Select Page

Welcome to progressive housing — Tent City USA

Welcome to progressive housing — Tent City USA

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has announced plans to construct a “tent city” in a beachside parking lot in the Bronx to house up to 1000 migrants.

Tent cities were icons in American major cities during the Great Depression. The tents and shanties set up at the onset of the Depression were dubbed “Hoovervilles” after President Hoover, who was in office in 1929 when the stock market crashed and the decade-long Depression began.

As a product of severe economic distress, it is ironic that tent cities would be needed when the economy is doing so well – at least that is the word from President Biden and the Democrats.

We have seen the beginning of tent housing in such cities as Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. to accommodate the growing throngs of homeless folks who are apparently not recognizing that allegedly great economy. Unlike the Adams’ plan, the shanty homeless shelters in many cities were not erected by the municipal governments, but by individuals basically taking up public or private property.

The other distinction between the tent cities popping up in recent years is that they are mostly for homeless American citizens. The Adams’ tent city will be for a special class of homeless individuals – those who crossed the American border to seek asylum – or not.

Progressives see no problem with open borders because they say the millions of folks coming to America have a legal right to claim asylum – and can legally stay in America as their cases are adjudicated. If they are deemed to be ineligible for asylum, they will be deported. If they do not leave, they are then illegal aliens. The 500,000 “get-aways” who have entered the United States are automatically illegal aliens – and that is only the ones that were seen escaping. According to Border Patrol, that is only a fraction of the real number.

So … how many of the 2 million migrants that have entered the United States since the start of the Biden administration are likely to be eligible for asylum – and eventual citizenship? Currently, it is running around 15 percent. That’s right! Up to 85 percent of those crossing the border are not likely to win their asylum cases. Even so, most will not leave the United States once they settle in — and they will settle in since their claims will not be heard in court for years.  In the meantime,  Uncle Sam will be a very generous host.

And that is why Mayor Adams needs a tent city. But will it work out? Probably not well.

First of all, these kinds of oppressive housing conditions never work out well. With at least 1000 migrants jammed into that parking lot, there will be crimes and violence. People getting high or drunk – or just bad people among the residents. Crime and violence will flow into the nearby neighborhoods. That is why the neighbors are already enraged.

Once a New York winter sets in, the conditions in the tents will be awful.  And to make matters worse, the location of Adam’s tent facilities is a designated hazardous flood zone.  Perhaps that is less of a problem for people who survived crossing the Rio Grande River.

Adams plans his tent city for 1000 people, but it is almost certain to exceed that number by a lot – maybe even double. And given the number of migrants flowing into America, I am betting that Adams will have to find more locations for his tent cities.

You see … the problem Is NOT the number of qualified asylum seekers coming to America. Hell … we need them. It is the number that jumps the border and gets away with no intention of seeking asylum — and the number who get into America and stay but are not eligible under American law to receive asylum – who cause the problem. We have laws to cover that, but Democrats do not want those laws enforced.

Folks can seek asylum in their home nations. If that is not an option in some cases, President Trump had an agreement with Mexico that they would stay there until their cases were adjudicated. If prospective asylum seekers knew in advance that they would have to linger in Mexico while their cases are heard, experts say it would significantly reduce the number of travelers.

There are a number of ways to secure the border, but it takes political determination.  Instead, Washington wants to keep the problem alive as a political football.  In the meantime, invest in tents.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So, there ‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of businessman, conservative writer and political strategist Larry Horist. Larry has an extensive background in economics and public policy. For more than 40 years, he ran his own Chicago based consulting firm. His clients included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. Larry professional emphasis has been on civil rights and education. He was consultant to both the Chicago and the Detroit boards of education, the Educational Choice Foundation, the Chicago Teachers Academy and the Chicago Academy for the Performing Arts. Larry has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and has lectured at colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern and DePaul. He served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. Larry has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries have appeared on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by audiences for his style, substance and sense of humor. Larry retired from his consulting business to devote his time to writing. His books include a humorous look at collecting, “The Acrapulators’ Guide”, and a more serious history of the Democratic Party’s role in de facto institutional racism, “Who Put Blacks in That PLACE? -- The Long Sad History of the Democratic Party’s Oppression of Black Americans ... to This Day”. Larry currently lives in Boca Raton, Florida.

