CNN reported on Monday that “a growing number of states are considering or have passed measures this legislative term to ban ‘foreign adversaries’ and foreign entities - specifically China - from buying farmland.” These bills could violate the US Constitution, and also fuel an atmosphere of racism and anti-China sentiment.
Probably better than leaving it in US T-Bills and Treasuries
Chinese interests should summarily be kicked out. The use of dumping on our markets to then take our interests is nonsense that really should be withdrawn.
Dumping is illegal both in the US and internationally.
I disagree. China buying farmland is not a good thing to me. They won’t have an interest in selling that food here, they will want to take it back home. Not sure I’d trust how they grow those crops either, doing things bad for ground water, streams, the soil itself, etc.
I’d much rather they buy Treasuries.
The best system is the one that works for both parties. So, the right to buy/own land in the US would be the same as the right of US citizens to own land in a reciprocating country. Problem solved for both sides.
The US$ is backed by the ‘faith and credit’ of America…
What Is Full Faith and Credit?
Full faith and credit is a phrase used to describe one entity’s unconditional guarantee or commitment to back the interest and principal of another entity’s debt. The full faith and credit commitment is typically employed by a government to help lower borrowing costs of a smaller, less stable government or of a government-sponsored agency.
These are empty words if there is not something to back them up. Does that something include farmland? If you exclude farmland, by how much do you diminish the “Full faith and credit?” Does it become "“Partial faith and credit?” If these Chinese farms export their crops, does that diminish the strategic security of America?
The Captain
But we are leaving China. That does not mean we need to be fair. Forget about being fair with dictatorships. Not on. Crushing the dictator is always on. The people of China will go through poverty till they gain their own freedom. That is on them. Has to be on them. Lets help set them free. Instead of giving them carte blanche.
I totally agree with bj. There is no way our food supply should not be under our control. It is less the actual food and in fact the water involved. China lacking water wants our irrigation systems.
Military power is included in that. You can have China’s superior military power one day as the main choice. You can have the US military power as the main currency choice.
Since the full faith and credit is a dynamic not a singular object I am going with the US.
That’s because the buyer of the land was a Chinese company, the Fufeng Group, based in Shandong, China, and the property is just about 20 minutes down the road from Grand Forks Air Force Base — home to some of the nation’s most sensitive military drone technology.
The base is also the home of a new space networking center, which a North Dakota senator said handles “the backbone of all U.S. military communications across the globe”…
Both the Democratic chairman and the Republican ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee told CNBC they are opposed to the project.
DB2
Security is a good reason to stop the sale while the fact that it’s farmland is not.
The Captain
The anti-Asian bigotry has already had a large start. It is actually more of a resurgence, given the US’ “Asian Exclusion Act”, which was then worked in to the immigration legislation of the 1920s, which restricted other ethnic groups.
Of course, we old phartz remember when it was the Japanese buying up US companies like Firestone and marquee properties like the Pebble Beach golf course, in the 80s.
We remember the uproar when Dubai Ports bought the company that owned the facilities in a major US port, because Muslims were the boogyman of the moment.
When white folks, like Daimler Benz, buy US assets, like Chrysler, it’s all good. I remember reading the report of the Chrysler shareholder meeting when the sale to Daimler was approved. There were only a handful of protestors, and they were holocaust survivors.
Steve
Foreign countries do not have rights in the US in anyway shape or form if you read the US Constitution.
As for foreign born citizens in the US? That is not the topic of discussion.
From the article:
Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times that these states have seriously deviated from the constitution.
I believe he is referring to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but the Constitution applies to US citizens and legal residents, not foreign nationals or companies, so I’m pretty sure the individual states can indeed legally ban foreign entities from owning land. I say that because many states already do place these types of restrictions of foreign ownership.
Agricultural land is generally a good investment. Agriculture is regulated in this country such that large producers almost always make money. They aren’t making more land, so it is a safe place to park money long term.
FWIW, the Mormon Church is the 5th largest agricultural private landowner in the US. Including owning 2% of the State of Florida, and recently outbid Bill Gates for a huge farm in Washington State. Much more lucrative than sharing that wealth with the poor and hungry, and all the income is tax free.
A US administration, several years ago, claimed the Bill of Rights only applied to US citizens, but I saw nothing to that effect in the text.
Further, foreign trade is entirely the responsibility of the Federal government, via the same commerce clause that gives the Federal government authority over interstate trade. I would suspect an individual state has no more authority to ban foreign ownership of real property, than it has to levy a tariff on imported goods.
Steve
Again I am not a lawyer, but this is not hypothetical. Many states already regulate foreign property ownership. So it would seem they do have that authority.
Or it means no-one has challenged the regulations, yet. The unconstitutionality of US Federal law regarding a “national day of prayer”, or “under God”, or “In God we trust” being the national motto and printed on the currency, are blatant violations of the establishment clause, but, so far, SCOTUS has found excuses to refuse to hear the cases.
Steve
Not all assets are the same. Buying an asset is not necessarily foreign trade. It is not coming through our ports.
Before the constitutional convention Hamilton from NY faced big and small states squabbling because the larger port states controlled the import of goods. The larger states were getting more power. In part that is why we have the senate. The commerce clause is then about larger states importing goods and adding tariffs on the goods going to the smaller states.
More importantly that is why the federal government controls international trade. Buying properties in the US is not international trade. It does not go through a port of entry as the US Constitution was concerned with.
Once again, I feel compelled to remind you that Global Times is an outlet for Chinese propaganda. And that would seem to be an important consideration when talking about Chinese nationals or companies buying property in the US.
Whether this is an important issue or not, Global Times is about the worst place I can think to look for unbiased information on this topic.
Please stop spreading propaganda, from any country.
—Peter
The Global Times was quoting from CNN:
I frequently read foreign news as it gives an interesting ‘alternative’ view of the news from the globalist propaganda in The West. It is just as reliable/unreliable.
But their headline was very different.
“Rule of law crumbles …” vs “States accelerate efforts to block Chinese…”
Reading foreign news is a good thing. Reading foreign propaganda is not.
Global Times is propaganda, not news.
—Peter
…and The Western press always tells the truth 