In response to the ongoing migrant crisis, Mayor Eric Adams has proposed a limitation on the “right to shelter” that was established 42 years ago through the Callahan v. Carey consent decree. However, some individuals believe that this right should be eliminated entirely rather than just restricted.
It’s undeniable that New York is investing a significant amount of money in supporting migrants, more so than any other major city in the United States. The city is spending close to $40,000 per migrant, which is a substantial amount compared to under $3,000 in Los Angeles and less than $7,000 in Chicago. This staggering difference in expenditure highlights how committed New York is to providing resources and aid to migrants within its borders.
It’s hard to believe, but Gotham is shelling out over four times the amount of Miami’s entire city budget on migrants alone. This staggering statistic highlights just how much of a financial burden the influx of asylum seekers has become for many cities.
Over the years, advocates for the homeless have been claiming a supposed “right” without any genuine interpretation of the state Constitution. This claim has been steadily increasing, despite lacking a solid foundation.
In its beginnings, the program’s main purpose was to provide temporary housing for single homeless men overnight, with a budget of $40 million adjusted for inflation during its first year.
The industry of housing homeless people has grown to be worth $2 billion a year, accommodating anyone in need. Unfortunately, due to the increasing number of illegal immigrants, the shelter population has doubled, and the city is projected to spend $4 billion this year to keep up with the demand.
Last month, Nicole Gelinas pointed out that New York City’s right to shelter is surprisingly based only on a single passage in the state’s constitution. This passage states that “subject to the limitations on indebtedness and taxation, nothing in this constitution… shall prevent the legislature from providing for the aid, care, and support of the needy.”
It’s true: The state has the ability to provide for the less fortunate, and only financial constraints can hinder this responsibility.
Can you believe that the city of New York has an order to provide housing for anyone who demands it? It’s quite surprising that this is only applicable in New York City, but it’s still an interesting fact.
The language referring to the right to form a labor union is not even included in the section of the Constitution that delineates fundamental rights.
Despite the law in place, the policy implemented by the city has not been successful in addressing the issue of homelessness. This is evident from the fact that the number of people claiming homelessness in the city is significantly higher than many other cities.
Visitors are drawn to this place for the complimentary offering.
With President Joe Biden’s decision to open the borders, there has been a significant surge in the number of people arriving in the country. More than half of the 110,000 “asylum seekers” who have arrived are taking advantage of the “right to shelter.”
It’s worth noting that removing the right wouldn’t necessarily result in the city evicting anyone onto the streets. Rather, it would provide them with the flexibility to balance their desire to assist those who are truly in need while also addressing other pressing issues like garbage collection, public safety, and education.
The mayor is currently facing the challenge of managing the added expenses of sheltering migrants, which has led to cuts being made to every municipal agency. This is particularly concerning as the city budget is already facing multibillion-dollar shortfalls without this additional strain. Despite these difficulties, the mayor is working hard to find a solution to this issue.
If we were to end the right to shelter, we would be putting the $2 billion industry that provides shelter at risk. Additionally, this could potentially harm the social services nonprofits that often hold significant influence among Democratic leaders. It is important to consider the potential consequences of any actions taken in regard to this issue.
Adams’ decision to only seek an emergency limit to the right seems to be influenced by the fact that the city lacks the necessary resources to handle the potential added burden. It is understandable that he may not want to call out the emperor’s lack of clothes, as it would likely draw the ire of the entire Democratic establishment.
The metropolis could be submerged in a deluge of liberal tears.
As Biden continues to resist the idea of closing the border, it’s clear that a change needs to happen. The so-called “right” seems like the perfect solution to this problem.
It’s a sad reality that the ongoing crisis may lead to the end of the “right to shelter.” However, amidst the chaos, it’s possible that some good may come out of it.
Without a commitment from the Biden administration to close the US-Mexico border, City Hall has limited options but to forsake its responsibilities under Callahan and risk the outcome of the trial.
Read More:
- Police officer in Colorado Springs sustains injuries in a collision while en route to another incident
- A whistleblower’s complaint regarding double billing in Colorado leads to a $1.9 million settlement
