this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
126 points (98.5% liked)

US Authoritarianism

730 readers
2 users here now

Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: [email protected]

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

I'm with you that that is inappropriate in public, and west coast cities are being hit super hard. The dirt little secret is that many interior cities do also run their homeless out.

But the research shows the fastest, most sure fire way to reduce the problem is to just give folks a permanent address that is safe.

Every effort should be made to give these folks a home, even if that home is some sort of rapid mass manufacture box with a door that locks.

I do acknowledge that the states on the west coast shouldn't be the only ones that need to follow that approach, and there clearly isn't a solution for that. I.e. a state should be rapidly obligated to house IT'S homeless, not ALL OF AMERICA'S homeless... But that is a very complicated layer

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

a state should be rapidly obligated to house IT’S homeless, not ALL OF AMERICA’S homeless

This is unconstitutional under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State."

So all a homeless person would have to do is travel to any state; claim residence, which wouldn't be hard since they don't exactly have a home; and then petition the state for housing. I didn't have a primary address and did this a few months ago, and was able to get SNAP and Medicaid through the state.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You clearly understand the situation I'm describing. This is a high level situation.

Responding with the pedantry of existing law is in bad faith, as the nature of my comment clearly speaks of future hypotheticals.

The operative word is "should". any critically capable reader (uh oh!) should be able to detect I'm discussing the practical, hypothetical challenges any given state would face, of they found the sufficient funds and motivation to pursue this topic far beyond their neighbors: they would see an influx of folks looking for these serbices, thus overwhelming their isolated effort.

The complication would be coordinating efforts across the country to provide services as I described, at such a pace and parity that regions, and then states would not become overly burdened by migrating homeless.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Trying to sell this idea to people—this idea that the Constitution will get changed to support this fantasy of yours—as anything other than mad ravings is what's bad faith in this conversation. Confront the reality of the situation if you are truly interested in making change happen.

Men will not look at things as they really are but as they wish them to be and they are ruined.

— Niccolo Machiavelli

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Miss.

What I'm selling is the need for many states, or the federal government to act in coordination, such that one state isn't the only place homeless folks can go for these services

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It seems like any state by state solution will fall prey to states that want to displace their homeless population instead of providing attainable housing. If we lived in a reasonable society the Federal government would intervene, but no dice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Agree.

I strongly believe the federal government needs to step in, with some sort of "new deal" conservation/work corp.

As the unhoused are able, they can work for the work corp. The work corp will obviously be shit pay, but you should get basic federal healthcare, and basic housing provided. If you are unable to work, that's not a blocker to receiving this basic housing.

Anyway, we could be doing this right now, across the country, providing a safety net for so many people who are near-homeless, while also improving our country through the other projects the work corp could take on. Republicans should be happy as folks are incentivised to try to work, as their basic needs are met and they can operate from stability.

I'm just spitballing here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A lot of the homeless are elderly or ill or handicapped. Many are homeless because they cannot work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I addressed that

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I’m with you on this. It seems like it’d have to be a coalition of states or the federal government tackling it. That seems impossible at the moment though.

I fully support whatever level of housing we can provide for folks that have the bare necessities… water, sewer, trash, and safety. Also agree that there would need to be some cap on services…. As a city could go bankrupt if the regions folks had flocked to them.

Portland had a few self regulated slightly better than tent cities that, as far as I could tell, had a pretty reasonable compromise. Not ideal… but they provided stability for folks and, if someone caused trouble or brought drugs in, they got kicked out. Better, at least, than the current situation of chaos, drugs, and trash everywhere.