Campaign News

The typical Federal Reserve monetary policy announcement has all the drama of a traffic signal.

Officials provide enough hints beforehand that there's little surprise when the news comes about whether they have given the green light to an interest rate change.

That's not the case Thursday.

Nearly a decade after the last increase in the benchmark federal funds rate — and after almost seven years of keeping it at the unprecedented level of near-zero — central bank policymakers will announce if the time has come for an increase.

Analysts said the potential for a rate hike is too close to call as the Federal Open Market Committee on Thursday wraps up its most eagerly awaited meeting in years.

There have been fewer than normal signals from Fed policymakers, including an unusual two months of public silence from Chairwoman Janet L. Yellen.

And the turmoil in financial markets that began in late August has dampened expectations that the Fed would raise the target level for the rate by 0.25 percentage point this month.

Here are five things to watch for when the Fed makes its announcement at 11 a.m. Pacific time, followed 30 minutes later by a news conference with Yellen.

One and done

In June and July, Yellen said she expected a rate hike this year, and most analysts put their money on September.

But that was before China devalued its currency late last month. The move, a signal that the Chinese economy was slowing, roiled financial markets. Many fear a Fed rate hike could add to the volatility.

The 0.25 percentage point increase in itself is minor.

"If the Fed moves the rates a quarter of a point, it probably isn’t going to have a significant impact in how CEOs invest and hire over the next 12 months," AT&T Inc. Chief Executive Randall Stephenson said this week.

But the expectation has been that once the Fed started raising the rate, it would continue with 0.25 percentage point increases at just about every meeting for the near future.

That would be part of a long, slow climb back to about the 3% level the rate averaged from 2001 to 2007.

If the Fed goes ahead with a rate hike Thursday, it could try to soften the impact by signaling there won't be another increase for a while.

Some analysts have called that a "one and done" rate hike.

Policymakers could indicate that approach in their policy statement. They also could show that in their estimations in the accompanying quarterly economic projections, which contain each member's evaluation of where the federal funds rate would be at the end of the year.

Or Yellen could simply state it when she addresses reporters after the meeting.

Split the baby

If Fed officials are torn between a 0.25 percentage point rate hike or no rate hike at all, some think they could split the difference with a mini-hike of 0.125 percentage point.

The Fed frequently moved the rate by increments of an eighth of a point in the 1970s and '80s. But it hasn't made such a minor move since 1989.

It's unclear whether a mini-hike would make everyone happy. It could end up upsetting both those wanting a rate hike and those opposed to one.

But don't be shocked if the rate moves up by less than 0.25 percentage point.

All aboard

On a major policy decision like the first rate hike since 2006, Yellen will strive for consensus.

Recent Fed history shows that will be difficult to obtain.

Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Va., one of the 10 voting members of the FOMC, could be a dissenter if the committee votes to hold the rate steady.

He said this month that "it's time to align our monetary policy with the significant progress we have made."

On the other side, John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, warned this month of "pretty significant" headwinds for the U.S. economy that have "grown larger" recently.

And the committee's vice chair, William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said late last month that the case for a September rate hike had become "less compelling" amid concerns about the global economy.

Dudley, a close ally of Yellen's, is unlikely to dissent if the rate is raised. But Williams could.

Yellen probably will try for a unanimous vote to send a clear signal to financial markets about the Fed's view of the economy. Getting such a vote could be a big accomplishment.

Market reaction

The lack of clear signals from the Fed about what it will do Thursday could translate into a wild ride on Wall Street and in financial markets abroad after the news breaks.

By one indicator based on federal funds futures, investors believe there is only about a 30% chance of a rate hike. So if the Fed increases the rate, markets would be expected to nosedive.

Adding more volatility to an already roiled financial marketplace is a reason some analysts believe Fed policymakers will wait to increase the interest rate.

In addition to its dual mandate of maximizing employment and keeping inflation in check, the Fed has had an unwritten third mandate since the Great Recession: financial stability.

