Friday, June 28, 2019


Flooding the market with cheap, foreign, white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and hurts children’s schools and college educations. It also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions. The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the Heartland to the coastal citiesexplodes rents and housing costsshrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low-tech, labor-intensive workplaces.

"When we hear stories about the homelessness in California and elsewhere, why don't we hear how illegal aliens contribute to the problem?  They take jobs and affordable housing, yet instead of discouraging illegal aliens from breaking the law, politicians encourage them to come by lavishing free stuff on them with confiscated dollars from this and future generations."  JACK HELLNER

 "It extends to each issue the Democrats embrace. Every city that has come under Democrat control is proof positive that instead of raising the standard of living for the occupants, the city falls to crime, gangs, and drugs.  In fact, "America is awash with troubled, dysfunctional cities that have been electing Democrat Party mayors for decades." EILEEN F TOPLANSKY 

Should We Invade Mexico? - Americans forget is that the U.S. is located next to a failed state that is promising to descend even further into chaos – not California, the other one. And the Mexicans, having reached the bottom of the hole they have dug for themselves, just elected a president who wants to surrender to the cartels and thinks Mexicans have  a “human right” to sneak into the United States and reconquer it. - KURT SCHLICHTER

Elizabeth Warren to Upstage Debate Rivals with Visit to Migrant Shelter

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 17: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) addresses the Moral Action Congress of the Poor People's Campaign June 17, 2019 at Trinity Washington University in Washington, DC. The Campaign held the event to focus on issues like “voting rights, health care, housing, equitable education, …
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is one-upping her Democratic rivals by promising to make a pre-debate, TV-magnified visit to a nearby center that shelters foreign youths before they are handed over to U.S.-based “sponsors.”

“We have to shut down that facility and shut it down now,” Warren told supporters, according to a tweet by a Washington Post reporter. The crowd enthusiastically chanted, “Shut it down!”
Warren’s gambit highlights the growing number of progressives who emotionally oppose the federal agencies’ efforts to identify — although not actually stop — the huge wave of Central American migrants and their children who are walking into Americans’ blue-collar workplaces, schools, and neighborhoods.
Amid the emotion, and its use by Democratic politicians, only about ten percent of adult migrants are being blocked at the border. The vast majority are quickly being released precisely because they bring young children on the dangerous journey solely to trigger the catch-and-release laws that are supported by Democrats.
Also, another huge wave of more than 56,000 children and teenagers — who claim to be unaccompanied — have surrendered to border officials since October. Roughly 2,500 of those teenagers are being temporarily sheltered at the center in Homestead, Florida, run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Washington Post did not report where Warren thinks the Homestead youths should be sent if the HHS center is closed.

Homestead facility is about 45 minutes from the debate site. Campaign says Warren had wanted to see it, and talked to immigrant advocates before her town hall tonight -- made her mind up to go.
"We have to shut down that facility and shut it down now," Warren says. Cheers of "shut it down!" break out.

These youths at the Homestead shelter are legally dubbed “Unaccompanied Alien Children” (UAC) because they told border agents that they were not traveling with their parents.
Most of the UAC teenagers at the center will be quickly sent to “sponsors” after officials have checked the potential sponsors for possible criminality, such as forced labor, prostitution, drug selling, and MS-13 links. The average stay is just 36 days, according to a June 19 HHS report.
But the vast majority of the sponsors are either the parents or the in-laws of the UAC teenagers, and many sponsors are also illegal migrants who have paid cartel-linked coyotes to deliver their teenagers to the Homestead camp, via the border agencies.
This UAC-smuggling strategy is dubbed the “UAC pipeline,” and it has been used since at least 2013. So far, the cartels earned a fortune by delivering a huge share of the 270,000 children and youths who have passed through the federally-operated pipeline since 2009.
In March, Democrats included a clause in the 2019 spending bill to hinder federal agencies from narrowing the UAC pipeline by deporting sponsors who are illegal migrants

Democrats are helping illegal-immigrant parents smuggle their foreign children into the US via the UAC pipeline. Up to 88,000 are expected in 2019. That's bad for Americans. But it is good for business, so GOP Senators stay mute -- except for Sen. Graham. 

Warren’s TV-ready visit to Homestead will happen the day of the first of two Democratic debates in Miami, Florida. The Homestead center is just 30 miles down the road.
Warren’s promised visit — which will likely be accompanied by a cheering crowd of pro-migration activists — is part of an escalating race by Democrats to out-do each other in promising to open the borders to poor migrants.
For example, Beto O’Rourke pledged to dismantle the border wall, Julian Castro promised to decriminalize illegal migration, and Joe Biden wants to welcome migrants from Venezuela and also  “streamline and strengthen” the asylum laws being used by 100,000 economic migrants each month to get into the United States.
Warren, however, is keeping pace.
On June 21, for example, she promised to end the use of company-run prisons for holdingmigrants. That goal has long been sought by pro-migration groups because it would force the border agencies to expand the catch-and-release policy. In turn, the expanded catch-and-release policy would allow the cartel-linked traffickers to quickly recoup the cost of smuggling migrants into the U.S. blue-collar labor market and so stimulate the labor trafficking business that is pressuring down Americans’ salaries.
On June 25, Warren escalated again, saying she prefers to decriminalize illegal migration by letting “mamas and babies” into the United States.
“We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future,” Warren told the Huffington Post. “We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that is in line with our values, creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants including our DREAMers, and protects our borders.”
A June 19 statement by HHS described operations at the center:
Due to the crisis on the southern border, ORR is facing a dramatic spike in referrals of UAC. As of June 10, DHS has referred over 52,000 UAC to HHS this fiscal year (FY), an increase of over 60 percent from FY 2018. Preliminary information shows over 9,000 referrals in May- one of the highest monthly totals in the history of the program. If these numbers continue, this fiscal year HHS will care for the largest number of UAC in the program’s history. Based on the anticipated growth pattern in referrals of UAC from DHS to HHS, HHS is preparing for the need for high bed capacity to continue.
HHS has expanded bed capacity at the Homestead Temporary Shelter for UAC in Homestead, Florida to 2,470 based on need resulting from a current increase in UAC referrals from DHS. Family separations that resulted from the Zero Tolerance Policy that ended in 2018 are not driving the continuing operation of Homestead. In addition, no children at Homestead are there due to the Zero Tolerance Policy.
Since opening in March 2018 over 13,300 UAC have been placed at the site and more than 10,800 have been discharged to a suitable sponsor.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declares against enforcement of the nation's immigration laws: "In terms of interior enforce[ment], what is the purpose? What is the point?” Very different from Trump's view: “If you don’t have Borders, you don’t have a Country!” 

