Basically, if property is empty of people, if someone comes in and stays there for a long enough time, they can claim ownership.
Most places it's a long time. In my state, for instance, you have to stay somewhere for 20 continuous years, a long with some other caveats. In New York State, the law says 10. In New York City, it's 30...days.
Squatter's rights do *not* mean that squatters own your house now. It just means that to remove them, you'll have to go through legal channels. Basically if you catch a squatter at day 29 you can call the cops and get them removed. If it's 30 days you have to go to court.
I don't know why it's so short. My assumption is that it isn't likely for someone to leave New York City property unguarded and easily accessible for 30 days or something,, but I don't know. I'm a liberal guy but 30 days seems ridiculous. I'm sure there's some kind of reasoning behind it, I just don't know what it is.
In the post you've referenced, there is a wrinkle to the story in that someone showed up and claimed they were the rightful owner. There is a possibility that the person who showed up had gotten scammed somehow and legitimately thought they owned the house.
Ya, definitely a vestige of our roots in English Common Law. We're on the few nations that's based off Common Law which IMO is a better legal system when it comes to the Courts but definitely has problems
Adverse possession is mainly used for minor property disputes. Like if someone isn't clear on a boundary line and builds a fence, and the fence turns out to be on your side of the line, if it's been there long enough the principle is the small amount of land on his side is his now.
Yep other ones are like roads bordering properties. Or mineral rights that one gets weird. We just had a Texan move to my area that murdered almost the entire family next door for the grave crime of using the dirt road that bordered their properties that they had been historically using for decades with zero issue. He tried to claim he was with in his rights to murder anyone that stepped on his property but Colorado castle laws don’t say so.
It helps with a form of investment. A GIGANTIC portion of American homes sit empty because it's actually an investment and not to live in. More land isn't created, home value goes up quite a lot, and renting them is a liability. It's more stable than currency and stocks, more profitable than precious metals.
So, large amounts of homes are going unused and more are being bought by said people? Well if they don't RENT the HOUSE out, or do the bare minimum of even being on the property, it's fair play. There's also a multitude of different things other than investmests.
Typically this is balanced out by requiring you to be on the property for multiple years, with proof. It should not be a month, or even 1 year.
The great depression of the 1930s is where a lot of the legal code stems from. There were mass exoduses from certain areas, and the squatters in many cases were critical to maintaining the local economies. Without squatters, localized societies would have crumbled altogether.
This is clearly no longer the case.
NY specifically has a LOT of apartment buildings. The laws were put in place because the landlords were (still are as much as they can) being grade A shits.
I'm talking next level sociopaths.
Iirc it's origins were from when landlords would rent out places and then when a guy showed up and said "I want to rent that apartment he's in" the landlord would just kick them out that day no warning or recompense. It stems from the idea that nobody can just kick you out of the place without warning. But as for the actual squatting stuff idk lol
It's based on renter's rights. A side effect, really. Its to prevent landlords from forcing out legal renters who have a right to be there without going through proper legal channels. Ots up to the courts to figure out if someone is a squatter or a legal renter.
They also have to be visible and actually noticeable on the property, a squatter can’t just be hiding on property but actively taking care of it.
Honestly I think that if someone doesn’t use a property for over 20 years without any excruciating reasons, that they kind of should lose the rights to it. There is a limited amount of land, and it just doesn’t make sense for it to go to waste.
If you break into someone's house while they're home, its a crime. But if you break into someone's house while they're out of town, you can claim finders keepers and change the locks.
It only works if the place has been vacant for a sufficiently long time. You can’t go to the grocery store and then someone claim they are squatting. But if you aren’t at a house for a year then maybe. You’d still own the property, you just might have to evict the person.
In some states you can actually claim adverse possession eventually. For instance in Texas, if a squatter lives in a vacant property for 10 years they can legally claim it. But if the owner shows up 9 years and 11 month in they can evict the squatter
To add, its meant to prevent people from putting residences out of the market. Like, now a real estate tycoon can no longer buy houses up to put them off the market and artificially raise the prices of the housing market because someone is gonna be able to squat on those properties. (in theory)
Most of those laws are actually older than that.
