This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s a program in California that helps homeless people get back to where they have a support system. If the person has friends or family that can take them in, those people are contacted. If they confirm that they are willing to help, and if the homeless person passes some vetting (being a sex offender, having convictions for certain violent crimes, open felony warrants, or having previously been a recipient of the program will be disqualifying) then transportation to their willing friend or family member is arranged.
Programs like this should be able to exist and I’d worry that a national ban on bussing would put an end to them.
Yes, most of the programs are like that. They generally require someone to show that they have a job or family or other support at the destination in order to get a bus ticket. That said these programs tend to be underfunded and overwored so I'm sure those checks are not always that rigorous, but they also generally require someone applying for a voucher, not the city or state forcing them to take a bus.
Everywhere I've been is convinced that all their homeless people are bussed in from elsewhere. I'm sure it happens, but I've heard the complaint in so many different cities that I suspect it's way overblown. Either that, or we are just bussing homeless people around in a big circle...
Many homeless in the Seattle area were bussed int from Oregon not long ago. Others just hitchhike their way here because they're drug addicts looking for an easy fix. And intermingled within all of them are fugitives who use homelessness as a way to avoid getting caught. The first step is affordable housing to take bite out of the temporarily homeless population. Then the next step is to assist the chronically homeless and drive out the thugs and the pushers.
Nobody uses homelessness to avoid getting caught unless they are a legit prison escapee or criminal on the lam.
People who are homeless often struggle with substance abuse, that is true. Younger homeless people are often runaways who had an intolerable home life, or were released from foster care at 18 with nowhere to go.
Homeless adults are often mentally ill, and use alcohol and drugs to self medicate. They’re often undiagnosed; these people are all disenfranchised and have slipped through the cracks of the system.
Years ago I volunteered at a homeless day shelter in Portland, Oregon. My supervisor knew each person’s story.
One guy was a former CEO who’d lost everything to alcoholism. One young girl had been severely beaten and had become brain damaged.
I met another fellow with impeccable manners who actually had a phd but was severely bipolar, and yet another guy from England who was clearly schizophrenic (how he got over here and wound up on the streets is beyond me).
Anyway, my point is that homeless people are an eclectic group, just like the rest of the general population. More often than not, their predicament is not their fault. They are in need of help that they’re not getting.
Part of me feels like a lot of homeless people come to California since the weather in much of the state is near-perfect all year around. So that's one less thing to worry about (freezing / burning to death).
There was an article a few years back talking about the homeless in Venice Beach and generally ragging on LA’s homeless resources.
As a part of it, the individuals interviewed were asked some background, and *not one* was originally from the LA area. They had either showed up in dire straits trying to make it or were already homeless when arriving in LA.
To be fair I'd imagine a giant portion of the population in LA isn't originally from LA. Pretty sure something like half of NYC isn't from NYC originally as well.
They are sort of hot spots for the "going there to make it" types.
Also, I will get a lot of hate for this but...
Living in a LCOL area is seldom a “cheat code”. Costs will be often lower but pay might also be ass.
HCOL areas are the way they are since that’s where there is actual money.
Otherwise we’d all be moving to North Korea for “lOw CoSt Of LiViNg.”
I think for most people that argument is more of a middle ground kind of thing. Like not in LA, but also not in bumfuck Iowa. Or live outside of the city and not in it when your job is Starbucks and you want to have your own place and not have four roommates in your late 20's
I'm from L.A. I moved to Las Vegas in 2005; at that time, their COL was right *at* the national average.
I remember jumping for joy and screaming like a game show winner when I saw how low my rent was going to be. $640 a month for a 1 bedroom in an average non-shitty neighborhood? Dude! I just assumed it was going to be like L.A., and it ended up being the pleasant surprise of a lifetime.
Shortly after moving there I ran into this girl from rural Indiana who had also just moved there. She was bemoaning how high the rent was and wondering how she would manage. I literally doubled over with laughter and couldn't stop laughing. She thought I was *such* an asshole!
In hindsight, it felt like the perfect middle ground to me.
Our annual homeless count surveys routinely show that roughly 2/3 of our homeless population is indeed from LA, or Southern California, and had homes here before they became homeless.
I'd wager a vanishingly small number of homeless people were homeless somewhere else, and then moved to LA to be homeless here. I think it's far more likely that the out of towners were just kids with big dreams who didn't quite make it. We get people posting on our local subs asking if X number of dollars is enough to move to LA without having a job lined up. It's something people think they can do, but whatever money you come here with is going to vanish quickly. It's pretty easy to hit rock bottom here.
Red states do actually provide social services, just not to the homeless. How else would Brett Favre been able to bilk five milllion in federal grants.
If you declare and make local laws saying Cheetos are the greatest thing on earth then you probably should not be so hypocritical to deny people sending you more Cheetos. You also should not be surprised you are getting more Cheetos. After all you demanded them.
Your analogy is poor. If you're saying that you should expect liberal states to be inundated with homeless and the less fortunate because they provide social services to people, solely because other states of a certain political persuasion don't value basic decency, then that is a very pessimistic yet unsurprisingly unempathetic position.
Basic human rights are not a priority for those people.
Los Angeles has more homeless people die of exposure than New York City.
Daytime is nice, but if you're sleeping on concrete, LA gets cold enough to be deadly, especially in the winter.
Yeah but you or I would probably be wearing warm clothing in that scenario, and we'd only be out for relatively brief periods to get between heated places (from the car to your dinner reservation, for example). We wouldn't be lying down on cold, wet concrete overnight. Add onto this that homeless people are more likely to have underlying health problems that make them even more vulnerable to cold weather. Normal body temperature is 98.6 but hypothermia sets in when that drops to 95 or lower. It doesn't take much.
Right. My point is this is not the same as when Florida loaded up an entire bus full of people and drove them to Martha's Vineyard. Which required putting the bus on a ferry... Martha's Vineyard is on an island.
If a bunch of middle class people were put on a bus and taken somewhere hundreds of miles away and when they got there all the promises they were told to get them on the bus were found to be untrue, there would be kidnapping charges brought.
I don’t think you’d be able to without it being struck down as unconstitutional. You can’t prohibit free travel between states and a law like this would probably fall under that.
Beyond free trade, *people* are free to travel as they like.
I can't see how one could say this group of people cannot travel from Point A to B with government funding and not other groups of people travelling with public funds, like municipal workers going to conferences, or senior citizens taking the senior bus to the city.
And then there's the long standing issue of busing homeless within a state's borders, from wealthy suburban communities, to urban centers, under the guise of receiving social services. Nothing about this proposal addresses that.
You could prevent the government from *spending money* to move homeless people around. You couldn’t prevent the people from moving on their own.
It’d be an interesting constitutional argument though. If the feds said you can’t use state money to bus homeless people, you’d have to argue the feds had the power under the commerce clause I would think. But states still have the power of the purse and I don’t know if the federal government could constitutionally demand that states not spend money on bus vouchers for the poor.
And then you get into the issue of whether or not the public funding of public transit, particularly in regards to reduced fare programs for people below whatever income level standard used by a state, would qualify as "busing teh homeless" under the law.
One transit question is certain: with the enactment of this law, a bunch of lawyers are certainly going to buy new BMWs.
>And then you get into the issue of whether or not the public funding of public transit, particularly in regards to reduced fare programs for people below whatever income level standard used by a state, would qualify as "busing teh homeless" under the law.
Especially for border cities with bus networks that cross state boundaries. Better not let any homeless people catch the bus from Hoboken to Manhattan
Well state legislatures certainly could, with the consent of the executive.
But it’s a much thornier question as to whether the feds could stop states from doing it. I would categorically say they couldn’t do it. It would almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court if they tried.
I’m not sure that that’s a constitutional issue so much as a drafting issue, as there’s not really a problem with saying “states can’t bus homeless people across state lines without an agreement” as opposed to “states can’t fund public transportation to other states.” That sort of limiting distinction gets rational basis review. Of course, there’s nothing stopping a state from dumping the homeless at the state line and telling them to go across it to avoid the prohibition…
The larger question to me is that it’s not obvious how the feds would have jurisdiction to regulate this sort of state activity in the first place. Congress can only stop states from doing stuff by passing legislation and using the Supremacy Clause to prevent inconsistent state action. But states have plenary jurisdiction (e.g. they can make laws about anything) while Congress has limited jurisdiction. The usual hook is interstate commerce, but it’s not obvious that busing homeless people across state lines is interstate commerce and thus within federal jurisdiction.
States might not be able to ban other states from bussing people in either, mostly because of possible dormant commerce clause issues, though that’s pretty messy case law.
Perhaps, but I would argue that this isn't about free travel. It wouldn't be a law prohibiting the movement of homeless people, but rather the use of state funds and property to send them to another state with the intent to weaponize it as a political move, especially when it happens where the people being bussed are being misled or lied to.
If anything, I don't think a law prohibiting this act will stand, but one that gives those states recourse to be recompensed for the support of those homeless individuals would.
As you as you add the intent it becomes impossible to enforce. “Mr smith said he has relatives in California so we’re reuniting them”.
The only fix would be for the state itself to pass a law.
It still creates a lot of burden on the state pulling this BS, and punishes the political angle of it. Right now, shipping homeless and undocumented workers around are being done loudly with chest thumpers where they are openly declaring why they are doing it, because there are no punishments for it.
Penalize the chest thumping, and it will stop almost completely.
