It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Columbia, South Carolina Criminalizes Homelessness

page: 6
45
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

In fact walking up to a homeless person and telling him to come to this and this address is not so beneficial as you think, you have all kinds of people taking advantage of them, some even in something as simple as promising a job, or some food if they follow them then beating the # out of them.

Right. Or, the homeless beat the crap out of / steal from the individual. Or (as I've had happen to me several times) show up and instead of doing the work beg for money for a crisis with the promise of coming back and doing it which they never do.

Or, you get arrested. Where I'm from in CA there are places that you can drive by and the mexican (often illegals, some legal) stand on the corner (as if they have all mysteriously shown up together there for no reason at all, officer) and you can pick people up in your pickup or van, you tell them what you need workers for, someone there translates, that is fairly common -- but I don't think it's legal for a few reasons.




posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Funny, sort of:

I was telling friends on another forum about this thread. And in doing so, without realizing it, I completely made the point for someone who was arguing with me on this thread. I hate it when I actually lose a debate -- with myself, no less.

(Edited to add: it was Doobydoll. OK you win. :-))

I said:

I was going to make a city where me and my buddies kept out all them stinking green martians, but arrest without crime, forced imprisonment without crime, and discrimination were technically violations of that pesky Constitution thing.

Now that I see it IS legal as long as someone is "homeless," my friends and I will just make sure we consider all Martians homeless.

"He was green. His shirt was wrinkled. He looked pretty damn homeless to me!" we'll say.

I actually do believe in work trade for welfare when possible, and here's the worst--er, best--possible way to implement it, how lucky! Since they can't leave and they have no other options, we could just add 'work' for them, then they'll have something to do, and if they eventually work hard enough they could get money to leave!

And I was thinking maybe the shelter, being already 6x undersized and that was before it even became law, will probably need to be expanded greatly. They can fence in a bigger area. Then over the gates they can make a wrought-iron message saying something "positive and uplifting" for them like, WORK LIBERATES! or WORK MAKES YOU FREE.




OK I think my previous argument about work-for-welfare was inappropriately placed in context of this topic. I'd already said the situation itself was horrid but now I think I agree that nothing could make it worse than actually adding "work" to such an involuntary situation.

peace
edit on 23-8-2013 by RedCairo because: credit



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedCairo

It's only a matter of time before the homeless won't be given a choice, but be rounded up and forced to work in return for the privilege of existing, eating, and breathing our air.

In previous posts I already had my feelings about it being a concentration camp = horrible.

However, this idea that society is morally obliged to provide free housing, food, etc. to people WITHOUT asking for any form of contribution/work, with the implication or outright saying that that society is basically a labor whorehouse if they actually say "well if you want to get food and housing you have to work" -- to me that is irrational and completely unsustainable as any solution to anything.

Even communism expects people to work -- capitalists are not the only ones who believe in working for a living.

Why is giving welfare ok but asking people to work for it not ok?


Why is not having shelters for homeless not ok, but having shelters that ask them to do something in exchange for that food and shelter not ok either? Why is society allegedly obliged to just TAX people who are working to pay a huge intermediate 'administrative government' and then a small % of that to the end-recipient who doesn't want to work?

Because desperate starving people will steal and rob to survive, just like it was in Victorian days. Nobody was safe on the street, especially rich folk - they were the only ones with anything to steal. Taxes would be spent on prosecuting and jailing them.

So, people wanted a SAFER streets and a better society. How do you do this? You give the poor their basic living needs so they don't have to steal to survive.

A better, safer society costs money, tax money. But an unsafe society costs more tax money in prosecuting and jailing poverty-related crime. So, the taxpayer pays up in both options so make your choice which is the lesser of the two evils, because that is what it boils down to.


And if they WANT to work, why is offering them the chance to work in exchange for not having to starve and sleep on the streets a bad thing?

Why not offer them proper wages for any work they do instead of a bare existence with a bit of food and a bed? If there's any work to be done - PAY PEOPLE FOR IT.


I agree such circumstances are often abused but the reason I responded to your previous post so briefly was because it had nothing but despising society for daring asking people to work instead of being given things free.

