CDZ Could "billeting" be the answer?

[HenryBHough]

During World War II hundreds of thousands of American military personnel were set to Britain in the build-up to D-Day. There was insufficient housing for them all so a system of "billeting" was established so families with unused bedrooms were mandated to accept an American. I had an uncle who was "billeted" on a family in London. Our family sent them food parcels until well after the war and I had the pleasure of meeting them many years later.

The other side of the coin: During the period immediately before The American Revolution British soldiers were forcibly billeted on Americans. That didn't work out so well. But consider that in the 1700's scenario the military were there to oppress whereas in World War II they were there to help fight off an aggressor.

So here we are with an inflow of people, many of them unaccompanied children. Future Americans! How would you react were it mandated that all American families owning or renting homes with more bedrooms than family members be required to accept a new arrival? In the American/British World War II system most of the Americans ate meals with their host families. My uncle who was part of that is long since deceased so I have nobody to ask whether the host families were provided with any cash or grocery support or were expected to "provide".

Does anyone have direct knowledge of how that part of it worked?

Would those being "billeted" be seen as were the British in America in the 1700s? Or as the Americans in Britain in the 1940s? Or as something else altogether...and if so, as what?

Would enough Americans cooperate with a mandatory billeting system to make it work?

Could such a mandate be constitutional?

Please, serious discussion only!

 

[Oddball]

I'd suddenly have rooms for rent to Muricans.

 

[Darkwind]

I oppose billeting, even among allies.

If you want to move troops to a region, then house them away from the civilian population.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

During World War II hundreds of thousands of American military personnel were set to Britain in the build-up to D-Day. There was insufficient housing for them all so a system of "billeting" was established so families with unused bedrooms were mandated to accept an American. I had an uncle who was "billeted" on a family in London. Our family sent them food parcels until well after the war and I had the pleasure of meeting them many years later.

The other side of the coin: During the period immediately before The American Revolution British soldiers were forcibly billeted on Americans. That didn't work out so well. But consider that in the 1700's scenario the military were there to oppress whereas in World War II they were there to help fight off an aggressor.

So here we are with an inflow of people, many of them unaccompanied children. Future Americans! How would you react were it mandated that all American families owning or renting homes with more bedrooms than family members be required to accept a new arrival? In the American/British World War II system most of the Americans ate meals with their host families. My uncle who was part of that is long since deceased so I have nobody to ask whether the host families were provided with any cash or grocery support or were expected to "provide".

Does anyone have direct knowledge of how that part of it worked?

Would those being "billeted" be seen as were the British in America in the 1700s? Or as the Americans in Britain in the 1940s? Or as something else altogether...and if so, as what?

Would enough Americans cooperate with a mandatory billeting system to make it work?

Could such a mandate be constitutional?

Please, serious discussion only!

Yeah, wouldnt it be great that a knock comes to your door, there is Uncle Sugar with a couple of anchor babies who cant speak english, stink to high heaven, and then after a couple weeks you realize you just got the Kung Flu......You and your real family have to go to the hospital spend a few weeks in a ventilator, and when you get back home, your house has been taken over by Taco Bell....

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

During World War II hundreds of thousands of American military personnel were set to Britain in the build-up to D-Day. There was insufficient housing for them all so a system of "billeting" was established so families with unused bedrooms were mandated to accept an American. I had an uncle who was "billeted" on a family in London. Our family sent them food parcels until well after the war and I had the pleasure of meeting them many years later.

The other side of the coin: During the period immediately before The American Revolution British soldiers were forcibly billeted on Americans. That didn't work out so well. But consider that in the 1700's scenario the military were there to oppress whereas in World War II they were there to help fight off an aggressor.

So here we are with an inflow of people, many of them unaccompanied children. Future Americans! How would you react were it mandated that all American families owning or renting homes with more bedrooms than family members be required to accept a new arrival? In the American/British World War II system most of the Americans ate meals with their host families. My uncle who was part of that is long since deceased so I have nobody to ask whether the host families were provided with any cash or grocery support or were expected to "provide".

Does anyone have direct knowledge of how that part of it worked?

Would those being "billeted" be seen as were the British in America in the 1700s? Or as the Americans in Britain in the 1940s? Or as something else altogether...and if so, as what?

