Cash-Strapped California Inches Closer To Handing Taxpayer Home Loans To Illegal Migrants

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

California lawmakers are one step closer to making hundreds of millions of taxpayer-funded home loans available to residents living in the country illegally.

Democrats on the California Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved AB 1840 to move forward on Thursday, according to an official vote tally of the legislation. The bill has one last chance to be struck down on the Senate floor, where Democrats wield majority power, before it lands on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

The legislation seeks to amend the California Dream For All Shared Appreciation Loan program, an initiative launched last year that provides first-time homebuyers with a loan of up to 20% of the house’s purchase price for down payment or closing cost. If passed and signed into law, illegal migrants living in California would be eligible to apply for a piece of the pie.

“Once again, California has chosen to prioritize illegal immigration and fiscal irresponsibility over the needs of its citizens, all while facing a $60 billion deficit that will ultimately be passed onto taxpayers,” San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond said in a statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California is in dire financial straits, yet lawmakers continue to prioritize programs that incentivize illegal immigration and strain local resources,” Desmond continued. “Expanding this program to include illegal immigrants is not just another handout — it’s a massive overreach that shifts the financial burden onto law-abiding taxpayers.”

These taxpayer-funded home loans are interest-free and borrowers are not required to dole out monthly payments, making the program incredibly popular with California residents.

When applications for the $300 million program first opened up in May 2023 — offering interest-free loans to roughly 2,300 middle and lower-income homebuyers — the money ran out in less than two weeks, according to the LA Times. State officials have since tightened eligibility for the program, requiring that at least one of the applicants be a first-generation home buyer and replacing the first-come-first-serve model with a lottery.

Despite California struggling to cope with a budget deficit in the tens of billions of dollars, and availability for the program incredibly tight already, one state lawmaker felt the loan program wasn’t inclusive enough.

Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula, a Democrat from Fresno, first introduced AB 1840 in January, with the goal of broadening the definition of “first-time home buyer” to include illegal immigrants. The lawmaker argued in March that the “social and economic benefits of homeownership should be available to everyone,” according to a local news KTLA. Arambula did not immediately respond to the the DCNF’s request for comment.

The legislation has since easily passed the Democrat-dominated California Assembly and sailed through the Senate Appropriations Committee — with opposition exclusively relegated to GOP lawmakers.

“California’s budget deficit continues to grow and Democratic lawmakers are so out of touch with everyday Californians that they and are quite literally taking money away from law-abiding citizens, their own constituents, and handing it over as a free gift to people who broke federal law to cross the border illegally,” California Sen. Brian Dahle stated to the DCNF.

“There’s no accountability and transparency when it comes to the Democrats’ spending sprees, and it’s unfortunate because many Californians see homeownership as nothing more than an illusion at this point,” Dahle continued.

California is experiencing a massive budget shortfall.

State lawmakers in June approved a budget that slashed spending and temporarily raised taxes on businesses in an effort to shore up a nearly $50 billion budget deficit, according to the Associated Press. The dire financial situation marks a far cry from the more than $100 billion surplus the state enjoyed roughly two years ago, but those revenue spikes proved only temporary as rising unemployment, inflation and a slowing of the tech industry has battered California pocketbooks.

The state’s deficit was roughly $ 32 billion in 2023, which grew to more than $46 billion earlier this year and is now around $60 billion, according to California Republicans — drawing questions as to why lawmakers would open up a highly-coveted loan program to a large swath of the population that does not hold legal status.

Nearly two million illegal migrants live in California, according to data published by the Pew Research Center in July.

It’s not immediately clear if Newsom will sign the legislation. When reached for comment, a spokesperson said the governor’s office does not typically comment on pending legislation, adding that the governor would “evaluate the legislation on its merits” should it reach his desk.

Approval of AB 1840 came on the same day that Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign announced she would be unveiling a proposal similar to her home state’s current program: $25,000 in down payment support for first-time homebuyers, including greater support for first-generation homeowners.

It’s not clear if the proposal from Harris — who has recently attempted to cast herself as more of a border hawk — would explicitly exclude illegal immigrants. Her campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

California Republicans, in the meantime, are left balking at their own state’s legislative actions.