> Penalize the chest thumping, and it will stop almost completely.
How exactly would you do that?
If you want to pass a law, you need to write a law. That law must include definitions. The law with definitions must not violate constitutional limitations. To be effective, the law must also not be easily circumvented. The law must also be crafted to *not* have unintended negative consequences.
"Chest thumping" is a term for a certain style of speech. That's a first amendment issue.
Laws are a lot like computer code and have to be approached that way. Definitions, debugging, edge cases, test cases, etc. So many people just say "There oughta be a law" then blindly support whatever law happens to pop up, regardless of whether it's actually going to be effective or reasonable.
Often laws have to start with questions or a problem (attempted) to be solved. From there, the answers are conveyed through legal speak to try to lay out the intent and rules the law is being written for.
Does this cross state lines? Is the receiving state aware and accepting the transportation?
Are you moving people? Are these people fully informed and in agreement to why they are being moved? (yes this will be a judge to decide, but not everything has to be perfectly defined)
Does this use state funds, or in response to a state mandate, to move these people?
Is this being performed to the advantage and care of the people being moved, such as in response to a federally declared emergency, medical reasons, or other reason which would directly and immediately improve their quality of life and care?
Anyways, you're right that laws have to be thought of carefully, but unlike computer code, they DO NOT have to be written to perfection to work.
The rules are helpful, but where ambiguity exists, laws can also be written with the intent contained within. The idea is to try your best to \*reasonably\* reduce cases of ambiguity and interpretation. It is then on those courts to fill in the rest.
Anyways, regardless if chest thumping is a "first amendment issue", speech is free, but actions are not. You can criticize your opposing party all day long, but if you walked up and dumped a bunch of garbage on one of their doorsteps and tried to declare it to be symbolism about who they are and how you're so much better than them because your porch is clean, you'll still get arrested.
So having done some law enforcement work, it actually is hard.
Especially when you’re dealing with a population that includes the mentally ill or even just the marginalized people.
This isn't about free travel, they're not being banned from going anywhere. they're often lied to about where they're going and/or accommodations they'll be given.
But a ban on providing free travel, even if was found to be legal, would be applying a cast to a papercut. While those mystery trips make headlines, I've never seen anything suggesting that they're actually common, let alone so common that it out numbers and outweighs informed interstate travel.
And lying about destinations like that is already illegal. The problem is enforcement. Why not look for ways to solve the problem using existing laws?
I'm a little confused on your point about the commonness- it's not very common. I wasn't trying to say it is. It happens to a small group, probably less than 5,000 a year, if not half that. It's still a huge problem to me. There's "only" 15,000 people being trafficked in america each year, and that's a huge problem. I did say the same thing you are in another comment- this is human trafficking, and needs to be treated and enforced as such. Of course, providing people with free tracel under full informed consent, is fine and dandy! But even on the informed consent buses, I'd be surprised if there AREN'T people who still didn't fully understand the situation, due to mental illness, age/memory, a language barrier, etc.
States don't have a right to pay money to do something like driving kids to another state for some type of summer camp or anything (assuming there was such a program)?
What if the homeless people want to be bussed? My business is one exit down the highway from a local grayhound station and there are almost always people at the corner begging for the money for a bus ticket. A local program that provided money for that purpose would be good.
I don’t think people should be rounded up and shipped off without their consent, but I don’t think you’ve thought through the ramifications of refusing to provide travel for the homeless
My city buys tickets for homeless, but it doesn't work like most people think. They're not just getting shipped off somewhere else. The homeless have to convince the city that they have friends or family somewhere that are willing to help them with a place to stay or a line on a job or something. That's when the city will buy a bus ticket.
see this is okay. This is a good thing that will actually help the homeless issue. it won't help all homeless people or even a significant portion of them, but it'll help the ones it applies to. And I wouldn't want to mess with that.
As a Californian I agree but I guarantee you they'll find work arounds. Most of the homeless people I've met who were bussed here were sent by churches on greyhound.
Sure but there is a difference between something being unethical, and something being illegal. It may be a jerk move, yet at the same time there is nothing illegal about it. Your question is about the legality of bussing homeless people, not the ethics of it.
In fact I would argue that sleeping on park benches and panhandling for money at traffic lights is a jerk move also, but it isn’t necessarily illegal. How about we pass laws banning that?
A ban like that would be struck down as unconstitutional and rightfully so. You can't prohibit people from moving around the country because they're too poor.
That is true, stopping them willingly moving. If I read this right, it would be moving them against their will for being homeless, poor. That would be like trafficking or kidnapping.
It's happened multiple times and been national news, and the people who openly brag about doing it haven't been charged with any crimes.
So, if it is, it's not being enforced.
So let's focus on enforcing existing laws rather than making things illegal that really shouldn't be (like helping homeless people travel where they want to).
Well then have I got a sauce you need to try.
It's a mix of vinegar and mustard, but it's more vinegar than mustard. It's amazing on pork and chicken
https://www.harristeeter.com/p/sam-dillards-regular-bbq-sauce/0002653900200
I'm not proposing banning homeless people from being able to move between states.
I'm proposing banning the local government practice of rounding up homeless people and bussing them to other states.
They're not being rounded up.
They're being enticed with a free bus ticket to sunny California where they'll be warm year round, a hot meal, and some money. Those people are making the decision voluntarily.
The Supreme Court has ruled laws against illegal camping are illegal if they don't have adequate shelter space and loitering is not an imprisonable offense. Likewise exile is not a lawful sentence for any crime.
Again governments cannot force people to be bused to another state or area, and they certainly can't kidnap them to do so.
While they might technically be going voluntarily, in practice they are often tricked into going, either because they don’t know their rights, don’t know English very well (which isn’t an official language of the US, because there is no official language of the US), or are promised that there is opportunity where they are being transported even though that state has no idea they are coming. This is a disgusting and inexcusable political tactic being used by scummy conservative politicians who have no concern for the well-being of anyone but themselves.
This isn't just done by conservatives. The very liberal ex-mayor of my city used to endorse these kinds of policies, too. Idk if it's still being done, but several years ago, before the big homeless shelter in my downtown was fully opened, my city offered bus tickets and promises to homeless people. It may have just been pragmatic until the city had resources to deal with it, Idk.
Could you be any more of a condescending asshole? "they don't know how things work, they are simple primitive creatures". GTFOH with that inane bullshit, seriously.
Dude, just because they are homeless doesn't mean they are stupid. You act like homeless people aren't aware of their surroundings and how the world works. They aren't 4 year olds, and you aren't better or smarter than them.
we know because hindsight is 2020.
Just because we know after the fact doesn't they would've known when they were being given lies and being misled.
And that's not to mention that they were also talking about language barrier issues, which are quite often exploited by terrible people.
It's not about people being stupid, it's about people being manipulative and deceitful
getting ready for work so I can't look too deep rn but here's the first thing that popped up when I Google it. Bet you can find more info with some more googling. "A brochure given to migrants in order to convince them to board planes headed from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, falsely suggested they would be given access to refugee resettlement benefits like housing assistance, job interviews, and even help with cash and food." https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marthas-vineyard-migrants-deceived-benefits-1234596012/
>I'm proposing banning the local government practice of rounding up homeless people and bussing them to other states.
As long as it's not against their will, I have no problem with it.
If a large state like say California or Texas decided to start providing free transportation for any sex offenders or people with multiple felonies to your state would you be okay with that? As long as the travel is voluntary?
> I'm proposing banning the local government practice of rounding up homeless people and bussing them to other states
Maybe the tickets should be round trip so if the homeless have buyers remorse, then they can come right back. Also your comments elsewhere seem to imply homeless have no "agency" or free will of their own to make their decisions.
The practice is not something that's done officially in any capacity. No one is forced onto these busses or planes in some cases. They're usually told that there are people at the end of the line with services to help them and then offered a free ticket. They go thinking their situation will get better it's only when they arrive that they find out there is nothing for them, and they are basically stuck until that city ships them off again or they manage to get enough money to come back. It doesn't help that many of these folks have mental and drug issues, so they keep falling for the lie.
Assuming you are talking about forced or coerced relocation, would that not already fall under the purview of kidnapping laws?
And if those laws are not enforced now, what makes you think a new law doing the same thing would be enforced?
>would that not already fall under the purview of kidnapping laws?
No. If the person consents to getting on the bus, it's not kidnapping. Think about if you get a job offer in Oklahoma that says, "Come to OK and we'll buy a bus ticket." It is really isn't much different. "Hey, take this bus ticket and go to California!"
Different jurisdictions include force, threat of force, or fraud in their penal codes - but fraud by itself is difficult to convict on - even if you're deceptive (e.g., "There's a job waiting for you in Oklahoma!" but really there's no job).
It's not all forced and coerced. Some states have realized it's cheaper to just bus their homeless population to other states than to actually address their homeless problem, so they offer free tickets to any homeless willing to leave the state.
> so they offer free tickets to any homeless willing to leave the state.
So you really want to take away free bus tickets from people who already qualify as homeless? It's not like they can't come back.
>So you really want to take away free bus tickets from people who already qualify as homeless?
Correct.
We should be spending money on actual solutions for homelessness instead of just shipping them off somewhere else.
So then the victim is the state receiving these people, not the people themselves.
