Why do/should squatters have rights?

[Saiwana]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ights.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... antes.html

In a now viral TikTok video, an illegal immigrant has suggested that because squatters have rights in all 50 US states, that it is fair game for illegal immigrants to invade US homes and later sell the house if the person with the deed or mortgage fails to have the resources or wherewithal to evict people who illegally break and enter into their home/property in a timely manner. With squatters often claiming ownership with fake leases or deeds that tie up the courts and drag on the process for years (if it is a blue state). Your home for most people, is supposed to be your castle or safe living space from the outside world and what is most commonly your biggest investment. With owners finding it more difficult to proactively remove or deter squatters, this dream is in jeopardy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTVvvgoIMQ0

Even TYT is seemingly admitting that what is going on with squatters rights laws in progressive jurisdictions is a load of BS. Is it perhaps possible that if illegal immigrants catch on to real estate laws that are overly permissive or generous to people that squat in houses that it will perpetuate a nation-wide squatting crisis/epidemic that will crash the housing market or send property values plummeting if deeds in general become perceived that they're no longer worth the paper they're written on if the rights it is supposed to confer to individuals doesn't enjoy enough protection/enforcement under the legal system? With plenty of state/local governments like those in California or New York trying to figure out ways to get illegal migrants into the US "free money" (something that US citizens and legal residents don't even get), what do you think of the current situation? Do you see it getting any worse or better?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/squatters-bo ... sly-passed

In Florida for example, there was been legislation moving towards taking away squatter's rights and giving more protections to real estate owners but falling short of invalidating "adverse possession" altogether, which is when a person happens to be able to occupy a house, make improvements and pay taxes on it, but take ownership of the entire property if the person with the deed fails to protect/enforce their rights to the property/land like when some company/individual fails to enforce their copyright on a work they produced. My take is that it probably happened to one or two legislators and only then did they recognize the problem and felt any need to act.

Has squatting ever happened to you or have you (legally) taken someone else's property before? Where do you stand on the issue, who do you believe is morally in the right? What are the logistics of how real estate should work in your view? Discuss. Frankly, I find "adverse possession" as a concept to be utterly ridiculous, how can any property be considered "abandoned" in cases where the owner is current on their property taxes or hasn't let the property deteriorate enough as to be condemned?

Update: There is now rumor that the Venezuelan migrant influencer on TikTok that went viral and caused waves about this issue, is allegedly on the run as a fugitive from deportation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXtK-ZO ... Kk&index=2
Update 2: In what is possibly a final update to this story, Leonel Moreno the migrant influencer from TikTok has been arrested. What do you suppose will happen to him? Deportation or detention? What should his fate be?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -tips.html
Update 3: Georgia is apparently following Florida's lead in changing their laws on real estate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4qUOZW8WlA

[DataDyneIrkenAlliance]

Adverse possession takes between three and 20 years before the squatter can claim the property as their own. Many states require them to pay taxes on it as well. I think if an owner is so unaware as to not notice a squatter they are unfit to own the property in the first place and the person getting the most use out of it should keep it as their own imo.

[Rehy]

Adverse possession takes between three and 20 years before the squatter can claim the property as their own. Many states require them to pay taxes on it as well. I think if an owner is so unaware as to not notice a squatter they are unfit to own the property in the first place and the person getting the most use out of it should keep it as their own imo.

Second this. If your owning a building and doing absolutely nothing with it, someone else should have it.

[Saiwana]

Adverse possession takes between three and 20 years before the squatter can claim the property as their own. Many states require them to pay taxes on it as well. I think if an owner is so unaware as to not notice a squatter they are unfit to own the property in the first place and the person getting the most use out of it should keep it as their own imo.

Second this. If your owning a building and doing absolutely nothing with it, someone else should have it.

You're not allowed to steal anything else like someone's car, so why should someone taking over an unoccupied home be considered valid if the consequence of that being true is that it undermines the principle that it is your property/land to do as you want with if the taxes are current and it isn't condemned? Especially if it isn't the 1600s anymore and there is no more unclaimed land to be had? Or people going to the western frontier for opportunity but failing to return because they died along the way? There are plenty of corporations for example, that hold property and do nothing with it, but generally aren't vulnerable to the same squatting problems as individuals are.

The illegal migrant in the video suggests that under status quo, he and other people he invites in could scale a mass squatting ring into a business, as a way of gaming the system.

