Ban on foreign ownership of property not the Texas way
At the outset of the 2023 Texas Legislature, two bills were introduced in the Senate that ostensibly promise to somehow protect Texas from Chinese, Iranians, Russians or North Koreans purchasing or owning land.
State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst’s SB 147 would bar governments, businesses or citizens of China, Iran, Russia and North Korea from buying land in Texas. State Sens. Donna Campbell’s and Tan Parker’s SB 552 would prohibit selling agricultural land to citizens of China, Iran, Russia and North Korea.
SB 147 and SB 552 are part of a broader, bipartisan effort at both the state government and national levels to curb Chinese influence and economic reliance that impacts key industries such as food, semiconductors and minerals. Currently, 14 states specifically forbid or limit nonresident immigrants, foreign businesses and corporations, and foreign governments from acquiring or owning an interest in agricultural land within their state.
Texas isn’t one of them. In fact, Texas has no law prohibiting foreign ownership of real and personal property. SB 147 and SB 552 would change that. In particular, while SB 147 only applies to future real property purchases in Texas, the bill’s current language would appear to prohibit, for example, a Chinese or Iranian citizen possessing a work visa or green card
and waiting to become a U.S. citizen from purchasing land or real estate until they are naturalized.
Texas already bans companies with ties to these governments from connecting into our critical infrastructure, like the power grid. SB 147 and SB 552 go further, impacting the ability of individuals from these four countries to purchase any kind of real property. Some would say that’s good because it addresses potential vulnerabilities to our national security and stops investors from these countries from flooding the state’s real estate market. Others
argue these bills are far too sweeping, smack of xenophobia, and target individual immigrants and their families.
Foreign interests own more land in Texas than any other state. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, about 5 million acres — or roughly 3 percent — of privately owned land in Texas is owned by foreigners. More than half of that is owned by companies and individuals who are from countries that are our allies, with those from Canada, the United Kingdom and Mexico owning the largest single shares. Chinese ownership? Less than
two-tenths of 1 percent. Russian or Iranian? Even less. North Korean? Nonexistent. Perhaps SB 147 and SB 552 are solutions in search of a problem?
Texas’ property laws don’t delineate between citizens and noncitizens regarding ownership. Texas prides itself on sacrifice, hard work, opportunity and economic growth. How are these values served by denying land or property ownership to immigrants and their families from China, Iran, North Korea or Russia?
A sincere question to Kolkhorst, Campbell and Parker: What about a person fleeing one of these four targeted countries to avoid religious, political, sexual orientation or gender identification persecution? Should we deny them the ability to purchase a home or start an agribusiness in Texas merely because of their nationality, even when they have courageously opposed their home country’s regime? Neither SB 147 nor SB 552 appear to address these questions.
Kolkhorst’s assurances notwithstanding, SB 147 targets lawful future immigrants with visas and green cards by not allowing them the same economic opportunity that many other people who have immigrated to Texas have been afforded. Frankly, I can’t think of how preventing a visa or green card holder from Chengdu from buying a home in San Antonio somehow sticks it to the Communist Party of China.
Thousands of international students who choose to stay in Texas after finishing their degrees will be denied the ability to buy a house under SB 147 or agricultural property under SB 552. Stop me if I’m wrong, but I thought Texas was looking for ways to make California and New York look desirable to talented college graduates.
Ultimately, concerns about land ownership by citizens or corporations from nations that we perceive to be adversaries need to be addressed by Congress and the White House, not the Texas Legislature.