It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Admin Tells Landlords They Can’t Refuse To House Criminals

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

You have no solution so unless you come up with a solution than stay out of the debate because your creating more a problem,

One that you have no experience with.

You have no idea what's it like to find a job with a record or do anything really.




posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well I think that's what I'm kind of addressing when I say there are consequences for actions. People who make bad choices probably didnt think through just how much it would affect their lives.. but that's not a landlords problem.

Basically, my real issue with this is that I don't think the government or other people in general should be able to tell you who you have to allow into your private space. Surely Obama would not rent his spare bedroom to a convicted felon?

I agree with you that people change. Hence I personally would give someone a chance, depending on the nature of their crime. But that is my choice and just because I would do this doesn't mean everyone should. There are also programs out there for people, like "Homeboy Industries" for ex gangbangers looking to turn their lives around. This organization offers jobs to ex cons.

My point is, of course this hurts the criminally convicted. But no one should have to allow someone into their home who makes them nervous or afraid. That convict will have hopefully learned his lesson and in order to not return to jail, will find a legal way to deal with his housing and job issue, and there are ways to do so. If he does turn back to crime, perhaps the person refusing housing was correct in doing so after all?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JustAnObservation




People who make bad choices probably didnt think through just how much it would affect their lives.. but that's not a landlords problem.

It isn't.

But if the landlord accepts a white criminal and not a black one (or a Muslim), there's a problem. That's actually what this is about.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JustAnObservation




People who make bad choices probably didnt think through just how much it would affect their lives.. but that's not a landlords problem.

It isn't.

But if the landlord accepts a white criminal and not a black one (or a Muslim), there's a problem. That's actually what this is about.



To be perfectly honest most of the people who think it's ok to completely discriminate against someone based on a single past mistake, if their lives where combed through we could probably pick out multiple feloby charges.

That one time when they were 19 and had a liitttttle to much to drink and decided to drive home anyway.

Or that one time in college they got into a little scuffle over a girl.

And he list goes on.

I bet they would feel different if they actually had to pay for those CRIMES wouldn't they?
edit on 4/5/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
If you rent to a white convicted coke dealer and not a black one, you have a problem.


It is legal to deny an applicant due to convicted drug dealing.
Period. No problem.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




To be perfectly honest most of the people who think it's ok to completely discriminate against someone based on a single past mistake, if their lives where combed through we could probably pick out multiple feloby charges

That is not what this thread is about though.
It's about using a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate against a protected group.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't think that necessarily indicates racism. Perhaps the landlord is the forgiving type, and the white guy seemed to actually have turned his life around whereas the black guy or muslim drew suspicion/behaved in a way that the landlord didn't find acceptable for the community? Or their crimes were of varying degrees? Or the white guy had a conviction 30 years ago with an otherwise clean record but the black guys was only a year ago? None of that would indicate racism. And personally, having grown up in a place where I was treated extremely poorly due to my race, I can say I would never want to rent from those people because I wouldnt want to support them financially. Let the true racists fail. Dont give them your money. Dont live in their home. Shun them, they are deplorable. Let them choose to deny people because of their race and let everyone know about it so that their business fails.

But I do believe in having the freedom to choose who enters your living area..



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JustAnObservation




Let them choose to deny people because of their race and let everyone know about it so that their business fails.

Easy to say.
If you have options. Having a criminal record reduces those options. In many cases, being the wrong color or religion does so further.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That is not what this is about...

Disparate impact is when you have a policy that results in discrimination even though the policy is race neutral. In this case, HUD is saying that landlords who use criminal records in evaluating potential tenants results in disparate impact because a protected group (i.e. blacks) will be disproportionately affected.

From Wikipedia on Disparate Impact. Please note the last two sentences.



Under this theory, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.[1] Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect."[2]


So once again, HUD is saying that if you exclude people based on criminal records even if you apply the requirement equally, if it results in more of a protected class (blacks) being excluded than of a non protected class (whites) you are creating a disparate imapct and would be in violation of Fair Housing law.

Read your own memo you linked.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: onequestion




To be perfectly honest most of the people who think it's ok to completely discriminate against someone based on a single past mistake, if their lives where combed through we could probably pick out multiple feloby charges

That is not what this thread is about though.
It's about using a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate against a protected group.


I'm pointing out that hey shouldn't be throwing stones.

Once again I thought that was pretty obvious there Phage
edit on 4/5/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JustAnObservation

What crimes are you talking about? Jaywalking? Speeding? Possession of maryjane, which isn't even a crime in many places in the US now?

Because, yes, I still think that once someone has paid their debt to society, they should be free. That's the whole point in crime and punishment. There should not be a life sentence for most of these things. That's why you serve your sentence in jail or on parole.

