Boomer Trump Got it Wrong - No 50 year mortgages instead deport millions!

[Crepitus]

In Illinois, it is illegal to decline to rent to someone based on immigration status.

So that's your sock?

 

[Concerned American]

Trump hasn't been to rallies because he doesn't need you any more. He can get bribes directly now.

If a POTUS is going to rallies, he's not doing what he is getting paid for. Oh yeah, Trump isn't getting paid anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So that's your sock?

I'm educating you on the law in Illinois.

I don't know or care where that guy lives. Sorry.

 

[trumptman]

And you rent to illegals?

The SS Card looks like this.

Renting to Undocumented Immigrants in California​

Legal Framework​

In California, it is illegal for landlords to refuse to rent to someone solely based on their immigration status. The law prohibits landlords from inquiring about a tenant's immigration or citizenship status. This means that if a tenant meets all other rental qualifications, they cannot be denied housing because they are undocumented.

Tenant Rights​

Undocumented tenants have specific rights under California law:

• Protection from Discrimination: Landlords cannot discriminate against tenants based on immigration status, race, national origin, or other protected characteristics.
• Right to Safe Housing: All tenants, regardless of immigration status, have the right to a safe and habitable living environment.

Landlord Considerations​

While landlords can request identification and financial documentation, they cannot require proof of legal residency. Acceptable forms of identification may include:

• Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN)
• Foreign passport
• State-issued driver’s license (if applicable)

Consequences for Landlords​

If a landlord refuses to rent based on immigration status, they may face legal repercussions, including potential lawsuits for discrimination. It is advisable for landlords to focus on financial qualifications and references rather than immigration status when evaluating rental applications.

In summary, California law protects undocumented immigrants from being denied rental housing based on their status.

I could refuse to rent to them if they didn't HAVE a SS Card or ITEN but when the govenment give them DOCUMENTATION, I can't ask if they are here illegally even though that documentation might clearly indicate that status.

DACA recipients are technically considered illegal immigrants. So yes, I technically rent to someone who is an illegal immigrant. They are not "undocumented" and people shouldn't use that misnomer. They are here illegally but I cannot prove it and my job is not law enforcement. My job is to prove I have engaged in renting in a non-discriminatory manner and this person completed their application, passed their credit check and had documented above board income via their SS Card which authorized them to work.

To stop this you have to come down on the documentation side and not slap the people caught in the middle. Like with employers if they check your authorization to work, they've done their job on that and the fact the government said it was fine isn't their fault.

To stop this you need to stop DACA, ITENS, H1B, CDL's and more.

 

[Concerned American]

View attachment 1183218

The SS Card looks like this.




I could refuse to rent to them if they didn't HAVE a SS Card or ITEN but when the govenment give them DOCUMENTATION, I can't ask if they are here illegally even though that documentation might clearly indicate that status.

DACA recipients are technically considered illegal immigrants. So yes, I technically rent to someone who is an illegal immigrant. They are not "undocumented" and people shouldn't use that misnomer. They are here illegally but I cannot prove it and my job is not law enforcement. My job is to prove I have engaged in renting in a non-discriminatory manner and this person completed their application, passed their credit check and had documented above board income via their SS Card which authorized them to work.

To stop this you have to come down on the documentation side and not slap the people caught in the middle. Like with employers if they check your authorization to work, they've done their job on that and the fact the government said it was fine isn't their fault.

To stop this you need to stop DACA, ITENS, H1B, CDL's and more.

Question. If an illegal immigrant rents from a landlord and trashes the property or fails to pay rent, does the landlord have legal avenues available to them to recoup their losses? What guarantees do they have that this undocumented person is 'legally' responsible?

 

[Crepitus]

View attachment 1183218

The SS Card looks like this.




I could refuse to rent to them if they didn't HAVE a SS Card or ITEN but when the govenment give them DOCUMENTATION, I can't ask if they are here illegally even though that documentation might clearly indicate that status.

