╌>

Biden Admin Threatens Banks That Refuse To Lend Money To Illegal Immigrants

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  9 months ago  •  29 comments

By:   Will Kessler

Biden Admin Threatens Banks That Refuse To Lend Money To Illegal Immigrants
“Lenders should not deny people the opportunity to take out a loan to buy a home, build their businesses or otherwise pursue their financial goals because of unlawful bias and without regard to their actual ability to repay,” Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said in the press release. “This guidance reminds lenders that denying someone access to credit based solely on their actual or perceived immigrant status may violate federal law.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


T he Biden administration released a statement Thursday warning financial institutions against using a person’s immigration status in credit applications.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a joint statement telling financial institutions that while it is not illegal to consider a person’s immigration status in the decision on whether to lend money, an overreliance on it could run afoul of the law,  according  to the statement. The statement implicates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex and more in considering a person’s credit application as the mechanism, even though the law does list citizenship status as a protected attribute.

“Fair access to credit is crucially important for building wealth and strengthening household financial stability,” Rohit Chopra, CFPB director,  said  in a press release. “The CFPB will not allow companies to use immigration status as an excuse for illegal discrimination.”

The CFPB notes that the reason for the guidance comes after the agency received a number of instances of consumers being rejected in their applications for credit cards and auto, student, personal and equipment loans on the basis of their noncitizen status despite having a good credit history and a tie to the United States, according to the press release.

“Lenders should not deny people the opportunity to take out a loan to buy a home, build their businesses or otherwise pursue their financial goals because of unlawful bias and without regard to their actual ability to repay,” Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said in the press release. “This guidance reminds lenders that denying someone access to credit based solely on their actual or perceived immigrant status may violate federal law.”

The two agencies acknowledge that while the ECOA permits creditors to consider someone’s citizenship status, the act of doing so may violate prohibitions on the consideration of other factors like national origin or race, according to the press release. The regulators emphasize that there is no “safe harbor” when considering an applicant’s immigration status.

DOJ did not immediately respond to a request to comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation. The CFPB deferred the DCNF to previously made statements.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    9 months ago

There are two wrongs being committed here.

The first is rewarding people who broke the law by illegally entering the country. Of course, the democrats will demand their vote for all of this should they find a way to get them voting or have their children voting as "citizens."

The other wrong is to repeat what government did when it caused the financial crisis: forcing banks to make risky loans to meet progressive agendas. Will we ever forget what altering the lending standards to help low-income homebuyers led to?  The left doesn't care. They want to help their future voters.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago
forcing banks to make risky loans to meet progressive agendas.

If only it was that simple as an explanation. Everyone from all sides including the banks were at fault.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago
There are two wrongs being committed here.

Meh. I'm only seeing one.

The CFPB is pandering to the political left, when it is supposed to be an impartial government agency (yeah, yeah.. lol, I know)

So... we have these folks applying for loans with little or no residence history, little or no credit history, and little or no verifiable means of support.  So naturally, the banks are declining them based on "perceived immigration status".  Riiiiiight.  That's exactly what's happening....... 

The banks are not going to lend them money, and it has zero to do with their immigration status.  This is just more Bidenspeak trying to make bleeding hearts feel better.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2  Just Jim NC TttH    9 months ago
rejected in their applications for credit cards and auto, student, personal and equipment loans on the basis of their noncitizen status

As it should be. SMMFH

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1  evilone  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2    9 months ago
As it should be. SMMFH

Maybe, but the law states differently. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  evilone @2.1    9 months ago

So you would like to see us go back to 2007-2008 loan default scenario then.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.2  evilone  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.1    9 months ago
So you would like to see us go back to 2007-2008 loan default scenario then.

I said no such thing. You should bring this up with your Representative when they stop bickering long enough to govern.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  evilone @2.1    9 months ago

Those denied can always file a civil suite.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    9 months ago
“This guidance reminds lenders that denying someone access to credit based solely on their actual or perceived immigrant status may violate federal law.”

The fact that they are here ILLEGALLY violates federal law.  Why is this concept so hard for them to understand?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    9 months ago
The fact that they are here ILLEGALLY violates federal law.

Asylum seekers are here LEGALLY.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    9 months ago

And a percentage will remain as not all of them are legitimate claims.