Immigration by the Numbers
Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university.
But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants and refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar visa workers — including approximately one million H-1B workers — and approximately 500,000 blue-collar visa workers.
The government also prints out more than one million work permits for foreigners, tolerates about eight million illegal workers, and does not punish companies for employing the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants who sneak across the border or overstay their legal visas each year.
This policy of inflating the labor supply boosts economic growth for investors because it ensures that employers do not have to compete for American workers by offering higher wages and better working conditions.
Flooding the market with cheap, foreign, white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and hurts children’s schools and college educations. It also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions. The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the Heartland to the coastal citiesexplodes rents and housing costsshrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low-tech, labor-intensive workplaces.

Something journalists, activists and other Democrats never suggest to illegal aliens: abide by the laws Congress passed!

Not once in the article below did the stenographer suggest that illegal aliens abide by the laws Congress writes.  It never seems to enter journalists' minds.  Journalists, activists, and other Democrats tell illegal aliens how to break the law and ignore the law but not that they should follow the law.
Yet every day we hear lectures from the complicit media in collusion with other Democrats about how no one should be above the law in the United States.  Do sanctuary city and state politicians recognize that the public can tell they are encouraging lawbreaking? 
When we hear stories about the homelessness in California and elsewhere, why don't we hear how illegal aliens contribute to the problem?  They take jobs and affordable housing, yet instead of discouraging illegal aliens from breaking the law, politicians encourage them to come by lavishing free stuff on them with confiscated dollars from this and future generations. 
Sophia Tareen of the Associated Press writes:
Ceci Garcia believes that if her husband had a better understanding of his rights, he would have avoided deportation to Mexico after telling a suburban Chicago police officer during a 2012 traffic stop that he was living in the U.S. illegally.
"He failed to remain silent," said the U.S. citizen mother of five. "He proceeded and told the truth."
From Los Angeles to Atlanta, advocates and attorneys have brought "know-your-rights" workshops to schools, churches, storefronts and consulates, tailoring their efforts on what to do if Immigration and Customs Enforcement shows up at home or on the road. They've role-played interactions, handed out pocket guides, provided hotlines, hosted webinars and offered scripts. The result, advocates argue, is more savvy immigrants who are increasingly refusing to open their doors or provide information, something they hope will blunt any impact of any operation.
"It's more about making sure that people feel like they have some power over what is happening in their lives," said Katarina Ramos, a National Immigrant Justice Center staff attorney. "And that they have some control over what is inherently a very scary situation."
Whether it's the American Civil Liberties Union or a neighborhood nonprofit, the trainings focus on the same ideas: the right to remain silent; refusing officers entry into a home; not signing anything without legal representation; and asking for paperwork from agents. They are rights attorneys say apply to everyone regardless of citizenship status.
There is another story out by the AP about supposed Trump sexual abuse over twenty years ago.
This story has a lot in common with a significant amount of garbage that supposed journalists pollute the public with on a daily basis.  There is zero evidence that the incident occurred, only an allegation.  So why does the story hit the papers?  The answer is to make the public believe that it happened.  As long as it fits the Democrat agenda of destroying Trump, the story is printed.
The Russian collusion story goes on even though there was never any evidence that it happened.
The false story about what Trump said in Charlottesville is still out there.
There was never any evidence that the Jussie Smollett story was true. 
The media set out to destroy white Christian boys even though it was clear that the story that they were racists was false from the start.  
One of the most despicable examples of false stories when the media helped gin up racial hate, violence, and hate of cops was the false "hands up, don't shoot" narrative. 
The examples of the media pushing the Democrat agenda with talking points or anonymous sources instead of facts run on and on. 
Isn't it time that the media cared about facts and the law?  Is there any wonder why most of the public doesn't trust them?

An Addiction Crisis Disguised as a Housing Crisis


Opioids are fueling homelessness on the West Coast.
June 14, 2019 
The Social Order
By latest count, some 109,089 men and women are sleeping on the streets of major cities in California, Oregon, and Washington. The homelessness crisis in these cities has generated headlines and speculation about “root causes.” Progressive political activists allege that tech companies have inflated housing costs and forced middle-class people onto the streets. Declaring that “no two people living on Skid Row . . . ended up there for the same reasons,” Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, for his part, blames a housing shortage, stagnant wages, cuts to mental health services, domestic and sexual abuse, shortcomings in criminal justice, and a lack of resources for veterans. These factors may all have played a role, but the most pervasive cause of West Coast homelessness is clear: heroin, fentanyl, and synthetic opioids.
Homelessness is an addiction crisis disguised as a housing crisis. In Seattle, prosecutors and law enforcement recently estimated that the majority of the region’s homeless population is hooked on opioids, including heroin and fentanyl. If this figure holds constant throughout the West Coast, then at least11,000 homeless opioid addicts live in Washington, 7,000 live in Oregon, and 65,000 live in California (concentrated mostly in San Francisco and Los Angeles). For the unsheltered population inhabiting tents, cars, and RVs, the opioid-addiction percentages are even higher—the City of Seattle’s homeless-outreach team estimates that 80 percent of the unsheltered population has a substance-abuse disorder. Officers must clean up used needles in almost all the homeless encampments.
For drug cartels and low-level street dealers, the 
business of supplying homeless addicts with 
heroin, fentanyl, and other synthetic opioids is 
extremely lucrative. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the average heavy-opioid user consumes $1,834 in drugs per month. Holding rates constant, we can project that the total business of supplying heroin and other opioids to the West Coast’s homeless population is more than $1.8 billion per year. In effect, Mexican cartels, Chinese fentanyl suppliers, and local criminal networks profit off the misery of the homeless and offload the consequences onto local governments struggling to get people off the streets.
West Coast cities are seeing a crime spike associated with homeless opioid addicts. In Seattle, police busted two sophisticated criminal rings engaged in “predatory drug dealing” in homeless encampments (they were found in possession of $20,000 in cash, heroin, firearms, knives, machetes, and a sword). Police believe that “apartments were serving as a base of operations that supplied drugs to the streets, and facilitated the collection and resale of stolen property.” In other words, drug dealers were exploiting homeless addicts and using the city’s maze of illegal encampments as distribution centers. In my own Fremont neighborhood, where property crime has surged 57 percent over the past two years, local business owners have formed a group to monitor a network of RVs that circulate around the area to deal heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines. Dealers have become brazen—one recently hung up a spray-painted sign on the side of his RV with the message: “Buy Drugs Here!”
What are local governments doing to address this problem? To a large extent, they have adopted a strategy of deflection, obfuscation, and denial. In her  #SeattleForAll public relations campaign, Mayor Jenny Durkan insists that only one in three homeless people struggle with substance abuse, understating the figures of her own police department as well as the city attorney, who has claimed that the real numbers, just for opioid addiction, rise to 80 percent of the unsheltered.
The consequences of such denial have proved disastrous: no city on the West Coast has a solution for homeless opioid addicts. Los Angeles, which spent $619 million on homelessness last year, has adopted a strategy of palliative care—keeping addicts alive through distribution of the overdose drug naloxone—but fails to provide access to on-demand detox, rehabilitation, and recovery programs that might help people overcome their addictions. The city has been cursed, in this sense, with temperate weather, compounded by permissive policies toward public camping and drug consumption that have attracted20,687 homeless individuals from outside Los Angeles County.
No matter how much local governments pour into affordable-housing projects, homeless opioid addicts—nearly all unemployed—will never be able to afford the rent in expensive West Coast cities. The first step in solving these intractable issues is to address the real problem: addiction is the common denominator for most of the homeless and must be confronted honestly if we have any hope of solving it.

