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

Obama says that people with criminal records should be able to get a place to live, but aren't some of these people also NOT allowed to vote?
If he want to be fair it should be across the board.
You pay your debt to society you should get all of your rights back every the second amendment in cases of non violent victimless crimes.

a reply to: JHumm

but aren't some of these people also NOT allowed to vote?

Depends on the level of the crime. And on the state.
felonvoting.procon.org...

But there are a lot of people who aren't allowed to vote. That doesn't make them a protected group.

a reply to: xuenchen

Obama doing this seems to have another unspoken purpose, as is just like a POS like him to do.

This is what communist Marxists do when they are in positions of power, and what is really funny is that Obama has been doing these things in the same sequence that can be found in most any of those little booklets commies have written on how to begin that fraudulent "hope and change" stuff which is all part of turning a free country into a full fledged central power style dictatorship, where nothing can be done without first checking with the super freaky commie in chief first.

Doing this will make it so that in the future, nothing will be done freely by any individual, but will need to have approval first. Before making any decisions in the operation of peer to peer commerce, will go through a gauntlet of regulatory checklist of inspection, but what it really is, is a removal of power from people to make choices, and being forced by government to let them handle it instead, but it is all a charade to make the centralized government the only body with any authority. And the people ultimately being stripped of power in any form at all.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

Choices in life have consequences, unfortunately.

Absolutely, and choosing to discriminate against people will surely cause more crime in the long run. Whether its for you or some other person.

People need to stop using the bull# propaganda they've been hearing their whole lives to screw over their fellow man, and start holding the government and big business to the crap they peddle.

America is a police state. The country and its population has been criminalized. The estimates are scary, that 1 in 3 people will end up with a record, or something like that. And that's not eliminating the other half of the population, who is incarcerated at a rate of 10% compared to men (women.) Add in children and the rates are probably higher.

Think about that.

They've been making everyone a criminal then convincing people to shun these people. This is everyone though. Pushing them to stay criminalized. Its a business.

You are just as likely to suffer at the hand of someone who hasn't been convicted yet, as you are someone who has. In fact the latter might even be safer, because they've been through the ringer and don't want it again.

It's discrimination. You don't want to approve them based on financial status or past damages to previous tenancy by all means. Otherwise if they simply checked a box and you want to deny them, its BS. It shouldn't happen. All it does is promote more deceit anyway, rentals under false identities, identity theft, etc.

The really funny part is you are probably surrounded by the people you are afraid of already and don't even know it.

a reply to: boncho

I always wondered what did these people do in the 90's and 80's?

Was America all mad max back then or was everything ok?

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: JustAnObservation

Choices in life have consequences, unfortunately.

Absolutely, and choosing to discriminate against people will surely cause more crime in the long run. Whether its for you or some other person.

People need to stop using the bull# propaganda they've been hearing their whole lives to screw over their fellow man, and start holding the government and big business to the crap they peddle.

America is a police state. The country and its population has been criminalized. The estimates are scary, that 1 in 3 people will end up with a record, or something like that. And that's not eliminating the other half of the population, who is incarcerated at a rate of 10% compared to men (women.) Add in children and the rates are probably higher.

Think about that.

They've been making everyone a criminal then convincing people to shun these people. This is everyone though. Pushing them to stay criminalized. Its a business.

You are just as likely to suffer at the hand of someone who hasn't been convicted yet, as you are someone who has. In fact the latter might even be safer, because they've been through the ringer and don't want it again.

It's discrimination. You don't want to approve them based on financial status or past damages to previous tenancy by all means. Otherwise if they simply checked a box and you want to deny them, its BS. It shouldn't happen. All it does is promote more deceit anyway, rentals under false identities, identity theft, etc.

The really funny part is you are probably surrounded by the people you are afraid of already and don't even know it.

You explained that well and was worth quoting

Its a sad state of affairs when people denigrate others as an emotional response to what they have been fed to believe, the division that is being implemented is working so well, it is a sad state of affairs ...

There are far too many people who have grown up and out of partying who did some of the same crap people did who have criminal records. The only difference between them is they never got caught or if they did, they knew someone, who knew someone who pulled some strings to drop the charges.

Wouldn't it be ironic if a home owner had only two applicants to choose from where both had decent paying stable employment.... One had a wife and the other a girlfriend who both had jobs as well...Both couples were friendly and polite to the landlord. But. the deciding factor on who to rent to came down to the applicant who had no criminal record who happened to be the married guy. Then they move in and a month later there's a hostage situation at the house due to a domestic dispute and it ends badly with the husband shooting his wife. Terrible, heinous irony.

