I completed an internship with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General in 2018, yet one case still sticks with me today. It involved a party of immigrants occupying a trailer park who were being exploited by their landlord due to their undocumented status. Essentially, he was refusing to complete necessary repairs and threatened to turn them over to authorities if they tried to force his hand. They came to our office for help, but even with our agents on their side, their situation proved difficult. The last thing we wanted to do was ask them to testify in court just to find ICE officers waiting for them in the courtroom when they finished. While there is disagreement about the ethics of how we should treat undocumented immigrants in this country, no one in America should be extorted.
Immigrants make up a large body of consumers in our economy. According to the National Immigration Council, “Nationally, immigrants…contributed $105 billion in state and local taxes and almost $224 billion in federal taxes. This left them with nearly $927 billion in spending power, which they frequently used to purchase goods and services, stimulate local business activity… in the broader U.S. economy.”¹ There is little doubt that undocumented and naturalized immigrants alike are a vital instrument to the growth of our economy. A solution to the de facto blackmailing that takes place from landlords, law enforcement officers, etc would allow more economic growth and promote the free exchange of capital amongst these consumers.
In combating this issue, I believe there are two solutions that can effectively stifle the burden put on immigrants who are at risk of extortion. The first is to advocate for state-wide legislation that bars the disclosure and inquiry of one’s immigration status when applying for housing. In effect, this would stop landlords from asking and obtaining the immigration status of potential tenants. While keeping this information from being used to screen tenants is a great way to protect these consumers from falling prey to exploitative landlords, protections must also be put in place if this information is discovered through other means.
Second, I think it is imperative that additional protections are offered to all immigrants who face the threat of having immigration authorities called on them for the sole purpose of exploitation. In Plyler v. Doe (1982)², the Supreme Court recognized that undocumented immigrants are still subject to fourteenth amendment equal protection under the law. My plan is to mobilize support for legislation like The Immigrant Tenant Protection Act of 2017³, that effectively fights for those same protections to be offered to the immigrant community, and push for similar statutory protections in states such as New York, Texas, and Arizona with larger immigrant populations. If immigrants will ever be free to use their spending power as they see fit, they must have the freedom to exercise their legal rights when being exploited. I hope that my plan is the first step towards reaching that goal.
¹ 2014, New American Economy. “Taxes and Spending Power”. Accessed September 21, 2016.
² Plyler v. Doe, [457 US 202 (1982)]
³ AB 291, Chiu. Housing: immigration. California State Assembly
Learn More