12 Comments

  1. Tom

    I agree. Democrats have made a big mess and it will be hard to clean up!

    • Micala

      A big mess???? Do you live in a border city? If not, you have no idea of what they have to deal with! People stealing, trampling down their crops, destroying their fences, scaring their children, etc. Then there are the high number of criminals, terrorists, human traffickers, rapists, etc coming inside our nation and going anywhere they damn well please — even to your neighborhood or my neighborhood!!

      The issue with democrats is “LACK OF INTELLIGENCE”! Yes, they are basically stupid which is exactly what the guy behind the curtain wants — D U M B. AS. D I R T !! And they are exactly that. But the guy behind all the destructive actions that biddyboy has done IS NOT DUMB BUT SHARP AND MANIPULATIVE! He knows what it will take to destroy America and is doing a good job!

      The only way to remove these ignorant fools, is to find out who the man behind the curtains is and destroy him, deport him, arrest him, etc and remove him from that place of power! Once that is done, Joeboy will falter and collapse leaving an opening for the real 2020 Election winner to step in and assume the Presidency, Donald J Trump!

      Believe me, that is exactly what needs to happen OR WE LOSE OUR NATION TO A BUNCH OF POWER HUNGRY GLOBALISTS THAT DON’T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT AMERICANS OR ANY OTHER PEOPLES OF OUR WORLD! It’s all about POWER AND CONTROL FOR THEM, not about life itself.

      Time for the Globalists to become UNIVERSALISTS and be kicked to Pluto, our furthest planet in our solar system! They can govern Pluto and it’s GASES — they’ll fit right in!!

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … Thanks for the fact checking that basically support the 15% . You apparently did not comprehend what you read. First the fact check did not say the figure was wrong, but that it was clear based on government accounting nuance. It said that the percentage of folks who officially had their claims denied in court at about 31%. They discounted those they said dropped their claim realizing they would not qualify. Then there are those who never even kept their court date. And what about the get-always? Statistically, all those were people how came here and initially claimed Asylum — or refused to claim asylum — and were ineligible. That is the relevant number — the number who crossed the border and were ineligible for asylum. You, on the other hand, disregard the millions of ineligible arrivals who do not get officially denied in court. The important figure is how may folks who arrived initially were ineligible FOR ANY REASON. That is the relevant figure. As is the number who were ineligible and are still in the country. This is again a reading comprehension analytical ability issue. Sorry …. BUSTED BEYOND REPAIR..

      • frank stetson

        Wow, it was almost a discussion until you launched the personal attack about my reading skills. You claim “it was clear based on government accounting nuance,” a weasel wording way of indicating your spinful use of “nuanced” statistics. The article leads with Portman said: “only 15% of them qualify” for asylum. But government statistics aren’t that clear-cut” indicating your 15% is not a clear-cut fact. To which you say I am TOTALLY wrong.

        First, the article says most turn up for court: “88% of all immigrants in immigration court with completed or pending removal cases over the past eleven years attended all of their court hearings.” The analysis of government data also revealed that 95% of nondetained individuals who filed for asylum or other forms of relief from removal attended all of their court hearings over the same time period from 2008 to 2018, the authors said.”

        Second, it added: “Also, to get the 15% grant rate for asylum cases in fiscal year 2019, government officials factored in tens of thousands of people who were neither granted nor denied asylum, including the nearly 40% of people who didn’t file for asylum after a “credible fear” interview with asylum officers. “

        So, yeah, you can get to 15% IF you count all the people neither denied/granted asylum and 40% of those who never filed for asylum. So, yeah, you can get there if you count things outside the scope. And I believe your SCOPE is asylum seekers, no?

        The authors conclude: “But the issue of who is granted and denied asylum is more complicated than both Portman’s and Graham’s claims suggest, experts told us,” meaning you accepted the simple spin of Portman and Graham because Republicans avoid the complex truth in light of artful spin that adds to their fearmongering. And after seeing said spin, you doubled down on that “nuanced” statistic. Simple, eh?

