Monday, January 13, 2020

DEM BILLIONAIRES FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS - TOM STEYER SAYS WE MUST PROVIDE "CHEAP" HOUSING FOR OUR INVADING "CHEAP" LABOR ILLEGALS - COST TO BE PASSED ALONG TO MIDDLE AMERICA - "Those are the criteria, and now importing poverty has never been easier. Shockingly, this comes as millions of poor Americans are out in the cold awaiting that housing that the original law was intended to help." MONICA SHOWALTER

THERE IS A REASON WHY ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS AND WANT WIDER OPEN BORDERS AMNESTY AND NO E-VERIY!


The state of California is home to more illegal aliens than any other state in the country. Approximately one in five illegal aliens lives in California, Pew reported.
Approximately a quarter of California’s 4 million illegal immigrants reside in Los Angeles County. The county allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits.



Tom Steyer: Americans Must Provide Cheap Housing to Illegal Immigrants

US environmental activist and Democrat Tom Steyer listens to a question during a Town Hall meeting In the Need to Impeach President Donald Trump in New York on January 29, 2018. Steyer, the billionaire environmental activist and philanthropist, launched the Need to Impeach movement through television and social networking advertisement …
JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
8:12

Tom Steyer, the billionaire investor and Democrat 2020 candidate, wants Americans to provide cheap housing to illegal immigrants.
“A Steyer Administration will … ensure that all undocumented communities have access to affordable and safe housing,” Steyer said in his immigration proposal.
Steyer’s offer of housing is combined with promises to provide illegals with free healthcare, plus workplace training and cultural celebrations:
A Steyer administration … [will] provide a safe platform for immigrants to share their culture and celebrate their heritage, foster opportunities for public service that support new Americans, and coordinate with Federal agencies and the private sector in order to build workforce training and fellowship opportunities for immigrants with professional qualifications from their home nation to help them leverage their specialized skills in the American marketplace.
Steyer made his promise of cheap housing to illegals even though housing costs for many Americans forces them to rent or buy cheaper housing far from work and friends, and are being forced to give up hopes for larger families.
But those housing costs are high partly because the federal government welcomes one million new legal immigrants into the nation’s cities, neighborhoods, and schools. That is a huge inflow — four million young Americans turn 18 each year.
But Steyer is a billionaire investor, so illegal migrants will not be moving into his very expensive and well policed neighborhood. The New Yorker magazine described his house in 2013:
President [barack Obama] flew to San Francisco on April 3rd for a series of fund-raisers. He stopped in first at a cocktail reception hosted by Tom Steyer, a fifty-six-year-old billionaire, former hedge-fund manager, and major donor to the Democratic Party. Steyer lives in the city’s Sea Cliff neighborhood, in a house overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge.

Any inflow of migrants will be a boon to Steyer’s fellow investors who gain from the extra workers, consumers, and renters. For example, one gauge of real estate investments shows a 50 percent gain since 2015, even as Americans’ wages and salaries rose by only about 15 percent.
Meanwhile, Steyer’s home state is experiencing record housing prices and record homelessness as today’s illegals enjoy the state government’s offer of sanctuary, jobs, and welfare. The federal housing agency reported January 7 the state has about 108,000 homeless:
This year’s report shows that there was a small increase in the one-night estimates of people experiencing homelessness across the nation between 2018 and 2019 (three percent), which reflects a 16 percent increase in California, and offsets a marked decrease across many other states.
In terms of absolute numbers, California has more than half of all unsheltered homeless people in the country (53 percent or 108,432), with nearly nine times as many unsheltered homeless as the state with the next highest number, Florida (six percent or 12,476), despite California’s population being only twice that of Florida.
In September Breitbart News reported the Census Bureau showed how the state’s housing costs are pushing Americans into poverty:
The September 10 study shows 18.2 percent of California’s population is poor, far above the 13 percent poverty rate in Arkansas, 16 percent in Mississippi, and the 14.6 percent in West Virginia.
By 2017, for example, the government’s pro-migration policies had added 11 million people to the state’s native population of 29 million people. The huge inflow means that one-in-four residents are immigrants.
Numerous studies have shown many millions of foreigners want to migrate into Americans’ society. For example, another five million Central American residents want to migrate into the United States, according to a Gallup survey published right after the 2018 midterm elections.
Gallup also noted “three percent of the world’s adults — or nearly 160 million people — say they would like to move to the U.S.”
California's poverty rate is worse than Alabama & Mississippi, says Census Bureau. The major cause of this huge change is immigration policy which spikes housing costs & shrinks wages -- and delivers huge gains for investors in real-estate & corp. shares. http://bit.ly/2mgvBlW 

