Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2149072)

translated into English------ILLEGAL

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2149080)

I think that many of the people currently crossing the border cannot be considered illegal or undocumented. They have applied for asylum, and have been instructed to attend a court hearing at a later date. Doesn't that make them legal and documented residents?

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2149094)

Not an accurate representation.

You can legally request Asylum in America ONLY at international bridges or ports of entry, basing your request on the fact that your life or well-being is in jeopardy in your country of origin based on one of the following four reasons:

- race,
- religion,
- nationality,
- membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Once you legally apply for asylum at an international bridge or port of entry, you are then a DOCUMENTED alien. A document exists attesting to the fact that you have legally applied for asylum in America.

But just wanting a better-paying job, or reuniting with family, would not be a legitimate reason to request asylum. Because of that, the vast majority crossing our southern border do NOT cross at the legal points, but instead choose to do it illegally, most often with the paid help of people who know how to smuggle people across, assuming that they can just sort of blend in, with people of their own nationality/ethnicity. In all too many cases, they do.

But they are aliens who are here illegally. Hence "Illegal Aliens". That "undocumented" bee ess is just another weary example of "wokeness" trying to deny the truth.

Originally Posted by bobeaston (Post 2148389)

One feels the frustration of being shunned by several organizations operated by The Villages. How to get the attention of someone who cares is the challenge.

Suggestion: When this story becomes more widely known, it could affect sales. If as many people call their Villages sales reps as call the police, the word will soon get to someone in The Villages that can get something done. Call those reps and the word will travel "upward" pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2148693)

Some homeless near a bridge in the Southern part of the Villages hardly is dragging down society. They have been around since I moved here in 2005. Panhandlers that is and sometimes they are anything but homeless. Just some more confidence men and women who probably make good money. Others are not so lucky nor so dishonest and might be on the street for reasons of PTSD or some other illness.

Originally Posted by manaboutown (Post 2148826)

Why should I or anyone else be responsible for sending them anywhere?

Granted there are a few homeless who deserve help but the vast majority are homeless bums due to their own life choices to drink, drug and commit crimes for which I am not responsible. They are.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2148797)

The Villages is 2A NRA Fandom territory. Folks in this very forum will be the first to tell you about all the firearms they own, how often they practice on the range, how they learned in the military and know their way around this and that firearm, and no one should ever dare cross them because they are legally carrying and not afraid to protect themselves. Surely no one in our community would have reason to fear some random homeless guy.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2148799)

Yeah. That's the ticket. Oh by the way...

when they leave, where do you figure they'll GO? Because - they have to go somewhere. There's no mass transit around here, they don't have homes to go to, no one's mentioned sending them to any shelters or even any shelters available to receive them. They have no transportation of their own (they'd be sleeping in it if they did), so they can't go any further than they can walk.

No idea how they ended up there in the first place, but it's kinda a good idea to have a plan, before you implement a response.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2148880)

Are you saying that, if they are breaking the law, the police shouldn't make them leave?

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2148815)

Judgmental cat judges.

I'm glad there isn't a big "visible" homeless population near my neighborhood. I know there are homeless people in the area - like coffeebean said - I see them on the corner of the 441 Walmart driveway. Haven't ever seen any come down my street, or hanging out in anyone's back yard. I'm thankful for that.

However, I've known a good amount of folks when they were homeless, as I used to hang out with them when I was a musician living in Boston and playing guitar in Harvard Square storefronts and the subway. Many of them were Vietnam vets suffering from PTSD and unable to succeed in living alone, with a spouse, with kids, or with their own parents (this was in the 1980's - most of their parents were still alive). Some of them had physical disabilities, combined with opiate addiction they ended up with as a direct result of requiring painkillers for the recovery of their injuries. A guy who had one leg cut off became a morphine addict. That kind of thing. Then there are the folks who have homes, but for whatever reason, don't go to them.

Like my friend Skip, who had what was -at the time - called paranoid schizophrenia. It has another name these days but you all know what I mean. He had a full 4-year scholarship to Harvard and spoke a few languages fluently. He was absolutely brilliant. But he also would often forget to take the meds. He'd go wandering off for a couple of weeks, sometimes even a couple of months. He'd disappear in early September and show up with plastic bags on his bare feet during the first snow fall, ranting and raving about how the Secret Service sent him on a special mission to protect the Harvard Square Constable from the infiltrators. Once he thought I was a princess and he was sent by the Secret Service to protect me. It was kinda sweet. When he was "sick" he reeked, because he had no understanding of his own hygiene needs. After a few days for him to decompress, we'd get him back to his parents' house so they could help him back onto his meds. He was considered homeless, because he had no home of his own. He would stay with his parents but he was 40 years old and the legal system wouldn't declare him incompetent, because he was 100% normal when he was taking his meds.

The other homeless folks would all look after each other. AND they looked after the entire neighborhood. They were part of the community and - though they often smelled bad because they didn't have regular access to showers, they all had generous spirits. Even the "sick" ones, and even the addicts.

In an environment like Harvard Square, where there's a LOT of culture, a LOT of diversity, and a LOT of very close-knit community members in a college setting, you'll see more tolerance. They still don't want them sleeping in their back yards, or blocking traffic, or walking up to people to beg. And that is an absolutely valid opinion and I share it.

But you STILL need to have a place to send them TO, when you send them away. WHERE are you sending them? Saying "I don't care as long as it's not near me" doesn't count. Because - they are where they are NOW - because someone said exactly that.

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2149152)

Such a lovely story... And you tell it so well!

But I fail to see what your "busking" in the subways has to do with the discussion at hand...

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2149146)

Here's how the conversation goes:
Cop: You'll have to leave now.
A back and forth conversation ensues. Eventually...
Homeless: Where should I go?
Cop: Somewhere other than here.

Homeless picks up his stuff and walks a few blocks away, and sets his stuff down again.

Rinse, repeat.

Until you have a place for them to GO, they will continue to go wherever it's convenient for them to go. And if that means your back yard, then that's where they'll go. When they're ordered to go somewhere else, they'll end up in someone else's back yard. And so on and so forth, til they're back in your back yard again. I use "back yard" metaphorically - meaning - your part of the Villages, the dumpster behind the nearest Winn Dixie, the woods under the nearest bridge, by the edge of the river, wherever you consider "your turf" to be.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2149149)

I don't know what words you're reading - but no, I'm not saying that. Maybe someone else is but there's nothing in my post indicating that I think the police shouldn't make them leave.

What I said - and I've said it a few times, and I'll say it again:

Where are they supposed to GO, when they're made to leave? Leave for where, exactly? They're homeless. They have no specific destination awaiting their arrival.

Have you ever tried to force wasps out of a nest under your eaves? They come back and build on some other part of your eaves. Or they'll build under your next door neighbor's eaves. Or they'll build across the street from your house. There will be wasps in your neighborhood, until/unless you kill them all.

If I'm not mistaken, killing a person for the offense of being homeless is against the law. Killing all the homeless people just because they've chosen to squat in YOUR neighborhood - is also against the law.

So you need to ask yourself - where will these homeless people GO, if you make them leave wherever they are now? How will they get there? And when they get there, where will they go when the people THERE tell the homeless they have to leave THERE?

Originally Posted by Kenswing (Post 2148326)

I can personally attest that there’s at least one. Saw an elderly gentleman pushing a shopping cart this morning along the MMP in Bradford while on my way to Lake Deaton Plaza.