Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My thoughts on a "Dreamer" compromise
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3075537" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>That heart beats so strongly that sometimes we actually codify it right into the text. Most people know the term "squatter's rights," some might even know it's legal (as in, recognized by the courts) form, "adverse possession." Specific requirements vary by state, but in Oklahoma, if I squat on your land continuously for fifteen years without your permission, treat it like I own it (keep you from using it), my possession is "open and notorious," and a couple of other requirements, I can get the courts to give me title. If we <em>didn't</em> have a process for such a thing, well...lots of land would still be properly be owned by the Indians. Should we start forcibly divesting people who've owned their homes for ten, twenty, thirty years because two hundred years ago, somebody forcibly took the land (cue Hedley Lamarr, "land snatching; see snatching, land")?</p><p></p><p>The simple fact is that sometimes, it would be unjust to make the world conform to a strict reading of the law. I'm not saying that applies in context of the thread as started, but there's not a thing wrong with recognizing that strict would cause some significant hardships for people who really didn't have a choice in the matter. Absent a time machine, there's just no way around that (and with a time machine, the paradoxes would be even worse!).</p><p></p><p>Sometimes, we don't get to choose the "best" answer, just look for the "least bad" one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3075537, member: 13624"] That heart beats so strongly that sometimes we actually codify it right into the text. Most people know the term "squatter's rights," some might even know it's legal (as in, recognized by the courts) form, "adverse possession." Specific requirements vary by state, but in Oklahoma, if I squat on your land continuously for fifteen years without your permission, treat it like I own it (keep you from using it), my possession is "open and notorious," and a couple of other requirements, I can get the courts to give me title. If we [I]didn't[/I] have a process for such a thing, well...lots of land would still be properly be owned by the Indians. Should we start forcibly divesting people who've owned their homes for ten, twenty, thirty years because two hundred years ago, somebody forcibly took the land (cue Hedley Lamarr, "land snatching; see snatching, land")? The simple fact is that sometimes, it would be unjust to make the world conform to a strict reading of the law. I'm not saying that applies in context of the thread as started, but there's not a thing wrong with recognizing that strict would cause some significant hardships for people who really didn't have a choice in the matter. Absent a time machine, there's just no way around that (and with a time machine, the paradoxes would be even worse!). Sometimes, we don't get to choose the "best" answer, just look for the "least bad" one. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My thoughts on a "Dreamer" compromise
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom