Basically the Texas Legislature has introduced a bill to outlaw land ownership by foreign nationals from three countries in particular - China, North Korea, and Russia. And Texas Democrats have decried this as racist.
What I’m wondering if it’s necessarily racist, or if it’s more political than that. I mean, in light of the Ukrainian war, banning Russian nationals from owning land doesn’t seem entirely wrong. And the same goes for North Koreans. China’s the only wildcard here, and considering Beijing’s history with espionage and other meddling in foreign affairs, it doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable either.
Extreme, but not entirely unreasonable. And I’m not sure it’s motivated by racism either- it doesn’t preclude a whole lot of other Asians from owning land- Indians, Vietnamese, Mongolians, Japanese, Malaysians, Filipinos, etc… are all fine to own land in Texas. Same for all sorts of other brown and black people- Ugandans, Nigerians, Argentinians, Mexicans… all can own land here.
Am I off base here, or is the Texas Democratic party off base? This doesn’t seem racist to me- at best, it seems anti-Chinese because of the actions of their government, not anti-Chinese because of any inherent hatefulness against Chinese. And I feel like maybe this hurts the Texas Dems’ credibility in the long run as well.
I think that maybe China is part of this because in other states, large Chinese industrial farms are draining the aquafilter and then shipping the products back to China. It’s probably already happening at some level in Texas and could get worse.
I just feel like this sort of thing hurts Texas Democrats more than it helps. Saying this is racist devalues the concept, and paints the party as being kind of misguided and reacting in a knee-jerk fashion, neither of which is going to play well around here I fear. And it plays straight into the hands of the people who are busy decrying stuff using “woke” as a pejorative term.
I’m not at all saying it’s a good idea to restrict the land ownership, but maybe the Texas Democrats could have come up with a more measured and intelligent reason why it’s a bad idea, than to just dog-whistle that it’s “racist” to make their own base feel warm and fuzzy.
The article repeatedly mentions the Chinese Exclusion Act. Do folks think that law wasn’t racist because it didn’t preclude a whole lot of other Asians from immigrating? If so, I think you’re defining racism really narrowly, and need to suggest another word to describe the Chinese Exclusion Act and explain why it’s preferable.
If not, how is this law different?
I can imagine a law that would be reasonable. Require anyone who wants to buy land in Texas to be a resident of the United States, for example. Or, if you want to inflict damage on rich people from China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran, rule that any land-purchases with citizenship in these four countries must have resided in Texas for 2 months prior to their purchase of the land, and that the land must be sold or placed for public sale within 12 months of their departure from Texas, or something like that.
As written, the law seems to target immigrants from these countries, and I suspect it’ll disproportionately hit immigrants from China, as the US has more than three times as many immigrants from China (~2.7 million) as from the other three countries combined.
If we agree that the Chinese Exclusion Act was racist, then this law also appears to be racist at least in impact, if not in intent.
Is that racist though? Or just anti-Chinese in a nationality/citizenship sense? There is a BIG difference between the two.
Something could be anti- without being racist, and something could be racist, without having anything to do with nationality.
I’m arguing that this is really the first example. If it was say… Russian, Canadian, and German nationals who were being prohibited from owning land, is that racist? Probably not, they’re all white people. It is discriminatory against citizens of those countries though. Why should China be any different?
What if someone is half Chinese and half Vietnamese? Does a certain percentage of their blood have to be Chinese before they aren’t allowed to buy property in Texas? The devil is in the details.
I assumed it was Chinese citizenship that triggered the law, not ethnicity. So, if a white guy can be a Chinese citizen (I have no idea) then he’d be banned under this law.
I don’t like the bill. But since it applies to citizens of three countries we consider adversaries, I won’t rush to label it “racist.” Maybe since Russia is included, I see motivations other than race.
I agree that crying “race” is a rather poor argument when Japanese, Malaysian, Singaporean, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Thai and South Korean people, who are every bit as Asian as the Chinese and North Koreans, are permitted to buy. It would have to be a blanket anti-Asian ban to be racist.
A better bill, written less clumsily, though, would be the one as mentioned above where buyers would be required to demonstrate some amount of US and Texas residency.
There’s also the misguided idea that anything Democrats say or do could play well.
Any response is going to be considered a knee-jerk reactionary socialist one in Texas, so that shouldn’t be a consideration.
The fact that the bill actually is racist in intent should be a consideration, and it is.
And this certainly greatly affects the tax base here in Fort Bend County, which happens to feature quite a bit of home ownership by Chinese nationals (disclaimer: many of them are current and former co-workers), many of whom are trying to work their way towards US citizenship (which can take years, if not decades currently).
Yes, there’s immigration from other nations as well, but by virtue of sheer numbers, the vast majority will be from China. North Korean and Russian immigration are rounding errors compared to that, and I’ll put it out there that Texas Republicans already know this very well.
What does this even mean? You can be racist while singling out a single ethnicity. The idea you must target all Asian ethnicities to qualify is bizarre and not supported by any meaningful or reasonable definition of racism out there.
Yes, white people can become naturalized PRC citizens.
It sounds like quite a bad bill unfairly singling out immigrants from unpopular countries.
I’m on the fence, but It might be a good idea to stop very large real estate purchases from these countries, especially if purchasers have a primary residence abroad. The large number of empty oligarch-owned Manhattan apartments may be doing NYC housing availability some harm. But regulating that should be a federal function. Each state should not have its own foreign policy.
Making claims of racism, without proof, alienates many potential moderates.
Well, if we separate race from racism, then we can all agree this is racist.
National origin discrimination is also wrong, but it’s not necessarily racist. (it certainly can be, see Chinese Exclusion Act). That’s why you see it listed separately when things are prohibited.
Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person’s national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status.
Exactly right, and exactly what was done in Canada regarding home purchases. From the thread title, this initiative seemed reasonable until it was explained that it specifically targeted foreign nationals from three specific countries. Such a targeted prohibition comes across as being punitive in intent, rather than constructive policy. The Canadian prohibition on foreign nationals buying homes applies to all non-resident foreigners, and was enacted in the face of rampant purchases of residential properties by foreign nationals as investments, driving up prices for legitimate home buyers just looking for a place to live.
and Russian immigration are rounding errors compared to that, and I’ll put it out there that Texas Republicans already know this very well.