#criminalized vagrancy

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"WITNESS IS RELEASED HAS TWO BLACK EYES," Toronto Star. October 3, 1932. Page 2. --- "Got Into Squabble" With Police Officer, Lloyd Devitt Explains ---- A charge of being "found in" was withdrawn against Lloyd Devitt, a crown witness in women's court.

Devitt had a patch over one eye and a black ring around the other. He agreed with Counsel L. V. McBrady, that he had received it from P. C. Milling. Devitt explained that "we got into a squabble."

Jennie Rowe and Theresa Hawthorne were each given "another chance" when they appeared charged with being drunk. Ada Saylis asked for and got six months' probation when she appeared for sentence on a charge of fraud involving $72. She promised to make restitution for accommodation obtained at an hotel.

Simone Gounet, charged with vagrancy, explained through an interpreter that she wanted to get back to Montreal. She admitted having no home in Toronto, and the Salvation Army will help her.

Grace Mitchell agreed with the court that suspended sentence and probation would "teach her a lesson" when she was charged with theft of articles from a department store, and this disposition was made of her case.

For keeping a resort, Michael Kingdon was fined $100 and costs or two months, and thirty days. "The only place for people like you is the gasbox, suffocation." the bench told Kingdon, who has a previous record.

[odinsblog]

De-escalation is a skill set.

It is something that every single one of us could learn. It is something that could even be a matter of public education and public-health campaigns. Sometimes a person may be at a 10 emotionally, and the smallest gesture of humanity can help them out. I had a situation two weeks ago on the street in D.C. where it seemed like someone was popping off, and I said, “Hey, man, I’m gonna get you some lunch.” Jordan Neely was saying exactly what he needed, which was food. He narrated this tragedy himself. He said, “I’d rather be in jail than try to navigate what the city has become.” Every single one of us is at the brink right now.

Rents have skyrocketed to these absolutely extortionate prices.

When housing prices go up, homelessness goes up. It’s not a grand mystery. I’ve been just dismayed to see what the response to this has been at the highest levels.

(continue reading)

[talentforlying]

@beyondthescully: meta about those criminal records scully is 1000% going to look into — SEND META TOPICS.

constantine's criminal record with the british government is file #A571B, and he knows it by heart because he's spent years mind-tricking arresting officers into avoiding it so he doesn't come up against more trouble than he wants to deal with. it doesn't help much if someone researches him independently, when he's not aware they're doing it, but if he does know, he puts a little glamour down so that their eyes simply skip over it when they look him up.

i wouldn't say that he's afraid of people looking up his record, per se, but he certainly dreads it being brought up, since it lists him being convicted of the murder of a child + a nightclub full of people — which, obviously, tends to get a very strong reaction from anyone who didn't hear the real story of newcastle from him ahead of time; we all know that he inadvertently damned astra to hell by summoning (and failing to properly name or bind) the demon nergal to save her from the terror elemental she accidentally created, but without that important context, it reads horrifically — and because it includes the fact that he was committed to ravenscar secure facility in lieu of prison time, which tends to kill people's trust that he's telling the truth about the supernatural and knows what he's doing.

speaking of which, the newcastle incident was highly publicized across the UK at the time (1978), and continues to raise huge red flags when people go to look him up in government databases, but since it was pre-internet, there are no news articles online other than ones that were digitized later and mystery of the casanova club murders / what happened to mucous membrane? (his band) blog posts on conspiracy & occult fansites. it's kind of an urban legend these days, since constantine is now the last survivor of the original crew and band and his name is notorious in occult circles, but you'll never get him to talk about it unless he's being forced to defend himself or he trusts you with his fucking life, and good luck with that second one.

US databases will also include a murder conviction from new york in 2000, when he was framed for the death of a top gangster, sentenced to max security, and later cleared, but since he was cleared, under new york law, that record is now sealed and can only be seen by federal, state, and local law enforcement. unfortunately, that one's an azzarello storyline so i plan to rework the fuck out of those events, because fuck azzarello.)

[fatehbaz]

was thinking about this

To be in "public", you must be a consumer or a laborer.

About control of peoples' movement in space/place. Since the beginning.

"Vagrancy" of 1830s-onward Britain, people criminalized for being outside without being a laborer.

Breaking laws resulted in being sentenced to coerced debtor/convict labor. Coinciding with the 1830-ish climax of the Industrial Revolution and the land enclosure acts (factory labor, poverty, etc., increase), the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 establishes full-time police institution(s) in London. The "Workhouse Act" aka "Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834" forced poor people to work for a minimum number of hours every day. The Irish Constabulary of 1837 sets up a national policing force and the County Police Act of 1839 allows justices of the peace across England to establish policing institutions in their counties (New York City gets a police department in 1844). The major expansion of the "Vagrancy Act" of 1838 made "joblessness" a crime and enhanced its punishment. (Coincidentally, the law's date of royal assent was 27 July 1838, just 5 days before the British government was scheduled to allow fuller emancipation of its technical legal abolition of slavery in the British Caribbean on 1 August 1838.)

---

"Vagrancy" of 1860s-onward United States, people criminalized for being outside while Black.

Widespread emancipation after slavery abolition in 1865 rapidly followed by the outlawing of loitering which de facto outlawed existing as Black in public. Inability to afford fines results in being sentenced to forced labor by working on chain gangs or prisons farms, some built atop plantations.

---

"Vagrancy" of 1870s-onward across empires, people criminalized for being outside while being "foreign" and also being poor generally.

Especially from 1880-ish to 1918-ish, this was an age of widespread mass movement of peoples due to the land dispossession, poverty, and famine induced by global colonial extraction and "market expansion" (Scramble for Africa, US "American West", nation-building, conquering "frontiers"), as agricultural "revolutions" of imperial monoculture cash crop extraction resulted in ecological degradation, and as major imperial infrastructure building projects required a lot of vulnerable "mobile" labor. This coincides with and is facilitated by new railroad networks and telegraphs, leading to imperial implementation or expansion of identity documents, strict work contracts, passports, immigration surveillance, and border checkpoints.

All of this in just a few short years: In 1877, British administrators in India develop what would become the Henry Classification System of taking and keeping fingerprints for use in binding colonial Indians to legal contracts. That same year during the 1877 Great Railroad Strike, and in response to white anxiety about Black residents coming to the city during Great Migration, Chicago's policing institutions exponentially expand surveillance and pioneer "intelligence card" registers for tracking labor union organizing and Black movement, as Chicago's experiments become adopted by US military and expanded nationwide, later used by US forces monitoring dissent in colonial Philippines and Cuba. Japan based its 1880 Penal Code anti-vagrancy statutes on French models, and introduced "koseki" register to track poor/vagrant domestic citizens as Tokyo's Governor Matsuda segregates classes, and the nation introduces "modern police forces". In 1882, the United States passes the Chinese Exclusion Act. In 1884, the Ottoman government enacts major "Passport Nizamnamesi" legislation requiring passports. In 1885, the racist expulsion of the "Tacoma riot".

