Considering immigration policies proposed by two candidates, a student's reaction

  In light of the upcoming elections, I have tried to keep myself as informed as possible about both candidates’ policy plans for their potential time in office. As much as I would like to argue that morality is salient in terms of who we choose to run our country, I am actively trying to remove myself from the mindset of “moral righteousness” and concentrate on policies that would ultimately better the lives of all Americans while increasing the health of our economy. One policy area that is completely divided—and I cannot seem to understand why—is the issue of immigration. This is one aspect of the divide I do believe we need to not only look at in terms of policy, but also in terms of understanding the value of human beings.  

I recommend that we approach many questions with open-minded attitudes. If you could cleanse your heart so that no remnant of either love or hate could linger there, so that love would not blindly incline you toward error, or hate repel you from truth, you would be in a better mental state-of-mind to dispassionately consider the arguments of various sides. Of course, you must not abandon your moral compass, so that you can apply your ethics and values to the contrasting opinions, but that needs to come after you have open-mindedly considered each position with sympathy and trust in the side that presents its position. 

Before I get into a more neutral view of the candidates differing views on immigration, I feel it would be insincere not to explain my own thoughts on the issue. I understand that immigration policies are put in place to protect our country and that all countries have their own set of immigration laws in place. Some countries are made up of mostly foreign-born citizens while others have strict regulations so much so that it is almost impossible to gain citizenship. Those who know the history of what this country was built on understand that the earliest “American” citizens were literally immigrants themselves. My irritation lies in that fact; Christopher Columbus didn’t discover this land. There were successful, thriving tribes of indigenous people living here first who had their land forcefully taken over, were reduced to slaves, and were essentially given a death sentence in doing so. These “great Americans” were immigrants themselves, and we gloss over that undeniable fact with ease when we are talking about how strict and sometimes brutal, we feel the need to be with immigration laws today. I can agree to a certain extent that immigration laws are imperative to keep this country safe, fruitful, and flourishing. Though it is deplorable to me that some of us justify those laws simply because this is our country, and we should keep everyone else out. Due to our history, the logic—or lack thereof—of many individuals entitlement to gatekeeping this country simply infuriates me. But I digress.

I think the nations with many immigrants, such as the United Arab Emirates, do not give citizenship to the guest workers and foreign residents, but I could be wrong.  Western European nations and the USA tend to have a percentage of the population between the high single digits and low double digits that are foreign-born. I think the United States these days has about 15% of the population foreign-born (including my wife and my brother-in-law, and two of my four grandparents when they were alive). Germany has 18% of its population as immigrants, and 28.7% of its population has a migration background. In the UK, it’s 16% who are foreign-born. In France, it’s a little over 10%. In Canada, it’s about 23% of the population. In United Mexican States about 1% of the population is foreign-born, including about 800,000 who were born in the United States of America.  Taiwan has about 3.4% of it’s population foreign-born, mostly from Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

The role of immigration in protecting a country has two sides.  Many people are concerned that with declining birth-rates, a country will be weakened as its population declines unless it allows some immigrants to help stabilize the population.  Thus, immigration boosts a nation’s population and makes it stronger.  On the other hand, many citizens do not want to have so many immigrants enter their country that they feel their national culture is threatened or diluted, and sometimes people feel their nation may face a security threat if immigrants actively try to change their countries in ways that weaken the cultural strength of the nation. 

The United States and other nations of the Americas are societies made of mixtures of indigenous people/ideas and immigrants or persons enslaved and brought to the land. As Samuel Sewall put it in his hymn for peace written on January 1, 1701: “…So Asia and Africa, Europa with America, All four in concert join'd, shall sing…” We’re all brought together here because of the decisions of our ancestors (or ourselves, if we are immigrants). The countries of Europe may claim to have cultures based on tribes or ethnicities or cultures that have existed on their land for many centuries, and those cultures may be favored as the “national” cultures, although in most cases, there are many minority ethnicities and historical colonies of other ethnic groups even in the nations of Europe and Asia, not to mention the vast diversity of tribal peoples in most African lands. 

All governments have a duty to protect their citizens.  In democratic societies, the government should also generally enforce policies that are favored by the electorate, with the limit that the Constitution or values enshrined in the Constitution should be held as more important than any temporary whim of the electorate (if the electorate feels strongly enough about an issue, they must have means of changing the constitution, but that approach should be a more difficult process than passing mere laws). Most Americans like immigrants, and want to keep the nation open to a certain number of people who come here as part of family unification efforts, and bring in a smaller group of people who have skills or abilities that American citizens lack, and bring in an even smaller group of people who are fleeing oppression or danger in their homelands. The minority who are actively xenophobic and only want to allow in immigrants who are like them (English-speaking western Europeans or Canadians, I suppose) are especially vocal and vehement in their opposition to immigration, but they are certainly not a majority of the population. Perhaps most Americans prefer that only 5% or 10% of the population ought to be foreign-born, and they feel uneasy when 15% of us are foreign-born.  

When we are talking about the policy proposals of both candidates, we need to fully understand both sides. Donald Trump’s emphasis on fixing what he feels is a broken immigration system is to continue building the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which ideally would be fully funded by Mexico. He aims to restrict both legal and illegal immigration, which focused on a travel ban on Muslim-majority countries. He introduced a “zero-tolerance” policy that separated children from their parents who were entering the country illegally. He has proposed merit-based immigration laws that gave preference to skilled workers over family-based immigration to bring focus to the job market and increase economic health.

I must address a few concerns with his proposals. First, I literally cannot comprehend the effectiveness or efficiency of this idea to prohibit illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. Throughout history, walls have been somewhat successful in keeping invaders out during war. However, walls deteriorate. People find ways to breach them, build tunnels under them, or find ways around them. There is not one wall in history that has been completely invulnerable. I also genuinely do not understand how or why Mexico would agree to pay for such securities—I mean, how would that country benefit from such an expensive endeavor? That is a huge promise with no factual backing as to how he would get Mexico to agree to such terms. 

I think every humane government official in almost any country would prefer that 100% of immigrants and visitors entered their country following legal processes, and no one came in illegally, without permission or documents. Persons who enter a nation without authorization are vulnerable to many cruel and dishonest practices.  Employers and landlords may cheat them and exploit them, and they would have little recourse to seek legal help. Their exploitation would lower wages in the sectors of the economy where they found employment (e.g., agriculture, food processing, landscaping, construction, informal day labor), and that would harm citizens and legal immigrants, whose wages in those sectors would be depressed by competition with the undocumented or illegal workers. Yes, some economists (Milton Freedman comes to mind) have said that the phenomenon of illegal immigration and an illegal workforce is beneficial to everyone (he claimed exploitation as an illegal worker in the American labor force still gave illegal immigrants a better life than they could hope for working in their countries-of-origin). 

So, this is to say that Democratic and Republican candidates should generally agree that they would like to stop illegal immigration, but they differ in the methods they proposed to use, and how far they would like to prioritize this policy goal. Trump claims it is one of his highest goals. He would dramatically increase resources devoted toward the issue. His behavior suggests his words may be false, since when the Democratic and Republican legislators had a bipartisan bill to increase and reform resources used for immigration and the fight against illegal immigration, Trump told Republican legislators not to pass that law. Many people who become undocumented or illegal residents come here legally (arriving at airports or legal border crossings), and just overstay their allowed time here. A wall wouldn’t stop that type of illegal immigration. Illegal crossing into the United States is very dangerous, and many people die crossing in remote areas.  Perhaps walls that are staffed with border guards all along the border would save lives, but the walls could be electronic at possibly a lower cost than creating a massive metal wall the whole length of the border.

Now, I want to touch on Kamala Harris’s immigration proposals. Harris wants to build a pathway for citizenship while still increasing immigration restrictions (i.e. improved asylum rules and partial border shutdowns if illegal crossings reach a certain number). She focuses on family reunification policies, keep DACA in place, and emphasizes immigration rights that she believes are important to increase the economy. From what I have researched, she believes in equality for immigrants while trying to address the root cause of the migration from South and Central America. 

I have gone past my hour time limit for this assignment, and although I have more, I wish I could say about this issue, I want to say this; there is a humane, respectful, and responsible way to go about immigration policy. We may never figure out the perfect way to deal with immigration, we must remember that these individuals are human beings. I can say undoubtedly that Trump’s immigration policy proposals are not only ineffective but also lack the understanding that these people are human beings who deserve quality of life, no matter where they came from or where they may end up. Immigration is an issue that I believe in the depths of my soul should be treated with humanity. 

Sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-immigration/story?id=103313097

https://www.docketwise.com/blog/where-the-2024-presidential-election-candidates-stand-on-immigration

Trump also seems to lack any understanding of the USA’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol (which the USA accepted on 1 November 1968—The Senate consented to accession, and President Nixon signed it). Our obligations are to accept any person who presents herself or himself on our territory and requests protection and asylum from persecution, and allow them to remain in our nation while we investigate the veracity of their claims of persecution. We cannot send them back to the place where they say they will be persecuted unless we find that their claims of persecution are false or without merit. 

