CDZ Could "billeting" be the answer?

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

You do know that applies only to military.
Taking in some young puta and renting her out might be beneficial.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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!

It's like they are advertising for pedophiles.

 

[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.

You do know that applies only to military.
Taking in some young puta and renting her out might be beneficial.

It's is still forcible quartering by the government.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

You do know that applies only to military.
Taking in some young puta and renting her out might be beneficial.

It's is still forcible quartering by the government.

I know. But the Constitution specifically says soldiers. It's not a third amendment issue.

 

[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.

You do know that applies only to military.
Taking in some young puta and renting her out might be beneficial.

It's is still forcible quartering by the government.

I know. But the Constitution specifically says soldiers. It's not a third amendment issue.

Maybe. But I'm sure there could be an argument that forced quartering of illegal immigrants would be unconstitutional

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

You do know that applies only to military.
Taking in some young puta and renting her out might be beneficial.

It's is still forcible quartering by the government.

I know. But the Constitution specifically says soldiers. It's not a third amendment issue.

Maybe. But I'm sure there could be an argument that forced quartering of illegal immigrants would be unconstitutional

I would hope so. This has never been done before. Rome didn't require Romans to house Alaric's invading barbarians.