Would enough Americans cooperate with a mandatory billeting system to make it work?

Could such a mandate be constitutional?

Please, serious discussion only!

Yes, you should take several.

 

[Darkwind]

You know what billeting is?

It is a bunch of Palestinians and their military assets housed among the innocent Palestinian populace in the hopes that the enemy won't attack your position because your hiding behind some skirts.

 

[daveman]

The people who think open borders are a great idea would be disgusted if you asked them to take in foreign children.

 

[Auld Phart]

I'm torn on the subject.

I'm not fond of the idea of people illegally crossing the border, any of our borders,

BUT...


How many spare rooms does Pelosi have in her mansion?

or Swalwell?

Costa?

Schiff?

Feinstein?

Lee?

 

[Concerned American]

During World War II hundreds of thousands of American military personnel were set to Britain in the build-up to D-Day. There was insufficient housing for them all so a system of "billeting" was established so families with unused bedrooms were mandated to accept an American. I had an uncle who was "billeted" on a family in London. Our family sent them food parcels until well after the war and I had the pleasure of meeting them many years later.

The other side of the coin: During the period immediately before The American Revolution British soldiers were forcibly billeted on Americans. That didn't work out so well. But consider that in the 1700's scenario the military were there to oppress whereas in World War II they were there to help fight off an aggressor.

So here we are with an inflow of people, many of them unaccompanied children. Future Americans! How would you react were it mandated that all American families owning or renting homes with more bedrooms than family members be required to accept a new arrival? In the American/British World War II system most of the Americans ate meals with their host families. My uncle who was part of that is long since deceased so I have nobody to ask whether the host families were provided with any cash or grocery support or were expected to "provide".

Does anyone have direct knowledge of how that part of it worked?

Would those being "billeted" be seen as were the British in America in the 1700s? Or as the Americans in Britain in the 1940s? Or as something else altogether...and if so, as what?

Would enough Americans cooperate with a mandatory billeting system to make it work?

Could such a mandate be constitutional?

Please, serious discussion only!

NOPE. Not constitutional nor would I allow it in my home.

 

[HenryBHough]

I do see constitutional issues with government mandating billeting. Others among us feel no concern with esisting mandates many feel unconstitutional and criminal. Would the extreme need move them to extend that belief to a madatory system?

Whether voluntary or by diktat I still serious issues with placing children in that manner.

So how about no mandate but a voluntary system with very strict supervision of the homes that accept the very young? The sort of "foster" situation in which a goodly number of Americans are already participating? Some out of actual humanitarian concerns; some for the extra income it brings in though I will concede there are certain instances where the motivation might be......otherwise.

Does any such program exist? Would something like that need to be mandated, constitutional or not, so those advocating such a program become part of it?

I can recall times when I had a home with as many as 3 unused bedrooms and the extra income would have been quite beneficial. These days I have a small 1-bedroom house and no desire to have a bedmate. Of any gender.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Only people with lockable attics or basements should be obligated to take in the unwanted. Lock the door and forget them.

On the other hand pig farms might be able to take in two or three a week.

 

[Hossfly]

Billeting in the 3rd Amendment deals with soldiers living in civilians homes during peacetime.

Amdt3.1 Third Amendment: In General
Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
There has been no Supreme Court explication of this Amendment, which was obviously one guarantee indicating a preference for the civilian over the military.1

 

[MisterBeale]

I never thought we would be discussing the third amendment on USMB,

Strange days indeed.

 

[HenryBHough]

Billeting in the 3rd Amendment deals with soldiers living in civilians homes during peacetime.

Amdt3.1 Third Amendment: In General
Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
There has been no Supreme Court explication of this Amendment, which was obviously one guarantee indicating a preference for the civilian over the military.1

Thank you. I'll admit to not reading through the amendments. It is clear, though, that as written it pertains to soldiers. In the discussion at hand the individuals would be imposed on others by dkitat are civilian so I would not presume to guess whether the amendment would be of any interest to an activist court.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You could call older children street soldiers. Little ones could be abandoned at the mall. Someone will find them. Older teens could be prostituted out or just keep them full of drugs until they od.

 

[Hossfly]

Billeting in the 3rd Amendment deals with soldiers living in civilians homes during peacetime.