As President Nixon said: “United States accession to the Protocol would thus constitute a significant and symbolic element in our ceaseless effort to promote everywhere the freedom and dignity of the individual and of nations; and to secure and preserve peace in the world.”

Housing Policy Paper

There is a housing crisis within America, especially in growing states such as Georgia, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico where rents increased by 6% to 9% from 2022 to 2023; and nearly half of all renters spend more than 30% of their incomes on rent. While all other household expenses have had inflation rates between 1% and 2% in 2024, year-to-year housing cost inflation has slowly declined from 8% (in January 2023) to 4.85% (in September 2024), which is still very high.  The Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 is a bill introduced by Democratic Representative Maxine Waters of Los Angeles in June of 2023, and was co-sponsored by 64 Democratic Representatives (no Republicans).  This bill was the Democratic Party’s plan to address the housing crisis by providing housing expansion, community advancement, and the distribution of funds to public housing. This proposed bill has a broad focus, generally trying to supply affordable or subsidized housing to those who struggle to pay rent or find permanent housing they can afford, but specifically funding programs for rural rental housing, Native American housing, seniors, persons with disabilities, and residents of neighborhoods suffering from underinvestment and blight.  Essentially, the bill provides funding for the many programs run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but the bill would have significantly increased funding to HUD with very substantial increases in funding for housing choice vouchers and programs that would lead to the “construction, purchase, or rehabilitation” of affordable homes.  The purpose was to make a wide impact within the housing issue.  

However, as the House of Representatives was led by Republicans, and the no Republicans co-sponsored the bill, the bill faced poor prospects of passage in the 118th Congress. Instead, the Republican-controlled House passed a bipartisan funding continuation bill in late September of 2024 (the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025), and the Republican alternative bill for Housing and Urban Development (Title II of H.R. 4820) was postponed and never passed. The Republican bill (H.R. 4820) proposed $27.4 billion for housing choice vouchers, whereas the Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 would have allocated $24 billion for Housing Choice Vouchers. In contrast, the Democratic Party bill would have made $65 billion for repairing and preserving over 500,000 public housing units, whereas the Republican bill proposed only the usual $8.4 billion for this purpose.  The Democratic bill aimed to increase the supply of affordable housing and invest significantly in public housing, whereas the Republican bill did not aim to do this, and instead made modest increases in funding for housing choice voucher program.

While neither of the housing bills (the Democratic Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 and the Republican H.R. 4820 Appropriations Act) have been passed in the 118th Congress, the American housing crisis has worsened. The market forces creating a lack of affordable housing, the government’s failure to invest in permanent supported housing (a combination of subsidized housing and mental health and addiction treatment and support), the continuing meager and inadequate support for addiction treatment and mental health services, and the refusal to invest in significant increases in housing choice voucher programs or public housing, have all created an epidemic of homelessness across the nation. The January 2023 count of the homelessness population was 653,104 people, which was a huge increase over the 580,462 counted in 2022, which was itself the highest count since 2014, when recovery from the Great Recession was improving the situation. Between 2019 and 2023 the numbers who entered emergency shelters for the first time increased by nearly 25% (Soucy et al.). Even ones within a home face issues with maintaining that status. In 2021, nearly 50% of adult renters surveyed were experiencing housing insecurity in the form of likely to be evicted (Soucy et al.). There is an ever-growing need for affordable housing accommodation as there has been increasing homelessness and housing insecurity within America. Providing affordable housing and housing accommodation has shown to decrease issues that surround the crisis.

Public housing and housing accommodation make a positive change in the economy, overcrowding, job opportunities, poverty, health conditions, and school opportunities for children. It has been shown that for every $1 spent on public housing generates an additional $2.12 in economic activity (Pagaduan, Todman). Putting money into this project generates jobs and economic growth as well as providing a proactive solution to a crisis within America. By providing housing, children who are in households receiving housing support show improvement in their academic performance. When in subsidized housing programs, there are statistically significant benefits for children in terms of their future adulthood earnings (Pagaduan). Housing changes the living of the people it is provided to. The purpose of the Housing Crisis Response Act is to make a wide impact within the housing issue.

The Housing Crisis Response Act calls for over 150 billion dollars to be set aside for crucial housing development. This is in the form of creating, advancing, or maintaining public housing, affordable and accessible housing, home ownership opportunities, and more. There are investments made to energy efficient housing, community development, and lead-paint hazard control and other housing related health concerns. Much of public housing has not been updated or replaced since 1999 (CLPHA). Over 90% of public housing is 30+ years old (CLPHA). Unfortunately, there is no mention of an idea of what to do with individuals in unsafe or unlivable assisted homes. There is not certainty they will have security in housing when the development or reconstruction of their original home needs to take place. Not only is there an increased need for housing, but there is also an extreme lack of expansion of public or affordable housing. This is why money is split into different sections, amounts varying on possible importance of need.

The bill was made with budget in mind. The money has already been allocated to different populations and types of housing. The financial aid is distributed via grants, other housing acts, and the Secretary of HUD. The grants can be awarded to local governments, assisted living facilities, public housing agencies, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit developers. The money is intended for investing, revitalizing, developing, assisting, supporting, and maintaining property and people. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that all the money given will be put towards the right thing. There is no allocated representative to watch a project through or mention of receipts kept of construction. Though, the various allocations and areas the policy will reach provide different means towards security of housing for those without. The bill has been made with the intention to reach a wide population.

The Housing Crisis Response Act has a plan to reach many experiencing housing insecurities. This bill has direct plans to address the housing crisis of people with disabilities, the elderly, Native American communities, rural communities, multifamily households, and first-generation home buyers. This population of citizens have the most need for housing stability as they are the most likely to experience housing insecurity. Unfortunately, this bill does not mention first generation immigrants which is another sensitive population to the housing crisis. Although, this is a wide range of people in need of the support and services this bill can cover, it might miss some vulnerable populations. The policy could change many people’s lives.

Overall, the Housing Crisis Response Act is a well planned out bill that addresses the crisis of housing and homelessness in America. It does this by allocating money towards different categories of development, revitalization, support, investment, assistance, and maintenance whether it be for sustainable housing or the people in need of housing.

Another criticism of the Democratic Party’s plan would come from fiscal conservatives who would point out that “taxes are already high” and “even with our high federal income taxes, we still don’t take in enough tax revenue to cover the spending we are already doing, so we have a big deficit that drives up the national debt and forces payment on the interest of the national debt to increase each year”.  Other criticisms might come from people who say the solution would be to move persons from areas where housing expenses are high to areas where housing expenses are low, rather than helping people afford housing in high-rent areas of the country. Others might question whether crowding is really so bad: “our ancestors in the 19th century lived in tiny homes or cabins, and they built this magnificent country”.  

A central contrast I would have highlighted is this: the Democratic plan calls for the creation of many new affordable housing units and a substantial increase in funding to maintain and rehabilitate existing public housing or housing units.  The Republican plan is pretty much to go along as things are, with some modest increases in the housing voucher program.  

Works Cited

Council of Large Public Housing Authorities. “Public Housing Facts.” CLPHA, 2012, clpha.org/public-housing/facts. 

Pagaduan, Julie. “Millions of Americans Are Housing Insecure: Rent Relief and Eviction Assistance Continue to Be Critical.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2 Dec. 2021, endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-insecurity-rent-relief-eviction-assistance/. 

Soucy, D., Janes, M., and Hall, A. “State of Homelessness: 2024 Edition.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, 5 Aug. 2024, endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/. 

Todman, A. (2019). Housing in America: Assessing the Infrastructure Needs of America’s Housing Stock. Testimony by Adrianne Rodman at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, April 30, 2019. https://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-116-ba00-wstate-todmana-20190430.pdf 

Waters, Maxine. “Legislative Search Results | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” H.R.4233 - Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023, 2023, www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4233. 

Some Details About the Project-Based Rental Assistance Program

 Families and individuals in poverty often struggle to afford housing, adding yet another obstacle in the attempt to break out of the perpetual cycle of financial and housing instability. To help aid in breaking those barriers, the government offers several housing assistance programs to those who are low-income, allowing families to avoid housing instability or homelessness.  Programs such as Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) allow tenants access to affordable units in which their rent is paid based on their income. Section 8 PBRA has allowed those who are low- or no-income, disabled, elderly, and those who may be escaping domestic violence or homelessness the ability to maintain affordable housing, easing the burden of the inability to meet the expenses of Fair Market Rent. While the program has proven to be a useful tool with the  virtue of aiding millions of people [perhaps about 11 million?] who may have been facing homelessness, there are concerns with  the efficacy of the program due to the lengthy process of signing up for the program, the massive wait time to be approved for Section 8 PBRA, and the lack of funding to assist more low-income families who may fall just barley outside of the eligibility requirements who will continue to struggle to afford housing. [Those who believe housing is a human right point out that the five to six million households receiving vouchers are only a fraction of the thirteen to twenty million households that either qualify or at least seem to need help securing stable and decent housing]. To understand both the benefits and disadvantages of the program, I should clarify what Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance fully consists of.

Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, named after Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937, was created in 1974. The program consists of multi-year rental assistance contracts between for-profit and non-profit private owners and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The subsidized rental assistance program allows tenants to pay rent based on their income. In contracts between private owners and HUD, HUD agrees to pay the difference between income-based rents and agreed upon contract rents, while owners of Section 8 PRBA units agree to manage units upheld by federal housing rules. Owners are responsible for the management of these properties during the length of the contract, which generally have 20-year terms that can be renewed at the discretion of both private owners and the HUD. Most entities who own Section 8 PBRA properties are private for-profit agencies, although some public housing agencies and non-profit entities own a large share of these properties. 

The Project-Based Rental Assistance program differs from the Housing Choice Voucher Programs in that it is not a tenant-based program, where low-income families have more freedom in where they can use their vouchers (essentially, anywhere a landlord will accept them charging a rent in a reasonable range and has a place to offer them that meets HUD’s quality standards). Tenant-based programs allow tenants to rent any privately owned home that meets the programs guidelines while project-based programs only allow tenants to stay units that have been designated as PBRA properties.  Still, the program serves nearly 2 million people (1.2 million households) today, a number that has been increasing since the 2012 Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) permitted public housing properties to be converted to the PBRA program.

Individuals and families must be considered low-income to qualify for Section 8 PBRA. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “low-income” refers to income that is less than 80 percent of the local Area Median Income (AMI). Very-low income families and individuals are those who are at or below 50 percent of local AMI. Unauthorized and temporary immigrants are ineligible for Section 8 PBRA housing, unless their household is one with mixed immigration status members. Mixed households with members who are eligible can be given prorated assistance. Participating housing developments must have at least 40 percent of the annually available subsidized units designated for extremely low-income families (those who are 30 percent of local AMI) while most of the remaining units are for those with incomes below 50 percent of the local AMI. Tenants are required to pay either $25 per month, or no more than 30 percent of their income for utilities and rent. There is no time limit on how long one can receive assistance, except if their income increases to where they no longer qualify. If income increases significantly to a point that they no longer quality for Section 8 PBRA vouchers, tenants are generally allowed to pay market rent out of their own pocket if they want to remain in their unit. 

Families who want to live in PBRA properties must apply to the property directly, giving property owners full discretion on how to screen potential tenants. Some criteria for property owners can be a tenant’s rental history, criminal background, and credit history. This may suggest that a person who has experienced extreme poverty, and who thus would be more than likely to lack a stable rental history, could be denied based on the owners’ preferences, despite being eligible for the PBRA due to having low-income. Though this is not a common event, property owners’ preferences for their waitlists have affected the characteristics of their tenants; in 2023, roughly 36% of PBRA households had children while 65% of those households did not. Many properties designate their units for the elderly or for those with disabilities, making additional services needed for these subgroups to be easily attainable since they have the potential to be in one area together.  While this can be beneficial for those groups when funding for the program is limited, this can exclude a considerable amount of people in poverty who are struggling to pay for and maintain their own housing. 

Funding for Section 8 PBRA is primarily controlled by congress through annual discretionary appropriations, funds approved each year by the president and congress for discretionary spending, which are then issued to the project based rental assistance account. This funds the annual renewal of PBRA contracts, rental subsidies paid to property owners monthly, and administrative fees for Performance-Based Contract Administrators (PBCAs) chosen by HUD. Appropriations for the PBRA program have grown from $11.75 billion in 2019 to $14.91 billion in 2023, an increase of 27%. This is a result of rents being annually adjusted to reflect inflation, creating cost growth and increasing subsidies of per-unit costs, as well as an increase in the number of units (the increase in contracts is attributed to the 2012 RAD program). Still, there is inadequate funding for the program that has led to massive wait times for families who need immediate assistance. Nationally, families spend almost two and a half years on average on waitlists, while some areas have average wait times of up to eight years. In the meantime, they face additional hardship sinking deeper into poverty and may face homelessness.  If individuals or families manage to get off the waitlist, the program is very effective in aiding those with low-income to avoid homelessness and ensure housing stability. Allocating more funds to the program would decrease waitlist times and aid a larger pool of individuals to obtain affordable housing.

Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance programs give low-income individuals and families an advantage in allowing them to begin rising out of poverty through stable housing. While the program has improved the lives of millions of Americans, it is not without its disadvantages. The program has many potential benefits if it is properly funded with reasonable oversight on the management of privately owned properties. If funding was increased, we may be able to broaden the eligibility requirements for Section 8 PVBA’s to assist more people and shorten the amount of time on waitlists to prevent any additional hardship to already struggling families.  

This is a good paper for an undergraduate.  You have a neutral tone, and the writing meets my standards.  I couldn’t help but jotting off some more ideas and facts (which follow) to offer some more insights into housing vouchers as they exist in 2024.  I’ve tried to add some attention to the complaints about the Section 8 PVBA voucher program from persons like myself (who think it’s obscene and abusive that the program only covers about 20% of the households that need this assistance), and those who have insisted in deep cuts in discretionary public spending based on some ideological opposition to the Federal Government promoting the general welfare and securing domestic tranquility with public funds raised through taxes or else some perverse hatred and contempt directed against persons with low incomes. 

Persons in poverty are stressed by the threats they face to their well-being.  Lacking money, they can find it difficult to purchase food, pay rent, handle utility bills, or insure and maintain a vehicle to get them to their jobs. Conveniences and pleasures that middle-class and wealthier people take for granted, such as having access to phones, internet service, streaming services, and other pleasures of modern life can be difficult to secure. Always there is the threat of disaster; some loss of income, perhaps caused by an illness, or reduced hours at a workplace, that could make housing, food, or heat unaffordable. This insecurity, instability, and constant exposure to risk causes high levels of stress, which can damage the mind/brain, and raises chances of suffering from almost all illness not caused by genetic abnormalities. Coping with this situation, many of the 10% to 15% of Americans who meet the definition of poverty, or the other 20% who live with incomes that put them slightly above poverty, remain in an intergenerational cycle of diminished life chances. 

The good news is that in recent years the inflation-adjusted incomes of Americans, even those at the lowest percentiles of the income distribution, have been increasing.  The bad news is that upward mobility is decreasing, and even with increasing incomes, basic needs such as housing are unaffordable for the households at the lowest 20-30% of the income distribution. With 131 million households, there are over 13 million households (over 25 million persons) in the bottom 10% of the income distribution, and 39 million households (over 89 million people) in the bottom 30%. 

 Generally, the American economy has been expanding, which allows inflation-adjusted incomes to rise for people, even if they do not move up in the income distribution. However, the historical trends are not good. Raj Chetty and associates (in 2016) found that 50% to 55% of children born in the late 1970s and early 1980s were earning higher inflation-adjusted incomes than their parents had done when their parents were in their 40s.  However, over 60% of persons born in the 1950s were earning more than their parents, and among those born in the 1940s, 80% to 90% earned more than their parents. Michael Strain estimates that about 36% of children who grow up in households with incomes in the bottom income quintile end up as adults who have remained in the bottom quintile, and another 27.5% rise up to the second quintile, which implies over 63% (nearly two-thirds of children who grow up in households with low incomes) become adults with low or modest incomes.  For families at the 10% income percentile, incomes in 2023 were at nearly $19,000, while the 10% income percentile families had earned only $15,500 in 2013 (in inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars), or $16,600 in 2003.  Families at the 20th percentile earned $33,000 in 2023, compared to $26,700 in 2013, and $28,400 in 2003. In 2023, families at the 40th percentile earned $62,200 (See Table A-4a in the 2023 Income Report from the Census Bureau). 

In 2023, the average American household (technically, the average “consumer unit”) spent $25,400 on housing alone. Statista reported that average two-bedroom housing units cost $1,317 per month ($15,804 per year) in November 2023. In other words, families at the 40th percentile would spend 25% of their income on an average two-bedroom apartment (which is very affordable), but a family at the 20th percentile would spend 48% of their income on that average two-bedroom apartment (a sign of extreme housing insecurity) while a family at the 10th percentile would need to spend 83% of their income on an average-rent two-bedroom apartment. 

