Good question. I’ll be moving in to your house this evening, thanks.
The illegal immigrants aren't staying in your home, they're staying with whomever they're paying rent to. What right do you have to tell him who he can rent to?
Good question. If he also decides not to rent to black people, certainly, that’s his business, and I have no right to tell him who to rent to. Correct?
If you're asking me personally, then yes it's none of your business what he's doing with his property. If he's not renting to black people, that means more tenants for people who aren't racist to rent to. But that aside, housing discrimination laws are based on the moral principle that people should not be treated worse based on their skin colour. Upon what moral principle is the notion that people should be treated worse based on their place of birth based?
Treat your neighbor like your brother? Nationalism and before that tribalism are as old as our species.
Since property, both private and public, is a fundamental human right. Just as you have a right to privacy of your home, a country's citizens have the same right to their country.
>Since property, both private and public, is a fundamental human right.
If property is a fundamental right, then shouldn't it be the right of a landlord to rent his property to whomever he wants?
Of course it should. But the landlord's private property is still a part of the country citizen's collective property.
Humans (and presumably human rights, if assuming they're fundamental) existed before countries. So how does a concept that came later (a country) suddenly trump something that's fundamental? What is the moral mechanism by which a group of people declare a certain area a country and suddenly gain property rights over everything within that area?
Human rights, just as countries, are a human invention. These inventions are extremely useful, because they allow some rules for conflict resolution — without them, it's just rule of power and violence.