Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Republican-backed bill would criminalize nondisclosure of immigration status during housing applications; advocates say it risks discrimination and costly court
Summary
Rep. Joe Alexander’s HB 1709 would require applicants to disclose lawful presence when seeking housing and makes nondisclosure an offense; immigrant-rights groups, the ACLU and housing advocates warned the committee the proposal delegates federal immigration law to landlords, risks racial profiling and due‑process problems, and is likely to spur litigation.
Representative Joe Alexander introduced HB 1709 as a measure he said is intended to prevent people who are unlawfully present from taking rental housing in New Hampshire. The sponsor told the committee the bill would require a person applying for residential housing to disclose lawful presence and described nondisclosure as a punishable offense, saying, “Illegal aliens are not welcome in the Granite State.”
Opponents ranged from legal and immigrant‑services organizations to municipal and business witnesses. The ACLU of New Hampshire told lawmakers the bill would “represent a troubling expansion of state power into an area that the constitution largely reserves to the federal government,” and said imposing criminal penalties where ordinary people cannot reliably determine their federal immigration status raises serious due‑process and preemption risks. Representative testimony and legal witnesses stressed that immigration status can be fluid — a visa, parole, pending asylum or adjustment filings can change someone’s legal presence from one day to the next — and that nonfederal actors lack the records or training to make those judgments.
Multiple witnesses warned the bill would encourage landlords to screen or refuse applicants on the basis of perceived national origin, accent or appearance. Rachel Potter of the ACLU said passage would “invite costly preemption challenges” and would “turn the housing market into an unconstitutional state‑run immigration enforcement system.” Representatives and nonprofit speakers also raised concerns about mixed‑status families and U.S. citizen children who could be harmed if landlords blanket‑require documentation or decline renters who cannot produce specific IDs.
Supporters of stronger enforcement framed the measure as a deterrent to unlawful presence in the housing market. The bill’s sponsor said he would work on drafting changes to address technical issues raised in committee, but many committee members and witnesses urged the panel to consider the constitutional, administrative and civil‑rights implications before moving the bill forward.
The committee did not take a final vote; public testimony ran for several hours and the item generated some of the most contentious exchanges of the day.
