Posted on 04/21/2021 2:22:59 PM PDT by BenLurkin
If a park bench was good enough for Clem Cadillihopper......
Judge, order my wife and myself to become financially wealthy by January 1st. We’ll accept your order. With government money, of course.
How many will this Judge accept into his home? Surely he has space.
Since the schools in LA County are closed and the teacher unions refuse to go back to work, just pick up the homeless and house them in the empty schools. And then have the laid off school cooks make and serve them 3 meals a day.
I liked this joke from Red Skelton as Clem talking about park pigeons.
(flapping arms to show wings) Here we are, all of us pigeons flying up here in the sky and people think they're smart and we're just dumb. But we're the smart ones flying up over them and they're not so smart to be looking up.
“Deprivation of property rights for starters.”
Yeah, sure, the’LA Alliance for Human Rights’ is ALL over this for residents’ property rights. What are you smokin’?
“People are being encouraged by the city to sleep in the doorways of private property ...”
I must have been doing a RipVanWinkle, I’ve never seen that, maybe you could hook me (and everyone else) up on that.
“...residents openly protest the construction of low income housing unit in NIMBY style.”
No Shiite Sherlock; how do you FEEL about that?
“There is plenty of cheap land in the county (where?) but they won’t build there and the people won’t move there if they did.”
Who is responsible for them ?
Their “rights”,
sheesh.
Well first you seem to be mixing people when you say “their rights”. I am talking about the property rights of the owners. I spelled it out fairly simply - the city has had a policy in place to push homeless into a certain part of the city to the detriment of the property owners and businesses in that area. Where do you think they are going to sleep, in the middle of the road? Or under the awning of the buildings?
Whether this group cares about that I dunno.
Los Angeles county has plenty of land mass. You can’t buy drugs out there though (maybe some meth labs though) so many of the homeless wouldn’t go there even if you built them a luxury condo.
In the end, I’ll repeat, the one good thing I can figure in all this would be a complete and open audit of all the money spent on homeless services. I’d wager 4 out 5 dollars goes to overhead expenses of all the various agencies that distribute money to other agencies that distribute money to other groups that outsource services to other companies that provide the foods and supplies which are then distributed to the homeless by volunteers or people doing court ordered community service.
cloward piven?
In addition, the law also spelled out the way and means in which each group of dependents was to be dealt with. Indigent children were recommended to work-oriented apprenticeships while able-bodied poor persons were sent to work programs. Ill, disabled or “helpless” poor persons were sent either to homes or institutions for relief. Most importantly, the law recognized the existence of need and involuntary unemployment while establishing the individual’s right to public assistance.
Similarly, in response to the still existent population of vagrants, a Law of Settlement and Removal was enacted in England in 1662. It provided local authorities with the power to force individuals or families to return to their place of origin and leave a town if they became dependent. Subsequently, the law granted the local government the power and authority to restrict aid to individuals or families deemed as residents.
The Left deploy the ‘homeless’ to GET IN THE FACES of those who are responsible and make them fork over more and more money to ‘solve’ the problem, for which they have no incentive to solve.
Now they have an incentive - CONTEMPT OF COURT. Serves them right.
What Yahoo and CNN and the alphabetical swill mills won’t report on is this; Mexican Senator says Mexico should take back states;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-mews/3754791/posts Mex House speaker http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3756257/posts
In the hundreds of postings here in Free Republic rarely is this brought up. It’s Known As Reciprocity. We should be treating anybody illegally crossing the Mexican border into the US the way the Mexican’s do to any American illegally .crossing into Mexico. No” free” lawyer is paid by Mexican taxpayers. Entry denied heavy fine and possible imprisonment. before getting kicked out.
When allowing the hordes illegally entering the US through the Mexican border avoids recognizing and dealing with the 2nd class treatment that American citizens get which is in their constitution while legally residing in Mexico.That not just include denial of voting privileges but employment, and land ownership in their name.
Worse yet All when given to illegals and property ownership by them is used in states which Mexico has previously claimed espcially Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and of course California .That could be used to support any reclaiming effort should regime changes in Mexico arise . Our border with Mexico has always been contentious not only with smugglers but on ocassion with Mexican bandits and military.,Allowing potential hostiles to the US property ownership to happen in those states could lead to serious problems in the future.
.It’s time we consider illegal entry by any person who is a non Mexican citizen illegally entering the United States through the US Mexican border a defacto Mexican citizen with limited Mexican constitutional rights subject to their laws while transiting. As well as any Mexican citizen entering illegally exempting those who do so legally and meet US citizenship requirements.
What never gets mentioned is that 2nd class treatment Americans get in Mexico in all of this. If we applied that reciprocal policy . Would that continue ? By.prohibiting and strictly enforcing existing laws prohibiting any illegal entrant employment, voting, and land ownership privileges fully enforced these problems would drop loke a rock. .In other words Once we remove the incentives to Sneak into this country before expulsion no job no voting no landowning this stuff would stop.
The judge can stop a law from being enforced on constitutional grounds. A judge can stop an executive from executing a law on misinterpretation of the law. But a judge cannot order the legislature to pass a law or order the executive to take an action not backed by a law.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.