DACA recipients are technically considered illegal immigrants. So yes, I technically rent to someone who is an illegal immigrant. They are not "undocumented" and people shouldn't use that misnomer. They are here illegally but I cannot prove it and my job is not law enforcement. My job is to prove I have engaged in renting in a non-discriminatory manner and this person completed their application, passed their credit check and had documented above board income via their SS Card which authorized them to work.

To stop this you have to come down on the documentation side and not slap the people caught in the middle. Like with employers if they check your authorization to work, they've done their job on that and the fact the government said it was fine isn't their fault.

To stop this you need to stop DACA, ITENS, H1B, CDL's and more.

That's not an illegal.

DERP

 

[Cassandro]

Back to the OP: 50 year mortgages. The vast number of mortgages are paid off before they mature, so the length of the mortgages is irrelevant. The most important factor for most buyers is cash outflow, which is usually reduced by longer term mortgages.

A 50 year government-backed mortgage would reduce monthly payments, especially for first time home buyers. They can always make extra payments, refinance or sell the property, so what is the problem with that?

 

[trumptman]

Question. If an illegal immigrant rents from a landlord and trashes the property or fails to pay rent, does the landlord have legal avenues available to them to recoup their losses? What guarantees do they have that this undocumented person is 'legally' responsible?

Well that is why I said undocumented is a misnomer. Liberal states like California give out driver licenses and under Biden and other ITEN and DACA SS# are given out. They still don't have permission to be here legally and they are in limbo.

That's not an illegal.

DERP

Go do a proper search and educate yourself. DACA are not on a path to legalization.

Back to the OP: 50 year mortgages. The vast number of mortgages are paid off before they mature, so the length of the mortgages is irrelevant. The most important factor for most buyers is cash outflow, which is usually reduced by longer term mortgages.

A 50 year government-backed mortgage would reduce monthly payments, especially for first time home buyers. They can always make extra payments, refinance or sell the property, so what is the problem with that?

Are they paid off or replaced with new mortgages? The reasoning you are showing is not sound. It's why we have 84 month auto loans and a trillion dollar student loan crisis. Just getting into a house and then hoping appreciation, inflation, and other variables ultimately make it affordable is a trap.

 

[Concerned American]

Just getting into a house and then hoping appreciation, inflation, and other variables ultimately make it affordable is a trap.

What has changed? The same is true for 30 year mortgages.

 

[trumptman]

What has changed? The same is true for 30 year mortgages.

I'd gladly outlaw 30 year mortgages as well.

 

[Concerned American]

I'd gladly outlaw 30 year mortgages as well.

Why, nothing says you have to hold the loan to term. This is all a bunch of BS---nothing burger. No one holds a mortgage to term. The property is usually sold or refinanced--in either case the loan is paid off before it reaches maturity.

 

[Leo123]

You can tell when Trump hasn't been having his rallies. They keep him in touch with regular Americans. If he threw out the 50 year mortgage line at a rally, the deafening silence would have made the mistake clear.

Not only should people not endorse 50 year mortgages, we ought to go back and say the FDR endorse 30 year mortgages were a mistake.

Trump wants to make housing affordable, push back against property taxes, work on insurance reform and finally build, build, build and deport, deport, deport.

Most home loans go through Fannie Mae (FNMA) which is a government sponsored entity that allows lenders to reinvest their assets and supports more lending and more lenders in the mortgage market. It reduces the reliance on savings and loan associations. In effect, lenders sell their mortgages to FNMA. It also promotes guidelines for appraisers to follow that most lenders adopt. Today even the appraisal forms were instituted by FNMA.

The value of a mortgage is base on repayment history, interest and principle. I could see some devaluation with a 50 year mortgage as principle would be paid more slowly.

 

[trumptman]

Why, nothing says you have to hold the loan to term. This is all a bunch of BS---nothing burger. No one holds a mortgage to term. The property is usually sold or refinanced--in either case the loan is paid off before it reaches maturity.

So you state the outcome of the bad policies as a norm and then say, let's just continue that norm and not only that, let's expand on it.

The fact that no one "owns" their home and are basically just negotiating the "rent" terms from the bank is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[Concerned American]

The fact that no one "owns" their home and are basically just negotiating the "rent" terms from the bank is part of the problem, not the solution.

You have control of that. SAVE and buy the property outright. People who use credit want instant gratification---LOL, you do too, but like every other parasitic democrat, you don't want to pay when the loan comes due. Reality---join the REAL world. You don't get something for nothing.

 

[trumptman]

You have control of that. SAVE and buy the property outright. People who use credit want instant gratification---LOL, you do too, but like every other parasitic democrat, you don't want to pay when the loan comes due. Reality---join the REAL world. You don't get something for nothing.

You are talking to a guy who has multiple paid off mortgages.

You don't get something for nothing but allowing unlimited financing created unrealistic pricing. We see this in both higher education and now autos.

The biggest part of the discussion is how we are allowing extended financing to HIDE the effects of regulation on the costs of many of these goods and services. You can't buy the "stripped" car off the dealer lot anymore because they really don't exist as an example. The Federal Government subsidizes the entire market to try to move to EV's and when they all cost $80-100k the problem isn't that young people need to "SAVE" to afford one. What needs to happen is we need to stop the market distortion and they can "SAVE" for a proper entry level car that can still exist with out the government regulating it out of existence.

The reason we are so far behind on building housing stock isn't because people don't want to save or that builders don't want to make more money hand over fist. It's government that is the problem here.

 

[Concerned American]

You don't get something for nothing but allowing unlimited financing created unrealistic pricing. We see this in both higher education and now autos.

Exactly right---you don't get something for nothing, glad you agree. Financing, like purchasing a home or auto, is YOUR choice. YOU want it. If you don't want to pay what the market will bear, DON'T BUY IT. If enough people think it isn't worth the money, the price will come down or the business goes bust. That is the cold hard facts of the world.

The Federal Government subsidizes the entire market to try to move to EV's and when they all cost $80-100k

And what does this tell you? The gov't has no business subsidizing anything or telling you that you can't buy an alternative. BTW, I don't recall any republican proposals to do away with fossil fuels.

The reason we are so far behind on building housing stock isn't because people don't want to save or that builders don't want to make more money hand over fist. It's government that is the problem here.

Again, thanks for agreeing. It was Clinton's move into sub par mortgages that created the bust in 2005 and the reason ostensibly, was to make things more affordable. Affordable is what it is. If YOU can't afford it, move on and get yourself into a position that you can, that is reality.

 

[trumptman]

Exactly right---you don't get something for nothing, glad you agree. Financing, like purchasing a home or auto, is YOUR choice. YOU want it. If you don't want to pay what the market will bear, DON'T BUY IT. If enough people think it isn't worth the money, the price will come down or the business goes bust. That is the cold hard facts of the world.

The cold hard fact is that are markets are not responsive and efficient because of massive government regulation and intervention.

And what does this tell you? The gov't has no business subsidizing anything or telling you that you can't buy an alternative. BTW, I don't recall any republican proposals to do away with fossil fuels.

Why would they want to do away with them? The market will do away with them when the alternatives have become cost competitive and done so without subsidies and other forms of manipulation.

Again, thanks for agreeing. It was Clinton's move into sub par mortgages that created the bust in 2005 and the reason ostensibly, was to make things more affordable. Affordable is what it is. If YOU can't afford it, move on and get yourself into a position that you can, that is reality.

Yes but when the builder can't build because the $5 million dollar and five year "use and environmental sustainability study" makes it so there aren't homes being built, that isn't "the market" but the government that is the problem.

Oh and 50 year or even 30 year mortgages to cover for what the market CANNOT provide due to government doesn't shift the reality away from government as the problem.

 

[Concerned American]

Yes but when the builder can't build because the $5 million dollar and five year "use and environmental sustainability study" makes it so there aren't homes being built, that isn't "the market" but the government that is the problem.

Take it up with the democrats that put them in place. You seem to be defending them at every turn. LMAO, you contradict your own points with every post. Typical democrat troll--

 

[trumptman]

Take it up with the democrats that put them in place. You seem to be defending them at every turn. LMAO, you contradict your own points with every post. Typical democrat troll--

Delusional take

 

[Concerned American]

Delusional take

Let me guess, you're related to Care4None.