Q&A – What Squatting Has in Common with Illegal Immigration
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Submitted via talkback. The listener asked why Florida needs a new law to address squatters when law enforcement should just be able to charge squatters with breaking and entering.
Bottom Line: I hear your logical frustration and understand where you’re coming from. I think most people would agree that if someone is unlawfully in someone else’s property, the owner should be able to enlist law enforcement to take immediate action. Today’s topic is in response to yesterday’s Q&A addressing Florida’s soon-to-be enacted law addressing the growing squatter problem within the state. This is why the Florida legislature unanimously passed the legislation that as of July 1st will empower property owners with the legal ability to immediately have squatters removed from their property. As I mentioned, the loophole in the law that’s been exploited by squatters is how squatter disputes have been legally classified. It’s been treated as a civil matter under law, which has required property owners to go through a formal eviction process for law enforcement to be able to act to remove squatters. Only in criminal matters may law enforcement act immediately to remove those unlawfully in someone’s property. Now, to your point – why isn’t squatting addressed as “breaking and entering” which is a criminal offense?
Florida’s law pertaining to breaking and entering is covered under burglary statues and it states:
- “burglary” means entering or remaining in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain.
A lesser criminal offense of trespassing also applies. Here’s how that statute reads:
- Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
At face value, it seems that squatters could be dealt with immediately under existing criminal law. But there’s a catch – and it’s the loophole that’s been used and exploited just like US asylum laws have been by illegal border crossers. It’s what the squatters say when they’re confronted by law enforcement.
Many are aware of how the US asylum system has been abused. People come across the southern border lacking legal documentation claiming that they’re seeking asylum from a repressive government. The moment they say they’re seeking asylum, under the Biden administration's handling of the matter, it becomes a civil matter that must be resolved in the legal system. The asylum seekers are processed and given a court date for the next steps in their case. Law enforcement, in this example Border Patrol, is there to enforce the law, not to interpret the law. Given the extent of the crisis this can now take up to seven years and they’re allowed to remain in the US, often on government assistance programs in their location of choice in the meantime. In the end over 97% of asylum seekers are determined to be illegal immigrants. The squatting crisis is just a different version of a similar thing.
If there is a burglary in progress, law enforcement can identify the crime and act accordingly. The same is true with a standard trespassing offence. Where, under existing law, it becomes a matter law enforcement isn’t able to address happens when squatters have established themselves inside of a property and they tell law enforcement they live there. Most commonly in these scams the squatters will tell law enforcement that they are leasing the properties from the owners. Just like the border crossers who say they’re seeking asylum; the dispute becomes a civil matter rather than a criminal matter. Renters are protected under the law from would-be bad acting landlords. This includes a formal eviction process having to play out in court. At the point where a property owner says they’re unlawfully residing in the property and squatters say they’re legally leasing the property it becomes a he said/she said situation that law enforcement isn’t lawfully allowed to mitigate. That’s what is set to change under Florida’s new law which will take effect July 1st.
With the new law in place each county’s sheriff’s office will be empowered to immediately verify the identity of the lawful property owner and carry out the immediate removal of those unlawfully living in the property. If the property owner improperly evicts a lawful tenant, there is a penalty under the law for that homeowner (so that landlords won’t be able to abuse the new law). This flips the law in favor of property owners with the onus being on those living within the property to prove their legitimacy in the legal system. Staying with the border analogy – it's the equivalent of former President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy – whereby those seeking asylum were forced to remain outside of the US until our legal system had determined they had a lawful claim to asylum.
The abuses in both instances are classic examples of criminals staying one step ahead of the law. In the example of the border, it requires a president interested in upholding the rights and safety of Americans which we currently do not have. In the example of squatters, it requires new laws like what Florida will enact July 1st.