Thread: NYT says American needs to sacrifice safe suburbs to make way for illegal aliens

Far-left New York Times says American middle class needs to sacrifice clean, safe suburbs to make way for illegal aliens

Friday, July 19, 2019 by: Ethan Huff
1,110 Views



(Natural News) If you like your neighborhood, you can’t keep it – at least not if The New York Times is successful in forcing middle class homeowners to sacrifice their quiet suburbs to accommodate more illegal aliens.

In a recent editorial entitled, “A New Approach on Housing Affordability,” those who run the Times attempt to make the case that it’s high time for average American citizens who’ve done pretty good for themselves to change their entire way of life for the benefit of poor “immigrants” who can’t afford to live in the same nice neighborhoods.

Using the buzzphrase “affordable housing” to describe what it would like to see more of throughout America, the editorial board at the Times laments that rents and housing prices are too high for millions of Americans, urging the government to intervene. But what the Times fails to mention is the fact that things wouldn’t be like this if the border was finally closed.
“The editorial starts with a complaint about housing prices – but it never mentions the obvious fix: Ending the federal policy of annually importing 1 million immigrant workers, consumers, and renters, which inflates housing prices and class competition for good neighborhoods and good schools,” writes Neil Munro for Breitbart News.
“Reduced immigration, in contrast, would raise Americans’ salaries, lower their housing prices, improve their schools, and also disappoint real-estate investors.”

For more on this topic, be sure to check out InvasionUSA.news.

American families living in detached, single-family homes that aren’t surrounded by apartment buildings filled with illegals is a cause of climate change, claims The New York Times

Though the editorial never actually uses the word “immigrant,” Munro points out that a series of other articles and editorials that have appeared in the Times over the past several months reveal the true agenda behind this sudden push towards making housing more affordable.
In praising the city of Minneapolis for ending single-family zoning, for instance, the editorial board at the Times deliberately left out the fact that this change was made to accommodate the 50,000 some-odd Somalian immigrants who were sent there during the Obama administration.
Minneapolis’ political leaders had tried to argue that ending single-family zoning was necessary to address “racial discrimination” – which is the same thing Seattle tried to do. But the fact remains that none of the 50,000 Somalians were around 93 years ago when this alleged discrimination existed.
As for this latest editorial in the Times, reading between the lines reveals that the plan is to force suburbanites to accept more poor people and “minorities,” or else face the potential loss of federal infrastructure funding.
“Proposals to make federal infrastructure funding contingent on land use reform also might be usefully extended by requiring affluent communities to accept affordable housing projects,” the board writes.
In other words, suburban families will either have to comply with welcoming in anyone and everyone whom the government wants to send, or else be forced to watch their communities fall apart due to a withholding of funds for keeping them maintained.
The Times‘ editorial board further contends that the existence of single-family homes in middle class suburbs “contributes to climate change,” and that the only way to fix the problem is to pack in as many illegal aliens as possible into high-density apartments.
“It constrains the economic potential of cities by limiting growth,” is how the board puts it, the insinuation being that every neighborhood and community in America must be forcibly urbanized in order to stop global warming and increase the availability of “affordable housing” for poor people living in the United States – illegal aliens included.
For more news about the left’s maniacal plans for transforming America into a third-world, communist “paradise,” be sure to check out Libtards.news.

Sources for this article include:
Breitbart.com
NaturalNews.com

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-...al-aliens.html

About the source:

Facebook bans health and conspiracy site Natural News [Updated ...
https://arstechnica.com/.../natural-...t-conspiracies...

Jun 10, 2019 - Facebook bans health and conspiracy site Natural News [Updated]. Conspiracist founder ... Wikipedia lists Natural News as a fake news blog.
-------------------------------

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

About the source:

Facebook bans health and conspiracy site Natural News [Updated ...
https://arstechnica.com/.../natural-...t-conspiracies...

Jun 10, 2019 - Facebook bans health and conspiracy site Natural News [Updated]. Conspiracist founder ... Wikipedia lists Natural News as a fake news blog.
-------------------------------

what about breitbart.com

NYT: Middle-Class Americans Must Sacrifice Their Suburbs to Aid Poor Immigrants

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...or-immigrants/

using facebook as a source for true or fake news is not a good idea

What the Times actually said.

A New Approach on Housing Affordability


Some Democratic presidential candidates are emphasizing the need to build more housing. That could make a big difference.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

• July 7, 2019

CreditCreditLisk Feng


A growing number of Americans are struggling to cope with the high and rising cost of rental housing in the United States.

On any given night last year, more than half a million Americans were homeless. Nearly 11 million households managed to keep a roof over their heads only by spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent, sharply curtailing their spending on food, health care and other needs. Millions more cannot afford to live in the neighborhoods where children are most likely to thrive, or in the cities where jobs are concentrated.

Democratic presidential candidates are promoting industrial-strength plans to ease the pain. The ideas come in two flavors: subsidies for renters, and efforts to increase construction.

The focus on construction is a welcome development. The United States is in the depths of a decade-long construction drought that is driving up the cost of existing homes. Builders added about 1.2 million units last year; Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies estimates the nation needs another quarter-million units a year to keep pace with population growth. A key reason for the shortfall is that local governments are impeding construction.

Three candidates — Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey; Julian Castro, the former secretary of housing and urban development under President Barack Obama; and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts— have proposed that the federal government should pressure local governments to allow more development. Mr. Booker and Mr. Castro have proposed that the federal government should require local governments to adopt land-use reforms before they can obtain federal funding for infrastructure projects. The point is not to mandate construction of skyscrapers in place of suburban subdivisions.

Rather, it is to require local jurisdictions to make reasonable plans to accommodate population growth — for example, by allowing small-scale apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods. It is simply not in the public interest to subsidize infrastructure in cities that are preventing housing construction.

Ms. Warren has proposed a variant on the same theme: awarding $10 billion in new funding to governments that adopt land-use reforms. In addition to the philosophical case for using carrots rather than sticks, Ms. Warren’s program aims to induce greater participation by wealthy low-density communities that receive relatively little money from existing programs. This is similar to the Obama administration’s Race to the Top education grants, which were awarded to states that adopted changes like performance-based teacher evaluations.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia sought grants under that program, and 18 states, along with the district, enacted policy changes.

More market-rate development is a worthy goal in its own right, because middle-income households increasingly are unable to afford housing in the metropolitan areas where economic opportunity is concentrated. Expanding the supply of housing also helps low-income families who might otherwise find themselves priced out of their apartments.

This embrace of deregulation merits particular praise because the states most resistant to allowing housing construction are the strongholds of the Democratic Party, in the Northeast and along the Pacific Coast, and the most resistant voters are the wealthy residents of those states who provide so much of the funding for Democratic presidential campaigns.

There is also a real prospect that a Democratic president could persuade Republicans to adopt such a plan. Some Senate Republicans have expressed broad support for the concept; President Trump recently created a White House council to explore the issue.

Market-rate development, however, is not a sufficient solution. For millions of lower-income Americans, the rent is simply too high. A variety of government programs, including public housing, subsidized housing and rent vouchers, provide affordable homes for roughly five million families. But as many as 18 million more need similar help. Families with small children who spend more than 50 percent of their monthly income on rent must forgo other necessities. On average, they spend 35 percent less on food and 74 percent less on health care than families with the same incomes who are able to find affordable housing.

Several presidential candidates have proposed expanding federal subsidies for renters.

Senator Kamala Harris of California has proposed a new tax credit, at an estimated cost of $93 billion a year, for lower-income renters who spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Mr. Booker has proposed a more generous tax credit for renters that would cost about $134 billion per year, largely because it does not phase out benefits for renters whose incomes approach the maximum for eligibility. And Mr. Castro has proposed an even more expansive — and expensive — package: He would offer housing vouchers to any family making less than 50 percent of the local median income, roughly quadrupling the existing Section 8 housing voucher program, and he would offer a tax credit to any family making between 50 and 100 percent of the median income and paying more than 30 percent of its income in rent.

The four candidates — Mr. Booker, Mr. Castro, Ms. Harris and Ms. Warren — also have proposed policies to increase homeownership, particularly among minorities. Such policies, if successful, could ease the demand for rental units. But the details of their proposals vary significantly, and deserve separate consideration.

The plans for rent subsidies reflect a tendency among the crowded field of Democratic candidates to behave as if the election were an auction in which the highest bidder will claim the nomination.

The Harris plan is particularly ill conceived because she has not proposed any companion effort to increase the supply of housing. There is a surface logic to giving money to people who can’t afford to pay the rent. Increasing the demand for housing without increasing the supply, however, tends to drive up prices. A 2005 increase in the value of federal housing vouchers ended up lining the pockets of landlords, according to one study.

Mr. Booker and Mr. Castro both have proposed to increase federal subsidies for the construction of affordable housing, but the dollar figures are dwarfed by the subsidies for renters. The priorities should be reversed: Building housing should be the primary goal.

Ms. Warren has avoided any increase in rental subsidies, proposing to focus exclusively on construction. But the implicit logic, that any given dollar is best spent on building, goes too far. Increasing the supply of housing is the work of decades, and many lower-income families require rent subsidies even to afford construction-subsidized buildings.

