There is good reason for some saying the real America is found between California and New York, but not in either of these states.

It looks like none of our elected officials really wants to tackle this issue...yup,they do have more rights than the U.S. citizen..remember this America when it comes time to vote,but for which evil..

Why would a landlord ever need to ask about citizen status? That is simply discrimination by any
name. This does not prevent any financial background check by people, companies or organizations
of prospective renters, but it does stop discrimination based on ethnicity in its tracks. I guess
you and Jean Fuller favor discrimination. No surprise. Maybe you should check out the groups
publicly in favor of this bill, and then find the lone right-wing nut group opposing it. Posted
below is a portion of the state analysis on the bill.




SUBJECT : Tenancy: tenant immigration or citizenship
status

SOURCE : Apartment Association of California Southern
Cities


DIGEST : This bill prohibits a city, county, or city and
county from enacting an ordinance that compels a landlord
to inquire, compile, report, or disclose any information
about the citizenship or immigration status of a tenant or
occupant or prospective tenant or occupant or that
prohibits a landlord from offering or continuing to offer
accommodations for rent or lease based on the citizenship
or immigration status of a tenant or prospective tenant.
This bill prohibits a landlord from conducting any of these
acts independently. However, this bill does not prohibit
the landlord from requesting information or documentation
necessary to determine or verify the identity of a
prospective tenant or occupant or to determine or verify
CONTINUED





AB 976
Page
2

the financial qualifications of a prospective tenant.

ANALYSIS : Existing federal law has exclusive
jurisdiction over immigration and citizenship matters.
[Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8, United States
Code]

Existing federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination
by private businesses on the basis of a person's
citizenship. [Cf. Duane v. Government Employees Insurance
Co. (1994) 37 F.3d 1036, 1044 (4th Cir.), federal civil
rights law prohibits denial of homeowner's insurance to
non-citizen based on citizenship status.]

Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all
persons within the state are free and equal, and regardless
of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national
origin, medical condition, disability, marital status, or
sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
services in all business establishments or every kind
whatsoever and prohibits other arbitrary discrimination.

Existing law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, provides
that it is unlawful to discriminate against or harass any
person with respect to housing because of race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or
disability of that person.

This bill prohibits a city, county, and city and county
from adopting or implementing a statute, ordinance or
regulation that compels a landlord or an agent of a
landlord (1) to make any inquiry, compile, disclose, report
or provide any information, or (2) to prohibit the offering
or continued offering of accommodations for lease or rent,
or (3) to take any action, regarding or based on the
immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective
tenant, occupant or prospective occupant of a residential
rental property.

This bill prohibits a landlord or any agent of a landlord
from (1) making any inquiry regarding or based on the
immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective







AB 976
Page
3

tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential
rental property, or (2) requiring that any tenant,
prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of
the rental property to make any statement representation or
certification concerning his or her immigration or
citizenship status.

This bill does not prohibit a landlord from complying with
any legal obligation under federal law, or requesting
information or documentation necessary to determine or
verify the financial qualifications of a prospective tenant
or the identity of a prospective tenant or occupant.

Background

Last year, the City of Escondido adopted an ordinance that
would have barred landlords from renting to undocumented
immigrants and would have severely penalized landlords who
failed to determine the immigration status of tenants and
prospective tenants with fines and suspension of business
licenses. The ordinance was immediately challenged in
federal court by a coalition of civil rights groups. A
temporary restraining order was issued by the federal judge
and the ordinance was rescinded by the city council shortly
thereafter. The challenge to the ordinance was based on
several constitutional grounds as well as the federal
preemption of immigration law and enforcement of that law.

According to the author's office, during the period when
the Escondido city ordinance was being challenged,
landlords from several surrounding cities began screening
rental applicants and prospective tenants "consistent with
the intent and direction of the [Escondido] ordinance."
The author's office also reports that citizens in the City
of San Bernardino filed a ballot initiative that would have
prohibited landlords from renting to undocumented
immigrants. The initiative, entitled "City of San
Bernardino Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance,"
failed passage before the city council. Similar efforts
have been undertaken in cities in Florida, Texas, and New
Jersey, according to the author's office.

Both the author and the bill's sponsor, the Apartment
Association of California Southern Cities, note that the







AB 976
Page
4

Escondido ordinance was patterned after a Hazelton,
Pennsylvania ordinance passed in July 2006. That ordinance
was suspended by court order pending a federal lawsuit
challenging the ordinance.

If passed, this bill will bar the adoption of similar
ordinances by cities and counties across the state, thus
obviating the need for associated legal challenges each
time an ordinance is adopted.

FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No

SUPPORT : (Verified 6/20/07)

Apartment Association of California Southern Cities
(source)
American Civil Liberties Union
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Apartment Association of Orange County
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School Employees Association
JERICHO
Lambda Letters Project
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association

OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/20/07)

Concerned Women for America of California

Arnold is a social liberal and quickly becoming a fiscal liberal.  He would never get my vote again.

