Trump Executive Order okays incarceration of homeless

[Maxmars]

So far, I have satisfied for my own purposes that the EO was written by The Cicero Institute.

I cant say either way who loaded the idea... but we can say who pulled the trigger.. unless 'autopen' was involved....
(Isn't it amazing they always have an "out"?)

...
Depriving human homeless and vagrants of rights. It's like a step back into the English Poor Laws
...

My contention has always been that social 'rights' cannot be changed or diminished.. only usurped or nullified...

All qualifiers such as criminal, vagrant, immigrant, etc... are not used to amplify the person...
but instead to amplify the narrative.

Rights are not something you demand or negotiate... they are yours irrevocably...
If you allow someone to overshadow that... well... here we are.

I read once that Continental Europeans had a great opportunity to round up their vagrants and sell them to the British because Britain was putting down an insurrection by the American Colonies. I wonder, did some of these involuntary irregular mercenaries escape into the Americas?

It would seem a reasonable thing... that some would escape seeing an opportunity... especially if their participation essentially coerced....

But I fear characterizing that as an 'opportunity' is somewhat biased...

I would like to have been there to say... "These are people... not cattle."

[Velvet Elvis]

Civil commitment means against their will. You really okay with that?

Yeah, in some cases I’m okay with people being committed to mental health or rehab facilities against their will.  Especially when they’re a danger to themselves or others. This isn’t exactly a new concept. It’s been part of the mental health system for decades.
 
I live in downtown LA and see homelessness up close every day. My late husband was a psychologist, and we spent a lot of time talking about the crisis, what causes it and what might actually help. From what we saw, a large percentage (maybe even the majority) of people on the streets are dealing with serious mental illness, addiction, or both. That’s obviously a generalization, but it tracks with a lot of what we've personally experienced. These folks often need more than just food or shelter- they need real help, which usually means long-term treatment, medication and structure to stabilize.
 
Most healthy people who hit hard times can usually recognize their situation. They may have friends or family they can turn to and even if they don’t, they’re more likely to access the available programs and get back on their feet. But for others, it’s not that simple. Some literally can’t reach out- whether it’s because of psychosis, addiction, or deep trauma. And sadly, a lot of the systems we do have aren’t built to support people who need serious, ongoing care.
 
Back in the ’60s and ’70s, state mental hospitals had a terrible rep and not without reason. A lot of them were in awful condition, and the treatment methods were outdated or even abusive. Carter tried to reform the system with the Mental Health Systems Act in 1980, but then the Reagan administration came in and pretty much dismantled it. Instead of fixing things, many institutions were just shut down, and their patients were released without any real support. A lot of them ended up homeless. That’s honestly where I think this all started. And now, without many options for long-term care (besides jail) we’re still dealing with the fallout.

Basically, we f***ed up the system, and now we’re dealing with the consequences of not having one.
 
I checked out Trump’s executive order after hearing a bunch of talk about criminalizing homelessness. Naturally, I’m not okay with that. Being sick or homeless shouldn’t be a crime. But from what I read, that’s not exactly what the order says. It seems more focused on institutionalization and treatment, with the goal of rehabilitation not punishment.
 
My biggest concern is how it’s framed. The language is all about “restoring public order,” which feels more like it’s meant to make people feel safer than to actually help the people who are suffering. That kind of framing reminds me of the bad old days of overcrowded institutions and neglect. Maybe it’s just worded that way to get more political support. I hope so. If there’s real oversight and the focus is truly on care and recovery, then yeah- this could be a step in the right direction. But I’m cautiously optimistic.

[quintessentone]

Yeah, in some cases I’m okay with people being committed to mental health or rehab facilities against their will.  Especially when they’re a danger to themselves or others. This isn’t exactly a new concept. It’s been part of the mental health system for decades.
 
I live in downtown LA and see homelessness up close every day. My late husband was a psychologist, and we spent a lot of time talking about the crisis, what causes it and what might actually help. From what we saw, a large percentage (maybe even the majority) of people on the streets are dealing with serious mental illness, addiction, or both. That’s obviously a generalization, but it tracks with a lot of what we've personally experienced. These folks often need more than just food or shelter- they need real help, which usually means long-term treatment, medication and structure to stabilize.
 