“Many legal California residents can’t afford a home in their own state,” California Sen. Brian Jones said to the DCNF. He is one of only two GOP members on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

“Instead of addressing the housing crisis, radical Democrat lawmakers want to help illegal immigrants buy houses with the gift of taxpayer funds,” Jones continued. “With a $62 billion budget deficit, we need to focus on preserving essential government functions, not unfair political spending for those here illegally.”

Up Next

From the border to Baltimore: ICE agents arrest violent fugitives illegally in US

Don't Miss

What’s Really Happening with Mpox

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump Abolishes DEI for the Feds

Business / 3 hours ago

Trump, taunts and trade—Canada’s response is a decade out of date

Business / 3 hours ago

Trade retaliation might feel good—but it will hurt Canada’s economy

Business

Trump, taunts and trade—Canada’s response is a decade out of date

Published on January 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

Canadian federal politicians are floundering in their responses to Donald Trump’s tariff and annexation threats. Unfortunately, they’re stuck in a 2016 mindset, still thinking Trump is a temporary aberration who should be disdained and ignored by the global community. But a lot has changed. Anyone wanting to understand Trump’s current priorities should spend less time looking at trade statistics and more time understanding the details of the lawfare campaigns against him. Canadian officials who had to look up who Kash Patel is, or who don’t know why Nathan Wade’s girlfriend finds herself in legal jeopardy, will find the next four years bewildering.

Three years ago, Trump was on the ropes. His first term had been derailed by phony accusations of Russian collusion and a Ukrainian quid pro quo. After 2020, the Biden Justice Department and numerous Democrat prosecutors devised implausible legal theories to launch multiple criminal cases against him and people who worked in his administration. In summer 2022, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago and leaked to the press rumours of stolen nuclear codes and theft of government secrets. After Trump announced his candidacy in 2022, he was hit by wave after wave of indictments and civil suits strategically filed in deep blue districts. His legal bills soared while his lawyers past and present battled well-funded disbarment campaigns aimed at making it impossible for him to obtain counsel. He was assessed hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties and faced life in prison if convicted.

This would have broken many men. But when he was mug-shotted in Georgia on Aug. 24, 2023, his scowl signalled he was not giving in. In the 11 months from that day to his fist pump in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump managed to defeat and discredit the lawfare attacks, assemble and lead a highly effective campaign team, knock Joe Biden off the Democratic ticket, run a series of near daily (and sometimes twice daily) rallies, win over top business leaders in Silicon Valley, open up a commanding lead in the polls and not only survive an assassination attempt but turn it into an image of triumph. On election day, he won the popular vote and carried the White House and both Houses of Congress.

It’s Trump’s world now, and Canadians should understand two things about it. First, he feels no loyalty to domestic and multilateral institutions that have governed the world for the past half century. Most of them opposed him last time and many were actively weaponized against him. In his mind, and in the thinking of his supporters, he didn’t just defeat the Democrats, he defeated the Republican establishment, most of Washington including the intelligence agencies, the entire corporate media, the courts, woke corporations, the United Nations and its derivatives, universities and academic authorities, and any foreign governments in league with the World Economic Forum. And it isn’t paranoia; they all had some role in trying to bring him down. Gaining credibility with the new Trump team will require showing how you have also fought against at least some of these groups.

Second, Trump has earned the right to govern in his own style, including saying whatever he wants. He’s a negotiator who likes trash-talking, so get used to it and learn to decode his messages.

When Trump first threatened tariffs, he linked it to two demands: stop the fentanyl going into the United States from Canada and meet our NATO spending targets. We should have done both long ago. In response, Trudeau should have launched an immediate national action plan on military readiness, border security and crackdowns on fentanyl labs. His failure to do so invited escalation. Which, luckily, only consisted of taunts about annexation. Rather than getting whiny and defensive, the best response (in addition to dealing with the border and defence issues) would have been to troll back by saying that Canada would fight any attempt to bring our people under the jurisdiction of the corrupt U.S. Department of Justice, and we will never form a union with a country that refuses to require every state to mandate photo I.D. to vote and has so many election problems as a result.