        The authors go on to say: “But experts we interviewed said it’s wrong to assume that all who were not granted asylum didn’t have a valid claim, as the senators’ claims may suggest.” It’s wrong to assume……it’s wrong. The authors then postulated the correct number which you do not use. Why not use the correct number as noted by the experts who indicated that the number you are using are, in your words “nuanced,” and in the experts’ words: “it’s wrong to assume that all who were not granted asylum didn’t have a valid claim, as the senators’ claims may suggest.” There’s no nuance there, they say “it’s wrong.”

        I don’t know why you can not admit this in your discussion and why you would double down on your “nuanced” statistic. As the great Arlo Guthrie once penned about Nixon: “if you didn’t know about that one, well then what else don’t you know.”

        REPAIRED.

        • larry Horist

          Frank Stetson … You are uneducable. Unfortunately, I cannot respond in crayon, but lets try this. The issue is WHAT IS THE PERCENT OF MIGRANTS WHO CROSS THE BORDER THAT ARE ELIGLBLE FOR ASYLUM? The statistics suggest that more than 80 percent are not — in fact or by virtue of not applying. Appearing in court is the determinant of eligibility. No show … no eligibility. Whether they have been denied in court … never showed up in court … or simple were get-always. You cling to the absurdity that ONLY those officially denied asylum in court count are ineligible. If you do not show in in court, you are deemed to be an illegal alien. Even worse, you agree with the ridiculous statement that the rest are somehow eligible even though they did not make that plea in court. You seem to be arguing that all those who did not appear in court to have their claim adjudicated are legal and should be allowed to stay.

          Let’s try a simple example. The Constitution say that any native born citizen of 35 years of age can run for President. But you cannot run unless you file the proper papers to prove your eligibility. Without the papers, you are not eligible to run — even as a write-in.

          You proffer such a stupid argument that it is beneath even your normal level of thinking. BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR … AND UNDEDUCABLE.

          • frank stetson

            Wow, the personal attacks are mounting up, somebody has some knotted knickers. Now I am a broken, unrepairable stupid person who is “UNDEDUCABLE.” That misspelling will never get old.

            In truth, your personal attack is misdirected — I am quoting experts, meaning you are actually denigrating a University of Pennsylvania Law Review, a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. in Politics and East Asian Studies from Brandeis University holder, a PhD, University of Washington who is now a statistician and professor at Syracuse’s Whitman School of Management, a professor of law at the UCLA with a BA, Princeton University and a JD from Harvard, and another B.A. Yale, M.A. Princeton University, and J.D. UCLA. Nice job, what a bunch of broken, unrepairable, stupid, UNDEDUCABLE people, in your opinion . What’s in your wallet? Some small, private off-center college in bohunk America?

            Your statement, that I contested, was asylum grants are running around 15 percent. That’s right! Up to 85 percent of those crossing the border having border encounters are not likely to win their asylum cases.

            I was ONLY going after the 15% bogus statistic you use, but don’t source. You claim “it was clear based on government accounting nuance,” a weasel wording way of indicating your spinful use of “nuanced” statistics.

            You say: “In order to not have the economy overrun, we need to admit only ELIGIBLE asylum seekers – which is only about 15 percent of those crossing the border seeking asylum.” So, your comment is that of all people seeking asylum, only 15% are actually eligible meaning 85% would be deemed not eligible and therefore would be expulsed immediately. Problem solved? Of course not.

            You add in: “The 500,000 “get-aways” who have entered the United States are automatically illegal aliens – and that is only the ones that were seen escaping” for which you have no source, no link, no time frame, nada. Where did this number of 500,000 illegal aliens come from?

            The article, penned by experts, leads with how Senator Portman said: “only 15% of them qualify” for asylum. But, as the government statistics show, as proven by real experts, aren’t that clear-cut” indicating your 15% is not a clear-cut fact. To which you say I am TOTALLY wrong. Again, I am only focused on what you, and the experts say, about Portman’s 15% claim which you admit is a “nuanced” statistic.

            The rest of your math is built on this bogus foundation meaning your fruit is from a poisonous data tree. I will cover your fake math in a later tome but wanted to keep this simple and on the major point in contention. No need to respond. I know you still think you are right, you are better than these experts with your vast knowledge of our immigration statistics. You supported Portman’s “nuanced” numbers notwithstanding.

