That’s good right?
Why would you want a bill specifically helping undocumented immigrants buy houses?
If I’m wrong I’d like to know why.
Certain people will be all in these comments saying it’s discriminatory or unfair this almost happened and now didn’t…it’s not.
If you’re undocumented and even here so long and this is your life…etc. That’s one thing.
Expecting to be rewarded for that when others are not is not going to fly with the right or left. It’s an insane proposition to begin with that focuses on a certain subject of the population, and then step further because they are not officially the population. Kind of a snub to others.
The bill, by Democratic Assembly member Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, would have prohibited the disqualification of loan applicants to a state first-time homebuyer program for reasons based solely on immigration status.
Not rewarding anybody. Read the article
The above response is kinda the wrong angle, but I can’t see why a bank is not allowed to deny a loan to someone who is not a citizen. If you by definition do not have legal right to live here, I don’t get why a bank is required to loan you money to buy a home. When you can be gone and out of the country a week later. I get maybe some are willing to loan to them, but not allowing them to deny it is kinda insane. I can’t believe they legally are even allowed to buy a home.
NOT being disqualified is a reward for people who are not citizens.
I’m all for fixing the situations for undocumented immigrants that have made a life here under certain circumstances, but just removing hurdles to not have them correct the situation themselves seems like a step in the wrong direction. In this specific case, the bandwidth for the program to help people who ARE citizens is reduced by including those who are not, which doesn’t seem fair.
You can slice that up however you want to, but at the end of the day, including non-citizens into social programs designed to help a larger pool of people reduces the availability to citizens.
I dunno man, I generally don’t support policies that exist just make life difficult for people who are already at a disadvantage.
There are so many roadblocks preventing these people from fixing their situation, and the State of California has no power to help them rectify it.
The cost of this program would be pretty negligible compared to other frivolous government spending, which I’m sure you’re equally vocally opposed to.
The circumstances of this people isn’t the problem though. It’s the fact that they are eligible at all that is the toxic component.
You’ll never be able to get enough public support behind anything like this when you know that there’s a large segment of voters crossing party lines who this pisses off. The root cause of citizenship is still the problem.
If you think that his is designed to make it harder for people, you’re mistaken. It should be working for citizens first. We can’t be making social policies that don’t already fix problems of the citizens, and then go a step further to include larger population segments. Our government shouldn’t be fixing everyone else’s problems when we can’t even help our own people.
Immigrants are “our own people”.
Says who? The government certainly says they aren’t. Just because you may be related to them in some way doesn’t mean municipal programs and funds should exist for them. They aren’t even registered as refugee, alien, or asylum seekers if they are undocumented. Why should they be allowed to then receive help or funds from government run social programs in lieu of full citizens?
On either side of the political spectrum you have people that don’t want this. I’d like a better path for these people as well, but not in this way either. Regardless of taxpayer status, there are still laws, and the people this would benefit have intentionally disregarded those laws, and that shouldn’t be rewarded. Especially not in California when practically nobody except the highest earning families can afford permanent housing.
Another article also said that aid would be given based on a lottery-type drawing. Seems a bit silly and also lotteries typically work by giving less than you get. How about encouraging naturalization and awarding aid to someone recently naturalized? I’m not in the camp of saying to hell with helping undocumented immigrants but if you’re going to call them out specifically I think the focus should be on naturalization or helping them become documented.
There’s tons of people in California that grew up there and work normal jobs who are undocumented basically on a technicality. That’s who this bill was looking to help. Newly landed immigrants are not going to be in a position to buy a house, certainly not in California.
Unfortunately, that does give a lot of ammunition for the right, who have a very warped view of what immigrants look like.
If that is the case, then it reads like California is solving the wrong problem.
If a person is undocumented due to their parents decision, then the federal government should make it much easier for them to become an American citizen.
Same. That kinda seems like it would lead to fewer people bothering to want to be a documented immigrant, right? Which, phrased a little differently, kinda incentivizes people to come in illegally or at least remain undocumented once here since that wouldn’t be a barrier to them owning a home? The right would’ve had a fucking field day if he’d signed that. They froth over straws in milkshakes; he doesn’t need to draw valid criticisms via bad policy two months before this election.
Right. If you’re undocumented, the first step should be to get documented, and authorities should focus on providing more and easier paths to proper documentation. Then you can take advantage of the programs in place for potential homebuyers if you want to.
I agree. I want only citizens to own property. I am not at all against people immigrating.
Reading up on AB 1840, it looks like (from what I can grok) this would help undocumented immigrants to get more affordable loans. But they would still be loans, not grants (right?) So I don’t quite understand Newsom’s budget argument. It’s a loan. Most of the money will be coming back over 30 years.
That said, CA’s housing supply is trash, and if this was a ballot initiative, I think you’d have a real hard time passing it. People are rightly or wrongly going to assume that this will increase competition in the buying market. When a house sells in CA’s major metros, it’s on the market for 2 weeks and the seller is sifting through dozens of offers.
Right, it is a loan, which means the principle is spent to buy a house for someone and they pay you back over 30 years. That is a huge capital investment with a long repayment period.
California also has low supply of housing for citizens, so why specifically help undocumented immigrants get housing when their claim is far less solid than a resident with proper standing?
The argument for it is probably similar to the argument for allowing dreamers to attend university and get white collar jobs. Some people were brought to the states when they were young, and America is all they know.
Do you send someone to a place like Mexico even though they might not really speak fluent Spanish and or know the country well?
It probably could’ve gotten more support if it was specifically for dreamers, for the reasons you point out.
Yeah, it wasn’t written in a way that would help with public perception or limit opportunities for political spin. Also, it was put on the governor’s desk during a general election year when immigration is a top issue.
Even if the bill wouldn’t impact the housing market or state budget, it wasn’t crafted well.
But if this scenario were the case, then they likely would have visa sponsorship to work a white collar job. That would thus make them documented. Many banks have lending guidelines for this scenario, which again makes this law even more useless
Makes me wonder if being a dreamer makes you a riskier loan applicant. Those folks don’t have permanent residency, they’re here under deferred action. If they have to leave, they’d be at increased risk of foreclosure.
Tysm for the source, I do understand the budget argument as currently there are almost no itin loans being underwritten by banks. If the banks don’t think they can make money on it, greatly expanding the market (while noble) sounds like opening the floodgates of losses. It also could create a gold rush/competition if California is successful but that literally may take 15+ years to find out.
Ok but can we ban foreign nationals from buying up land? Forget the small fish, let’s look at the big fish; I’m talking:
- Russia
- China
- Saudi Arabia
- Japan
Reminder: Almost anyone can buy property in the U.S., regardless of their nationality or immigration status. There are some states that are implementing laws prohibiting some of this. To my knowledge, California is not one of them.
CBS News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CBS News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
This is the kind of bullshit you get by voting blue no matter who.
Ah, right because the alternative R governor totally wouldn’t be worse for undocumented immigrants amirite?
Shit logic.
No, because it’s the same animal.
CA has had a long history of voting for republicans, but the republicans running in CA are not for a lot of weird trumpian / culture war issues that past republicans never ran on in the state.