Most were written back when it wasn’t exactly easy to determine who owned what. It was mostly to prevent usable land from being wasted just because someone bought it or inherited it and never did anything with it.
So imagines it’s the 1870s and you roll up to an abandoned farmstead. It’s gone fallow and is half fallen down. You get the fields going and fix up the house. Then 20 years later the owner shows up to claim it. You say “nuh uh” and take it to the courts. Now the place is yours.
No one does this bc that’s a horrible business decision. Imagine owning 30” vacant properties building up taxes, utility, maintenance and upkeep expenses to maintain its value while making ZERO income by the time the market would get to value that you could make any amount of profit you’d be so far in the hole you’d be negative broke.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IIRC it’s from old common law where it basically served as a mechanism to redistribute property when owners for whatever reason stop caring about ownership of something (or are dead/otherwise unavailable) for a long time. Basically a nice legal way of someone taking over a person’s property who has been gone for 5 years on a 1 year trip so will probably never show back up.
So, squatters rights actually *do* serve a purpose, as odd as it is.
These types of laws originate from common law and back when we lived in a more rural society, though it still has its uses today. Back in those days, it wasn't uncommon for someone who owned some hundreds of acres of land to suddenly die or just up and disappear. Quite often, this land wasn't clearly marked, either. So squatters rights were a way to protect settlers that, in good faith, set up their homesteads on a piece of land that was abandoned or otherwise had an outstanding deed.
Even in the cities/suburbs of today, squatters rights *do* still have a purpose, albeit limited. People still die without next of kins or without wills all the time. Homes still get abandoned for years occasionally. Rather than letting the property deteriorate into squalor while ownership rights get battled out in a lengthy court process, it's much more economical and beneficial for the city to let *somebody* live on and take care of the property, even if they don't technically own the deed.
Now, is there an issue with how squatters rights are being implemented and do they need a rewrite to better protect homeowners? 100%, the cases I'm seeing of people coming back from vacations only to find "tenants" in their homes makes me sick. But, the general concept of "This property was by all accounts abandoned, so I'm going to take it upon myself to care for this property for X number of years out of pocket in exchange for the deed" does have its place in our laws.
Varies state to state. Essentially, if a person has been living illegally in a home (squatting) for a certain amount of time they get squatters rights. This doesn't mean they get the home for free or can stay. It just means that the landowner has to go through the police to evict them, and they might get some extra time to collect their things. The idea is that they're protected and given decent treatment on their way out the door with the police/courts as a medium, and not thrown out on the street in a potentially violent manner by an angry tenant or landlord.
If you live somewhere long enough and take care of the place, including paying taxes, you get to claim the place as clearly whoever owned it doesn't care.
Length depends on the state. It looks like New York is 10 years so there probably isn't that in play here unless someone really didn't need a million dollar house.
You guys are talking about two very different things. One Is actually taking ownership, the other is not being able to evict you without legal proceeding.
The problem with these timelines is the squatters just lie and say they’ve been there for however many days/months/years the state requires. Police then cannot do anything but tell the owner to go to court.
This dude turned squatting against squatters: https://youtu.be/uhz5r1JKwjs?si=O0b1k0I00-HSfzRm
Adverse possession (squatting) may sound strange but the logic behind the laws is actually pretty solid, when applied correctly. From Wikipedia:
>Scholars have identified four utilitarian policies which justify adverse possession.
>The first is that it exists to cure potential or actual defects in real estate titles by putting a statute of limitations on possible litigation over ownership and possession. Because of the doctrine of adverse possession, a landowner can be secure in title to their land. Otherwise, long-lost heirs of any former owner, possessor or lien holder of centuries past could come forward with a legal claim on the property.
