American Dream or Housing Nightmare? The Reality Immigrants Face When Searching for a Home

Access to housing in the United States continues to be marked by deep racial, ethnic, and immigration inequalities. In 2025, immigrant communities, especially Latino communities, continue to face historical barriers, discrimination, and political pressures that restrict their right to decent housing. 

Factors such as immigration status, as well as language, origin, skin color, accent, and religion continue to be used to reject or exclude tenants and homebuyers. Discrimination can occur at various stages: renting, purchasing, credit, insurance, and rent payments. 

Amid this panorama, I present this investigation in which I will analyze this reality that is experienced day by day in the United States. 

I will begin by pointing out that accessing decent housing in the United States has become an increasingly complex challenge for millions of immigrants, whether they are in the country documented or undocumented. Although the Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in the leasing, financing, and purchase of housing based on race, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability, the reality shows that barriers persist and, in many cases, are multiplying. 

 

To speak or not to speak English and the extra cost of being an immigrant 

To get into the subject, I will refer to the data from the Journal of Housing Economics in its study: Language Proficiency and Homeownership: Evidence from American Immigrants, which reflects that access to property in the country is not only a problem of high costs, but also of structural inequalities that disproportionately affect Latino and immigrant households, such as, for example: language.  

Language-related overcharges are a form of indirect discrimination that goes unnoticed in traditional statistics, such as: 

• Higher deposits required at the time of leasing. 

• Additional guarantors when the applicant has no credit history in the U.S. 

• Contracts translated at the tenant’s expense, transferring to the tenant an expense that the landlord should assume. 

The impact is not only economic, but also social, the combination of high costs, language barriers, job insecurity, and immigration status creates a cycle of vulnerability that keeps many Latino families trapped in the rental market, with few chance of accessing mortgages and building assets. 

English proficiency and housing access among immigrants (25-75 years old)
Indicator	Low proficiency	Very high proficiency	Difference
Homeownership	49%	64%	+15 pp
With mortgage	68%	76%	+8 pp
Rooms per person	0.20	0.06	-0.15
Bedrooms per person	0.42	0.17	-0.25
Low-quality housing	3%	1%	-2 pp
Average age of arrival	13 years	7.6 years	-5.4 years
Current average age	42.9 years	45.2 years	+2.3 years
Hispanic	81%	41%	-40 pp

The study, conducted among immigrants aged 25 to 75, shows that English proficiency is a determining factor in accessing homeownership among immigrants. 

• Only 49% of immigrants with poor English proficiency own a home, compared to 64% of those who report speaking it very well. This 15-percentage-point difference reflects that English is not only a communication tool, but also a gateway to the mortgage market and residential stability. 

• There is also an advantage in access to mortgages (76% vs. 68%), indicating that a better command of English makes it easier to interact with banks. 

Added to this is that Housing quality also improves with English proficiency: 

• Those who speak English very well live in less crowded homes, with more rooms and bedrooms per person. 

• In contrast, immigrants with poor English proficiency live in more overcrowded conditions: 0.20 rooms and 0.42 bedrooms per person, compared to 0.06 and 0.17 respectively in the high-dominance group. 

The age of arrival is also crucial: 

• Immigrants with a good command of English arrived at an average age of 7.6, while those with limited English arrived at 13. In other words, arriving in early childhood facilitates the acquisition of English, which has a direct impact on job placement, access to credit, and, consequently, homeownership. 

The ethnic composition shows a strong correlation: 81% of immigrants with low English proficiency are Hispanic, compared to 41% in the group with higher proficiency, revealing that the Hispanic community is the most exposed to language barriers and their effects on access to decent housing. In terms of quality, inequalities are also evident: 3% of those with low English proficiency live in substandard housing, compared to 1% who are fluent in the language. 

 

What do the data say about immigrants’ housing complaints? 

Now let’s review the National Fair Housing Alliance’s (NFHA) fair housing trends report, which documents how immigrants, particularly Latinos, are victims of hidden overcharges in the housing market. Let’s see how many complaints were filed by immigrants:

According to the most recent report, during fiscal year 2023, 1,693 complaints of discrimination based on origin or nationality were reported, that is, against immigrants or people not born in the United States, which represents 4.96% of the total complaints filed. 

This percentage, although not a majority, reflects that a significant proportion of discrimination cases are linked to foreign nationality, demonstrating how nationality remains a frequent factor in exclusion from access to rights and services in the United States. 

Likewise, 27 complaints related to immigration or citizenship status were recorded, representing just 0.07% of the total number of complaints (34,150). Although this figure is low compared to other grounds for discrimination, it does not necessarily mean that these cases are of little relevance; on the contrary, it can be interpreted as a sign of underreporting, since many people with vulnerable immigration status tend not to report complaints for fear of reprisals or being detected by immigration authorities. 

It’s important to clarify that, of these more than 34,000 complaints, 82% were related to the rental market. 

 

Underreporting is a reality 

When reviewing official figures on housing discrimination, it is essential to recognize that behind each statistic lies a significant underreporting. Complaints received and reported by government agencies only reflect part of the problem because thousands of cases are never formalized. One of the main reasons is undoubtedly fear: many people with vulnerable or undocumented immigration status fear that by reporting, they may be subject to retaliation or lose their homes, thus becoming exposed to immigration authorities. 