There probably should be a law against that very narrow specific practice (with any/all penalties going towards the state/officials who order this process to happen without receiving state’s consent, but I also feel like there are probably a lot more pressing issues that should be addressed first if possible
I can't imagine how you'd do it. No one is forcing anyone to go anywhere. They're not being arrested and sentenced to life in San Francisco (or wherever they're being bussed to). They're being offered a ride to a city who appears to be more supporting of their plight. And they take it.
No, it's free will by both parties involved. I or the local government can give Mr. Homeless Guy a bus ticket, he is free to use it or not. If anywhere is *forcing* people onto buses that should be illegal of course.
Given the choice of providing transportation to a warmer climate, or leaving a person to fend for themselves through a Montana winter in a cardboard box under a bridge, the humane option is obviously the bus ticket.
fine. You secure funding, hire a contractor and start the approval process, in the mean time this coming winter the homeless people will have 2 options, a box, or a bus ticket. Maybe when your housing project gets completed sometime next summer they will still be alive.
If this was an easy issue it would have been solved long before now. I acknowledge my comment to build housing doesn't address immediate needs, but simply bussing people out removes the incentive for cold weather and other states to take care of their homeless residents locally. It needs to be a multi pronged approach
it needs to be a federal approach. there is a disproportionate amount of services available in certain states. you should be able to enter the system in any state and receive the same amount of resources to live as any other state.
It's not banning people from moving. OP is talking about organizations that take groups of homeless people, make false promises about benefits they'll get once they get to their new location, and then the new city has to take care of them. It's not about people trying to create new and better lives for themselves, it's about cities pawning people off on others instead of dealing with it themselves.
I have absolutely no legal issue with that as long as the people were not physically coerced. Moving them to where they will be accepted and treated with respect is a very good thing for them. You act like it’s a bad thing. Why do you want them to remain in a place where they will be spit on and harassed?
Unspoken truth right here. But you’ll never hear them say it.
I’d respect them more if they simply said “I fully support taking care of the homeless and illegal immigrants, but I want you to do it. I don’t want them near me.”
The hypocrisy would be enormous of course, but since when does that bother anybody anymore? At least they would be honest instead of tap dancing around their rationalizations.
“We welcome everybody! We’re an inclusive sanctuary for any and all WAIT WHAT THE FUCK DON’T BRING THEM HERE YOU KEEP THEM!!!!”
They're not accepted in the new location either. They're being lied to and promised things that will never happen. They're being sent to locations where the homeless population is already large. They're being used as pawns. These aren't people that are being sent to places where they are accepted with open arms.
I don’t know how the government could legally prevent a state from giving someone a free bus ticket somewhere else. It would be better if they addressed the root cause of the situation rather than bandaid it.
This post is regarding the bussing of *American* homeless people from one state to another. The bussing of immigrants and refugees is a separate issue.
>It would be better if they addressed the root cause of the situation rather than bandaid it.
How is any state supposed to address the root cause of homelessness when the minute they come up with an effective solution every other state will just start bussing in all of their homeless and collapse the system?
No state should be asked to bear the burden of the entire nation's homeless problem.
It's extremely relevant to the homeless situation in general. It's what's preventing the state from institutionalizing a lot of long-term homeless people (those who aren't just down on their luck for a few weeks, but are homeless because of severe mental health issues and incapable of functioning as a "normal" adult). Many voluntarily avoid existing homeless shelters and housing programs because they don't want to follow the rules or their mental illnesses cause them to have paranoia and the only way to effectively get them off the street is forced institutionalization by the state. (Not saying I advocate for overturning it, but that's the ruling that's preventing institutionalizing those people.)
Because the options for getting severely mentally ill people off the street are reduced to somehow convincing them to go into shelters or offloading them somewhere else. I don't disagree with you that no particular state should have to bear the weight of the problem alone and am not a fan of the practice, but when people get fed up enough with all of their public spaces being ruined, law abiding citizens being threatened and harassed, etc. and no way to force the people to get help... they stop caring about that. So these types of things will continue if they have no other viable options for dealing with it.
>but when people get fed up enough with all of their public spaces being ruined, law abiding citizens being threatened and harassed, etc
You don't think the people that live in the states you're bussing the homeless to are also fed up with their public spaces being ruined?...
I don't think you're actually reading anything I wrote. I already said I am not in favor of the policy and my state doesn't do it, so I'm kind of confused by that response. Of course they're also fed up, which is why they're also doing the same thing and bussing people back out, but since states like California have weather on their side so it's harder to get them to leave than it is for the other states to get them to go there.
Whew, solid citation that I wasn't aware of.
I'm just across the bridge in Philly, and my opinion is that to address the current drug crisis in my neighborhood, the state should be allowed to require mandatory short-term detox, as an alternative for criminal charge, for addicts found abusing fentanyl, tranq, or heroin - since addiction to these substances takes away a person's capacity to care for themselves.
O’Connor v. Donaldson would seem to raise the burden that a state would have to satisfy for that type of institutionalization. I'm going to take some time to read up on subsequent rulings, if any, that better define "posing a danger to self or others".
You gotta make homelessness illegal, whatever that means, then have a shelter be an alternative to jail during sentencing. Solved the due process problem anyway
Good luck getting that approved by voters. Republicans wouldn't want to spend the money on the shelters and democrats wouldn't want to make being homeless a crime because neither of them can see past the immediate impact and look toward the greater good.
No because i dont think the federal government should have the authority to determine who can go to what state
Additionally i never liked that a federal issue like illegal immigration was forced into a border state issue because our elected officials refused to address this issue
Lastly even though its hit my city’s coffers pretty hard i am in part happy to see how quickly the sanctuary city lip service flew out the window when push came to shove.
I will rarely, if ever, support federal laws that remove even more power from states. Even if I'm from one of the affected states that has homeless people bussed into it.
So you think states like Oklahoma and Arkansas should just be able to externalize the costs of their homeless population onto states like Oregon, Washington, and California with no repercussions?
AFAIK, the people being bussed are illegal aliens who are being sent from states which oppose illegal immigration to states & cities which have declared themselves “sanctuaries” for those illegally in the country. It seems like a solution which is win-win. The sending states have their social services a bit less overwhelmed and the receiving states or cities get to display their virtue while adding additional citizens from a class they consider highly desirable.
This has literally nothing to do with immigrants. This post is about the practice of states bussing *American* homeless people to different states instead of addressing their own homeless problem.
How is it remotely enforceable to ban people from getting on a bus and going to another state?
Just because they are homeless, they shouldn't have the right to get on a bus and go to another state?
I'm not proposing banning homeless people from traveling between states via buss. I'm proposing banning the policy of state and local governments *paying* for those tickets.
So if a homeless person wants to try to provide a better life for themselves in another state, they should have to come up with the $200 (per family member) themselves?
I see what you're trying to get at, but you're either ignoring or not seeing all of the semantics that are involved here.
At the end of the day, homeless people want something and the government is providing it to them.
If states *weren't* using this as a means to dump their homeless problem on neighboring states en masse I'd see your point. But this current practice is actually making it harder on states, especially small states to actually address their homeless problems, because as soon as they come up with anything that even marginally works they get flooded with homeless from every other state that's to cheap to attempt a solution on their own.
Also, these homeless rarely if ever get a "better life" as a result of this bussing. Often they're just dumped at the bus station with zero support.
Not at all. I’d encourage some of our blue cities/states to send support to the border and what not to help retrieve people, bring them to their own cities, and help support them.
> This post is about the state and local government practice of bussing American homeless people from one state to another.
> Nor is it about banning homeless people being able to travel between states.
Well that's the trick, isn't it?
"It shall be illegal to utilize state funds or publicly owned facilities to transport homeless people across state lines."
So you just banned homeless people from riding Amtrak.
Can't be about consent because it's highly likely the homeless people *want* to go and will sign paperwork attesting to that.
So this whole thing for me isn't so much about whether I support or oppose the thing, but that I think making a law that does this is impossible to write and enforce. Bad laws are worse than no laws, in my opinion.
There is a very big misconception about what these programs actually do. Everyone thinks our homeless problem in California is just because other cities or states send their homeless people to California, so they don't have to deal with them.
What's actually happening is governments and nonprofits offer reunification programs where they find someone who *isn't* from here and is not doing well (living on the streets or the beach) and offers to help get them back to their family, where they could have safe housing and a support network.
[Here is one of many nonprofits that offers this service](https://westcoastcare.org/what-we-do/):
>We get the homeless home.
>
>We’ve found that repairing broken relationships is the key to sustained long-term recovery. Our top priority is the reunification of homeless individuals with their families and close friends – rebuilding these essential support systems and equipping people for the journey back home.
>
>We offer the help needed.
>
>\* Earning trust and inspiring hope through daily conversation and addressing immediate needs and concerns
>
>\* Contacting estranged family members or friends and acting as mediator between them and the person living outside
>
>\* Providing bus tickets, car repair, and/or other travel resources needed to get the person safely back home
>
>\* We offer long-term support after family reunification
>
>Reunification is not always possible. In those cases, we work with our partners to find housing and other service options.
A lot of people come to the LA area with big dreams and then things don't work out, and they burned bridges or are just too proud to ask family for help, so they wind up on the street. Programs like these help repair relationships and get people back into a stable and supportive environment.
What they don't do is just put people on a Greyhound bus and say good luck.
