This is not something I thought I would see from Mike Lee

[Brian4Liberty]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered" - TJ

Mike Lee has co-sponsored a Bill with Chuck Schumer that will facilitate one of the greatest scams in the history of the world. Taking real estate from Americans, turning it over to Wall St. bankers, who will then import buyers who will be forced to pay high prices in exchange for citizenship.

Perhaps this is an attempt to artificially re-inflate the real estate market, but is that what we believe in? Government programs to distort the markets and directly or indirectly favor the bankers? When will the market reach it's true bottom so that it can recover? When will regular Americans be able to purchase a home? This is market intervention of the worst kind. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, if Mike Lee thinks that supporting this Bill with Chuck Schumer is a good idea, I seriously question his judgement.


The reeling housing market has come to this: To shore it up, two Senators are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill Thursday that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.

The provision is part of a larger package of immigration measures, co-authored by Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), designed to spur more foreign investment in the U.S.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203752604576641421449460968.html

Government to turn foreclosed homes over to Goldman Sachs (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?313042-Government-to-turn-foreclosed-homes-over-to-Goldman-Sachs)

A Huge Housing Bargain -- but Not for You (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11224917/1/a-huge-housing-bargain--but-not-for-you.html)

Edit: New article with more details:

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2011/10/20/senators-lee-schumer-hope-to-boost-demand-for-homes-with-new-immigration-reform-bill/

[jkr]

W E
R
$oLD
O U T
!


AGAIN

wadda surprise

[FrankRep]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered" - Thomas Jefferson

FALSE QUOTE, Thomas Jefferson didn't say it. (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp)


====


The reeling housing market has come to this: To shore it up, two Senators are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill Thursday that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.


At least it will attract some rich foreigners to live in America. ;)

[1000-points-of-fright]

I don't see where the government is TAKING real estate from anyone.

[specsaregood]

FALSE QUOTE, Thomas Jefferson didn't say it.


Maybe not, but Mike Lee did say these:


“I will not vote for a single piece of legislation that I can’t reconcile with the text and the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution,”

“Stated differently, if I can’t imagine myself explaining to James Madison with a straight face why what I was doing was consistent with the text and history of the constitution as it’s been amended all 27 times, I’ll vote no. I’ll do it every single time regardless of what the precedent says or can get away with.”


So, I wonder how he'd explain this bill to Mr. Madison.

[Brian4Liberty]

FALSE QUOTE, Thomas Jefferson didn't say it. (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp)

And I thought it just came from Tijuana. (TJ) ;)

Yeah, controversial origins for that quote.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't see where the government is TAKING real estate from anyone.

Would "repossessing" be a better term? What percentage of foreclosed US real estate is now in the hands of Fannie and Freddie?

[V3n]

Brief History of American Response to Immigration (http://www.idexer.com/articles/immigration_response.htm) says:


When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.

James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.

We're talking a $500,000 investment. I can't afford that. So these would be people adding to the wealth of the community. Doesn't sound all that bad to me on first read. And if the above quote is accurate, I think James Madison would be for it.

I kind of don't like the 'elitist' feel of it, but that's just me.

[kylejack]

Maybe not, but Mike Lee did say these:


So, I wonder how he'd explain this bill to Mr. Madison.
Doesn't the Constitution give Congress the authority to set the rules for immigration and naturalization?

[Brian4Liberty]

At least it will attract some rich foreigners to live in America. ;)

That brings up the implementation of this market intervention Bill. Which "rich foreigners" will be able to take advantage of this? What kind of connections will it take? Just any person with $500,000? Or do you need connections to some business or government entity? Which insiders will benefit from this (other than the bankers who are getting US residential real estate from the government for pennies on the dollar)?

[Peace&Freedom]

And I thought it just came from Tijuana. (TJ) ;)

Yeah, controversial origins for that quote.

It's more accurate to say it's under-documented, than to say "false" (the Snopes husband and wife team are known to couch their non-conservative leanings in scholarly tones, and pejoratively describe quotes or concepts they disagree with). Although the first part of the quote has no source, the rest are direct paraphrases of documented comments Jefferson DID say, and did believe. The major is, this was Jefferson's view, the minors are the exact phrasing:

"The second part of the quotation ("I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...") may well be a paraphrase of a statement Jefferson made in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. He wrote, "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."[4]

The third part of this quotation ("The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs") may be a misquotation of Jefferson's comment to John Wayles Eppes, "Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs." [5]"

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

[specsaregood]

Brief History of American Response to Immigration (http://www.idexer.com/articles/immigration_response.htm) says:
We're talking a $500,000 investment. I can't afford that. So these would be people adding to the wealth of the community. Doesn't sound all that bad to me on first read. And if the above quote is accurate, I think James Madison would be for it.
I kind of don't like the 'elitist' feel of it, but that's just me.
However, if you are bringing in these "wealthy" people, it seems like it would inflate the prices of houses, hurting the community overall for existing americans looking to buy homes.




