Should communties be forced to expend for immigrants "welcomed" without their own means of support?

Supreme Court will hear case about homeless encampments, with huge implications for California
(link) Excerpt:

And Migrants at NYC's Floyd Bennett Field are are begging for money, food at furious locals’ doorsteps: ‘Invasion’
Excerpt:

I read posts like the first one, and articles as quoted just above, with dismay and disgust. Why isn't anyone saying something sensible as "you're welcome here, on your own dime." A few years ago I read The Klondike Fever: The Life and Death of the Last Great Gold Rush by Pierre Berton.

The author called it, and I paraphrase, one of the most purposeless mass movements of people in history, and yet explains well the personal and even spiritual growth experienced by many of the miners. He likens the struggle to get there, largely on foot, from Skagway through the Chilkoot Pass and then, after climbing the pass down the Yukon River to the climb of Everest. It seems an apt comparison.

The current rush to the cities of the U.S. is similar except there is guaranteed lucre at the end of the migration; at our expense. Has anyone emphasized the "rights" of U.S. citizens? Why do "migrants" have rights to our parks and schools? At least in the Yukon, you had to stake a claim. No one guaranteed they would find gold. It they didn't they were on their own to sustain themselves in the Yukon wilderness or find their way back home.

 

Cities aren't being forced to spend money except to the extent that they want to house the homeless. The real question is can they not spend the money and also prohibit them from sleeping in public spaces, effectively making homelessness a criminal offense. Now intellectually/philosophically I think the SCOTUS should rule for the the homeless. However, as a practical matter, I don't want those people hanging out in public spaces, panhandling, etc. It is a growing problem. I guess it is something that really needs a political solution, not a legal one.

 

Food, shelter and medical care should be provided. We do that for people that have committed far more serious crimes than crossing the border illegally.

 

Who should pay for this generosity? Should children be forced out of schools, as they are being in New York?

 

That is the best short summary I've read of the whole illegal immigrant problem.

 

It's not a "generosity". It's an obligation. However, this IS a topic worth addressing. I think the federal government should pay for it. Distribute the expense equally (proportionally) among all the states. However, if that is the case, then the Federal Government needs to set standards for care that the states must adopt.

The bill proposed by Biden, the one that Republicans opposed because, they believed, it might work... addressed much of this. Problem was that Republicans opposed it, again, because it might work, which would make Biden look good (their words). So instead the propose one that they KNOW won't work... so they can blame Biden when it's clear to voters it doesn't work and all the money was thrown down the toilet.

 

It is not just California, but also Texas and other states that have homeless problems in public areas. Texas has been destroyed in Austin, and some homeless camps, and so have Dallas and Houston. Oklahoma cities have done the same, especially the Tulsa area. But then again, we have DJT who wants to propose internment camps for homeless people too. Thus, it is not just left or right, is it, but it is an important Constitutional question that needs to be answered. In addition, HOAs and Condo Associations want these people but not "those people." Here in Texas, HOAs refused anyone who was on an Section 8 housing allowance for rent even though the HOA will allow homes to offer rooms so long it is not a "business."

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have cities like Philadelphia with its small house program to provide shelter to a homeless person and hopefully a job, and so forth in which it tries to reduce the homeless population by positive means, and it could give the state or city more power to do this sort of thing.

 

In many places, it is a health/public safety issue, not "generosity". Anyway, like I said, I see it is a political issue, not a legal one. Communities will have to sort their approach out on their own. Perhaps they can do like so many are doing, and just buy the homeless a 1 way bus ticket because it is cheaper to export the problem than to try to solve it.

 

Schools were closed for one day in New York because of cold weather considerations.

 

How many have you taken into your home and provided for?

 

regardless if our population grows from immigration or the birthrate, we need to put money into the economy to match

we can't just borrow money as the population increases

 

That means they should not get care?
How many pregnant women have you taken into your home and provided for to reduce the number of abortions?

 

So zero? Just want everyone else to support with tax dollars but arent willing to step up in any way?

 

I think clearly any community that has virtue signaled itself as a "Sanctuary," should pay up. They literally asked for it. They said they would make their communities refuges for illegals, so they are responsible for paying up on that obligation.

 

What you are saying is it's OK to interrupt kid's education because some people who should not be here need warmth? They decided to come; let them figure it out..

 

Since when do migrants take priority over our children?

 

Oh that's all? you sure we shouldn't wipe their butts for them as well?

 

What payment are you even talking about? Isn't this just people setting up tents in public spaces?

 

Double post

 

They are not eating pavement.

 

And what food is the government paying for?