No, I just despise that some in society expect people to work for a less than basic existence instead of paying them. Simple as that.

How would you like to be forced to work for a bit of food and a bed instead of wages? Because once TPTB get away with forcing one group of people to do it, it's only a matter of time before they begin to expect other working people to do the same. Imagine that. Then what will you do? Will you still agree with it? Or do you only agree with it until it happens to you?

I always like to look beyond the end of my nose instead of at what's immediately in front of it - I would advise you to do the same.
edit on 24-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 





I was telling friends on another forum about this thread. And in doing so, without realizing it, I completely made the point for someone who was arguing with me on this thread. I hate it when I actually lose a debate -- with myself, no less.
(Edited to add: it was Doobydoll. OK you win. :-))


Much respect for you



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Well, I suppose now that I'm thinking of it differently, I do kind of have an example of that.

I used to know a young woman who was an illegal here from Mexico. She cleaned houses for a living.

Back in Mexico, her entire extended family, for about two years, saved up to come up with enough money so that for her combined graduation gift and 18th birthday present, she could afford a coyote (a runner who takes people over the border to the USA).

It was their way of giving her a way out, an escape, because she was exceptional.

When she got here she was taken into a house in Los Angeles where -- and it turns out this is not nearly as uncommon as anyone might think -- nearly all the employees were illegals, except a couple who interacted with guests.

They worked 12-16 hour days, six days a week.

They shared a built-in big walk-in closet with 6 bunks.

They made so little money she could barely afford to eat, or even postage.

You couldn't get off the property and couldn't afford to leave and if you did, depending on the house, they'd shave your head, make you wear an old scullery-maid like cap until some of it grew out, beat you with a belt, and you would be watched carefully so you didn't try to escape the property.

In short, she was literally a slave.

She was able to get a letter to her mother down in mexico, who was able to convince a very distant relative who was living a couple hours North of her to help. She escaped into his car out back and he drove her up to where he lived.

He didn't have much money but he managed to help her get little cards printed that said she could clean house and a rate and that she was honest and had references (namely: him, and a neighbor). He drove her around and she put them in the mailboxes of the "wealthy neighborhoods" in Camarillo and Ventura and Oxnard.

Which is how I met her; she worked for someone I knew. She became a friend of mine and I came to have a tremendous respect for her.

When her father died, she decided to go back because her mother had five younger sons and was all alone and desperate and she wanted to help her. I was moving at the time and I gave her nearly everything I owned that wasn't furniture or my clothing and we boxed it up and UPS'd it down to her mom in Mexico prior to her departure, with the theory that anything she couldn't use, maybe she could sell or trade -- where she is from, a sewing machine is gold.

I agree that living wages are required.

To be fair, plenty of people who are not homeless don't make living wages which is a good way to become homeless (as I noted on a previous page talking about when I lived in my van, and the huge underground qty of homeless employed people).

But I don't know how well our society is going to do with living wages for lower level jobs when the market drives wages and we're competing with the whole planet (including ITS slaves including children), and when our economy has such issues (which appear to be in great part created by a government that seems to be working for someone who isn't us).

So it's a reasonable theory; implementation doesn't seem to be working out too well.

And all the theories won't help people who are homeless right now.

Then again, how does one city like this "solve" 1500++ people (and likely more bus'd in from all over the states) being homeless? Especially when there are usually many issues aside from merely job-food needs?



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
One day in the not too distant future, when corporations and government own everything and are the only bodies to work for, I wonder if they will begin to reward any and all work with just a bit of food and a bed. No wages for anyone.

You can't go work for another company because there will be no other companies. It's that, or starve on the street.


Future Scenario . ..

Corps/gov employer: 'right everyone, we are now going to be treating ALL workers the same and paying them the same - everyone gets the same. It's the fair thing to do'.
Workers: 'oh ok, do you mean you are going to start to pay workfare people a wage, and everyone gets the same amount as us?'
Corps/gov employer: 'No, we mean we are going to pay YOU the same as them, with a bit of food and a bed. We don't think you should get wages when other workers don't. We just want to be fair to all our workers.'
Workers: 'What about us skilled and educated people who studied and trained for years to provide a better life?'
Corps/gov employer: 'Ok. You skilled and educated deserve more - so in addition you will get an extra blanket in winter and a couple of quid in cash a month, but if not spent within a week of receiving it, then it will be decided you don't 'need' it and we take it back'.

Is this scenario beyond possibility? I look around and see greedy corrupt governments and greedy corrupt corporations, all selfishly out of control with their obscene greed for money and power. They don't know when to stop. A runaway train gathering speed.

It is very much a possibility.

One consolation - a runaway train eventually runs out of track and destroys itself in the end.
edit on 24-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by geobro
america you should be ashamed at your society it made me sad reading that thread
thank the lord harry i live in scotland not long ago i read of a woman burying her partner at home because she could not afford the funeral .

i live in a country where nobody is left behind nobody sleeps outside unless they want to down on your luck pick up the phone and get help no food or money pick up the phone we even house foreigners .

it is not perfect but it is a million times better than what you have over there nobody goes sick /hungry / homeless .

did you ever win your freedom
i think not

but a woman in a wheelchair gets kicked out of her home..........(see ATS.com)



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Vagrancy laws have been in existence for centuries.

Many people prefer living in card-board boxes and scavenging trash barrels rather than working, paying taxes, and managing a household.

Providing 3 hots and a cot at shelters is less expensive than at the jail.

The bastards who fake illness to get 3 hots, an electric bed, and mega-channel TV at hospitals really deserve a few nights in jail with Bubba as a partner.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
nvm

edit on 24-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I've been thinking about this topic a little more, and now I'm wondering:

What IS the appropriate way for the city to deal with their problem?

Mass overcrowding of homeless (many of whom are likely bus'd in from other regions), serious harassment (to the point of near assault or actual assault and theft) of the population.

How do you fix it? One city cannot magically solve the homeless problem which is nationwide, let alone instantly, and "something" needs to be done.

Now, I think their solution is horrendous, but I'm stumped at the moment: what is a better solution?



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I have no idea how to fix it, and it's something that I think is only going to get worse. We're not far away from most service sector jobs (what our entire economy is turning into) being replaced entirely with machines. My town arrests the homeless if they wander around the city. Just off the highway there's a patch of woods with a hidden tent city full of the homeless. Not wanting to burden the prison the cops basically have an agreement with them: Stay out of sight and they'll be ignored.

Occasionally one will wander out of the woods and sit on nearby highway onramp trying to hitch a ride somewhere. A few weeks ago there were several (4-5 I think) doing that at once and the cops came by, took them to jail and paid a visit to the rest.

As far as I'm aware they live by fishing out of the river (the fish are toxic enough that one is supposed to be limited to 1 or 2 per year), and using that river for bathing/drinking.
edit on 24-8-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aazadan
I have no idea how to fix it, and it's something that I think is only going to get worse. We're not far away from most service sector jobs (what our entire economy is turning into) being replaced entirely with machines. My town arrests the homeless if they wander around the city. Just off the highway there's a patch of woods with a hidden tent city full of the homeless. Not wanting to burden the prison the cops basically have an agreement with them: Stay out of sight and they'll be ignored.

Occasionally one will wander out of the woods and sit on nearby highway onramp trying to hitch a ride somewhere. A few weeks ago there were several (4-5 I think) doing that at once and the cops came by, took them to jail and paid a visit to the rest.

As far as I'm aware they live by fishing out of the river (the fish are toxic enough that one is supposed to be limited to 1 or 2 per year), and using that river for bathing/drinking.
edit on 24-8-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

What a dreadful way to treat people.

They're not allowed to go into town, and they're not allowed to leave it, 'just stay in your tent and out of sight so we can pretend you don't exist and not have to deal with you' - comply or go to jail.

Everyone except government and local authority, knows that a fault in any system only gets worse when you ignore it and pretend everything is hunky dory. Left ignored, the tiniest fault will eventually cause a system to fail completely - either grinding to a halt, or . .. KA-BOOM!

This analogy applies to any system - mechanical, electronic, military, social, etc.

Gov doesn't want to fix it. Fixing it costs time and money. Patching is easier and quicker and keeps things limping along.