Amdt3.1 Third Amendment: In General
Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
There has been no Supreme Court explication of this Amendment, which was obviously one guarantee indicating a preference for the civilian over the military.1

Thank you. I'll admit to not reading through the amendments. It is clear, though, that as written it pertains to soldiers. In the discussion at hand the individuals would be imposed on others by dkitat are civilian so I would not presume to guess whether the amendment would be of any interest to an activist court.

The White House has asked Governors to put illegals in their homes. Governor Noem of SD told them NO.
So the DHS is spending $6 million a week to house, feed and put them in hotels.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Billeting in the 3rd Amendment deals with soldiers living in civilians homes during peacetime.

Amdt3.1 Third Amendment: In General
Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
There has been no Supreme Court explication of this Amendment, which was obviously one guarantee indicating a preference for the civilian over the military.1

Thank you. I'll admit to not reading through the amendments. It is clear, though, that as written it pertains to soldiers. In the discussion at hand the individuals would be imposed on others by dkitat are civilian so I would not presume to guess whether the amendment would be of any interest to an activist court.

The White House has asked Governors to put illegals in their homes. Governor Noem of SD told them NO.
So the DHS is spending $6 million a week to house, feed and put them in hotels.

California has asked that people voluntarily take in as many criminal invaders as they could. No questions asked. No background checks.

 

[HenryBHough]

California has asked that people voluntarily take in as many criminal invaders as they could. No questions asked. No background checks.

Ah, that's why so many cages are being throw up behind those Hollywood mansions!

Virtue signaling rules!

 

[Taz]

During World War II hundreds of thousands of American military personnel were set to Britain in the build-up to D-Day. There was insufficient housing for them all so a system of "billeting" was established so families with unused bedrooms were mandated to accept an American. I had an uncle who was "billeted" on a family in London. Our family sent them food parcels until well after the war and I had the pleasure of meeting them many years later.

The other side of the coin: During the period immediately before The American Revolution British soldiers were forcibly billeted on Americans. That didn't work out so well. But consider that in the 1700's scenario the military were there to oppress whereas in World War II they were there to help fight off an aggressor.

So here we are with an inflow of people, many of them unaccompanied children. Future Americans! How would you react were it mandated that all American families owning or renting homes with more bedrooms than family members be required to accept a new arrival? In the American/British World War II system most of the Americans ate meals with their host families. My uncle who was part of that is long since deceased so I have nobody to ask whether the host families were provided with any cash or grocery support or were expected to "provide".

Does anyone have direct knowledge of how that part of it worked?

Would those being "billeted" be seen as were the British in America in the 1700s? Or as the Americans in Britain in the 1940s? Or as something else altogether...and if so, as what?

Would enough Americans cooperate with a mandatory billeting system to make it work?

Could such a mandate be constitutional?

Please, serious discussion only!

I'd rather burn down my extra rooms rather than allow a baby MS-13 into my house.

 

[Blues Man]

During World War II hundreds of thousands of American military personnel were set to Britain in the build-up to D-Day. There was insufficient housing for them all so a system of "billeting" was established so families with unused bedrooms were mandated to accept an American. I had an uncle who was "billeted" on a family in London. Our family sent them food parcels until well after the war and I had the pleasure of meeting them many years later.

The other side of the coin: During the period immediately before The American Revolution British soldiers were forcibly billeted on Americans. That didn't work out so well. But consider that in the 1700's scenario the military were there to oppress whereas in World War II they were there to help fight off an aggressor.

So here we are with an inflow of people, many of them unaccompanied children. Future Americans! How would you react were it mandated that all American families owning or renting homes with more bedrooms than family members be required to accept a new arrival? In the American/British World War II system most of the Americans ate meals with their host families. My uncle who was part of that is long since deceased so I have nobody to ask whether the host families were provided with any cash or grocery support or were expected to "provide".

Does anyone have direct knowledge of how that part of it worked?

Would those being "billeted" be seen as were the British in America in the 1700s? Or as the Americans in Britain in the 1940s? Or as something else altogether...and if so, as what?

Would enough Americans cooperate with a mandatory billeting system to make it work?

Could such a mandate be constitutional?

Please, serious discussion only!

Third Amendment.