Rent subsidies also hold promise as a tool for reducing residential segregation. Poor children raised in economically diverse neighborhoods thrive by comparison with those raised in concentrations of poverty, yet subsidized housing tends to be built in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty. Under the Obama administration, renters in some cities were offered larger vouchers if they agreed to move to areas with better schools, where housing tends to be more expensive. The early results were promising, and the program deserves to be revived and expanded. Proposals to make federal infrastructure funding contingent on land use reform also might be usefully extended by requiring affluent communities to accept affordable housing projects.

The federal government is an irresistible force when it chooses to prioritize an issue. It is past time to prioritize the availability of affordable housing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/07/o...=tw-nytopinion

NYT: Middle-Class Americans Must Sacrifice Their Suburbs to Aid Poor Immigrants
31,787


Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesNeil Munro 9 Jul 2019

The federal government must force tens of millions of suburban voters to sacrifice their houses’ value, their quiet schools, and their green neighborhoods so poor immigrants can have cheaper rents and investors can build more houses, according to the New York Times‘ editorial board.

“The federal government is an irresistible force when it chooses to prioritize an issue. It is past time to prioritize the availability of affordable housing” for immigrants, says the July 7 editorial, titled “A New Approach on Housing Affordability.”
The editorial starts with a complaint about housing prices — but it never mentions the obvious fix: Ending the federal policy of annually importing 1 million immigrant workers, consumers, and renters, which inflates housing prices and class competition for good neighborhoods and good schools. Reduced immigration, in contrast, would raise Americans’ salaries, lower their housing prices, improve their schools, and also disappoint real-estate investors.
The editorial declares;

A growing number of Americans are struggling to cope with the high and rising cost of rental housing in the United States. On any given night last year, more than half a million Americans were homeless. Nearly 11 million households managed to keep a roof over their heads only by spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent, sharply curtailing their spending on food, health care and other needs. Millions more cannot afford to live in the neighborhoods where children are most likely to thrive, or in the cities where jobs are concentrated.
…
Three candidates — Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey; Julian Castro, the former secretary of housing and urban development under President Barack Obama; and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — have proposed that the federal government should pressure local governments to allow more development [within suburbs] … Mr. Booker and Mr. Castro have proposed that the federal government should require local governments to adopt land-use reforms before they can obtain federal funding for infrastructure projects. The point is not to mandate construction of skyscrapers in place of suburban subdivisions. Rather, it is to require local jurisdictions to make reasonable plans to accommodate population growth — for example, by allowing small-scale apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods.

The NYT’s “small-scale apartment buildings” link connects to a June 15 editorial by the board which lauds the progressive city of Minneapolis for taking single-family lot zoning away from the city’s homeowners. Suburbia is an economically inefficient “entitlement” for wealthy Americans, the paper claims:

in most places, [new] housing construction remains wildly unpopular. People who think of themselves as progressives, environmentalists and egalitarians fight fiercely against urban development, complaining about traffic and shadows and the sanctity of lawns.
That’s why a recent breakthrough in Minneapolis is so important. The city’s political leaders have constructed a broad consensus in favor of more housing. And the centerpiece is both simple and brilliant: Minneapolis is ending single-family zoning …
People should be free to live in a prairie-style house on a quarter-acre lot in the middle of Minneapolis, so long as they can afford the land and taxes. But zoning subsidizes that extravagance by prohibiting better, more concentrated use of the land. It allows people to own homes they could not afford if the same land could be used for an apartment building. It is a huge entitlement program for the benefit of the most entitled residents.
The loose fabric of single-family neighborhoods drives up the cost of housing by limiting the supply of available units. It contributes to climate change, by necessitating sprawl and long commutes. It constrains the economic potential of cities by limiting growth.

The phrase “constrains the economic potential” — hints at the bigger winner from the housing crunch created by mass migration — real estate investors:

Neil Munro
✔ @NeilMunroDC

A lobbying group for investors admits mass migration helps investors in major coastal cities but 'fails' Americans in heartland & rural towns. So it urges less immigration? No - it urges more migration to spike family housing prices outside major cities! http://bit.ly/2VCZYUt

NYT Boosts Investors' Campaign for More Immigrant Workers, Consumers

City managers in upstate New York are competing for a bigger share of government-supplied immigrant workers.|
breitbart.com

36
10:15 PM - May 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

42 people are talking about this

Minneapolis’ decision to reduce the value of suburban housing is justified by racial inequality 93 years ago, according to the June 15 editorial by the board:

The 2015 shooting of Jamar Clark, a black man killed by Minneapolis police officers, focused the anger of the city’s black residents — and it persuaded some of their neighbors to listen more carefully. In the ensuing debates, many residents said they were surprised to learn that single-family zoning in Minneapolis, as in other cities, had deep roots in efforts to enforce racial segregation. Cities found that banning apartment construction in white neighborhoods was an effective proxy for racial discrimination, and the practice spread after it was validated by the Supreme Court in 1926.
In Minneapolis, the current political leaders argued that ending single-family zoning was a necessary step to rectify that history of racial discrimination. On many city lawns, signs that read “Neighbors for More Neighbors” stood alongside signs that read “Black Lives Matter.”
All of this deserves wide emulation by other American cities.