Doesn't the Constitution give Congress the authority to set the rules for immigration and naturalization?
Sure. I didn't dispute that.

[Brian4Liberty]

We're talking a $500,000 investment. I can't afford that. So these would be people adding to the wealth of the community. Doesn't sound all that bad to me on first read. And if the above quote is accurate, I think James Madison would be for it.

I kind of don't like the 'elitist' feel of it, but that's just me.

Taking wealth into account as part of the criteria for immigration is one issue. Attempting to artificially inflate and manipulate a market is a different issue.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's more accurate to say it's under-documented, than to say "false" (the Snopes husband and wife team are known to couch their non-conservative leanings in scholarly tones, and pejoratively describe quotes or concepts they disagree with).

Yep, Snopes isn't the final word.

[jkr]

BUT "WE" have been giving mill-BILLIONS to people all over the earth including our "enemies"


and the only criteria is cash?

and they think this is smart?


i give up, where can all the sane people move to while the ignorant violent masses destroy each other?

[JoshLowry]

What specifically makes him a traitor?


it seems like it would inflate the prices of houses, hurting the community overall for existing americans looking to buy homes.

Yea, real estate consultants look at comparable properties that have sold in the past three to six months when determining what to offer on a listing.

[kylejack]

It isn't artificial inflation. It's just making the market accessible to a greater portion of the world. I see nothing traitorous here and it could be great for the housing market.

[specsaregood]

It isn't artificial inflation. It's just making the market accessible to a greater portion of the world. I see nothing traitorous here and it could be great for the housing market.

At the root it is artificial since it is based on USD. USD = world reserve currency -> it is cheaper to export our debt than to create goods -> money goes over seas as well jobs due to artificial demand for USD to buy petro -> american lose jobs and income levels as unlimited debt credit card spurs growth in other countries -> foreigners get richer off us debt -> and return to bid up the price of homes against americans that lost their jobs and wages due to giant sucking sound created by us debt currency.

[turbobrain9]

I don't like the idea...the last thing this country needs is more rich non-citizens living here...since wall st and the banks got the bail outs,why should the homes be turned over to the banks...

[Brian4Liberty]

What specifically makes him a traitor?


I would like to see the full text of the Bill, but at this point, this is not something I thought I would see from Mike for several reasons:

- co-sponsoring a bill that attempts to manipulate markets.
- co-sponsoring a bill that caters to the special interests of Wall St. bankers and the real estate industry.
- co-sponsoring a bill that increases immigration during high unemployment (and I would like to find out if this has amnesty provisions, as it is an "immigration" bill, co-sponsored by Chucky).
- co-sponsoring a bill with Chucky Schumer in general. (Just has trouble written all over it!)
- And at a macro level, taking part (unknowingly) in a huge scam, as detailed in the OP, that removes American from their homes.

Granted, the term "traitor" is inflammatory, but I was inflamed at the moment. ;)

[JoshLowry]

I'm wondering if the thread title is appropriate or if "this is not something I thought I would see from Mike" would be better?

[kylejack]

At the root it is artificial since it is based on USD. USD = world reserve currency -> it is cheaper to export our debt than to create goods -> money goes over seas as well jobs due to artificial demand for USD to buy petro -> american lose jobs and income levels as unlimited debt credit card spurs growth in other countries -> foreigners get richer off us debt -> and return to bid up the price of homes against americans that lost their jobs and wages due to giant sucking sound created by us debt currency.
If this backlog of houses doesn't get cleared, new houses don't get built and the construction industry continues to languish. I'm not seeing the problem with an endorsement of free market capitalism. Let people buy these houses.

And in fact, there is already an immigrant visa of this nature, so I'm not sure what's new about this...I'll look into it.

[brushfire]

Wasn't Utah litigating the Federal government over its use of "eminent domain" on federally owned land? What's up with Mike Lee? How would his constituents take his sponsoring of this bill?

