Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with this. If someone from Indiana moves to California to be homeless and never establish a legal domicile then they still are an Indiana resident. You could make the argument that California could pick them up for vagrancy and return them to Indiana. Not sure of the legality however if Indian resisted taking responsibility for their bum. All of that would have to be sorted out by state law. Considering this involves transport of people over state lines federal action by Congress may be needed.
Hawaii deals (or used to) with their non-resident homeless by putting vagrants on planes to the mainland. Not sure how they pick the destination.
Some locales are setting up tent cities with shower facilities etc. or modifying policies that prohibit the homeless from remaining in shelters during the day.
It's a complicated problem. Read last week that it's not always a plus for churches to provide food to the homeless living on the street. They end-up enabling the homeless in that location. Los Angeles would prefer the homeless come to centers for food. The centers have social workers who can reach out and encourage enrollment in drug-treatment programs etc.
Not really. A US citizen remains a resident of their home state even if they move overseas. Anyone changing their residency within the United States needs to take certain steps like: pay taxes, establish a domicile, change voter registration, car registration.
Anyone can visit another state, with that state having some responsibility for emergency aid. I suppose a case could be made for being reimbursed by the home state. Novel idea, though. Not going to happen.
Unless you are trying to get in-state tuition or avoiding paying taxes, residency is just a paperwork exercise. Most states it’s considering the state as your primary residence for 6 months. California it’s 9 months. You don’t have to own or rent a place, being homeless and living on the streets counts if you aren’t also physically living in another state.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
My point from Day 1 has always been that these people are their own states' problem. Send them back to Middle America where many of them came from. CA should not be tapped with taking on other states' homeless.
And Red states need to stop being such craphole so these kids wouldn't have to run away, or at the very least, don't make them have to come all the way to SF just to get away from the large hole in the middle.
Also, it's NOT just kids! This 60+ yr old man last lived in Montana. He got evicted and decided what the heck, I'll go to California to hang out on the beaches and live on the streets.
Maybe you’re unaware, but these people are usually drug addicts so of course California’s liberal drug laws are a huge draw for them. And if we can’t keep Californians from moving anywhere in the country, then neither can you keep people from other states moving to your state. Them’s the breaks kid.
The large-scale deinstitutionalization of the disabled (including the mentally ill) began in the 1970s, probably in response to various statutes and Court decisions. Least-restrictive-care.
Legal implications aside, setting up the large state institutions would be enormously expensive. Prohibitively so. Back in the day many institutions were hell-holes with minimal staffing that could not exist today. Potentially combative inmates were drugged until they became zombies.
Care burdens for the profoundly disabled falls on families, who may receive minor assistance through Medicaid waiver programs - with even that adding substantially to Federal/State budgets. Once parents die, the state will step in providing care through group homes etc. The less profoundly disabled often find themselves on the street.
States began closing institutions in the 50’s because they had become political embarrassments and a drain on resources. Closures accelerated as Federal Funding was cut.
Most seriously mentally ill people have periodic episodes of acute symptoms. It can be well beyond the reasonable ability of any family. Those who present a serious risk to themselves or others can be hospitalized for 48-72 hours, whereby symptoms are treated and stabilized with medications.
No one can be forced to take medications.
While seriously mentally ill people can be disruptive, most are not violent.
Unless you are trying to get in-state tuition or avoiding paying taxes, residency is just a paperwork exercise. Most states it’s considering the state as your primary residence for 6 months. California it’s 9 months. You don’t have to own or rent a place, being homeless and living on the streets counts if you aren’t also physically living in another state.
There have been multiple programs to bus homeless back to where they have support networks (family, friends) or where there is some sort of housing option. Most no doubt soon find themselves homeless in the new locale.
California (and no doubt other states) track data on the numbers of the homeless who fall into various categories: in-state, out-of-state, non-citizen. The statistics matter for there are policy implications.
Not that there can't be a certain blurring of categories. Some percentage come to the state with the intent of relocating. They may even find a job but then be unable to afford housing and can no longer stay with friends etc. The source of their homelessness (high cost of housing) differs from those who drift due to mental illness etc.
Maybe you’re unaware, but these people are usually drug addicts so of course California’s liberal drug laws are a huge draw for them. And if we can’t keep Californians from moving anywhere in the country, then neither can you keep people from other states moving to your state. Them’s the breaks kid.
California’s liberal drug laws?
Many states have legalized recreational marijuana, including but not limited to Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan and Vermont. Why is it that these states have not experienced homeless challenges to the extent as some areas of California?
Why does Florida have the second largest homeless population challenge, despite recreational marijuana is not legal?
Well, sort of hard to remain employed when one is an addict. It is a disease though, so I've been told....so they should all be in a hospital ?
its not a disease its a choice they made not they shouldn't be in a hospital uness they want to pursue rehab (they don't) and have the funds to pay for it. they shouldn't be on welfare either.
its not a disease its a choice they made not they shouldn't be in a hospital uness they want to pursue rehab (they don't) and have the funds to pay for it. they shouldn't be on welfare either.
This only highlights much of what we already know - many of these people are simply losers who, like their hippie forbearers, don't want to live with the mores and standards of society. They choose to live like this and then complain that they're victims.
exactly. they contribute nothing to society so drug overdoses aren't really a bad thing
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