Steyer’s promise to welcome illegals is echoed by the other investor billionaire in the Democrats’ primary, Mike Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York. In January, he promised to make illegals comfortable with Americans’ money, telling the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Well, it’s a no brainer. You give [a] pathway to citizenship to 11 million people. We’re not going to deport them anyways, it’s outrageous. If you look in New York City, we make sure that people felt comfortable, regardless of their immigration status, to come and get city services. I was always determined that they would not be afraid to come. Somebody could need like life-threatening things and does not get medical care. This is not a game. You’ve got to make sure that they’re okay.
Housing costs in Bloomberg’s New York are very high because it has huge populations of illegal and legal immigrants. The result is that it has a homeless population of roughly 92,000, and also the nation’s highest rate of homelessness, at 46 homeless for every 10,000 people.
High housing costs also make it difficult for Americans to move into towns and cities that have better-paying jobs, according to a 2017 study about the rising wealth gap in the United States. Americans “are frozen where they live,” said Tom Donohue, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, at a January 9 meeting. 
But nearly all of the Democrats in the 2020 election have called for more migrants — without showing any concern for the impact on Americans’ housing costs.
“We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million people,” Joe Biden told Democrats at an August event in Des Moines, Iowa. “The idea that a country of 330 million people is cannot absorb people who are in desperate need … is absolutely bizarre … I would also move to increase the total number of immigrants able to come to the United States.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s immigration plan, for example, is titled “A Fair and Welcoming Immigration System.” It says:
We need expanded legal immigration that will grow our economy, reunite families, and meet our labor market demands … s president, I will immediately issue guidance to end criminal prosecutions for simple administrative immigration violations … As President, I’ll issue guidance ensuring that detention is only used where it is actually necessary because an individual poses a flight or safety risk … I’ll welcome 125,000 refugees in my first year, and ramping up to at least 175,000 refugees per year by the end of my first term.
The impact of federal immigration policy on Americans’ housing costs is taboo among establishment reporters. But those costs were touted by a group of investors lobbying Congress to raise housing prices by importing more immigrants. A booklet by the Economic Innovation Group says:
The relationship between population growth and housing demand is clear. More people means more demand for housing, and fewer people means less demand … As a result, a shrinking population will lead to falling prices and a deteriorating, vacancy-plagued housing stock that may take generations to clear
The potential for skilled immigrants to boost local housing markets is clear. Notably, economist Albert Saiz (2007) found a 1% increase in population from immigration causes housing rents and house prices in U.S. cities to rise commensurately, by 1%
On January 9, Donohue noted New Yorkers blocked the plan by Amazon and the city government to build a new corporate headquarters in the city. The residents protested the development plan partly because it would have driven up rents and housing costs, said Donohue. “It is a very potent issue,” he observed.
A lobbying group for investors admits mass migration helps investors in major coastal cities but 'fails' Americans in heartland & rural towns. So it urges less immigration? No - it urges more migration to spike family housing prices outside major cities! http://bit.ly/2VCZYUt 







Another line they cut into: Illegals get free public housing as impoverished Americans wait