[specsaregood]

If this backlog of houses doesn't get cleared, new houses don't get built and the construction industry continues to languish. I'm not seeing the problem with an endorsement of free market capitalism. Let people buy these houses.


If there is a backlog of houses then, clearly new houses don't need to be built. you want to get rid of the backlog of houses? Stop propping up prices. This entire scenario is just a scheme to keep the houses from coming back down to the correct price. It is free market capitalism for the government to give favored treatment?

[kylejack]

If there is a backlog of houses then, clearly new houses don't need to be built.
But I thought you were concerned about the American unemployed? Bring more well to do citizens in, let them live here and spend money creating jobs. Nothing is being 'propped up' by allowing people to buy a home they didn't have access to.

[Diurdi]

At the root it is artificial since it is based on USD. What is "artificial" from a purely free market perspective is keeping people from moving to the US and thus keeping demand "artificially" low. This legislation allows certain individuals to act on their personal demand of of $500,000+ real estate, but still keeps the demand for <$500,000 real estate "artificially" low.

This imbalance between the two cathegories of houses is however going to cause some problems by propping up the 500k+ market. People who normally would've moved to the US and bought an below 500k house will now be buying a much more expensive above 500k house.

Oh, and just because I use the word 'artificial' does not mean it's bad. Sometimes it's good to limit who can come to your country.

[BattleFlag1776]

If there is a backlog of houses then, clearly new houses don't need to be built. you want to get rid of the backlog of houses? Stop propping up prices. This entire scenario is just a scheme to keep the houses from coming back down to the correct price. It is free market capitalism for the government to give favored treatment?

Exactly! Let's don't allow those banks to lose one cent on their investment. Risk and loss are only to be applied to the homeowner.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm wondering if the thread title is appropriate or if "this is not something I thought I would see from Mike" would be better?

Possible alternative titles:

"Mike Lee has lost my support - he may be selling out"
"Mike Lee has lost my support - he's got some explaining to do"
"Mike Lee has lost my support - A market interventionist Bill?"

[specsaregood]

But I thought you were concerned about the American unemployed?
And? That doesnt mean I think they should be doing construction when there is a glut of houses on the market.



Bring more well to do citizens in, let them live here and spend money creating jobs. Nothing is being 'propped up' by allowing people to buy a home they didn't have access to.
Its government granting special privileges, and in fact it is proppping up the price of houses because it is giving those immigrants an extra bonus for buying the house in the form of visas. They saying we'll give you a visa IF you buy this house.

This adds ontop of the real value of the house the value of the visa at no extra expense. == propping up the value.

[Anti Federalist]

If there is a backlog of houses then, clearly new houses don't need to be built. you want to get rid of the backlog of houses? Stop propping up prices. This entire scenario is just a scheme to keep the houses from coming back down to the correct price. It is free market capitalism for the government to give favored treatment?

+rep

[eduardo89]

I would like to see the full text of the Bill, but at this point, this is not something I thought I would see from Mike for several reasons:

- co-sponsoring a bill that attempts to manipulate markets.

The impact of this bill will probably be negligible when looking at the housing market overall. The vast majority of homes on the market are <$500,000. This bill only relates to those above half a million dollars.


- co-sponsoring a bill that caters to the special interests of Wall St. bankers and the real estate industry.

I don't see how creating incentive for foreigners to buy expensive homes and bring in their capital really affects Wall St. bankers that much. These people aren't going to be getting mortgages and if they do bring capital to the US, that's a benefit for everyone. The real estate industry isn't going to see much of a boost from this, there are very few homes in this price range.


- co-sponsoring a bill that increases immigration during high unemployment (and I would like to find out if this has amnesty provisions, as it is an "immigration" bill, co-sponsored by Chucky).
Again, there are very few people who can afford to take advantage of this bill. And people who can afford to just come here and put up >$500,000 on a home upfront are the kind of people we want in this country. Also, most people who have those means can get here anyway as they are most likely highly educated and from first world countries which already gives them an advantage of getting residency.


- co-sponsoring a bill with Chucky Schumer in general. (Just has trouble written all over it!)

This I might agree with, but there is no evidence that this is the case until we get to see the final bill.


- And at a macro level, taking part (unknowingly) in a huge scam, as detailed in the OP, that removes American from their homes.

Granted, the term "traitor" is inflammatory, but I was inflamed at the moment. ;)

Where does it say that Americans will be removed from their homes for this? There are hundreds of thousands of empty houses across the country, millions if you count those foreclosed on (that is not removing someone from their house, they are as at fault as the banks who lent them money they could not pay back).

[kylejack]

This doesn't apply only to houses owned by banks. This benefits homeowners trying to sell their home as well.

[Anti Federalist]

Globalized Gentrification.

Just what the middle class needs right now.

[Brian4Liberty]

Exactly! Let's don't allow those banks to lose one cent on their investment. Risk and loss are only to be applied to the homeowner.

You got it. Losses are for mundanes.

[brushfire]

If there is a backlog of houses then, clearly new houses don't need to be built. you want to get rid of the backlog of houses? Stop propping up prices. This entire scenario is just a scheme to keep the houses from coming back down to the correct price. It is free market capitalism for the government to give favored treatment?

Market corrections = stimulus. There will be people who lose, but there will be people who win too.

[kylejack]

Market interference is telling peaceful financially-secure people that they can't come in to this country and invest.

[Peace&Freedom]

And what happens when these foreign investors default on their mortgages en masse, due to complications stemming from the collapse of their own countries in the EU?

[kylejack]

More on the EB-5 Visa


The EB-5 visa for Immigrant Investors is a United States visa created by the Immigration Act of 1990. This visa provides a method of obtaining a green card for foreign nationals who invest money in the United States.[1] To obtain the visa, individuals must invest $1,000,000 (or at least $500,000 in a targeted employment area), creating or preserving at least 10 jobs.[2]

By investing in certain qualified investments or regional centers with high unemployment rates, the required investment amount is $500,000. The Immigrant Investor Pilot Program was created by Section 610 of Public Law 102-395 on October 6, 1992. This was in accordance to a Congressional mandate aimed at stimulating economic activity and job growth, while allowing eligible aliens the opportunity to become lawful permanent residents. This "Pilot Program" required only $500,000 of investment in exchange for permanent resident status. The investment could only be received by an economic unit defined as a Regional Center.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa

So hm, not sure what the difference is between that and this.

[BattleFlag1776]

But I thought you were concerned about the American unemployed? Bring more well to do citizens in, let them live here and spend money creating jobs. Nothing is being 'propped up' by allowing people to buy a home they didn't have access to.

There is no "new access" being granted here. If you've got the cash and are foreign, you can buy property in this country. Nothing new about that at all. But you've got to have cash and that is where the "propping up" creeps in.

The article states that the total investment is 500K and that as little as 250K can be applied to a house. The majority of bank-owned houses lie in the 250-500K range. Those banks don't want to lose a dime on their investment (even though they were bailed out for not properly assessing the risk of making those mortgages) and this proposed legislation is a way to see that they don't. This isn't about shoring up the housing market first. Instead, it's about propping up the banks first...and hoping it shores up the housing market second. If at all.

In other words, lets inject a bunch of capital into a depressed market, drive the prices up, which in turn drives up comps and the banks get to sell their houses/lots/condos, etc for what they've got them on the books for making it look like it is a steal to the purchaser. It's a shell game.

[kylejack]

There is no "new access" being granted here. If you've got the cash and are foreign, you can buy property in this country. Nothing new about that at all. But you've got to have cash and that is where the "propping up" creeps in.

The article states that the total investment is 500K and that as little as 250K can be applied to a house. The majority of bank-owned houses lie in the 250-500K range. Those banks don't want to lose a dime on their investment (even though they were bailed out for not properly assessing the risk of making those mortgages) and this proposed legislation is a way to see that they don't. This isn't about shoring up the housing market first. Instead, it's about propping up the banks first...and hoping it shores up the housing market second. If at all.

In other words, lets inject a bunch of capital into a depressed market, drive the prices up, which in turn drives up comps and the banks get to sell their houses/lots/condos, etc for what they've got them on the books for making it look like it is a steal to the purchaser. It's a shell game.
This benefits anyone trying to sell or lease property (homes or businesses), not just banks.

[angelatc]

It isn't artificial inflation. It's just making the market accessible to a greater portion of the world. I see nothing traitorous here and it could be great for the housing market.

Selling VISAS in order to reinflate the housing market seems kind of scummy, especially after you consider that when one person gets a visa, their entire extended family jumps to the front of the line.

The real estate market is already accessible to the whole world, btw.

[Anti Federalist]

Good explanation.

While the "inflation and deflation" part of the quote can be pretty safely dismissed as factious, since the usages of those terms to describe monetary tomfoolery by government had not even come into use during Jefferson's time, this is a documented quote and just as powerful:

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.


It's more accurate to say it's under-documented, than to say "false" (the Snopes husband and wife team are known to couch their non-conservative leanings in scholarly tones, and pejoratively describe quotes or concepts they disagree with). Although the first part of the quote has no source, the rest are direct paraphrases of documented comments Jefferson DID say, and did believe. The major is, this was Jefferson's view, the minors are the exact phrasing:

"The second part of the quotation ("I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...") may well be a paraphrase of a statement Jefferson made in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. He wrote, "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."[4]

The third part of this quotation ("The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs") may be a misquotation of Jefferson's comment to John Wayles Eppes, "Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs." [5]"

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

[Brian4Liberty]

The impact of this bill will probably be negligible when looking at the housing market overall. The vast majority of homes on the market are <$500,000. This bill only relates to those above half a million dollars.

There are no homes for less than $500,000.00 in a 30 mile radius from where I am (major metro area). Unless you want to live in 60 year old, one bedroom shack in a free-fire, no man's zone.


I don't see how creating incentive for foreigners to buy expensive homes and bring in their capital really affects Wall St. bankers that much. These people aren't going to be getting mortgages and if they do bring capital to the US, that's a benefit for everyone. The real estate industry isn't going to see much of a boost from this, there are very few homes in this price range.

Did you read the OP or any of the links? Freddie, Fannie, and big Wall St. banks hold the paper on the majority of defaulting homes. Freddie and Fannie are going to hand the ones that they hold over to Wall St. banks at a severe discount. They want to keep prices high so that they can sell high. And they get what they want.


Where does it say that Americans will be removed from their homes for this? There are hundreds of thousands of empty houses across the country, millions if you count those foreclosed on (that is not removing someone from their house, they are as at fault as the banks who lent them money they could not pay back).

Americans are being removed from their homes everyday. It has been going on for years. Most can not pay their mortgages due to decreases in wages or unemployment. Now the banks hold those homes, but they don't put them on the market. They are waiting for government programs to help them make more profit before they will sell. What kind of free market is that?

[Anti Federalist]

That.

Pretty clear who runs the show in this country, isn't it?


There is no "new access" being granted here. If you've got the cash and are foreign, you can buy property in this country. Nothing new about that at all. But you've got to have cash and that is where the "propping up" creeps in.

The article states that the total investment is 500K and that as little as 250K can be applied to a house. The majority of bank-owned houses lie in the 250-500K range. Those banks don't want to lose a dime on their investment (even though they were bailed out for not properly assessing the risk of making those mortgages) and this proposed legislation is a way to see that they don't. This isn't about shoring up the housing market first. Instead, it's about propping up the banks first...and hoping it shores up the housing market second. If at all.

In other words, lets inject a bunch of capital into a depressed market, drive the prices up, which in turn drives up comps and the banks get to sell their houses/lots/condos, etc for what they've got them on the books for making it look like it is a steal to the purchaser. It's a shell game.

[kylejack]

Selling VISAS in order to reinflate the housing market seems kind of scummy, especially after you consider that when one person gets a visa, their entire extended family jumps to the front of the line.

The real estate market is already accessible to the whole world, btw.
In an ideal world I would agree, but with our social entitlement system in place, the government wants to ensure they're not getting immigrants incapable of caring for themselves. There are other sorts of immigrant visas for different types of immigrants.

[BattleFlag1776]

This benefits anyone trying to sell or lease property (homes or businesses), not just banks.

I don't disagree with you at all there. However, banks are currently more concerned with clearing their collateral summaries than they are making mortgages these days, regardless of your credit score. And that is the issue here to me.

I don't care who buys a house and who sells a house but when the only way to ensure a correction is to say "cash only," the housing market gets wrecked in our credit-driven economy. There simply are not enough foreigners willing to make that investment and break the log jam. The banks must take the loss here and break the log jam. That's what was missing from TARP.

[Brian4Liberty]

More on the EB-5 Visa


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa

So hm, not sure what the difference is between that and this.

Well, there you go. It's a slippery slope of government intervention. At first, it's just to help with employment. Now it's to prop up the Wall St. bankers.

[Brian4Liberty]

If this backlog of houses doesn't get cleared, new houses don't get built and the construction industry continues to languish. I'm not seeing the problem with an endorsement of free market capitalism. Let people buy these houses.


Yes, let people buy these homes. That is exactly what is not happening right now. They are not allowing the correction to occur. Ron Paul would be the first to tell you that.

[kylejack]

Well, there you go. It's a slippery slope of government intervention. At first, it's just to help with employment. Now it's to prop up the Wall St. bankers.
My point was that I am not seeing the distinction between what is proposed and existing policy for the last 20 years. I think I'll need to find a better article with the proposed changes.

[kylejack]

Ideally I would like to see any person who isn't a dangerous criminal or diseased permitted to come into the United States. It's time to put a stop to racist quotas and other such nonsense and welcome all peaceful people into our country. As I see it, this lets some of them in.

It's kind of like Ron Paul proposing to end income tax for waitstaff. Liberate whatever people you can and keep fighting the system as a whole.

[Brian4Liberty]

In an ideal world I would agree, but with our social entitlement system in place, the government wants to ensure they're not getting immigrants incapable of caring for themselves.

There is no means testing for most government handouts, just income tests. It is a well known scam in many immigrant communities. With the Schumer/Lee plan, there would probably be a large percentage of retired foreigners who would spend every last penny on that house, move here, and then immediately sign up for government support.

[kylejack]

There is no means testing for most government handouts, just income tests.
As just one example, hospital ERs are required to provide emergency care to anyone who comes in. But a capable person of means isn't going to want the same level of care as a guy mowing lawns who got hurt on the job, they're going to want a better level of care, and they're willing to pay for it.

It is these forms of support that are most important to protect, because immigrants are not eligible for most overt government handout programs (like Section 8 housing, for example).

[klamath]

I don't see a problem sith this. It is right in congresses constitutional authority.

[anaconda]

Would "repossessing" be a better term? What percentage of foreclosed US real estate is now in the hands of Fannie and Freddie?

What's wrong with repossessing? The previous buyer defaulted. Don't see a problem there (although Fannie and Freddie should be kept a million miles away from this). The problem is that the Federal government is putting a form of price floor on real estate by attaching a citizenship package to it. Which distorts the housing market and other markets. As soon as the program ends, sellers no longer have this pool of "$500,000-ready" purchasers. It's just another subsidy and bubble protractor.

[Jake Ralston]

We need to find out if the homes are being bought on credit or with capital.

It would not be "reinflating the housing bubble" if the homes were paid for in full. In fact I think that would be a great way to sell the bill. Like others have mentioned it would also bring forth high income families that would contribute to our local economies.

In the end it's supply and demand. The supply is obviously there, and I believe the demand is there to meet that supply if people are willing to relocate and purchase the homes with capital. This would actually stablize the housing market.

[Brian4Liberty]

What's wrong with repossessing? The previous buyer defaulted. Don't see a problem there (although Fannie and Freddie should be kept a million miles away from this). The problem is that the Federal government is putting a form of price floor on real estate by attaching a citizenship package to it. Which distorts the housing market and other markets. As soon as the program ends, sellers no longer have this pool of "$500,000-ready" purchasers. It's just another subsidy and bubble protractor.

Yep.

As for repossessing, you can't just look at one step in the scam and say that "oh, that's OK". It's far more complex than that. This is the culmination of a long series of actions, which served to redistribute wealth from the middle-class to the 1%... The Federal Reserve and Wall St. bankers have played the largest part in it.

[Brian4Liberty]

In the end it's supply and demand. The supply is obviously there, and I believe the demand is there to meet that supply if people are willing to relocate and purchase the homes with capital. This would actually stablize the housing market.

Every single house that has been foreclosed could be sold in a single day at auction. There is plenty of domestic demand. That would stabilize the housing market.

But they aren't listing or selling the vast majority of those properties. Even houses that they do list are hard to purchase. No one in the process is very cooperative; not the realtors, not the banks, not the holder of the deed.

[Deborah K]

Hopefully this will die in the house. No pun intended.

[devil21]

Other countries have been doing things like this for a long time. The US has been a holdout. The catch? The countries that practice this sort of thing are usually third-world banana republics! Ive seen people here mention relocating to Costa Rica as things dissolve here. Want resident status and eventually Costa Rican citizenship? BRING YOUR CHECKBOOK. $250,000 in deposits in Costa Rican banks and you're in. $50,000 investment in a tourism venture and you're in. Start or represent a multinational corporation and have your office in Costa Rica and you're in. Etc. Buying of citizenship in the form of "investment" goes on all over the place. It's more telling that we're considering following the lead of third-worlders to boost our economy. It means we're fucked and they're running out of ideas.

(Btw, don't put too much stock into Mike Lee. He says some good things. He also used to work for Jon Huntsman.)

[nobody's_hero]

Taking wealth into account as part of the criteria for immigration is one issue. Attempting to artificially inflate and manipulate a market is a different issue.

And that's the nail you're aiming the hammer at. This government has done everything possible, unlawful, and downright rediculous to prop up real-estate values since the bust in 2008 (and before that). Anything to keep them inflated! Those $500K houses are overpriced junk assets owned by banks trying to defy the reality of an economy murdered by government policies. We might as well be giving these folks a $600K home buyer tax credit as well.

[phill4paul]

The whoring of America continues.

[Brian4Liberty]

Chuck Schumer was just on CNN pushing this proposal. He mentioned that he worked closely with people in the banking, real estate and building industries. How much more obvious can corporatism get?

Another thing he said was interesting: he is targeting high-end real estate* because if you help out the high-end, the rest of the economy will follow. Now he's Chucky "trickle-down" Schumer. How nice. Helping out the high-end because they are suffering so much. You people with houses less than $500k, no relief for you!

They also made a big deal about how it was bi-partisan. Thanks Mike.

(*Obviously, $500k is relative to any given market. In many areas, that is a lot, in some Metro areas, that is nothing.)

[kylejack]

We need to find out if the homes are being bought on credit or with capital.
It says cash purchases only.

[kylejack]

What we're dealing with is two separate provisions. The one to shunt all the houses off on to Goldman is a bad idea. That company is infested with scumbags. The second is allowing investors a residency visa if they buy houses in the troubled housing market. This is a winning idea.

Rich people moving into the country is great. They create jobs in many different sectors.

[nobody's_hero]

The second is allowing investors a residency visa if they buy houses in the troubled housing market. This is a winning idea.

Why not just let the price of houses fall (deflate) like they should have done after the bubble popped in 2008 so people here can actually move up?

If you really want to know why the housing market is troubled . . . I mean.

[anaconda]

Every single house that has been foreclosed could be sold in a single day at auction. There is plenty of domestic demand. That would stabilize the housing market.


I think for auctions you have to pay cash. Few people can do that. Plus you have little or no opportunity to check out the homes. Few people want to do that. Plus I'm not so sure that there are very many credit worthy customers out there if you're talking about financing purchases. It will take years to clear the foreclosure market. On the other hand, it's a mind bogglingly good opportunity for someone with good credit to buy cheap foreclosures and rent them out with positive cash flow. My girlfriend is doing this.

[kylejack]

Why not just let the price of houses fall (deflate) like they should have done after the bubble popped in 2008 so people here can actually move up?

If you really want to know why the housing market is troubled . . . I mean.
The deflated prices are harming people who had nothing to do with the crisis, people who are trying to sell their home. It costs us nothing and only costs potential immigrants who should be permitted to come in anyway.

[SharedSacrifice]

From the OP's article (linked/WSJ):

"...Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out.."

I believe that the discussion so far has somehow ignored the finer print...just as the sponsors of this bill have intended.

This is obviously both a trial balloon and (if successfully advanced) perhaps a presidential race tightening/splitting issue should any candidate choose to frame it correctly. With 84 billion spent this year and IIRC some 40 odd billion spent last...wouldn't a prudent candidate be looking in to exactly how 125 billion or so flowed in 'so far' with 'no' expectancy of residency to begin with? (especially when the article quotes a realtor as saying that nearly every listing she's put on the market in San Marino CA "has had at least one full price cash offer from a buyer from mainland China.").

Buy a house for $250,000...buy several more to rent...move the wife and kids to the promised land unencumbered with your brand new visas...move the rest of your family, neighborhood or 'social club' in to the rentals (whether they have visas or not) where they'll all be less likely to draw suspicion under your guiding and supportive (legal) care.

Warren Buffet this summer from the WSJ article (and why they'd just as soon the "$500,000" vs $250,000 figure keep being bandied about):
"...If you wanted to change your immigration policy so that you let 500,000 families in but they have to have a significant net worth and everything, you'd solve things very quickly..."

Very quickly indeed...

[Brian4Liberty]

The second is allowing investors a residency visa if they buy houses in the troubled housing market. This is a winning idea.

Rich people moving into the country is great. They create jobs in many different sectors.

Well, if we are just throwing out criteria for these immigrants, why not also have them sign a contract that they will never take any subsidies or entitlements from the US government for the rest of their lives? How about an additional $1 million dollar visa fee payable to the US government debt? The richer the better, right?

[Brian4Liberty]

I think for auctions you have to pay cash. Few people can do that. Plus you have little or no opportunity to check out the homes. Few people want to do that.

