“Shouldn’t be removed” in this context means leaving them on the street to suffer and fester. They very much should be removed, for their health, and for the health and progress of society. So public housing efforts, health initiatives, financial support and so on, are very much exclusive with “shouldn’t be removed”.
Yes you can’t instantly all teleport them with the snap of some fingers, but that’s the end goal.
Why should forcible removal for the benefit of the person not be considered alright?
I completely understand when the forcible removal means their extermination, throwing them in prison, shipping them off to some middle of nowhere town to go be homeless there, and so on; but in the case of a person who might have severe and untreated mental illness, trauma, disabilities, physical wounds, and drug addiction, would the best option not be taking the person off of the street and into an apartment or home from where they can begin to recover from the devastating nature of homelessness? If the person is to begin to receive medical attention, financial aid, mental health treatment, and rehabilitation, would the most critical step not be removing the person from a situation in which they are actively suffering extreme mental and physical duress?
This does not mean showing up with a SWAT team, handcuffing them, throwing them in the back of a van, and then kidnapping them to a random apartment across the country. The process can only be done with extreme empathy, and from professionals who will be able to aid in every step of the process. But ultimately, preventing them living a life of vagrancy seems to be a completely normal thing to do.
“Shouldn’t be removed” in this context means leaving them on the street to suffer and fester. They very much should be removed, for their health, and for the health and progress of society. So public housing efforts, health initiatives, financial support and so on, are very much exclusive with “shouldn’t be removed”.
Yes you can’t instantly all teleport them with the snap of some fingers, but that’s the end goal.
I’m just making it clear that forcible removal of any kind is not something to advocate for. Public housing doesn’t exclude forcible removal.
Why should forcible removal for the benefit of the person not be considered alright?
I completely understand when the forcible removal means their extermination, throwing them in prison, shipping them off to some middle of nowhere town to go be homeless there, and so on; but in the case of a person who might have severe and untreated mental illness, trauma, disabilities, physical wounds, and drug addiction, would the best option not be taking the person off of the street and into an apartment or home from where they can begin to recover from the devastating nature of homelessness? If the person is to begin to receive medical attention, financial aid, mental health treatment, and rehabilitation, would the most critical step not be removing the person from a situation in which they are actively suffering extreme mental and physical duress?
This does not mean showing up with a SWAT team, handcuffing them, throwing them in the back of a van, and then kidnapping them to a random apartment across the country. The process can only be done with extreme empathy, and from professionals who will be able to aid in every step of the process. But ultimately, preventing them living a life of vagrancy seems to be a completely normal thing to do.