If you effectively outlaw citizenship, nobody present within the country’s borders can be illegal, and everybody will have standing to sue. And their likely targets will be anybody who tries to assert that citizenship still matters and tries to enforce it:
Attorneys for the families are alleging that the requirement for all tenants to have a Social Security card, visa and related documents or a passport is discriminatory because it disproportionately affects Latinos.
Stop the tape. No, it does not discriminate against Latinos, it “discriminates” against illegal aliens, which is a proper “discrimination” in which to engage because illegal aliens are not supposed to be here.
Or are the plaintiffs in this case conceding, even bragging, that the vast majority of illegal aliens are Latinos? And how is that relevant since their ethnicity should not be the issue at hand?
Similar policies imposed by cities and counties across the country have been overturned in federal courts but few, if any, suits have been filed against private landlords, the attorneys said.
“This type of discrimination is all too common, but the law is unfortunately far from clear,” said Ivy Finkenstadt, managing attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) which is representing the families along with the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. “We are hoping that the federal court in Alexandria will take it one step further and prohibit this practice by a private landlord as well.”
The standard relentless outward push of the statist “social justice” footprint.
The hook for this frivolous but likely-to-succeed suit is what you would expect given the context:
The suit claims that this policy is a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, the Virginia Fair Housing law and is intentionally discriminatory of non-U.S. citizens.
Look at that phrase: “intentionally discriminatory of non-U.S. citizens” – i.e. illegal aliens – against whom “discrimination” in the sense of denying privileges to which only citizens and legal residents ought to be entitled is entirely proper and justified. Or at least, it used to be.
The questions being asked by the defendants in the case are identical to what employers are required by law to ask job applicants and hires. So how can it possibly be illegal or actionable for landlords to ask the same question? And what, given Article I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, gives immigration law shysters and judges the legal authority to invent such new “law” out of the proverbial ether?
There are two answers. First, according to the actual FHA, landlords are breaking the law if they don’t ask for tenant proof of citizenship:
While it’s illegal to discriminate against a tenant based on their national origin, landlords in most states are allowed to ask applicants for proof of identity and eligibility to work under U.S. immigration laws, such as a passport or naturalization certificate, using Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This form and instructions for completing it are available on the USCIS website.
While asking applicants to provide documentation of their citizenship status during the screening process, and rejecting those who can not provide such documentation, does not violate the federal Fair Housing Act, you may not selectively ask for immigration information—that is, you must ask all prospective tenants, not just those you suspect to be in the country illegally.
Second, it’s a trick question: The SJWs don’t need legal authority, because they’ve already got all the power they need from, shall we say, “on high”.
That’s why I refer to what America once was – a free, constitutional federal republic – in the past tense. We can try to FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! to regain it all we want, but let’s not delude ourselves into believing that our country still is that republic. The very fact of illegals having standing to use our courts against us belies that comforting delusion all by itself.