In fiscal year 2022, immigration judges decided 52,000 asylum cases; about 46% of people were granted asylum. The approval rate was closer to 39% for those who applied for asylum as a defense against deportation. "I acknowledge that I misspoke. The number is closer to 30% or higher," Johnson told PolitiFact.

.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    9 months ago

Did they cross at a POE?  No?  Then they are here illegally.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.2    9 months ago
Did they cross at a POE?  No?  Then they are here illegally.

We've done this before, I showed you the law and linked to its exact wording.  Your denial is fraudulent and dishonest.

Here is your own link from a previous post that states asylum seekers need not enter through designated locations.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    9 months ago
Here is your own link

Obviously you didn't read any of it.  Try that.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.4    9 months ago
Obviously you didn't read any of it.

Obviously you REFUSE to learn the law you keep misrepresenting.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    9 months ago
Asylum seekers are here LEGALLY.  

How many have you taken into your home and are supporting financially?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @3.1.6    9 months ago
How many have you taken into your home and are supporting financially?

5 times as many as you have.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.7    9 months ago
5 times as many as you have.

So..................................zero.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.5    9 months ago

What I'm refusing is to play your half assed game.  If they don't cross the border at an authorized POE they are here illegally.  They can apply for asylum at one of the MANY consulates they passed on their way here.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    9 months ago

But Biden's not doing every thing he can to encourage illegal aliens...

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    9 months ago

The DOJ is just enforcing the laws which is their job after all.  Maybe Congress should repeal the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.  Oh wait...  Congress can't do anything right now because they fired the speaker.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  SteevieGee @4.1    9 months ago

No they aren’t. They are ignoring a specific law that gives them explicit permission to use immigration status  and using bullshit  enforcement threats to intimidate banks to implement their their open borders strategy. 

This was never an issue until now, because every other admin followed the actual law.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.1.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    9 months ago

FTA:  even though the law does list citizenship status as a protected attribute.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5  Tacos!    9 months ago

I don’t know; this feels like an exercise in dog whistle politics.

The statement is sprinkled with threats and fear mongering in place of actual law (my bolding):

While Regulation B describes certain conditions under which creditors may consider immigration status, creditors should remain cognizant that ECOA and Regulation B expressly forbid discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics, including race and national origin. Immigration status may broadly overlap with or, in certain circumstances, serve as a proxy for these protected characteristics.

….

For example, if a creditor has a blanket policy of refusing to consider applications from certain groups of noncitizens regardless of the credit qualifications of individual borrowers within that group, that policy may risk violating ECOA and Regulation B. This risk could arise because some individuals within those groups may have sufficient credit scores or other individual circumstances that may resolve concerns about the creditor’s rights and remedies regarding repayment.

See? They have to admit that it is not illegal to consider immigration status as a factor in approving or disapproving a loan. It’s not even clear that blanket discrimination on this point would be illegal.

Instead, what they do here is imply that if a financial institution discriminates on the basis of immigration status, they will be accused of discriminating based on nationality or race.

In the footnotes of their statement, they cite to decisions from the 2nd and 4th Circuits that they claim support the connection they are trying to make, but there is nothing on this point specifically, and the SCOTUS has not weighed in at all.

In general, discrimination based on nationality is illegal. Discrimination based on immigration status is not.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
5.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tacos! @5    9 months ago

Agree, I don't think the intended audience was the banks and other lenders, it's was potential Democratic voters to show them Administration activity.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1    9 months ago

That’s a good point. I have to wonder how much of a problem this even is. Do we have legions of undocumented entrepreneurs and home buyers complaining that they can’t get bank loans? Somehow, I doubt it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6  Texan1211    9 months ago

As a lender, how much sense does it make to lend money to an individual who may be subject to deportation at any time? I would consider that a bad risk, and if someone is here illegally, how can you verify their legal income?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7  charger 383    9 months ago

I can not understand the Biden Administration's constant favoring of foreigners here illegally over US Citizens.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7    9 months ago
I can not understand the Biden Administration's constant favoring of foreigners here illegally over US Citizens. 

Just another case of Democrats putting Americans last.

 
 

Who is online

Drinker of the Wry
KatPen
Gazoo
Ed-NavDoc


35 visitors