‘Unbridled Immigration, Legal and Illegal, Is Taking the Country Down’
“Through love of having children we're going to take over."  Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
This annual income for an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border crosser.
study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER


The Homeless, Illegals, and the Politics of Virtue Signaling

We have no idea how many of the homeless are illegal immigrants, but we do know that homeless shelters in big cities will not cooperate with blanket ICE searches for illegals.
Shelter workers are trained to request a warrant for a specific individual, and without that, they are told to keep ICE at bay.
The extent to which the ACLU and pro-illegal immigration organizations have gone to educate homeless shelters about how to deal with ICE indicates that the presence of illegals in these shelters is not insignificant.
Shelters are all-too-often in lesser supply than the demand for accommodations, especially during winter in brutal climes in places like Chicago.
Having walked the frigid streets of that city going from shelter to shelter in search of a homeless relative, I know something about the dynamics of how the homeless survive the unforgiving cold where a place in a shelter can mean the difference between freezing to death in the street or waking up alive.
Competition for safe harbor is fierce. And the homeless line up and prance in the cold to stay warm long before the shelters open.
American citizens -- even veterans, mothers, and children -- compete equally with illegals. This is the consequence of our so-called policy of “compassion” enunciated by open-border billionaires like Beto O’Rourke and liberal virtue signalers.
O’Rourke would like to send $5 billion to the failed states that have produced the immigration crisis. How many billions would solve our own humanitarian crisis of homelessness?
Illegal immigrants do not compete for resources or jobs with billionaires or smug middle-class professionals who drip with compassion and want to bring them into America in ever larger numbers.
But on the streets of our cities, illegals compete with the most vulnerable people in our society, just as decades ago when Cesar Chavez saw an unending supply of cheap illegal labor being a threat to the wellbeing of his union members.
A CEO that I know speaks insufferably of her support of “immigrants” and DACA, but she will never have to face competition from anyone crossing the border illegally. Her well-paid position in a Silicon Valley startup and her stock options are not at risk. But America’s homeless sleeping on the streets and in shelters, just a mile from her trendy townhouse in a gated San Francisco complex, will compete with these people for the basics of survival.
They are disproportionately black and LGBTQ, the latter having suffered abuse and neglect, especially sexual abuse.
Homeless youth, contrary to myth, do not choose to be on the streets, and they are ten times more likely to die than non-homeless people their own age.Homeless children experience developmental delay.
To date, their cause is not part of the 2020 Democrat political agenda. But an unceasing demand for more resources for the illegals charging the border is. No one discusses a limit on the resources to be allocated to illegals -- to feed, house, and clothe them.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D, Ca) can grandstand before the klieg lights by grilling those responsible for homeland security and immigration about conditions at the border, but she will not seize the bully pulpit for the thousands of homeless living under the Oakland maze not far from where she was born and a few miles down the street from where she went to law school.
The conditions of both our veterans and vulnerable youth living on the streets do not rise to be considered as even talking points in the current conversations about how the society is to be improved by a change of administration in 2020. The focus is almost entirely on our compassion for the illegals overwhelming the border, the vast number of whom are economic migrants, not refugees.  
Oakland and Berkeley representative Barbara Lee (D) has been in Congress since 1988. She is an economic progressive, and she is strongly against deportation. But can you be against deportation while advocating for social services for your own poor who are living under highways?
Resources are finite. Solving the problems of one’s own poor -- who have grown in number since 1988 when almost no one lived under the maze -- should take precedence over the impossible task of rescuing the poor of Mexico and Central America, if not the world.
The truth is that the illegals are the latest trend in virtue signaling. My CEO acquaintance can sit with her friends in upscale San Francisco restaurants and talk about her compassion for the homeless and her political work for DACA while ignoring the plight of the people she practically steps over daily on Market Street.
Kamala Harris will demand more diapers and wipes for the children at the border while ignoring America’s own homeless under California’s freeways. Barbara Lee will tout her progressive credentials at the next election, but whatever her progressive ideology has done for Oakland and Berkeley’s impoverished, it seems neither to have touched the growing street population nor to have abated it.
Politics is not about finding solutions. It is about gesturing toward policies that will provide what the mass public thinks are solutions while mobilizing their votes.
If you want to see a meaningful change in both immigration and homeless policies, start inviting millions of middle-class professionals into America and give them quick licenses as doctors, lawyers, and accountants to compete with middle-class virtue signalers. Don’t invite poor people who will end up competing with America’s homeless for a warm grate on a pitiless Chicago winter night.
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and a distinguished fellow with the Haym Salomon Center.

