The Commericial Appeal's Sunday cover story examined the ease with which illegal immigrants have been able to get mortgages.
(http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5137932,00.html)
Should we be concerned about this? I guess it depends, in part, on how you feel about illegal immigration -- not that I want to get into all that. Putting that aside for a moment, let's assume that there are legitmate reasons for our policies that encourage homeowenership in general (positive externalities). Do those benefits go away if the homeowners are not legal citizens?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm having a hard time seeing how the positive benefits of home ownership go away if one is an illegal alien. The question is not if homeownership and more specifically federally insured mortgages are privileges of American Citizenship but whether the positive benefits are dependent on ones naturalization status. Homeownership help make communities more stable. Homeowners are less able to just get up and go when things get bad. As a result they are more likely to get involved in the community and be involved. This benefits others in the neighborhood as well. Homeowners often take better care of their property. This can result in higher property values which also benefits the neighborhood as a whole. These benefits exist regardless of the immigration status of the homeowner. Mortgages, if just evaluated by their positive benefit to neighborhoods where the exist, should be given to illegal immigrants.
Post a Comment