Homeless People & Immigrants

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nope. They are too busy ripping our welfare system, and dealing.

If that's the case (it isn't) I've at least got to give them props for understanding how to access government services.

[Saipan]

If that's the case (it isn't) I've at least got to give them props for understanding how to access government services.

Me too. Nigerians are notch higher. They can access via Internet, and rip off our banks

[Guest TrueMetis]

Me too. Nigerians are notch higher. They can access via Internet, and rip off our banks

If by banks you mean idiots who can't see through an obvious scam than ya.

Edited October 31, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Saipan]

If by banks you mean idiots who can't see through an obvious scam than ya.

Yes, we have to blame victims of fraud. They are stupid.

People who got robbed deserve it, 'cause they didn't shoot fast enough.

People in Toronto ChinaTown are learning.

....that police guns are only to protect police.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, we have to blame victims of fraud. They are stupid.

People who got robbed deserve it, 'cause they didn't shoot fast enough.

People in Toronto ChinaTown are learning.

....that police guns are only to protect police.

The people who fail for the Nigerian prince or Jamaican lottery scam are stupid. That doesn't mean they deserve to be robbed, it means they deserve to be mocked constantly that they fell for it for the rest of their lives.

[Saipan]

The people who fail for the Nigerian prince or Jamaican lottery scam are stupid. That doesn't mean they deserve to be robbed, it means they deserve to be mocked constantly that they fell for it for the rest of their lives.

Yes the days when handshake was enought to sell a house are gone.

But things are begining to change. Take for example David Chan the Chinatown grocer. And the wave of support he got from the silent majority acrss Canada. You can mock victims till the cows come home - the times are changing. In two years you won't recognize it at all

[Sir Bandelot]

It's always difficult to generalize about humans, but I think you have to look at some of the cultural differences between immigrants and non-immigrants to understand more about this problem. In particular, the family unit and how important it is to different groups. Because it is fairly well established that many homeless suffer from mental illness, depression, breakdown and finally rejection of normal living in society, what is it that makes it more of a problem for non-immigrants. Or so it seems to be, statisticaly no one has really backed that up. But the impression I have as I walk through the streets of many Canadian cities from Halifax to Vancouver more or less agrees with this observation. I think the family unit plays a major role in alleviating the problem that leads to mental breakdown and finally homelessness. Family provides a support mechanism. One could also look at divorce rates across different cultures and maybe see a similar pattern. But of course as I first said that is not necessarily always the case, there are exceptions.

I'm talking about this- In our western liberal "me first" culture, the prpblems of other people don't matter. If you make a mistake, that's your problem. Not mine. I will help myself to what's good for me, and ignore the plight of others. And if someone offends me, I will not forgive them. Because I think I am very important, infallable and better than you.

[William Ashley]

Simply not true. While the Consititution may have changed how the mentally ill are institutionalized in a legal manner, the fact remains that this is possible.

Government cutbacks are what have spurred the rise in homelessness of the mentally ill.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/10/26/MairMentalIllnessCuts/

There is nothing wrong with poverty prevention and lowering poverty in Canada

BUT there is no reason to treat the mentally ill who are on public tax dollars anyway and even when treated won't be imputing to the economy. (If they are happy nuts let them be if they arn't breaking the law if they do put them in jail for their breach of the law) It is like taking an amputated foot and removing the leg also - it isn't going to let them walk on two feet - they will be hopers forever. You could say the mentally impaired won't be happy in jail - either is some non mentally impaired person who breaks the law cause its what the wanted to do. Since when does knowledge of the law or ignorance of the law mean it isn't a crime. You could find a case for all criminals being mentally impaired. Why the heck are doctors turned into judges? They arn't outside of pathology and it should only be to treat medical issues of the life threatening type not manage peoples lives.) MEDICAL FUNDS FOR HEALTH ISSUES NOT LIFESTYLE ISSUES - save lifestyle for lifestyle professionals leave health to health professionals GET DOCTORS THE HELL OUT OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM EXCEPT AS EXPERT WITNESSES.

Point is that homelessness isn't just an issue for the mentally ill - if they are truely ill they should be in a hospital getting treatment - but if it is not a life threatening issue - what is the issue.

I havn't seen how paying into the system saves any money - can you demonstrate the trend of more spending on your stated mental illness poverty has "saved" tax dollars. It isn't compassionate to drug people the drugs make life worse for people in some cases if you have read the "side effects" of the drugs - being sad or having no emotions means little difference - people get use to their mood - what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Also the perception of "happy" in depressed people for instance. Making them chemically dependent doesn't help them lead happy lives. I don't believe that serious mental health issues that are real medical issues can be treated anyway. Much more would be gained by helping people adapt to living life, rather than being institutionalized in a life of constant medication and social stigmatization. Also "people have options" against homelessness.. let them build houses if you want housing for the homeless. Put them to work - the few who are seriously issued should be employed in the system to reduce costs. Not chained to hospital beds.

If their lifestyle is so good once treated look at the suicide rate:

Avg. suicide rate for Canadians 15 per 100,000 people

Northern Inuit 60 to 75 per 100,000 people

increased risk of suicide include youth, the elderly, inmates in correctional facilities, people with a mental illness, and those who have previously attempted suicide.

AND OF THOSE 90% are said to be mentally ill.

THE THING IS THOUGH.. the suicide rate is increasing - it is a trend.

