Finland seems to have found a method that deals with this. They have nearly halved homelessness in eight years.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/how-finland-solved-ho...
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/how-finland-solved-ho...
I mean this guy shared something interesting and thoughtful, more interesting than the article's complaining, and your thought is really this?
Perhaps Finland and California are different enough that looking to Finland as a policy playground is a waste of time. This isn't physics; it's political economy.
For political reasons having to do with the NPIC, the city does not invest much in shelter beds. So it’s a $750k-$1m apartment or bust.
Science works best when you have controls that let you measure the consequences of changes precisely. Saying that results from a Nordic social democracy probably don't apply to a city with no administrative capacity and machine politics is not controversial. It's the null hypothesis!
> Finland doesn't have suburban land use that sets a high minimum cost to participating in society.
For someone on the margins, that is a huge and often insurmountable price of entry. Many can make do by, e.g., being housemates in a larger home to reduce the minimum expense. Folks on the margins are often not able to find others willing to live with them.
Sanctuary city laws are pretty reasonable policy statements about when a city cooperates in deporting illegal immigrants who may otherwise be law abiding. This makes perfect sense as a policy when you operate in an immigration regime that makes legal immigration infeasible for all kinds of necessary labor, from farm workers to domestic help and even high skilled IT.
If Texas wanted to call California’s bluff on housing policy, it would also reject the middle and high income households moving to the Triangle from high housing cost California suburbs. But it’s not principled when it comes to that — their money is welcomed! Heck, even the Florida model where they check if businesses are indeed employing legal workers in labor intensive industries like construction would be a more faithful enactment of law and order values with respect to immigration. Anything short of that is its own form of sheltering.
Trucking migrants to sancutary cities has changed people's minds.
> publicly antagonize someone about they way they do something and imply your way is the enlightened way to score political points, don't be surprised when those people find a way to call your bluff
Not sure how you frame a political stunt as a moral comeuppance.
I disagree. I've seen poling and heard numerous stories of citizens of sanctuary cites that were not border cites and have a very negligible issue with illegal migration suddenly having to deal with it first that shows that trucking migrants has moved the needle.
> Not sure how you frame a political stunt as a moral comeuppance.
It's a political comeuppance.
> Q. 26 Do you think New Yorkers should accept new migrants and work to assimilate them into New York, or New Yorkers have already done enough for new migrants and should now work to slow the flow of migrants to New York? (Order of choices was rotated.)
> DATE | ACCEPT/ASSIMILATE | SLOW THE FLOW | DON’T KNOW/NO OPINION
> October 2023 | 29 | 64 | 8
> August 2023 | 36 | 58 | 6
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SNY-Octobe...
> Dozens of stories in whatever news media you consume has nothing to do with whether there are serious policy conversations about revisiting sanctuary city laws in those cities.
Ha, is AP news up to your standards[1]? How about a direct quote from the Mayor of New York City?
> Citing his “fundamental disagreement” with those laws, [Mayor] Adams, a Democrat, said the city’s police department should be free to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents when a person is suspected of a serious crime, such as robbery or gang activity.
You can dislike it all you want but bussing immigrants has had a major effect on people's opinions in the sanctuary cities they are bussed to.
[1]https://apnews.com/article/new-york-sanctuary-city-eric-adam...
Oh, those stupid Republicans! I can't believe they would ever send illegal immigrants that voluntarily want to go to a sanctuary city that has been proclaiming themselves as a safe harbor for criminals for over a decade, to said sanctuary city! Oh, the horror and atrocity!
The only reason the border is wide open is because we don't have sufficient border walls and border enforcement, all of which sanctuary city democrats have opposed and voted against.
If your going to go political, you probably should've just pointed to the open border problem, not target Republicans. But it's obvious whose causing an open border right now.
The bottleneck at the border is not physically policing the border, but the fact that migrants have learned to work the legal system by filing asylum requests. So the solution is legal reform, not building more walls. The 2023 border reform bill would have enforced a mandatory cap on the number of asylum requests processed (not just granted, but processed at all). Any migrant asking for asylum after that cap would have been turned away immediately.
> But it's obvious whose causing an open border right now.
I wouldn't say it's clear at all. It's true that the Democrats have historically turned a blind eye to the border. But over the past 12 months: First the GOP leadership said they wouldn't pass border reform unless it was bundled with Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan funding, then said they wouldn't pass border reform until it was unbundled, then they brought the Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan funding back to the floor but not the unbundled border reform bill. For the first time in a generation, there were enough Democratic votes to pass significant border reform, and the GOP votes simultaneously vanished into thin air.
It's not red vs blue to point out an attempt to shift blame on Republican governors.
The vast majority of illegal immigration happens through legal ports of entry. Usually individuals just over stay a tourist visa.
Republicans have rejected the recent bipartisan board deal that would fund hundreds of new boarder patrol agents, and immigration ALJs to expand enforcement and processing capacity at the boarder. All because daddy Trump wants there to be a border crisis because it's a good election issue for him to run on.
Republicans don't care about governing, they just care about winning.
The fact illegal immigration is rampant is the source of the problem, not Republican states. It's a cherry picked statement with an agenda.
Street homelessness in San Francisco has little to do with immigration, and family homelessness has little to do with illegal immigration (families from South America are largely claiming asylum through the legal process).