I'm waiting for the bang.
edit on 25-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff

Originally posted by geobro
america you should be ashamed at your society it made me sad reading that thread
thank the lord harry i live in scotland not long ago i read of a woman burying her partner at home because she could not afford the funeral .

i live in a country where nobody is left behind nobody sleeps outside unless they want to down on your luck pick up the phone and get help no food or money pick up the phone we even house foreigners .

it is not perfect but it is a million times better than what you have over there nobody goes sick /hungry / homeless .

did you ever win your freedom
i think not

but a woman in a wheelchair gets kicked out of her home..........(see ATS.com)
only because she refuses to speak to the council who have bent over backwards for her she gets £800 min $1200 per month and that is minimum she can afford the £60 per month .the councils are good if you make them a offer they will accept it $7 a week extra is not a lot over 50 weeks .

she is a silly woman with 2 kids to think about and a ex husband nearby who could help i know many people thousands in debt who are not getting thrown out



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I keep thinking about this topic. See that's why I don't normally read/post on these topics or read the news. Because when I see a problem I want to solve it, and I can't fix stuff on the news, which drives me crazy, and the angst does nobody any good...

My best friend and I were talking about it late last night. "But what IS the solution?" I insisted. "How can I gripe about their concentration camp mentality if I don't have a better alternative to propose?"

He theorized that culture needs to change (oh yeah, like that's something we can make happen by next month) and that "every community should be responsible for their homeless" -- that grass-roots groups, from donation services (like for thrift stores) to the churches to donations from local biz, to volunteers locally -- should get together and try to address the various issues most preventing the segments of homeless who COULD and WOULD "get back on their feet," e.g. find a job and a place to live.

This doesn't just take a place to sleep and food. It requires decent clothing; it requires a phone you can be called at for a job interview; it requires transportation for said interview and for the job that might follow; it requires not just eventually money for rent, but usually a huge bulk sum of money up front for first, last, deposit, utilities deposits, and all of that is assuming that bad credit wouldn't prohibit it all anyway. It may require childcare and other things. It is a medium-term, substantial investment. And there are only SOME homeless who fall in the category that this would "work" for in terms of making them independent.

There are other categories of homeless which will not be able to get or hold a job; which will need medical care and ongoing medication and may not be particularly capable or willing to self-treat in such a way as to make themselves competent; who may be a threat to others around them in various manners. How the hell you can deal with that segment of homeless, I have no idea.

So we're back to the segment that it does seem reasonable to think could go from homeless to self-sustaining with some assistance. So then I said to him:

OK so let's say that each community should address its homeless's needs.

But I come from -- and it's possible Columbia is another example -- a city where HALF THE NATION literally busses its homeless, sick, indigent and incompetent into because it's cheaper than dealing with them locally.

Why should Columbia's limited resources be forced to solve what amounts to a huge chunk of a nationwide problem, vastly beyond what is actually 'theirs'? And how could they, even possibly? And in the unlikely and improbable event that they did, this would only likely result in a massive, massive influx from around the country especially nearby areas of yet MORE homeless (and often mentally and physically ill) people.

No city can "fix culture" especially overnight. Most cities would be very lucky to come up with a plan and resources to help their OWN homeless, and I'm referring now to people who actually grew up in the city at least partly, or lived there normally for years before becoming homeless.

No cities would be able to handle the homeless of their own city + more ++++++. No city should have to.

But Columbia still has a problem. It is not appropriate or safe to have such a "mass infestation" of homeless literally clogging your retail areas that they become an actual danger -- and I mean literally in assault/theft, not counting the constant harassments -- to the taxpaying citizenry.

It is injust to ignore that you should not be taking your health/wealth into danger in order to go buy some chicken at the market. City governments exist in great part to ensure the basics of public function and safety are addressed. It becomes "their problem to fix" when the situation spirals out of control.

Continuing to ignore it while the citizens are mass-harassed and even criminally acted against is not an option.

Their solution is ... er, imperfect at best.

What would help is for ideas about better solutions, even in small part, to come about.

A lot of people have plenty of stones to cast at Columbia for their plan. Are there no better ideas that don't require some version of the fairy-magic-wand "people/culture must instantly evolve" theory?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join