Paying for illegals' 'free' health care by fining Californians who can't afford Obamacare

The leftists running California's one-party state have done it again. They've rolled out a $312 billion budget that includes $98 million for free health care for illegal immigrants under the age of 26. That's a dinner triangle to all able-bodied foreign nationals working off the books that the free ride is about to arrive.
According to the Sacramento Bee:
The expansion will take effect Jan. 1, 2020 and cost $98 million in the upcoming fiscal year. It will make California the first state to allow undocumented adults to sign up for state-funded health coverage.
The budget includes a fine on people who don’t buy health insurance known as an individual mandate. The fines were initially implemented as part of the federal Affordable Care Act law known as Obamacare, but Republicans acted in 2017 to roll them back. Newsom and legislative leaders say re-imposing the penalty at the state level will shore up the state’s health insurance marketplace and keep premiums from rising dramatically.
As if that $98 million is really going to cover it as migrants from Central America and beyond surge into the U.S. in record numbers, and five million from Latin America alone planning to enter the U.S. with or without papers.
California, remember, was quite convinced $39 billion would cover the cost of its famed bullet train up and down the state in 2008. The price tag now, with just a tiny portion of it out in the Central Valley to be built? $98 billion.
Given the incompetence of those numbers, you can bet the surplus that the money is about to be taken from is ... not going to remain a surplus.
All this, while the burned-out city of Paradise remains un-rebuilt due to all the state's environmental concerns. Priorities, see...
But it's not just that which makes the measure so objectionable. 
The free health care - and Medi-Cal is very, very, free, with no deductibles for anything - is going to be paid for out of a new program of fines for California citizens who don't qualify for free health care, yet can't afford Obamacare - quite possibly due to the high cost they are paying for keeping a roof over their heads, for one. 
The Associated Press reports that the few Republican legislators remaining have tried to make exactly that point in their objections:
Republicans on the legislative committee negotiating the budget voted against the proposal, arguing it was not fair to give health benefits to people who are in the country illegally while taxing people who are here legally for not purchasing health insurance.
A subsidy program is going into place, supposedly to "help" them, but you can bet it won't cover the average Californian who can't afford Obamacare. As for the illegals, well, when you work off the books, you can pretty well claim anything as your income, so rest assured that all those who want the free health care, no matter what they earn, are going to be able to get it.
 So what we are about to see now is the fining of Californians trapped in the high cost of living brought on by leftist policies, in order to bankroll the state's abundant illegal immigrant population, which now stands at a quarter of the nation's count.
And the little claim at the bottom of that last cited paragraph from the Sacramento Bee suggests even more trouble on the horizon for Californians who can just barely pay those gargantuan Obamacare premiums: "keep premiums from rising dramatically."
What's the takeaway on that? That bankrolling illegals is going to make premiums rise on Californians who are stuck in the individual market, but rest assured, the hikes won't be dramatic.
Sound like a recipe for flight from the state? You would be insane if you didn't think so, and the state already is bleeding people. Fifty-three percent of the state's citizens, according to one poll, want to leave, and more than one report shows that the state lost more people than it gained, even with the border surge bringing new supplicants in. Voters know their votes don't count in a state where ballot-harvesting by illegal immigrants is routinely done now, so any discontent is virtually impossible to telegraph at the ballot box, and the leftist mafia running the state insists that this is what Californians want. Color me skeptical on all fronts.
The one thing worth watching for in this is not the cost overruns, though that should be an interesting topic. It's whether Californians will finally switch their voting patterns in sufficient numbers to finally get this crew out. The odds are against them with ballot-harvesting, yet still, still, one expects something to eventually blow. Maybe this will be what does it.


How do we deal with America's mental illness crisis?

Before Ronald Reagan became President Reagan in 1981, the old Soviet Union (dominated by today's Russia) imprisoned political opponents in psychiatric hospitals.  In later years, many of those former inmates recalled that the very fact of being confined among people who were truly mentally ill, was so stressful as to induce a degree of that illness in the sanest of people.  Being forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs increased that tendency. 
The communist Soviet leaders hoped that imprisoning people in that manner would provide their government with a plausible cover of compassion.  It enabled them to deny that they were punishing dissidents, rather claiming that they were "helping" them.  It also insinuated that only crazy people oppose communism.  The forced hospitalization policy did in fact work to suppress some political dissent, because everyone knew that it was an insidiously cruel punishment.
President Reagan, ardently anti-communist, successfully promoted the release of mentally ill patients in the U.S. by reducing funding for their care.  Thousands who had been involuntarily confined were turned out into the streets.  Most of them became homeless and hopeless.  Unemployable, all too many turned to drugs and crime.  Their death rate was high.
While Reagan is vilified for this policy, the fact is that after he left the presidency, no subsequent president, nor any Congress, reinstituted the pre-Reagan policy.  They could have but did not.  Today, involuntary confinement to mental institutions for prolonged periods is difficult to achieve. 
That is as it should be.  The danger of a Soviet-style policy by a future socialist-oriented U.S. government is by no means out of the question.  After all, it could be asked by leftists, what truly same person would actually wish to own a lethal weapon?  Who in his right mind could possibly support the Second Amendment?  At least that is what the radical left would ask, and you know what the answer would be.
California is no longer the paradise it was under Governor Reagan.  Radical leftism has taken root.  It is all but a separate country in many ways.  It has its own immigration policy, illegal under federal law.  At one point, its governor even floated the idea that the state should produce its own virtual currency in the form of accounting tricks, an action uncomfortably close to secession.
Radical leftist policies in California have put on public display the embarrassing appearance of a third-world hell-hole.  Swathes of the state, mostly in big cities, are heavily populated by semi-conscious (or even unconscious) drug addicts, and entire city blocks seem to be covered in garbage and human feces.  The problem is getting worse.  A harsh comedian suggested that conditions are so bad that illegal aliens might return to their native countries as refugees from America.
As a proposed solution, "Officials in San Francisco decided ... to back a plan allowing the city to force some people with serious mental illness and drug addiction issues into treatment."
Among progressives, this is a formula for internecine warfare.  Leftist philosophy is socially libertarian when it comes to drug abuse, but it is also authoritarian when it comes to political expedience.  These two do not mix.
The policy presently proposed by San Francisco is timid, so much so as to be ineffective.  It would involuntarily commit very few.  "Only about five people could be forced into treatment in San Francisco under the newly-passed plan. ... But Wiener's new bill could bump that up to 55, which is the number of people who now fit the definition for at least involuntary holds.  San Francisco's health department has identified an additional 48 people on the fringe who have been involuntarily detained six or seven times."
As you see, this is by no means a clean sweep of the streets, but only a symbolic gesture.  It is not the numbers; it is the principle that is of significance.  Its portents could be enormous.
Small government and personal accountability are vital principles of conservatism.  Involuntary commitment to mental institutions poses a threat to those principles — but so does illegal public disorder.  What policy, then, will solve the problem without endangering personal liberty?
President Reagan told us there are no easy solutions, but there are simple ones.  The simple solution is to enact constitutional laws and properly enforce them.  This cannot be done in isolation.  It cannot be done by local governments that flout federal immigration laws, nor by policies that regard public defecation as a human right.
The debauchment of California did not occur overnight, nor will the "simple" solution be "easy."  A policy directed only at cosmetic measures is not the answer.
I am not optimistic that those presently in power in California (and in other states with similar problems) will look inward and admit that their political and social(ist) philosophies caused the problems.  I admit to being entirely cynical in the matter.  Leftist politicians serve themselves, and no one else, at whatever cost to the public.
Neither am I optimistic that the general electorate in the affected regions will re-evaluate their political opinions.  As Sir Winston Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
The temptation to enact draconian anti-drug laws is powerful, and in some limited instances, such policies could be useful.  The specter of a police state should, however, moderate any authoritarian impulses we might entertain. 
Not all social ills are remediable by government.  Some might not be remediable at all.  To some extent, tough love, the abandonment of the incorrigible to their chosen fate, might be the best policy.  No delight can be taken in that, but reality can be unpleasant.
Subjecting the majority to the depredations of the intransigent will cause only further harm.