Want some perspective on why so many blue sanctuary cities have so many homeless encampments hovering around?
Try the reality that illegal immigrants are routinely given free public housing by the U.S., based on the fact that they are uneducated, unskilled, and largely unemployable. Those are the criteria, and now importing poverty has never been easier. Shockingly, this comes as millions of poor Americans are out in the cold awaiting that housing that the original law was intended to help.
Thus, the tent cities, and by coincidence, the worst of these emerging shantytowns are in blue sanctuary cities loaded with illegal immigrants - Orange County, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, New York...Is there a connection? At a minimum, it's worth looking at.
The Trump administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development is finally trying to put a stop to it as 1.5 million illegals prepare to enter the U.S. this year, and one can only wonder why they didn't do it yesterday.
According to a report in the Washington Times:
The plan would scrap Clinton-era 

regulations that allowed illegal 

immigrants to sign up for assistance 

without having to disclose their status.


Under the new Trump rules, not only would the leaseholder using public housing have to be an eligible U.S. person, but the government would verify all applicants through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, a federal system that’s used to weed illegal immigrants out of other welfare programs.
Those already getting HUD assistance would have to go through a new verification, though it would be over a period of time and wouldn’t all come at once.
“We’ve got our own people to house and need to take care of our citizens,” an administration official told The Washington Times. “Because of past loopholes in HUD guidance, illegal aliens were able to live in free public housing desperately needed by so many of our own citizens. As illegal aliens attempt to swarm our borders, we’re sending the message that you can’t live off of American welfare on the taxpayers’ dime.”
The Times notes that the rules are confusingly contradictary, and some illegal immigrant families are getting full rides based on just one member being born in the U.S. The pregnant caravaner who calculatingly slipped across the U.S. in San Diego late last year, only to have her baby the next day, now, along with her entire family, gets that free ride on government housing. Plus lots of cheesy news coverage about how heartwarming it all is. That's a lot cheaper than any housing she's going to find back in Tegucigalpa.
Migrants would be almost fools not to take the offering.
The problem of course is that Americans who paid into these programs, and the subset who find themselves in dire circumstances, are in fact being shut out.
The fill-the-pews Catholic archbishops may love to tout the virtues of illegal immigrants and wave signs about getting 'justice" for them, but the hard fact here is that these foreign nationals are stealing from others as they take this housing benefit under legal technicalities. That's not a good thing under anyone's theological law. But hypocrisy is comfortable ground for the entire open borders lobby as they shamelessly celebrate lawbreaking at the border, leaving the impoverished of the U.S. out cold.
The Trump administration is trying to have this outrage fixed by summer. But don't imagine it won't be without the open-borders lawsuits, the media sob stories, the leftist judges, and the scolding clerics.

Los Angeles County Pays Over a Billion in Welfare to Illegal Aliens Over Two Years

 

In 2015 and 2016, Los Angeles County paid nearly $1.3 billion in welfare funds to illegal aliens and their families. That figure amounts to 25 percent of the total spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to Fox News.
The state of California is home to more illegal aliens than any other state in the country. Approximately one in five illegal aliens lives in California, Pew reported.
Approximately a quarter of California’s 4 million illegal immigrants reside in Los Angeles County. The county allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits.
The welfare benefits data acquired by Fox News comes from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services and shows welfare and food stamp costs for the county’s entire population were $3.1 billion in 2015, $2.9 billion in 2016.
The data also shows that during the first five months of 2017, more than 60,000 families received a total of $181 million.
Over 58,000 families received a total of $602 million in benefits in 2015 and more than 64,000 families received a total of $675 million in 2016.
Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who studies poverty and illegal immigration, told Fox the costs represent “the tip of the iceberg.”
“They get $3 in benefits for every $1 they spend,” Rector said. It can cost the government a total of $24,000 per year per family to pay for things like education, police, fire, medical, and subsidized housing.
In February of 2019, the Los Angeles city council signed a resolution making it a sanctuary city. The resolution did not provide any new legal protections to their immigrants, but instead solidified existing policies.
In October 2017, former California governor Jerry Brown signed SB 54 into law. This bill made California, in Brown’s own words, a “sanctuary state.” The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the State of California over the law. A federal judge dismissed that suit in July. SB 54 took effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
According to Center for Immigration Studies, “The new law does many things: It forbids all localities from cooperating with ICE detainer notices, it bars any law enforcement officer from participating in the popular 287(g) program, and it prevents state and local police from inquiring about individuals’ immigration status.”
Some counties in California have protested its implementation and joined the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state.
California’s campaign to provide public services to illegal immigrants did not end with the exit of Jerry Brown. His successor, Gavin Newsom, is just as focused as Brown in funding programs for illegal residents at the expense of California taxpayers.
California’s budget earmarks millions of dollars annually to the One California program, which provides free legal assistance to all aliens, including those facing deportation, and makes California’s public universities easier for illegal-alien students to attend.
According to the Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers 2017 report, for the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants living in the country, the resulting cost is a $116 billion burden on the national economy and taxpayers each year, after deducting the $19 billion in taxes paid by some of those illegal immigrants.
BLOG: MOST FIGURES PUT THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS IN THE U.S. AT ABOUT 40 MILLION. WHEN THESE PEOPLE ARE HANDED AMNESTY, THEY ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO BRING UP THE REST OF THEIR FAMILY EFFECTIVELY LEAVING MEXICO DESERTED.

