HUD ends FHA mortgages for illegal immigrants: 'Should benefit Americans who play by the rules'
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) terminated some mortgages for illegal immigrants in an effort to ensure federal home loans don't go to those living in the U.S. illegally.
HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced the move Wednesday, a day after news of a joint effort with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to focus on homeownership for Americans.
"Today, HUD terminated Biden's taxpayer-backed FHA mortgages for illegal aliens," Turner wrote on X. "American taxpayers will no longer subsidize open borders by offering home loans to those who enter our nation illegally."
In another post, Turner said HUD-backed mortgages should benefit Americans "who play by the rules and work hard, not those who enter our country illegally."
"Today, HUD acted to protect the American Dream of homeownership," he wrote.
On Monday, Turner and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem signed a memo to end "wasteful misappropriation" of taxpayer-funded public housing resources going to illegal immigrants rather than U.S. citizens.
The initiative will help with data sharing between the two agencies via newly established lines of communication, officials said. A news release said U.S. veterans stood to benefit from the move.
"American tax dollars should be used for the benefit of American citizens, especially when it comes to an issue as pressing as our nation's housing crisis," Turner said Monday. "This new agreement will leverage resources, including technology and personnel, to ensure American people are the only priority when it comes to public housing.
"We will continue to work closely with DHS to maximize our resources and put American citizens first."
Roughly 9 million people live in subsidized housing across the country, according to HUD. About 59% of noncitizen households — those including green card holders or illegal immigrants — use one or more public assistance programs, costing taxpayers as much as $42 billion annually, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower immigration levels.
Upon taking office, President Donald Trump called for greater oversight to stop illegal immigrants from accessing taxpayer-funded resources.
During the Biden administration, tens of millions of dollars were spent on housing for migrants, including for all-expense-paid stays at hotels for some.
Some states, such as Pennsylvania and Arizona, passed measures during the Biden administration aimed at ensuring illegal immigrants do not take public housing resources from Americans who need them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is hammering President Trump over the clashes in Los Angeles, saying the president is purposefully escalating tensions to distract the country from a volatile economy. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Jeffries railed against Trump's aggressive deportation policies and defended the rights of Americans to protest such government actions — if it's done peacefully. He accused Trump of 'fanning flames and inciting things on the ground' to distract from a domestic policy agenda that Jeffries has dubbed 'a failure.' 'Donald Trump is clearly trying to distract from the fact that he has a failed administration,' Jeffries said. The Democratic leader also dismissed Trump's argument that, by intervening in the L.A. immigration protests, he's simply bringing law and order to a city where local officials have failed to do so. Jeffries noted that Trump, for hours, had declined to intervene on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked law enforcers at the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the certification of Trump's election defeat a few months earlier. In January, Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of the rioters — a move that, according to Jeffries, gives Trump and his supporters 'zero credibility' to claim the mantle of law and order. 'Donald Trump wasn't a leader on Jan. 6. He didn't send the National Guard to stop the violent mob that was brutally beating police officers in plain view for every single American to see,' Jeffries said. 'And this guy, who likely withheld the National Guard — he certainly didn't send them forward — is lecturing the country about law and order?' 'Give me a break. We're not feeling you — particularly as it relates to this issue,' he continued. 'Donald Trump and all of these minions who support him — the sycophants, the extremists — have zero credibility on this issue. Republicans have become the party of lawlessness and disorder.' Amid the unrest in L.A., Trump over the weekend activated members of the National Guard, drawing criticisms from California officials — notably Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — who said local law enforcement agencies are sufficiently equipped to handle the situation without the involvement of federal troops. Newsom announced Monday that he is suing the administration over the federal intervention. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom posted on X. 'He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' Jeffries is standing squarely behind Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D), a former member of the House, who have both argued that local and state law enforcers in California have the faculties and manpower to protect both First Amendment rights and public safety. 'The LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff's Department, other local law enforcement, and the California Highway Patrol, seem to have the capacity to make sure that the situation is addressed — that peaceful protests are allowed to occur, and that law-breakers are held accountable,' Jeffries said.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass deportations are an unnatural fit for a country purporting to be free
Across the country, immigration enforcement raids have sparked growing protests. Militarized federal agents, often in a confusingly ramshackle assortment of gear and uniforms, have been met by angry crowds shouting them down with chants of 'shame!' Over the weekend in Los Angeles, the federal government for the first time since 1965 deployed the National Guard over the objection of a state's governor. President Donald Trump "is sending 2,000 National Guard troops into LA County — not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X on Sunday. 'He's hoping for chaos so he can justify more crackdowns, more fear, more control.' The division and disorder on display are the culmination of an absurd premise which has long gone unchallenged: the whole concept of immigration restriction. This policy of segregation by place of birth presents a choice between three basic options. You can muddle along with de facto nonenforcement, putting swaths of the population and economy into a legal gray area and creating underground black markets. You can take the Trumpian tact of aggressive enforcement against millions of people, at the cost of civil liberties and social peace. Or you can confront the elephant in the room: the reality that these laws are unjust, unnecessary and an affront to the freedom of not just immigrants, but also citizens and our democratic republic. Mass removal is a profoundly unnatural fit for a country purporting to be free. Mass deportation and large-scale immigration enforcement require nothing less than a police state, and the more of a crackdown you demand, the more obviously it will look and act like a police state. When the government sends paramilitary-style law enforcement units into people's neighborhoods, this is no longer some abstract argument about 'the border.' It's Boyle Heights. It's Queens. It's Milwaukee. It's San Ysidro. It's armored vehicles and flash-bangs outside your grocery store. The administration's frequent line — including from Trump himself — is that only United States citizens possess legal and constitutional rights, such as due process. This is wrong as a matter of law and at best dubious as a matter of morality. Making the mere entry and presence of people illegal, turning millions who've committed no other offense into marginalized outlaws, undermines the foundations of a free society. But suppose, for argument's sake, you care only about the freedoms of native-born Americans. Any attempt to seriously enforce restrictionist immigration laws impinges on your liberties. The enforcement of such a sweeping prohibition, the division of society it entails, can only be accomplished with a massive enforcement machine to match. And citizens can be, and frequently are, caught up in that machine's grinding gears. Those horrified by the more physical means of enforcement may imagine that other, less direct methods can be sufficient to 'secure the border.' But policymakers have attempted for decades to impose administrative barriers to accomplish the exclusionary goal with fewer actual arrests. All 50 states now issue REAL ID-compliant identity cards, which are checked constantly in daily life. E-Verify, tenant screenings, banking rules and benefit restrictions are all burdens created to make undocumented life less desirable in hopes that people will simply leave of their own accord. Yet, millions remain, because even such burdens pale in comparison to tin-pot dictatorships, civil war or simply grinding poverty. When the paperwork fails, the boots arrive. To make mass deportation a reality, the government inevitably must send militarized agents into peaceful neighborhoods to sweep up cashiers, day laborers and housekeepers. It must unleash tear gas and violence in the streets when communities push back against raids on apartment buildings and local restaurants. It must intrude on personal relationships and violate privacy, freedom of association and economic liberty. It must tear away parents, traumatize innocent kids and shred trust in the law. To keep the assembly line of deportations moving, the government needs to trample due process with the truncated procedures offered by executive branch immigration courts, created to sidestep the independence of regular federal courts. It diverts law enforcement agencies from chasing real criminals. And it wastes tax money and sabotages the economy — all to no real benefit nothing except morally repellent abstractions about bloodlines and race. These destructive social dynamics always show up in the context of enforcing victimless offenses. Aside from marijuana use (another absurdly unenforceable federal prohibition), undocumented presence is probably America's most common victimless offense — unlike violent crimes or property crimes, which immigrants commit at a lower rate than native-born Americans, and which can and should be prosecuted in their own right. Claims about drains on resources ignore their real economic contributions to the tax base and exclusion from benefits. Social Security, for example, is actually subsidized by immigrants, including undocumented immigrants who still pay taxes. There is one truth on the other side of the equation: it is indeed corrosive to have laws on the books which go unenforced and widely flouted. That has been the reality of our immigration regime for far too long. But we now see that the solution isn't to tear apart our society while trying to enforce bad laws. Instead, we should repeal them. Every time we ban peaceful, voluntary conduct — crossing a border, renting a home, taking a job — we expand government power and shrink liberty. The trade-off is unavoidable. Across history, one of the main arcs of moral progress has been the advancement of legal equality regardless of arbitrary, immutable characteristics. Nothing is more arbitrary or immutable than your place of birth or whom you were born to. Our civic creed insists all are created equal. Anything else shackles us all to illiberal impositions and societal dysfunction. Push hard enough on mass deportation and Americans will meet ICE with human chains to protect their neighbors. Tear apart people's lives and communities, and they will start to fight back. Try to commandeer regular police, and states and localities will refuse. Produce endless horror stories and scenes of dystopian authoritarianism, and you can't keep pretending this is merely about building a wall through the desert. This has never been about just controlling the border, it's about controlling America, and at the end of the day Americans are not a people who like to be controlled. The reconstruction of a post-Trump America will require a radical liberalization of immigration laws. Our aspirations to be a free country and our reality of being a nation of immigrants are, and always will be, inseparable. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oakland coffee house at center of Star of David hat controversy sued by DOJ
(KRON) — An Oakland coffee house that refused to serve a customer wearing a hat emblazoned with a Star of David last year is being sued by the United States Department of Justice. On Monday, the DOJ announced it had filed a lawsuit against Fathi Abdulrahim Harara and Native Grounds LLC, the owners of the Jerusalem Coffee House on Telegraph Avenue. The lawsuit, according to the DOJ, alleges the coffee house discriminated against Jewish customers, a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation.' 'It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers,' said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. 'Through our vigorous enforcement of Title II of the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibiting race and religious discrimination, the Justice Department is committed to combatting anti-Semitism and discrimination and protecting the civil rights of all Americans.' Dozens of arrests after San Francisco protest turns violent Sunday The lawsuit alleges that on two occasions, Harara ordered Jewish customers, who were identified because they were wearing Star of David baseball caps, to leave the business. During one incident, the suit alleges, a Jerusalem Coffee Huse employee told a customer, 'You're the guy with the hat. You're the Jew. You're the Zionist. We don't want you in our coffee shop. Get out.' In another incident cited by the lawsuit, a customer wearing a Star of David hat who was with his 5-year-old son was told to leave repeatedly by Harara, who accused him of supporting 'genocide' and accused of 'trespassing.' That particular incident, which was partially caught on video, was condemned by local leaders including Rep. Ro Khanna and recently elected Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee. The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, further alleges that on the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terror attacks, the coffee house unveiled two new drinks: 'Iced In Tea Fada,' and 'Sweet Sinwar,' a reference to former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. The coffee shop's interior walls, according to the lawsuit, displayed inverted red triangles, 'a symbol of violence against Jews that has been spraypainted on Jewish homes and synagogues in anti-Semitic attacks.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
