It’s also clear not much of the Republican caucus read the bill. A lot of them assumed there was a minimum amount of ownership (~10000 acres) that would trigger it and didn’t even know it would affect individual homeowners. As written, it targets a lot of just average people trying to go about their lives, who are, again, primarily Chinese. Then again, most of the Republican caucus also didn’t seem all that opposed to it, either, as written.
It’s not even all that subtle. All the scary examples Texas Republicans have brought up have involved the growing power of China and ‘how’d you like the Chinese military spying on you next door?’ type stuff. It’s pretty obvious the other countries were tossed in to provide a fig leaf.
But it will likely be amended in any event if it even comes up for a vote.
I simply pointed out how the word is actually used in practice, and thus likely how it is being used here. You can’t say that someone is wrong if they’re using a word in a way it is commonly used.
Also note that your quote does not use the word racism at all. Racism as a whole is not forbidden by federal law.
Part of this is anti-Russian discrimination. And that national origin discrimination is not generally called racism:
I don’t have a strong objection to calling some, or all, of it racism on Straight Dope. But it is a bit of an own-goal for Democratic politicians to do it.
Yeah, me too. To me it seems like Texas has forgotten it is a state and is acting like the Texas Republic re: foreign relations. One question I have is does it ban ownership by those foreign nationals even if they are a legal resident of Texas or even a dual-citizen?
“We’re drawing a line on a map. If you’re on this side of the line, you’re Chinese, if you’re on the other, Korean,” is not functionally any different from, “We’re drawing a line on the map. If you’re on this side of the line, you’re European, if you’re on the other, you’re Asian.” Racial categories are arbitrary, and change according to the political needs of the moment. In the 19th century, it was not at all uncommon to hear talk of “the English race,” or “the French race.”
As written, yes it does, which is why it has caused as much of a stir as it has. The effect (and many suspect a good part of the intent) will fall on several tens or hundreds of thousands of primarily Chinese homeowners who are present legally in the state, many of whom are actively in the years-long process of attaining US citizenship.
I understand tongue may be firmly in cheek, but it really does affect some of us.
In my county, they generally have good paying jobs and support local schools with property tax revenue. And are generally well behaved and law abiding sorts.
If you want to limit ownership by large corporations from those countries (noting that China accounts for 90+% of that ownership as well), write the laws that way. They don’t own a lot of farm land or large plots of land out here, anyway. But the majority of those affected will have an outsized effect on school funding and local tax base, and that I personally care a great deal about.
In my neighborhood, lots and lots of houses are being purchased by Chinese nationals. Some smaller number of houses are being purchased by Russian nationals (far fewer lately), and zero by North Korean nationals (don’t know about Iranians).
The law is racist because it’s really targeting the influx of Chinese nationals buying homes in the US. The other countries are added for window dressing.
“Hey, RS, cite where this is true!”
I can’t provide a cite, but it’s obviously true because, for example, there’s no influx of wealthy North Koreans, or even NK government purchases of US property. That’s probably already banned by various US federal laws against doing business with the NK government. So, the NK part is obviously window dressing.
There were a lot of Iranians that came over in the 70s, after the Revolution, but there’s no such wave these days. The Iranian government is having a hard enough time surviving, without speculating in Texas real estate. So, the Iran part is obviously window dressing.
This is targeted at Chinese individuals coming into neighborhoods and buying houses, going to school, the horror. It’s obviously racist, and the Texas Democratic party can see through the obvious window dressing and is calling it out.
Now there’s a hoary dog whistle masquerading as economic protectionism.
The Chinese are draining the aquifer and taking the water back to China? Really?
Well why else would the aquifer be getting lower? Climate change isn’t real, after all. Surely [ethnic other] is to blame? It certainly couldn’t be a complex issue and / or our own fault.
Except that the only reason Republicans consider China to be an adversary is because of racism.
It’s been the pattern for at least 20 years that Democratic legislators read the bills that they vote on, while Republicans don’t. Even for bills that Republicans themselves propose.
Non-white people can also become naturalized citizens of the PRC.
Another part of the problem is that a good number of countries in Asia are, essentially, populated by one race: China, the vast majority being the Han, Korea with the overwhelming majority being Korean, Japan with the Japanese, etc.
They’ve been getting away with that for at least a couple of years now with their use of the Texas National Guard on the border with Mexico. I really don’t know if they’re using the state militia for that, too.
Regarding dual nationality for PRC citizens: the Chinese government prohibits such after, IIRC, 18 years of age. Upon reaching 18, the individual must either renounce the other citizenship or will lose Chinese citizenship.