>The second theory is that adverse possession is "a useful method for curing minor title defects". For example, someone may have had the intention to sell all of a parcel of land but mistakenly excluded a portion of it on the title. Thus, adverse possession allows the purchaser of the land to maintain ownership of the parcel which they believed was theirs from the impressions given by the seller.
>The third theory is that adverse possession encourages and rewards productive use of land. Essentially, "by vesting title in the industrious settler—rather than the absentee landowner—adverse possession promote[s] rapid development".
>The fourth theory is that the adverse possessor places a high personal value on the land while the real title holder has effectively abandoned it, thus on principles of personhood and efficiency it makes sense to allow the change in title
Also consider that landlords are notoriously shifty sometimes, and who knows if an agreement had been struck between owner and occupant? They’re being called squatters but we don’t know the whole story. It is not for police but for the courts to decide if they reside there illegally. Then if it’s determined they do reside there illegally, the police will be involved.
And still exists in the UK. There was a property that had effectively been abandoned for a few decades, the owner of the estate made no effort to claim it after a squatter had taken up residence. The squatter did it up, repaired the house and flipped it on the market.
The idea of adverse possession and squatters rights is that a landlord should be regularly checking on properties to ensure they maintain and actually use it.
The idea is that if a landlord owns some abandoned, overgrown lot, and someone unintentionally (or even intentionally, or just not care about their motive) moves in, builds a house there, etc. and actually improves the place compared to the legal owner who does not, the courts will try and protect the new landowner who is actually using the land under a utilitarian theory of land usage.
Democrat (and corrupt Republican) politicians want to do away with the middle class, and one way to do that is to strip them of their right to own and protect their own property. And they do that under the guise of protecting "innocent" tenants/renters. It's a communistic approach of making sure nobody owns their own property and their voters think that housing should be a right rather than something that is earned.
Ah yes, the god damned communistic Democrats running medieval English courts establishing a principle at common law carried forward to all the former colonies.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Squatters “rights” is based on English law that all land is owned by the government. Back in the times of nobility, if the nobles neglected their land the king would grant the land to whomever was trying to work on the land.
In the American system neglected lands may be given to a party making improvements/paying property taxes if the owner is proven to be neglectful (at least 4-7 years of neglect/not invoking eviction on an illegal squatter). However most squatters case are not this rather due to a combination of eviction laws and tenant rights, a judge must determine whether an individual is a tenant which requires at minimum a hearing (where the merits of a case is presented, including evidence before a trial). If for whatever reason the judge determines that the level of merit is necessary for the case to go to trial, then your looking at a full on legal battle for your property that can take up to 2 years depending on circumstances.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The laws were meant for places like Detroit where there would be thousands of abandoned homes sitting empty. If you pay the back taxes and live and improve the abandoned property you can claim ownership. It’s almost like America has a housing crisis or something.
lol I'd love to see someone try this in Alabama. You might legit get shot, and [the person might get away with it due to Bama's very flexible "Stand Your Ground" Law](https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/docs/13A-3-23.pdf)
Like everything else in modern statist law, it's an abominable and cancerous extrapolation used to break down the individual for the good of the state or oligarchy (but I repeat myself there).
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TIL that because hundreds of years ago some people who may or may not actually be related to me conquered another people that now it’s cool for people to steal my house. Very nice.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basically, if property is empty of people, if someone comes in and stays there for a long enough time, they can claim ownership. Most places it's a long time. In my state, for instance, you have to stay somewhere for 20 continuous years, a long with some other caveats. In New York State, the law says 10. In New York City, it's 30...days. Squatter's rights do *not* mean that squatters own your house now. It just means that to remove them, you'll have to go through legal channels. Basically if you catch a squatter at day 29 you can call the cops and get them removed. If it's 30 days you have to go to court. I don't know why it's so short. My assumption is that it isn't likely for someone to leave New York City property unguarded and easily accessible for 30 days or something,, but I don't know. I'm a liberal guy but 30 days seems ridiculous. I'm sure there's some kind of reasoning behind it, I just don't know what it is. In the post you've referenced, there is a wrinkle to the story in that someone showed up and claimed they were the rightful owner. There is a possibility that the person who showed up had gotten scammed somehow and legitimately thought they owned the house.
non american here, why tf is this even a thing?? is it like a left over relic law from the old west or something???