[Narland]

It depends on the definition which varies from country to country and (US) state to state. In some jurisdictions a squatter is de facto a criminal trespasser, and in others it is could be (for a lack of a better term) a homesteader improving an abandoned property. The atrocity that was the tenant laws in Ireland at the turn of the last century that got my great great grandfather's first family massacred by the IRA for the offense of Farming while Presbyterian should never be forgotten. Food growers first or famine. I used to think that Communists were just confused with their zeal for a utopia to understand the principle, but the older I get the more I realize Marxists are just wickedly evil and willfully use the politics of envy to thrive on the subjugation and murder of others for their own political agenda -- Destruction of property rights by protecting criminals under the guise of squatter's rights to vilify the right to property is one of those tactics.

Squatters who can show actual abandonment and show intent to improve and conserve the property (with proof of said improvement) should be granted the same protection of laws as anyone else, especially if the property in question has been deliberately held dead handed by a bank, corporation or government agency out of reach of the citizenry. This is a noble endeavor and not a problem imnsho.

Squatters who use the law to out of indifference, hate, or spite for their own selfish gain to willingly deprive someone else of their property are not good intentioned. They are criminals by definition and have shown that they are a danger to others. They should be removed from the property post haste, and held for observation to make sure they are not a danger to themselves as well. If shown competent to stand trial, promptly tried in a duly constituted court of lawful jurisdiction by a jury of the accused peers.

Where I live this is the primary statute:

TITLE 5
PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIL ACTIONS IN COURTS OF RECORD
CHAPTER 2

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
5-210. ORAL CLAIM — POSSESSION DEFINED — PAYMENT OF TAXES. For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession, by a person claiming title not founded upon a written instrument, judgment or decree, land is deemed to have been possessed and occupied in the following cases only:
(1) Where it has been protected by a substantial enclosure.
(2) Where it has been usually cultivated or improved.
Provided, however, that in no case shall adverse possession be considered established under the provisions of any sections of this code unless it shall be shown that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of twenty (20) years continuously, and the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors, have paid all the taxes, state, county or municipal, which have been levied and assessed upon such land according to law. Provided further, that adverse possession shall not be considered established under the provisions of any sections of this code if a written instrument has been recorded in the real estate records kept by the county recorder of the county in which the property is located and such written instrument declares that it was not the intent of a party to such instrument, by permitting possession or occupation of real property, to thereby define property boundaries or ownership. Provided further, that for purposes of establishing adverse possession pursuant to this section, a person claiming adverse possession must present clear and convincing evidence that the requirements of subsection (1) or (2) of this section have been met.
History:
[(5-210) C.C.P. 1881, sec. 150; R.S., R.C., & C.L., sec. 4043; C.S., sec. 6603; I.C.A., sec. 5-210; am. 2001, ch. 290, sec. 2, p. 1028; am. 2006, ch. 158, sec. 5, p. 475.]

[Infected Mushroom]

Trespass and illegal immigration are both problems that need to be taken seriously. Border security is important.

If these things are happening, then the police must be deployed to deal with it. Decisively and effectively.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Think of it as manifest destiny.

[Kerwa]

This is because you can’t actually own property in most common law jurisdictions. You at most have title and possession. There’s always a superior landlord and he’s a cunt. Squatters are simply people who have occupied the property long enough (usually 30days) to have established possession and therefore are no longer trespassers. As such they have to be evicted using landlord tenant law rather than shooting them. A lot depends on your local police department.

Actually, given the state’s ability to create contraband and confiscate stuff you can’t “own” anything. Score one for the marxists.

[Paddy O Fernature]

No, simply put and the lawful owner of said property should be able to lawfully remove and charge any and all trespassers from their property.

[San Lumen]

No they should have zero rights at all.

[Grinning Dragon]

No they shouldn't. Theft is theft.
Imagine going on vacation only to return to a house full of parasites (in this case a gang of drug dealers), like the woman in Arizona and the police said their hands were tied, but she still has to pay for the electricity, water, sewage, mortgage etc. or face criminal penalties.
Same with a Florida vet who came home from overseas rotation a few years back, took months to kick out the cunts.

[Repreteop]

if im going to keep a house and someone breaks in and tries living there, they better hope its not in a stand your ground state.



*laughs maniacally*

i would never actually harm a soul

the fact that some of these squatters kill the homeowners is pretty horrible.

[HISPIDA]

the vast majority of properties squatters live in aren't even used for anything. might as well let them have it.

or seize them and turn them into public housing.

[The Sovereign Republic of Sol]

Ban landbanking, introduce a land value tax
eliminate the housing crisis and the squatter "problem" at the same time

[Port Carverton]

Ban landbanking, introduce a land value tax
eliminate the housing crisis and the squatter "problem" at the same time

Alternatively, sell the homeless to Amazon so that they have 'free' labor for their warehouses

[Nordheimrr]

Adverse possession takes between three and 20 years before the squatter can claim the property as their own. Many states require them to pay taxes on it as well. I think if an owner is so unaware as to not notice a squatter they are unfit to own the property in the first place and the person getting the most use out of it should keep it as their own imo.

