You are either a blithering idiot or you are willfully ignorant.
I never said a mortgage was needed to send a remittance. I have been saying that banks used remittances as the bait to draw illegal aliens into the US banking and mortgage systems.
But, don't believe me. Read what the FDIC, itself, published back in 2004 during Bush's sub-prime lending heyday.
Below is an excerpt from an article on the FDIC web site. It talks about Bush's P4P agreement and NATF and how banks linked mortgages to remittances to increase profits, despite to your petulant assertions to the contrary.
So, are you wrong or is the FDIC wrong about what banks were doing and why?
From: Linking International Remittance Flows to Financial Services: Tapping the Latino Immigrant Market:
Conclusion
Recent economic and demographic trends, coupled with increased financial flows across international borders, have significant implications for U.S. banks and thrifts. As more insured financial institutions reach out to the Latino immigrant market, these institutions are expected to experience more rapid deposit and loan growth. In the Midwest, both small and large banks are capitalizing on remittance flows as a short-term strategy to draw immigrants into the formal banking system. Leveraging these relationships will help these institutions offer a broader range of financial services, positively contributing to their bottom line.
Many Latino immigrants will eventually settle in the United States and raise families. Banks in the Midwest are taking steps to capitalize on the growing presence of this immigrant group. The continued success of the New Alliance Task Force demonstrates that unbanked Latin American immigrants can be brought into the financial mainstream. As a result, the FDIC is considering the feasibility of expanding the NATF pilot to other parts of the country where there are significant immigrant populations. These broad-based private-public sector alliances will help immigrants increase savings, build assets, and strengthen their financial security.
What you are reading is simply this:
The FDIC is the government. The New Alliance Task Force is created to “encourage” banks to lend to minorities. If the banks are so eager to make these loans, why does the federal government have to “encourage” them to make the loans?
Fannie Mae has sent letters to banks, warning them they will face prosecution if they do not provide “equal access” to “persons with Limited English Proficiency.” (Not that Fannie Mae has any authority for such prosecution, but as a representative of government, they could legitimately sue on behalf of the “discriminated.”)
Numerous programs have been created to “promote” lending to minorities from the banks.
So why is that? If the banks are trying to “privatize the profit; socialize the risk,” why is the government actively seeking to be put on the hooks.
All that stuff about George Bush you keep posting: I absolute concur that Bush was working for the banks and was borderline seditious in his dealings with Mexico. But that in no way advances any argument that the banks wanted to do these things, only that Mexico wanted us to do this. The remittance is where the banks made their profits off of illegals, since they get a cut of every remittance.
What you are reading is simply this:
The FDIC is the government. The New Alliance Task Force is created to “encourage” banks to lend to minorities. If the banks are so eager to make these loans, why does the federal government have to “encourage” them to make the loans?
Fannie Mae has sent letters to banks, warning them they will face prosecution if they do not provide “equal access” to “persons with Limited English Proficiency.” (Not that Fannie Mae has any authority for such prosecution, but as a representative of government, they could legitimately sue on behalf of the “discriminated.”)
Numerous programs have been created to “promote” lending to minorities from the banks.
So why is that? If the banks are trying to “privatize the profit; socialize the risk,” why is the government actively seeking to be put on the hooks.
All that stuff about George Bush you keep posting: I absolute concur that Bush was working for the banks and was borderline seditious in his dealings with Mexico. But that in no way advances any argument that the banks wanted to do these things, only that Mexico wanted us to do this. The remittance is where the banks made their profits off of illegals, since they get a cut of every remittance.