• Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah, right because the alternative R governor totally wouldn’t be worse for undocumented immigrants amirite?

      Shit logic.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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

          • Jesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          It probably could’ve gotten more support if it was specifically for dreamers, for the reasons you point out.

          • Jesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

    • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.