What’s your evidence for this statement?
We are. I’m not so sure about the majority of Republicans.
No, they are taking the food back to China.
Update: I see that @bump linked to the article that I read it from. It’s not that I believe it, it’s just something that is being given as a reason. It might well be a hoary dog whistle for all I know.
The purchase of vast tracts of land by folks who don’t live in a community is a real concern, and I’m in favor of a bill that addresses it. However:
- The problem isn’t specific to any one country: acre for acre, it’s just as much of a problem when a Swede purchases farmland in Texas as when a Chinese citizen does. The bill’s picking on China is clearly motivated by something else.
- It’s similarly problematic when someone from Chicago or LA purchases land in Texas. The bill’s picking on foreigners is clearly motivated by something else.
- There is zero problem with North Koreans purchasing land in Texas. Including them in the bill is a smokescreen.
- The problem absolutely isn’t that immigrants are purchasing their own homes, or that they’re purchasing businesses they work at and own and control themselves. The bill’s inclusion of all “real property” is either unintentionally broad, or intentionally anti-immigrant.
- There’s a decent chance that the bill is going to run into constitutional issues of discrimination based on national origin. Even if somehow the bill’s language is found nondiscriminatory, in practice people with apparent Chinese heritage (appearance, accent, names) are going to face increased scrutiny and hurdles in purchases compared to folks without that apparent heritage. And, of course, the folks who will discriminate will ironically not discriminate between Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, etc. folks.
The bill is terrible, that’s clear. What’s less clear is the degree to which its awfulness is intentional.
And the agricultural products produced on Chinese owned US farmland and exported back to PRC is a veritable drop in the bucket compared to the USD 24 billion (in 2020 according US Dep.of Ag) in agricultural products exported by the US to PRC. And a significant whack of that trade is facilitated by US export subsidies.
Well, ignoring the legitimately bad idea of a blanket policy that also targets homeowners, farm land is a smokescreen in other ways.
Chinese ownership of agricultural land as of the USDA 2021 land report was 383,000 total acres in the US which is less than 1% of all foreign owned agricultural land, which is itself a fraction of the 190 million acres of all farm land in the US.
Investors from Russia, Iran, and North Korea, to further show how much of a fig leaf those countries represent, collectively own less than 3000 acres, or less than 1% of the less than 1% of foreign owned farm land that China holds. China really is 99+% of the target here. The others are a rounding error by comparison.
One of the main tenets of critical race theory (oh no, evil!) is that it doesn’t matter. If the outcome disadvantages a minority, it’s bad and should be changed. I love the idea that it’s less important to try to divine the intent of a law and figure out who to blame and how much to blame them, but rather just fix the problem.
I’m not sure that’s true. What’s true is that a law whose racially disparate impact is unintentional is still a bad law. But if the impact is intentional, then the way you work to change it may be different. Folks who write unintentionally racist laws may be educated. Folks who write intentionally racist laws may only be opposed.
One tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals.[8][9][10]
I included footnotes intentionally.
Not to derail the thread into CRT, that’s not my intention. I just want to point out that there is a school of thought about laws that perpetuate racism, and that intentional prejudice is not necessarily a component of them. That might be useful here.
To be clear, I agree with this. My only disagreement–which may turn out to be nitpicking–is with the idea that intentionality “doesn’t matter.”
Someone can’t reasonably say, “That’s not racist because it’s not like the Klan.” But that doesn’t mean you address their actions exactly the same as you’d address the Klan.
Fair enough. I am probably guilty of clumsy wording here. Obviously it matters, I meant that focusing on it might not necessarily be productive.
Though if anyone is clearly pushing for something racist in trying to get this passed, that should be highlighted. Something along the lines of, “We need to fight back against all the Chinese, this bill is just another tool to get that done.”
My opinion on this is very dependent on WHY, exactly, they want to own land in a nation thousands of miles away from their own. Do they want to build businesses and hire American workers? Fine, then I have no problem with it. Do they want to own the land so they can strip it of anything useful and then ship it home to their own country? Then, no, I have a very big problem with that.
Does this bill make any distinction between those? And, wouldn’t that be your concern for any country, or are you only concerned about those countries stripping anything useful?
Can we all agree that including NK and Iran was just window dressing?
What if a German comes to Texas, buys a huge parcel of land, strip mines it, and ships all the resources to Germany? This bill won’t stop that.
Well, you might look at that as being discriminatory. On the other hand, there is huge precedence for recognizing certain nations as enemies and governing dealings with them accordingly. Russia, China, and North Korea are totalitarian states that have shown themselves to be hostile to America and its way of life. Germany is an ally. I think that is a huge difference.
Is the thesis here that China will strip our resources out of spite, whereas Germany wouldn’t do that because we’re allies, regardless of profitability?
The thesis is “established behavior over time”. If Jack has behaved like a deceitful, hostile, and dangerous prick towards me for many years, and Jill has been a friend whom I can trust for many years, then my treatment of Jill is going to differ dramatically from my treatment of Jack.
Which is a reasonable way to deal with Jack.
It’s not reasonable to deal with all people named “Jack” the same way based on their name.
From the OP: “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.”
This is hardly “everyone”. Still, your point is taken. Heck, those three nations have operatives and assets in many countries. Some German guy named Hans may actually be a Russian asset who is actually buying the land for Russia. Who knows?
The only truly equitable solution is not to sell American land to any foreign interests.
For that matter, what if an American buys a huge parcel of land, strip mines it, and sells all the resources to China?
If you’re worried about China getting our resources, pass tariffs on exports to China. If you’re worried about destructive, extractive capitalism, pass environmental legislation. If you’re worried that there are too many Chinese people moving into your neighborhood, though, this is the bill you want.