Quote:
Originally Posted by djnemo65
I don't understand most of your post Angry but if you are arguing that indefinitely detaining people for being homeless is within the bounds of the constitution I would disagree. If you are arguing that the constitution should be changed to allow for the indefinite detention of people for not having a home then I would disagree with that too. It is one thing to argue that homeless people shouldn't be given governmental handouts, or even that you should not personally give them spare change so as not to support their lifestyle. It is quite another to suggest that they should be denied rights intrinsic to American citizenship. Yours is a version of America quite different from what our founders envisioned in my opinion.
|
The founders also probably didn't envision any man willingly living on the streets with so many opportunities available to him. Tell me why it is that an immigrant can come into this country and begin making a life for himself almost immediately. Meanwhile, you have a homeless man on the corner, who is a citizen and has had most of the same opportunities available to him as the majority of the population.
1. He either makes a great living being homeless. (There are a lot of professional bums around here.)
Or
2. He is so used to society handing him everything that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to make something of himself. Essentially he is lazy.
Either way it is pitiful, yet we tolerate it.
To clarify something else: I am not referring to the guy who is trying and just down on his luck. If he lost his job and lost his house and still making an asserted effort, then he is not who I am talking about.
After the Immigration Act of 1917, customs began to filter out peoples with undesirable traits. Being a career beggar or homeless person was considered an undesirable trait; in which case they were not allowed into the country.
1917 Immigration Act
Why was it OK then and not OK now? I believe that 100 years ago lawmakers were better able to determine what the vision of our forefathers was.
Even during the Great Depression, FDR wanted people to work their way out of depression as opposed to accepting handouts from the government. I happen to agree with him.
A man who is too lazy to get out and make something of himself would be better off in prison. He would eat 3 meals a day, be provided adequate shelter, clothing, and healthcare. He would have no choice but to sober up and perform some type of job within the prison walls. Hell, he might just get rehabilitated.
I understand that some Vagrancy Laws are considered Unconstitutional because in certain circumstances they were abused. However, they are necessary to some extent and they should be revised. As long as the end result is the same, which is the removal of bums from the streets; it doesn't matter how we accomplish it. It just needs to be done for the betterment of man and society.
My ideas might get frowned upon, but they would work. I see no one else making an asserted effort to actually make changes. All we do is sit back and argue political ideas without actually compromising and making something happen. Most of the time both sides become close minded to each other. I have an idea. Why don't we just make a immediate decision that works and implement it? Once we later come to a compromise of what should stay and what should be thrown out, revisions could be made to the law. Any decision, regardless of varying opinions of it, is better than no decision.
I do not understand why you have a hard time following my discussions as I write them in plain, modern day, Americanized English.