Is it Illegal to Provide Housing to Illegal Immigrants?
Are you wondering, “Is it illegal to provide housing to illegal immigrants?” Whether you are looking for a rental property or are seeking a tenant for your home, you should know the answer to this question. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. Currently, there is a loophole that allows residents to declare themselves “ineligible” for housing. This has been a concern to the Trump administration, who wants to close this loophole.
Undocumented tenants do not know that protections exist
Most people will be surprised to learn that the federal government has actually put the kibosh on subsidized rental housing for undocumented residents. However, that doesn’t mean that they can’t get a place to call home. In fact, there are at least three types of rentals you can get your hands on in the Chicago area: slums, subsidized units, and rentals suited to low income families. The latter is the most common type of housing in the city, and a good place to start your search for a new home.
A number of non-governmental organizations have sprung up in recent years to combat the growing housing crisis in the city. The largest and most visible is the Chicago Alliance for Neighborhoods (CAN) and its two dozen affiliates. For a start, they have been putting up a number of housing expos and open houses to educate the community about the options they have at their disposal. CAN also has a number of social workers who specialize in helping low-income residents find the best possible home for them. Some are able to do this on a moment’s notice. CAN has even opened up its database of available properties to a number of private landlords who would like a chance to get their name out there.
One of the most popular and effective solutions is the Chicago Alliance for Neighborhoods’ new Rent-Move-Out program. This program allows a small number of low-income families to relocate to a new and safer home. CAN has already been on the front lines of housing advocacy for several years, but its latest gambit is a welcome change of pace.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. Its primary enforcer is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Those who are concerned about housing discrimination can file a complaint with HUD. They can also turn to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the U.S. Attorney General. In addition to these, state governments can pass laws that strengthen protections under the Fair Housing Act.
HUD has been interpreting the FHA to prohibit practices with unjustified discriminatory effects. Federal courts have agreed that such practices violate the law. However, they have disagreed on the standard of proof required to establish liability under the statute.
HUD’s proposed rule would set uniform standards for determining when practices violate the Fair Housing Act. These standards are similar to those used by the Department of Justice and other courts. For example, the Department of Justice has filed cases alleging discrimination based on race and color, as well as other protected classes.
The preamble of the proposed rule includes several examples of practices that might be considered discriminatory. The examples include refusing to show a house to a prospective tenant who is black, or steering a buyer to a different neighborhood. Other examples are threatening to remove a tenant if he or she does not go out with the landlord.
One commenter expressed concern about the word “perpetuating”. He noted that most of the examples in the preamble suggested that intentional discrimination might have been involved. He requested that the definition of this term be clearer. Another commenter argued that the FHA does not use the phrase “tend to” or “adversely affect.”
While the FHA does not explicitly define what constitutes a discriminatory effect, it does say that a practice may be deemed a violation if it has a discriminatory effect. This is analogous to the Title VII requirement that an employer’s interest must be job related. A housing provider should not discriminate against individuals in the housing transition.
Whether a housing provider has engaged in a discriminatory practice or not, they should be prepared to accommodate a person’s reasonable modifications. Similarly, a landlord should not pressure a potential tenant to move. If a landlord does so, the Fair Housing Act does not prohibit the landlord from evicting the tenant.
In some states, such as New York, a landlord cannot ask about the immigration status of a prospective tenant. Furthermore, a landlord is prohibited from inquiring about the criminal history of a prospective tenant.
The Fair Housing Act has been amended several times. The latest update to the law included protections for people with disabilities. Additionally, the law expanded protections for families with children in 1988. Since then, state and local governments have also strengthened their protections.
Trump administration wants to close loophole that allows residents to declare themselves “ineligible” for housing
It is no secret that President Trump’s administration wants to close the loophole that allows residents to claim that they are ineligible for public housing. Using the latest technology and a nod to the original Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is drafting a rule that will evict tenants who do not have the proper papers.
Specifically, HUD’s proposed rule will require that any resident under the age of 62 to demonstrate their eligibility for a housing voucher. As it turns out, the government has data that demonstrates that millions of Americans qualify for such assistance. However, these numbers do not include the estimated number of households that qualify for such programs but cannot afford to rent from private landlords. A spokesperson for the department has not directly responded to critics who question whether the resulting evictions would be a win for the taxpayer or the non-citizens involved. Despite the looming threat, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is still moving forward with the rule.
While the department has yet to make any official statements, it is believed that the HUD will release its rule to the public in the near future, giving cities, counties and states around the country 60 days to weigh in with their own observations. During that time, the department will submit its newest proposal to the congressional committees that oversee its many programs. The rule will also be submitted to Congress for a 15-day review period. During that time, HUD officials will be paying particular attention to a section of the original HCD Act that allows mixed-status households to take advantage of some of the federal housing benefits.
There are other ways to go about closing the loophole, but the HUD is taking the most direct approach. According to HUD, the rule is in response to a high demand for affordable housing and the need to strengthen the vetting process. In addition, it will give local agencies more flexibility in meeting the needs of their tenants. For instance, public housing authorities can use asset tests to help determine whether or not a potential tenant is worthy of such a coveted housing benefit.
If all goes according to plan, the new rules will be in place by mid-September. Although the rule will only affect 32,000 undocumented immigrants, the impact could be felt by countless millions of families on the waiting list. Among the biggest losers are 55,000 American-born children who currently receive a partial subsidy to live with their parents who do not have the proper documentation.
In the long run, the proposed changes will likely do little to help struggling families and could rile up a judge or two. Public housing agencies, on the other hand, will fight the proposed rule tooth and nail.