Los Angeles Homelessness Surges 12 Percent: 59,000 Now on the Streets

Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images
 4 Jun 20191,633

The number of homeless people in Los Angeles County jumped 12 percent over the last year to nearly 59,000 living on the streets, according to a report released Tuesday.

The newly released data revealed that nearly three-fourths of the homeless population, which includes 58,936 people, are sleeping in cars, tents, and other make-do shelters.
Released by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to the Board of Supervisors, the data found that the majority of homeless people were residing in the city of Los Angeles, which saw an increase of 16 percent to 36,300.
Officials claim the data show economic stress placed on the thousands that are on the streets and said that they have worked to provide permanent housing for some 21,631 people over the year.
The report revealed more than 3,800 of the total homeless population are veterans, 2,866 of which are unsheltered and “not in family units.”
The total of unaccompanied minors who are “not included in family units” and are homeless totaled 66, with 45 of those without shelter.
In a tweet issued to his account last week, Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom boasted that “California’s what happens when rights are respected.”

California’s what happens when rights are respected. When work is rewarded. When nature’s protected. When diversity is celebrated and free markets are fair markets.

We are nothing less than the progressive answer to a transgressive President. #CADEM19

“California’s what happens when rights are respected,” Newsom stated. “When work is rewarded. When nature’s protected. When diversity is celebrated and free markets are fair markets.”
He added, “We are nothing less than the progressive answer to a transgressive President.”
Follow Kyle on Twitter @RealKyleMorris and Facebook.



The prospect of a 225-bed homeless shelter on the Embarcadero, one of San Francisco’s most scenic and economically vital areas, took residents by surprise. Only eight days earlier, the proposal had been unveiled to turn what is now a parking lot—Seawall Lot 330—into the largest homeless shelter of its type in the city. Neighbors arrived en masse at the Port Commission hearing to express their views. It was standing-room only, with people crowded on floors and in aisles, and spilling out the door. 
After a brief presentation by Jeff Kositsky, executive director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, who touted the merits of the “Navigation Center”—as the new shelters are called—local homeowners, renters, and workers were granted two minutes each at the mic. All spoke passionately about their ties to the neighborhood and how the shelter would erode safety and quality of life. They worried that it would intensify drug use and other illegal activity and draw additional homeless people onto their property, leaving more needles and feces behind. Several described how their toddlers have already been poked by discarded syringes and had to take HIV tests. A father explained that his baby stroller was stolen as he was placing her in her car seat; a senior citizen recounted being chased by “a crazy person.” 
Their testimonies were often agonizing. A few broke down as they pleaded with the commissioners to reject the proposal. Many emphasized that the waterfront is a jewel of the city. Placing an enormous homeless shelter in the center of it, in such close proximity to the prized Ferry Building, is bizarre. The location, they pointed out, is also a poor choice because few amenities like hospitals or grocery stores are nearby, and police response time in the area is slow. With no requirement for shelter residents to be sober, drug dealing, overdoses, and crime would proliferate. 
Port Commissioners Kimberly Brandon, Willie Adams, and Doreen Woo Ho sat poker-faced. The Port of San Francisco owns Lot 330, and the proposal depends on their consent, which seems likely. Mayor London Breed supports the idea. The site itself was likely chosen for expediency, because the Port of San Francisco oversees the location, and commissioners are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
“The community is feeling blindsided and shortchanged in regard to public process or a sincere desire for public input,” says Jamie Whitaker, who lives a block away from the site. “They cast us as millionaires who don’t care about the homeless, which is completely wrong. We just do not have faith in the city to provide the right kind of place for them and us. For example, there should be serious talk of building a mental hospital. It’s clear we have schizophrenic people in this city and they need help.”
After community members expressed their objections, a small contingent of homeless-rights activists spoke, trivializing their neighbors’ concerns as NIMBYism, and, predictably, accusing them of hating the poor. Most of the residents, however expressed compassion and praised the nearby Delancey Street Foundation, a self-supporting residential community for ex-convicts, addicts, and homeless people, because it provides vocational and social skills training in a drug and alcohol free setting. It’s a critical difference but the activists are deaf to nuance and unconcerned about anyone with homes, children, or businesses.
More crucial, though, is the attitude of city leaders and the media. The San Francisco Chronicle ran an editorial headlined, “San Francisco Neighbors are Wrong to Fight A New Homeless Facility,” dismissing the concerns of residents as “the magnetizing fear of a homeless influx,” and implying that elitism fueled their protest. But the Chronicle also admitted that those living on the streets are “often struggling with addiction or mental illness.” The proposed Navigation Centers are neither psychiatric hospitals nor substance-abuse facilities, both of which the city desperately needs.
Further, the Navigation Centers have not reduced homelessness. At last count, approximately 7,500 people were living on the city’s streets on any given night; shelters aren’t making a dent because so many homeless people are “service-resistant.” No one is required to go or stay, and many don’t. Tents and illegal activity mushroom around the shelters, despite so-called good-neighbor policies that are supposed to maintain a modicum of safety in the surrounding area.
The city, however, refuses to guarantee that there will be no uptick in crime and vagrancy. “We feel swindled,” says Wallace Lee, a retiree living in the area. “Something strange is going on. I used to be a lawyer and how this city works is confusing even to me. What I do know is that city officials don’t care about our concerns. I’ve been coordinating people to show up at these meetings. We will challenge the legislation. I’ve made this my full-time job, I stay up until midnight. I heard from a lot of people who want to continue to fight and I’m encouraged.” 
And now Mayor Breed claims that she is “ready for battle over housing, homeless.” Her attitude is making enemies of tens of thousands of San Franciscans. An us-versus-them approach is counterproductive. At worst, she’ll get what she’s preparing for: a war with the people who care most profoundly about the city. The commission vote is expected on April 23. 
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


