Dehumanizing Houseless? — Is THIS ONLY WAY to “restore” a community in the Lakes Region?
This Blog Post is an immediate follow-up to yesterday’s post entitled: “Why we use the word “HOUSELESS” and not “HOMELESS” in Lakes Region Discussions” In that post Franklin D. Roosevelt was quoted on the subject that “WORDS MATTER” in a political policy discussion such as HOUSELESSNESS:
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way”.
In this context, please consider the following recent Executive Order. Using the faculty of Critical Thinking skills; perhaps ask what assumptions are being made in this order? What policy solutions are being offered in this order? And — WHY? — Those are important and relevant questions.
_________
[Edit: CAVEAT. This post bears upon certain provisions of Federal, State and local Orders, Statutes and ordinances. That said, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN IS INTENDED; NOR SHOULD IT BE CONSTRUED BY READERS, AS ANY FORM OF LEGAL ADVICE. Readers with any such questions are advised to seek counsel of their own choosing].
_________
Many readers may have recently heard about the Executive Order (July 24, 2025) which follows; yet an equal number of readers may not have read the actual text. TEAM CONNECTED has placed in bolded font WORDS WHICH DO MATTER; as requiring deep contemplative thought, and within the context; being WORDS (and phrases) — may or may not — apply to the HOUSELESS in the Lakes Region. Labels such as endemic, vagrancy, emergency, disorderly, sudden, violent, long-term institutional setting, and overwhelming majority (among others) have specific meanings and — these WORDS DO MATTER.
The False Premise of Endemic Vagrancy as a predicate for the declared “Emergency” (authorizing use of “Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance” funds, Section 3(b)(ii) below of the EO) in the Executive Order 2025-14391 (the “EO”) (see below):
SOURCE DOJ and BJA website: “The Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance (EFLEA) Program assists state and/or local government units in responding to extraordinary law enforcement emergencies by authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to grant funding to help alleviate the costs incurred by law enforcement agencies in responding to emergency law enforcement challenges.
Program Assistance Eligibility
Key determining factors for a law enforcement emergency that qualifies for EFLEA resources are a situation that could escalate into a law enforcement emergency of epidemic proportion and subsequently pose an imminent threat to public safety. The threat must be of sufficient magnitude to overwhelm a state or local government’s ability to respond to the threat. …” SOURCE LINK [Emphasis added]
[NOTE: As of September 3, 2025 when the source link was accessed — it states surprisingly: “Funding Opportunities” There are not currently any funding opportunities available through this program….” Underneath that statement the following subheading appears: “Examples of Recent Funding Awarded Through EFLEA” — and the 5 bulleted examples provided as examples previously funded as qualified “emergencies” — only represent responses to recent cases having nothing to do with HOUSELESS people and their communities.
The EO begins with the following statement of Purpose and Policy:
“Section 1 . Purpose and Policy. Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe. The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration—274,224—was the highest ever recorded. The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both. …”
First: Let’s tackle several Etymological Definitions of “WORDS THAT MATTER” used in this EO as predicates for this new policy shift:
vagrant(n.) mid-15c., vagraunt, "person who lacks regular employment, one without fixed abode, a tramp, a loafer," probably from Anglo-French vageraunt, also wacrant, walcrant, which is said in many sources to be a noun use of the past participle of Old French walcrer "to wander," from Frankish (Germanic) *walken, from the same source as Old Norse valka "wander" and English walk (v.). Under this theory the word was influenced by Old French vagant, vagaunt "wandering," from Latin vagantem (nominative vagans), past participle of vagari "to wander, stroll about" (see vagary). But on another theory the Anglo-French word ultimately is from Old French vagant, with an intrusive, unetymological -r-. Middle English also had vagaunt "wandering, without fixed abode" (late 14c.), from Old French vagant.
… In law the word vagrant has a much more extended meaning than that assigned to it in ordinary language, and in its application the notion of wandering is almost lost, the object of the statutes being to subject to police control various ill-defined classes of persons whose habits of life are inconsistent with the good order of society. [Century Dictionary, 1891]…” SOURCE LINK
Question: Are ALL HOUSELESS members of our local communities VAGRANTS -- that is; by this etymological meaning assigned to that word since the 13th-15th century? Specifically are ALL HOUSELESS in America ‘wandering human beings without a fixed abode?” What is an abode you may ask?
“abode(n.) mid-13c., "action of waiting," verbal noun from abiden "to abide" (see abide). It is formally identical to the old, strong past participle of abide (Old English abad), but the modern conjugation is weak and abided is used. The present-to-preterite vowel change is consistent with an Old English class I strong verb (ride/rode, etc.). The meaning "habitual residence" is attested by 1570s. … Entries linking to abode
abide(v.) Middle English abiden, from Old English abidan, gebidan "remain, wait, wait for, delay, remain behind," fro ge- completive prefix (denoting onward motion; see a- (1)) + bidan "bide, remain, wait, dwell" (see bide). Originally intransitive (with genitive of the object: we abidon his "we waited for him"); the transitive senses of "endure, sustain, stay firm under," also "tolerate, bear, put up with" (now usually with a negative) are from c. 1200. To abide with "stay with (someone); live with; remain in the service of" is from c. 1300. …” SOURCE LINK
Application to the EO?: There is Logical Fallacy of a “Sweeping Generalization” — that ALL HOUSELESS are a part of the “Endemic Vagrancy” declared to be extant in the EO as an “Emergency” authorizing grant funding and use under The Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance (EFLEA) Program:
“Sweeping Generalization: An argument is constructed in which a simplistic general rule is assumed to be more widely true, therefore an exception is ignored.
Examples:
Some cats are orange. Therefore all cats are orange.
Some people who own guns are murderers, therefore all gun-owners are murderers.
Some people who drive pick-up trucks are rednecks, therefore all people who drive pick-up trucks are rednecks.
Some rich people are parasitic, swindler greed-heads. Therefore they all are thus.
Weaknesses: This fallacy combines two mistakes:
· Ignoring evidence: Insisting on a simple rule (the sweeping generalization) when the situation calls for a more complex understanding.
· Counterexamples are usually easy to find that disprove the simple rule. One motivation for sweeping generalization may be a fear of more of the bad kind. So if some people of type X are bad, the arguer fears that more of the bad kind will take hold.
Sweeping generalizations are always and everywhere wrong: Including this one.
Nonsensical form: If it is already established that all X are Y, then a Sweeping Generalization is redundant. For instance, some men are taller than 3 inches, therefore all men are taller than 3 inches.” SOURCE LINK.
Returning to the EO:
The Executive Order is somewhat lengthy; however, one additional statement in Paragraph 1 is revealing for purpose of this Blog Post:
“… The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats. …”
Two weeks ago, TEAM CONNECTED posted: “Team Connected Blog | Four Solutions to Houselessness | But Do the Houseless Know?" [Full Title: “Team Connected Blog | Four Solutions to Houselessness | But Do the Houseless Know About Them? | Is There “Public Data” to Support Successes and Failures?”] In that post we identified as four HUD published solutions; being Federal and State funded grant programs (previously adopted in the Lakes Region) entitled:
One: “Shared Housing”;
Two: “Housing First”;
Three: “Progressive Engagement”; and
Four: “Rapid Re-Housing”.
According to the WORDS in the EO, are these now considered to be the “failed programs”? And if they are programs which are considered now as “failed” — that is; as not addressing root causes, — then what new HOUSELESS policies and programs — are the HOUSELESS and their current social workers and stakeholders now going to use for HOUSELESS guidance programs in the Lakes Region?
Are we now being informed Endemic Vagrancy exists in the Lakes Region a declared “Emergency” (authorizing use of “Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance” funds, Section 3(b)(ii) below of the EO) in the Executive Order 2025-14391 (the “EO”) presented below? And even is this may be the intention behind the EO is this “sweeping generalization” predicate of Endemic Vagrancy — actually — “evidence-based”? Is it true for ALL HOMELESS in the Lakes Region?
ANSWER? The only further policy guidance appears at the end of Section 1 of the EO where a brand new policy is announced — one of shifting the HOUSELESS by civil commitment to long-term institutional settings. But what generates the “civil committment” process?
Will it be law enforcement agents issuing eviction citations to HOUSELESS members of communities living in tents and other structures on land held in common by the people (ie. parks, unidentified “public land” tracts within city and town limits?
Will new eviction city ordinances mandating evictions result in misdemeanor violations generating new city revenue (fines), detentions (ie., as detainees in local jails) — rendering our HOMELESS community members subject to civil committment proceedings via plea bargains offered or otherwise?
If the answers to these questions is yes — who bears the cost of this process including inevitable individual; and class action litigation involving this new policy? (Section 3(b)(ii)
“… Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order. Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens. My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety…”
Other than Agenda 47, we have not been told what this new policy is being called (either federally or locally). We are not also told what happens if a community such as the Lakes Region does not have a suitable “long-term institutional setting”. Will the HOUSELESS (and their families) be bussed from their home community to some other county, city or town? Will HOUSELESS now be separated from their families and extended families?
Admittedly, this new “long-term institutional setting” program (ie., under a civil commitment order) has never been tried before in America; that is, as directed at HOUSELESS communities and their members. And if the four previous Federal and State grant funded programs failed — what evidence-based data — do we have in the Lakes Region that this new program will succeed? That question is NOT RHETORICAL.
Section 1 . Purpose and Policy. Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe. The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration—274,224—was the highest ever recorded. The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both. Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions. The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.
Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order. Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens. My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety…
… Sec. 3 . Fighting Vagrancy on America's Streets. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law:
(i) enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use;
(ii) enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering;
(iii) enforce prohibitions on urban squatting;
(iv) enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law; or
(v) substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.
(b) The Attorney General shall:
(i) ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment;
(ii) take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support, as consistent with 34 U.S.C. 50101 et seq., encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate;
(iii) assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals; and
(iv) enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.
Sec. 4 . Redirecting Federal Resources Toward Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to:
(i) ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm;
(ii) provide technical assistance to assisted outpatient treatment programs for individuals with serious mental illness or addiction during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks; and
(iii) ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.
(b) The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety. …” [Emphasis added.]
A Transition to Another Solution Without Fear
Readers are encouraged to navigate to the main landing page of TEAM CONNECTED to understand our calling and mission of educational outreach and presenting “Living Fearless” to individuals and small groups of HOUSELESS and other members of the Lakes Region community.
This is a starkly contrasting solution to HOUSELESS people compared to “Dehumanizing” HOUSELESS policies which are fear driven.
Some people learn better by listening, and others learn by reading. In this new blog post, readers can make a choice whether to listen to the video, or read the full transcript. The video and the transcript of it may encourage deep contemplative thought of readers on creative ways HOUSELESSNESS can be addressed at a root cause level.