The auctions I have seen had a weekend where you could check out the house. And many people can pay cash at true market value.

Auctions aside, I know someone who bought a house last month, and she had to twist arms left and right to buy that house. It was a listed house, she was paying cash, and everyone in the process tried to stall that sale from occurring. Probably the only reason she was successful was because she had been a realtor for many years, and could call them on their BS when they tried to prevent the sale with excuses and lies.

[nobody's_hero]

The deflated prices are harming people who had nothing to do with the crisis, people who are trying to sell their home. It costs us nothing and only costs potential immigrants who should be permitted to come in anyway.

Sure, and there are at least as many people who didn't have anything to do with the crisis who would like to buy a home. Maybe not a $500k home, but they might buy old homes of people who are looking to upgrade but are unwilling to pay for an overpriced home.

If you're a home owner looking to sell, take what you can get for it and cut your losses and stop looking at homes as investments you can flip for a quick buck (thanks to government policies that created this illusion), and instead look at them simply as places to live.

That's what young people are looking to do. Move out and get a place to live. Who cares about making a ton of money on a home sale? Cut your losses and move on so property values can return to reasonable rates.

This is simply another government policy designed to keep real estate prices inflated. The people who authored this bill could care less about immigrants. They're just doing what the realtor and banker lobbyists are paying them to do.

[anaconda]

The auctions I have seen had a weekend where you could check out the house. And many people can pay cash at true market value.

Auctions aside, I know someone who bought a house last month, and she had to twist arms left and right to buy that house. It was a listed house, she was paying cash, and everyone in the process tried to stall that sale from occurring. Probably the only reason she was successful was because she had been a realtor for many years, and could call them on their BS when they tried to prevent the sale with excuses and lies.

Why did the sellers want to prevent the sale?

[angelatc]

In an ideal world I would agree, but with our social entitlement system in place, the government wants to ensure they're not getting immigrants incapable of caring for themselves. There are other sorts of immigrant visas for different types of immigrants.

Yeah, this is one of those deals I can make a case for, but it just doesn't sit right with me. WIth the price of homes right now, they might as well advertise it as "Buy a visa, get a free home!"

[Brian4Liberty]

Why did the sellers want to prevent the sale?

No answers from them, but you could only guess that they (the bank) didn't want to sell at the market price, and the realtors probably figure that lower price means lower commission. They probably like to list them and not sell so that they can claim there are no buyers, justifying a program just like what Mike and Chucky have proposed for them. Same concept as putting wants ads in the paper with no intention of actually hiring anyone, they just want "evidence" that they can't find anyone, justifying some government program or allowing immigration of cheaper labor.

[kylejack]

Well, if we are just throwing out criteria for these immigrants, why not also have them sign a contract that they will never take any subsidies or entitlements from the US government for the rest of their lives? How about an additional $1 million dollar visa fee payable to the US government debt? The richer the better, right?
I think all people (except criminals and diseased) should be allowed to immigrate to this country. I support free markets, free peoples, and open borders. Others are worried about social welfare programs, so it makes sense to start with those who can sustain themselves.

[MaxPower]

FALSE QUOTE, Thomas Jefferson didn't say it. (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp)


====




At least it will attract some rich foreigners to live in America. ;)
It's a partly-false quote, but it pretty accurately reflects Thomas Jefferson's position on the issue in question.

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, if we are just throwing out criteria for these immigrants, why not also have them sign a contract that they will never take any subsidies or entitlements from the US government for the rest of their lives? How about an additional $1 million dollar visa fee payable to the US government debt? The richer the better, right?

More info on the program includes this about government benefits. This would probably apply for the duration of the Visa. Doubt it would apply to the future after they become citizens.:


Applicants would still be subject to standard criminal and national security background checks and, once approved, would not be able to receive government benefits such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2011/10/20/senators-lee-schumer-hope-to-boost-demand-for-homes-with-new-immigration-reform-bill/

[anaconda]

No answers from them, but you could only guess that they (the bank) didn't want to sell at the market price, and the realtors probably figure that lower price means lower commission. They probably like to list them and not sell so that they can claim there are no buyers, justifying a program just like what Mike and Chucky have proposed for them. Same concept as putting wants ads in the paper with no intention of actually hiring anyone, they just want "evidence" that they can't find anyone, justifying some government program or allowing immigration of cheaper labor.

Ah, good reasoning on your part. In other words, the anticipation of government perks.