this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
113 points (95.2% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 0 points 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.

[–] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 1 points 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.