this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
465 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4007 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

As more people end up experiencing homelessness, they’re also facing increasingly punitive and reactionary responses from local governments and their neighbors. Such policies could become legally codified in short order, with the high court having agreed to hear arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Originally brought in 2018, the case challenged the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over an ordinance banning camping. Both a federal judge and, later, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down, saying that Grants Pass did not have enough available shelter to offer homeless people. As such, the law was deemed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The ruling backed up the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling on the Martin v. City of Boise case, which said that punishing or arresting people for camping in public when there are no available shelter beds to take them to instead constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Eighth Amendment. That applied to localities in the Ninth Circuit’s area of concern and has led to greater legal scrutiny even as cities and counties push for more punitive and restrictive anti-camping laws. In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the previous Grants Pass and Boise rulings, it would open the door for cities, states, and counties to essentially criminalize being unhoused on a massive scale.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240223125412/https://newrepublic.com/article/178678/supreme-court-criminalize-homeless-case

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Christians".

Here's their bible's directly instructing the most-devout of Christians to be homeless:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+6%3A7-13&version=AMPC


They'd better be ready to butcher any 2nd-coming of their Christ, in order to prevent him ( should he exist ) from pouring hell onto their fake-values religion that gaslights about being Christian.

What despicable evil.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And if any community will not receive and accept and welcome you, and they refuse to listen to you, when you depart, shake off the dust that is on your feet, for a testimony against them. [b]Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the judgment day than for that town.

I'm no bible expert but it sounds to me like those unaccepting of these "homeless" disciples would have hellfire rain down upon them worse than literal sexual deviants.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Ancient Levant, including ancient Israel, was obsessed with being hospitable hosts to visitors. This was an important cultural marker left over from when proto-Israelite culture was bedouin and on the fringes of society in the Levant.

This practice had become slightly more hostile during Roman occupation, but Jesus's teachings on the matter were profoundly conservative--instructing his followers to never waiver from their ancient obligations.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

In America there's a huge problem with addiction and mental illness. These people make up a large portion of the problematic unhoused individuals.

If we could find a way to address these individuals then most of the societally problematic issues with homelessness go away and we can start focusing on helping those remaining who are unhoused due to circumstance, poverty, etc and have a meaningful ability to reintegrate.

I fully support involuntarily committing addicts and the mentally ill once we have a place to put them. If it's bad enough that they're unhoused and being a nuisance to their communities then they are obviously not in a position to be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves and others.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

involuntarily committing

So...jailing. I'm all for providing resources, but you're essentially suggesting forcing them into horrible asylums like we used to do.

Additionally, does addiction and mental illness lead to homelessness, or is it perhaps those that become homeless are more apt to develop addiction and mental health issues? So maybe we look more into what causes people to become homeless in the first place, e.g. lack of a social safety net.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If only there was a way that didn't involve involuntarily committing people, whether to jail or a psych hospital...

You left out that mental illness and addiction are both increasingly acknowledged to very often result from the difficulties of coping with garbage social conditions -- even at an individual level. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Some wild experiments have been done out there -- mostly in other countries, obv -- where it turns out that when you give these deranged people housing, access to education and/or employment, and maybe even healthy social connections, they get a lot less deranged like super fucking quickly. Just wild.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're just huffing propaganda.

HF does not make mental illness go away and it does not make substance use go away. When controlled, HF does not lead to a decrease in substance use.

Addicts are getting money for drugs by abusing their communities. People who do crime as a living should not be left on the streets. Mentally ill people unable to meaningfully take care of themselves are no more capable in a building as opposed to outside a building.

Ignoring reality does nothing to further the cause it just elicits push back from everyone who sees the cause associated with delusional clowns.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

If I had any faith in the prison systems of the USA to not abuse people, not make them do menial labor, and not siphon taxpayer dollars then this might actually be a cool solution: feed em, house em, give them medical treatment.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 months ago

Just think of the prison industrial complex profits this is going to bring!

[–] [email protected] 44 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  1. Make people homeless
  2. Criminalize homelessness
  3. Profit
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago
  1. buy up all residential real estate
  2. only rent for above market value
  3. pass laws making homelessness illegal
  4. profit
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

2.1) felony record then banning you from voting

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago

A government sponsored slavery plan

[–] [email protected] 46 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If owning a home is a requirement for just being able to exist in society, then doesn't that mean that homeownership (or at least access to renting a home/apartment/etc) is a human right? Shouldn't prices then be regulated such that salaries/minimum wage actually guaranteed you had access to home ownership/rental? If they're setting home-ownership/rental as a responsibility to be able to live, then they need to guarantee home-ownership/rental is affordable for the majority of Americans.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Arm your homeless neighbors.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago

Going to need to build a whole lot more of those private, for-profit prisons in order to support this.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is my future. I was hit by a driver while riding a bicycle to work 2/26/14. I worked for a chain of bike shops as the Buyer. I left my supercharged Camaro at home and rarely drove. I was 29, no DUI, no reason to have to ride, I chose to ride and race and live. I only barely survived. In 3 days it is the 10 year anniversary of spending most of my days laying in bed. When my folks die, I'll be homeless as it stands now; just another one of more than 100k in the greater Los Angeles basin. If you think disability or social security are some kind of safety net, you are delusional. Most of those people out there are like me, like you, after one bad day at the hands of someone else doing something stupid and completely out of your control.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

I'm assuming you've already taken all the legal steps available in your area.

MOVE!

They're alive, so you have support, you have a roof, use the time now to find places that can help you. Make calls, write emails.

Social nets, the few that exist, are still running their programs with the bootstrap mentality. But social programs can and will help you. There are 100% free often national services that have people who's job it is to find programs, file applications, get you to appointments etc.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 8 months ago

This is going to be the new war on drugs. The private prisons were being emptied, so they needed a new supply of bodies.

load more comments
view more: next ›