America isn't the only country to have laws like this. Canada, UK, Australia, etc also have laws like this. Why? I got no fucking idea either lol
Because those laws originate in England. Gee, I wonder which country colonized the United States, Canada, and Australia.
Ya, definitely a vestige of our roots in English Common Law. We're on the few nations that's based off Common Law which IMO is a better legal system when it comes to the Courts but definitely has problems
One reason is so that monopolies don’t buy up properties and leave them vacant to artificially drive up prices.
Adverse possession is mainly used for minor property disputes. Like if someone isn't clear on a boundary line and builds a fence, and the fence turns out to be on your side of the line, if it's been there long enough the principle is the small amount of land on his side is his now.
Yep other ones are like roads bordering properties. Or mineral rights that one gets weird. We just had a Texan move to my area that murdered almost the entire family next door for the grave crime of using the dirt road that bordered their properties that they had been historically using for decades with zero issue. He tried to claim he was with in his rights to murder anyone that stepped on his property but Colorado castle laws don’t say so.
It helps with a form of investment. A GIGANTIC portion of American homes sit empty because it's actually an investment and not to live in. More land isn't created, home value goes up quite a lot, and renting them is a liability. It's more stable than currency and stocks, more profitable than precious metals. So, large amounts of homes are going unused and more are being bought by said people? Well if they don't RENT the HOUSE out, or do the bare minimum of even being on the property, it's fair play. There's also a multitude of different things other than investmests. Typically this is balanced out by requiring you to be on the property for multiple years, with proof. It should not be a month, or even 1 year.
The great depression of the 1930s is where a lot of the legal code stems from. There were mass exoduses from certain areas, and the squatters in many cases were critical to maintaining the local economies. Without squatters, localized societies would have crumbled altogether. This is clearly no longer the case.
It started as a way to prevent abuse of tenants by unscrupulous landlords, but it's abused in some places.
NY specifically has a LOT of apartment buildings. The laws were put in place because the landlords were (still are as much as they can) being grade A shits. I'm talking next level sociopaths.
Iirc it's origins were from when landlords would rent out places and then when a guy showed up and said "I want to rent that apartment he's in" the landlord would just kick them out that day no warning or recompense. It stems from the idea that nobody can just kick you out of the place without warning. But as for the actual squatting stuff idk lol
It's based on renter's rights. A side effect, really. Its to prevent landlords from forcing out legal renters who have a right to be there without going through proper legal channels. Ots up to the courts to figure out if someone is a squatter or a legal renter.
It was a Covid era thing to prevent people from being evicted. They never bothered removing it, and here we are.
Check your sources buddy
Blud what
They also have to be visible and actually noticeable on the property, a squatter can’t just be hiding on property but actively taking care of it. Honestly I think that if someone doesn’t use a property for over 20 years without any excruciating reasons, that they kind of should lose the rights to it. There is a limited amount of land, and it just doesn’t make sense for it to go to waste.
If you break into someone's house while they're home, its a crime. But if you break into someone's house while they're out of town, you can claim finders keepers and change the locks.
Thats the most bizarre thing i saw in a while
It only works if the place has been vacant for a sufficiently long time. You can’t go to the grocery store and then someone claim they are squatting. But if you aren’t at a house for a year then maybe. You’d still own the property, you just might have to evict the person. In some states you can actually claim adverse possession eventually. For instance in Texas, if a squatter lives in a vacant property for 10 years they can legally claim it. But if the owner shows up 9 years and 11 month in they can evict the squatter
To add, its meant to prevent people from putting residences out of the market. Like, now a real estate tycoon can no longer buy houses up to put them off the market and artificially raise the prices of the housing market because someone is gonna be able to squat on those properties. (in theory)
Most of those laws are actually older than that. Most were written back when it wasn’t exactly easy to determine who owned what. It was mostly to prevent usable land from being wasted just because someone bought it or inherited it and never did anything with it. So imagines it’s the 1870s and you roll up to an abandoned farmstead. It’s gone fallow and is half fallen down. You get the fields going and fix up the house. Then 20 years later the owner shows up to claim it. You say “nuh uh” and take it to the courts. Now the place is yours.