Punished for being Algerian in France. Punished for being Chinese in San Francisco. Punished for being Korean in Japan. Punished for crossing Ottoman borders without correct paperwork. Arrested for whatever, then sent to do convict labor. A poor person in the Punjab, starving during a catastrophic famine, might be coerced into a work contract by British authorities. They will have to travel, shipped off to build a railroad. But now they have to work. Now they are bound. They will be punished for being Punjabi and trying to walk away from Britain's tea plantations in Assam or Britain's rubber plantations in Malaya.

Mobility and confinement, the empire manipulates each.

---

"Vagrancy" amidst all of this, people also criminalized for being outside while "unsightly" and merely even superficially appearing to be poor. San Francisco introduced the notorious "ugly law" in 1867, making it illegal for "any person, who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or deformed in any way, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, to expose himself or herself to public view". Today, if you walk into a building looking a little "weird" (poor, Black, ill, disabled, etc.), you are given seething spiteful glares and asked to leave. De facto criminalized for simply going for a stroll without downloading the coffee shop's exclusive menu app.

Too ill, too poor, too exhausted, too indebted to move, you are trapped. Physical barriers (borders), legal barriers (identity documents), financial barriers (debt). "Vagrancy" everywhere in the United States, a combination of all of the above. "Vagrancy" since at least early nineteenth century Europe. About the control of movement through and access to space/place. Concretizing and weaponizing caste, corralling people, anchoring them in place, extracting their wealth and labor.

You are permitted to exist only as a paying customer or an employee.

[rambosgirl]

The Sheriff's Daughter - Chapter 3

Guys this took way too long. I'm so sorry about that but it's here now! Enjoy!

Masterlist here with the other chapters

Your mind raced as you saw your dad and John walking up toward you at the police station. Your dad saw you through the glass door, but you weren't sure if John knew you were there yet, his head hung low.

'Why is he here? What could John have possibly done?' You didn't have long to think until your dad pushed the doors open and you were met with your dad's steel blue gaze and John's soft brown eyes.

John looked at you with a quiet sadness, while your dad looked at you proudly, as if to say 'Look what I arrested today'. You knew your dad took a lot of pride in his job, especially as sheriff, but this was different. His lips were turning upward into a smirk as he walked to the front desk. He seemed to be enjoying this.

"Hey, buzz us in will ya?" Your dad quipped to a nearby officer.

"Hey, talk about your sorry-lookin' humanity," the officer responded. You grimaced at the rude comment.

Once he was past the front desk, you followed him close, not sure what to say.

"Good morning Arthur," your dad chipped, as if nothing was the matter.

"Mornin' Will," he replied, taking his headphones off.

"I want you to book this gentleman for vagrancy, resisting arrest, and carrying a concealed weapon," your dad commanded Arthur, unsheathing a large knife.

"Dad, what's going on? Do you know him?" You questioned him, but your dad ignored you in response.

"He says he uses it for hunting"

"What are you huntin'? Elephants?" Arthur chuckled.

"Dad, please." You were confused, and you didn't think your dad was going to help you anytime soon. Desperately, you turned to Mitch, your eyes pleading for help from him as your dad kept talking to the other deputies. He looked back at you helplessly. While the older officers were here, there was really nothing he could do to help.

"See if you can clean him up a bit. He smells like an animal."

Arthur began testing John's knife, slicing a paper from his desk. "Hey Mitch," he called to the young redhead.

"Yo?"

"Escort this young man downstairs"

"Yes sir" Mitch responded, making his way toward John. "Right this way partner," he said softly. John gave you one last look before being led away by the young deputy.

You couldn't believe what was happening around you. You squeezed your eyes shut, trying to hear yourself think in all the chaos - both in your head and reality. You were in shock, and all you wanted were answers. You saw your dad had gone to his office, so you made your way to him.

You walked into his office, shutting the door behind you, then took a deep breath before facing him.

"You wanted something sweetie?" Your dad asked. You calmed your racing mind for a moment before responding. "Yes, I want to know what John was arrested for."

"Who?"

"The man you just brought in?" You questioned. Your dad's eyes turned colder, more stern. You knew that look. "And how do you know his name?" your dad asked, eyes narrowing. You knew he wouldn't like the answer you gave.

"I met him this morning on my run to the Danforth's," you studied his face, looking for any changes in demeanor before continuing, "He's quite nice actually, I can't imagine he'd do anything to get himself arrested."

"Are you accusing your own father of wrongfully arresting a man?"

"No, no Dad, that's not what I meant," you tried to troubleshoot the conversation, which seemed to be falling apart right in front of you. You huffed a breath of frustration, looking up at the ceiling. "I just want to know why," you spoke softly, looking back at your dad.

He thought for a moment, eyes softening. His body language shifted, taking in the words and emotions expressed to him by his daughter. He opened his mouth, then promptly closed it. It seemed like something clicked in his mind, his demeanor returning to its former coldness.

"What is it to you, do you have a schoolgirl crush on that violent criminal or somethin'?" he talked fast, in his usual style. His tone was joking, but you knew him. He was genuinely wondering. No response came to your mind, but your dad took your silence as an answer, his mood seeming to shift again into something gravely serious.

"You can't be serious sweetheart. Do you know how deranged that is to like a man like that? How deranged he is?"

"He's not deranged," you asserted.

"Obviously you didn't see what I saw. How animalistic and crazed he is," he quipped back. "Now, be a good girl, head home, and let's put this all behind us. Just forget you even met him," he said, waving his hand dismissively.

With that, he decided the conversation was over, returning to his work. You took the hint and walked out of his office, feeling dejected. You considered taking Bullet and going home but shoved the thought out of your mind. You wanted to stay for John and see if you could help him. With your dad's insistence over the matter, it felt impossible, but you determined it was worth a shot.

You noticed your dad heading down where they were processing John. You thought about following him while the door was unlocked but quickly decided against it. Your dad would kill you.

You resigned to sitting on a chair in the waiting area, not knowing what to do with yourself. You thought about finding John, but the challenge would be avoiding your dad in the process. Just as you were about to get up, you heard a commotion somewhere in the building. It sounded like it was coming from downstairs.

As you approached the door to investigate, it burst open, revealing John, his wild eyes landing on you. He quickly sprung back into action, running past you toward the front doors. Officers moved to stop him anywhere they could, but he dodged them with practiced movements and ran out the door.

You hesitated for a moment, your heart pounding in your ears. You had an idea. A stupid, impulsive idea.

You sprinted out of the building and turned towards Bullet, tied at a post a few feet away. He looked at you, ears perked, and sensing your urgency, he raised his head with wide eyes and shuffled anxiously, letting out a snort.

As you unclipped Bullet's lead rope, you saw John in the street, taking a guy off his motorbike and mounting it, riding into traffic and towards the mountainous forest surrounding the town.

You climbed into your saddle and began to ride after him when police officers burst through the door, your dad leading the charge.

As Bullet started moving into a frantic trot, your dad shouted your name, his voice carrying across the street. "Are you out of your mind? Get off that horse!"

You refused to look back and acknowledge him, urging Bullet forward after John.

