logo
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness

Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness

Arab News3 days ago
SAN FRANCISCO, California: Leading Democrats and advocates for homeless people are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent.
Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states.
'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads.
Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl.
The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment.
Last year, the US Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go.
Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness.
Newsom has directed cities to clean up homeless encampments and he's funneled more money into programs to treat addiction and mental health disorders.
His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on 'creating distracting headlines and settling old scores.'
'But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California.
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter.
Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping.
Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order.
He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said.
'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said.
But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the US abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns.
'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.'
The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing.
'Moving people from one street to the next or from the street to jail and back again will not solve this problem,' she said in a statement.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities
Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities

Al Arabiya

time6 minutes ago

  • Al Arabiya

Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities

A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled that private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights cases under a section of the law that allows others to assist voters who are blind, disabled, or unable to read. It's the latest ruling from the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals saying only the government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The findings upend decades of precedent and will likely head to the US Supreme Court. The case centered on whether an Arkansas state law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law. The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a previous case from 2023. That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 'Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,' said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. 'Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.' In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision. The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting. In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians with reservations 60 miles apart argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the US Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits and the full circuit declined to take up the case. The US Supreme Court blocked the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case. The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit revolving around voters with disabilities, declined to comment on Monday's ruling. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases. 'I think it's important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit's decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history, and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,' said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. 'Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.' Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact after a 2013 Supreme Court decision removed Section 5. That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws.

France circulates draft outcome document from UN 2-state solution conference
France circulates draft outcome document from UN 2-state solution conference

Arab News

time36 minutes ago

  • Arab News

France circulates draft outcome document from UN 2-state solution conference

NEW YORK CITY: Arab News has been given an exclusive first look at a preliminary outcome document from the conference on a two-state solution to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, which began on Monday at the UN headquarters in New York. Circulated by France among UN member states and open for comments until Tuesday morning, the document represents a critical step in attempts to revitalize long-stalled efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, against a backdrop in recent years of renewed violence and diplomatic deadlock. The draft strongly condemns the 'barbaric and antisemitic terrorist attack' on Israeli towns launched by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023. It demands an immediate ceasefire agreement in Gaza and the unconditional release of all hostages still held by Hamas, including the return of the remains of those who have died. It also stresses the urgent need for unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza, to alleviate the suffering of civilians caught up in the crisis. Central to the draft text is a reaffirmation of the 'unwavering commitment' of the international community to the vision for two democratic states — Israel and Palestine — living side by side in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders. Emphasizing the need for Palestinian political unity, the document underscores the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under the governance of the Palestinian Authority, presenting this as the cornerstone for a future Palestinian state that is both legitimate and demilitarized. The document welcomes commitments made by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in June this year, and acknowledges his condemnation of the Oct. 7 attacks, his call for the release of hostages, and his pledge to disarm Hamas. Abbas has also vowed to end contentious 'pay-to-slay' payments; implement education reforms; hold elections within a year to foster generational renewal; and accept the principle of a demilitarized Palestinian state — all of which are viewed as critical steps to rebuild trust and lay the groundwork for peace. In anticipation of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in September, the document envisions that signatory countries will either have officially recognized the State of Palestine or expressed a willingness to do so. It further encourages nations that have yet to establish diplomatic ties with Israel to begin normalizing relations and to engage in dialogue regarding the regional integration of Israel, signaling a broader vision for Middle East cooperation. As of early this year, about 147 of the 193 UN member states had officially recognized the State of Palestine, representing about 75 percent of the international community. They include the majority of African, Asian and Latin American countries. Several European nations also recently joined the list, including Norway, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and Armenia, as have the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Barbados. But key Western powers including the US, Canada, France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Australia have yet to officially recognize Palestine, as has Japan. Notably, however, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has announced plans for his nation to formally recognize Palestine, with the official declaration expected during the UN General Assembly in September. France would be the first G7 country to do so, and could influence a broader European recognition trend. The draft document also outlined a commitment to develop a comprehensive framework for the 'day after' peace is declared in Gaza, emphasizing guarantees for reconstruction, the disarmament of Hamas, and the exclusion of the group from Palestinian governance, measures that are intended to secure lasting stability and prevent further violence. Formally titled the 'High-Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution,' the two-day event in New York is being co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store