"The worry surrounding a rate hike really centers around how it might affect financial markets abroad, especially in emerging market countries such as China," said John Lonski, chief economist at Moody's Capital Markets Research Group.

"They probably don’t want to go ahead and add to financial market volatility at this point in time," he said.

But survey results Wednesday from CNBC showed 49% of the 51 economists, money managers and strategists the business news network polled think the Fed will increase the rate.

About 43% think the hike will come later, with the rest undecided.

That would point to a market decline if the Fed doesn't act.

But some argue removing the questions about when the Fed would raise the rate would do more for financial stability, particularly in the long-term, than holding steady.

"It’s this deep uncertainty surrounding the conduct of monetary policy that is exacerbating swings in financial markets," said Lawrence Goodman, a former Treasury official who is president of the Center for Financial Stability think tank.

Political fallout

The Fed's decision will reverberate around the globe. But some of the biggest reactions could come from within Washington. 

Liberals have been calling for Yellen and her colleagues to delay a rate increase, arguing the economy still is too weak.

Fed Up, a coalition of 25 labor, community and liberal activist groups plan a news conference Thursday morning in front of the building where Yellen will meet with reporters. The group plans to make its case that the Fed should wait until there is more improvement in the jobs market.

Liberal activists pushed for Yellen to be made Fed chair over former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, and they'll be upset with a rate increase this month.

Summers recently said that a rate increase now would be "a serious mistake." His comments echoed warnings from the World Bank.

But holding the rate steady carries its own political risks.

Many Republicans have been highly critical of the Fed's actions since the Great Recession. They've pushed to change the law to allow for audits of the Fed's monetary policy decisions and require the central bank to set rules for adjusting the federal funds rate.

"Our economy would be healthier if the Federal Reserve were more predictable in its conduct of monetary policy and more transparent about its decision-making," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Whichever way the Fed goes Thursday, Yellen will face heat for the decision the next time she testifies on Capitol Hill.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Truthout - October 5, 2014, by Rebecca Burns - After learning that his home was in foreclosure in July 2013, James Cheeseman received an even more unpleasant surprise when he showed up in court the following January. He was told that his mortgage loan had been sold by JP Morgan Chase and purchased by a company he had never heard of before - LVS Financial.

Cheeseman had already applied for a loan modification from Chase and says he was still awaiting a response when the loan sale occurred - a move that he and his attorney argue violates New York State foreclosure laws. Cheeseman says that the new servicer, BSI Financial, then required him to fill out a whole new loan modification application. In mid-September, he learned that he had been denied.

Though he is asking the court for another shot at a modification, this curveball has caused considerable distress for Cheeseman, 47, and his mother Constance, 75, who have resided in the New York home that they co-own for five years.

"I was shocked; I thought that [the resale of bundles of bad loans] was over," he says. "That's what got the country into trouble in the 2008 [mortgage crisis]. But lo and behold, it's still going on."

Legal advocates, however, say that significant abuses by servicers may already have taken place.

In fact, the Cheesemans and their attorney believe that the sale of their loan was part of a recently expanded federal program ostensibly intended to provide relief to homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. Though foreclosure rates have been falling nationwide, 2 million homeowners are still behind on their mortgages and headed for foreclosure and another 10 million are underwater on their mortgages and at risk of the same in the future. About half a million of those seriously delinquent loans are insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), representing a drain on the agency's taxpayer-backed insurance fund.

In 2012, the FHA expanded a program to auction off pools of "nonperforming loans" - those on which homeowners are at least six months delinquent on their mortgage payments - to both for-profit and nonprofit bidders. To date, nearly 100,000 loans have been sold through the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program (DASP), bringing $8.8 billion into the FHA's coffers. The agency asserts that the program can also help reduce foreclosures, as private loan-buyers not hemmed in by the same restrictions as the government agency should be able to pursue a wider range of avenues to keep residents in their homes.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of DASP is where loans sold through it are ending up. HUD's own data reveals that 98 percent of these loans were purchased by private investors.

