Topic: "California Plans FORCED Internment And Asset Seizure of the Homeless" (Read 297 times)

Horse shit. Illegal entry to the country happens regardless of race or skin color. Additionally your claims of health code violations is completely unsubstantiated. The California law says nothing about a requirement for people to be taking drugs out in the open. You cited a law covering a temporary involuntary commitment, the California law as written allows for an indefinite amount of time for this hold. Temporary holds have many protections in place to allow release. The only one misinterpreting things here is you. You are literally supporting concentration camps as you call everyone else nazis.

Do us a favor and look up the word "person" in the Texas laws. Why? Because in law, the words "include" or "includes" means only what is included in the definition. Other things don't apply, except that there is a re-defining somewhere else in the law.

I am willing to bet that the definition of "person" doesn't include "man" or "woman." If it doesn't, it only includes artificial entities that are listed. If this is the case, every arrest of a human being is illegal according to law... because "person" is not talking about people.

People are being illegally detained and held in cages with conditions that violate every health code.  They are being held based on just the color of their skin. 

People who are doing drugs out in the open and committed instead of being taken to jail after being taken in is what you are talking about.  Most states have laws like this but they are never misinterpreted the way that video has done.  Here is the Texas law, for comparison

What exactly is dishonest. Be specific captain postmodern. Tell me why you think border enforcement is concentration camps but rounding up homeless against their will to be permanently interned until the state approves is ok.

But you and the video present the bill in a completely dishonest way.

Too much money in home construction for this to be used in the USA.


World's First Community of 3D Printed Homes is Set to House Mexico's Poorest Families




New Story + ICON + Échale | “3D Printed Housing for Those Who Need It Most”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbgCu0aUobE

"As California goes, so goes the Nation" suddenly sound ominous doesn't it? And it seems their only solution for it is to get rid of the eyesore part of the problem by detaining them or shipping them away - which is funny considering I just saw a feed about another massive load of Africans docking in the US. Americans living on the streets? Nah, let's bring in more "immigrants" and give them housing, that should solve it. 

It'll get worse I tell you, you also have a massive student debt crisis and that's a ticking timebomb.

Wait im confused i thought california was just going to seize the homeless then why are they after the poor's financial assets. Is the california state having a financial crisis ?
Clearly this law isn't to help people but to steal money from the people. Surely the government has a lot of ways to deal with this like boosting the economy and create more jobs and to not spend most its government income into military infrastructures. Oh, how is the great country of america been turn apart by oligarchs and conglomerates.

I would say today I learned you have severe reading comprehension problems, but I already knew that.

"A new state law would allow the state to forcefully "conserve" people with mental illness meaning that if you are homeless and determined to be not "self sufficient" the state can detain you and seize and control your finances until you prove yourself to be "self sufficient.""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVyixBYUTcw

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/10/04/san-francisco-seeks-to-implement-recently-signed-conservatorship-bill/

Today on youtube: I learned that the Mayor of a town called Redding= "California" 

Exactly. Then what stops them expanding this precedent, perpetually expanding the program, and attaching additional requirements for freedom? This is totally unconstitutional. The homeless problem really started getting out of hand around the 2008 financial crisis, and has only spiraled out of control in certain major city centers since.

Well if one think deeply about it, it would be worse than prison since there's no clear crime committed (just being "poor") and one can be held indefinitely. But hey, no more poop on the streets reducing the value of my overpriced house, right?! That's what matter most, surely! But still, gotta commend CA for not just shipping them away like NY did.

Never in my worst nightmare have I seen this sort of problem happening in America. The only thing we saw in the 90s were the gleaming skyscrapers in TV shows. Was this problem recent? I haven't even heard of this homeless-shitting-everywhere in the early 2000s.

I guess the solution isn't in California.

Housing is just too expensive there, and prices show no sign of going down, so homeless people could be helped to move to South Dakota, or maybe New Mexico where land is much cheaper.

None of this matters. What matters is this is a horrible precedent that will absolutely lead to even more abuse of human rights.

Are there even assets to seize though? But yeah, nice they are at least trying to do something but funny that it'll make them look like hypocrites. Sure would be nice that people would no longer lose their feet from strep.

I'm more interested on how these "camps" would be run. Obviously a large number of those homeless people have substance addiction and mental health problems. Are they gonna try to reform these people or are they only keeping them out of the public's eyes and just gonna subsidize them indefinitely?

the way the topic is worded is not about governments just making lots more social housing to give everyone a roof over their head. but a detention centre taking them out of society/public view and not letting them have freedom to go out the door unless they can prove they can sustain themselves

take prisons
try going for job interviews or try getting a job in public while incarcerated is a hurdle in itself.
a persons odds of finding a job locked up is harder than finding a job while homeless

the solution should not be to pay some private company upto $79k a year to detain people. but spend $150k to build a residence for 2+ people which would last 50 years
(detention comparison cost is 50x2=$7.9m)
now what would you prefer to pay over 50 years for 2 people.
$7.9m or $150k

I was beginning to wonder if there is another definition for what homelessness means. One of the basic thing to have is a home and the moment one cannot have that, I wonder what other asset or assets could such an individual possessed. If the law makers are making such laws, I don't think it should be regarded as draconian or anti-people because such laws would be geared towards reducing the number of homeless people on the street or those who might have rented their houses and decide to spend their time in government established centers and is additional cost of governance to the government and the society at large. Not every law is to gag or make people poorer.

not everyone actually can
for instance
if your disabled and unemployed just trying to get support to get transport is a hurdle. meaning the distance available to work is confined to in-home/small wheelchair ride from home.
(commuter jobs are ruled out)
then there is the pretense that employers have to be disabled friendly. but some disabilities do not actually fit the businesses needs

such as retail shelf stacking of 6foot high shelves is impossible for some disabled people. and for instance a quadraplegic cant exactly operate a grocery stores cashier desk as it involve grabbing tins of baked beans to scan the barcode
and more recently with 'self checkouts' the demand for checkout operators has declined.

so although many think that there is a job 'type' for everyone. there is not enough job vacancies for everyone
and especially for unemployed disabled people that have higher initial costs just to start a job and to hope to be productive long enough to get to pay day to then continue.

this is why homelessness and unemployment doesnt need a 'lock them up' policy at upto the same value as prisons of $79k a year. instead that $79k should be used to prepare people for employment within the community. not by excluding them

for instance instead of spending $79k on a 'lock up' project. spending $20k to give a company a 1 year grant to employ the person and $20k for a disabled vehicle to get to the employment. which initially is cheaper than lockup costs and over the years the net cost benefit would outweigh any future costs when the person becomes fully independantly working

No surprise coming from California which is turning into a homeless hell hole after housing costs skyrocketed. Imagine how bad the homelessness problem is in San Francisco where you are dependent on a 6 figure salary to live in a box. Most municipalities are outright banning homeless people from sleeping on the streets forcing them to find some sort of homeless shelter because without it, junkies are randomly shooting up on the side of the streets and police aren't bothering with it. You're left with shopping carts full of trash and heroin needles scattered across the sidewalk. I don't really think this is necessarily a bad idea tbh. The idea of Trump caging children is absurd and it's even more absurd that mainstream democrats called them concentration camps as if it's a node to the Holocaust. That being said, I imagine the liberals in California who screeched at Trump are not going say a damn word about this.

It's really a good initiative that would be useful for the real homeless people and discourage the people homeless by choice.
Every people can be useful in one way or other. It's better be worthy to the world than to lead a meaningless life begging.
Even the specially abled people can get the job that suits them.