I agree with you that the intent of the Constitution is to limit the powers of government. But I think we can all agree that allowing foreign governments to own large swaths of our country is foolish. My point simply was that if we ban them from ownership but allow foreign citizens to own property, we have given them a very easy workaround. I’m certainly open to other suggestions for how to prevent that.
2 Likes
I agree with you 100% that allowing foreign governments to own American property is foolish. But your proposition concerns individuals, not governments. In the case of China, it’s understandable because China sends their apparatchicks to buy in the US. For other countries, it wouldn’t work.
1 Like
As long as part of the individuals citizenship is us citizen then yes if they were say Russian/polish dual then no.
There needs to be legislation on the state level to attach to the title companies. As an order is entered into the system, a program that automatically looks at corporations and the officers. The foreign companies are very sneaky and try to appear as US based.
1 Like
I agree only US citizens should be able to buy our land.
2 Likes
I mean, you can. It just requires a law / constitutional amendment.
2 Likes
You could limit the amount of land a permanent resident could purchase. Maybe to 10-20 acres, but not hundreds, thousands, or millions of acres. You should be, at minimum, be a naturalized citizen. Many other countries require you to be a citizen to buy land.
4 Likes
I agree with you about the limitations, but I think they should include not only the size of the land but also the usage.
My major concern is that while it makes perfect sense to stop hostile countries from purchasing American property, it’s unreasonable to prevent American allies from investing in the American economy under conditions beneficial to both countries.
You are right, “cannot” is a wrong word. However, current immigration laws give permanent residents all the rights (and obligations) that Americans have, except for the right to vote. Banning permanent residents from buying property is discrimination based on national origin.
Exactly, and this forum is about laws you want to see passed/changed.
1 Like
I agree, but I have to wonder who is selling the land and why are they doing so.
And to grant rights. The first 10 amendments are literally called the bill of rights.
Merge with the ‘citizen ownership of land’ proposal.
I’ll try to find it and link it 
1 Like
It is still our land. Let them buy the land, follow our rules and grow the foods … Since the land is in America we can seize the land, so in reality America still owns the land.
What if the person who is purchasing the land is from Irland, Germany, Italy, and not China. Now if any country has laws that prevent Americans from buying and owning land in their country then there should be reciprocity. Let Bill Gates buy China!
My concern is Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Zuckerberg, Oprah, Rothchild, Rockafella, etc. Maui …
In your example the government ordered you to set two places for unknow guest. That would be a dictatorship - communist government. No, one can order me to open my house to an unknow person - they would not be a guest - they were not invited.
Do we need controls on the ownership of land? I am black and you are white, should I be able to own land next to your land? Well, I am American of Chinese origin, can I buy land next to your land. The Bank of China is loaning me the money to buy the land - is that allowed.
My point is that writing a constitutional law can be a difficult process. Lawyers and more lawyers. A town that is too small to support one lawyers is big enough to support two.
Gary, since your reply covers too much broad ground with too many examples, I will reply to your reply in a manner that covers all the bases, so to speak. Your text is bold and my reply to them is in italics…here we go…
It is still our land. Let them buy the land, follow our rules and grow the foods … Since the land is in America we can seize the land, so in reality America still owns the land.
1) And how do you propose to seize all of the elements in the periodic table that went from the soil, into the thousands of acres of beans, that were shipped back to China for Chinese consumption?
2) And once we seize the land back, as you say (because it is really ours) and we find out that nothing will grow in the soil because all of the minerals were leeched out over the past 3 decades, how do you propose to put those American Minerals back into the depleted soil – or did you have an idea that we would seize the land and put up a giant parking lot?
3) I think you neglect the very human trait of playing tit-for-tat. You state that we can seize land that was legally paid for, simply because it can be seized. How do you intend to re-imburse them for the land? Will you pay them market price or the price that they paid for it? Should we also pay for the beans on it or just tell them to suck it up? Do you not think China (the foreign country being used in this example), would not retaliate and cost us 10x the cost of that property in other ways?
