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.
As long as Republicans go out of their way to keep their lily white suburbs exclusive to themselves, shutting out people without means the situation will not change.
Amazing, Republicans don't want a penny going to the poor, but they have NO problem spending $50k/yr (or whatever the current cost is) to house criminals that wound up there because there aren't enough good paying jobs or help in the first place. You pay five figures to lock someone up, but don't want a dime to go to help them out?
And I DON'T mean "handouts". In spite of what you claim, the vast majority just want a decent paying job.
Here is the mentality of a conservative.
They think government programs enables more problems for it's citizens. People misuse the government system and that each person should have the will to take care of themselves.
In their minds, drugs, alcholism, mental illness is self appointed disorder.
Well here's the thing, cities are urban which happen to be more liberal leaning in political philosophy which makes them more Democratic. Homeless typically flock to cities due to resources both public and private.
CA is responsible for their problems with homelessness: https://www.capsweb.org/blog/califor...0%99s-homeless and my bet is the others have the same issue, making choices not in the best interest of their citizens.
Had to be either the fault of the GOP, Trump, Trump supporters or Russia/Putin.
And, the first major step in addressing is the deportation of illegal aliens. That will free up both jobs and housing.
Democrats offering sanctuary to criminals probably is the biggest attraction.
What I have seen is the ones that are intent on serving and protecting illegal aliens are having the most difficulty.
If citizens are being left unserved, you reduce services across the board so that there is enough to go around getting the basics met.
I'm aware that Section 8 housing is full of anchor babies - whose presence makes their illegal immigrant parent(s) eligible. I'm not aware that Section 8 housing is full of childless illegal immigrants.
Okay, did a quick google and see that out of the 50 largest cities in the country 13 of them have republican mayors:
San Diego (which I didn't know - don't keep up with all that CA stuff lol)
Jacksonville, FL
Fort Worth, TX
Oklahoma City, OK
Albuquerque, NM
Fresno, CA
Mesa, AZ
Colorado Springs, CO
Virginia Beach, VA
Omaha, NE
Miami, FL
Tulsa, OK
Wichita, KS
Many of the cities above have their own issues I won't get into. But I also know that this homeless population list differs from other ones that come up.
CA is responsible for their problems with homelessness: https://www.capsweb.org/blog/califor...0%99s-homeless and my bet is the others have the same issue, making choices not in the best interest of their citizens.
Had to be either the fault of the GOP, Trump, Trump supporters or Russia/Putin.
And, the first major step in addressing is the deportation of illegal aliens. That will free up both jobs and housing.
Democrats offering sanctuary to criminals probably is the biggest attraction.
What I have seen is the ones that are intent on serving and protecting illegal aliens are having the most difficulty.
If citizens are being left unserved, you reduce services across the board so that there is enough to go around getting the basics met.
And the first step in getting rid of illegal aliens is to penalize the businesses who employ them. If businesses know that they will face a hefty penalty for employing an individual without the correct documentation, then they will be severely less inclined to hire them. Less available jobs for illegals means less illegal aliens in the states. The businesses will then be forced to hire Americans, and the homeless population will dwindle.
But the employers are concerned about their bottom line. They know they can pay an illegal much less than an American worker and get away with it.
This is the real issue. Illegals would not be here if there were no jobs for them to work.
I'm aware that Section 8 housing is full of anchor babies - whose presence makes their illegal immigrant parent(s) eligible. I'm not aware that Section 8 housing is full of childless illegal immigrants.
The parent cannot become eligible for Section 8 based on having American born children. The applicant themselves - meaning the adult tenant who signs the lease, MUST be an American citizen or legal resident to be able to gain access to any public housing programs or HCVP (what Section 8 is now called).
Please note, I worked in the housing industry for private sector and public housing for many years and am aware of the qualifications regarding citizenship due to having to verify that all our residents who signed the lease were legal residents in publicly funded homes/developments. It was a PITA at times.
If there are illegal immigrants living in public housing they are usually living with an adult citizen/legal resident. One of the links quoted above, about Obama's half sister from 2009 stated she got accepted into the program when she was a legal resident. That post and the others are very misleading due to the fact that a child cannot enter into a lease and so the American born child cannot give their parents access to public housing programs. Their other, adult, legal citizens/resident relatives though can.
The time when this was a PITA the most was in 2010 when the company I worked for had to verify all our immigrant residents in Atlanta at the time. It should be noted that in Atlanta in particular, which saw a huge influx of illegal immigrants from Central and South Ameica from the 1990s to the 2010s, there were very few Latino public housing residents. The bulk of those we discovered who had issues with the citizenship/residency status were from Asian countries, primarily Korea and from Russia since a lot of Russian refugees immigrated to America between 1970 and 1990 and we had a lot of Russian Jews who we had to assist with residency issues during that time due to some of them not having the appropriate paperwork needed to verify their status, same thing occurred with the Koreans but they were newer immigrants and usually had family in the area to help them gather up everything.
I don't get it. Over the last 50 years poor and disenfranchised groups have turned to the Democratic Party. Hence, cities usually vote democrat because cities had become the areas with the highest concentration of the poor and disenfranchised. They then vote democrat. The democratic party did not make the people poor and disenfranchised.
I am on neither side of the political divide, both sides have points that I agree and disagree with and my agreement and disagreement varies with the circumstances. However, one of the most absurd arguments I read is linking the problems of cities to the Democratic party. Rather, the problems of cities is why the people vote for the Democratic Party in the cities. I mean, if the people of Flint, Michigan put a Republican in office....how would it change things for the better? What are they going to do for tax revenue as the main thing in the Republican tool kit is tax cuts. How are tax cuts going to help when a large number of people are unemployed and or poor? School of choice? How is that going to help when kids are going to school hungry? Vouchers....same thing.
It's easy to work miracles with money, meaning a tax base of middle class white folks.
Michigan is a good example because Michigan Republicans never met a regressive tax they didn't like. Taxes along are a valid reason for poor people there to vote for Democrats.
The crazy thing is how does the word get around? The homeless population in my nearest major city, Seattle, actually are not from the area. They grey hounded over here from other Western states. Is there like a homeless forum, serious.
"In 1999, 56 percent of homeless clients interviewed (N=2,938) reported that they had remained in the same city, town, or rural community where they had previously maintained a home. They had not moved to a different community after becoming homeless."
"Family status contributes heavily to the likelihood of moving from one community to another while homeless. Seventy-one percent of clients in family groups remained in the community where they became homeless compared to 54 percent of single homeless clients."
"Respondents to surveys identified the four most common reasons for mobility.
(1) No jobs available
(2) Eviction from housing
(3) No affordable housing available
(4) No services available
Additionally, those surveyed revealed strong common reasons for choosing the move destination.
(1) The presence of relatives or friends in the new community
(2) Shelters or missions were present in the new community
(3) Jobs were available in the new community
(4) Good services and programs for the homeless were available in the new community"
"Homeless movers generally moved from smaller communities to larger ones. This would correlate with the expressed motivations of seeking more services and a wider employment market."
"Rural movers tended to move to medium-sized centers. Large and small towns people tended to move to medium-sized centers or the urban fringe of a large city. Those who lived in the urban fringes of medium and large-sized cities tended to move to the central areas of those city types. People living in medium cities tended to move to large cities. Those living in large cities predominantly moved within the same type of place."
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.