You rode for a few seconds before a shot rang out, the loud, piercing sound startling Bullet as he jumped to the side and kicked out, his nose flaring from the stress. You re-balanced in your saddle and spared a dirty glance back at the officers before pushing Bullet into a gallop.

You caught sight of John, riding the motorbike on the sidewalk but transferring to the road after a few seconds. You directed Bullet toward him, keeping him in your sights.

You could feel Bullet's surge of energy beneath you, matching your own adrenaline rush. The pounding of his hooves on the pavement paired with his rhythmic breaths and the wind rushing past your ears were the only things you could hear.

And just like that, you were all in.

[scotianostra]

On 2nd January 1793: Thomas Muir of Huntershill, the Glasgow-born Advocate, was arrested for sedition.

He was released after a few days and went to France. On his return to Scotland, Muir was tried and sentenced to 14 years transportation. Muir was the founder of the Scottish Friends of the People, he and the other leaders of this group transported to Australia, are known as the Scottish Martyrs

Thomas Muir and his companions in misfortune, who later became famous as the Scottish Martyrs, were among the prominent figures of the vast movement for reform that emerged in Britain at the end of the eighteenth century. What makes their case particularly interesting is that these men were sentenced to transportation, a form of exile that needs to be included in any consideration of the themes of exile and return. Drawing on the example of Thomas Muir, this article will investigate the specific nature of political exile. Does the “time” (in the sense of temporality) of political exile differentiate itself from the “time” of other forms of exile? Is political exile characterized by a state of “fundamental discontinuity”?1 Does the political, intellectual or ideological dimension of political exiles enable them overcome, maybe more than other exiles, the essential sadness of exile? These are some of the questions I propose to address in this paper.

In the seventeenth century the English and Scottish governments viewed the colonies, for example America, as perfectly appropriate places to send miscreants of all kinds, criminals, vagrants, prostitutes or political prisoners. Transportation constituted an instrument of social control whose function was to deter people from resorting to criminal acts. Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who was one of the most determined opponents of the Union of 1707, thought, like many of his contemporaries, that the system of transportation was the panacea for solving the endemic problem of vagrancy:

There are at this day in Scotland two hundred thousand people in Scotland begging from door to door. These are not only no way advantageous, but a very grievous burden to so poor a country in all times there have been about one hundred thousand of those vagabonds who have lived without any regard or subjection either to the laws of the land or even those of God or nature in years of plenty many thousands of them meet together in the mountains, where they feast and riot for many days; and at country weddings, markets, burials, and other the like publick occasions they are to be seen both men and women perpetually drunk, cursing, blaspheming and fighting together. These are such outrageous disorders, that it were better for the nation they were sold to the gallies or West Indies, than that they should continue to be a burden and like upon us

In recent years there have come to light an increasing number of writings by Thomas Muir of Huntershill. Among these is Muir’s legal thesis on the topic of slavery that criticized the institution and condemned it as morally unjustifiable it was written for admittance to the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh in 1787 and can be found in the holdings of the National Library of Scotland.

[californiastatelibrary]

Nearly 70 years ago, civil rights leader Bayard Rustin was arrested, served 50 days in Los Angeles County jail, and had to register as a sex offender with the state due to a charge of “vagrancy” after he was seen being intimate with two men in a parked car. In 2020, Rustin was posthumously pardoned by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Rustin was close to Martin Luther King Jr., was an organizer of the 1963 march on Washington, and assisted with other nonviolent protests and boycotts for civil rights.

From the official pardon: “California, like much of the nation, has a disgraceful legacy of systematically discriminating against the LGBTQ community. This discrimination has taken many forms including social isolation and shaming, surveillance, intimidation, physical violence, and unjust arrest and prosecution. Mr. Rustin was sentenced pursuant to a charge commonly used to punish gay men for engaging in consensual adult sexual conduct. His conviction is part of a long and reprehensible history of criminal prohibitions on the very existence of LGBTQ people and their intimate associations and relationships. … Mr. Rustin was criminalized because of stigma, bias, and ignorance. With this act of executive clemency, I acknowledge the inherent injustice of this conviction, an injustice that was compounded by his political opponents' use of the record of this case to try to undermine him, his associates, and the civil rights movement.”

[goldfish-afterhours]

ROB THEM BLIND - WANTED POSTERS OF THE GUILI ASSEMBLY

— Home

Below is what is listed on wanted posters distributed around New Liyue for all known members of the Guili Assembly, in order of most to least wanted. 

The following information are all part of an open investigation, and as such may be subject to change

If you have any information regarding these individuals, please report to the Liyue Qixing for a monetary reward. If you see any of these individuals, DO NOT ENGAGE. CONTACT THE MILLELITH IMMEDIATELY. 

Morax

Wanted: Dead or Alive for robbery, criminal conspiracy 

Priority: Extremely high 

Adult Asian male in his mid to late 20s, around 6 feet tall and 160 pounds, dark brown hair. 

The mastermind behind the Guili Assembly. However, little is really known about him 

Frequently seen wearing a long white hooded coat with black sleeves that obscures his face.

Nothing is known about his real name, occupation, or past criminal record

During robbery, he can usually be seen standing near the front entrance, giving orders to the others and acting as a lookout 

Has not been spotted with a gun, but the Millelith still strongly advise against approaching him 

Tartaglia

Wanted: Dead for armed robbery, criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, first-degree murder 

Priority: Extremely High 

Real name Ajax. Adult Russian male, 22 years old, 6 feet tall and 185 pounds, short ginger hair. Wears a red mask during robberies. 

The vanguard of the Guili Assembly. Usually one of the first ones to enter the bank at the beginning of the robbery. 

The most successful graduate of the former Childe Program run by the Millelith Brigade. Highly trained and proficient in all areas of martial arts, weaponry, and espionage. 

Extremely dangerous. Civilians are not to approach him under any circumstance.

Note to bounty hunters: It is highly advised to shoot on sight, as capturing him alive has been deemed impossible. 

Alatus 

Wanted: Dead or Alive for armed robbery, criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, burglary, second-degree murder

Priority: High 

Asian male in his late teens or early 20s, around 5 feet 2 inches and 110 pounds, chin-length teal hair. Wears a deep-green nuo mask during robberies. Has a green tattoo of a bird on his right arm. 

Nothing is known about his real name or occupation.

Former burglar with partner Barbatos. Alatus was originally arrested for the second-degree murder of a man whose house he was robbing, however he escaped from custody before his trial and has been on the run ever since. Barbatos was not found at the scene and is still missing. 

Note to bounty hunters: Alatus is extremely nimble. It is advised to immobilize him first before capturing him. 

Arataki Itto

Wanted: Alive for armed robbery, criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, vagrancy, theft 

Priority: High

Adult Japanese male, 24 years old, 6 feet 4 inches and 220 pounds, waist-length white hair, red eyes. Wears a red oni mask during robberies. 