Because we live in a time where broken families are rampant, our Nation is more divided then ever, and the past 4 generations have socially and personally approved of keeping families super tiny, leaving few offspring and extended relatives for hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens, thus making far too many feel we dont really know each other and more mistrustful of our neighbors we see as total strangers. Do you really think that by basing one's housing rental on if the applicant has a criminal record or not it's going to elliminate tenant problems? Because it won't. If you're thinking you can at least narrow down the odds in doing so, you're wrong. The odds of someone with no criminal record ending up being a terrible tennant are higher because they have no paperwork on them that tells their "criminal story" and they are not going to publish it for you just because you asked wanting to know what kind of landlord you will be giving your hard earned money to every month. They wont tell you, because it's personal to them and viewed as rude to ask.

Making criminal records public is wrong in a society that holds their criminal justice system to such a high degree, they believe the criminal record to be the ultimate TRUTH of who the person is when making judgements to either rent to or hire a person, but at the same time they refuse to TRUST the judgement of the same court in rendering and FINALIZING the punnishment of that person. If you can't trust the judge or jury's judgement then truth is out the window. So even though all fines, community service, probation, time served if any, have all been completed by the person deemed guilty, who has no outstanding warrants for their arrest, they are still being made to wear their criminal record like a colored band with a symbol around their arm for all to see as if they were still a prisoner. And by doing that, that goes against what the United States of America and its court systems are valued for and stand for. People who have paid their debt to society are now free men and women. For the general public to still consider now free men and women as still being criminals then leads to all free men and women who judge them as criminals and treat them as such, criminal for coming in between their freedom of life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. If the general public, employers, and those who rent out apartments or homes have access to a freed person's criminal record and refuse something to them based on their criminal record which relays a paid debt that is of the past, they are acting again as a judge towards that person and acting as a law enforcement official, maintaining that they see that person is at all times, with every step and every breath they take, engaged in a criminal act with simply being alive. Every free man and woman should have the same advantage as the other when it comes to meeting someone new and giving them the benefit of the doubt. If they don't click with each other that's based on standard first impressions when meeting a stranger for the first time and if it happens it happens, but not because they are in fear of them because of their found out crime/s they were prosecuted for, as the one in fear and judging the other in that context has undiscovered crimes themselves they are not disclosing, which doesn't give the one being judged an opportunity to judge them on their sins/lawlessness. But if that could actually happen in some way with both being fully transparent in their transgressions, would make a ridiculously nteresting level playing field.due to everyone being tainted with lawlessness that can be bent and fit to what ever agenda, but not everyone will get caught in their lawlessness by mankind, (God knows though right?) and in criminal theory, not getting caught makes them either really lucky, really blessed or just very sneaky criminals who are experts at what they do. Seriously though, truth be told, we don't even have to go there because Master Christ Jesus said "he who has no sin, cast the first stone..." tablet. And that just speaks right up about the nature of criminal records being like criminal records etched on a stone tablet ready to be thrown at someone ALREADY FREE AND FORGIVEN. Because the United States of America is filled with people who are "Jesus in disguise"...Jehovah passing by... That song! Google it and listen to it if you haven't!

With the Obama Administration having backed this, they have given those who check criminal records before they rent out housing to the person, who think they are flawless abiders of the law, a chance to recheck their OWN behavior, by allowing them to still check criminal records before they rent to someone if they so choose, but not letting them refuse the person because of it. And the Admin knows two things can happen that are inevitable once they do request a criminal background check on a housing applicant, or ask the applicant to disclose it freely on the applicaton form. One, they will still refuse them, but lie about why they refused them, or just simply never call them back which they can get away with easier if they didn't charge them upfront for an application fee. Usually cost 30.00 on up, nonrefundable. So by having viewed the criminal record in the first place, shows their intent to judge, otherwise they wouldn't pull it or ask you to disclose it yourself in the application. If they lie and say they were refused for another reason, it's a federal crime. If they don't lie, which leads to the second way , and just go on ahead and tell the applicant flat out it was because of their record they pulled or what the applicant wrote in the application because the application had the question, "have you ever been convicted of..." and by them doing so, they've committed a federal crime.

As a side note, all criminal records are maintained on computers. If the records are wiped out due to an act of God, natural disaster, (how ever you see it,) or destroyed due to warring , everyone who depended on those records will lose their safety base. It's good to know how to use your intuition, or start praying to God, in regards to what strangers you need to stay away from in your life - your business, your second, third or 50th rental home or apartment complex.

a reply to: WhiteWingedMonolith

Hard to read but I totally agree.

Like I said above, what did people do for employment and housing before background checks?

Live in a shell of fear?

Was it total chaos?

The white house takes in criminals. I can see where he is coming from.

a reply to: xuenchen

Many people with past records are reformed and better than most people in society today. There should be no discrimination bc of this. I have a personal experience: I had to dodge a bullet with a past landlord bc of a pending misdemeanor that was expunged a few months later. I paid my rent on time and kept the apartment tidy and clean, better than most.