To help the lower income households, states and the federal government provide a variety of supports, such as food assistance (SNAP benefits, WIC, the National School Lunch Programs), income supports (the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, TANF, SSI, SSDI, Social Security), and health benefits (Medicaid).  When it comes to housing, the largest program provided by the federal government is the Housing Choice Voucher program, which gets slightly over $30 billion ($30.25 billion in 2024). The Project-Based Rental Assistance (a sort of housing choice voucher program where the choice is limited to affordable housing projects, or in other words, “public housing”) accounts for about $15 billion ($14.9 billion in 2024). Another $8 billion goes to maintaining and improving the affordable housing in public housing areas (things like new roofs or removing asbestos and lead paint). Together, the $45 billion spent on the two largest voucher programs and $8 billion spent on public housing make up $53 billion (74%) of the total $72 billion dollar budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  The housing choice vouchers help about 2.3 million households, while the project-based housing vouchers help about 1.2 million. Another 856 thousand households get helped by the public housing fund, leaving about 153 thousand households to get subsidized housing earmarked for the elderly or housing for persons with disabilities.  Some populations, such as young adults who age out of foster care and any veteran who has a very low income should receive housing vouchers so that those populations are entirely covered, but for the rest of the low-income Americans struggling to pay for rent, there is no promise that they will get a voucher, or find a landlord willing to take the voucher if they do get one. 

If you sum up all the households getting housing vouchers or public housing of one type or another, and notice that the total is about 4.5 million households, and then compare that to the approximately 13 million households in the bottom 10% of the income distribution, or the approximately 26 million households if we include the bottom fifth of the income distribution, it should become clear that the current housing policy is in no way comprehensive.  Clearly, most people who require help securing stability in their housing situation (situations where they can afford housing without it taking up too much of their income and placing them in a situation where eviction or foreclosure is a constant threat) are not getting helped by the housing choice vouchers or project-based vouchers or public housing. 

To help these millions of households who struggle to obtain secure and sustainable housing where they won’t risk getting kicked out when they can’t afford to pay their rent, the HUD budget also offers a billion dollars for Native American Programs, another billion for Housing for the Elderly, $360 million for persons with disabilities, $175 for self-sufficiency programs.

There are some studies of the beneficial influences enjoyed by low-income households who gain access to housing vouchers. A primary benefit is that families are less likely to become homeless, and this is especially true for families who are exhausting their TANF benefit limits. Families also are subjected to less crowding and were able to enjoy living in one place for a longer period.

Some persons may object to the housing voucher program on the basis of fairness.  Such critics may point out that the billions of dollars spent on housing low-income households are taken from households with higher incomes, depriving them of the ability to keep and spend or save their own money. As the HUD budget is discretionary, it is vulnerable to large cuts.  However, laws mandate that vouchers are provided to very-low income veterans and young adults recently aging out of foster care, and most vouchers are provided through contracts between local housing authorities and landlords, with these contracts lasting usually for about 20 years, so the Federal government could not suddenly eliminate the voucher programs or cut them too deeply.  Yet, if the programs were cut, this could help reduce the federal budget deficit, and help allow taxes to be reduced. The consequences to low-income families would be perhaps harsh, as they would face more housing instability, crowding, and possibly homelessness. Yet, the general panic and desperation this could trigger in the lower-wage population would drive people to work harder, possibly taking two jobs, (nearly 70% of non-elderly non-disabled adults using housing vouchers are employed or recently employed, but perhaps the 30% who aren’t working could be pushed back into the labor force).  The desperation for jobs to achieve stable housing when housing vouchers are eliminated could drive potential workers to take any job offered, allowing those who hire workers to offer lower wages and less satisfactory working conditions.  Thus, the persons who own businesses could make higher profits from low-wage workers while also enjoying lower taxes resulting from reducing spending on housing vouchers.  While many people may think that the owners of businesses already are doing well enough, and should not begrudge housing voucher assistance to the 5 to 6 million persons who benefit from these programs, some may oppose such government involvement in the housing market on principle, or out of self-interest. 

References

Acosta, S., & Gartland, E. (2021, July 22). Families Wait Years for Housing Vouchers Due to Inadequate Funding. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/families-wait-years-for-housing-vouchers-due-to-inadequate-funding 

Fiscal Data explains federal spending. Federal Spending | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data. (n.d.-a). https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=Discretionary%20spending%20is%20money%20formally,as%20science%20and%20environmental%20organizations. 

Policy basics: Section 8 project-based Rental Assistance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (n.d.). https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/section-8-project-based-rental-assistance 

McCarty, M. (2023, December 11). The Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance Program. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12545 

Policy basics: Section 8 project-based Rental Assistance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (n.d.). https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/section-8-project-based-rental-assistance 

Ordinance to make camping in the city illegal will harm efforts to assist unhoused residents.

