Legal Tucson Immigrants Could Be Homeless Under HUD Proposal

TUCSON, AZ — About 115 poor, legally immigrated Tucson residents, many of them children, could be evicted from public housing if at least one member of the household is an undocumented immigrant under a new rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The proposed rule change is part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on public assistance to immigrants who are living in the United States without proper documentation. The comment period on the proposed rule remains open until early July.

While undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for federal public housing assistance, they can currently live there under current rules if a U.S. citizen who qualifies for assistance is a member of the household. The amount of federal assistance these “mixed status” families receive is prorated to support only legal U.S. residents.

About 380 Arizona families are potentially affected by the HUD proposal. The majority of the families — about 300 of them — live in Phoenix, and the remainder live elsewhere in Maricopa County, Mesa, Glendale, Chandler and Scottsdale, the Arizona Daily Star reported.

Nationally, about 108,000 people — 55,000 of them children — in 25,000 households would be ejected from public housing if the rule goes through. About 70 percent of those who would be kicked out of public housing are legal U.S. residents.

HUD Admit Most Families Would Just Leave

Even HUD’s own analysis acknowledges the proposed rule could have a devastating effect on children. It also shows few, if any, benefits for the 4.2 million people nationwide on the waiting list for housing vouchers and public housing.

The analysis, prepared by career staff members, acknowledges the proposal would split up families, forcing some members of the household to leave so the rest could continue to receiving assistance. Most would simply move out, the agency predicted.

“HUD expects that fear of the family being separated would lead to prompt evacuation by most mixed households, whether that fear is justified,” the agency said in the analysis.

But not all families would leave on their own, and eviction costs could be as high as $4 million “for those households that required more rigorous enforcement of the regulation.”

“The cruelty of it is really breathtaking and it would do real harm to kids and to families and for what?” Diane Yentel, the president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, told National Public Radio.

Even HUD Secretary Ben Carson questioned the White House directive when it came down in April, but he defended it in congressional hearing last month, saying it represents common sense instead of cruelty by the agency.

“It seems only logical that taxpaying American citizens should be taken care of first,” Carson said. “It’s not that we’re cruel, mean-hearted. It’s that we are logical. This is common sense. You take care of your own first.”

Landlords Would Be De Facto Immigration Agents

Landlords and local housing authorities across the country are pushing back on the rule, saying the proposal would put the responsibility for immigration enforcement on them, cost them thousands to millions of dollars in eviction costs and increase homelessness, The New York Times reported. Under the proposal, landlords and housing authorities would also have to verify the immigration status of residents annually.

The immigrant families are among the most reliable of public housing tenants when it comes to paying rent on time, the landlords and public housing officials speaking to The Times said.

Besides the approximately 115 people potentially affected in Tucson, another three families with nine combined children in South Tucson could wind up with no place to live. In Phoenix, where only about 3 percent of households are classified as mixed status, Mayor Kate Gallego said the proposal potentially increases homelessness, rather than reducing it.

“I have grave concerns about the number of children who are U.S. citizens and could lose their housing as a result of this rule," she said in a statement. "We want all people in our community to have roofs over their heads.”

Marilyn Chico, executive director of South Tucson’s housing authority, told The Star there are few resources in her community to help those families.

“It breaks my heart,” she said. “There’s the potential of having these three families out on the street. Where are they going to go? How are they going to live?”

Out of 4,000 public housing authorities nationwide, Tucson’s is the 78th largest in the country. Families in Tucson and Pima County wait from three to five years to get into public housing, but Tucson Housing and Community Development interim director Keith Gregory told The Star the proposal is a zero-sum game that wouldn’t help more low-income people receive housing assistance or cut costs.

Instead, he said, it would create a labyrinth of regulations and burdens for the housing authority.

The long wait lists for public housing in Tucson and Pima County have nothing to do with immigration, Gregory said, telling The Star only about 1.6 percent of those living in public housing in the county are undocumented immigrants. Instead, the problem has to do with inadequate amounts of public housing, government funding cuts, and rising housing and development costs, he said.

“The regulation is not really intended to solve a problem,” Gregory said. “These are families who haven’t done anything wrong.”

Like Gregory, Chico said the proposed regulation wouldn’t decrease costs — and, because the mixed-status families receive prorated benefits, would actually increase them if everyone received assistance at the full rate.

“All it’s doing is hurting the most vulnerable people that we serve,” Chico told The Star.

Public housing officials across the country echoed those concerns.

In Los Angeles, about 30 percent of public housing residents are potentially affected by the proposed rule. Doug Guthrie, the president and chief executive of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, told The New York Times his city could face enforcement costs of nearly $10 million.

“You can imagine, if you’re forcing the eviction of nearly one-third of these very large public housing sites, the impact that has on households as well as the broader community,” Guthrie said.