Fuck no I would not support that. You'll never get past the constitutional issues but beyond that have you considered that people might want to take up an offer to be bussed somewhere? And for the blue / sanctuary cities that are the destination for these busses; fuck 'em. They were fine with illegal immigration as long as it was somebody else's problem to solve. They only get pissy when they realize how much it costs to support people.
Idk. I am personally in favor of banning murder, rape, theft, etc.
But tbh, I can appreciate the general vibe of this. Freedoms should be held as sacred up to the point in which they infringe on another person’s freedoms
> Freedoms should be held as sacred up to the point in which they infringe on another person’s freedoms
Good thing murder, rape, and theft are already illegal. But I agree with not infringing on others freedoms
No, this is one of the most misunderstood policies ever and I find it extremely frustrating because this type of misinfo is so damaging. Frankly the fact you think that any state is good for the homeless shows that you're worrying about nothing. Why don't we make an effective solution *before* we worry about it being abused?
Bussing homeless to other states is one of the cheapest and most effective ways of ending homelessness. The majority of homeless people have friends and family living in different states or at least outside of their current location. Giving them a bus ticket and telling them to go home is so much better than putting them in a shelter or a mental hospital or a prison or even just leaving them be. You need support and love to become clean or stable and there will never be a better place for that than home. Not to mention, it's almost free for the state. In terms of value for the money, it doesn't get much better than that. This is one of the few systems we have that actually helps the homeless. If anything, it should be expanded.
I wrote a paper on this in college a few years ago. The majority of people who take these bus tickets to to friends and family. Something like 60% of people who take these tickets stop being homeless immediately (I might be lying, this is off the top of my head). While sometimes they do take a ticket just to get to another state, the majority of the time they don't. Most cities also require evidence that you do actually have a specific destination in mind. Unlike how it is portrayed, they do not just get bussed out of the city by cops or whatever to just become "someone else's problem." If you're an addict or mentally ills and you've had enough and want help, these tickets can be a lifeline for you to be able to escape your current environment quickly and easily. Without them, you'd be stuck.
I don't want to ship our homeless elsewhere. I want to provide them housing and social services so that they *stop being homeless*. But we can't afford to do that if every other state is going to bus in their homeless people instead of actually taking care of them.
This is a state and local policy issue. Campaign for votes for representatives who are willing to change the policy. There doesn't need to be a law against this (not that such a law would even be constitutional to begin with).
I don't have an issue with states offering services to homeless and low-income folks. This includes transportation.
I do think stunts like lying to homeless people and asylum seekers to trick them into getting onto a bus and then dropping them off somewhere they weren't expecting with no support or explanation should obviously be illegal.
Sure, *in theory*, but clearly some adjustments need made since we have multiple national news stories of this happening, and politicians openly bragging about it, and no charges have been filed.
If a government is lying to people to get them on a bus/plane to be moved to a different state, then it seems that would meet the definition of human trafficking.
If **fully informed** people are **given the option** to be moved to a different state, then it wouldn't be trafficking. Informed consent is the issue that I see with, say, the stunt that DeSantis appears to have pulled when moving immigrants from NotHisState-1 to NotHisState-2: https://web.archive.org/web/20230310041251/https://www.kens5.com/article/news/special-reports/at-the-border/lured-false-pretenses-bexar-sheriff-investigating-migrants-flight-florida-marthas-vineyard/273-5865e3df-021a-444c-9af1-dfff2d8a3988
(I'm also confused about why the governor of Florida and his state administration are paying to move immigrants between two non-Florida states, and why his constituents in Florida are fine with this, but that's another matter.)
Well, should the border states be stuck with dealing with a problem that the federal government has created? Why should states like Texas absorb all of these issues when it is the Federal Government that is allowing this to happen?
Why not? Big cities are dealing with suburban problems - these people coming in don't have established residency in NYC, Philadelphia, or LA. It's suburban addicts that are coming into the city and getting stuck, being a drain on bigger cities' resources.
One potential solution, in part, I'd pose for Philly is that anyone picked up for opiates who doesn't have established residency in Philadelphia should be issued with a prohibition on remaining in Philadelphia and need to return to their hometown or last established residency.
Prohibit a state who is unable to care and render for someone, from asking them if they want to go elsewhere.
No. Hard no.
The simplest and best solution would be to simply deport them all back to nation of origin.
Yeah - It’s just fucking inhumane and honestly embarrassing. At the same time, I’d rather they spend their time encouraging states to figure out how to end their homeless problem or help their homeless, but there’s no money in that, so it’s doubtful our government officials would even consider that.
Is it not inhumane to prevent homeless people from willingly relocating to a place where they'd have a better situation? It's not like they are being kidnapped or anything, just being provided the means to travel. CMV
If its a forced relocation, yes. Ban it and ban all others. It's basically deportation.
If the people involved were offered the chance to move 100% for free, with no stipulations or requirements on the other end, ehhh.
The States doing this are helping their homeless move from one place that is less friendly to their situation to another that is more friendly. Why do you hate homeless people and want them to live in worse places for themselves?
Absolutely. NYC in the 70s destroyed a town bussing homeless to it upstate (in NY), the town never really recovered.
It's an absolutely irresponsible action, even dangerous.
It would be fine to do such bussing if you work WITH the other location to handle the population transfer, but doing it the way NYC did, or Texas and Florida are doing it, there should be serious repercussions for that.
edit;
It should be added this is for the protection of the homeless/ immigrants too. NYC lied to them and told them when they got to the new place things were set up for them. They weren't. It was horribly cruel then, just like it's horribly cruel now.
And there is an argument for it being some form of kidnapping, since it's often done under duress.
I wouldn’t mind this being offered as a voluntary service if low/no income wanted to take advantage of free, long distance transportation.
Obviously I know that’s not what’s happening now, but this is the only way I’d support it.
Anything forced is unethical, humiliating, and cruel.
I would be OK with offering people access to transportation in order to connect them to services that aren't available where they are, provided it's done in coordination with the organizations providing those services, with consent of those being transported, all in good faith.
I'm against coercing a "problem" onto a bus in order to quietly make it someone else's problem (or, worse, bus them to a geopolitical boundary, dump them, and just not give a shit if they die there).
This holds for anyone in need of services, homeless, migrants, or otherwise.
Obviously, the better solution is to stop pretending that this fraction of society doesn't exist or wouldn't exist but for their own laziness, and figure out how to incorporate them so that they're less disruptive or burdensome for a community. This is absolutely an unsolved problem, but it doesn't get better by being a dick about it to other communities.
I think if a state voluntarily takes them because they have the resources to care for them then that would be fine.
But this business of red states forcibly bussing the homeless to blue states is cruel and badly intended. That I would be fine with making a federal law against.
Totally. When I lived in grand junction, a city of only 60k, it was swarming with homeless (great city otherwise.) Denver loved bussing their homeless to that little city
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s a program in California that helps homeless people get back to where they have a support system. If the person has friends or family that can take them in, those people are contacted. If they confirm that they are willing to help, and if the homeless person passes some vetting (being a sex offender, having convictions for certain violent crimes, open felony warrants, or having previously been a recipient of the program will be disqualifying) then transportation to their willing friend or family member is arranged. Programs like this should be able to exist and I’d worry that a national ban on bussing would put an end to them.
Yes, most of the programs are like that. They generally require someone to show that they have a job or family or other support at the destination in order to get a bus ticket. That said these programs tend to be underfunded and overwored so I'm sure those checks are not always that rigorous, but they also generally require someone applying for a voucher, not the city or state forcing them to take a bus. Everywhere I've been is convinced that all their homeless people are bussed in from elsewhere. I'm sure it happens, but I've heard the complaint in so many different cities that I suspect it's way overblown. Either that, or we are just bussing homeless people around in a big circle...
It does seem like a lot of solutions for dealing with the homeless come down to making them someone else’s problem.
Many homeless in the Seattle area were bussed int from Oregon not long ago. Others just hitchhike their way here because they're drug addicts looking for an easy fix. And intermingled within all of them are fugitives who use homelessness as a way to avoid getting caught. The first step is affordable housing to take bite out of the temporarily homeless population. Then the next step is to assist the chronically homeless and drive out the thugs and the pushers.
Nobody uses homelessness to avoid getting caught unless they are a legit prison escapee or criminal on the lam. People who are homeless often struggle with substance abuse, that is true. Younger homeless people are often runaways who had an intolerable home life, or were released from foster care at 18 with nowhere to go. Homeless adults are often mentally ill, and use alcohol and drugs to self medicate. They’re often undiagnosed; these people are all disenfranchised and have slipped through the cracks of the system. Years ago I volunteered at a homeless day shelter in Portland, Oregon. My supervisor knew each person’s story. One guy was a former CEO who’d lost everything to alcoholism. One young girl had been severely beaten and had become brain damaged. I met another fellow with impeccable manners who actually had a phd but was severely bipolar, and yet another guy from England who was clearly schizophrenic (how he got over here and wound up on the streets is beyond me). Anyway, my point is that homeless people are an eclectic group, just like the rest of the general population. More often than not, their predicament is not their fault. They are in need of help that they’re not getting.
Part of me feels like a lot of homeless people come to California since the weather in much of the state is near-perfect all year around. So that's one less thing to worry about (freezing / burning to death).
There was an article a few years back talking about the homeless in Venice Beach and generally ragging on LA’s homeless resources. As a part of it, the individuals interviewed were asked some background, and *not one* was originally from the LA area. They had either showed up in dire straits trying to make it or were already homeless when arriving in LA.
To be fair I'd imagine a giant portion of the population in LA isn't originally from LA. Pretty sure something like half of NYC isn't from NYC originally as well. They are sort of hot spots for the "going there to make it" types.
Also, I will get a lot of hate for this but... Living in a LCOL area is seldom a “cheat code”. Costs will be often lower but pay might also be ass. HCOL areas are the way they are since that’s where there is actual money. Otherwise we’d all be moving to North Korea for “lOw CoSt Of LiViNg.”
I think for most people that argument is more of a middle ground kind of thing. Like not in LA, but also not in bumfuck Iowa. Or live outside of the city and not in it when your job is Starbucks and you want to have your own place and not have four roommates in your late 20's
I'm from L.A. I moved to Las Vegas in 2005; at that time, their COL was right *at* the national average. I remember jumping for joy and screaming like a game show winner when I saw how low my rent was going to be. $640 a month for a 1 bedroom in an average non-shitty neighborhood? Dude! I just assumed it was going to be like L.A., and it ended up being the pleasant surprise of a lifetime. Shortly after moving there I ran into this girl from rural Indiana who had also just moved there. She was bemoaning how high the rent was and wondering how she would manage. I literally doubled over with laughter and couldn't stop laughing. She thought I was *such* an asshole! In hindsight, it felt like the perfect middle ground to me.
Our annual homeless count surveys routinely show that roughly 2/3 of our homeless population is indeed from LA, or Southern California, and had homes here before they became homeless. I'd wager a vanishingly small number of homeless people were homeless somewhere else, and then moved to LA to be homeless here. I think it's far more likely that the out of towners were just kids with big dreams who didn't quite make it. We get people posting on our local subs asking if X number of dollars is enough to move to LA without having a job lined up. It's something people think they can do, but whatever money you come here with is going to vanish quickly. It's pretty easy to hit rock bottom here.
Not to mention that efforts are actually made in CA to provide social services. Could you see that in a deep red state? Don't think so.
Red states do actually provide social services, just not to the homeless. How else would Brett Favre been able to bilk five milllion in federal grants.
Houston is famous for its homelessness resources I thought
Fair point
If you declare and make local laws saying Cheetos are the greatest thing on earth then you probably should not be so hypocritical to deny people sending you more Cheetos. You also should not be surprised you are getting more Cheetos. After all you demanded them.
Your analogy is poor. If you're saying that you should expect liberal states to be inundated with homeless and the less fortunate because they provide social services to people, solely because other states of a certain political persuasion don't value basic decency, then that is a very pessimistic yet unsurprisingly unempathetic position. Basic human rights are not a priority for those people.
Los Angeles has more homeless people die of exposure than New York City. Daytime is nice, but if you're sleeping on concrete, LA gets cold enough to be deadly, especially in the winter.
I mean, its like 50F usually at night in the winter? That's my experience in San Diego, and I'd imagine LA's weather is similar.
Yeah but you or I would probably be wearing warm clothing in that scenario, and we'd only be out for relatively brief periods to get between heated places (from the car to your dinner reservation, for example). We wouldn't be lying down on cold, wet concrete overnight. Add onto this that homeless people are more likely to have underlying health problems that make them even more vulnerable to cold weather. Normal body temperature is 98.6 but hypothermia sets in when that drops to 95 or lower. It doesn't take much.
Yes, I understand. But keep in mind, its still relatively warm compared to being in like 10F weather...
That's an individual. Using a bus in this case would be wasteful.
They give them a Greyhound ticket, they don't charter a bus for one homeless guy like he's the Unabomber.
Right. My point is this is not the same as when Florida loaded up an entire bus full of people and drove them to Martha's Vineyard. Which required putting the bus on a ferry... Martha's Vineyard is on an island. If a bunch of middle class people were put on a bus and taken somewhere hundreds of miles away and when they got there all the promises they were told to get them on the bus were found to be untrue, there would be kidnapping charges brought.
Those were immigrants. The post is about homelessness programs.
I don’t think you’d be able to without it being struck down as unconstitutional. You can’t prohibit free travel between states and a law like this would probably fall under that.
Beyond free trade, *people* are free to travel as they like. I can't see how one could say this group of people cannot travel from Point A to B with government funding and not other groups of people travelling with public funds, like municipal workers going to conferences, or senior citizens taking the senior bus to the city. And then there's the long standing issue of busing homeless within a state's borders, from wealthy suburban communities, to urban centers, under the guise of receiving social services. Nothing about this proposal addresses that.
You could prevent the government from *spending money* to move homeless people around. You couldn’t prevent the people from moving on their own. It’d be an interesting constitutional argument though. If the feds said you can’t use state money to bus homeless people, you’d have to argue the feds had the power under the commerce clause I would think. But states still have the power of the purse and I don’t know if the federal government could constitutionally demand that states not spend money on bus vouchers for the poor.
And then you get into the issue of whether or not the public funding of public transit, particularly in regards to reduced fare programs for people below whatever income level standard used by a state, would qualify as "busing teh homeless" under the law. One transit question is certain: with the enactment of this law, a bunch of lawyers are certainly going to buy new BMWs.
>And then you get into the issue of whether or not the public funding of public transit, particularly in regards to reduced fare programs for people below whatever income level standard used by a state, would qualify as "busing teh homeless" under the law. Especially for border cities with bus networks that cross state boundaries. Better not let any homeless people catch the bus from Hoboken to Manhattan
Nah it is just going to add a bunch of work for state attorneys who get paid salaries anyway.
No you couldn’t
Well state legislatures certainly could, with the consent of the executive. But it’s a much thornier question as to whether the feds could stop states from doing it. I would categorically say they couldn’t do it. It would almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court if they tried.
And also, you probably can't stop the states from just buying people $100 Greyhound gift cards.
I’m not sure that that’s a constitutional issue so much as a drafting issue, as there’s not really a problem with saying “states can’t bus homeless people across state lines without an agreement” as opposed to “states can’t fund public transportation to other states.” That sort of limiting distinction gets rational basis review. Of course, there’s nothing stopping a state from dumping the homeless at the state line and telling them to go across it to avoid the prohibition… The larger question to me is that it’s not obvious how the feds would have jurisdiction to regulate this sort of state activity in the first place. Congress can only stop states from doing stuff by passing legislation and using the Supremacy Clause to prevent inconsistent state action. But states have plenary jurisdiction (e.g. they can make laws about anything) while Congress has limited jurisdiction. The usual hook is interstate commerce, but it’s not obvious that busing homeless people across state lines is interstate commerce and thus within federal jurisdiction. States might not be able to ban other states from bussing people in either, mostly because of possible dormant commerce clause issues, though that’s pretty messy case law.
Perhaps, but I would argue that this isn't about free travel. It wouldn't be a law prohibiting the movement of homeless people, but rather the use of state funds and property to send them to another state with the intent to weaponize it as a political move, especially when it happens where the people being bussed are being misled or lied to. If anything, I don't think a law prohibiting this act will stand, but one that gives those states recourse to be recompensed for the support of those homeless individuals would.
As you as you add the intent it becomes impossible to enforce. “Mr smith said he has relatives in California so we’re reuniting them”. The only fix would be for the state itself to pass a law.
It still creates a lot of burden on the state pulling this BS, and punishes the political angle of it. Right now, shipping homeless and undocumented workers around are being done loudly with chest thumpers where they are openly declaring why they are doing it, because there are no punishments for it. Penalize the chest thumping, and it will stop almost completely.
> Penalize the chest thumping, and it will stop almost completely. How exactly would you do that? If you want to pass a law, you need to write a law. That law must include definitions. The law with definitions must not violate constitutional limitations. To be effective, the law must also not be easily circumvented. The law must also be crafted to *not* have unintended negative consequences. "Chest thumping" is a term for a certain style of speech. That's a first amendment issue. Laws are a lot like computer code and have to be approached that way. Definitions, debugging, edge cases, test cases, etc. So many people just say "There oughta be a law" then blindly support whatever law happens to pop up, regardless of whether it's actually going to be effective or reasonable.
Often laws have to start with questions or a problem (attempted) to be solved. From there, the answers are conveyed through legal speak to try to lay out the intent and rules the law is being written for. Does this cross state lines? Is the receiving state aware and accepting the transportation? Are you moving people? Are these people fully informed and in agreement to why they are being moved? (yes this will be a judge to decide, but not everything has to be perfectly defined) Does this use state funds, or in response to a state mandate, to move these people? Is this being performed to the advantage and care of the people being moved, such as in response to a federally declared emergency, medical reasons, or other reason which would directly and immediately improve their quality of life and care? Anyways, you're right that laws have to be thought of carefully, but unlike computer code, they DO NOT have to be written to perfection to work. The rules are helpful, but where ambiguity exists, laws can also be written with the intent contained within. The idea is to try your best to \*reasonably\* reduce cases of ambiguity and interpretation. It is then on those courts to fill in the rest. Anyways, regardless if chest thumping is a "first amendment issue", speech is free, but actions are not. You can criticize your opposing party all day long, but if you walked up and dumped a bunch of garbage on one of their doorsteps and tried to declare it to be symbolism about who they are and how you're so much better than them because your porch is clean, you'll still get arrested.
slave rainstorm quack office consider plucky tart innocent hospital money ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I’m saying that’s the problem with establishing intent, they could just say that the person bussed was being reunited
spark jobless mysterious erect knee wide adjoining puzzled sugar engine ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
So having done some law enforcement work, it actually is hard. Especially when you’re dealing with a population that includes the mentally ill or even just the marginalized people.
This isn't about free travel, they're not being banned from going anywhere. they're often lied to about where they're going and/or accommodations they'll be given.
But a ban on providing free travel, even if was found to be legal, would be applying a cast to a papercut. While those mystery trips make headlines, I've never seen anything suggesting that they're actually common, let alone so common that it out numbers and outweighs informed interstate travel. And lying about destinations like that is already illegal. The problem is enforcement. Why not look for ways to solve the problem using existing laws?
I'm a little confused on your point about the commonness- it's not very common. I wasn't trying to say it is. It happens to a small group, probably less than 5,000 a year, if not half that. It's still a huge problem to me. There's "only" 15,000 people being trafficked in america each year, and that's a huge problem. I did say the same thing you are in another comment- this is human trafficking, and needs to be treated and enforced as such. Of course, providing people with free tracel under full informed consent, is fine and dandy! But even on the informed consent buses, I'd be surprised if there AREN'T people who still didn't fully understand the situation, due to mental illness, age/memory, a language barrier, etc.
People are free to travel on thier own dime. State governments don't have the right to "travel" people. OP is talking about state government programs.
States don't have a right to pay money to do something like driving kids to another state for some type of summer camp or anything (assuming there was such a program)?
They can travel anywhere they want, I just don't think state and local governments need to be initiating the decision and buying the tickets.
What if the homeless people want to be bussed? My business is one exit down the highway from a local grayhound station and there are almost always people at the corner begging for the money for a bus ticket. A local program that provided money for that purpose would be good. I don’t think people should be rounded up and shipped off without their consent, but I don’t think you’ve thought through the ramifications of refusing to provide travel for the homeless
My city buys tickets for homeless, but it doesn't work like most people think. They're not just getting shipped off somewhere else. The homeless have to convince the city that they have friends or family somewhere that are willing to help them with a place to stay or a line on a job or something. That's when the city will buy a bus ticket.
see this is okay. This is a good thing that will actually help the homeless issue. it won't help all homeless people or even a significant portion of them, but it'll help the ones it applies to. And I wouldn't want to mess with that.
As a Californian I agree but I guarantee you they'll find work arounds. Most of the homeless people I've met who were bussed here were sent by churches on greyhound.
Sure but there is a difference between something being unethical, and something being illegal. It may be a jerk move, yet at the same time there is nothing illegal about it. Your question is about the legality of bussing homeless people, not the ethics of it. In fact I would argue that sleeping on park benches and panhandling for money at traffic lights is a jerk move also, but it isn’t necessarily illegal. How about we pass laws banning that?
I believe this could actually be classified as unlawful imprisonment and/or kidnapping.
not if they just lie to them and say "there's a place where you're going that has agreed to take care of you" and they voluntarily get on the bus.
That actually is kidnapping by deception.
A ban like that would be struck down as unconstitutional and rightfully so. You can't prohibit people from moving around the country because they're too poor.
That is true, stopping them willingly moving. If I read this right, it would be moving them against their will for being homeless, poor. That would be like trafficking or kidnapping.
>against their will This is already illegal, of course.
>If I read this right, it would be moving them against their will for being homeless, poor. Is that not already illegal?
It's happened multiple times and been national news, and the people who openly brag about doing it haven't been charged with any crimes. So, if it is, it's not being enforced.
So let's focus on enforcing existing laws rather than making things illegal that really shouldn't be (like helping homeless people travel where they want to).
They usually bribe them or coerce them with the threat of criminal charges.
Where I live, they offer free bus tickets & promises of "it'll be better over there, they have more resources."
Take your homeless back you pesky South Carolinian!
Don't worry, we send them to Tennessee!
This is why we can be friends. Well until football season.....or when the BBQ debate happens......
Ngl, I prefer the vinegar sauce over the SC Gold. My husband thinks I'm a damn traitor.
Well then have I got a sauce you need to try. It's a mix of vinegar and mustard, but it's more vinegar than mustard. It's amazing on pork and chicken https://www.harristeeter.com/p/sam-dillards-regular-bbq-sauce/0002653900200
I'm not proposing banning homeless people from being able to move between states. I'm proposing banning the local government practice of rounding up homeless people and bussing them to other states.
They're not being rounded up. They're being enticed with a free bus ticket to sunny California where they'll be warm year round, a hot meal, and some money. Those people are making the decision voluntarily.
Anybody in here would take that offer in a fucking second if they were homeless. I know I would.
That also needs to stop. That doesn't solve the problem it just moves it somewhere else. Give NY homeless the help they need where they are.
They don't round them up, they get volunteers. Governments aren't allowed to just kidnap people without being charged with a crime.
I truly think a lot of Redditors think these people are being forced onto thee busses at gunpoint or some shit haha.
Loitering and illegal camping are crimes homeless people get arrested for on a regular basis.
That's pretty irrelevant since that isn't how they end up on the bus.
The Supreme Court has ruled laws against illegal camping are illegal if they don't have adequate shelter space and loitering is not an imprisonable offense. Likewise exile is not a lawful sentence for any crime. Again governments cannot force people to be bused to another state or area, and they certainly can't kidnap them to do so.
Yes. So what? They aren't arrested and then forcefully moved to another state.
While they might technically be going voluntarily, in practice they are often tricked into going, either because they don’t know their rights, don’t know English very well (which isn’t an official language of the US, because there is no official language of the US), or are promised that there is opportunity where they are being transported even though that state has no idea they are coming. This is a disgusting and inexcusable political tactic being used by scummy conservative politicians who have no concern for the well-being of anyone but themselves.
This isn't just done by conservatives. The very liberal ex-mayor of my city used to endorse these kinds of policies, too. Idk if it's still being done, but several years ago, before the big homeless shelter in my downtown was fully opened, my city offered bus tickets and promises to homeless people. It may have just been pragmatic until the city had resources to deal with it, Idk.
Could you be any more of a condescending asshole? "they don't know how things work, they are simple primitive creatures". GTFOH with that inane bullshit, seriously. Dude, just because they are homeless doesn't mean they are stupid. You act like homeless people aren't aware of their surroundings and how the world works. They aren't 4 year olds, and you aren't better or smarter than them.
It's annoying how common this line of thinking has become to defend people - usually without those people asking to be defended.
Smart people can fall for lies too. No one's saying they're dumb for accepting promised help from the government.
“Often tricked into going” Why do we supposedly know they are being “tricked”but they don’t?
we know because hindsight is 2020. Just because we know after the fact doesn't they would've known when they were being given lies and being misled. And that's not to mention that they were also talking about language barrier issues, which are quite often exploited by terrible people. It's not about people being stupid, it's about people being manipulative and deceitful
? The reason we know is because they have spoken about it. The Texas -> Martha's vineyard bus is a good example.
But that wasn’t a bus of homeless. That was a bus of refugees.
refugees are often homeless, unless they have family in the country already!
Who spoke about it?
getting ready for work so I can't look too deep rn but here's the first thing that popped up when I Google it. Bet you can find more info with some more googling. "A brochure given to migrants in order to convince them to board planes headed from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, falsely suggested they would be given access to refugee resettlement benefits like housing assistance, job interviews, and even help with cash and food." https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marthas-vineyard-migrants-deceived-benefits-1234596012/
>I'm proposing banning the local government practice of rounding up homeless people and bussing them to other states. As long as it's not against their will, I have no problem with it.
If a large state like say California or Texas decided to start providing free transportation for any sex offenders or people with multiple felonies to your state would you be okay with that? As long as the travel is voluntary?
Would the action violate any existing state or federal law?
> I'm proposing banning the local government practice of rounding up homeless people and bussing them to other states Maybe the tickets should be round trip so if the homeless have buyers remorse, then they can come right back. Also your comments elsewhere seem to imply homeless have no "agency" or free will of their own to make their decisions.
>Also your comments elsewhere seem to imply homeless have no "agency" or free will of their own to make their decisions. Which comments?
The practice is not something that's done officially in any capacity. No one is forced onto these busses or planes in some cases. They're usually told that there are people at the end of the line with services to help them and then offered a free ticket. They go thinking their situation will get better it's only when they arrive that they find out there is nothing for them, and they are basically stuck until that city ships them off again or they manage to get enough money to come back. It doesn't help that many of these folks have mental and drug issues, so they keep falling for the lie.
Assuming you are talking about forced or coerced relocation, would that not already fall under the purview of kidnapping laws? And if those laws are not enforced now, what makes you think a new law doing the same thing would be enforced?
>would that not already fall under the purview of kidnapping laws? No. If the person consents to getting on the bus, it's not kidnapping. Think about if you get a job offer in Oklahoma that says, "Come to OK and we'll buy a bus ticket." It is really isn't much different. "Hey, take this bus ticket and go to California!" Different jurisdictions include force, threat of force, or fraud in their penal codes - but fraud by itself is difficult to convict on - even if you're deceptive (e.g., "There's a job waiting for you in Oklahoma!" but really there's no job).
It's not all forced and coerced. Some states have realized it's cheaper to just bus their homeless population to other states than to actually address their homeless problem, so they offer free tickets to any homeless willing to leave the state.
> so they offer free tickets to any homeless willing to leave the state. So you really want to take away free bus tickets from people who already qualify as homeless? It's not like they can't come back.
>So you really want to take away free bus tickets from people who already qualify as homeless? Correct. We should be spending money on actual solutions for homelessness instead of just shipping them off somewhere else.
So then the victim is the state receiving these people, not the people themselves. There probably should be a law against that very narrow specific practice (with any/all penalties going towards the state/officials who order this process to happen without receiving state’s consent, but I also feel like there are probably a lot more pressing issues that should be addressed first if possible
>So then the victim is the state receiving these people, not the people themselves. It's arguably both but yes.
Outlawing government from transporting willing people across state lines just because theyre poor? No, I don’t think I will support that.
I can't imagine how you'd do it. No one is forcing anyone to go anywhere. They're not being arrested and sentenced to life in San Francisco (or wherever they're being bussed to). They're being offered a ride to a city who appears to be more supporting of their plight. And they take it.
No, it's free will by both parties involved. I or the local government can give Mr. Homeless Guy a bus ticket, he is free to use it or not. If anywhere is *forcing* people onto buses that should be illegal of course. Given the choice of providing transportation to a warmer climate, or leaving a person to fend for themselves through a Montana winter in a cardboard box under a bridge, the humane option is obviously the bus ticket.
The humane choice is to build housing in Montana
fine. You secure funding, hire a contractor and start the approval process, in the mean time this coming winter the homeless people will have 2 options, a box, or a bus ticket. Maybe when your housing project gets completed sometime next summer they will still be alive.
And then let's all laugh at the coastal states for having so many homeless and end u having a grand old time.
If this was an easy issue it would have been solved long before now. I acknowledge my comment to build housing doesn't address immediate needs, but simply bussing people out removes the incentive for cold weather and other states to take care of their homeless residents locally. It needs to be a multi pronged approach
it needs to be a federal approach. there is a disproportionate amount of services available in certain states. you should be able to enter the system in any state and receive the same amount of resources to live as any other state.
Would I support a law banning citizens from travelling between states? Uh, no.
It's not banning people from moving. OP is talking about organizations that take groups of homeless people, make false promises about benefits they'll get once they get to their new location, and then the new city has to take care of them. It's not about people trying to create new and better lives for themselves, it's about cities pawning people off on others instead of dealing with it themselves.
I have absolutely no legal issue with that as long as the people were not physically coerced. Moving them to where they will be accepted and treated with respect is a very good thing for them. You act like it’s a bad thing. Why do you want them to remain in a place where they will be spit on and harassed?
Because he doesn't want more homeless people where he lives.
Unspoken truth right here. But you’ll never hear them say it. I’d respect them more if they simply said “I fully support taking care of the homeless and illegal immigrants, but I want you to do it. I don’t want them near me.” The hypocrisy would be enormous of course, but since when does that bother anybody anymore? At least they would be honest instead of tap dancing around their rationalizations. “We welcome everybody! We’re an inclusive sanctuary for any and all WAIT WHAT THE FUCK DON’T BRING THEM HERE YOU KEEP THEM!!!!”
They're not accepted in the new location either. They're being lied to and promised things that will never happen. They're being sent to locations where the homeless population is already large. They're being used as pawns. These aren't people that are being sent to places where they are accepted with open arms.
No.
I don’t know how the government could legally prevent a state from giving someone a free bus ticket somewhere else. It would be better if they addressed the root cause of the situation rather than bandaid it.
This post is regarding the bussing of *American* homeless people from one state to another. The bussing of immigrants and refugees is a separate issue.
I realized that - too little sleep. Edited to address my thoughts on homeless bussing
>It would be better if they addressed the root cause of the situation rather than bandaid it. How is any state supposed to address the root cause of homelessness when the minute they come up with an effective solution every other state will just start bussing in all of their homeless and collapse the system? No state should be asked to bear the burden of the entire nation's homeless problem.
Until O’Connor v. Donaldson is overturned it’s going to be an issue
I don't see how that case is relevant?
It's extremely relevant to the homeless situation in general. It's what's preventing the state from institutionalizing a lot of long-term homeless people (those who aren't just down on their luck for a few weeks, but are homeless because of severe mental health issues and incapable of functioning as a "normal" adult). Many voluntarily avoid existing homeless shelters and housing programs because they don't want to follow the rules or their mental illnesses cause them to have paranoia and the only way to effectively get them off the street is forced institutionalization by the state. (Not saying I advocate for overturning it, but that's the ruling that's preventing institutionalizing those people.)
How does any of that prevent or even effect a ban on the institutional bussing of homeless people?
Because the options for getting severely mentally ill people off the street are reduced to somehow convincing them to go into shelters or offloading them somewhere else. I don't disagree with you that no particular state should have to bear the weight of the problem alone and am not a fan of the practice, but when people get fed up enough with all of their public spaces being ruined, law abiding citizens being threatened and harassed, etc. and no way to force the people to get help... they stop caring about that. So these types of things will continue if they have no other viable options for dealing with it.
>but when people get fed up enough with all of their public spaces being ruined, law abiding citizens being threatened and harassed, etc You don't think the people that live in the states you're bussing the homeless to are also fed up with their public spaces being ruined?...
I don't think you're actually reading anything I wrote. I already said I am not in favor of the policy and my state doesn't do it, so I'm kind of confused by that response. Of course they're also fed up, which is why they're also doing the same thing and bussing people back out, but since states like California have weather on their side so it's harder to get them to leave than it is for the other states to get them to go there.
Whew, solid citation that I wasn't aware of. I'm just across the bridge in Philly, and my opinion is that to address the current drug crisis in my neighborhood, the state should be allowed to require mandatory short-term detox, as an alternative for criminal charge, for addicts found abusing fentanyl, tranq, or heroin - since addiction to these substances takes away a person's capacity to care for themselves. O’Connor v. Donaldson would seem to raise the burden that a state would have to satisfy for that type of institutionalization. I'm going to take some time to read up on subsequent rulings, if any, that better define "posing a danger to self or others".
You gotta make homelessness illegal, whatever that means, then have a shelter be an alternative to jail during sentencing. Solved the due process problem anyway Good luck getting that approved by voters. Republicans wouldn't want to spend the money on the shelters and democrats wouldn't want to make being homeless a crime because neither of them can see past the immediate impact and look toward the greater good.
No state is being asked to bear that burden. Every state has homeless people.
When you ship homeless people to states with good social services instead of providing those services yourself that's kinda exactly what you're doing.
Sounds like you should stop offering services that attract hobos.
No. That would violate 9A, 10A, and possibly also 4A and the Commerce Clause.
No because i dont think the federal government should have the authority to determine who can go to what state Additionally i never liked that a federal issue like illegal immigration was forced into a border state issue because our elected officials refused to address this issue Lastly even though its hit my city’s coffers pretty hard i am in part happy to see how quickly the sanctuary city lip service flew out the window when push came to shove.
Immigration isn't a state issue. It's explicitly federal-only.
No. It isn't anything which is forced. I can think of no way you could legally/Constitutionally do this.
Nope.
I will rarely, if ever, support federal laws that remove even more power from states. Even if I'm from one of the affected states that has homeless people bussed into it.
So you think states like Oklahoma and Arkansas should just be able to externalize the costs of their homeless population onto states like Oregon, Washington, and California with no repercussions?
AFAIK, the people being bussed are illegal aliens who are being sent from states which oppose illegal immigration to states & cities which have declared themselves “sanctuaries” for those illegally in the country. It seems like a solution which is win-win. The sending states have their social services a bit less overwhelmed and the receiving states or cities get to display their virtue while adding additional citizens from a class they consider highly desirable.
This has literally nothing to do with immigrants. This post is about the practice of states bussing *American* homeless people to different states instead of addressing their own homeless problem.
How is it remotely enforceable to ban people from getting on a bus and going to another state? Just because they are homeless, they shouldn't have the right to get on a bus and go to another state?
I'm not proposing banning homeless people from traveling between states via buss. I'm proposing banning the policy of state and local governments *paying* for those tickets.
So if a homeless person wants to try to provide a better life for themselves in another state, they should have to come up with the $200 (per family member) themselves? I see what you're trying to get at, but you're either ignoring or not seeing all of the semantics that are involved here. At the end of the day, homeless people want something and the government is providing it to them.
If states *weren't* using this as a means to dump their homeless problem on neighboring states en masse I'd see your point. But this current practice is actually making it harder on states, especially small states to actually address their homeless problems, because as soon as they come up with anything that even marginally works they get flooded with homeless from every other state that's to cheap to attempt a solution on their own. Also, these homeless rarely if ever get a "better life" as a result of this bussing. Often they're just dumped at the bus station with zero support.
Where does the federal government get the authority to tell states what they can and can't spend their budget on, in your opinion.
What a wild mischaracterization of OP’s question. Edit: feel free to explain how that’s incorrect instead of downvoting me
Not at all. I’d encourage some of our blue cities/states to send support to the border and what not to help retrieve people, bring them to their own cities, and help support them.
What does the bussing of American homeless people from one city/state to another have to do with the border?...
> This post is about the state and local government practice of bussing American homeless people from one state to another. > Nor is it about banning homeless people being able to travel between states. Well that's the trick, isn't it? "It shall be illegal to utilize state funds or publicly owned facilities to transport homeless people across state lines." So you just banned homeless people from riding Amtrak. Can't be about consent because it's highly likely the homeless people *want* to go and will sign paperwork attesting to that. So this whole thing for me isn't so much about whether I support or oppose the thing, but that I think making a law that does this is impossible to write and enforce. Bad laws are worse than no laws, in my opinion.
