ANTI-RACIAL PROFILING
S.B. 264: Florida’s Discriminatory Alien Land Law Explained
Although framed as a means of upholding national security, S.B. 264 was born out of false and xenophobic concerns
By Dennis Jing
Introduction
Last month Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, along with our coalition partners, filed a lawsuit in federal court, National Fair Housing Alliance v. Kelly, to fight against a resurgent threat facing Asian American and Asian immigrant communities: alien land laws. The law in question, S.B. 264, prohibits Chinese citizens from buying land in the state and prevents individuals from Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria from purchasing land in most of the state (see Figure 1). Although framed as a means of upholding national security, S.B. 264 was born out of false and xenophobic concerns that individuals with Chinese citizenship owning U.S. land somehow poses a national security threat. Not only is S.B. 264 a disproportionally heavy-handed response to Chinese ownership of U.S. land — Chinese land ownership remains marginal compared to the size of U.S. land holdings owned by other countries — but it is also steeped in a legacy of discrimination and alienation that makes it harder for Asian immigrants in particular to come to the U.S.
Advancing Justice | AAJC’s lawsuit opposing S.B. 264 was filed on behalf of five organizations (the plaintiffs): The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), King Realty Advisors, Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence (HOPE), the Asian Real Estate Association of America (AREAA), and the Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches (FHCGPB).
National Fair Housing Alliance v. Kelly
The plaintiffs in the National Fair Housing Alliance v. Kelly assert that S.B. 264 violates the National Fair Housing Act and article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution.
- The National Fair Housing Act: Under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), discrimination on the basis of national origin is prohibited in the sale, rental, and financing of housing.
- Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution: This section of Florida’s Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and guarantees the right to acquire, possess, and protect property.
The Negative Repercussions of S.B. 264
A closer look at the map reveals why S.B. 264 is so extreme: it covers approximately 97% of all Florida land. The act’s large impact is in part due to S.B. 264’s prohibition of certain individuals from purchasing land within 10 miles of “critical infrastructure,” which the act defines so broadly as to encompass seaports, spaceports, refineries, power plants, airports, gas processing plants, water treatment facilities, etc. This critical infrastructure provision alone bans property ownership in 75% of Florida, including most of the state’s major cities such as Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, and Orlando. Count the state’s 74 military installations, the resulting picture is clear. SB 264 is a truly draconian law steeped in national-origin discrimination and the individuals who are directly and immediately impacted are immigrants. They are student and employment visa holders, asylum seekers, and other lawful permanent residents whose permanent homes are in China.
Despite the alarmist calls to counter the threat of the Chinese government, neither lawmakers nor the Governor have identified any specific, actual threat that Florida seeks to counter through the bill.
Even if such threats existed, there are other narrower and more targeted routes Florida could opt to use instead. For example, rather than broadly targeting individuals of Chinese descent, S.B. 264 could have only applied the restrictions to the Chinese government or corporations.
During the legislative process, lawmaker after lawmaker failed to distinguish between the Chinese government and individuals. Instead, they perpetuated harmful stereotypes. Senator Jay Collins in particular claimed that “there are people who just don’t believe in the American Dream and the American way of life.” When protestors organized and rallied against the bill, Representative Katherine Waldron groundlessly accused them of being from outside of Florida; a Miami Herald fact-check proved her statement to be a blatant lie. Upon enactment, the Governor’s press release mentioned “China” more than 20 times, even referring once to unnamed “Chinese agents,” but made no mention of any of the other six countries targeted in the bill.
Not only does S.B. 264 fail to address any supposed national security concerns, but it is an actively discriminatory law that would have wide-ranging, harmful impacts on AAPI community members.
Other Legal Challenges to S.B. 264
Inevitably, the state’s failure to include important considerations has now led to a total of two separate lawsuits against Florida within the past two years, including ours. The other lawsuit argues that S.B. 264 should be struck down for four reasons: 1) It is discrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act; 2) it is discrimination prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3) it is too vague to comply with, violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and 4) it conflicts with federal law.
Our lawsuit aims to shed more light on the devastating consequences of the law strictly from a housing and property perspective. S.B. 264 is already affecting Asian Americans in Florida. It has created a very real stigma and promoted racial profiling, especially in the housing market where real estate agents are now being asked to determine whether potential customers are Chinese citizens or “domiciled” in North Korea.
As one agent admitted, “If somebody is…Asian-looking, you’re automatically going to start asking questions about where you’re from…some of the realtors are afraid to deal with [Chinese nationals] because they are looking at getting prosecuted…”
We reject these harmful stereotypes and affirm that housing must be accessible to all people without threat of racial profiling.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, discriminatory land laws like S.B. 264 have spread like wildfire across the country both at the state and federal level. According to our tracker, so far at least 27 states have introduced a land law and 11 states have enacted such laws. In both chambers of Congress, 10 different bills, including amendments, have also been introduced.
Florida is doomed to repeat history if S.B. 264 is not struck down under the Fair Housing Act or the state Constitution. In 1926, Florida joined the growing group of states passing discriminatory land laws when it passed an amendment to the state Constitution prohibiting “foreigners who are not eligible to become citizens of the United States” language which was frequently used to target Asian immigrants. This shameful law was not officially repealed until 2018.
Now, just 6 years later, Florida must chart a better path and learn from its history to fulfill its promise to everyone who wants to live there. For more resources on land laws, visit our Action Center to find the latest materials.
Dennis Jing is the Anti-Racial Profiling, Civil Rights and National Security Staff Attorney at Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC.
Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC has a mission to advance the civil and human rights of Asian Americans and to build and promote a fair and equitable society for all. Visit our website at advancingjustice-aajc.org.
