> The vagrants are literally shitting in the bushes
This is a simple failure of civics. If you have people somewhere, you provide them toilets or you get shit on the ground. Cities do it when festivals and street parties happen - but they don't do it when homeless poeple show up, and then they spin it as disgusting behaviour on the part of the people. Everybody shits. If you had no access to a toilet, or place to dispose of your shit, you would shit on the street or in the bushes too. Fixating on shit is also an attempt to rile up your disgust reaction, and link it to a group of people.
> Partly because it didn't tolerate vagrants and homeless people taking over public spaces (as has happened in so many American cities)
A leading lie. American cities have problems with public homelessness because they have no social safety net, and an economy that drives up homelessness. Crackdowns, like my city has done, only spreads the problem out and makes providing services like toilets impossible. It wasn't as bad before not because it "wasn't tolerated" but because the economic conditions were less harsh in the postwar era.
> You have to act. You have to protect the sheep. Standing idly by while your livestock is devoured by predators or your neighborhood is taken over by migrants is a pathetic abdication of any functioning society's most basic duty to its citizens.
This is a straight up fascist mentality. Us vs them. Protect our weak from their strong. It leads VERY dark places. Ask yourself this - why are the wolves the migrants? Could you not just as easily frame them as the sheep in need of protecting? Have they not been abandoned and pushed out by society? Without a barn to sleep in, the sheep will wander where they aren't welcome - is that the sheep's fault, or the shepherd's?