But citing stories like Cheeseman's, some housing-rights organizations are telling a different story about DASP. They contest that the program has deepened the pain of homeowners and tenants by handing their fates over to hedge funds and investment groups that often have no interest in pursuing loan modifications or other options that would allow residents to remain in their homes. On September 9, community groups in more than 10 cities nationwide protested at local offices of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which oversees the FHA and DASP. Noting that, by HUD's own numbers, private investors - including private equity firms, hedge funds, specialty servicers and single-family rental companies - have won bids on close to 98 percent of all loans auctioned through DASP, many housing advocates are calling for a halt to the program until it can be overhauled.

Asked about criticisms of DASP, HUD told Truthout that it is exploring several changes to the program. But on September 30, the FHA proceeded with the sale of another pools of loans totaling $2.3 billion in unpaid principal balances.

The Devil's in the Details

HUD did not release data on DASP to the public until August, though housing advocates have for some time been requesting information on the program's outcomes. In its first report on DASP, HUD concluded that the loan-sales program has "met its intention" of mitigating losses to the FHA, thereby minimizing risks to taxpayers. The agency touts sales made through DASP as a way to stabilize its taxpayer-backed insurance fund, which, following losses of more than $50 billion on mortgages it insures, required a federal subsidy of $1.7 billion for the first time in its 80-year history. HUD projects that in the coming years, DASP and other loss-mitigation strategies will add $5 billion to the FHA's insurance fund.

"By selling homes to private equity giants and vulture capitalists, DASP is fueling the rise of the Wall Street landlord."

The report concludes that DASP may be beneficial for homeowners as well, citing the fact that, while about half of the loans sold had not yet been resolved, of those that had, 34 percent of homeowners were able to avoid foreclosure. In a statement provided to Truthout by HUD, FHA Commissioner Carol Galante said:

We consider the Distressed Assets Sales Program to be very successful in accomplishing what we intended it to do. This program not only achieves significant cost savings for FHA's insurance fund, but offers borrowers a final opportunity to avoid foreclosure, which they wouldn't otherwise have. The results speak for themselves. Based on our initial data, an encouraging share of families are now re-performing and others have achieved a graceful exit from an unsustainable mortgage. It's important to note that all these families would be foreclosed upon if not for this program, which, in one way or another, has offered many of these borrowers another path.

But community groups say that this characterization lumps together dramatically different outcomes for homeowners. A September report released by the community groups Right to the City Alliance and Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) notes that of loans that were counted as having avoided foreclosure, many had been sold to a third party or resulted in a short-sale. Though homeowners were able to avoid foreclosure in 34 percent of loans resolved to date, they were able to gain modifications or otherwise begin making payments again in just 10.9 percent of the resolved cases.

"What we want to see is people being able to stay in their homes. And this category of 'foreclosure avoidance' includes a lot of outcomes in which [they] were absolutely not able to stay in their homes," Connie Razza, CPD's director of strategic research and author of the report, titled "Vulture Capital Hits Home: How HUD is Helping Wall Street and Hurting Our Communities," told Truthout.

Homeowners Claim Abuses

That's not the only bone housing activists have to pick with the program. Only loans that are not eligible for standard FHA loss mitigation - those, that, for example, have failed to qualify for loan modifications or other measures - are supposed to be included in the program. But some legal and housing advocates believe that mortgage servicers, for whom a quick insurance payout may be more attractive than a lengthy foreclosure process, could be flouting this requirement.

"When speculators heat up the market for 'distressed mortgages' they make it harder for anyone who acquires them - whether for profit or nonprofit - to make win-win deals that preserve homeownership and stabilize communities."

For example, James Cheeseman says he was beginning a settlement conference with Chase Bank, a step required under New York law to determine whether a modification, short sale or other alternative agreement can be reached before a lender proceeds with foreclosure, when his attorney learned that his loan had been sold in January. Cheeseman says that he was never notified of the sale - instead, he says, his attorney noticed the change during the discovery phase of the settlement conference.

"Our suspicion is that once [Chase] found out that [the foreclosure] was going to be an extended process, they sold their note," says Cheeseman. "The've been hit with fines for shady practices in the past, but they’re still doing it. But HUD is a government agency - it's like we're paying for those shady practices."

James and Constance Cheeseman's house went into foreclosure in 2013 after James was laid off from his job as an auto claims examiner. He says that he and his mother fell victim to a loan-modification scam at the hands of the Templeton Group, against whom the New York District attorney recently filed a suit over such abuses. But the Cheesemans applied for another modification last year, hopeful that the result would be different, given that James had found work again, and they also had additional income through a renter. They believe that the loan's sale has restricted their options: After purchase by an investor, the Cheesemans' loan was no longer insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), disqualifying them from the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). BSI Financial, the loan's new servicer, is attempting to continue with the foreclosure.

Nonprofits have been unsuccessful in buying loans through DASP after being outbid by for-profit competitors.

Banks selling loans to the FHA for auction through DASP receive an insurance payout equal to the unpaid principal balance of the loan. Housing-policy advocates fear that this could create an incentive for mortgage servicers to cut through judicial red tape by simply selling loans to the FHA for auction through DASP. Another report, released in September by the progressive think-tank the Center for American Progress (CAP), notes that roughly 76 percent of the loans auctioned through DASP between 2013 and 2014 were sold off by Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, or Wells Fargo - three banks that have become notorious for loan-servicing abuses.

"Servicers stand to make out very well from this program," says Sarah Edelman, a researcher at CAP and one of the authors of the report.

HUD tells Truthout that, in response to concerns from CAP and other housing advocates, it has recently changed the process through which it verifies that servicers have fully exhausted loss-mitigations options. Previously, servicers were permitted to self-report that they had completed all the mandatory steps, and HUD program officers conducted checks on a sample of the loans submitted for auction. In advance of the auction on September 30, according to HUD, program officers checked all loans and removed a small number for which loss mitigation records were unclear.

Legal advocates, however, say that significant abuses by servicers may already have taken place. In May, the National Fair Housing Alliance, together with several other consumer and legal-aid organizations, wrote a letter to Commissioner Galante to express concern with "significant servicer noncompliance with HUD loss mitigation protocol" and call for stronger protections for homeowners affected by DASP. The letter detailed several cases in which homeowners had already been accepted for FHA-HAMP modifications and were making trial payments when new servicers stepped in and said they were no longer honoring the modifications. In several cases, like the Cheesemans, homeowners say they received no notice that their loans had been sold.

Under current policy, community organizations that have a real interest in preserving affordable housing often get the least help in acquiring distressed properties.

Vicente and Guadalupe Salgado, residents of Chicago's Albany Park neighborhood, believe they may be one more such case. After the couple fell behind on their mortgage in 2011, they fell victim to a mortgage modification scam and entered foreclosure. Since then, they say that they have applied for FHA loan modifications several times and were awaiting a response in July 2014 when they were contacted by a new servicer, who told them that they had been denied. The Salgados say they were told that they could not apply again unless they could pay one-third of the remaining principle balance up front, which amounted to $22,000.

"If I had that much money, I'd just find a new place to live," says Guadalupe Salgado.

The Salgados were among the homeowners who protested at HUD offices nationwide to call for an end to the resale of FHA loans, and they are seeking a meeting with HUD to try and determine whether the loan was, in fact, sold through DASP.

HUD says that in cases where a loan has been sold through DASP erroneously, the agency is able to return the mortgage note to the original lender and reverse the insurance claim. However, the agency says that this has been discovered in post-sale reviews of records, rather than through complaints by borrowers, and has happened in a very small number of cases.

Rise of the Wall Street Landlord

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of DASP is where loans sold through it are ending up. HUD's own data reveals that 98 percent of these loans were purchased by private investors; just three investment and private-equity firms - Lone Star Funds, Bayview Asset Management, and Serene Investment Partners - won nearly half of all loans.