Adding to this fear is the potential mistrust of institutions and language barriers, which make it difficult to access reporting mechanisms. For many immigrant families, filing a complaint involves a complex process in a different language, with procedures that are not always adapted to their situation. In practice, this ends up being a filter that, in one way or another, discourages them from defending their rights. 

What is not reported remains hidden, allowing abuse, unfair charges, and exclusion from housing to continue. Recognizing this underreporting is key to understanding that immigrants’ vulnerability is not only economic or legal, but also numerical: their true situation is not reflected in official reports. 

And in general, the data show that discrimination against immigrants in the United States manifests itself more indirectly, that is, through origin or nationality, than directly through immigration status.  

This overview allows me to argue that there is a need to strengthen accessible and reliable reporting mechanisms for migrant communities that encourage reporting without fear, so as to achieve a more realistic understanding of the magnitude of the problem. 

 

The ‘Reyes’ case, an example of Latin union 

An emblematic case is the one known as ‘Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park’, which was registered in Virginia, in which the administrators required that all tenants present proof of legal immigration status and those who could not provide those documents had to pay a a $100 monthly surcharge on rent or, in some cases, risk having their contract reinstated. 

It turns out that several affected Latino tenants filed a lawsuit, alleging that the policy had a disproportionate impact on the community based on the Fair Housing Act (FHA), given that many of them were undocumented or had family members without legal status. 

The case went all the way to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in 2022, the court concluded that there was a direct impact on the Latino community, constituting national origin discrimination, as the majority of those unable to meet this requirement belonged to this group. The landlord failed to justify the measure as «necessary» for legitimate purposes, and it was confirmed that charging more for not showing papers or threatening eviction constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). 

 

Recent cases (2024–2025) 

To demonstrate how this reality is still present today, it is enough to review some cases that have occurred in 2024 and 2025, which show that housing discrimination against immigrants in the US is not an isolated phenomenon or a thing of the past, but a current reality and diverse in its forms: 

City – State	Year	Case	Resolution
CHICAGO – ILLINOIS	2025	A landlord threatened a tenant couple with calling ICE over a rent dispute in 2020, due to their immigration status.	Court ordered payment of US $80,000 in damages and fees.
CALIFORNIA	2025	A property owner denied rentals based on immigration status.	Out-of-court settlement: financial compensation + internal fair housing policies.
CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY	2024	A DACA recipient applied to rent apartments and was rejected because the management company required additional documents. Besides the employment authorization card, they demanded proof of legal residency.	Lawsuit for discrimination under Title 42, Section 1981, and fair housing laws; case in court.
FLORIDA	2024	A Florida state law that prohibited immigrants from certain countries, even legal residents, from purchasing property was challenged by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).	Lawsuit for discrimination based on national origin. ACLU and others appealed in federal courts.

1. Chicago (2025): The conviction of a landlord for threatening to call ICE on his tenants reflects how fear of deportation continues to be used as a means of pressure and harassment. The fact that a court applied the Fair Housing Act demonstrates that, although legal protections exist, abuses still occur and require prosecution.
2. California (2025): The out-of-court settlement reached by a landlord who denied housing based on immigration status demonstrates that direct discrimination in tenant selection continues. While this case provided redress, it also demonstrates that those affected must resort to legal proceedings.
3. New Jersey (2024) : The rejection of a person with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for requiring additional documentation reflects how administrative barriers are used as exclusion mechanisms. This is not an explicit refusal, but rather differentiated requirements that function as a discriminatory filter.
4. Florida (2024): The legal dispute over SB 264, which restricts property purchases to immigrants from certain countries, highlights a form of discrimination driven by the state’s own legal framework. This elevates the problem from an individual to a structural level, as it depends not only on the actions of a landlord, but on public policy. 

 

So, in which states are there protection for access to decent housing? 

There is one key fact to understanding the legal reality of housing in the United States: almost the entire country has state protections in addition to the Fair Housing Act (FHA) , which allows for a broad spectrum of defenses against discrimination.  

Specifically, 41 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted laws that strengthen or supplement federal safeguards, establishing local procedures for investigating complaints, sanctioning landlords and owners, and ensuring equal access to housing. 

These state laws often include more specific protections such as prohibitions against discrimination based on source of income, immigration status, gender identity, or other categories that are not always explicit in the Fair Housing Act, meaning that, in many cases, an immigrant or minority finds more immediate support in state legislation that is tailored to their reality. 

The exception is found in nine states that do not have a state law: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. Texas, Utah, and Wyoming are the territories where immigrants rely exclusively on the minimal protections of the Fair Housing Act and federal agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

Of course, this whole scenario means less accessibility for reporting, less presence of local fair housing agencies, and greater practical obstacles for victims of discrimination. 

Trump’s 2025 executive orders and their impact on housing 

Presidential decisions on housing have also directly impacted the ability of millions of immigrants in the United States to access decent housing. 

In 2025, the Trump administration issued several executive orders that substantially modified the existing protection framework, narrowing the scope of the law and weakening anti-discrimination mechanisms. 