Has been arrested in the past for minor crimes but was bailed out each time by his sister

Witnesses report he has a tendency to say his full name during robberies

Has robbed banks alone before joining the Guili Assembly 

Note to bounty hunters: When caught, please inquire about the Pokemon cards Arataki Itto stole, as they will be returned to the boy he stole them from 

Skirmisher

Wanted: Alive for armed robbery, criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, theft 

Priority: Medium 

Asian male in his late teens or early 20s, around 5 feet 4 inches and 120 pounds, short indigo hair, blue eyes, handsome in appearance. Wears a red mushi no tareginu with a black cloth that obscures his face. 

His face has been caught on security cameras multiple times. He usually appears alone or with Fixer a few hours before the Guili Assembly robs the bank, so it is assumed he is a scout. 

There are multiple files of a boy wanted for theft and aggravated assault who matches his description. 

Fixer 

Wanted: Alive for armed robbery, criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault 

Priority: Medium 

Adult male of mixed-Asian descent in his early to mid 20s, around 6 feet tall and 160 pounds, blond hair tied in a ponytail. Wears a black metal mask with horns during robberies. 

Nothing is known about his real name, occupation, or past criminal record. 

Usually appears alone or with Skirmisher a few hours before the Guili Assembly robs the bank, so it is assumed he is a scout. He does not wear his usual black metal mask while scouting, but wears a regular black face mask instead. 

Nicknamed ‘Fixer’ by a security guard who witnessed him covering for his crewmates’ mistakes. 

According to a witness, he was very polite, using ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ when asking him to get on the floor. 

[beardedmrbean]

Before this column ends, we’ll get to the unmissable fact that anti-Israel, often antisemitic, protests are proliferating at what we amusingly choose to call our most “selective” universities—Columbia, Yale, New York University, Stanford, Berkeley. For the moment, add these North Face tent protests on $75,000-a-year campus quads to the sense among the American public that their country is running off the rails.

A list of the phenomena laying us low includes: wokeness, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), defund the police (a depressing subset of wokeness), conspiracy theories, head-in-the-sand isolationism and a self-centered political polarization typified—from left to right—by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert.

Ironically this time of year is associated with hope, amid spring and college graduations—except at the University of Southern California, which, fearing trouble, canceled its commencement speakers and told honorary-degree recipients not to show up.

Setting silenced USC aside, a hopeful note one hears at college commencements is that the American system is self-correcting, that despite recurrent stress, it always rights itself. Opinion polls suggest few believe this anymore but—happy spring—it looks as if we may be on the brink of a real counter-revolt against the craziness.

Last week in the hopelessly gridlocked House, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, facing threats to his job from the chaos caucus, cast his lot with the enough-is-enough caucus. The House passed bills to sustain allies in Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Congress isn’t dead—yet.

Blue states and cities that looked willing to collapse rather than defend their citizens have begun to push back against progressives’ pro-criminal and antipolice movements.

At the urging of Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York’s just-passed state budget includes measures to crack down on shoplifting. Assaulting a retail worker will be a felony. Larceny charges can be based on the total goods stolen from different stores. Progressives in the state’s Legislature opposed the measures. Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker, elected in January on restoring law and order (yes, it can be a Democratic issue), last week announced a plan to support policing in the most crime- and drug-plagued neighborhoods.

March seemed to be a tipping point. The hyperprogressive Council of the District of Columbia, in a city that had become an embarrassing carjacking hellhole, passed an array of anticrime measures. Oregon’s Legislature voted to reverse the state’s catastrophic three-year experiment with drug decriminalization. San Francisco voters approved two measures proposed by, of all people, Mayor London Breed, to ease restrictions on policing and require drug screening for welfare recipients. The results in Los Angeles County’s primary for district attorney strongly suggest progressive George Gascón will be voted out in November.

In all these places, the reversals by elected officials are driven by the prospect of voters’ turning them out of office. That is the U.S. political system trying to right itself.

In California, a safety coalition has collected about 900,000 signatures to reverse parts of Proposition 47, the state’s now-notorious 2014 decision to reduce some theft felonies to misdemeanors. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared sympathetic to overturning a Ninth Circuit decision that bars cities and towns from enforcing vagrancy laws. Though the case emerged from Grants Pass, Ore., which is trying to ban homeless encampments, about three dozen elected officials and organizations in California filed briefs arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling made cleaning up the streets almost impossible.

News stories since the start of the year have noted that many private companies are rethinking policies on DEI, partly under legal pressure, such as the Supreme Court’s decision last year to strike down the use of race in college admissions.

Some in the corporate DEI movement thought they were immune to restraints. No longer. Companies are rediscovering that the constituency most needing inclusion is their customers. The loudest shot across the bow came last week, when Google fired 28 employees after some staged sit-in protests at its New York and California offices over a contract with Israel’s government. Google’s firing statement describes “completely unacceptable behavior.” No one saw that coming.

All this adds up to a nascent counter-revolt against America’s lurch toward self-destruction. The exception is elite U.S. universities. Their leadership has seen itself as answerable to no one and politically immune.

Robert Kraft, a Columbia grad and owner of the New England Patriots, said this week he will no longer give the school money “until corrective action is taken.”

If big donors ever regain control of these so-called selective schools, a suggestion: Firing the president won’t close the barn door. Instead, fire the admissions office. What a tragedy to think how many serious high-school students were rejected by Columbia, Yale and NYU, edged out by nonuseful idiots whose chosen major is the political structure of re-education camps.

Someone has to be a lagging indicator, and these schools are it.

Non-paywall link

[cliozaur]

- Time for socio-cultural linguistics! The argot or slang digression! Hugo returns to his favourite topics of equating idleness with crime and poverty. This time, idleness presented as the mother of theft (son) and hunger (daughter). And he also revisits his favourite connected topic of education (with its necessary metaphor of light) as a panacea.

- Hugo applauds attempts to rehabilitate the use of slang in literature by none other than Balzac and himself, Hugo, in The Last Day of a Condemned Man. He then explains the basics: every professional and social group may have its own slang, not just criminals. And I really like the examples he provides. However, he later delves into dialects and disappearing dialects… but I believe, it’s something completely different from argot.

- Speaking about slang, Hugo, reintroduces the theatre metaphor and expands upon it: “Behold it ready to step upon the stage and to retort upon crime, and prepared for all the employments of the repertory of evil. It no longer walks, it hobbles; it limps on the crutch of the Court of Miracles, a crutch metamorphosable into a club; it is called vagrancy; every sort of spectre, its dressers, have painted its face, it crawls and rears, the double gait of the reptile.”

- It’s curious to see how Hugo attempts to sympathize with argot while simultaneously dehumanizes it. These words are both beautiful and terrifying: “One perceives, without understanding it, a hideous murmur, sounding almost like human accents, but more nearly resembling a howl than an articulate word. It is slang. The words are misshapen and stamped with an indescribable and fantastic bestiality. One thinks one hears hydras talking… Terrible, toad-like tongue which goes and comes, leaps, crawls, slobbers, and stirs about in monstrous wise in that immense grey fog composed of rain and night, of hunger, of vice, of falsehood, of injustice, of nudity, of suffocation, and of winter, the high noonday of the miserable.”

