Banks, advocates and landlords debate H.169’s Social Security and immigration provisions at committee hearing

The House Committee on General and Housing continued hearings on H.169, an act to expand prohibitions on discrimination in public accommodations and housing, and heard sharply different perspectives on a provision that references immigration status and the use of Social Security numbers in rental and credit screening.

Chris Delia, president of the Vermont Bankers Association, told the committee he supports passage of H.169 generally but urged removal of the phrase “immigration status” from a section of the bill that banks find problematic. Delia told lawmakers that federal rules and secondary‑market requirements affect how lenders verify identity: quoting regulatory guidance, he said for a “non US person, 1 or more of the following pieces of information, a taxpayer identification number, passport number and country of issuance, alien identification card number” are acceptable alternatives to a Social Security number. He warned that some secondary‑market buyers such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require lenders to warrant that a mortgage borrower is legally present in the United States, and said that requirement complicates how small banks price and sell loans.

Advocates and renters’ organizations urged the committee to preserve protections in H.169 and to add practical alternatives so residents without Social Security numbers can compete for housing. Jose Ignacio de la Cruz, a leader with Migrant Justice, said the “sole fact of not having a Social Security number makes it almost impossible for members of our community to obtain an apartment or a house.” He described repeatedly being asked for an SSN while searching for housing, and said that only when a friend with a Social Security number agreed to put their name on a lease did his family secure stable housing — after paying first month, last month and a security deposit.

Will Lambach, organizer for Migrant Justice, told the committee the practice forces many immigrant workers into employer‑tied housing and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. Lambach and other advocates said landlords can conduct credit, background and eviction checks without an SSN and pointed to landlords who already avoid requesting Social Security numbers for privacy and safety reasons.

Alexandra Alvarado, director of education at the American Apartment Owners Association, described tenant‑screening industry practices and said alternative processes commonly work: “Most tenant screening companies do not [use a Social Security number]. Name and date of birth is typically all that is needed to do a criminal background search.” She explained that credit history can be built using an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) and that eviction searches often rely on prior addresses, which can be found through credit reports when an applicant has an ITIN or other established credit history.

Jess Hyman of CVOEO’s Statewide Housing Advocacy said the organization’s Vermont tenants helpline receives calls and emails from “more than 3,000 renters” a year and urged the committee to adopt H.169 with the Champlain Housing Trust amendment. Hyman said adding citizenship and immigration status to fair housing and public‑accommodations protections would increase tenants’ confidence to complain about habitability or retaliation and expand housing access.

Banks and some landlords raised enforcement and regulatory concerns. Delia said his members are examined for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity Act rules) and argued Vermont should avoid creating legal conflicts that would undermine lending products or secondary‑market sales. On the narrower policy point, Delia asked the committee to remove the two words “immigration status” on page 6, line 14 of the draft as written; advocates said Vermont can set a higher state standard and that New York and Washington have similar protections without the litigation problems the banks predicted.

Committee members and witnesses discussed compromise options — for example, allowing landlords and lenders to request a Social Security number when provided but requiring acceptance of government‑issued alternatives (ITINs, passports, or other photo ID) and preserving carve‑outs where federal programs require citizenship documentation. Witnesses urged the legislature to pair statutory protections with resources for enforcement, education and legal assistance so tenants can exercise rights without fear of retaliation.

The committee scheduled further testimony and said it will continue consideration of H.169 at future meetings.