Immigration is a pulsing hot topic in America today, as the election grows closer and more politicians and presidential candidates states their personal opinions on the issue. Recently, New Jersey faced a new challenge in immigration law, when a landlord was confronted for renting to tenants without checking their immigration status. The question hung in the air: are landlords required to check out their tenant's immigration status and report illegal aliens to the state authorities?

The Plainfield, New Jersey landlord was sued by one of his tenants. According to a local New Jersey news source, the tenant claimed that this landlord was renting apartments without considering the tenants' immigration status. Supposedly, the landlord rented knowingly to illegal aliens and accepted flawed documents as a proof of legal status for the lease. The tenant who filed the lawsuit explained that by refusing to investigate the tenant's history, the landlord was harboring undocumented citizens. The apartment complex was attracting more and more undocumented persons when the word got out that immigrants could live there without fear of incrimination. Along with this, the tenant claimed that the landlord was performing an illegal racketeering enterprise under RICO laws.

This was not simply a tenant vs. landlord lawsuit. In fact, how the state of New Jersey determined this case explained a lot about tenant/land-lord relationships, and about the landlords responsibility in policing immigrants. According to a local New Jersey station, if this landlord had been convicted of illegal racketeering, it would have set a standard that all landlords should perform background checks on suspicious residents. They would be required to delve into each tenant's history to determine that they are in the country legally. If the landlords were not able to determine a person's immigration status, or made a mistake and rented to an illegal immigrant, then criminal charges would follow.

LatinoJustice PRKDEF addressed the court and acted in support of the landlord. They claimed that by incriminating this landlord for renting to illegal immigrants, the court would be decentralizing immigration enforcement. Also, passing judgment on this landlord would have had a widespread effect on immigrant housing in the state. Many immigrants may find themselves homeless, whether or not they had legal documentation. Causing landlords to act as immigration police would also promote further housing discrimination, and make it harder for people of certain races to obtain a home.

LatinoJustice worked hard in favor of the landlord in this case, but eventually had to file bankruptcy and discontinue their involvement in the case. From there, immigration lawyers took a deep look at racketeering laws, and how they apply to tenant/landlord encounters. The lawyers also pointed out that it is not a crime, as defined by Congress, to be in the United States without documentation. While illegal immigrants may be deported, and crossing the border illegally is a devious practice, millions live in the U.S. without prosecution. The U.S. Court of Appeals finally wrote an opinion on the case, and recognized that renting to an undocumented alien is not the same thing as harboring a criminal. The RICO claims were dismissed.

This case also caught the attention of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, who sided in support of the landlord and confirmed that renting to immigrants is not harboring a criminal. This Institute is in direct contact with the Federation of American Immigration Reform. By bringing so many different parties in to weight their opinions on this case, the court was able to make a decision which will reach to all other landlords and tenants in the state. Immigration policing is meant for the authorities- landlords do not need to add their aid unless they feel compelled to do so.