> Well, why not? Are they residents of anywhere? If not, do you see how easily that slides into not needing to provide services for them? Not considering them deserving of anything, in fact?
They are not residents, period. They are vagrants, or transients. I do not agree that vagrants and transients lose property rights summarily, but the idea of calling them some type of "resident" is ridiculous.
They are not residents, period. They are vagrants, or transients. I do not agree that vagrants and transients lose property rights summarily, but the idea of calling them some type of "resident" is ridiculous.