Census Bureau: Immigration Driving Half of U.S. Population Growth

 28 Apr 2019398

Immigration to the United States is now driving nearly half of all population growth in the country instead of increased birth rates, the U.S. Census Bureau finds.

The latest Census Bureau estimates on the U.S. population reveal that about 48.5 percent of all population growth is driven by the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration policy, where more than 1.5 million foreign nationals are admitted to the country every year.
Axios analysis by Stef Knight details the growing share to which immigration is increasingly driving population growth across the U.S. Since 2011, for example, the level to which immigration has accounted for overall population growth has increased more than 13 percent.
According to the Wall Street Journal analysis, about nine percent of U.S. counties are growing solely because of immigration. This concludes that about nine percent of counties have regional birth rates that do not exceed the annual number of deaths in the area.
Similarly, the Wall Street Journal notes, more than half of all population growth in states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Kansas, and Michigan, among others, is because of immigration.
Though pundits have claimed that the country’s admittance of 1.2 million legal immigrants a year is necessary to increase birth rates, researchers have found that the growth of the immigrant population has little impact on birth rates.
Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarota discovered in his latest study this year that “immigrant fertility has only a small impact on the nation’s overall birth rate,” citing that immigrants in the U.S. raise the nation’s birth rate for all women by two births per 1,000 women.
“Immigration has a minor impact because the difference between immigrant and native fertility is too small to significantly change the nation’s overall birth rate,” Camarota noted in the study.
At current legal immigration levels, the U.S. population is set to hit an unprecedented 404 million residents by 2060 — including a foreign-born population of 69 million.
The U.S. does not have to rapidly increase its total resident population and foreign-born population, as legal immigration moratoriums have been implemented in the past to give time for new arrivals to properly assimilate to American life. Halting all immigration to the country would stabilize the population to a comfortable 329 million residents in the next four decades.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder





Nolte: Punk Legend Johnny Rotten Sounds Alarm over L.A. Homeless Epidemic

Michael Loccisano/Getty Images for Tribeca Film Festival
29 Apr 2019422

Sex Pistols frontman Johnny Rotten isn’t afraid to buck the establishment and sound the alarm over L.A.’s homeless epidemic, which has literally landed at his front door.

The 63-year-old lives in Venice Beach where there has been a surge of homeless vagrants that have vandalized his multi-million dollar home and spoiled the beaches with “poo” and “needles.”
“A couple of weeks ago I had a problem,” he said. “They came over the gate and put their tent inside, right in front of the front door. It’s like . . . the audacity. And if you complain, what are you? Oh, one of the establishment elite? No, I’m a bloke that’s worked hard for his money and I expect to be able to use my own front door.”
He added that his wife Nora, who suffers from Alzheimer’s, isn’t able to cope with bums trying to “steal the iron bars off the windows” for the scrap metal and bricks coming through his windows.
“My wife’s ill and she can’t cope with this. But at 2 a.m. last week, a brick whizzed through the top floor window, the bedroom. Sorry, Mr. Policeman. I need your help.”
“The vagrants moved in en masse . . . [in] tent cities. They’re all young; they’re all like 24,” he said, adding that, “They’re aggressive, and because there’s an awful lot of them together they’re gang-y.”
They have also spoiled beach life: “And the heroin spikes . . . You can’t take anyone to the beach because there’s jabs just waiting for young kids to put their feet in — and poo all over the sand.”
This might sound like hypocrisy coming from a punk rocker, but it’s really not. The whole ethos of ’70s and ’80s punk rock is live and let live. No rules … at least until you interfere with me living the life I want to live, which is exactly what is happening to Rotten.
If you want to know what an actual punk rock sellout looks like, I give you Henry Rollins, the Vandals legend who endorsed … Obamacare.
In fact, Rotten (whose real name is John Lydon) is bucking an establishment that treats these vagrants as sacred cows while at the same time pretending they do not exist because their rising numbers reflect badly on the Democrat-run strongholds that cannot manage the growing problem.
The media and the left-wing political establishment want us to see the homeless as victims of a cruel American capitalism that allows good people to fall through society’s cracks. Naturally, the only solution to this problem is big government socialism.
But the truth is that American capitalism licked poverty decades ago. The so-called “poor” in this country now have cable TV, central heat, air conditioning, videogames, microwave ovens, iPhones, and struggle with over eating. The homeless are an altogether different problem.
Certainly, good people slip through the cracks temporarily. No question. But there are all kinds of avenues to help those who are sincere about getting back on their feet. The homeless epidemic is actually an epidemic of mental illness, addiction, and tolerance.
City’s that tolerate poopy beaches and sidewalks, hypodermic needles, and aggressive panhandling only end up attracting even bigger problems and making the lives of their normal citizens miserable.
Johnny Rotten complaining about one of the most sacred of sacred cows is as punk as it gets, and so is his support of Trump and Brexit.
 Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.