But what are the trends:

For those aged 1 to 44 years, unintentional injuries or suicide (TOP TWO CAUSES OF DEATH)

45+ cancer and heart disease

HOLD ON BUT if the suicide rate is on the increase - is the mental health rate -- IT IS...why is this.. perhaps because when the crazies are gone in obvious treatment you have to start making up disorders and behaviours, rather than medical issues - start attacking how people act instead of how they function. that is the problem with poverty right there No one gives a damn and the government ain't mobilizing people it is bandaging them.

--- When you look at the costs you need to look at the costs.

If the public thinks it is such a big issue let them care for people. They arn't inputing into the economy anyway. Their lives arn't "good" anway why prolong a longer life of dislike of life? If they can be treated at cost - sign a social contract

This stating that if money goes into a treatmen tof someone who can have an improved quality of life and input into the economy - then having them pay it back when they are making money.

Otherwise we are trying to house vegetables in mansions when a box will do just fine since they are "out of touch" with life anyway. What is it - they know or they don't know? FIT care of vegetables to the property variety not a plethora of what have you - and vegatbles don't need doctors unless they are seriously injured. Managed social care will do much better at a much lower cost and provide jobs and free up over worked so stated medical persons. Divert long term care out of hospitals and institutions being funded publicly.

The vegetable issue remains on the table - families don't want to get stuck with the costs - but they should be put to use - but if it is just a body what is the issue? If people want a pet human then why not let them pay for it.

How many vegetables are there in Canada?

If you want people to be free - let them live free. Why are people paying for people to do nothing?

Of the 1 in 10 canadians with mental illness - I bet you atleast 75% or more even 95% could lead functionable lives without medication after some psychological adjustment.

1 in 10 is 3 million - supporting even 5% of 3 million is 150,000 or only 1.5 billion dollars to provide basic care..

$1.5 billion dollars that is all it takes to remove mentally impaired induced poverty (as a segment to remove medical care - and put in social care in its place). BY providng social housing

that is around $50 per person or about $100 per income earner.

The key maxim here is that if you leave people infront of doctors especially psychiatrists they will find problems - when long hair and not showering daily are grounds for mental health issue in men (normal people in ancient times wouldn't even bath in a river until christianity hit russia for instance) Yet was the toality of the population mentally ill back then no - so why is it an indication of mental health. Toothpaste didn't even exist until manufacturers had to get rid of flouride in the turn of the last century ---- clue in --- it is quackery not medical science involved here.

The easy way of determining who needs a piece of that 1.5 billion is to see who ends back in hospital with life threatening medical issues and seeing who stays out of hospital once they have it - the ones who don't might need further treatment as it is a clear sign of mental impairment. This same system could be used for non mentally impaired people also -or perhaps just a gauge of luckiness.

TO END POVERTY YOU MUST EMPLOY PEOPLE PRODUCTIVELY WITHIN A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF NON IMPOVERISHMENT THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT - THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO END POVERTY.

Edited November 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes the days when handshake was enought to sell a house are gone.

Nice rose coloured glasses you've got there.

[August1991]

In all honesty your contention seems to be that immigrants from other countries are what exactly? More likely to have friends and family? I'd agree with that since most immigrants are coming from places which have a much higher degree of social interconnectedness than Canada with its nesting, stay-at-home, leave-me-alone culture.

Argus, if that's how you want to view this - then go ahead. But at least you agree with my basic point that most homeless people in Canada are native born.

"Social interconnectedness"? What a gawdawful phrase. If I understand you properly, I tend to disagree. IMHO, most immigrants are in a new place with no connections except for a few other compatriots of varying degrees of honesty/compatibility, often struggling to get along too.

I think you are missing a key ingredient. These immigrants did not come to Canada to sleep on the streets here.

It's always difficult to generalize about humans, but I think you have to look at some of the cultural differences between immigrants and non-immigrants to understand more about this problem. In particular, the family unit and how important it is to different groups. Because it is fairly well established that many homeless suffer from mental illness, depression, breakdown and finally rejection of normal living in society, what is it that makes it more of a problem for non-immigrants. Or so it seems to be, statisticaly no one has really backed that up. But the impression I have as I walk through the streets of many Canadian cities from Halifax to Vancouver more or less agrees with this observation. I think the family unit plays a major role in alleviating the problem that leads to mental breakdown and finally homelessness. Family provides a support mechanism. One could also look at divorce rates across different cultures and maybe see a similar pattern. But of course as I first said that is not necessarily always the case, there are exceptions.

I'm talking about this- In our western liberal "me first" culture, the prpblems of other people don't matter. If you make a mistake, that's your problem. Not mine. I will help myself to what's good for me, and ignore the plight of others. And if someone offends me, I will not forgive them. Because I think I am very important, infallable and better than you.

SB, I like your post to a degree but I feel that you take a similar direction as Argus. We're back at "social interconnectedness" or family. WTF?

In Montreal, some people sleeping in the metro are native Indians - and native Indians have an extensive family/clan structure. I could be wrong, but I don't think that this is a critical issue.

----

IMV, some people make bad decisions in life. Repetitively. They don't seem to learn. If they are members of good, smart families, they might learn the errors of their ways but it's just as possible that their good, smart families will disown them.

Governments now take care of these people. And since the government can't disown them, we have more of them.

Dunno.

Edited November 2, 2010 by August1991