Comments on: Immigrant Neighborhoods in New York Continue to Reel From Mortgage Foreclosures and Job Losses http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2009/08/12/immigrant-neighborhoods-in-new-york-continue-to-reel-from-mortgage-foreclosures-and-job-losses/ Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:17:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jinny http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2009/08/12/immigrant-neighborhoods-in-new-york-continue-to-reel-from-mortgage-foreclosures-and-job-losses/comment-page-1/#comment-976 Jinny Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:17:07 +0000 http://feetin2worlds.wordpress.com/?p=8698#comment-976 Thank for Article Thank for Article

]]> By: Jim http://news.feetintwoworlds.org/2009/08/12/immigrant-neighborhoods-in-new-york-continue-to-reel-from-mortgage-foreclosures-and-job-losses/comment-page-1/#comment-975 Jim Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:07:28 +0000 http://feetin2worlds.wordpress.com/?p=8698#comment-975 This is another really well done piece of journalism by Ms. Gonzalez. However, I think a fascinating, transnational part of this story is still missing. In housing foreclosures there are ways that immigrants, like non-immigrants, can be winners even if others are losers, and it would be interesting to know if many immigrants may have benefited from the present crisis due to the transnational options and liberties that they might enjoy relative to non-migrants. For example, think of who wins and who loses in a foreclosure. If the foreclosed property was purchased recently and then lost value due to market conditions while the owner also lost income needed to pay the mortgage because of other reasons, like the Ecuadorian in the story, then the immigrant homeowner AND his or her bank are both losers, with the bank being the biggest financial loser of the two parties. But who's the winner? The person who sold the present homeowner the property at an inflated price is the winner, because you have to count the difference between the value at which the home was purchased minus the value at which it is re-sold after foreclosure as net profit for the the person who last sold the home (the person who last owned the property that Mr. Guerrero bought in this story. Who was that?) How many of such sellers were immigrants? I suspect many of them were because of the tendency in NYC for migrants to settle in neighborhoods of similar ethnographic characteristics. How many immigrants therefore have gained relative to the number who have lost due to the inflated housing market, and were immigrants a key vector of such real estate inflation tendencies? And is legal residency status a factor one way or the other in the distribution of losses and benefits? There is yet another way that immigrants may have benefited, instead of lost, in the present crisis. If the high mortgage on a home was due to refinancing a mortgage, as many were, instead of a new home purchase, then the refinanced amount that is not repaid to the bank when foreclosure occurs is actually net income to the person who lost the home, so many migrants may be benefiting, rather than losing, when a foreclosure occurs, especially if they have used the additional money from the refinance to invest in other ventures, buy expensive consumables such as automobiles, or send money home to their countries of origin as evidence from other sources indicates is a common occurrence. This is another really well done piece of journalism by Ms. Gonzalez. However, I think a fascinating, transnational part of this story is still missing. In housing foreclosures there are ways that immigrants, like non-immigrants, can be winners even if others are losers, and it would be interesting to know if many immigrants may have benefited from the present crisis due to the transnational options and liberties that they might enjoy relative to non-migrants.

For example, think of who wins and who loses in a foreclosure. If the foreclosed property was purchased recently and then lost value due to market conditions while the owner also lost income needed to pay the mortgage because of other reasons, like the Ecuadorian in the story, then the immigrant homeowner AND his or her bank are both losers, with the bank being the biggest financial loser of the two parties. But who’s the winner? The person who sold the present homeowner the property at an inflated price is the winner, because you have to count the difference between the value at which the home was purchased minus the value at which it is re-sold after foreclosure as net profit for the the person who last sold the home (the person who last owned the property that Mr. Guerrero bought in this story. Who was that?)

How many of such sellers were immigrants? I suspect many of them were because of the tendency in NYC for migrants to settle in neighborhoods of similar ethnographic characteristics. How many immigrants therefore have gained relative to the number who have lost due to the inflated housing market, and were immigrants a key vector of such real estate inflation tendencies? And is legal residency status a factor one way or the other in the distribution of losses and benefits?

There is yet another way that immigrants may have benefited, instead of lost, in the present crisis. If the high mortgage on a home was due to refinancing a mortgage, as many were, instead of a new home purchase, then the refinanced amount that is not repaid to the bank when foreclosure occurs is actually net income to the person who lost the home, so many migrants may be benefiting, rather than losing, when a foreclosure occurs, especially if they have used the additional money from the refinance to invest in other ventures, buy expensive consumables such as automobiles, or send money home to their countries of origin as evidence from other sources indicates is a common occurrence.

]]>