Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think that your example is spot on.

I'm surprised you are saying this.

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If someone is trespassing on my property and that trespass is "open and notorious",

Illegal immigration is overwhelmingly not "open and notorious."  Most people who cross the border illegally or stay here illegally do so secretly, hoping they don't get caught.

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

and I don't file any action against them for a particular time period. 

The "particular time period" varies a lot by state.  In Utah, I believe it's 7 years.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

1. California

• Length of Time: 5 years
• Requirements: The claimant must occupy the land continuously, openly, and adversely to the owner's rights, and they must pay property taxes for the duration of the 5-year period.

---

2. Texas

• Length of Time: 10 years
• Requirements: The claimant must have continuous and overt possession, and the possession must be without permission. They must also "claim right" to the land and pay taxes during the possession period.

---

3. Florida

• Length of Time: 7 years
• Requirements: The possession must be continuous, open, and adverse. The claimant must also pay taxes for the land during this time.

---

4. New York

• Length of Time: 10 years
• Requirements: The land must be continuously possessed without the owner's consent. The claimant must treat the land as their own and use it in a manner that would give the owner reasonable notice.

---

5. Illinois

• Length of Time: 20 years
• Requirements: Continuous and exclusive possession, use of the property openly and without permission, and the absence of the true owner's consent.

---

6. Pennsylvania

• Length of Time: 21 years
• Requirements: The claimant must possess the land without interruption, openly, and without the owner’s permission for 21 years.

---

7. Ohio

• Length of Time: 21 years
• Requirements: Continuous, overt, and adverse possession, as well as exclusive control over the property for 21 years.

---

8. Michigan

• Length of Time: 15 years
• Requirements: The claimant must occupy the land continuously, openly, and without the consent of the owner for at least 15 years.

---

9. Georgia

• Length of Time: 20 years
• Requirements: The possession must be continuous and exclusive, and the claimant must treat the land as if they were the owner for the full period.

---

10. North Carolina

• Length of Time: 20 years
• Requirements: The claimant must have continuous, open, and adverse possession. There are also requirements related to the payment of taxes, depending on the circumstances.

---

11. Washington

• Length of Time: 10 years
• Requirements: Possession must be continuous, overt, exclusive, and adverse to the rightful owner. The claimant does not need to pay taxes in all cases.

---

12. Arizona

• Length of Time: 10 years
• Requirements: The claimant must prove continuous, exclusive, and adverse possession. Payment of property taxes may also be required.

---

13. Colorado

• Length of Time: 18 years
• Requirements: The claimant must occupy the land openly and without permission for at least 18 years to potentially gain ownership rights.

---

14. Nevada

• Length of Time: 5 years
• Requirements: The claimant must occupy the property continuously and exclusively for 5 years and also pay property taxes for the duration.

---

15. Louisiana

• Length of Time: 10 years
• Requirements: The possession must be continuous, overt, and without interruption for 10 years. The claimant must treat the property as their own.

---

16. Virginia

• Length of Time: 15 years
• Requirements: Continuous, exclusive, and adverse possession, with the claimant using the land as if they were the true owner for at least 15 years.

---

General Requirements for Adverse Possession

While the length of time varies by state, the following general criteria apply in most jurisdictions:

• Actual possession: The claimant must physically occupy and use the property.
• Open and notorious use: The claimant’s use of the property must be visible and obvious, so that the legal owner knows or should know that someone is asserting ownership.
• Exclusive use: The claimant must use the property exclusively, not sharing possession with others, including the original owner.
• Continuous use: The claimant must use the property continuously for the statutory period without long breaks.
• Adverse (hostile) use: The use of the property must be without the permission of the true owner.

So are you on board with a 10+ year statute of limitations for illegal immigration, which would be comparable to the length of time needed for adverse possession in Texas (10 years), New York (10 years), Illinois (20 years), Pennsylvania (21 years), Ohio (21 years), Michigan (15 years), Georgia (20 years), North Carolina (20 years), Washington (10 years), Arizona (10 years), Colorado (18 years), Louisiana (10 years), and Virginia (15 years)?

Also, "open and notorious" and "for a particular time period" aren't the only requirements for adverse possession, right?  The possession also has to be "continuous."  and it has to be "adverse" (again, not secretively), and the possessor has to pay taxes, and the possessor has to exercise exclusive control of the property (these are the requirements in Utah, anyway).