But I will never agree that if someone commits a crime and does their govt mandated punishment, they should also be forbidden from getting a good job or have a legal place to stay. That's literally creating a 2nd class of citizens, which is something I'll never agree with. If society feels that the initial sentencing isn't long enough, they need to change the laws. But punishing people beyond that society's mandated sentence is just wrong, especially since most "criminals" aren't even violent offenders.

Then again, I believe firmly in rehabilitation over punishment. Hmm... I feel like I'm repeating myself. I don't feel the desire to keep typing the same things so I think I'll just leave it at this (unless I get responses on different aspects of this issue).



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But in a country so huge as the US, people do have options, a lot of them.. not every landlord in every city of every state is a blatant racist fool. As I mentioned before there are even numerous organizations to help people like this.

None of this justifies taking away the ability to choose who will coexist with you in a place that you own, especially in regards to convicted criminals who may make the owner feel unsafe in their own space.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: JustAnObservation

What crimes are you talking about? Jaywalking? Speeding? Possession of maryjane, which isn't even a crime in many places in the US now?

Because, yes, I still think that once someone has paid their debt to society, they should be free. That's the whole point in crime and punishment. There should not be a life sentence for most of these things. That's why you serve your sentence in jail or on parole.

But I will never agree that if someone commits a crime and does their govt mandated punishment, they should also be forbidden from getting a good job or have a legal place to stay. That's literally creating a 2nd class of citizens, which is something I'll never agree with. If society feels that the initial sentencing isn't long enough, they need to change the laws. But punishing people beyond that society's mandated sentence is just wrong, especially since most "criminals" aren't even violent offenders.

Then again, I believe firmly in rehabilitation over punishment. Hmm... I feel like I'm repeating myself. I don't feel the desire to keep typing the same things so I think I'll just leave it at this (unless I get responses on different aspects of this issue).


Hypothetical...

You have a daughter. She brings home a guy who has served time for beating the snot out of his prior girlfriend. Only been out six months. Are you telling me you are going to just ignore the guy's past life?

I get what you are saying, but I think you are being naive.

Despite what we may want, your past does have an impact on how people will view you.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

You have no solution so unless you come up with a solution than stay out of the debate because your creating more a problem,

One that you have no experience with.

You have no idea what's it like to find a job with a record or do anything really.


I don't need a solution. The debate isn't about the solution. The debate is whether a landlord can use criminal records to screen tenants and if doing so is racist.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




The debate is whether a landlord can use criminal records to screen tenants and if doing so is racist.

No. That is what the OP would like you to believe.
The issue is about landlords using a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate against a protected group.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated




The debate is whether a landlord can use criminal records to screen tenants and if doing so is racist.

No. That is what the OP would like you to believe.
The issue is about landlords using a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate against a protected group.


Ok, it is apparent that you are unwilling to educate yourself on disparate impact nor are you familiar with HUDs interpretation of fair housing. This is going over your head despite pointing out in the actual HUD memo that you linked as your own source that HUD believes using criminal background checks creates a disparate impact.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Does this Fascist ever stop ? Is he completely overturning and eliminating all laws in this country. Obama has really "stepped it up" . Beware , the worst is coming....





posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




This is going over your head despite pointing out in the actual HUD memo that you linked as your own source that HUD believes using criminal background checks creates a disparate impact.
Yes. It does. That is a fact. However the concern is over landlords who would use that disparity as an excuse to discriminate.

One more time:


Selective use of criminal history as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals based on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics violates the Act.


If you rent to a white convicted coke dealer and not a black one, you may have a problem with HUD.

If you only check the criminal records of blacks, you may have a problem with HUD.
edit on 4/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
There needs to be a record system for serious crimes.

Everything else needs to be removed from public record, after restitution is payed.

Lifetime records IS the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

It it all by design. Cyclic trap, encouraging re-offences and perpetual cash flow.

What happens when all of those shunned, decide they want to eat?

Not good things



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

That's a bad example. I'd also judge a suitor for my hypothetical daughter by his/her face, hair, name, smell, eyes, financial situation, history, goals, and everything else. I don't particularly trust others with the women I care about, especially if I don't know them (though those women also know how to push my buttons and get me to relent).

But here's the other side of that hypothetical (if you can do it so can I). That same guy was falsely accused of the previous domestic violence charge, has stayed out of trouble since then, is trying to enroll in college or a technical institution, and wants to be the best man he can be for the woman he's interested in. But the schools keep rejecting him, he can't get a legal job, and can't get his name on a lease, either as the main tenant or as a co-tenant. What do you think is more likely to happen next?

A. He'll spend the rest of his life either making minimum wage or unemployed?
B. He'll constantly having to mooch off of others because he can't find a job or a place that will rent to him?
C. He'll strike it rich as a successful entertainer in sports, music, or acting?
D. He'll win the lottery?
E. He'll get desperate and try to make money through illegal means? And maybe use credit card or identify fraud so he can actually have a place to stay?
edit on 5-4-2016 by enlightenedservant because: clarified something. thanks romney



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join