Second this. If your owning a building and doing absolutely nothing with it, someone else should have it.

No, they shouldn’t. We have a right to private property for a reason.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Second this. If your owning a building and doing absolutely nothing with it, someone else should have it.

No, they shouldn’t. We have a right to private property for a reason.

^ This.

People don't magically get a right to another persons lawful possessions that don't belong to them just because they feel entitled and think that they should.

Ban landbanking, introduce a land value tax
eliminate the housing crisis and the squatter "problem" at the same time

Alternatively, sell the homeless to Amazon so that they have 'free' labor for their warehouses

Amazon fills it's labor pool, the homeless get a wage, I get my packages on time, everyone wins.

[HISPIDA]

Second this. If your owning a building and doing absolutely nothing with it, someone else should have it.

No, they shouldn’t. We have a right to private property for a reason.

rights aren't permanent, though. if your "right" to private property tramples over somebody's more important "right", like housing or being able to have a comfortable life, then your "right" should be revoked.

shrimple as.

[Aduw]

At the end of the day, these are people. Especially since homeless people, or the less fortunate, have had it extremely difficult due to government policies.

However, I will also argue that squatters rights does feel kind of dismissive to a growing problem in the US; that of homelessness.
If we simply provided housing or, made it easier to find affordable shelter, I feel this squatting problem wouldn’t be as big as it is.
That’s my two cents lol

[The Aosta Valley]

No, they shouldn’t. We have a right to private property for a reason.

rights aren't permanent, though. if your "right" to private property tramples over somebody's more important "right", like housing or being able to have a comfortable life, then your "right" should be revoked.

shrimple as.

That's a pretty terrible policy. I don't care if someone's situation is worse than mine, I refuse to give up my rights.

You probably know my thoughts now, private property is yours for a reason, I strongly oppose squatting and squatters rights.

[Ifreann]

Nothing but respect for people who can take advantage of the law to put empty buildings to a better use than just being an entry in some asshole's portfolio.

---

No, they shouldn’t. We have a right to private property for a reason.

^ This.

People don't magically get a right to another persons lawful possessions that don't belong to them just because they feel entitled and think that they should.

It's not magic, dude, it's the law. Your lawful possessions can be lawfully taken away from you in various ways, and adverse possession is one of them. Skimming the wikipedia article on the topic, this legal concept goes back to the Romans. If anyone is trying to magically conjure new rights out of their feelings of entitlement it's you guys.

[Port Carverton]

Nothing but respect for people who can take advantage of the law to put empty buildings to a better use than just being an entry in some asshole's portfolio.

---

^ This.

People don't magically get a right to another persons lawful possessions that don't belong to them just because they feel entitled and think that they should.

It's not magic, dude, it's the law. Your lawful possessions can be lawfully taken away from you in various ways, and adverse possession is one of them. Skimming the wikipedia article on the topic, this legal concept goes back to the Romans. If anyone is trying to magically conjure new rights out of their feelings of entitlement it's you guys.

Being against eminent domain is one of the things liberals fought for in the 19th century. It's not a new concept to want private property rights to be respected

[Grinning Dragon]

No, they shouldn’t. We have a right to private property for a reason.

rights aren't permanent, though. if your "right" to private property tramples over somebody's more important "right", like housing or being able to have a comfortable life, then your "right" should be revoked.

shrimple as.

Except for the fact that there isn't an enumerated "right to housing", nor "comfortable living" in the US. It's also confusing that in part you say when someone's "right" tramples another, that somehow the person's "right" being trampled magically supersedes the other person's "right" That isn't how rights work.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

The government should be able to nationalize neglected buildings and/or there should be government grants to help the owners of the crumbling buildings to rebuild and repair them. Simple as

[Trump Almighty]

Nothing but respect for people who can take advantage of the law to put empty buildings to a better use than just being an entry in some asshole's portfolio.

---

It's not magic, dude, it's the law. Your lawful possessions can be lawfully taken away from you in various ways, and adverse possession is one of them. Skimming the wikipedia article on the topic, this legal concept goes back to the Romans. If anyone is trying to magically conjure new rights out of their feelings of entitlement it's you guys.

Being against eminent domain is one of the things liberals fought for in the 19th century. It's not a new concept to want private property rights to be respected

I think you are referring to LINOs (Liberals in Name Only).

Liberalism may have Free Market Origins, but there are also plenty of Radical Anarchists who believe everything should be State-Owned like in Cuba, where the concept of private property doesn’t exist! It’s very sad