In other words, adverse possession A) has a lot of conditions that must be met, and B) these conditions must be met over a pretty extensive period of time.  And you are calling adverse possession a "spot on" analogy to your proposal for an SOL for illegal immigration?

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

the statute of limitation for that action expires and I lose title to the property.  This is adverse position and the reason I lose title is because I didn't take any action.

Not take any action for a period of many years and 

the possessor must take open and notorious - not secretive - possession and 

the possessor must have exclusive possession and 

the possessor must pay taxes throughout the period of years and 

the possessor must do all of these things "continuously" throughout the period of years.

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I would say if someone resides here in violation of immigration law and that is "open and notorious"

What do you mean by "open and notorious"?  How many illegal immigrants go about trumpeting their being in the U.S. unlawfully?

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

for a period of time

What period of time?  7 years?  10?  15?  18?  20?  21?  

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

and the government doesn't take any action for a particular time, then the government should lose the right to take action and the person gets to stay here.

See how simple that is?

When you ignore the boatload of other requirements, yes.  Otherwise, no.

Again: Living in the United States is a wonderful opportunity that many, many people would like to have.  I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here.  This justification is a huge part of how we have ended up with such massive immigration issues.  It incentivizes breaking the law, and therefore invites all the downstream consequences which follow.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if that $151 billion might have been better spent on improving the lives of American citizens and lawful residents (or, better yet, refunded to the people). 

Their is an easy way to do this.  The government could just stop spending so much money enforcing the immigration law. Then the money could be returned to the people and the people can just enjoy the benefits of immigrant labor. 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Illegal immigration is overwhelmingly not "open and notorious."  Most people who cross the border illegally or stay here illegally do so secretly, hoping they don't get caught.

I send a report every year to the government detailing how much income illegal aliens earn and how much taxes they pay (along with the information that they illegal).  Not that secret

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The mayor and several of his vocal critics are black, so casual slurs re: along the lines of "people who oppose illegal immigration hate brown and black people!" won't really work here.

Self hatred of different levels isn’t exactly uncommon so the assumption that just because one is black, white, male, female, English, American, etc it is impossible or even unlikely that one hates black, whites, males, females, English, Americans, etc. is not based on actual human behaviour.

If this is hard to imagine, just replace any of the above with “fat” and see how easy it is to hate yourself and others like you.  Unfortunately “fat” can be part of one’s identity in our culture whether one wants it to be or not.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

DOGE, is it official?

Not yet:

Quote

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)^{[note 1]} is a proposed presidential advisory commission in the United States. The title is the popularly used moniker of the concept and does not currently represent the official name of the commission. It is tasked with restructuring the federal government of the United States and removing regulations in order to reduce expenditures and increase government efficiency. Despite the name, the Department of Government Efficiency is not planned to be a federal executive department, the creation of which would require the approval of the U.S. Congress.^[1]

 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I watched Sound of Music last Sunday. When Captain Von Trapp tears the Nazi flag down from his house. It's how I feel now with the way things are looking.

Shrinking the power of the State via DOGE is emblematic of A) the Nazi rise to power, or B) Captain Von Trapp's resisting the Nazis' rise to power?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Self hatred of different levels isn’t exactly uncommon so the assumption that just because one is black, white, male, female, English, American, etc it is impossible or even unlikely that one hates black, whites, males, females, English, Americans, etc. is not based on actual human behaviour.

Sure.  I am speaking of casual, evidence-free accusations of racism.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Again, I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

In other words,

Boy, you just can't help but misstate and mischaracterize my comments.

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

arbitrary enforcement that relies on the whims of the people enforcing it. 

No.  The rule of law typically involves consideration of both moral and equitable principles.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So are you on board with a 10+ year statute of limitations for illegal immigration, which would be comparable to the length of time needed for adverse possession in Texas (10 years), New York (10 years), Illinois (20 years), Pennsylvania (21 years), Ohio (21 years), Michigan (15 years), Georgia (20 years), North Carolina (20 years), Washington (10 years), Arizona (10 years), Colorado (18 years), Louisiana (10 years), and Virginia (15 years)?

Personally, I think 7 years is a good number, but I could live with 10 years.

 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, "open and notorious" and "for a particular time period" aren't the only requirements for adverse possession, right?  The possession also has to be "continuous."  and it has to be "adverse" (again, not secretively), and the possessor has to pay taxes, and the possessor has to exercise exclusive control of the property (these are the requirements in Utah, anyway

I think for immigration the 'continuous' requirement is a fair one paying taxes (if required)  is also a fair requirement.  Many already do.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It doesn't matter, both you and I would have to, by law give up our house to the squatters if we didn't take any action.

That is what a statute of limitations means it this context?

Why should the law treat immigration differently than it does squatters?

Squatting is materially distinguishable from adverse possession, but you are conflating them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

Just now, smac97 said:

Boy, you just can't help but misstate and mischaracterize my comments.

No.  The rule of law typically involves consideration of both moral and equitable principles.

Thanks,

-Smac

Currently, as a practical matter, immigration enforcement is subject to the whims of the people enforcing it.  

Current enforcement is haphazard, at best, subjecting different people in the same circumstances to different enforcement.

 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Squatting is materially distinguishable from adverse possession, but you are conflating them.

Thanks,

-Smac

squatting can lead to adverse possession, if left long enough. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Personally, I think 7 years is a good number, but I could live with 10 years.

Okay.  

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think for immigration the 'continuous' requirement is a fair one paying taxes (if required)  is also a fair requirement.  Many already do.

Boy, if you could refrain from accusing me of racism and equating illegal immigration with rape and murder, you might be able to persuade me of the merits of your proposal.  As it is...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 18, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

squatting can lead to adverse possession, if left long enough. 

That's a mighty big "if."  What percentage of squatters stay in possession, do so "open and notoriously," and continuously and exclusively, and pay property taxes, and do all this for 7 (or 10, or 15, etc.) years?  I think vanishingly few.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

the possessor must pay taxes throughout the period of years and 

In my jurisdiction, the taxes have to be paid, but not necessarily by the possessor. 

 

[Danzo]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

the possessor must have exclusive possession 

Not necessary if just getting an easement.

Also, most cases I have seen for quiet title, due to adverse possession do not involve taking the entire property but parts of it (usually having to do with adjusting property boundaries).

Edited December 18, 2024 by Danzo

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Currently, as a practical matter, immigration enforcement is subject to the whims of the people enforcing it.  

Currently, we have a hard time managing massive waves of millions of illegal immigrants coming in, in addition to the millions who came before.

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Current enforcement is haphazard, at best, subjecting different people in the same circumstances to different enforcement.

If and when we secure our borders, enforce immigration laws, etc., the system will become less bogged down, less harried, less "haphazard," less "arbitrary," etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a mighty big "if."  What percentage of squatters stay in possession, do so "open and notoriously," and continuously and exclusively, and pay property taxes, and do all this for 7 (or 10, or 15, etc.) years?  I think vanishingly few.

Thanks,

-Smac

there was quite a few of these cases in California,  if I recall correctly that occurred after the 2008 real estate collapse. 

The stake president that signed my recommend for getting sealed in, was an attorney that was arrested for improperly facilitating some of these.  (I believe the charges were later dropped)

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Not necessary if just getting an easement.

Also, most cases I have seen for quite title, due to adverse possession do not involve taking the entire property but parts of it (usually having to do with adjusting property boundaries).

I had an AP case where my client purchased 50% of a house at a tax sale, then took possession, took it solely and openly and notoriously, and excluded all others, and paid taxes, and did all that for 7 years.  And he threaded the needle and got the property.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If and when we secure our borders, enforce immigration laws, etc., the system will become less bogged down, less harried, less "haphazard," less "arbitrary," etc.

I would hope so, but I believe the law really has to change as well.  .  

Your position, and many like you appears to be "Its not working, but it's a good law, we just aren't trying hard enough, we just need to try harder"

I think its broken.

One of the problems with Big Government is that Big Government's ideas can never be wrong.  If a Big Government program doesn't work its always "We need to make it bigger",  "It was such a good idea"  "It would only work if we expand it and put more money in it", or "its the other party's fault"

No one every questions whether the program was a good idea, whether the law was designed well in the first place.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Quote

That's a mighty big "if."  What percentage of squatters stay in possession, do so "open and notoriously," and continuously and exclusively, and pay property taxes, and do all this for 7 (or 10, or 15, etc.) years?  I think vanishingly few.

there was quite a few of these cases in California,  if I recall correctly that occurred after the 2008 real estate collapse. 

The stake president that signed my recommend for getting sealed in, was an attorney that was arrested for improperly facilitating some of these.  (I believe the charges were later dropped)

https://schorr-law.com/adverse-possession-requirements-california/

Quote

In California, for a person to claim adverse possession, they must demonstrate that they have been in continuous and exclusive possession of the property for at least five years, openly and notoriously, and under a claim of right or with the belief that they have the legal right to possess the property. Additionally, the possession must be hostile or adverse to the true owner’s interest in the property, and the true owner must have been aware of the possession or should have been aware of it. Moreover, the adverse possessor must pay the real property taxes for a period of five years and pay them on time in the year that the property taxes are due. If these requirements are met, the person in possession can potentially acquire legal ownership of the property through adverse possession, subject to certain exceptions and defenses. It’s important to consult with a qualified real estate attorney if you are facing a potential adverse possession claim or have questions about your property rights.

So:

1. must demonstrate that they have been in continuous ... possession of the property and
2. must demonstrate that they have been in ... exclusive possession of the property and
3. have a claim of right or with the belief that they have the legal right to possess the property and 
4. maintain possession in a "hostile or adverse to the true owner’s interest" manner and
5. must pay the real property taxes and 
6. must pay the real property taxes on time and
7. do all this for five (5) years straight and
8. the true owner must have been aware of the possession or should have been aware of it.

And even then, the adverse claim can still be "subject to certain exceptions and defenses."

That's a tiny needle to thread, that one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I send a report every year to the government detailing how much income illegal aliens earn and how much taxes they pay (along with the information that they illegal).  Not that secret

According to this article they sure contribute a huge amount to the US economy. If that matters. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-does-immigration-affect-us-economy#:~:text=According to an American Immigration,which such data is available.

1.6 trillion....not too shabby.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I had an AP case where my client purchased 50% of a house at a tax sale, then took possession, took it solely and openly and notoriously, and excluded all others, and paid taxes, and did all that for 7 years.  And he threaded the needle and got the property.

I think if a person comes here, pays his taxes, doesn't hide the fact that he wasn't here legally, maintains himself financially and gets away with it for 7 years then he should get the right to stay.

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

I would hope so, but I believe the law really has to change as well.  .  

Your position, and many like you appears to be "Its not working, but it's a good law, we just aren't trying hard enough, we just need to try harder"

You continue to misrepresent and mischaracterize my position.

Much of why the system is not working is because we are not enforcing the law, such that millions of people take that as a tacit invitation to violate those laws, such that millions of people do violate those laws, which millions of violations overwhelm the system.

Just now, Danzo said:

One of the problems with Big Government is that Big Government's ideas can never be wrong.  If a Big Government program doesn't work its always "We need to make it bigger",  "It was such a good idea"  "It would only work if we expand it and put more money in it", or "its the other party's fault"

No one every questions whether the program was a good idea, whether the law was designed well in the first place.

You continue to misrepresent and mischaracterize my position.

I think securing our borders and regulating the number of people who come here, and for what purposes, and under what conditions, are propositions that make a lot of sense.  The federal government really ought to be limited as intended by the Founding Fathers, but what it is supposed to do it should do well.  That would include securing our borders and regulating immigration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think if a person comes here, pays his taxes, doesn't hide the fact that he wasn't here legally, maintains himself financially and gets away with it for 7 years then he should get the right to stay.

Again, if you could refrain from accusing me of racism and equating illegal immigration with rape and murder, you might be able to persuade me of the merits of your proposal.  As it is...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The status quo cannot continue.  The Church's previous statements are quite correct:

• "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."
• "The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

A sampling:

Chicago Mayor Boots Angry Residents From Meeting After Being Criticized for Prioritizing Illegal Aliens

The mayor and several of his vocal critics are black, so casual slurs re: along the lines of "people who oppose illegal immigration hate brown and black people!" won't really work here.

I wonder if most or all of that $574.5 million might have been better spent improving the lives of American citizens and lawful immigrants (or, better yet, left to the people).

Again, the "You're racist!" line doesn't seem to work well here.

This guy said the quiet part out loud:

Illegal immigrants as "part" of an "electoral coalition."

That's part of the calculus, then.

Another: Powerful Groups Are Hiding Facts About Illegal Voting by Non-Citizens

Another: US spent $151 BILLION on illegal immigration in 2023 alone

I wonder if that $151 billion might have been better spent on improving the lives of American citizens and lawful residents (or, better yet, refunded to the people). 

Another: Survey Highlights the Impact of Mass Illegal Immigration on Schools

I think we need to regulate the number of people coming to the United States.  Perhaps we need to make sure they are ready to live here.  Perhaps there should be some vetting and structure to the process, rather than the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" that some seem to be advocating.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe a bit more charity. Many are probably desperate and not just out to cheat the system. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Peacefully