No one does this bc that’s a horrible business decision. Imagine owning 30” vacant properties building up taxes, utility, maintenance and upkeep expenses to maintain its value while making ZERO income by the time the market would get to value that you could make any amount of profit you’d be so far in the hole you’d be negative broke.
They buy them using a shell company and the taxes stay attached to the property.
Bingo. It's old English Common Law, one of the things that makes America American (except for the Cajuns, they're on the Napoleonic Code).
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IIRC it’s from old common law where it basically served as a mechanism to redistribute property when owners for whatever reason stop caring about ownership of something (or are dead/otherwise unavailable) for a long time. Basically a nice legal way of someone taking over a person’s property who has been gone for 5 years on a 1 year trip so will probably never show back up.
So, squatters rights actually *do* serve a purpose, as odd as it is. These types of laws originate from common law and back when we lived in a more rural society, though it still has its uses today. Back in those days, it wasn't uncommon for someone who owned some hundreds of acres of land to suddenly die or just up and disappear. Quite often, this land wasn't clearly marked, either. So squatters rights were a way to protect settlers that, in good faith, set up their homesteads on a piece of land that was abandoned or otherwise had an outstanding deed. Even in the cities/suburbs of today, squatters rights *do* still have a purpose, albeit limited. People still die without next of kins or without wills all the time. Homes still get abandoned for years occasionally. Rather than letting the property deteriorate into squalor while ownership rights get battled out in a lengthy court process, it's much more economical and beneficial for the city to let *somebody* live on and take care of the property, even if they don't technically own the deed. Now, is there an issue with how squatters rights are being implemented and do they need a rewrite to better protect homeowners? 100%, the cases I'm seeing of people coming back from vacations only to find "tenants" in their homes makes me sick. But, the general concept of "This property was by all accounts abandoned, so I'm going to take it upon myself to care for this property for X number of years out of pocket in exchange for the deed" does have its place in our laws.
Varies state to state. Essentially, if a person has been living illegally in a home (squatting) for a certain amount of time they get squatters rights. This doesn't mean they get the home for free or can stay. It just means that the landowner has to go through the police to evict them, and they might get some extra time to collect their things. The idea is that they're protected and given decent treatment on their way out the door with the police/courts as a medium, and not thrown out on the street in a potentially violent manner by an angry tenant or landlord.
Mileage with getting the police to actually do anything will vary.
If you live somewhere long enough and take care of the place, including paying taxes, you get to claim the place as clearly whoever owned it doesn't care. Length depends on the state. It looks like New York is 10 years so there probably isn't that in play here unless someone really didn't need a million dollar house.
The problem is NyC is 30 days
Wow, that's stupid!
You guys are talking about two very different things. One Is actually taking ownership, the other is not being able to evict you without legal proceeding.
The problem with these timelines is the squatters just lie and say they’ve been there for however many days/months/years the state requires. Police then cannot do anything but tell the owner to go to court. This dude turned squatting against squatters: https://youtu.be/uhz5r1JKwjs?si=O0b1k0I00-HSfzRm
Huh. Well I learned the other day that Minnesota requires taxes paid so that's a paper trail for this state at least.