Most healthy people who hit hard times can usually recognize their situation. They may have friends or family they can turn to and even if they don’t, they’re more likely to access the available programs and get back on their feet. But for others, it’s not that simple. Some literally can’t reach out- whether it’s because of psychosis, addiction, or deep trauma. And sadly, a lot of the systems we do have aren’t built to support people who need serious, ongoing care.
 
Back in the ’60s and ’70s, state mental hospitals had a terrible rep and not without reason. A lot of them were in awful condition, and the treatment methods were outdated or even abusive. Carter tried to reform the system with the Mental Health Systems Act in 1980, but then the Reagan administration came in and pretty much dismantled it. Instead of fixing things, many institutions were just shut down, and their patients were released without any real support. A lot of them ended up homeless. That’s honestly where I think this all started. And now, without many options for long-term care (besides jail) we’re still dealing with the fallout.

Basically, we f***ed up the system, and now we’re dealing with the consequences of not having one.
 
I checked out Trump’s executive order after hearing a bunch of talk about criminalizing homelessness. Naturally, I’m not okay with that. Being sick or homeless shouldn’t be a crime. But from what I read, that’s not exactly what the order says. It seems more focused on institutionalization and treatment, with the goal of rehabilitation not punishment.
 
My biggest concern is how it’s framed. The language is all about “restoring public order,” which feels more like it’s meant to make people feel safer than to actually help the people who are suffering. That kind of framing reminds me of the bad old days of overcrowded institutions and neglect. Maybe it’s just worded that way to get more political support. I hope so. If there’s real oversight and the focus is truly on care and recovery, then yeah- this could be a step in the right direction. But I’m cautiously optimistic.

If it's anything like the old system, where saving money is the priority, then these people still won't get the help they need. They will end up with 15 minute psychiatric assessments then they will be prescribed drugs, and it's a toss up if they get the right drug at all. Those addicted to whatever may be clean for a while, but if there is no commitment for real long-term treatment, they will end up back where they started.

It's smoke and mirrors with no real direction, except what you read "restoring public order" through a continuous revolving door of incarceration, dubious treatments, and subsequent release to what, where, how? This appears to be the new system of incarceration posing as a solution with the appearance of "restoring public order" but not really restoring public order.

[Vermilion]

Yeah, in some cases I’m okay with people being committed to mental health or rehab facilities against their will.  Especially when they’re a danger to themselves or others. This isn’t exactly a new concept. It’s been part of the mental health system for decades.
 
I live in downtown LA and see homelessness up close every day. My late husband was a psychologist, and we spent a lot of time talking about the crisis, what causes it and what might actually help. From what we saw, a large percentage (maybe even the majority) of people on the streets are dealing with serious mental illness, addiction, or both. That’s obviously a generalization, but it tracks with a lot of what we've personally experienced. These folks often need more than just food or shelter- they need real help, which usually means long-term treatment, medication and structure to stabilize.
 
Most healthy people who hit hard times can usually recognize their situation. They may have friends or family they can turn to and even if they don’t, they’re more likely to access the available programs and get back on their feet. But for others, it’s not that simple. Some literally can’t reach out- whether it’s because of psychosis, addiction, or deep trauma. And sadly, a lot of the systems we do have aren’t built to support people who need serious, ongoing care.
 
Back in the ’60s and ’70s, state mental hospitals had a terrible rep and not without reason. A lot of them were in awful condition, and the treatment methods were outdated or even abusive. Carter tried to reform the system with the Mental Health Systems Act in 1980, but then the Reagan administration came in and pretty much dismantled it. Instead of fixing things, many institutions were just shut down, and their patients were released without any real support. A lot of them ended up homeless. That’s honestly where I think this all started. And now, without many options for long-term care (besides jail) we’re still dealing with the fallout.

Basically, we f***ed up the system, and now we’re dealing with the consequences of not having one.
 
I checked out Trump’s executive order after hearing a bunch of talk about criminalizing homelessness. Naturally, I’m not okay with that. Being sick or homeless shouldn’t be a crime. But from what I read, that’s not exactly what the order says. It seems more focused on institutionalization and treatment, with the goal of rehabilitation not punishment.
 
My biggest concern is how it’s framed. The language is all about “restoring public order,” which feels more like it’s meant to make people feel safer than to actually help the people who are suffering. That kind of framing reminds me of the bad old days of overcrowded institutions and neglect. Maybe it’s just worded that way to get more political support. I hope so. If there’s real oversight and the focus is truly on care and recovery, then yeah- this could be a step in the right direction. But I’m cautiously optimistic.