The market for distressed loans isn't the only asset class to emerge from the ashes of the foreclosure crisis. During the past two years, investors have bought up more than 200,000 mostly foreclosed homes. After scooping up properties at bargain-basement prices, groups such as Invitation Homes, a subsidiary of private-equity giant the Blackstone Group, have built a new industry specializing in the rental of single-family homes, and even begun securitizing tenants' rental payments to sell billions of dollars in "rent-backed securities,"a financial product similar to mortgage-backed securities that taps tenants' rent checks as an income stream for investors.

Critics of DASP worry that the program may, for some investors, amount to little more than another means of acquiring cheap rental properties. At least two DASP buyers also operate single-family-home rental firms. The Blackstone Group - which through its subsidiary Invitation Homes is now the largest owner of single-family homes nationwide - owns a controlling stake in Bayview Asset Management, which has won nearly 20,000 loans through DASP.

"By selling homes to private equity giants and vulture capitalists, DASP is fueling the rise of the Wall Street landlord," says Kevin Whelan, national campaign director of the National Home Defenders League, which helped coordinate the September protests against DASP.

There's another troubling trend associated with DASP: The accelerating sale of bad loans has helped give rise to a  "distressed-mortgage securities market." At least 11 buyers who have won loans through DASP have securitized some or all of the loans purchased through the program, and analysts estimate that investors will trade roughly $60 billion in distressed mortgage assets by the end of 2014, compared with just $25 billion in 2013, according to the report by the Right to the City Alliance and the Center for Popular Democracy. CPD's Razza also notes that firms that securitize distressed loans may be most likely to continue winning them in the future - according to her report, securities have enabled for-profits to bid 15 - 20 percent higher on loans than their competitors.

This trend is undermining DASP's ostensible goal of helping homeowners and "contributing to a new speculative housing bubble," says Whelan, noting that the price of distressed mortgages has been driven upward by investor demand. "When speculators heat up the market for "distressed mortgages" they make it harder for anyone who acquires them - whether for profit or non-profit - to make win-win deals that preserve homeownership and stabilize communities." 

Community Groups Left Out

Indeed, though DASP was initially billed as a means of involving more community organizations with a solid track record in foreclosure prevention, nonprofit organizations have won just 2 percent of loans sold through the program, according to the Center for American Progress’ report.

HUD stresses that because all of the loans sold through the program were headed for foreclosure, DASP is a last shot for homeowners to achieve an alternative outcome. But Whelman says this amounts to a "beggars-can't-be-choosers" rationale that does not necessarily bear out. "HUD's own figures show that the vast majority of families whose loans are sold off to investors lose their homes, whether via foreclosures, short sales, or other mechanisms," he says. "But there are nonprofits that can buy these loans that have a track record of keeping more than half the families in deeply distressed loans in their homes."

Several such nonprofits have been unsuccessful in buying loans through DASP after being outbid by for-profit competitors. New Jersey Community Capital (NJCC), a community-development group, has successfully purchased loans in New Jersey and Florida through DASP's "Neighborhood Stabilization Outcome" (NSO) pools, which are area-specific and require that buyers achieve a set of goals that enhance community stability - including reperformance of a loan wherein a borrower is able to begin making payments again, or a property's rental to a borrower - in at least half of loans purchased.

In an email to Truthout, NJCC said that it had been able to modify 45 percent of the loans in owner-occupied homes, a rate much higher than the industry standard. Nevertheless, the organization has been unable to scale up its purchases through DASP - in June, it was outbid on an NSO pool of loans in New Jersey by a for-profit investor. Even in NSO pools, nonprofits have won just 12 percent of loans, but outcomes are slightly better, with nearly 25 percent of residents able to remain in their homes.

NJCC and other nonprofits are calling on HUD to enable the participation of more mission-driven nonprofits, including by expanding the NSO pools, which currently constitute just 20 percent of DASP sales, or creating nonprofit specific pools. "This could be a very effective program, if FHA can get loans in the hands of buyers who are committed to neighborhood stabilization - that's if," says CAP's Edelman.

In a statement provided by HUD, Galante said: "HUD is also exploring every option to increase nonprofit participation in our program, including allowing more time for these organizations to perform the necessary due diligence and to assemble sufficient capital." The agency also told Truthout that in an upcoming November DASP auction, it will offer more NSO pools, including several that are smaller and more geographically concentrated. 

But other housing-rights organizations believe that even farther-reaching measures are needed. The Chicago-based Autonomous Center of Albany Park, which is working with Guadalupe and Vicente Salgado to help fight their foreclosure, also operates Casas del Pueblo, a 501(c)3 community land trust that holds titles to properties and believes that federal policy should require more banks and investors that profited from the mortgage crisis to donate properties to community organizations outright.

Donation to a land bank is one option that buyers of loans in NSO pools may take to fulfill their obligations to the program's requirements, and some banks have chosen to donate properties to nonprofits in small number to receive a tax write-off. But Antonio Gutierrez, housing coordinator at Casas del Pueblo, says that under current policy, community organizations that have a real interest in preserving affordable housing often get the least help in acquiring distressed properties. The land trust, for example, is currently in negotiations with Fannie Mae to purchase the home of a domestic violence survivor who went into foreclosure after her abusive husband left the home and has been fighting to remain in it for four years. Though DASP buyers can obtain properties at an average of between 40 and 60 percent of the remaining principal balance on a mortgage, Fannie Mae has asked Casas del Pueblo to pay the full market value of $250,000 to obtain their member's home, even though she had already made a decade of mortgage payments on her mortgage.

"The DASP program isn't really providing neighborhood stabilization, it's actually contributing to the displacement of existing communities" when investors buy loans with the intent of foreclosing on properties and finding higher-income renters, says Gutierrez. Even the loan modifications provided by commercial banks and investment groups may merely be "prolonging the process of foreclosure,"  he says. "If we want a permanent solution and true neighborhood stabilization," he says, "we need federal policies that say that principal reductions, buybacks and donations to community land trusts are not optional. They need to be priorities."

In the meantime, the Autonomous Center is part of a national coalition calling on HUD to halt DASP outright until it can be overhauled. The Center for Popular Democracy, the Home Defenders League and other housing organizations say they gathered 11,000 signatures on a petition calling for an end to sales through DASP, and are planning further protests if they don't receive a response. Among those watching HUD's next move are the Salgados, who believe their house could be auctioned later this year.

"I'm waiting and trying to investigate who owns the loan," says Guadalupe Salgado. "But this is my house, because I've fought for it."

Source

St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman and City Council member Karl Nurse on Wednesday joined a national letter from local elected officials to President Barack Obama calling on him to protect hundreds of thousands of immigrant families by issuing a pardon for lawfully present immigrants with years-old or low-level criminal offenses.

The letter is signed by 60 local elected officials. It kicks off a week in which the president’s legacy on immigration will be at stake, with confirmation hearings and a national day of action that will highlight his record of both deportation and protection, and potentially show just how much could be dismantled by the incoming administration.

The White House has rejected previous calls for pardons for undocumented immigrants, asserting that a pardon cannot be used to grant people lawful immigration status. However, for legally present immigrants who already have status, but who face the risk of deportation based on minor and old convictions, a presidential pardon could provide durable protection against deportation that could not be undone by any future president.

Many of those who would be affected by the pardon were convicted of minor offenses, such as jumping a turnstile. In many cases, the offenses occurred decades ago. The letter joins Local Progress members with over 100 immigrant rights groups who made the same request to the president late last month. Forgiving all immigration consequences of convictions would guarantee that individuals can stay with their families and in their communities. Local Progress is a network of progressive local elected officials from around the country united by our shared commitment to equal justice under law, shared prosperity, sustainable and livable cities, and good government that serves the public interest. Local Progress is staffed by the Center for Popular Democracy.

As local elected officials, the signers of the letter see the impacts of a broken immigration system up close and in their communities, every day. Indeed, localities are often forced to deal with the consequences of deportation, be it in a family, business, child or broader neighborhood.

