If you have to preemptively defend something as “not a concentration camp” and feel the need to couch it with “in my opinion”, it should probably give you pause.
The popular approach to the vagrancy crisis here is akin to fighting a raging inferno with policy discussions on the fire code. Yes, root causes matter, and yes in the long run they ought to be addressed, but right now the roof is on fire.
Antisocial vagrants are shooting up, shitting, threatening, and even attacking people, all in our formerly safe public streets and parks. This blight on public spaces is an ongoing violation of the civil rights of every decent citizen and it ought to be promptly stopped.
I’m open to any workable approach, but pragmatically, putting these people who are incapable of managing their own lives into programs that manage their lives for them is the only evident immediate solution. Everything else that’s been tried, from giving them free stuff to shuttling them around has observably failed miserably. Whether those programs are permanent or transitional and the other particulars are best decided on a case by case basis by affected communities. Assuredly though some of them will need to be managed living facilities of some sort.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/520415-...
> Researchers behind the bold new study that kicked off in 2018 gave a one-time lump sum of 7,500 Canadian dollars — about $5,700 — to 50 people who had recently become homeless, and allowed them to choose how to spend the money while following their lives over 12 to 18 months.
> Researchers found that those who received the money on average were able to find stable housing faster, maintain financial security and stability, and increased their spending on food, clothing and rent.
> The study also found the funds freed up space in shelters and saved the shelter system $8,100 per person over a year.
One only needs to look at SF, my home for many years before I took my kids and left in disgust, to see how bad the outcomes that this sort of thinking leads to can get.
> The term concentration camp originates from the Spanish–Cuban Ten Years' War when Spanish forces detained Cuban civilians in camps in order to more easily combat guerrilla forces. Over the following decades the British during the Second Boer War and the Americans during the Philippine–American War also used concentration camps.
> The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differ in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic is that inmates are held outside the rule of law. Extermination camps or death camps, whose primary purpose is killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".
Now I only know about this particular plan what TFA says, but I don't think it's a reach to be concerned about this becoming an internment camp if implemented.
Etymology is cool and interesting, but virtually everyone thinks “Nazi” when they hear “concentration camp” and furthermore you know that.