No matter what opinion one has, there is no discounting Arnold's conversion to a politician, and one that would change our Constitution to allow him to run for President. That alone does not speak well for him.

Not a single Senate or Assembly Republican voted in support of the bill, but the governor -- never one to fret over party loyalties -- signed anyway.

Maybe he's planning on passing it off as a bond issue. Californians love those. The "illegal alien bond act of 2007", yeah, that's the ticket!

why should I as a owner of a rental be required to ask someone over this status. As long as they can pay the bill is fine w/ me. I dont care if what their ethnic background, orientation, Martial status is, as long as the check is paid the 1st of each month in full I am fine w/ that. Along w/ taking care of the property.

SF: You don't care that your renters are ILLEGAL???  Illegal means against the law!  Do you care if a sex offender rents your place?  You are right, it should not matter ethnic background, orientation, marital status, religion - but it should matter if the person is an illegal and/or a sexual predator!! Or is for you, just the almight dollar and devil be damned?!

Lessons for the day:

1) sexual predator=illegal alien=xenophobia.

2) illegal=against the law

In the paper Saturday was a sad story about a mother and son who crashed in the desert close to the boarder,the boy went to find help, an illegal found the boy,went back to  try to help. Stayed with them, till the mother died,built a fire to keep the boy warm and soon enough a group of hunters found them. He was deported. The headline grabbed my eye:Boarder Crosser Saves Boy. Guess he was too good of a guy to warrant "illegal"..

Witters

By you're logic, everyone that has broken the law should not have a place to live.  Well in that case, lets evict everyone who has had a speeding ticket.

3876.

sf, you are equating being an "illegal" alien with ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation?

You sould like a bigot

What part of the word "illegal" are you having trouble with?

What if you renter was a child molester who was not registered?

What if he were a fleeing felon?

Do you get the point?

 

Landlords still have the right to rent or not to rent.  I don't agree with the governor, but landlords are allowed a certain amount of screening to determine whether or not the applicant meets certain requirements. (ability to pay)  It's amazing the number of applicants who falsify information.  All it means is a little more leg work on the part of the landlord. 

Shrebel.   There's a difference between having paid your dues for breaking the law,  and actively continuing to break the law as in living here illegally.  You know that and my guess is you knew what Witter meant.  But, it's a good thing to spell out the exact meaning since some will pounce on you for not clarifying. 

For some I guess it's a matter of degree in breaking the law.  Like say...shoplifiting a CD isn't the same as stealing a bicycle from a neighborhood isn't the same as robbing a bank.  We can rationalize most anything to fit our agenda.

I hope this DADT policy works better than the military one does. 

.

Sure, it's a matter of degree.  Failing to register your car or not having proper immigration papers aren't anything like being a bank robber or child molester.  But some people can't "get" that.  Their cry is "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" when they, themselves, don't understand.

Just for clarification.  We can't ask about a persons legal status even when they most likely are in the country illegally.  So if someone is "on the lamb" with a warrant out for failing to appear in court or some minor infraction, it's ok to rent to them too? (assuming we know or suspect it)

This smacks of the argument about religion.  (which some of you folks love to bring up)  Just which laws do you feel are important enough to support?  It may be that the guy down the street disagrees with you about which laws HE feels are important enough to obey or to support.  Who is right?

There's a reason laws are put in place and it isn't so that you (collectively) can decide which to follow and which to not follow.  It should have nothing to do with prejudice or bias or personal opinion.

It seems like everytime someone starts to take action on this issue,someone throws it 2 steps back---ie:matching ssn# with the individual-etc...I really don't think our government wants to enforce certain laws...not good for future votes or the people that put them in their positions...

The problem now is Calderon's bill actually forbids landlords to even ask prospective tenants about their citizenship status.

"The point of asking is so landlords can protect their financial assets from someone who is more likely to flee the country," Fuller said. "This bill is a special protection to a person who does not have legal status and is breaking immigration laws."

Oddly enough, the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities and other apartment owner groups were among the measure's main supporters.

Malcom Bennett president of the association, said the bill does, in fact, allow landlords to ask for the documents they need in order to protect their businesses.

"We're not forbidden to do it, we're just not required to do it," Bennett said of citizenship inquiries. "We can verify a person's identity and credit history. We (landlords) know what we can ask for."

Maybe so. But the don't-ask-don't-tell policy established by this bill sends yet another message to California's illegals that there's no rush to pack their bags just yet.

Now I'm just confused.  Would it be terribly difficult to check some facts?  This is the new method of writing where you assert something, show it's wrong and then say reasonable people can disagree.  I guess when reality doesn't work, you gotta just add doubt.

So let me see how this will work . An illegal wants to rent ,you ask him if he is legal us citizen , he says hey you cant ask that , you say I already did , he sues you in a U.S court for discrimination and is deported????

With a nice going-away present when the landlord loses the suit.  Then he doesn't *HAVE* to come back.  Everybody wins.

Does an illegal have the right to sue someone in the Us court system?

3882.