New data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that more than 22 million non-citizens now live in the United States.
Who Defaulted More Dollars in the 

Housing Bust: Whites or Nonwhites?



STEVE SAILER • DECEMBER 19, 2019
 • 1,200 WORDS • 49 COMMENTS • REPLY
 RSS   
I’ve long pointed out that the Housing Bubble of 2004-2007 tended to have inflated the most severely and popped the most sharply in increasingly Hispanic regions like Southern California’s Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties). For instance, here’s a graph I created in 2009:
Mortgage dollars lent to Hispanics increased 782% from 1999 to 2006 vs. 134% for whites.
In the Inland Empire in 1999, Hispanics received only 34% as much mortgage money as non-Hispanic whites did. By 2006, Hispanics received 127% as much as whites.
But what about nationally?
My theory has been that optimism about the economic prospects of Hispanics among elites like George W. Bush, GOP strategist Karl Rove, Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo, and Washington Mutual CEO Kerry Killinger, along with the near complete lack of publicly-expressed respectable skepticism about Latinos, contributed to the Housing Bubble and the subsequent Housing Bust. In turn, the ups and downs of the American housing market famously contributed to the Great Financial Crash of 2008 and the subsequent Great Recession.
Of course, there were other causes as well for these famous events, just as Pearl Harbor isn’t the only reason the U.S. fought in World War II, the October 1929 collapse of the New York Stock Exchange isn’t the sole cause of the Great Depression, and the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand isn’t the only reason there was a Great War.
But still … like Pearl Harbor et al, the Housing Bubble-Bust shouldn’t be left unanalyzed. After all, it was in all the newspapers at the time.
This has not been a popular theory, to say the least. Democrats don’t like to hear that nonwhites, especially Hispanics and immigrants, played a sizable role in the Housing Bubble, while Republicans don’t like to hear that Republican politicians and golfing businessmen are especially to blame. In turn, Democrats don’t want to blame Republicans for their lack of anti-Hispanic prejudice.
So, this enormous historical event has largely had the curtains drawn on its most proximate causes.
However, academic research carries on, despite the lack of media interest in the topic.
Something I’ve noticed is that when the topic turns to mortgages, many people can’t believe that nonwhites make up much of the of the population of the United States and they especially can’t believe they’d be allowed to borrow much money.
So, here’s a table I’ve put together from data in a 2016 article in Journal of Urban Affairs called “Revisiting the subprime crisis: The dual mortgage market and mortgage defaults by race and ethnicity” by Carolina K. Reid, Debbie Bocian, Wei Li & Roberto G. Quercia.
Keep in mind that, despite the title, these data aren’t restricted to subprime mortgages. Instead they started with all the mortgages in the country originated in 2004 through 2007 for which the researchers could match up the ethnicity of the borrowers from the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database with two private data sources (LPS and BlackBox) that don’t track ethnicity but do, unlike the HMDA database, track whether the mortgages get paid off. They could match up 63% of mortgages, and then they took 10% of those to have a more manageable number to work with, ending up with just under one million mortgages.
For this analysis, we pull a 10% sample of first-lien, owner-occupied purchase loans originated in metropolitan areas between 2004 and 2007. We drop loans over $1,000,000 and under $10,000, loans with unrealistic loan-to value ratios (those with negative LTVs or LTVs over 250%), and loans with missing data on race/ethnicity. The resulting sample includes 971,043 loans. We append monthly loan performance information for each loan through January 2013, distinguishing whether a loan is “current,” “seriously delinquent” (at least 90 days delinquent or in the foreclosure process), “foreclosed upon,” or “prepaid” in each month.
They left out loans over $1 million, which would have been interesting to look at. Blacks and whites who borrowed amounts closer to $1 million had lower default rates, but Hispanics and Asians had higher default rates the higher their incomes, unlike whites and blacks.
Also, this is restricted to metropolitan areas, so it’s missing rural areas, which are mostly white but not a lot of money involved.
Unfortunately, they for some reason left out miscellaneous nonwhites like American Indians and Pacific Islanders. Also I don’t see any mention of mixed ethnicity couples. For white-nonwhite couples, this isn’t a big deal since the total amount defaulted is close to 50-50, but ignoring mixed race couples that are both nonwhite tends to exaggerate the white share:
So, across the four years 2004 to 2007, whites got 70.4% of mortgages, blacks 8.3%, Hispanics 13.0%, and Asians 6.7%.
Importantly, Asians got by far the biggest average loans: $300k, with Hispanics next at $218k, followed by whites at 203k, and blacks at 175k. Asians tend to be concentrated in expensive states like California, while Hispanics also tend to live in expensive states like California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida (Michael Lewis’s Sand States, although this study includes Georgia as well as a Sand State), but also the cheap state of Texas.
So, whites got 69.3% of the mortgage money in the study.
There is much assumption that nonwhites were racistly “steered” into expensive high interest loans when should have been getting lower interest loans. Yet, Asians paid the lowest interest rate, 6.0%, while whites were at 6.2%, blacks at 6.8% and Hispanics at 7.0%.
By January 2013,
The high rates of delinquency and foreclosure—16% for the entire sample—provide a stark reminder of the scale and breadth of the foreclosure crisis. However, the losses for Black and Hispanic borrowers are significantly higher; 28.2% of Black and 31% of Hispanic borrowers who bought their homes between 2004 and 2007 were either seriously delinquent or had lost their homes to foreclosure by January 2013. Asians also had higher foreclosure rates than non-Hispanic Whites (14.7 versus 12.1%). The table also shows that delinquency rates are not uniformly associated with income across racial and ethnic categories. Among Whites and Blacks, delinquency and foreclosure rates are somewhat higher for lower-income households, and decrease as incomes rise. For Hispanics and Asians, in contrast, higher income borrowers experienced higher rates of serious delinquency than their lower income counterparts.
Hispanics were 2.6 times more likely than whites to be in default or seriously delinquent, blacks were 2.3x, and Asians 1.2x.
My guess is that the extra 13% interest that Hispanics paid versus whites (7.0% vs. 6.2%) didn’t make up for their additional 160% higher foreclosure or serious delinquency rate, although I don’t know how to do a precise calculation. But clearly Asians were undercharged interest since they paid less than whites (6.0% vs. 6.2%) but defaulted 20% more.
Who defaulted more dollars overall? Whites or nonwhites?
Making the heroic simplifying assumption that default were randomly distributed among each race by size of mortgage (i.e., so that we can multiply the percentage of troubled mortgages per race times the average dollar size of mortgage per race, we can estimate that whites accounted for 52.1% of lost dollars, Hispanics 26.6%, blacks 12.4%, and Asians 8.9%.
There are a lot of minor factors not accounted for in this study, such as other races not included, etc etc. But 52% white – 48% nonwhite or, roughly, 50-50 seems like a good starter estimate of defaulted dolla


No comments: