The Oregon case decided Friday is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        As well as to extract tax money from the working class. As it makes more economic sense to house and rehabilitate a person then it does to put them in jail. But the jail tends to have more kickbacks for the owner class.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, and without what meager belongings they had prior to arrest. Any changes of clothes, tent, coats, bicycle, all gone.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m seeing people who are very likely homeless walking down busy highways and even the interstate to get to the town where I live, presumably to go to the jobs they still have despite being “lazy homeless people.” Walking down them miles out of town. They must have to walk for 2 or 3 hours minimum just to get to work. It would take them 2 hours to get to the nearest bus stop from where I often see them walking (near a woods where they must be camping).

      A significant number of them are Latino, and this town does not have a large native Latino population, making me think they are migrants who ended up homeless after hoping to come to America for a better life.

      I assume Republicans think all of that is just fine.

      • GluWu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is the ground work to start mass deportation during project 2025 when Trump wins.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      In the case of CA, these people are going to be given in shelter beds. (I know, it sounds counterintuitive to the ruling.)

      The main reason CA brought the case is because they aren’t allowed force portions of their unhoused populations indoors. They can’t move a segment of the population unless there is enough space for the entire population.

      So, if a county had beds for half of the unhoused population, and it wanted to bring half of them indoors, it couldn’t. It could only make moves once it had beds for all.

      I’m sure some place will be shitty and will just throw people in jail, but the big west cost cities have a lot of unfilled shelter beds that they would like to fill.

      And all that being said, a lot of these unhoused people are avoiding shelters for a reason. Being on the street is actually preferable to what people experience in some shelters. So, as much as Newsom will tell you that he wants to be compassionate and give people a bed, he’s not telling you that bed is next to a psycho that’s going to scream all night then assault someone.