What if the person who is purchasing the land is from Irland, Germany, Italy, and not China.
What person? We are ONLY talking about Countries here. The example I used was to represent individuals AS countries (ie: China and Iran) – not people FROM countries. The country of China is being used as example in this post because it is currently one of the largest purchasers of U.S. Properties in the country – Ireland and Italy are not large U.S. land purchasers at present.
Now if any country has laws that prevent Americans from buying and owning land in their country then there should be reciprocity. Let Bill Gates buy China!
Then there should be reciprocity applied, as you state, since China’s property belongs to the state and cannot be owned by America. Are you saying, by using your example, that we should restrict China from owning American land because China does not allow America to own Chinese land? If so, I am OK with that reciprocal reaction – “tit-for-tat” again, right?
My concern is Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Zuckerberg, Oprah, Rothchild, Rockafella, etc. Maui …
Yes, I would agree with you about these particular people and how they might use large swaths of property ownership against Americans; however the post is about foreign government ownership, so we should probably stick to the scope of the subject.
In your example the government ordered you to set two places for unknow guest. That would be a dictatorship - communist government. No, one can order me to open my house to an unknow person - they would not be a guest - they were not invited.
You are turning an analogy into a literal event and then steering the conversation out into the weeds, so to speak. If I am not mistaken (I have been around the block a time or two), only very young Americans, and English-speaking foreigners make this classic sort of ‘diversion of logic’ within exchanges. Now, the takeaway to the example should have been that American lands owned by foreign governments used to grow food for their populations is very much the same as taking food right off the American dinner table and supplying it to complete foreigners who might even be an external threats to Americans. I hope that clears up the intention of the analogy.
Do we need controls on the ownership of land? I am black and you are white, should I be able to own land next to your land? Well, I am American of Chinese origin, can I buy land next to your land. The Bank of China is loaning me the money to buy the land - is that allowed.
My point is that writing a constitutional law can be a difficult process. Lawyers and more lawyers. A town that is too small to support one lawyers is big enough to support two.
You list a series of questions to give the appearance that this conversation is much more complex and nuanced than it is. This a tactic to confuse and disrupt the logical flow of conversation, from problem to resolution. In order to simplify what you constructed to be, seemingly complex, I will again deconstruct the paragraph and address each sentence below…
Do we need controls on the ownership of land? China seems to think so. America should as well, for similar reasons.
I am black and you are white, should I be able to own land next to your land? We will leave that for racists and bigots to answer since it is not relevant to this policy proposal. (Not sure why you would play the race card here, but OK).
Well, I am American of Chinese origin, can I buy land next to your land. Are you the “Chinese government”? If you are, then my opinion is that the answer should be NO. If you are not, then my reply is YES.
The Bank of China is loaning me the money to buy the land – is that allowed. I think you bring up a good point for the policy proposer here. Can a foreign government own, negotiate, or transact a lien on U.S. property? Good question. Nice of you to bring up that point. We know what the Chinese government would insist, tables reversed…so what about in this case?
My point is that writing a constitutional law can be a difficult process. I don’t think this policy proposal is attempting to amend the constitution. Nor is it trying to provide equal protections to foreign governments as it currently provides to individual Americans. It is simply “international property law” that is being discussed here. You claim that it can be difficult and require a lot of lawyers…OK, I think Americans can certainly undertake difficult tasks; and it has plenty of lawyers available, don’t you agree? After all, If China can write its property laws (even to exclude foreign ownership), it is not too far of a stretch to assume that a powerful and capable country like America can accomplish the same legal feat, right?
A final note based on our exchange. If you are an American, as you claim, then perhaps you should not have equated yourself (used in your examples) with the ‘Chinese Government’ (used in my examples). When you do this, it may give the impression to others that you are operating under a higher ‘foreign loyalty’ than would any other proud and loyal American. Just an observation being shared. Hope that helps. Thanks.
Thanks for taking time to read and replay to my rant. Your critique of my rant was appropriate. I will draft a reply to your comments.
1 Like