 |
| On Friday Gavin Newsom Vetoed a Bill that would have given Undocumented Immigrants eligibility to house-loans Andrew Harnik/TNS, The San Franciso Chronicle |
Undocumented immigrants have been a hotbed of controversy in the U.S. -- partly because more and more come in every single year, but also because it raises the question of what to do–should we give them the same benefits that we give to registered citizens, or do we try to push them out because they are undocumented?
The issue with undocumented immigrants has been brought to the spotlight in California when Joaquin Arambula, a Californian Democrat, authored the Assembly Bill 1840 that would have given immigrants without legal status eligibility for house-loans up to $150,000 under the state program California Dream for All. For context, there were 1.8 million undocumented immigrants in 2022 residing in California, according to Pew Research Center. This figure has slightly declined in recent years, but California still ranks number one in terms of the undocumented immigrant population within the country.
However, this Friday, California Governor Gavin Newsom refused to sign the bill, claiming that “expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively.” Newsom justifies his decision by pointing out how the state program, California Dream for All, has no money left after using over $500 million, which was reserved for the program, to provide financial assistance to over four thousand families. Newsom further comments, “The bill that was sent to me was a program that had no money.” By claiming a lack of funds, Newsom seems to imply that there are more important matters to focus on, in spite of the huge undocumented immigrant population.
Although Newsom is a democrat, this decision to veto the bill appears to align with what Republicans want. Responding to the bill proposed by Arambula, Republican state Senator Brain Dahle agrees with Newsom’s overturn of the bill, saying “This was a bad idea. We don't have the resources available.” Other Republicans have criticized the bill, claiming that legal residents should be given priority for house-buying assistance, and that this bill would take away opportunities that citizens deserve.
Arambula, the framer of the bill, was “deeply disappointed” when he heard about Newsom’s decision, arguing that it was more about the symbolism than anything else. He explains, ““The veto doesn’t change the fact that many people–including undocumented immigrants–dream of owning a home so that generational wealth can be passed to their children.” Arambula makes a fair point of the bill’s intended purpose, but what has already been done in the state for undocumented immigrants is important to consider. Over 700,000 immigrants without legal status gained free healthcare via access to Medicaid earlier this year from a decision that Newsom made two years ago to expand healthcare access to everyone, including undocumented immigrants. Holistically, California has already contributed much effort to helping undocumented immigrants, so was this bill too much to ask for?
Well, as an added perspective, we can look at Newsom’s decision to veto in the context of the current political scene. This year’s presidential election is a fierce one, with both Democrats and Republicans pointing fingers at each other. Just this Thursday, a day before Newsom vetoed the bill, Trump called out Democrats at the Economic Club of New York, attacking them for being lax on matters of immigration and threatening to ban mortgages for illegal migrants in California. Given the timing of Trump’s statement and Newsom’s decision to veto the bill a day later, could it all be a coincidence, or was what Newsom did partially motivated by the election?
As our country moves forward, the issue of undocumented immigrants becomes increasingly apparent. The real question, then, is what will happen to undocumented immigrants in the future.
(For added context, banks are authorized to provide mortgages to undocumented immigrants, but this happens very rarely)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-governor-vetoes-bill-make-immigrants-legal-status-113472518
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-09-06/california-governor-vetoes-bill-to-help-undocumented-immigrants-buy-homes
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/us/immigrant-california-home-bill-veto.html
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-06/newsom-vetoes-bill-that-would-have-offered-home-mortgage-aid-to-undocumented-immigrants
4 comments:
The decision to veto the bill was likely equal parts lack of funding and political motivations. The issue of imigration, as you mentioned, is a very sensitive subject, but it does seem quite possible that a lack of funds was a genuine (partially contributing) reason. With rising debt and many pre-existing programs that already have proven successful in assissting immigrant families with housing, a "symbolic" bill like the one proposed seems a potential money-drainer with limited tangible benefits.
However, disregarding all financial incentives, there is still a very strong political motivator that is likely to have been Newsom's personal leading cause in vetoing the bill. Considering the idea floating around that Newsom is, at the very least, interested in a Presidential bid (which may be significantly postponed in the case of a democratic victory in the 2024 election), he is likely trying to placate aggressive Republicans while setting the stage to accrue a wider supporter base. Both of these reasonings would help keep Newsom in office for longer and in a more stable position to make that reach for the Executive Branch. Trump's statements, while having some influence, likely did not have a significant effect on Newsom's decision, considering efforts to push/reject the bill were already underway prior to Trump's words -- not to mention Trump is notorious for saying whatever he pleases. Thus Newsom's decision probably would not have swayed or placated Trump's views whatsoever.
Although Newsom's decision is most likely tied to an underlying political motive, it is important to note that he has vetoed bills on the basis of funding in the past. When Senate bill 799, and unemployment benefits bill for workers, was proposed he vetoed it on the basis of the programs million dollar debt. Even when Newsom does pass a bill he only does so on a negotiated agreement that emphasizes financial security, like bills regarding union workers. It is safe to say that, although it may not be primary, Newsom's stance on bills regardless of their nature/importance/popularity is to prioritize financial responsibility.
In a broader context, especially with an issue as controversial as immigration, regardless of Newsom's decision there would've been backlash from Americans from either side, those in support of immigration and the bill and those who are not. This is a great example of the division of two general political parties strengthening with every political decision being made as Newsom's decision was very Republican and backed up by Republicans, despite being a Democrat, and the people who supported the bill were much more Democratic.
More specifically, housing is a very significant issue, and the bill would undoubtedly have had a tremendously positive effect on relieving this issue for immigrants. However, financially and more realistically California only has so much in their budget to spend on issues like this and covering a more diverse range of problems would overall benefit Americans more. Though needless to say, immigration is an extremely worthy issue of tackling and the progress being made in the past with healthcare is very promising.
I think this is a very complicated issue because while I do understand the reasoning behind Newsom’s decision I feel like there could have been a better way to solve this issue rather than just vetoing the bill. I think it may have been a better option for Newsom to send back the bill and ask them to rewrite it in a way that required less funding. Because while I understand that budgeting is an issue of its own and is very crucial I think it is still important for all issues to be resolved fully and all bills be given full attention. What is important most of all is that political officials make decisions that align with the beliefs and values they have presented to the public mass. And in this case this decision seems to be leaning away from the beliefs he has presented and what his supporters believe. However, Newsom would have faced controversy no matter what he decided.
Post a Comment