You are absolutely correct.
Thank you for sharing.

”The majority of people who are currently unhoused—67%—have mental health disorders, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 studies mainly from Canada, Germany, and the US involving more than 48 400 participants. The lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness was 77%. The lifetime prevalence was higher among male than female individuals: 85% vs 69%, respectively.”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/ar...e_vignette

[Velvet Elvis]

If it's anything like the old system, where saving money is the priority, then these people still won't get the help they need. They will end up with 15 minute psychiatric assessments then they will be prescribed drugs, and it's a toss up if they get the right drug at all. Those addicted to whatever may be clean for a while, but if there is no commitment for real long-term treatment, they will end up back where they started.

It's smoke and mirrors with no real direction, except what you read "restoring public order" through a continuous revolving door of incarceration, dubious treatments, and subsequent release to what, where, how? This appears to be the new system of incarceration posing as a solution.

I'm not blind to the fact that there's big money to be had in for-profit jails, hospitals and schools. I had a friend tell me recently that there was no money to be made from incarcerating illegal immigrants.  I wish I shared his naivete. Some things just shouldn't be for-profit.

[quintessentone]

I'm not blind to the fact that there's big money to be had in for-profit jails, hospitals and schools. I had a friend tell me recently that there was no money to be made from incarcerating illegal immigrants.  I wish I shared his naivete. Some things just shouldn't be for-profit.

Is that the new industry where all the new jobs will be had? Will they eventually slip in AI to do those jobs to save money? I expect so for the appearance of government being frugal with taxpayer money. No swamp here, look over there. It absolutely looks logical if, what you say, look for the big money. So when will people rise up to complain about migrant incarcerations that are causing their taxes to increase? While billionaires/multi-millionaires sup on champagne and caviar.

[Bootless]

I found this Youtube video wherein Kyle Kulinski explains an Axios article: What to know about civil commitment, Trump's new policy for homelessness



A fact is that there is only so much hospital and prison space in the U.S.. Not enough. Fear is erection of detention camps.

The idea that certain modes of being or certain ideologies can be labelled mental illness has precedent.

Example: (although I haven't fact checked, this is something I grew up hearing in the 60s and 70s) USSR is an atheist country. If the dictator or politburo doesn't like you or what you say, and if you happen to be a Christian, they can sent you off to an insane asylum because "Christianity is insane".

[covent]

The idea that certain modes of being or certain ideologies can be labelled mental illness has precedent.

Example: (although I haven't fact checked, this is something I grew up hearing in the 60s and 70s) USSR is an atheist country. If the dictator or politburo doesn't like you or what you say, and if you happen to be a Christian, they can sent you off to an insane asylum because "Christianity is insane".

USSR and China both outlawed religion but failed to appreciate how this would not destroy faith. Believers went underground (sometimes literally) and in the case of regimented Maoist communism, religions with Christian churches in particular, grew.

Castro had more insight and let the people keep their religious beliefs. 

I think we are seeing this coraling of thought happening globally. "Wrongthink" and criminalisation of dissent. 

Having said that and for the homeless, listed at this EO and in common belief and understanding, as being a social problem created by the homeless and by the poor is true wrongthink.

It relies entirely on assumption and assumption is always domain rooted, fed and watered by rhetoric of the ignorant.

Too many people become homeless and once the largess of friends and family has expired, eventually roofless, because (as said in the vid), they have no money.

Drugs - the criminal dealers have identified and exploited a useful market on the streets where even in hotter climes and every night, the cold seeps into the bones. We all know how that feels and I cannot blame people for wanting to kill that pain. 

Under this EO, the poor and dispossessed will see what little choice they have left eroded and the drugs they are pumped with will not be prescribed or tailored to their needs but rather to whatever pharma sales hype made the biggest impression at lobby. 

As mentioned by others in this Thread, Housing 1st works. The most successful models involve self-build projects. Doing away with Housing 1st, "Cleaning up the streets" and criminalising and institutionalising people is retarded and only serves to shift public money into already bloated private hands. 

What is needed to reduce homelessness is to provide small parcels of land, basic building materials and expertise to help people build their own tiny-homes. Most of  those who need some extra support to beat a habit or ensure they manage their mental diverseness will not really need that for long. Once they have gained sense of purpose and ownership, they will naturally seek greater independence and improve their lot, as is the natural way.