Just offering some quick observations based on reading I've done on immigrants, migration, affordable housing, homelessness, and (un)employment. It's always felt rather obvious to me that all of these problems could be addressed with pretty much one single program aimed at creating community rather than creating restrictions placed on any segment of the population.
Begin with starting a community entirely focused on getting homeless people off the streets and into a stable situation. This does not mean building a block of tiny homes and thinking the homeless can take it from there. Tiny homes was done in Vancouver, WA, and while well intentioned, it doesn't appear that it does much more than place a temporary roof over their heads, and offers little in the way of real community, opportunity, or stability.
What would offer those things? Think “a permanent community with decent apartments, shared community/recreational space, day care, medical care, drug treatment, gardening, music, transportation and, above all, safety.” This is by no means a comprehensive list as I could keep going with jobs, art, friendship, self-determination ....on and on.
This vision includes purpose built structures designed for human comfort and not for profit to non-resident owners. Goal driven, democratic, and nearly self-sufficient contributors to the local economy, these communities would provide jobs for residents, jobs for the outside local area, and a means of demonstrating to the world that our country is dedicated to a better life for all and not just the winners.
Finally, this idea could be a major export. Place them at every border to intercept migrants and keep them safe and contributing to society. Help build them in countries where migrants are leaving to give them reason to stay in their homes. Build coalitions with countries to keep these communities safe and viable in the face of drug cartels and 'bad' government.
There is so much more to be said about this and I've waited until election day so as not to have you think I'm biased towards either outcome. I am, of course but, historically, both parties have had poor intentions regarding human rights around the world. One party wants “human rights” for the rich, and the other simply wants to avoid talking about it as much as possible. There is, however, one of the parties who would be more likely to think, at this point in history, to think more humanely than the other.
If you are interested in any of the books mentioned at the beginning, I'm easy to contact.