Another line they cut into: Illegals get free public housing as impoverished Americans wait

Want some perspective on why so many blue sanctuary cities have so many homeless encampments hovering around?
Try the reality that illegal immigrants are routinely given free public housing by the U.S., based on the fact that they are uneducated, unskilled, and largely unemployable. Those are the criteria, and now importing poverty has never been easier. Shockingly, this comes as millions of poor Americans are out in the cold awaiting that housing that the original law was intended to help.
Thus, the tent cities, and by coincidence, the worst of these emerging shantytowns are in blue sanctuary cities loaded with illegal immigrants - Orange County, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, New York...Is there a connection? At a minimum, it's worth looking at.
The Trump administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development is finally trying to put a stop to it as 1.5 million illegals prepare to enter the U.S. this year, and one can only wonder why they didn't do it yesterday.
According to a report in the Washington Times:
The plan would scrap Clinton-era regulations that allowed illegal immigrants to sign up for assistance without having to disclose their status.
Under the new Trump rules, not only would the leaseholder using public housing have to be an eligible U.S. person, but the government would verify all applicants through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, a federal system that’s used to weed illegal immigrants out of other welfare programs.
Those already getting HUD assistance would have to go through a new verification, though it would be over a period of time and wouldn’t all come at once.
“We’ve got our own people to house and need to take care of our citizens,” an administration official told The Washington Times. “Because of past loopholes in HUD guidance, illegal aliens were able to live in free public housing desperately needed by so many of our own citizens. As illegal aliens attempt to swarm our borders, we’re sending the message that you can’t live off of American welfare on the taxpayers’ dime.”
The Times notes that the rules are confusingly contradictary, and some illegal immigrant families are getting full rides based on just one member being born in the U.S. The pregnant caravaner who calculatingly slipped across the U.S. in San Diego late last year, only to have her baby the next day, now, along with her entire family, gets that free ride on government housing. Plus lots of cheesy news coverage about how heartwarming it all is. That's a lot cheaper than any housing she's going to find back in Tegucigalpa.
Migrants would be almost fools not to take the offering.
The problem of course is that Americans who paid into these programs, and the subset who find themselves in dire circumstances, are in fact being shut out.
The fill-the-pews Catholic archbishops may love to tout the virtues of illegal immigrants and wave signs about getting 'justice" for them, but the hard fact here is that these foreign nationals are stealing from others as they take this housing benefit under legal technicalities. That's not a good thing under anyone's theological law. But hypocrisy is comfortable ground for the entire open borders lobby as they shamelessly celebrate lawbreaking at the border, leaving the impoverished of the U.S. out cold.
The Trump administration is trying to have this outrage fixed by summer. But don't imagine it won't be without the open-borders lawsuits, the media sob stories, the leftist judges, and the scolding clerics.


The Trump Administration Is Cracking Down On Illegal Aliens' Housing

Source: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plans to crack down on illegal aliens who are taking advantage of public house assistance programs, The Daily Caller reported. As it currently stands, illegal aliens are now allowed to receive financial housing assistance. They often skirt this rule by living with family members who are U.S. citizens and receive their assistance from HUD.
The new rule would prevent illegal aliens from living in homes that receive HUD funding, even if they're not the ones actually receiving the assistance. Those who are caught with illegal aliens living in their homes will have to comply with the new rule or move to a different non-HUD location.
To determine whether or not a household is complying with the program, families will be screened through the "SAVE" program, which stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements.
HUD estimates that there are tens of thousands of illegal aliens who are skirting the requirement process by living in these "mixed families." As of now, millions of Americans are on the HUD waitlist because there isn't enough money to assist everyone. 
“This proposal gets to the whole point Cher was making in her tweet that the President retweeted. We’ve got our own people to house and we need to take care of our citizens,” a HUD official told The Daily Caller. “Because of past loopholes in HUD guidance, illegal aliens were able to live in free public housing desperately needed by so many of our own citizens. As illegal aliens attempt to swarm our borders, we’re sending the message that you can’t live off of American welfare on the taxpayers’ dime.”
Matt Vespa

I finally agree with @Cher!

This crackdown is said to be part of President Donald Trump's "America First" push.




Sanctuary Cities Welcome Illegal Aliens with ‘Open Arms’ While 38K American Veterans Remain Homeless

 14 Apr 2019

Sanctuary cities across the United States are responding to President Donald Trump’s threat to bus border crossers and illegal aliens to their jurisdictions, saying they plan to welcome all illegal immigration with “open arms” despite soaring homelessness problems.

Last week, Trump threatened to bus border crossers and illegal aliens into sanctuary cities and states, like California and New York City, if the country’s asylum laws were not changed. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Sunday confirmed that the White House is considering the plan.
“The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities,” Trump posted on Twitter over the weekend. “We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or it’s poor management & high taxes!”

Just out: The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities. We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or its poor management & high taxes!