            Of course, your headfirst dive into personal attacks diminishes your ability to make a solid case if you have to stoop to that.

          • frank stetson

            I did take a look and until you source and define what you mean about the 2M arrivals since the start of Biden, no one can really assess what you are saying.

            Do you mean border encounters OR all immigrants entered the US?

            Source?

            I take it it’s for 2021 and 2022?

    • spaceman spiff

      Frank, you are so full of it.

  2. Frank stetsoN

    Yeah, the truth can be a bummer to those livin the lie.

    Hope you feel better after that.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … now sure to whom your are referring. I assume spaceman spiff. If so you are in the wrong thread. If you check, I think you are responding to yourself above …lol

  3. frank stetson

    So, there ‘tishit.

    I commend the author formerly known as Larry for actually using some numbers, statistics, to prove his point, but I can see why he typically avoids facts. He’s put them together here in an incomprehensible fashion with more apples n oranges than a Hale Groves catalog.

    The author states: “how many of the 2 million migrants that have entered the United States since the start of the Biden administration are likely to be eligible for asylum – and eventual citizenship? Currently, it is running around 15 percent. That’s right! Up to 85 percent of those crossing the border are not likely to win their asylum cases. Even so, most will not leave the United States once they settle in — and they will settle in since their claims will not be heard in court for years. In the meantime, Uncle Sam will be a very generous host.”

    First, the famed foundation of only 15% of those crossing the border will win the asylum cases is a bogus number that the author, Larry, Mr. Horist, calls a “nuanced” statistic. With a straight face :>) Nuanced. It’s actually — bogus as noted by: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/factchecking-claims-about-asylum-grants-and-immigration-court-attendance/ where the EXPERTS state: “government statistics aren’t that clear-cut” going on to explain how Larry’s “nuances” mean the 15% is a bogus number. Worse yet he uses the nebulous “crossing the border” as his denominator when he knows a large majority of these encounters, sometimes over 50%, will be immediately expulsed. Not as if they are released into the US and Larry knows it.

    Then Larry says that the US will be the generous host for the 85% that cross but don’t get asylum — he does not define what that means, hosting? It plays on your fears that hoards of new immigrants are freeloaders bleeding the tax coffers dry, neither is true. That’s why he can not define what freebies immigrants get because the refugee assistance program nets about $350 a month or $470 for a couple —– not enough to get by and only for 8 months. Yes, we will provide education for the kids, and that does cost a bundle, at the local level, which is entirely unfair to border states. Obviously, bus rides and plane rides are provided by the States of Texas, Florida, and Confusion.

    Then he pulls this one, apparently out of his ass: “The 500,000 “get-aways” who have entered the United States are automatically illegal aliens – and that is “….only the ones that were seen escaping. According to Border Patrol, that is only a fraction of the real number.” Who knows when or where this number is from. He makes it sound like the border patrol is counting them as they run over the hill. And apparently they miss a lot….. WTF? Source? Timeframe?

    Then he waltzes into: “So … how many of the 2 million migrants that have entered the United States since the start of the Biden administration are likely to be eligible for asylum – and eventual citizenship?” OK, this is entered…which should be asylum seekers, but we don’t really know, might it include the 500,000 spotted running-over-the-hill types? Encounters? It’s from 2021 to when, now? EOY? There is no way to check Larry’s assumptive math since the main number is under-defined and pretty whack to begin with. Because if it’s encounters —- his 85% remain gets shot down right at the border as a huge percentage, some year’s being most, are expulsed immediately. No sources of course.

    At this point, I have to stop because Larry’s statistic salad has no sources, few timeframes, and what appears to be a whole lot of garbage estimates like the 15% he keeps hanging his hat on which is bogus, as noted by experts, above. He keeps doubling down on this, repeating it, using it in his estimates, even as he admits his foundation is based on “nuanced” statistics. His words, not mine.

    I am sure he will come back with his famed retort: “everyone knows it, just look it up, stupid.” Afterall, personal attacks is all he has got, his facts, as noted here, are feckless. Until at least he provides a source, a link, a timeframe, a definition…..something more than what pulling numbers out of your ass offers.

  1. What, Larry? With Election Day so close and the margin is closer still you choose Biden for your whipping person…