Why shouldn't I have gotten a chance to live in an apartment? Should I have been sent to the streets to be homeless? Live in hotels?

a reply to: veracity

Exactly. And a lot of the same people who act tough on crime also have past records. It's like they can't even see their own hypocrisy. Even our last 3 Presidents have admitted to drug use and drug possession, so you'd think they'd be more understanding. Instead, they still waged the "War on Drugs".

The problem is where do you draw the line?

I would have no problem renting to someone with a minor drug conviction. I might even overlook an assault conviction provided I have some detailed information on the case and the person has shown significant growth and distance from said charge.

With that said, no way am I renting to a Chomo / Pedo or someone with a rape conviction. Attempted murder charge. Gun charges. Someone with a clear history of continual run ins with the law.

Also from my previous posts, I noticed none of you touched on the liability aspect that I pointed out. It is one thing to say criminal records should be ignored, but unless you show me where liability is waived for doing so, you are talking out of your ass. No business owner, landlord, or anyone is going to risk being sued into oblivion for negligence by ignoring someone's past criminal records.

I work in finance. I deal with people's personal information and millions of dollars every day. We cannot hire people who have any kind of financial misdeamnors, bad credit, or felonies. Our risk exposure from the liability if that person were to say steal identities, money, etc are too high.

a reply to: Edumakated

I guess the line drawn is you must provide a place to live for everyone, but have them sign in the lease that if there are any disruptions...police at the house constantly, etc...then you kick them out.

I think you would have many more good renters than if you try and avoid all of the ones you think are bad.

Its always best to "live in the moment" and look for the good in everyone, look at what they are like NOW, not their past on paper.
That is advice to landlords and everyone really.

a reply to: Edumakated

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I remember reading where the owner of a motel hired a groundskeeper who had been convicted of rape. A few months later this guy rapes and murders a woman and her daughter. The family of the victims sued the motel owner because he knew the guy's criminal background. Totally bankrupted the owner.

Another thing to consider is Asset Forfeiture. This is where the Government seizes cash and property that it "thinks" may have been related to criminal activity. Even if the person committing crime DOESN'T own the property it is still taken. So what happens when your new tenant gets busted for bookmaking and your local government takes YOUR buildings, including the one YOU live in, your car and your bank account? The government's reasoning for this is that your tenant was paying his rent with money he obtained by illegal activity.

When the Federal Government agrees to stop things like these, I'll start thinking about doing what they want.

Don't worry it is never going to happen. According to the views of our current Government, anybody who can afford to have rental property is the enemy. They had to have obtained their wealth by oppressing somebody.

a reply to: JIMC5499

yeah, that would kinda suck, but I guess that is what you have to think about before you go into business, or decide to keep you business.

I do agree that the biz owner shouldn't be penalized for hiring someone with a record. Or have their business / car / life taken away bc something went down they didn't know about.

I didn't know about those things.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: JIMC5499

yeah, that would kinda suck, but I guess that is what you have to think about before you go into business, or decide to keep you business.

I do agree that the biz owner shouldn't be penalized for hiring someone with a record. Or have their business / car / life taken away bc something went down they didn't know about.

I didn't know about those things.

Just even think about how parole boards get thrown under the bus if they let someone out who then goes and commits another crime. The first thing out of people's mouths is "why did they let this person out? They knew he was a violent criminal, etc".

The point is this creates a no win situation. If we are going to be told to ignore someone's criminal history, then any liability associated with doing so must be removed.

I truly get what some of you are saying. I empathize. I really do. I don't think there is an easy answer other than putting it back on the ex-con (don't do stuff that could potentially result in a felony conviction). I have a family member who faces this situation doing a 10 year bid for drugs. His life is screwed up now. He will always have that stigma.

a reply to: Edumakated

They could split it and say some are legally binding to hire or let rent such as misdemeanors and other, such as rape, child-molestation, repeat offenders are up to the business to decide.

Or they can also take into consideration the length of time the crime had been committed.

Theres a lot to play with.

I am a very responsible person and had a pending misdemeanor hanging over my head and got shot down, no previous record...that's ridiculous.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some people might believe this ....

About 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years, according to a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released Tuesday

Maybe this is why landlords and employers look close at criminal records.

Maybe thats why laws like this are needed?

If you released from prison and you cant fi d work or a place to live then your just going to fall back into crime.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
When you're convicted of a crime, you have to "make it up" to society. That may be through fines, community service, imprisonment, or other measures. But once you've paid your debt to society, you should be treated like a normal citizen. So in short, I agree with this policy.

So why isn't Obama pushing for voting rights and gun ownership rights of prior felons?

I think a roof over your head is far more important than a stupid boom boom stick.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Maybe thats why laws like this are needed?

If you released from prison and you cant fi d work or a place to live then your just going to fall back into crime.

Most people in the US seem to grasp this concept, but everyone also has this mentality that they don't want to be the one to do it. It should always be someone else who has to take the risk. That's what you get from a nation whose most employable job skill is doing nothing other than passing the buck to someone else.