This is exactly it. I hear complaints from my own neighbors about this, and I’m sure some of them would love this bill, and they aren’t concerned about stripping the resources from my little NJ town. They’re worried about change, afraid of foreigners, etc. – various forms of xenophobia and racism.
So, I guess you’re concerned that North Korea have been buying up Texas land for the last few decades, stripping the minerals, and sending it back to NK?
You’re being too specific. What I’m concerned about is any foreign interest that wants to buy large parcels of American land. Say, a foreign nation wants to buy 50,000 acres of land in Texas or anywhere else for that matter. My question is, “Why?”
I guess you’re talking about some other bill, then. This bill targets China, plus a few others as window dressing.
Who said, “We need to pass it to know what’s in it.”?
I would call this a hijack, but this was so out of context that it’s up there with “you didn’t build that” in terms of ridiculous takes.
What makes this bill even more ridiculous is that we’ve been told for decades that the real problem are large agricultural concerns buying up family farms. I presume this bill does not address that.
I guess if the agricultural concerns were owned by North Korea…
I thought about that. And that is a good point. But I also think there’s a legitimate concern if foreign interests are coming to the US in order to buy up land and use the resources to profit their home country. Because I believe that there is a greater likelihood for the wealth generated by the American selling resources to China to be circulated to America than for a Chinese national.
As a random example, a guy who has lived in Houston his whole life buys a strip of land, sells ore to China, buys a mansion in Houston. Meanwhile, a guy who lives in Beijing buys a neighboring strip of land, sells the resources to China, buys a mansion in Beijing.
There is some reasoning there. I don’t think it’s actually a huge problem, myself, but I get it. But I think what’s far worse is singling out particular countries because you are concerned about behavior that any foreign national might engage in. I can’t see how that’s not discriminatory.
When you say “a foreign nation,” do you mean specifically the government?
Because this bill is wayyy broader than that, and I don’t think your question is especially relevant to this bill.
I’m much more concerned about Chinese interests buying up world ports.
One of COSCO’s latest targets is a 35-percent share in operations in the Tollerort terminal where the Libra docked in Hamburg in early September. If it succeeds, Hamburg will be the 96th port around the world where Chinese companies are known to have a stake, according to maritime security and economics researchers.
I’m not so sure I share the concern here, isn’t it logical that the greatest exporter of goods have interest in the ports? If that’s scary then people should stop buying Chinese goods. Also, does interest in a port equal authority to do whatever you want. I would imagine if a port owner was doing something against the interest of the host country that the host could nationalize the port and take control back.
On another point, I think if these SW states are so concerned about foreigners taking advantage of their water resources they should make water usage laws that apply to everyone and enforce them. Don’t like how much water the almond and grape growers are using, put a tax on them or make them replenish the resource somehow. But legislators would rather play the race card and divert attention from an actual crisis. Our country is so fucked.
No argument there. Almond growers need to be taxed big time.
I heard on NPR about what the Chinese are doing now that they control Sri Lanka’s ports. Basically trading money for influence in the sovereign nation’s politics via economic power.
And the bit about concern over ports is a different debate, anyway.
The concern is that those ports are often in countries that have taken out fairly large loans that China holds. And that those loans give China leverage. It’s the leverage that is the concern, not the ownership of ports, per se.
If we are worried that such ownership in the US will give China leverage over our lawmakers, well, that may be a legitimate concern, but, again, that’s less about the natural resources and more to do with how much we can trust our elected officials.
ETA: or just as in the post above this one.
Control of ports does deserves its own thread, its kind of getting to be a hijack here. I don’t have time to make one now, but would participate.
Back to the OP. Damn those racist Texas legislators!
It’s definitely political, I’m not buying the racist angle, at least not as intent.
China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia is pretty much the short list of countries whose governments can be considered hostile to the United States, and have enough geopolitical, economic, or military influence to actually do something about it. It would make sense to restrict property ownership to agents of those countries, and S.B. No. 147 does mostly that:
PURCHASE OF OR ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO REAL
PROPERTY BY CERTAIN FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES PROHIBITED.
Notwithstanding any other law, the following may not purchase or
otherwise acquire title to real property in this state:
(1) a governmental entity of China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia;
(2) a company or other entity that is:
(A) headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia;
(B) directly or indirectly held or controlled by the government of China, Iran, North Korea, or
Russia; or
(C) owned by or the majority of stock or other ownership interest of which is held or controlled by
individuals who are citizens of China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia;
(3) a company or other entity that is owned by or the majority of stock or other ownership interest of which is held or controlled by a company or entity described by Subdivision (2); or
(4) an individual who is a citizen of China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia.
(4) appears to be the sticking point with the racism accusations. I disagree that it’s trying to do the same thing that the Chinese Exclusion act did - which was try to discourage Chinese from immigrating to the US. The majority of Chinese citizens in the US are probably international students, and they are not likely to be looking to actually own property in the US, since most of them are not intending to stay hear once they graduate. They can and usually rent. In some cases it’s probably more cost effective for a long-term student w/ family to own a house if they are in a post-graduate program, and I think cases like that might merit more discretion as opposed to a blanket ban. Chinese who are actually immigrating to the US with the intention of gaining permanent residency and citizenship should not be barred from owning property if they have non-temporary immigrant status, I’m not sure how this bill covers those cases. If the legislators are truly not intending prohibiting ownership of immigrants on a path to permanent residency or citizenship (as the bill sponsors claim), then it does need to be worded more clearly and those clauses added to the bill.
There are already bans on doing business with Iranian and North Korean companies, and they aren’t doing business over here anyway. Those are complete red herrings. There are some restrictions on doing business with Russia, but not as strict as those first two.
There are lots of Chinese citizens buying property here, either as an investment or to live here.
It covers those cases by barring them from buying property. You quoted it yourself.
This is just totally inaccurate.
As I noted above, several of my friends, neighbors, and co-workers ALREADY own property not only in the US but here in Texas. Most were students at one point and quite naturally desired to stay (many have pretty good jobs in the energy sector).
Lois Kolkhorst knows this. Her district, which includes a fair amount of suburban Fort Bend County where I live, has many such people. Even if they can’t vote for her (at least until/unless they achieve citizenship), they do contribute to the tax base in her district, have kids that attend the local schools, and generally stay out of trouble.
This bill as written affects literally at least tens of thousands of regular families in the Houston area alone.
By contrast, there are not anywhere near as many Russian or Iranian, much less North Korean, property owners in the region.
This bill, in effect, is targeted very narrowly at not just China government or business interests, but at Chinese people in general. It didn’t have to be written that way, but it was.
If they intend to stay permanently then their immigration status would reflect that. I did say that the bill should be rewritten to address that. Assuming of course that the sponsors of the bill aren’t lying when they say that it’s not intended to be against Chinese citizens on the path to citizenship or permanent residency. If they are lying, then I agree with you.
Property ownership by foreign investors who don’t live in the US or intend to, and own property purely for economic/investment reasons, is a different story (and one worth debating as well) and touches on political and economic relationships with the PRC, which I think is a separate topic and not related to racist efforts to prevent Chinese people from living in the United States.
They are lying.
Yes, this is definitely a big problem with North Koreans.