When Home Isn’t Safe: Immigration Enforcement Shapes Housing Access

First, the detected linkable resources in order of appearance:
1. HUD Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (mentioned in body once)
2. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) (first mention in body)
3. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (second mention later in body) — same statutory resource as #2 (do not link twice)

Now the article with only the allowed .gov links added (only the first mention of each resource), preserving all content and formatting exactly otherwise:

(SOUTH DAKOTA) South Dakota is testing the edge where immigration enforcement meets housing discrimination, as Governor Kristi Noem backs efforts to keep undocumented immigrants out of federal housing programs and doubles down on rhetoric that pushes mixed‑status families further into the shadows. Her blunt message — “If you are an illegal immigrant, you should leave now” — underscores a hard, day‑to‑day consequences for tenants who fear both eviction and deportation.

At the same time, federal and state civil rights laws say landlords cannot treat renters differently because of their citizenship or immigration status. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) bars discrimination based on alienage or citizenship in housing contracts. Courts in 2024 affirmed that refusing to rent to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and other non‑citizens solely due to status is unlawful nationwide. That legal shield, however, often feels thin for families who hear policy threats from one side and eviction warnings from the other.

Federal protections, local fears

Under federal fair housing principles, tenants have the right to be free from bias tied to national origin or citizenship. Landlords may not refuse to rent, set higher deposits, or threaten to call immigration authorities because of a tenant’s status.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) accepts complaints through its Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity office; details on rights and the complaint process are available on HUD’s official page: HUD Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Yet enforcement history is uneven. During the administration of President Trump, HUD’s fair housing enforcement slowed, with cases delayed and protections rolled back — a shift that, advocates say, encouraged some property managers to test the limits. Immigrant families, especially in mixed‑status households where U.S. citizen children live with undocumented parents, often chose silence instead of risk.

That fear deepened as immigration enforcement grew more visible, making people think a call to a housing agency could bring attention from another arm of the government.

California moved in the opposite direction. Attorney General Rob Bonta issued consumer alerts making clear that it’s illegal in California for landlords to threaten to disclose a tenant’s immigration status, refuse to rent because of status, or issue sham eviction notices tied to national origin. The state’s Civil Rights Department has pursued cases where landlords tried to force people out by threatening deportation. These actions send a message that housing discrimination is unlawful regardless of federal immigration debates.

Noem’s position and a national test

Governor Kristi Noem’s stance — including support for excluding undocumented immigrants from public housing and housing choice vouchers — puts South Dakota in a national fight over who gets access to the social safety net.

While federal rules already restrict many benefits based on status, state‑level agreements and statements can heighten fear and deter eligible families, including U.S. citizen children, from seeking help. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, mixed‑status households across the United States 🇺🇸 often self‑select out of aid, even when some members qualify, because they worry a routine verification could lead to immigration enforcement.

That chilling effect reaches beyond public housing. Private market renters report pressure tactics such as:

• sudden document demands
• “status checks”
• threats to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if tenants complain about mold, pests, or unsafe wiring

Such threats are unlawful retaliation in many jurisdictions. Still, they work when families fear any contact with official systems.

A 2024 lawsuit in New Jersey brought the federal question into sharp relief. Plaintiffs alleged property owners refused to rent to DACA recipients and other non‑citizens solely due to immigration status. Federal courts have affirmed that this kind of blanket exclusion violates 42 U.S.C. § 1981 nationwide.

Important clarifications from that ruling:

• It does not make every non‑citizen eligible for federal housing aid.
• It does mean landlords cannot deny tenancy contracts simply because a prospective renter is a foreign national or holds a specific status.

Stakes and impacts

The stakes are high. Researchers estimate millions of mixed‑status families live in the country, many led by undocumented immigrants who pay rent on time but avoid any official complaint.

Potential consequences of policies that restrict HUD‑assisted access include:

• displacement of tens of thousands of families
• overcrowded housing and unstable subleases
• increased homelessness
• disruptions for U.S. citizen children: frequent moves, changing schools, and lost healthcare access

For tenants, the legal landscape can feel like a maze. Key points are clear:

• Housing discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status is illegal under federal civil rights law covering contracts.
• Threats to call ICE or police to force a tenant out are generally unlawful retaliation.
• State protections can add stronger remedies; California’s policies are a leading example.
• Exclusion from certain federal housing benefits does not allow private landlords to discriminate in the rental process.

Advocates propose a twofold solution: consistent federal enforcement and clear local messaging that separates housing rights from immigration enforcement. When tenants know they can file complaints without inviting immigration action, they are more likely to report abuse. When landlords hear steady enforcement, they are less likely to test illegal practices.

Local reports from South Dakota

Immigrant community leaders in South Dakota describe a tightening climate. Reported practices include:

• asking tenants for passports when a driver’s license or ITIN should suffice
• requiring proof of lawful presence to renew a lease
• offering month‑to‑month terms at higher prices to avoid document demands
• moving across town with no lease, sacrificing stability

These stories mirror reports from other states where political speech about undocumented immigrants blurs with daily rental gatekeeping.

What would help — federal clarity and local outreach

Policy experts say clearer federal guidance would reduce fear and improve reporting. Key actions that help:

• explicit guidance separating civil rights enforcement from immigration enforcement
• local outreach by legal aid groups, city housing offices, and faith organizations explaining that fair housing complaints go to HUD’s civil rights arm, not ICE
• plain‑language notices for landlords explaining lawful screening vs. unlawful discrimination
• training for small property owners on:
  • lawful screening (credit, rental history, verifiable identity)
  • unlawful practices (citizenship‑based refusals, deportation threats)

Where these messages stick, reporting increases and illegal practices recede.

The Biden administration has promised a stronger civil rights approach, but tenants judge progress by outcomes:

• Do investigators answer the phone?
• Are bad actors penalized?
• Are court orders enforced?

Without steady follow‑through, loud state‑level statements can drown out quieter reassurances from Washington, D.C.

Conclusion

South Dakota’s moment captures a national tension: the line between setting immigration limits and protecting fair housing rights for people who live, work, and raise children here.

• When that line blurs, undocumented immigrants and their U.S. citizen family members face the heaviest pressure.
• When the line is restored — and enforced — safer homes and healthier communities follow.

Key takeaway: Clear enforcement and local outreach that separates housing rights from immigration enforcement are essential to protect vulnerable families and ensure landlords comply with the law.