The housing markets have taken another hit as a result of the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Those policies have already taken a toll on the construction sector, where there are currently an estimated 404,000 job openings -- openings once filled, at least in part, by immigrants, some of whom probably came into the country illegally.

Now, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has said that so-called Dreamers are no longer eligible for federally insured mortgages. Dreamers are covered by a 2012 executive order signed by President Barack Obama -- called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA -- that allows young people who were brought to this country illegally by their parents to avoid deportation.

According to federal estimates, there are nearly 800,000 Dreamers in the United States. They grew up here, and consider themselves American in every way except on paper. Though mostly Latin American in heritage, they come from two dozen different countries.

The HUD ruling reverses a longstanding “look-the-other-way” position that Dreamers qualify for loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration under certain circumstances. Not only were most lenders caught off guard by the change, it also is contrary to what HUD Sec. Ben Carson told Congress earlier this year.

In response to a question during hearings in April, Carson said that the government’s policies on FHA loans for Dreamers had not changed. He said he had checked with the FHA and “no one was aware of any change that had been made to the policy whatsoever.”

“I’m sure we have plenty of DACA recipients who have FHA mortgages,” he told lawmakers.

When President Obama signed the DACA executive order, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the policy “confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”

The FHA had a long-maintained policy that non-citizens without legal residency are ineligible for government loans. For the most part, neither lenders nor the FHA paid any attention to that policy. But last year, the FHA quietly began telling lenders that Dreamers were no longer eligible, leading to confusion in the market. And now HUD has made its stance official.

Len Wolfson, HUD’s assistant secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, said in a mid-June letter to California Rep. Pete Aguilar that “because DACA does not confer lawful status, DACA recipients remain ineligible for FHA loans.” He said the FHA has long maintained that non-citizens without legal residency do not qualify.

Democrats in Congress have already taken steps to change the new policy. The House Financial Services Committee has cleared legislation that would ensure DACA recipients cannot be denied federally backed mortgage because of their immigration status.

Because the party controls the House, the measure is likely to clear that body. But a similar bill in the Republican-controlled Senate may not go anywhere, especially because it goes beyond the House measure to include loans purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed by the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service.

The Senate bill is sponsored by a dozen Democrats. Among them are a number of presidential hopefuls, including Kamala Harris, California; Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota; Kristin Gillibrand, New York; Bernie Sanders, Vermont; and Cory Booker, New Jersey.

In the new construction sector, meanwhile, about 30 percent of all construction jobs, both residential and commercial, are held by non-native-born individuals, according to Census Bureau data. But in some states, immigrants take a larger share -- 42 percent in California, for example, and 41 percent in Texas.

There’s no way of knowing how many undocumented immigrants work in the housing sector. Builders won’t talk about it, and when pressed, they say it is up to their subcontractors, not them, to determine the status of the workers they employ.

But Robert Dietz, the chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders, says he has heard “anecdotal evidence” from some of his members that last month, when President Trump announced an impending widespread roundup of immigrants targeted for deportation, there was “increased absenteeism” on job sites throughout the country.

According to the NAHB, the concentration of immigrants is particularly high in such key trades as carpenters, painters, drywall installers, brick masons and laborers. These are trades that require less formal education, but consistently register some of the highest shortages reported by builders.

As of April, the number of construction-sector job openings was at a post-Great Recession high. The lack of labor is the top issue for builders, more challenging than the cost of land or materials, or even the cost of local building and zoning regulations.

The labor shortage impacts new construction in several ways. It takes longer to build and, if a builder is forced to hire inexperienced people, there’s likely to be more than the normal number of defects -- mostly cosmetic, but possibly structural -- that will have to be addressed before or after buyers move in.

But if builders hold out for experienced workers, it’s likely to increase their costs, which is almost always passed on to buyers in the form of higher prices. And that, of course, contributes to the primary hurdle facing today’s buyers: affordability.

Sellers who can’t decide whether to move into their next homes while their current one remains unsold should consider this: According to a new analysis, empty houses remain on the market longer, and sell for less, than those that are still occupied.

It’s always been a real estate axiom that houses in which would-be buyers must visualize how their own furniture would look don’t do as well as those that are furnished and occupied. That’s why builders spend beaucoup bucks to outfit their model homes with a dazzling array of furniture and accessories.

But a report from Redfin shows just how true it is. The results vary according to location, but nationally, vacant houses sold for $11,300 less and spent six more days on the market than comparable places that were still inhabited.

For its analysis, the brokerage firm’s economists compared listings marked “vacant” at the time they were sold last year with those not marked as such. Less than 3% of the included listings started out as occupied and became vacant while on the market, so it’s unlikely that the findings were skewed by houses whose sellers were not able to find a buyer before they moved out. In other words, they moved before putting their places up for sale.

“Although vacant homes are easy for buyers to tour at their convenience, the fact that the sellers have already moved on is often a signal to buyers that they can take their time making an offer,” says Redfin’s chief economist, Daryl Fairweather.

But it’s also just as likely, Fairweather concedes, that sellers who are well-heeled enough to carry two houses at once aren’t as motivated to get the highest price possible.

The study found that vacant houses sell for less in every metro area that was analyzed. The differences in price were largest in relatively inexpensive areas like Omaha, Nebraska, where sellers running on empty sold for 7.2% less.

Homeowners with adjustable-rate mortgages tied to LIBOR -- the London Interbank Offered Rate -- could be looking at another Y2K event in a few years.

The LIBOR index will be phased out after 2021, and at that time, adjustable-rate mortgages with rate changes pegged to that benchmark will be switched to something else. There is an estimated $1.2 trillion in ARMs tied to LIBOR.

At this writing, no one knows what the new index will be, though something called the Secured Overnight Financing Rate seems to be favored. But the lending sector is working to find a replacement that everybody can live with. Unfortunately, borrowers won’t have a say in the matter.

Of course, the fear that everything would fall apart when the calendar turned to the new century 19 years ago fizzled. This may turn out to be a similar false alarm.

Selling your house, and looking for an edge? Don’t run out and install the following features just to sell faster or for more money, but if you already have them, it might pay to feature them in your listing.

Zillow analyzed 4.6 million sales completed in 2017 and 2018 and found that listings that mentioned “steam ovens” sold for 34% more than expected. Those that mentioned “professional appliances” and “wine cellars” notched 32 percent and 31 percent premiums, respectively.

Of course, those items alone are not responsible for the resulting higher contract prices. But they didn’t hurt, either.

Now for the other end of the totem pole. The following features were mentioned in listings for less than 9 percent of the houses selling above list price: interior barn doors, smart thermostats, butcher block counters, farmhouse sinks and smart lighting.

When Ed Bruce first crooned, “Mammas, don’t let your babies grow up to be cowboys,” it was probably good advice. But what about letting your daughters grow up to be construction workers?

The job site remains a boy’s club overall: Women make up 47 percent of the American workforce, yet they represent just 9 percent of all construction workers. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women in certain segments of the construction industry began to earn more than their male counterparts in 2017.

In the broader workforce, women make just 81% of what men do for the same job.

Admittedly, the construction field isn’t all that great a place for women to work, what with all the catcalls and smart comments they often have to endure. But their wages are growing.

So if college isn’t for your young woman, how about carpentry or plumbing?

Congratulations to Beverly Fulkerson of Osgood, Indiana, who was the winner of a Montana mountain retreat in this year’s HGTV Dream Home Giveaway. Here’s hoping she gets to keep the place.

Fulkerson has been entering the HGTV promotion every year since 1998. This year, she entered almost every day. Her perseverance paid off when one of her entries was chosen from 135 million others, winning her a 3,650-square-foot house on the edge of Glacier National Park with stunning views of the Rocky Mountains and Whitefish Lake. The three-bedroom, 3 1/2-bath house is near a private entrance to the Big Mountain ski slopes.

But if history holds, Fulkerson and her husband won’t be able to hold on to the house. It’s not unusual for winners of contests like this to be forced to sell the properties because they can’t afford the income taxes, property taxes and upkeep. Even people who win makeovers of their current homes often must sell.

According to HGTV, only one of the first 10 Dream House winners has been able to hang on to their winnings. And just six of the first 21 winners -- there have been 23 contests so far -- actually lived in their new digs for more than a year.

The longest “survivor,” the 1998 winner, kept her dream home for eight years before selling it. But after taking out a mortgage on the place to pay her taxes, according to Country Living magazine, she used it only as a vacation property. (Country Living is published by Hearst, which also publishes HGTV Magazine.)

When it became obvious that the people winning its sweepstakes were unable to keep their new digs, HGTV began offering winners a cash option. Most winners now either go that route or sell the houses -- often back to their builders, but rarely at full value.

What’s the rub? Taxes, mostly. Since the winnings are considered income, Uncle Sam wants his cut -- as do the states in which these properties are located, and any other local jurisdictions with taxing authority.

If you’re lucky enough to win a house or renovation, you’ll be responsible for federal income taxes on the value of the property or improvements, plus state income tax, depending on your state of residence. You’ll pay taxes at the marginal rate, because the value of the prize is on top of any income you’ve earned from employment and investments.

Another problem: Most prize houses are located in areas with high costs of living. Compound that even further because property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, utilities and maintenance costs are recurring charges.

According to a breakdown by TurboTax for technology website Vocativ, the winner of a house worth $1.751 million would owe the IRS $693,300 in federal income taxes. Then there are state income taxes, which range all over the ballpark, and property taxes, which also vary from place to place.

However, if you take the cash option, which in this case is “just” $1.262 million, the feds would ding you for slightly less than $500,000. You’d also owe state income taxes, but there wouldn’t be any property taxes. Nice little windfall.

Most people can’t take the hit if they opt to keep the property, so they take the money -- more than $750,000, in the above example -- and run. That’s what the winner of the 2012 Dream Home in Midway, Utah, did; the home was later listed for $1.49 million, according to a detailed blog post by Laura Tedesco.

The 2011 winners tried to use their new Vermont ski-in, ski-out lodge as a vacation home, Tedesco reports, but only managed to use it five times before deciding to sell. The place sold for $2.7 million -- far below the $3.8 million HGTV said it was worth.

The sales taxes on the 2009 house in Sonoma, California, were $500,000, and the annual property taxes were $25,000. So the winner sold the place three months after she won it, for $2.2 million, and donated the contents of the home -- valued at $187,000 -- to charity. The buyer of the house was its builder, who marked it up 10 percent and resold it.

The 2008 winner would have had to pay sales taxes of roughly $700,000, plus $20,000 more annually for property taxes, so she sold her new Florida Keys house for $1.65 million. Just a few years later, the house was sold again -- for roughly half that amount.

The 2005 winner, Don Cruz of Chicago, ended up declaring bankruptcy; he couldn’t afford to keep the $2.5 million Texas mansion he won, though he made a herculean effort. He listed the place for $5.5 million, but after it went into foreclosure, it sold for $1.43 million.

The moral of this story is clear: Unless winners of these sweepstakes sell their current places and move, they probably can’t afford to take the hit. On the other hand, selling the prize house -- or taking the cash instead of the house from the start -- can result in a nice profit.