These measures affect not only those seeking to rent or buy housing, but also entire communities that depend on federal subsidies and guarantees of equality. Below, I will detail the main orders and their impact on the housing situation of immigrants. 

1. “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” Order (April 23, 2025): Eliminates the application of the “disparate impact” standard in federal agency investigations and litigation. This means that housing or mortgage lending practices that are not overtly discriminatory but disproportionately affect immigrants or minorities can no longer be challenged under that standard. However, the Fair Housing Act has historically protected against this type of indirect discrimination.
2. Restricting federal subsidies to undocumented immigrants (2025): Through the “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” order, the government prohibited federally funded housing programs from benefiting undocumented individuals.
3. Repeal of the Equal Access Rule (February 2025): The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under presidential decree, eliminated the Equal Access Rule, which guaranteed that housing assistance would be accessible regardless of gender identity. This measure opens the door for federal and private housing programs to exclude certain vulnerable groups, weakening the principle of nondiscrimination.
4. Review of Anti-Discrimination Standards in Lending and Housing (2025) The government ordered a review of how agencies and courts enforce the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, thereby limiting the ability to sue lenders or landlords for structural discrimination practices in mortgages or leasing. 

Rights and legal alternatives for immigrants to exercise their right to fair housing 

After analyzing the complex landscape, let’s discuss the tools or alternatives. Although immigrants in the United States face significant obstacles in accessing housing, there are legal frameworks and protection mechanisms that seek to balance the situation. As an immigration attorney, I will highlight some useful tools: 

For example, the Fair Housing Act is the most important federal law and applies nationwide: it prohibits discrimination based on national origin, which means it covers both documented and undocumented immigrants. However, the mere existence of the law does not guarantee its enforcement, and the complaint process is often long and exhausting. 

On the other hand, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) , through the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), receives complaints, but its capacity depends on the available resources and political will of each government. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), for its part, can intervene in cases of systematic discrimination, although its action is reserved for high-impact scenarios. 

At the local level, the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) allows state agencies to investigate and sanction, helping to bring legal tools closer to communities, although with uneven results across states. 

At the same time, private organizations play a crucial role: not only do they offer legal representation and direct support, but they also monitor discriminatory practices, document cases, and help keep the issue on the radar, highlighting the realities immigrants experience. 

 

Reporting channels available to the immigrant community 

For those who face housing discrimination, there are official and secure channels for filing a complaint. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives complaints through its toll-free number 1-800-669-9777. It can also be accessed through the National Fair Housing Alliance website. 

In addition, each state has local fair housing agencies that investigate these cases, and community organizations that offer free legal support and guidance. These resources are vital for both documented and undocumented immigrants to report abuse without fear of retaliation. 

In short, legal protections are broad but insufficient given the magnitude of the problem. For many immigrants, searching for housing is an experience marked by fear, hidden costs, and uncertainty about their rights. 

 

Fair housing remains an unequal challenge for immigrants 

Recent cases demonstrate that access to housing is not limited to renting: the right to accumulate wealth and aspire to own property is also at stake. Consequently, the so-called «American dream» of owning a home becomes an unequal, more expensive, and risky process for immigrants. 

In conclusion, access to housing for immigrants in the United States in 2025 is shaping up to be a challenge driven by historical inequalities, persistent discrimination, and a political context that often deepens these gaps. 

Data shows that factors such as English proficiency largely determine the ability to afford homeownership: while only 49% of those with poor English proficiency own a home, the figure rises to 64% among those who speak English very well. 

Furthermore, housing quality improves with language proficiency, reflecting how language becomes a form of indirect exclusion that entails additional economic costs (higher deposits, additional guarantors, contracts translated at the tenant’s expense) and social vulnerabilities. 

The figures also reveal that discrimination against immigrants is far from marginal: in 2023, 1,693 complaints were recorded based on origin or nationality (4.96% of the total). and 27 due to immigration status or citizenship (0.07%), with the vast majority in the rental market (82%). This underreporting reflects that fear of reporting remains a key barrier. 

Landmark cases like Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park have confirmed in court that discriminatory policies, such as requiring legal status to rent or imposing surcharges on those who cannot prove it, directly violate the Fair Housing Act.  

More recently, the Chicago cases; California, New Jersey and Florida shows that discrimination against immigrants is not an isolated phenomenon, but a continuing practice that takes multiple forms: from denial of housing to differentiated requirements for people with special protections like DACA or even state laws that restrict property purchases based on nationality, reinforcing the exclusion of the migrant community. 

Regarding legal protections, although 41 states have state fair housing laws that complement the Fair Housing Act, there are nine states (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming) where immigrant communities rely exclusively on minimal federal protections, creating greater gaps in access and reporting. 

As an immigration attorney, I must say that the task of securing decent housing remains an unequal process for millions of immigrants, more expensive and riskier, where language, immigration status, and the lack of state protections amplify vulnerability. Thus, the so-called «American dream» of owning a home remains a distant goal, conditioned by barriers that transform a basic right into an experience marked by fear, exclusion, and, in many cases, uncertainty.