 Mayor Misty Buscher and the Springfield City Council

Springfield City Hall

800 East Monroe

Springfield, IL 62701

September 25, 2024

Dear Mayor Misty Buscher and Members of the Springfield City Council,

I am pleased to hear that Ordinance 2024-376 was withdrawn from consideration after backlash from local advocacy groups and community members. For context, this ordinance gives police and city legal authorities the power to enforce 24-hour removal orders and jail, fees, or penalties if a person has not gone. Many raised the issue that this is not an effective way to solve or prevent homelessness. Within the community, there are many successful ways to address homelessness.

There are many organizations that provide support needed such as Heartland HOUSED, Helping Hands, and many different sheltering and food services. With support, people can spend time with resources eventually being able to work again and find themselves in housing. To meet homeless people with more negativity and fees, it would further the cycle of poverty and life on the street. The systemic issue of homelessness must be addressed with support and resources as they have lost their ability and access to these necessities. The ordinance that had been pushed for vote would effectively strip the homeless community from vital resources and services.

This ordinance not only reverses progress made on the the plan to end homelessness, but it also makes public services and places seem unavailable or inaccessible. When we tell police officers to remove homeless people from an area and jail/fine them if they have not gone, we create a threatening relationship between the city’s public services and spaces and the people who are living unhoused. There is no restriction or limit on how far the area of removal can be. The ordinance can illegally remove a human’s right to public property and services. It can also influence homeless people to stay away from certain areas, and therefore prevent them from accessing essential resources such as housing, food, and job opportunities. There could also lead to a general distrust of public service workers due to these negative interactions with police.

With all the control over this population within the community, there can become a general distrust of public service workers. This could include the people out in the community trying to help them. Many factors could now influence the homeless population from avoiding the help to get out of this cycle. Without plan for alternative accommodation and placement, this ordinance would undo the progression done for homeless community. Criminalization does not solve the issue as they cannot suddenly be a person with a home. 

There is a thought that homeless people do not want to work or do not want to live in a home. This perpetuates the stigma surrounding homelessness and that there should be no support provided. Unfortunately, it does not work like that. A home requires money, which requires an address and stable resources such hygiene facilities. There is no easy answer to solve homelessness. The continuation of resources and services can help bridge that gap. They may be able to get one a job without an address or aid with shelter while going through these other steps. 

Overall, passing an ordinance to criminalize homelessness would have far more negative effects than positive on the surrounding community. Homelessness should be met with support and a proactive approach. More should be done to provide a solution for homelessness within the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, 

[Student name]

It is a good habit to congratulate politicians and officials when they do something we approve of.  In the case of ordinances to help law enforcement remove unhoused people from camping or sleeping on sidewalks, benches, and so forth, there seem to be two motives.  One motive is simply to remove the homeless persons from areas were their mere presence annoys or intimidates people.  People just want them removed.  The second motive seems to be a belief that if police have coercive power to push unhoused people into services, this will help some of them get on track to find permanent housing and get assistance with addictions or mental health problems they are having. The second motive is well-intentioned, but research on the topic gives us reason to doubt it's effective utility.

Perhaps this is a case where we can agree with people who want to move unhoused people away from areas where their unsightly presence offends sensibilities.  But, rather than be disgusted with the people who are experiencing homelessness, and desiring their removal to places where they cannot be seen, we are disgusted with the fact that our society—rich as it is—tolerates circumstances that drive people into situations where they become unhoused. We would like unhoused persons removed from sleeping quarters on sidewalks and in campgrounds in parking lots or empty lots and placed in permanent housing.  Then, if they want to hang out in parks and outdoor locations to give some life to the streets of our city, so much the better, but let the have their own space protected from the elements where they can sleep.

You are quite right to suggest that we need to encourage a relationship between law enforcement and unhoused persons that fosters trust and respect, and defaulting to the coercive threats of law enforcement is unlikely to achieve this.  In fact, you really are proposing a model where law enforcement can become the ally of the homeless, helping the find safe places to shelter and services to gain access to permanent housing as well as mental health treatment or addition treatment. Friendly and cooperative relationships where law enforcement personnel are perceived as well-intentioned and empathic persons who want to help protect citizens will probably be more effective than encouraging police to rely on their monopoly on the use of force to threaten and intimidate people.

I think it would suffice to say that most homeless persons would gladly get out of their unhoused condition and be delighted to take occupancy in any modest apartment or home where they could store their belongings, enjoy sleeping in their own bed each night, and cook their own meals and take showers or bathe whenever they liked.  It is right to suggest that we focus on such solutions, and not let ourselves become distracted by false solutions that would only work to hide the problem, rather than actually solving it.

Mayvb