• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The argument for it is probably similar to the argument for allowing dreamers to attend university and get white collar jobs. Some people were brought to the states when they were young, and America is all they know.

    Do you send someone to a place like Mexico even though they might not really speak fluent Spanish and or know the country well?

    • Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      But if this scenario were the case, then they likely would have visa sponsorship to work a white collar job. That would thus make them documented. Many banks have lending guidelines for this scenario, which again makes this law even more useless

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Makes me wonder if being a dreamer makes you a riskier loan applicant. Those folks don’t have permanent residency, they’re here under deferred action. If they have to leave, they’d be at increased risk of foreclosure.

    • papertowels
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It probably could’ve gotten more support if it was specifically for dreamers, for the reasons you point out.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, it wasn’t written in a way that would help with public perception or limit opportunities for political spin. Also, it was put on the governor’s desk during a general election year when immigration is a top issue.

        Even if the bill wouldn’t impact the housing market or state budget, it wasn’t crafted well.