“As an immigrant who legally came to this country as a child, I have a brother and a sister who could be deported if they had committed a misdemeanor anytime in the last 58 years.  So this is personal,” Nurse said.

Kriseman added: “I applaud Councilman Karl Nurse for joining this effort and offer my enthusiastic support. I trust President Obama will do the right thing for our immigrant families in his remaining days in office.”

There is a significant historical precedent for this type of presidential pardon.

Categorical pardons have been used to grant clemency to broad classes of people in the past by presidents ranging from Abraham Lincoln to Jimmy Carter, the latter of whom issued a pardon to approximately half a million men who had broken draft laws to avoid serving in the Vietnam War.

dons to keep immigrant families together

By ANNE LINDBERG

Source

Buzzfeed - June 16, 2014 by Adrian Carrasquillo - New York Democrats announced Monday new legislation that would grant state citizenship rights to undocumented immigrants.

The bill could represent a bold new advocacy strategy: using states’ rights to secure legal protections for the undocumented.

York state senator Gustavo Rivera and assembly member Karim Camara’s bill would allow undocumented immigrants to vote, drive, receive professional licenses, run for civil office, and receive Medicaid as well as in-state tuition in New York by making them New York state citizens.

“It’s up to New York to figure out who it’s political community is,” said Peter Markowitz, professor at the Cardozo school of law, who made the legal case for the legislation through the country’s dual-sovereign structure. “New York gets to decide who is and who isn’t a New Yorker. The federal government may not interfere.”

The prospects for federal changes to U.S. immigration law took a hit last week after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary election loss, attributed by some as directly the result of attacks by Cantor’s opponent on his immigration record.

Flanked by activists in front of the Statue of Liberty Monday, Rivera struck a positive tone about the bill, called the New York is Home Act.

Immigrants would be eligible to become state citizens if they show proof of identity, proof of three years of New York State residency and proof of three years of New York State tax payments; the bill also requires a commitment to abide by state laws and uphold the state Constitution, and a willingness to serve on New York juries and to keep paying state taxes.

Rivera said the idea has been in the works for two years and called the legislation “bold,” not because of the pieces themselves, but because they are all in one bill.

“This is unlike SB1070,” Rivera told BuzzFeed after the event. “Arizona said, ‘We can do this and affect things on a federal level.’ No, you can’t. But the conversation we need to have is: What rights do we have in a state?”

Spokespeople for Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, the first Latina in the role, said Monday they were reviewing the legislation.

“In light of inaction at the federal government, the administration is interested in learning about local initiatives to increase equality among immigrant communities,” de Blasio deputy press secretary Maibe Ponet said.

“Given congress’s failure to address immigration reform, people are obviously becoming increasingly frustrated, a spokesman for Mark-Viverito said. “[The speaker] is supportive of increasing voting rights and will be reviewing the legislation.”

Cesar Vargas, a DREAMer who has been fighting for the right to practice law as an undocumented immigrant, would benefit from the portion of the legislation that would give licenses for professions like lawyers, doctors, dentists, midwives and others. He said he is set to work with the mayor and the city council speaker to “see how they can support undocumented lawyers.”

“As we stand in front of the Statue of Liberty, we’re reminded of the American Dream, and I’m reminded of the dream of my mother for me to be a lawyer,” Vargas said.

Many sought to draw a parallel between the fight for marriage equality — and its stops and starts over the years.

“This will get a lot of attention for New York,” DREAMer Antonio Alarcon, 19, said. “It will take months to pass, we’re going to be fighting for this like they did for marriage equality.”

“Full equality and inclusion will gain momentum in our time,” said Andrew Friedman, co-executive director of The Center for Popular Democracy.

He said his group is in discussion with four to five other states for similar legislation with the stated goal of putting “another horse in the race” in the way those who fought for marriage equality continued to refine what they were asking for.

Jose Davila, the vice president off policy and government relations at the Hispanic Federation echoed the belief that the legislation comes at an important time for the fight for changing U.S. immigration laws.

“Instead of tear families apart, we should be reframing the debate. What kind of state do we want to be?”

Source