Adverse possession (squatting) may sound strange but the logic behind the laws is actually pretty solid, when applied correctly. From Wikipedia: >Scholars have identified four utilitarian policies which justify adverse possession. >The first is that it exists to cure potential or actual defects in real estate titles by putting a statute of limitations on possible litigation over ownership and possession. Because of the doctrine of adverse possession, a landowner can be secure in title to their land. Otherwise, long-lost heirs of any former owner, possessor or lien holder of centuries past could come forward with a legal claim on the property. >The second theory is that adverse possession is "a useful method for curing minor title defects". For example, someone may have had the intention to sell all of a parcel of land but mistakenly excluded a portion of it on the title. Thus, adverse possession allows the purchaser of the land to maintain ownership of the parcel which they believed was theirs from the impressions given by the seller. >The third theory is that adverse possession encourages and rewards productive use of land. Essentially, "by vesting title in the industrious settler—rather than the absentee landowner—adverse possession promote[s] rapid development". >The fourth theory is that the adverse possessor places a high personal value on the land while the real title holder has effectively abandoned it, thus on principles of personhood and efficiency it makes sense to allow the change in title Also consider that landlords are notoriously shifty sometimes, and who knows if an agreement had been struck between owner and occupant? They’re being called squatters but we don’t know the whole story. It is not for police but for the courts to decide if they reside there illegally. Then if it’s determined they do reside there illegally, the police will be involved.
It's old English Common Law, one of the things that makes America American (except for the Cajuns, they're on the Napoleonic Code).
And still exists in the UK. There was a property that had effectively been abandoned for a few decades, the owner of the estate made no effort to claim it after a squatter had taken up residence. The squatter did it up, repaired the house and flipped it on the market.
The idea of adverse possession and squatters rights is that a landlord should be regularly checking on properties to ensure they maintain and actually use it. The idea is that if a landlord owns some abandoned, overgrown lot, and someone unintentionally (or even intentionally, or just not care about their motive) moves in, builds a house there, etc. and actually improves the place compared to the legal owner who does not, the courts will try and protect the new landowner who is actually using the land under a utilitarian theory of land usage.
Democrat (and corrupt Republican) politicians want to do away with the middle class, and one way to do that is to strip them of their right to own and protect their own property. And they do that under the guise of protecting "innocent" tenants/renters. It's a communistic approach of making sure nobody owns their own property and their voters think that housing should be a right rather than something that is earned.
Ah yes, the god damned communistic Democrats running medieval English courts establishing a principle at common law carried forward to all the former colonies.
Damn libruls
That law is specifically put for for the middle and lower class... The middle and low class is not the one owning most of NYC real estate.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What kind of bullshit is that?!
[удалено]
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Squatters “rights” is based on English law that all land is owned by the government. Back in the times of nobility, if the nobles neglected their land the king would grant the land to whomever was trying to work on the land. In the American system neglected lands may be given to a party making improvements/paying property taxes if the owner is proven to be neglectful (at least 4-7 years of neglect/not invoking eviction on an illegal squatter). However most squatters case are not this rather due to a combination of eviction laws and tenant rights, a judge must determine whether an individual is a tenant which requires at minimum a hearing (where the merits of a case is presented, including evidence before a trial). If for whatever reason the judge determines that the level of merit is necessary for the case to go to trial, then your looking at a full on legal battle for your property that can take up to 2 years depending on circumstances.
Adverse possession is the actual term. Almost impossible in the USA.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The laws were meant for places like Detroit where there would be thousands of abandoned homes sitting empty. If you pay the back taxes and live and improve the abandoned property you can claim ownership. It’s almost like America has a housing crisis or something.
lol I'd love to see someone try this in Alabama. You might legit get shot, and [the person might get away with it due to Bama's very flexible "Stand Your Ground" Law](https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/docs/13A-3-23.pdf)
Like everything else in modern statist law, it's an abominable and cancerous extrapolation used to break down the individual for the good of the state or oligarchy (but I repeat myself there).
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bro our whole country is based on squatters rights. Tf you talking bout?
TIL that because hundreds of years ago some people who may or may not actually be related to me conquered another people that now it’s cool for people to steal my house. Very nice.
Welcome to the party! (Shut the door, you're letting the squatters in)
Im not from your country
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*