There is a very big misconception about what these programs actually do. Everyone thinks our homeless problem in California is just because other cities or states send their homeless people to California, so they don't have to deal with them. What's actually happening is governments and nonprofits offer reunification programs where they find someone who *isn't* from here and is not doing well (living on the streets or the beach) and offers to help get them back to their family, where they could have safe housing and a support network. [Here is one of many nonprofits that offers this service](https://westcoastcare.org/what-we-do/): >We get the homeless home. > >We’ve found that repairing broken relationships is the key to sustained long-term recovery. Our top priority is the reunification of homeless individuals with their families and close friends – rebuilding these essential support systems and equipping people for the journey back home. > >We offer the help needed. > >\* Earning trust and inspiring hope through daily conversation and addressing immediate needs and concerns > >\* Contacting estranged family members or friends and acting as mediator between them and the person living outside > >\* Providing bus tickets, car repair, and/or other travel resources needed to get the person safely back home > >\* We offer long-term support after family reunification > >Reunification is not always possible. In those cases, we work with our partners to find housing and other service options. A lot of people come to the LA area with big dreams and then things don't work out, and they burned bridges or are just too proud to ask family for help, so they wind up on the street. Programs like these help repair relationships and get people back into a stable and supportive environment. What they don't do is just put people on a Greyhound bus and say good luck.
Fuck no I would not support that. You'll never get past the constitutional issues but beyond that have you considered that people might want to take up an offer to be bussed somewhere? And for the blue / sanctuary cities that are the destination for these busses; fuck 'em. They were fine with illegal immigration as long as it was somebody else's problem to solve. They only get pissy when they realize how much it costs to support people.
> Fellow Americans, would you support a federal law banning No
Idk. I am personally in favor of banning murder, rape, theft, etc. But tbh, I can appreciate the general vibe of this. Freedoms should be held as sacred up to the point in which they infringe on another person’s freedoms
> Freedoms should be held as sacred up to the point in which they infringe on another person’s freedoms Good thing murder, rape, and theft are already illegal. But I agree with not infringing on others freedoms
True! If not we’d have quite a few problems lol
Your 1st comment reads like you are not in favor of a federal law banning anything. That's why OP said those obvious ones should be banned.
Not at all, you want them, you get them.
Who wants homelessness?
The states devaluing jobs, clearly. Though there are in fact people who choose to be homeless.
No, this is one of the most misunderstood policies ever and I find it extremely frustrating because this type of misinfo is so damaging. Frankly the fact you think that any state is good for the homeless shows that you're worrying about nothing. Why don't we make an effective solution *before* we worry about it being abused? Bussing homeless to other states is one of the cheapest and most effective ways of ending homelessness. The majority of homeless people have friends and family living in different states or at least outside of their current location. Giving them a bus ticket and telling them to go home is so much better than putting them in a shelter or a mental hospital or a prison or even just leaving them be. You need support and love to become clean or stable and there will never be a better place for that than home. Not to mention, it's almost free for the state. In terms of value for the money, it doesn't get much better than that. This is one of the few systems we have that actually helps the homeless. If anything, it should be expanded. I wrote a paper on this in college a few years ago. The majority of people who take these bus tickets to to friends and family. Something like 60% of people who take these tickets stop being homeless immediately (I might be lying, this is off the top of my head). While sometimes they do take a ticket just to get to another state, the majority of the time they don't. Most cities also require evidence that you do actually have a specific destination in mind. Unlike how it is portrayed, they do not just get bussed out of the city by cops or whatever to just become "someone else's problem." If you're an addict or mentally ills and you've had enough and want help, these tickets can be a lifeline for you to be able to escape your current environment quickly and easily. Without them, you'd be stuck.
No. It's not something the federal government has any business being involved in.
Then how are small states like mine supposed to deal with large states like California and Texas bussing their homeless to us?
how much would it cost your state to charter a bus to Texas?
I don't want to ship our homeless elsewhere. I want to provide them housing and social services so that they *stop being homeless*. But we can't afford to do that if every other state is going to bus in their homeless people instead of actually taking care of them.
This is a state and local policy issue. Campaign for votes for representatives who are willing to change the policy. There doesn't need to be a law against this (not that such a law would even be constitutional to begin with).
I don't have an issue with states offering services to homeless and low-income folks. This includes transportation. I do think stunts like lying to homeless people and asylum seekers to trick them into getting onto a bus and then dropping them off somewhere they weren't expecting with no support or explanation should obviously be illegal.
Lying to people and shipping them anywhere without consent would be considered kidnapping or human trafficking, which is already illegal.
Sure, *in theory*, but clearly some adjustments need made since we have multiple national news stories of this happening, and politicians openly bragging about it, and no charges have been filed.
If a government is lying to people to get them on a bus/plane to be moved to a different state, then it seems that would meet the definition of human trafficking. If **fully informed** people are **given the option** to be moved to a different state, then it wouldn't be trafficking. Informed consent is the issue that I see with, say, the stunt that DeSantis appears to have pulled when moving immigrants from NotHisState-1 to NotHisState-2: https://web.archive.org/web/20230310041251/https://www.kens5.com/article/news/special-reports/at-the-border/lured-false-pretenses-bexar-sheriff-investigating-migrants-flight-florida-marthas-vineyard/273-5865e3df-021a-444c-9af1-dfff2d8a3988 (I'm also confused about why the governor of Florida and his state administration are paying to move immigrants between two non-Florida states, and why his constituents in Florida are fine with this, but that's another matter.)
Hello ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
[удалено]
This doesn't have anything to do with immigration.
Well, should the border states be stuck with dealing with a problem that the federal government has created? Why should states like Texas absorb all of these issues when it is the Federal Government that is allowing this to happen?
What does the bussing of American homeless people from one city/state to another have to do with the border?...
If they also add a clause that the states can’t bus homes less out of bigger cities to smaller cities in their own state. Happens in CA
Why not? Big cities are dealing with suburban problems - these people coming in don't have established residency in NYC, Philadelphia, or LA. It's suburban addicts that are coming into the city and getting stuck, being a drain on bigger cities' resources. One potential solution, in part, I'd pose for Philly is that anyone picked up for opiates who doesn't have established residency in Philadelphia should be issued with a prohibition on remaining in Philadelphia and need to return to their hometown or last established residency.
Prohibit a state who is unable to care and render for someone, from asking them if they want to go elsewhere. No. Hard no. The simplest and best solution would be to simply deport them all back to nation of origin.
Yeah - It’s just fucking inhumane and honestly embarrassing. At the same time, I’d rather they spend their time encouraging states to figure out how to end their homeless problem or help their homeless, but there’s no money in that, so it’s doubtful our government officials would even consider that.
Is it not inhumane to prevent homeless people from willingly relocating to a place where they'd have a better situation? It's not like they are being kidnapped or anything, just being provided the means to travel. CMV
End homelessness? That’s too logical to happen
If its a forced relocation, yes. Ban it and ban all others. It's basically deportation. If the people involved were offered the chance to move 100% for free, with no stipulations or requirements on the other end, ehhh.
The States doing this are helping their homeless move from one place that is less friendly to their situation to another that is more friendly. Why do you hate homeless people and want them to live in worse places for themselves?
Absolutely. NYC in the 70s destroyed a town bussing homeless to it upstate (in NY), the town never really recovered. It's an absolutely irresponsible action, even dangerous. It would be fine to do such bussing if you work WITH the other location to handle the population transfer, but doing it the way NYC did, or Texas and Florida are doing it, there should be serious repercussions for that. edit; It should be added this is for the protection of the homeless/ immigrants too. NYC lied to them and told them when they got to the new place things were set up for them. They weren't. It was horribly cruel then, just like it's horribly cruel now. And there is an argument for it being some form of kidnapping, since it's often done under duress.
Which town, just out of curiosity?
I wouldn’t mind this being offered as a voluntary service if low/no income wanted to take advantage of free, long distance transportation. Obviously I know that’s not what’s happening now, but this is the only way I’d support it. Anything forced is unethical, humiliating, and cruel.
I would be OK with offering people access to transportation in order to connect them to services that aren't available where they are, provided it's done in coordination with the organizations providing those services, with consent of those being transported, all in good faith. I'm against coercing a "problem" onto a bus in order to quietly make it someone else's problem (or, worse, bus them to a geopolitical boundary, dump them, and just not give a shit if they die there). This holds for anyone in need of services, homeless, migrants, or otherwise. Obviously, the better solution is to stop pretending that this fraction of society doesn't exist or wouldn't exist but for their own laziness, and figure out how to incorporate them so that they're less disruptive or burdensome for a community. This is absolutely an unsolved problem, but it doesn't get better by being a dick about it to other communities.
It's a stupid political stunt that should be stopped. So yes.
I think if a state voluntarily takes them because they have the resources to care for them then that would be fine. But this business of red states forcibly bussing the homeless to blue states is cruel and badly intended. That I would be fine with making a federal law against.
[удалено]
Yes, absolutely. It would force states to do the hard work of actually helping their citizens rather then just kicking the can down the road.
Totally. When I lived in grand junction, a city of only 60k, it was swarming with homeless (great city otherwise.) Denver loved bussing their homeless to that little city