California Demands Trump Withdraw Proposal Targeting Housing for Mixed-Status Families

California’s Civil Rights Department is warning that the Trump administration’s crackdown on federal housing assistance for families with mixed immigration status could leave up to 30,000 people in the state at risk of eviction.

In a letter this week, the state agency called on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to walk back the proposal, which it said would force thousands to confront “inhumane choices” between facing eviction or separating from their loved ones.

‘We want them to withdraw this rule in its entirety,” CRD Director Kevin Kish said. “It doesn’t make sense. It’s going to harm people. It’s not going to help anyone.”

In February, HUD proposed a change to federal housing policy requiring that every person in housing that receives the assistance submit proof of U.S. citizenship or of their eligibility as a noncitizen (as a refugee, asylum seeker or lawful resident). Those unable to do so could be evicted from HUD-supported programs, like public housing or Section 8 vouchers.

“We have zero tolerance for pushing aside hardworking U.S. citizens while enabling others to exploit decades-old loopholes,” HUD Secretary Scott Turner said at the time, adding that currently, only about a quarter of eligible Americans have access to HUD resources.

On Tuesday, a coalition of nearly 20 U.S. cities and counties, including San Francisco, Oakland and Marin County, also submitted a comment opposing the change, warning it would destabilize affordable housing operations. The National Housing Conference, which also submitted a letter, said the proposal “doesn’t fix a problem — it creates one.”

“It’s a step backward that undermines decades of policy precedent that already balanced statutory compliance, family stability, administrative feasibility, and prudent stewardship of scarce federal housing resources,” the letter reads.

HUD policy already prorates housing subsidies for mixed-status households to ensure that the benefit only applies to family members who have confirmed their immigration status. Eliminating those prorated subsidies, Kish wrote in the CDR letter on Tuesday, would cause the number and quality of public housing units to decline.

“HUD says that the goal is to make more housing available to eligible people, but its own analysis shows that won’t happen,” he told KQED.

Currently, household members who aren’t eligible for HUD assistance still contribute to the cost of housing. Kish said that HUD has estimated the proposed rule would require spending an additional $2,100 per household, which it anticipates would be paid for by reducing the number of households served by federal housing programs or by reducing the average spending on housing assistance.

California has the highest percentage of mixed-status households in the U.S., accounting for about 36% of those that could be impacted.

About three-fourths of those families consist of children who are of eligible status, and parents who are not.

“Separation is not a viable option for these families, and they will therefore be forced out of their homes,” the letter continues.

In San Francisco, of an estimated 645 tenants who could be affected, about 210 are children and 40 are seniors.

“The federal government should be helping to prevent homelessness, not making it worse,” San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said. “This rule would destabilize affordable housing nationwide, increase homelessness, and punish eligible people simply because of who lives in their household.”

Since 70% of residents in mixed-status households have an eligible immigration status, the letter from the cities argues that the policy would be most harmful to people who are eligible for housing assistance.

CRD also alleges that the proposed rule could lead to eligible seniors and people with disabilities losing their access to housing assistance, since all family members will have to submit to new verification procedures.

“Significant numbers of senior citizens, citizens of color, citizens with disabilities, transgender citizens, and citizens with low incomes may be disproportionately affected,” the letter reads.

Kish said that the department’s intent in filing the letter is to establish a record of opposition — and require HUD to respond.

“We want to hear what they have to say in response to our arguments,” he said. “And then if the rule goes forward, our letter helps us set up a challenge because we also believe that the rule is unlawful.”

Kish wrote in his letter that the rule is unlawful under intentional discrimination and disparate impact analyses. He said what a legal challenge could look like is not yet known, and would be a conversation with the attorney general’s office.

“It represents a glaring example of HUD’s failure to abide by its duty under the [Fair Housing Act of 1968]to administer housing programs in ways that ‘mov[e] the nation toward a more integrated society,’” Kish wrote.

KQED’s Alex Hall contributed to this report.