[fatehbaz]

[A]nti-homeless laws [...] rooted in European anti-vagrancy laws were adapted across parts of the Japanese empire [...] at the turn of the 20th century. [...] [C]riminalising ideas transferred from anti-vagrancy statutes into [contemporary] welfare systems. [...] [W]elfare and border control systems - substantively shaped by imperial aversions to racialised ideas of uncivilised vagrants - mutually served as a transnational legal architecture [...] [leading to] [t]oday's modern divides between homeless persons, migrants, and refugees [...].

---

By the Boer Wars (1880–1902), Euro-American powers and settler-colonial governments professed anxieties about White degeneration and the so-called “Yellow Peril” alongside other existential threats to White supremacy [...]. Japan [...] validated the creation of transnational racial hierarchies as it sought to elevate its own global standing [...]. [O]ne key legal instrument for achieving such racialised orders was the vagrancy concept, rooted in vagrancy laws that originated in Europe and proliferated globally through imperial-colonial conquest [...].

[A]nti-vagrancy regulation [...] shaped public thinking around homelessness [...]. Such laws were applied as a “criminal making device” (Kimber 2013:544) and "catch-all detention rationale" (Agee 2018:1659) targeting persons deemed threats for their supposedly transgressive or "wayward interiority" (Nicolazzo 2014:339) measured against raced, gendered, ableist, and classed norms [...]. Through the mid-20th century, vagrancy laws were aggressively used to control migration [and] encourage labour [...]. As vagrancy laws fell out of favour, [...] a "vagrancy concept" nonetheless thrived in welfare systems that similarly meted out punishment for ostensible vagrant-like qualities [...], [which] helps explain why particular discourses about the mobile poor have persisted to date [...].

---

During high imperialism (1870–1914), European, American, and Japanese empires expanded rapidly, aided by technologies like steam and electricity. The Boer Wars and Japan's ascent to Great Power status each profoundly influenced trans-imperial dynamics, hardening Euro-American concerns regarding a perceived deterioration of the White race. [...] Through the 1870s [...] the [Japanese] government introduced modern police forces and a centralised koseki register to monitor spatial movement. The koseki register, which recorded geographic origins, also served as a tool for marking racialised groups including Ainu, Burakumin, Chinese, [...] and Korean subjects across Japan's empire [...]. The 1880 Penal Code contained Japan's first anti-vagrancy statute, based on French models [...]. Tokyo's Governor Matsuda, known for introducing geographic segregation of the rich and poor, expressed concern around 1882 for kichinyado (daily lodgings), which he identified as “den[s] for people without fixed employment or [koseki] registration” [...].

Attention to “vagrant foreigners” (furō-gaikokujin) emerged in Japanese media and politics in the mid-1890s. It stemmed directly from contemporary British debates over immigration restrictions targeting predominantly Jewish “destitute aliens” [...].

The 1896 Landing Regulation for Qing Nationals barred entry of “people without fixed employment” and “Chinese labourers” [...], justified as essential "for maintaining public peace and morals" in legal documents [...]. Notably, prohibitions against Chinese labourers were repeatedly modified at the British consulate's behest through 1899 to ensure more workers for [the British-affiliated plantation] tea industry. [...]

---

Simultaneously, new welfaristic measures emerged alongside such punitive anti-vagrancy statutes. [...] Such border control regulations were eventually standardised in Japan's first immigration law, the 1918 Foreigners’ Entry Order. [...] This turn towards instituting racialised territorial boundaries should be understood in light of empire's concurrent welfarist turn [...]. Japanese administration established a quasi-carceral workhouse system in 1906 [in colonized territory of East Asia] [...] which sentenced [...] vagrants to years in workhouses. This law still treated vagrancy as illegal, but touted its remedy of compulsory labour as welfaristic. [...] This welfarist tum led to a proliferation of state-run programmes [...] connecting [lower classes] to employment. Therein, the vagrancy concept became operative in sorting between subjects deemed deserving, or undeserving, of aid. Effectively, surveillance practices in welfare systems mobilised the vagrancy concept to, firstly, justify supportive assistance and labour protections centring able-bodied, and especially married, Japanese men deemed “willing to work” and, secondly, withhold protections from racialised persons for their perceived waywardness [...] as contemporaneous Burakumin, Korean, and Ainu movements frequently protested [...]. [D]uring the American occupation (1945–1952), not only were anti-vagrancy statutes reinstituted in Japan's 1948 Minor Offences Act, but [...] the 1946 Livelihood Protection Act (Article 2) excluded “people unwilling to work or lazy” from social insurance coverage [...].

---

Imperial expansion relied on not only claiming new markets and territories, but also using borders as places for negotiating legal powers and personhood [...]. Japan [...] integrated Euro-American ideas and practices attached to extraterritorial governance, like exceptionalism and legal immunity, into its legal systems. [...] (Importantly, because supportive systems [welfare], like punitive ones, were racialised to differentially regulate mobilities according to racial-ethic hierarchies, they were not universally beneficial to all eligible subjects.) [...]

At the turn of the century, imperialism and industrial capitalism had co-produced new transnational mobilities [which induced mass movements of poor and newly displaced people seeking income] [...]. These mobilities - unlike those celebrated in imperial travel writing - conflicted with racist imaginaries of who should possess freedom of movement, thereby triggering racialised concerns over vagrancy [...]. In both Euro-American and Japanese contexts, [...] racialised “lawless” Others (readily associated with vagrancy) were treated as threats to “public order” and “public peace and morals”. [...] Early 20th century discourse about vagrants, undesirable aliens, and “vagrant foreigners” [...] produced [...] "new categories of [illegal] people" [...] that cast particular people outside of systems of state aid and protection. [...] [P]ractices of illegalisation impress upon people, “the constant threat of removal, of being coercively forced out and physically removed [...] … an expulsion from life and living itself”.

---

All text above by: Rayna Rusenko. "The Vagrancy Concept, Border Control, and Legal Architectures of Human In/Security". Antipode [A Radical Journal of Geography] Volume 56, Issue 2, pages 628-650. First published 24 October 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Text within brackets added by me for clarity. Presented here for criticism, teaching, commentary purposes.]

[terrence-silver]

Hey hey! Been thinking of McCain lately... do you possibly have any headcons for Terry McCain x criminal!beloved? Would love to hear your thoughts on this!

---

― Yes, he will judge you. Of course he will judge you. He doesn't have an understanding or too much empathy for your particular lifestyle or your particular kind. He thinks it is wrong. That you're wrong. That the way you live is wrong. That you're endangering innocent civilians and people in law enforcement alike, one way or another, or at least that the people you associate with do, and that by extension, you bear part of the moral blame. That you should be apprehended, corrected and penalized, plain and simple. You're one of the many reasons this city is the way it is and the reason why his job is the way it is and if we're honest, yes, Terry McCain will be very much antagonistic and a full-on hard ass in the beginning. Just part of his overall personality, belief system and professional deformation. At best, he thinks you need rehabilitation within the system itself, behind bars, perhaps doing some sort of community work --- pretty much whatever the judge decides, and that's him being extremely kind. At worst? Well, at worst, he thinks that if the justice of said system fails (which, in his experience, it often does, unfortunately) and doesn't punish you the way he feels is due, that good old vigilantism can easily take its place and that he should just do it himself. As usually. Wouldn't be the first time for him.

― Now, it doesn't even matter what sort of criminal activity the subject of his fixation indulges in. Could be smaller thievery and pickpocketing around supermarkets to survive, vandalism, vagrancy, peddling narcotics, using said narcotics, sex work (and he does see this as a criminal offense), entanglement with the local mobs or flat out something larger, more serious that gets his attention much easier, but still, Terry will behave borderline paternalistic in a 'You live like this?' sort of way where he tries, at least tries to correct you and yes, it could come off passive aggressive to aggressive initially. He will not be a nice person to run into, let us be real for a second. He doesn't intend to be nice to you. He intends to set you straight and scare you into behaving properly. Be it by getting in your face, snarking you, threatening arrests, actually arresting, getting physical, taking you into custody overnight, writing you tickets, hitting you with fees; it really doesn't matter. This particular detective? He's doing too much. He's doing the job of an ordinary, day-to-day, commonplace streetcorner cop. Something that doesn't even pertain to his high function. So, why does he do it? Why is he on your case? Shouldn't he be after bigger crooks out there?

― Not even McCain himself knows why he does what he does, truth to tell. He thinks he's doing right by the streets of Chicago, the overall public peace and justice itself, with no task 'too small' for him due to him being humble about doing his work and doing it well (often by any means necessary), but truth of the matter, these are the beginnings of his obsession rearing their head, without him realizing or even wanting to admit to it. Whatever you're doing is a problem for the smalltime police, not a full blown detective, but he tells himself the police is overworked and overburdened and not always capable of doing the job it is meant to do so he has to step in. He has no choice, see. You've given him no choice. As such, he's always where you are. Always in your shadow. Always close by. Always seeping venom into your face. Always measuring your behavior. Warning you. Always there. If someone didn't know this man has a badge it would be easy to imagine him as a stalker, which is exactly what he is anyway. An possessive stalker at that. If the smalltime police he branded as 'overworked' actually steps in on your case he might actually step in himself, telling his own colleagues off, because you're his project. He'll deal with you himself. Nobody else will.

― Of course it is safe to say you've crawled inside of his brain and that even in his downtime he's thinking of you. Collecting files on you. Using and abusing his powers to amass intel. Making notes on you. Your associates. Pondering you even if he's otherwise engaged in a relationship with someone else. Pacing around his apartment in the dead of night just letting his intrusive thoughts run back to you, what you're doing right now. Right this very instant. Might just hit the streets to find you and track you down, feeling that this very moment, you could be up to no good, as always. Might just get into an altercation and save you if you're in trouble, justifying that he's still a good guy at the end of the day and that it is your own fault for living the life you do. If you lived correctly, this wouldn't be happening, or at least not as frequently. Now, what if he wasn't here to protect you? What do you think could've happened to you!? He's behaving less like a guy in law enforcement tackling a criminal and more like a concerned, albeit abjectly judgmental and difficult friend sharing some tough love to someone who has strayed. A worried parent, a worried, dare I say, loved one? His delivery isn't always mellow, but he feels his heart is in the right place.

― Of course his colleagues notice McCain has a fixation that just goes way beyond the professional and straight into the personal, and whether they call him out on it or not, he might just very much deny it or deny he's having the type of fixation they claim he's having all while still running amok whenever you're in question. At this point, he wants to rehabilitate you himself because he feels this is his cross to bear and nobody can bear it for him. He won't allow anyone else to bear it. Tries to have well meaning talks with you, one on one. Finds you address and breaks in to check on your dwelling situation. Tries to downright irritate and wear you down into listening to him for once because he knows better. Should he just cuff you, drive off with you and get you to listen like that, by force? Tries to fix your life for you because...he cares, damnit. Ensures you can't shake him off. The streets, lowlife dens, these lairs, hangouts and shady places are not fit for you. The company you keep isn't fit you, notwithstanding that his concern is peppered with jealousy because his company, he feels, is infinitely worthier. A good life is possible. Or a better life, for starters.

― Might start arresting all your ehm, compatriots out on the streets, one by one, if his beloved has any, to the point you'll be the only one left, totally isolated and cut off from the rest of them, with him, ironically, as your only support system and the only one you could possibly turn to. He's totally not envious, no. See? He's serious. Don't mess with him. He's not to be trifled with. Only reason he hasn't done it to you (yet) is because he thinks, no, he knows in fact, that you've potential. That you're better than them. There's a good heart somewhere in there. You don't need yet another police dossier besmirching your future, do you? What you need is an intervention. He'll offer you an intervention, sure, all while not being fully aware he needs an intervention too because he's fallen and he's fallen hard. Terry McCain has fallen for you to the point of bias, blindness and even starting to justify you in ways he wouldn't dream of doing before. Well, maybe you strayed down the path you did because of a bad childhood. Maybe the infrastructure is broken. You're disenfranchised. Urban poverty is rampant and offers little opportunities. The influence of corrupt people has corrupted you too.

― Fact is, yes, Terry McCain is in love to the point of complete and utter desperation, a moral crisis, an identity crisis and even righteous fury at your general circumstances, precisely because he cares for you so much and he's affected to the point of overemotional, unhinged rage at how you've been living before he's met you and after he has as well. What you must've gone through. What you allowed yourself to happen. What others around you allowed to happen to you. It is an extremely slowburn realization, but it is a realization nonetheless. He wants to scoop you up. Take you. Protect you. Look after you. Ensure you never go down a bad, dangerous or negative path again, not while he's alive and even if he's not. He wants to apprehend, put away and wreak havoc on every pimp, kingpin, trafficker, drug dealer, gang leader, gangster, mobster or handler who's ever used you for nefarious purposes out on the legal margins of society. Convinced you to do bad. Profited off of it. If Terry was your natural enemy before, he's not just a friend now, he's an advocate for your general well-being. Your saintly guardian. The thought of you not being safe or living a life that is dangerous sends to a dark, decrepit place where he could downright start killing just to ensure you're alright.

― He becomes gentle, yes. You're no longer a criminal or some common thug he can manhandle or push around in his eyes. Rather, you become someone who was seduced down a bad road. Someone groomed. Taken advantage of. Someone blackmailed. Someone whose situation offered them no way out. Someone in need of rescue. A victim. A victim he must avenge. He deals in absolutes. You're either the villain or you're the angel. His angel. No in-betweens. Just about adores you to the point he refuses to acknowledge any fault of yours and if he does, he finds ways to justify those as well. Delusional, much? Maybe. His vocabulary becomes infinitely more considerate and so do his actions towards you, at least. He ensures you're sheltered. Rehabilitated. Away from bad influences and in fact, away from all influences that isn't his own. He uses all the powers within his position to make sure you're taken care of and that he's right there taking care of you too, and in fact, that he's the main and only person taking care of you. Yes, his intentions are amorous. And yes, once this trial period is over, you're coming with him because he'll make you the honest person he knows you're capable of being. What choice is there? Do you want to go jail and do time? Hit the streets again? Terry McCain would never allow that.

― Ideally, whether beloved's criminal (or ex-criminal) or not, Terry imagines a very conventionally and traditionally idyllic life no matter how you slice it. Perhaps even more so if you had what would be deemed 'a worrying past'. To counter that, the future should be kinder, warmer, all the more normal to balance things out and redeem everything and yeah, he thinks that's a goal worth fighting for. Yes, he wants a Christmas Tree, he wants sappy, ugly sweaters and opening presents with you next to a roaring fireplace, he wants a home with you, he wants weekends at some cozy, crowded bar where he can sing and play for you, he wants to keep a pet or two with you, he wants you to never be in a dangerous position again, he wants to protect you, look after you, he wants your warm hands in his, sharing a coat out on a freezing pier mid-December somewhere, he wants autumnal, rain soaked walks and he wants you well and happy. Of course, forming a stable relationship with someone who has a police dossier might not go down that smoothly with his own colleagues and work associates but when he has Terry McCain, hotheaded and stubborn that he is, ever cared about what anyone thought?

[cmweller]

Challenge #04121-K103: What You Give...

A cruel lord tries to make the temple of helping hands illegal. They come to regret it and repent. -- Anon Guest

"Encouraging vagrancy and generating an atmosphere of listlessness," Pastor Tolerance read the highlights of the notice in her hands. "Sheltering the criminal element... if the building remains, I'll be arrested for masquerading as a woman of the cloth?" She passed it to Bathild, the Priest of Freja.

They had to don their reading glasses to examine the myopic script. "Charity is the bane of honest labor and a poison on the soul of my good citizens? What levels of horseshit...?"

"Ocean deep ones," said Tolerance. "I think ze hates the Church of Kind Hands because of all the otherwise Unwelcome who come to the doors."

[Check the source for the rest of the story]

[ausetkmt]

Homelessness in the United States presents a complex and multi-faceted societal challenge, reflecting deeper issues of economic disparity, housing instability, and insufficient social safety nets. As of the most recent reports, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates that on any given night, over half a million people are experiencing homelessness across the country. This figure encompasses individuals living on the streets, in emergency shelters, or in transitional housing programs. The causes of homelessness are diverse, ranging from economic factors like job loss and unaffordable housing to personal issues such as mental health and substance abuse.

The concept of criminalizing homelessness has emerged as a contentious response to this issue in many U.S. cities and states. This approach involves the enactment of laws and ordinances that effectively make it illegal to perform life-sustaining activities in public spaces, such as sleeping, eating, or panhandling. These laws are often justified as measures to maintain public order and safety, but critics argue that they merely punish the visible symptoms of homelessness without addressing its root causes. The criminalization of homelessness raises significant ethical and legal questions, particularly regarding the rights of the most vulnerable populations in society. It also leads to a cycle of arrests, fines, and jail time for homeless individuals, which can exacerbate their situation and make it even harder to secure stable housing and employment.

Denver, Colorado, presents a particularly illustrative case study in the criminalization of homelessness. In recent years, the city has implemented various urban camping bans and other ordinances that target public activities commonly associated with homelessness. These measures have sparked significant debate and legal challenges, highlighting the tensions between urban development, public space management, and the rights of homeless individuals. Denver's approach reflects a broader trend in American cities where rapid urban development and rising housing costs often collide with growing homeless populations, leading to contentious policy decisions and public debates.

The situation in Denver and other U.S. cities underscores the need for a more nuanced and compassionate approach to homelessness. While the criminalization of homelessness might offer a short-term solution to the visibility of the problem, it fails to address the systemic issues that lead to homelessness in the first place. This approach also raises critical concerns about the rights and dignity of homeless individuals, calling for a reevaluation of how society and policymakers perceive and respond to this complex issue. Ultimately, the case of Denver highlights the challenges and controversies inherent in addressing homelessness in urban America, serving as a microcosm of a national issue that demands thoughtful, holistic, and humane solutions.

Understanding the Criminalization of Homelessness

Understanding the criminalization of homelessness requires delving into the legal and societal mechanisms through which individuals experiencing homelessness are penalized for their status. This criminalization is a process where activities necessary for survival in public spaces - such as sleeping, eating, or begging - are legally prohibited, leading to penalties that range from fines to imprisonment. It represents a legal approach to homelessness that prioritizes public order and aesthetics over addressing the underlying causes of homelessness.

At the core of this criminalization are various laws and ordinances enacted by city councils and state legislatures. Anti-vagrancy laws are one of the oldest forms, traditionally outlawing the presence of people perceived as 'vagrants' in public spaces. Modern versions of these laws might target behaviors like loitering or sleeping in parks. Anti-panhandling laws restrict begging or soliciting in certain areas, often justifying these restrictions as necessary for public safety or to prevent fraud. Laws against sleeping in public spaces, sometimes referred to as "urban camping bans," prohibit sleeping, resting, or storing personal belongings in public areas. Cities might also enforce sit-lie ordinances, which make it illegal to sit or lie down on sidewalks in certain parts of the city during specific times.

The rationale behind these laws often revolves around concerns for public health and safety, maintaining the aesthetic quality of urban spaces, and supporting local businesses that might be affected by the presence of homeless individuals. Proponents argue that such laws are necessary to prevent public spaces from becoming unsanitary or unsafe, and to ensure that commercial districts remain attractive and accessible to shoppers and tourists.

However, public attitudes towards homelessness and these laws are deeply divided. On one side, some view these laws as necessary measures to maintain order and protect the rights of the broader community. They argue that the presence of homeless individuals in public spaces can lead to increased crime, decreased property values, and a general deterioration of the neighborhood quality.

On the other hand, critics of these laws see them as inhumane and counterproductive. They argue that criminalizing homelessness does not solve the problem but merely pushes it out of sight. By penalizing behaviors that are a direct result of being homeless, these laws make it more difficult for individuals to escape the cycle of homelessness. Paying fines or serving jail time can be particularly challenging for someone without stable income or housing, and having a criminal record can make it even harder to find employment or rent an apartment.

Additionally, these critics highlight that criminalization often ignores the systemic issues that lead to homelessness, such as lack of affordable housing, inadequate mental health services, and systemic poverty. They advocate for a more compassionate approach that addresses these root causes, providing support and services to help individuals transition out of homelessness.

The criminalization of homelessness reflects a tension between maintaining public order and addressing the needs of the homeless population. It raises significant ethical, legal, and practical questions about how society chooses to respond to this complex social issue. While the goal of maintaining clean and safe public spaces is understandable, the methods of achieving this through criminalization are increasingly being scrutinized and challenged. The debate continues as communities grapple with finding the most effective and humane ways to address the persistent challenge of homelessness. 

Historical Context of Homelessness in the United States

The history of homelessness in the United States is a tapestry of socio-economic changes, policy shifts, and evolving public attitudes. Tracing its roots, one can observe that homelessness as a widespread issue became particularly noticeable in the late 19th century, coinciding with industrialization and urbanization. However, it was the Great Depression of the 1930s that brought the plight of homeless individuals into stark relief, as massive economic downturns left many without jobs or homes. This period saw an unprecedented number of Americans experiencing homelessness, leading to the establishment of transient camps known as "Hoovervilles."

Post-World War II America witnessed a period of economic prosperity that somewhat mitigated the homelessness crisis. However, this was not to last. The deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s and 1970s, aimed at reforming mental health care, inadvertently contributed to a new wave of homelessness. Many patients, released from psychiatric institutions, lacked adequate community-based support and resources, leading to increased rates of homelessness, particularly among individuals with mental health issues.

Economic factors have also played a crucial role in the history of homelessness in the U.S. The late 20th century saw significant changes in the economy, including deindustrialization, a shift to service-based jobs, and rising housing costs. These changes disproportionately affected low-income individuals, making housing unaffordable for many. The 1980s and 2000s economic recessions further exacerbated this trend, leading to spikes in homelessness. Additionally, urban renewal projects often led to the demolition of affordable housing units, replacing them with developments out of reach for low-income individuals.

Social policies have had a mixed impact on homelessness. The federal government initially took a welfare-oriented approach, with programs in the 1960s and 1970s aimed at providing housing and support services. However, in the 1980s, there was a significant policy shift. The federal government reduced spending on affordable housing and welfare programs, leading to a reduction in available resources for those at risk of homelessness. This period marked a gradual shift from welfare approaches to an emphasis on law and order, culminating in the criminalization of homelessness.

This shift to criminalization became increasingly prominent in the 1990s and 2000s. Cities across the U.S. began enacting ordinances that targeted homeless people, penalizing activities such as sleeping in public, panhandling, and loitering. These laws were often justified as necessary for public safety and urban cleanliness, but they did little to address the root causes of homelessness. Instead, they led to a cycle of fines, arrests, and incarceration for many homeless individuals, exacerbating the challenge of re-entering society and finding stable housing.

The history of homelessness in the United States is marked by a complex interplay of economic upheavals, social policy changes, and shifting public attitudes. From the welfare-oriented approaches of the mid-20th century to the more recent trend of criminalization, the nation's response to homelessness has evolved, reflecting broader societal values and economic realities.  

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Dancing Doll No Mystery," Border Cities Star. May 9, 1934. Page 3. --- Constable Labelle Has Exposed Trickery Of Joseph Jubenville ---- Thread Is Secret ---- And So Welcome at East Windsor Jail Is Now Worn Out ---- By Thomas R. Brophey The jig is up, Joseph. For a number of days now, a young man who signs himself Joseph Jubenville of Joliet, Quebec, has been mystifying all comers at the East Windsor police station with his dancing doll and sundry other tricks. But Constable Reginald Labelle of the East Windsor Police Department has done a little investigating on his own, with the result that Joseph's welcome has been worn out at the East Windsor jail.

STEADY VISITOR For a week or so, Joseph has been signing the lodgers' register at the East Windsor police station nightly. Previous to that he stopped at the Windsor jail, paying for his "room" by amusing with his dancing doll.

How fleeting is fame!! A few weeks ago "Dancing Dan" Maloney could create quite a sensation around the East Windsor police station with a few sleight of hand tricks. But then "Dancing Dan" went to jail for two months and Joseph Jubenville and his dancing doll appeared on the scene. Immediately Joseph became the "talk of the town." Joseph would take his little cardboard doll and sit on the police department floor, start humming, "Teedle- eedle-eedle-eedle, teedle-um-tum-tum" and the little doll would dance, right in step. start to

"PREPARATIONS" The dancing, of course, was preceded by a lot of "preparations" that at no time fooled the police, but they always watched them carefully. Joseph would put his little doll over a lamp "to warm it," and would then blow away at its head and tap it several times in the stomach with a little wand. Then Joseph would address his doll in French and it would begin to dance.

For the dancing trick Joseph always squatted on the floor, allowing the doll to dance between his knees. And now that they think of it, he always picked a dark corner of the room.

Anyway, Joseph was quite a sensation. His doll performed for everyone in the East Windsor city hall and on court day a special performance was put on for visiting notables from down town, Magistrate Smith, the Crown Attorney and an assortment of lawyers.

IT'S UNCANNY "Uncanny!" exclaimed the spectators as they watched the little cardboard doll flit about the floor, obeying Joseph's French instructions to the letter.

But Contable Labelle now throws back the veil. It was just a little black thread, suspended between Joseph's two knees, that was responsible for the trick. Quite simple! The thread was always there and ready for the trick. Joseph had just to slip the doll over the thread, start humming and tapping away with his wand-and the doll would dance.

And Joseph had another trick. Just place a cigaret on the floor and he would make it follow his thumb, Mysterious business until you "catch on." Constable Labelle explains that Joseph shoved the cigaret along with his breath. It's all so simple when you know how.

And as for Joseph's "disappearing cigaret," Constable Labelle looked through his clothing and found an elastic contraption leading to a "cigaret cage" underneath Joseph's coat. So there you are, Joseph. You'll have to find a new police station to use as a rooming house, it seems. For Con- stable Labelle, confounded by your trickery long enough, has finally solved your tricks. And now he announces that the next time you call around the station, he's going to give you a swift kick.

How fleeting is fame!

[the-prophet-bruh]

Conservatism's Deceitful Approach to Homelessness and Poverty

Ending homelessness vs. ending the homeless

If you're a left-winger, you shouldn't be ceding ground to conservatives on ideas like homelessness and poverty. Conservatives don't care about homelessness, they just hate the homeless. They don't want to eradicate poverty, they want to eradicate the poor.

The conservative mindset runs on several errant philosophies, chief among them being moralistic judgement and keeping up appearances. Here's how they manifest in the above-mentioned subjects:

Everybody wants "less homelessness". Nobody likes homeless people around, as much as PragerU maintains that bleeding-heart liberals do. The difference is that leftists want to ameliorate the problem by giving everyone housing, whereas conservatives just don't want them hobos around their prim and proper neighborhoods. They don't care if these people live or die. In fact, a hefty percentage of them genuinely believes that letting them all die is one way of eradicating the issue (as if this will avoid any of the structural issues from continuing to spit people out). Thus, the appearance of a good neighborhood with high property values is more important than the suffering of fellow humans. Listen to how Fox News talks about the unhoused in San Francisco: they don't want to improve their condition, they just want them out of their sight.

They also believe homelessness to be a moral failing. That's why they view their current state as a righteous punishment for sucking at capitalism too much. Thus, clearing homeless camps, criminalizing vagrancy, and bussing people to Democrat-run districts is the perfect solution: it acts to punish these people for their failings while keeping up the appearance of a clean society.

Similar to this is their position on poverty. A socialist will give you ideas for how to reduce poverty, like guaranteed employment, housing, and education. A chud will plan for how to drive the povvos out of their neighborhood while punishing them with taxes. Same as before: increases land value, punishes "personal financial irresponsibility", and allows for the possibility of them dying out so chuds don't have to see their faces and feel the pangs of guilt anymore.

Remember this: the conservative mind does not seek to decrease poverty because it views the issue as a natural and even necessary part of life. Conservatism only seeks to punish the deserving and maintain the status quo. The job of leftists is to show that a better world is possible.