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.
Yes, but a fence will slow them down considerably and make it easier to patrol the border. We need both methods, stop the freebies and build a fence.
Do you lock your doors and windows? Doing so won't stop a determined criminal, but it will deter the casual thief who is looking for an easy hit. Same principle applies here. Build a wall, and only the most determined ones will even attempt entry. The rest will see the wall and walk away.
Try it now.
L
I know. I want our governments to wise up and turn off the magnets that are attracting them here in the first place. There's more emphasis being placed on the fence being the solution than the stupid things our governments are doing to create the problem.
Gawd I hate defeatist drivel. Nobody's going to transport illegals by boat without a challenge from the coast guard, who now are far more effective in patrolling the coast due to high tech devices. Planes, it is much harder and expensive to hire planes for mere human cargo.
Tell that to all the restaurants etc. who tried to get around the smoking ban with various schemes. A scheme to avoid a law is just that-- and if it is a sham the law generally doesn't tolerate it. Judges see right though'em for the most part.
You are obviously not a landlord. Astute landlords know who is living where and when. Their rental agrements set forth the number and names of the individuals allowed to live in that dwelling. Where I live now, however, the landlord has admitted to allowing another tenant to sublet to illegals, as he is getting a cut of the action. I could complain based on the fact that each unit is a single family dwelling, but they'll be gone soon as harvest season is almost over. If they stay on, tho', I will complain. This is what other need to do: speak up.
ping
reread the post..I'm not talking about illegals, I'm talking about drug runners and terrorists..a fence won't stop them..
Any solutions to the other problems must be done after you stanch the influx of new illegals. Just like with a plumbing leak, you can't make repairs to the house, or even clean up the watery mess until you turn the water off. If you don't stop that flow, the rest of the problems will just continue to get worse.
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.