Sanctuary city mayors like Oakland, California, Mayor Libby Schaaf have responded to Trump’s threat by saying they plan to welcome any and all illegal aliens to their cities — even those cities that are struggling with rising homelessness. Currently, there are nearly 38,000 homeless American veterans across the country.
“Oakland welcomes all, no matter where you came from or how you got here,” Schaaf wrote on Twitter.
As of 2017, there were more than 2,700 Oakland residents who were homeless — an increase of 25 percent when compared to two years before. In all of Alameda County, there are about 5,630 homeless residents. In all of California, there are nearly 130,000 homeless residents, including nearly 11,000 homeless American Veterans.
Sanctuary city New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio originally blasted Trump for the plan, claiming the president was using illegal aliens as “chess pieces,” but he then advocated for giving illegal aliens driver’s licenses in order to attract more illegal aliens to the state.
“Undocumented immigrants are our neighbors and part of the backbone of our economy,” de Blasio wrote online. “It’s mind-boggling that they aren’t allowed to have driver’s licenses in New York State.”
New York City homelessness has reached the highest levels since the 1930s when the country struggled through the Great Depression. Today, there are nearly 64,000 homeless residents in New York City, including more than 15,000 homeless families with almost 23,000 homeless children. This is the largest metro area homeless population in the country. There are more than 1,200 homeless American veterans living in New York state.
In interviews with the Daily Beast, sanctuary city mayors from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Chicago, Illinois; and Cambridge, Massachusetts, said their jurisdictions would be happy to welcome all illegal aliens.
Philadelphia, Chicago, and Cambridge have a combined homeless population of at least 12,000 residents. In the state of Massachusetts, alone, there are now more than 20,000homeless residents, including almost 1,000 homeless American veterans.
“The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades,” Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said.
“As a welcoming city, we would welcome these migrants with open arms, just as we welcomed Syrian refugees, just as we welcomed Puerto Ricans displaced by Hurricane Maria and just as we welcome Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said.
Burlington, Vermont, Mayor Miro Weinberger said in a statement that illegal aliens were vital to making his city “more prosperous” and “more diverse.”
“We know from decades of experience that newcomers to Burlington will make us more prosperous, more diverse and stronger, just as generations of past immigrants have driven our past growth and success,” Weinberger said.
In total, there are more than 550,000 American residents who are homeless nationwide. Meanwhile, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants every year — the overwhelming majority of which are low skilled workers who compete for jobs against America’s poor, working, and middle class. The Washington, DC-imposed mass immigration policy drives housing costs up for Americans, economists have found.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


Cher: Los Angeles ‘Can’t Take Care of Its Own, How Can It Take Care of’ More Immigrants

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
 14 Apr 201952,590

Pop icon Cher said Sunday that Los Angeles, California, “can’t take care of its own” residents, much less newly arrived illegal and legal immigrants.

Cher said she failed to understand how the city of Los Angeles in the sanctuary state of California could afford to admit and take care of any more immigrants when city officials have failed to care for homeless, veterans, and poverty-stricken Americans.
“I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More,” Cher said.

I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+ Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More

The post came after President Trump threatened to bus border crossers and illegal aliens into sanctuary cities and states, like California, if the country’s asylum laws were not changed. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that the White House is considering the plan.
In response, Democrat mayors across the country — like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Oakland, California Mayor Libby Schaaf — have welcomed bringing illegal aliens and border crossers to their cities.
While left-wing mayors say they will continue to admit any and all illegal and legal immigrants, Los Angeles is home to the second largest homeless population in the country, second to only New York City. About 50,000 residents of Los Angeles are homeless and about 7.5 percent of California’s American Veteran population is homeless.
As the city remains crippled by homelessness and skyrocketing housing costs, Los Angeles metro area is also home to the second largest illegal alien population — with nearly a million illegal aliens living in the region, according to Pew Research Center.
Last year, economists at Deakin University found that immigration — both illegal and legal — drives up housing prices on average, with the researchers writing “we find no evidence that house prices sink as a result of immigration.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

Slum by The Bay


The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of
San Francisco is one of the richest cities it the world. It's given us music, technology and elegant architecture.
Now it gives us filthy homeless encampments.
One urban planner told me, "I just returned from the Tenderloin (a section of San Francisco). It's worse than slums of India, Haiti, Africa!"
So I went to San Francisco to make a video about that.
I've never seen slums in Africa, but I've seen them in Haiti and India.
What I saw in San Francisco looked similar. As one local resident put it, "There's shit everywhere. It's just a mess out here."
There's also lots of mental illness. One man told us, "Vampires are real. I'm paranoid as hell." San Francisco authorities mostly leave the mentally ill to fend for themselves on the street.
Other vagrants complain about them. "They make it bad for people like us that hang out with a sign," one beggar told us.
San Francisco is a pretty good place to "hang out with a sign." People are rarely arrested for vagrancy, aggressive panhandling or going to the bathroom in front of people's homes. In 2015, there were 60,491 complaints to police, but only 125 people were arrested.
Public drug use is generally ignored. One woman told us, "It's nasty seeing people shoot up -- right in front of you. Police don't do anything about it! They'll get somebody for drinking a beer but walk right past people using needles."
Each day in San Francisco, an average of 85 cars are broken into.
"Inside Edition" ran a test to see how long stereo equipment would last in a parked car. Their test car was quickly broken into. Then the camera crew discovered that their own car had been busted into as well.
Some store owners hire private police to protect their stores. But San Francisco's police union has complained about the competition. Now there are only a dozen private cops left, and street people dominate neighborhoods.
We followed one private cop, who asked street people, "Do you need any type of homeless outreach services?"
Most say no. "They love the freedom of not having to follow the rules," said the cop.
And San Francisco is generous. It offers street people food stamps, free shelter, train tickets and $70 a month in cash.
"They're always offering resources," one man dressed as Santa told us. "San Francisco's just a good place to hang out."
So every week, new people arrive.
Some residents want the city to get tougher with people living on the streets.
"Get them to the point where they have to make a decision between jail and rehab," one told us. "Other cities do it, but for some reason, San Francisco doesn't have the political will."
For decades, San Francisco's politicians promised to fix the homeless problem.
When Sen. Dianne Feinstein was mayor, she proudly announced that she was putting the homeless in hotels: "A thousand units, right here in the Tenderloin!"
When California Governor Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he bragged, "We have already moved 6,860 human beings."
Last year, former Mayor Mark Farrell said, "We need to fund programs like Homeward Bound."
But the extra funding hasn't worked.
One reason is that even if someone did want to get off the street and rent an apartment, there aren't many available.
San Francisco is filled with two- and three-story buildings, and in most neighborhoods, putting up a taller building is illegal. Even where zoning laws allow it, California regulations make construction so difficult that many builders won't even try.
For years, developer John Dennis has been trying to convert an old meatpacking plant into an apartment building -- but it has taken him four years just to get permission to build.
"And all that time, we're paying property taxes and paying for maintenance," says Dennis. "I will do no more projects in San Francisco."
People in San Francisco often claim to be concerned about helping the poor. But their many laws make life much tougher for the poor.
John Stossel is author of "No They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed." 

No comments: