• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

      • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

              • just_another_person@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                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.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.