> If it is truly de-jure illegal to be poor now, you'd be able to point at a law on the books which says that.
Boise recently had to deal with this.
Passed a law that said it was illegal to sleep on the streets or public property if a shelter bed was available.
Problem? No shelter beds were generally available but two religious shelters said they were "always available", even when they had no actual beds. Ergo, police made arrests because the shelters were available, even if, factually, there wasn't. That the shelters SAID there were was enough for the police to arrest.
Adding to the problem was both of those shelters required both attendance AND participation in multiple religious ceremonies per day as a requisite of you being there, even if there did happen to be a bed.
So now you had a situation where the police were able to arrest homeless for refusing to go to these shelters, which may not have beds available, and that forced religious participation to be there.
That was a law that made it onto the books, until it was rightfully challenged. But the fact it made it to legislation in the first place is problematic.
If you staying in someone's house you generally have to follow their rules. Unless said rules are... over the top. Is attendance and - at least token - participation in religious activity considered over the top? What if it was a case of starvation instead of (or in addition to) the homelessness?
That isn't there case though. You're being subject to arrest for failing to use an available shelter. The religious conditions are a side effect. Similar to how taking a dump is a side effect of eating, and so if you want to avoid taking one, you'd have to avoid eating, but you have to deal with the prospect of death as a consequence. You don't die from not taking a dump (usually), but from not eating.
Well, it turned out it was the case, and as it wound through the appeals process, this was upheld, because when the City knows that this is happening and continues to enforce, it becomes a de facto situation, that the Court specifically called out in their decision:
> A city cannot, via the threat of prosecution, coerce an individual to attend religion-based treatment programs
-- Judge Marsha S. Berzon, for 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Sure. I don't see a problem if the work is within reasonable parameters. This is a private entity offering use of their property under reasonable terms.
Keep in mind this was also how a lot of jim crow laws worked.
ex. it's illegal to be unemployed (enforced against blacks) where unemployed included self-employment. So now you have a large population that is forced to work for any wage or get throw in prison where they're forced into work detail anyways.
Wha? No, that's literally not true: Taking a de facto situation and making it more intense doesn't magically transmute it into de jure.
If it is truly de-jure illegal to be poor now, you'd be able to point at a law on the books which says that.