As to Trump’s complaints about the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, this is a made-in-Washington problem. The U.S. currently imports $4 trillion in goods and services from the rest of the world but only sells $3 trillion back in exports. Trump looks at that and says we’re ripping them off. But that trillion-dollar difference shows up in the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts as the capital account balance. The rest of the world buys that much in U.S. financial instruments each year, including treasury bills that keep Washington functioning. The U.S. savings rate is not high enough to cover the federal government deficit and all the other domestic borrowing needs. So the Americans look to other countries to cover the difference. Canada’s persistent trade surplus with the U.S. ($108 billion in 2023) partly funds that need. Money that goes to buying financial instruments can’t be spent on goods and services.

So the other response to the annexation taunts should be to remind Trump that all the tariffs in the world won’t shrink the trade deficit as long as Congress needs to borrow so much money each year. Eliminate the budget deficit and the trade deficit will disappear, too. And then there will be less money in D.C. to fund lawfare and corruption. Win-win.

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Business

Trade retaliation might feel good—but it will hurt Canada’s economy

Published on January 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

To state the obvious, president-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose an across-the-board 25 per cent tariff on Canadian exports to the United States has gotten the attention of Canadian policymakers who are considering ways to retaliate.

Reportedly, if Trump makes good on his tariff threat, the federal government may levy retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of American-made goods including orange juice, ceramic products such as sinks and toilets, and some steel products. And NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he wants Canada to block exports of critical minerals such as aluminum, lithium and potash to the United States, saying that if Trump “wants to pick a fight with Canada, we have to make sure it’s clear that it’s going to hurt Americans as well.”

Indeed, the ostensible goal of tariff retaliation is to inflict economic damage on producers and workers in key U.S. jurisdictions while minimizing harm to Canadian consumers of products imported from the U.S. The hope is that there will be sufficient political blowback from Canada’s retaliation that Republican members of Congress will eventually view Trump’s tariffs as an unacceptable risk to their re-election and pressure him to roll them back.

But while Canadians might feel good about tit-for-tat retaliation against Trump’s trade bullying and taunting, it might well make things worse for the Canadian economy. For example, even selective tariffs will increase the cost of living for Canadians as importers of tariffed U.S. goods pass the tax along to domestic consumers. Retaliatory tariffs might also harm productivity growth in Canada by encouraging increased domestic production of goods that are produced relatively inefficiently here at home compared to in the U.S. Make no mistake—once trade protections are put in place, the beneficiaries have a strong vested interest in having the protections maintained indefinitely. While Trump will be gone in four years, tariffs imposed by Ottawa to retaliate against his actions will likely remain in place for longer.

The U.S. president has substantial leeway under existing legislation to implement trade measures such as tariffs. While Trump has several legislative options to impose new tariffs against Canada and Mexico, he’ll likely use the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president power to regulate imports and impose duties in response to an emergency involving any unusual and extraordinary threat to national security, foreign policy or the economy. According to Trump’s rhetoric, the emergency is illegal immigration and drug traffic originating in Canada and Mexico.

However risible Trump’s emergency claim might be when applied to Canada, overturning any action under the IEEPA, or some other enabling legislation, would require a legal challenge. And in fact, because no president has yet used the IEEPA to impose tariffs, the legality of Trump’s actions remains in doubt. In this context, a group of governors sympathetic to Canada’s position (and their own political fortunes) might spearhead a legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs with encouragement and support from the Canadian government.

To be sure, any legal challenge would take time to work its way through the U.S. court system. But it will likely also take time for domestic opposition to Trump’s tariffs to gain sufficient political momentum to effect any change. Indeed, given the current composition of Congress, it’s far from clear that a Team Canada effort to rally broad anti-tariff support among U.S. politicians and business leaders would bear fruit while Trump is in office.

While direct retaliation might be emotionally satisfying to Canadians, it would likely do more economic harm than good. And while a legal challenge will not obviate the immediate economic harm Canada will suffer from Trump’s tariffs, it might help limit the ability of Trump (and any future president) to use trade policy for political leverage in our bilateral relationship. After all, there’s no guarantee that the next president will not be a Trump acolyte.