It's always been a crime to be poor, all around the world. The "have-nots" are displaced and unwanted by the "haves". The tradition of vagrancy laws persists, and it's only in the last hundred years we've done away with debtors prisons. Local laws are not socially enlightened because they're designed to protect the property values and tax base for the community. You could draw rough parallels to anchoring laws, but the fact remains that whether the disadvantaged population are criminalized or socialized, the disadvantaged are a problem for those who have property to protect, and who view the "have-nots" as a risk and a drain on the community. The myriad of social and ethical issued surrounding this abounds, and the circumstances of each individual are different. You have the people with mental/social disorders and handicaps and substance abuse problems who are unemployable or don't "fit in" for whatever reason, and you have the issue in some locals of just not enough food/jobs/affordable housing. Then in some regions there is war or political/social issues that turn displaced peoples into refugees who forage and steal to survive. Then there is the separate issue of what to do with people who are poor and too old or too unhealthy to work.

When you see a person on a sidewalk grate holding a cup out, or someone in a derelict boat, what do you do for them? Some of us feel uncomfortable and avoid them or just do nothing. Some of us contribute in some small way, others volunteer in a significant way and others dedicate their lives to improving the circumstances of the underclass. In most cases the simple answer is "it depends", as every situation is different.