliens.”
On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter to the city urging it not to enact the ordinance, saying it was prepared to launch an immediate legal challenge:
“Such an ordinance is likely to put landlords between a rock and a hard place – on the one hand subjecting them to penalties if they misinterpret a renter's immigration status, and on the other hand exposing them to the risk of violating state and federal fair housing laws by profiling persons of certain racial or ethnic groups as more or less likely to be citizens or documented immigrants.”
Numerous immigrants-rights groups and individuals have said they also would be taking legal action if the ordinance passes.
J. Harry Jones: (760) 737-7579; jharry.jones@uniontrib.com
Escondido illegal immigration ordinance Provisions:
Action begins when a resident, an official or business files a valid complaint with the city.
Landlord is then required to produce proof of a tenant's legal status.
City verifies documents with the federal government.
Property owner would be notified of a violation.
Business license suspended if illegal tenants not removed within five days.
I've said it before and I'll say it again..there is no need for a fence at the border..simply make the illegals pay for medical care, pay for school, not be able to collect SS, no drivers licenses, make it illegal to rent to them, pay tax (heavy) on money sent back to mexico, i.e. deny them all the benefits they get when they come here..they'll voluntarily go back..IMHO..
How it works: Mex-American buys house in subdivision. Lives there short while - rents it out to the illegal who uses the house as a way station or dormitorie. Buyer has several of these homes. A sea of such houses have cropped up in south Tucson…………Also, Mex-American family buys house and rents rooms to illegal aliens – where are the developers and city planning in the mix…………….
We also need the Voter ID act passed at the federal level and an AZ style Prop 200.
Another point: Is there a surfeit of low-income housing in Escondido? If not, why shouldn't citizens get the first crack at it?
Takes two months in VA.
I agree. And stop allowing children of illegals being immediate US citizens woukd help.
Why don't we put a 1300-mile welcome mat alongside the border while we're at it too.
simply make the illegals pay for medical care, pay for school, not be able to collect SS, no drivers licenses, make it illegal to rent to them, pay tax (heavy) on money sent back to mexico
Build a fence and you don't have to worry about enacting the other policies, as they wouldn't be here in the first place. Duh...
"How it works: Mex-American buys house in subdivision. Lives there short while - rents it out to the illegal who uses the house as a way station or dormitorie. Buyer has several of these homes. A sea of such houses have cropped up in south Tucson…………Also, Mex-American family buys house and rents rooms to illegal aliens – where are the developers and city planning in the mix……………."
Yup. Add into that the mortgage lenders and banks see selling mortgages to illegals as the exciting new frontier, I see the pressure for illegal housing being eased in the home sale market - which is looking for the next wave of suckers to pay the inflated prices. Flippers will most likely start targeting this market, if they havent already.
There's already a problem in the rental market with illegals renting a property, trashing it, and disapearing in the night. They will do the same with housing, but it will be worse, because good solid social security numbers with healthy credit attached will become gold in the underground, and innocent tax payers will find the new burden illegals impose on us - foreclosures.
Illegals jump at any chance to screw over gringos. They will do this with pleasure, and trash house after house after house, destroying neighborhoods and bringing gang problems and drugs and crime into every corner of the country.
If they pass this ordinance then the city needs to provide an office for landlords to come to vet their tennants. Otherwise this ordinance shifts an unfair burden on the landlord. Is it really the landlord's duty to enforce the immigration laws?
Do ALL that...and build the fence anyway. It's not just to keep the Illegals out, it's for National Security also. We are at war, you know.
Go Dawgs...Cox or Stafford today?
Border crossing makes 'em horny..?
No. The births are FREE (on us), and they can put them on THE DOLE (on us). They also serve as anchors.
So basically the segment of society that detests education and sucks the public coffers dry multiplies most quickly.
A formula for DISASTER.
"documentation of a tenant's immigration status."
Just what is that? Does any government issue this documentation?
If it issues it, it MUST issue it for ALL people regardless of the language spoken.
If this becomes a law, a property owner MUST get the documentation from ALL prospective tenants.
This is stupid and wrong because:
It is an attempt to shift the burden of enforcement from the government to someone else, complete with penalties.
It would force the property owner to find out the legal status of a prospective tenant.
There is no "document" of legal status for ALL people. Those who were born in the USA can obtain a birth certificate, which is not proof of legal status, since there is no way to correlate the birth certificate with a specific individual.
The government is not doing its job and is trying to dump its responsibility onto property owners.
"A sea of such houses have cropped up in south Tucson…………"
Tucson? That's a given yoe....Heck, they have the same problem on Long Island. It's literally everywhere now.
OK....Everybody who believes that is the ACLU's primary concern....step to the front of the cantina!
It's much easier (and in the long run cheaper) to build a fence. Getting the laws you want enacted would take years. There also are security issues that a fence/wall would satisfy.
I'm a property manger in Ohio and I was wondering about that also.
Exactly.
Why should there have even been a vote on this? Compassion is one thing, but providing services that the home country will not is asking for trouble and is not sustainable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.