Comments on: Analogous or Not? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/analogous_or_no.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Chris http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/analogous_or_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-43277 Chris Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:59:22 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/analogous-or-not.html#comment-43277 Interesting analogy--not sure the notoriety element is there, though. Also not sure about the dense-thicket-of-statutes disanalogy, since adverse possession is generally governed by statutes of limitation for ejectment, I think. Interesting analogy–not sure the notoriety element is there, though. Also not sure about the dense-thicket-of-statutes disanalogy, since adverse possession is generally governed by statutes of limitation for ejectment, I think.

]]> By: Dave http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/analogous_or_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-43276 Dave Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:59:35 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/analogous-or-not.html#comment-43276 Interesting analogy. One point of disanalogy is that ownership of land is zero-sum but citizenship is not. The law has to make a decision about which person gets to stay on the land: the original owner or the long-term trespasser. This enables a utilitarian rationale for AP that doesn't arise in the immigration/amnesty context. The law has AP in part to punish lazy landowners, and to reward productive uses of land (even if the latter amounts to trespass). Since there is no "lazy landowner" to punish, and similarly no zero-sum in which the adverse possessor compares favorably to the original owner from the perspective of productive land use, this rationale doesn't seem to map onto immigration. Interesting analogy. One point of disanalogy is that ownership of land is zero-sum but citizenship is not. The law has to make a decision about which person gets to stay on the land: the original owner or the long-term trespasser.

This enables a utilitarian rationale for AP that doesn’t arise in the immigration/amnesty context. The law has AP in part to punish lazy landowners, and to reward productive uses of land (even if the latter amounts to trespass).

Since there is no “lazy landowner” to punish, and similarly no zero-sum in which the adverse possessor compares favorably to the original owner from the perspective of productive land use, this rationale doesn’t seem to map onto immigration.

]]>