Naturally, the editorial board does not mention Minneapolis’ huge population of 50,000 imported poor people from Somalia, none of whom suffered from racial discrimination in Minneapolis 93 years ago.

Neil Munro
✔ @NeilMunroDC

Rising rents are blocking young Americans' normal move into big cities, so denying them income, career & wealth gains, also widening civic wealth gaps, say economic studies. Gov't worsens the problem when it uses immigration to spike economy for investors. http://bit.ly/2KyINwt

Reports: Rising Rent Costs Block Americans' Career and Income Gains

Rising urban rents block young people from migrating into bigger towns and cities to boost their careers, say U.K. and U.S. studies.
breitbart.com

12
12:01 PM - Jun 7, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

See Neil Munro's other Tweets

Poor people also need taxpayer-subsidized rents and mortgages to keep pace with middle-class Americans, the board adds in the July 7 editorial:

Rent subsidies also hold promise as a tool for reducing residential segregation. Poor children raised in economically diverse neighborhoods thrive by comparison with those raised in concentrations of poverty, yet subsidized housing tends to be built in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty. Under the Obama administration, renters in some cities were offered larger vouchers if they agreed to move to areas with better schools, where housing tends to be more expensive. The early results were promising, and the program deserves to be revived and expanded.

Government should use its power to force middle-class suburbanites to accept poor people and minorities in their neighborhoods and schools, the board said: “Proposals to make federal infrastructure funding contingent on land use reform also might be usefully extended by requiring affluent communities to accept affordable housing projects.”
The board does not say which Americans will pay the housing subsidies nor which investors will profit from the subsidies.
The editorials modestly declined to mention how many board members live in expensive and childless downtown apartments, where they quietly freeload off suburbanites’ hard-earned ability to raise the next generation of children in suburban parkland.
But the board does admit the political danger of reorganizing the nation’s suburbs to match the federal government’s high-migration/low-wages economic strategy:

This embrace of [suburban] deregulation merits particular praise because the states most resistant to allowing housing construction are the strongholds of the Democratic Party, in the Northeast and along the Pacific Coast, and the most resistant voters are the wealthy residents of those states who provide so much of the funding for Democratic presidential campaigns.

Neil Munro
✔ @NeilMunroDC

One way to look at this trend: Average Americans are being forced to begin subdividing their homes amid the poverty and population pressure caused by govt's preference for a high-migration/low-wage economy. Real-estate investors win, of course. http://bit.ly/2YwfyyG

Oregon Lawmakers: Single-Family Home Neighborhoods Hurt Poor People

Oregon is gearing up to change zoning laws to allow communal living spaces and multi-family units in single-family home neighborhoods.
breitbart.com

43

10:54 PM - Jul 2, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

47 people are talking about this


Immigration Numbers:
Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university.
But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants and refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar visa workers — including approximately one million H-1B workers — and approximately 500,000 blue-collar visa workers.
The government also prints out more than one million work permits for foreigners, tolerates about eight million illegal workers, and does not punish companies for employing the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants who sneak across the border or overstay their legal visas each year.
This policy of inflating the labor supply boosts economic growth for investors because it ensures that employers do not have to compete for American workers by offering higher wages and better working conditions.
This policy of flooding the market with cheap, foreign, white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and hurts children’s schools and college educations. It also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions. The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the heartland to the coastal cities, explodes rents and housing costs, shrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low-tech, labor-intensive workplaces.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...or-immigrants/

Natural News - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

Natural News is a conspiracy theory and fake news website that sells various dietary supplements, and promotes alternative medicine, controversial nutrition ...‎Founder · ‎Criticism and controversies · ‎Notable stories

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Natural News - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

Natural News is a conspiracy theory and fake news website that sells various dietary supplements, and promotes alternative medicine, controversial nutrition ...‎Founder · ‎Criticism and controversies · ‎Notable stories

like I said; I would never use Facebook as a source to decide what is and what is not fake news. That's like using far left Snopes determining what is and what is not fake news. breitbart.com had the core plus more on the same article