comment: >
  
  There are plenty of Texans that would be willing to run a shell company.  I buy the house, I lease it to you for 30 years.  You pay me a price
context: I am torn on this. 
  It is no secret that foreign investors are buying land here, using our resources, and not paying as much taxes as born and raised citizens. We are seeing it in AZ with a Saudi farm raising alfalfa in the desert to export  back to their country. China owns several of our largest poultry and meat processing facilities and farms while again getting our subsidies. 
  There needs to be a way to restrict that without restricting actual immigrants, green card holders, or permanent residents from owning property. >
  
  Don’t forget water rights and the Chinese buying property near critical infrastructure. >
  
  That one violates the federal control over foreign policy.  States can't just ban countries citizens from doing business in their state. >
  
  Look at the platform the Texas GOP came up with last year at its convention - voting for both secession from the US and abolishing laws on a federal laws. For them, one of those most basic concepts, that you can't abolish another country's laws, was ignored. It was all sovereign citizen fantasyland. >
  
  Can we vote on their secession also? >
  
  I vote yes from California >
  
  I vote that we capture and imprison the traitors, and put Texas in the hands of decent, honest people who believe in democracy.
  Why should w automatically capitulate to the demands of reactionaries? >
  
  Very true. The traitors should be exiled to the Pacific garbage island so they can be among all the trash like them. >
  
  Not the dumbest thing the state has done… >
  
  Texas insta-hate aside, I’d personally like to see this in a lot more places. Residential housing is getting super squeezed by corporate and foreign ownership, the less we can reduce that the better.
  Edit: I’m reading some of the other threads. I think as long as you’re occupying as a full-time resident, that’s ok…it’s the unoccupied and rentals that chafe my loins. >
  
  China literally says foreign people cannot own land in China. >
  
  Mexico also bans foreigners from owning land last I heard. >
  
  You cannot own the physical land but you can buy property(house) and rent the land. 
  Also, you can buy condos as those aren’t explicitly tied to the land but the actual building which you do not own what land.
  Edit: typos >
  
  My bad idk what happened. Apologies for the typos. >
  
  But not Saudi Arabia? >
  
  
  Many of them are trying to become United States citizens and are waiting in line. And we’re telling them, ‘you’re not welcome here, you can’t buy a home, you can’t start a business,’ Rep. Wu said. “If we’re saying that Texas is no longer friendly for business, that’s a really dangerous statement.”
  
  Not exclusive to commerical property or business entities but also for regular people who just want to buy a home as well...... I don't foresee this being a popular thing to do but I do foresee this eventually getting passed because it's Texas. >
  
  It won't pass.  There too much money to be made. >
  
  If Canada can do it… >
  
  That’ll surely disrupt the BOOMING North Korean housing market >
  
  This is the comment I was looking for. I can't believe I had to go this far down. I'm willing to bet the number of homes sold in Texas to North Koreans is pretty god damn close to zero. >
  
  And if that number isn't 0, they're probably being sold to North Korean refugees or defectors. It's not like members of Kim Jong-Un's inner circle are deciding to buy some investment properties in Texas all of a sudden. >
  
  US intelligence would be salivating at the idea of North Korean elite property on US soil lol >
  
  So people who flee oppressive regimes will encounter a repressive regime in the Land of the Free™? >
  
  I'm pretty far left, but, maybe rent until they're a citizen? >
  
  That’s a pretty far right thing to say >
  
  There are many, many countries that don't allow foreign nationals to own property.
  Some don't even allow them to own businesses, so in practice you have to find a local to join as a partner. It discourages foreign market entrants, but at least it makes sure some of the wealth goes to locals. >
  
  Do any of those countries have the motto "land of the free?" >
  
  Canada, for one. There was a ban passed just recently. >
  
  From what I know Canada is trying to implement the same thing just with all non citizens instead of citizens of specific countries. >
  
  This went into effect Jan 1 this year. >
  
  Oh really I think this is discrimination in my country Austria you can comite a hate crime based on a few things one of them is citizenship or a judge had to decide that later on a lack of citizenship (ie immigrants as an exam as they lack an Austrian citizenship) >
  
  Weird flex but you have taxpayers dying from power outages. >
  
  china owns our mines this is actually not a bad idea >
  
  I’m all for this but it needs to be handled federally.  Not state by state. >
  
  Just ban all foreign ownership or at least from any corporate entities. >
  
  I expect other states would like to make the same rule for Texans. >
  
  I think Canada does something like this , right? >
  
  I live in Denmark. Property you can live in often has “bopælspligt” which basically means as an individual you have to live in the property you own or rent it out long term (so no Airbnb). It sort of works, but companies that own residential buildings for rentals are still able to jack up rent etc. (Although there is strong laws to prevent unlawful eviction and there is a “rent ceiling” by law) but at least there are people living in property earmarked for it and it is not just a tool for speculation for the 1% >
  
  Sometimes, very rarely, the GOP gets one or two things right. >
  
  My opinion is that only citizens of whatever country should be allowed to own real estate. If a multinational corporation wants to own a commercial property, then they have to set up a local corporation, governed by the local taxation, corporate, and employment laws. >
  
  Finally, a republican policy that I could get behind.  America should not be sold to foreign entities.  Rent away, never sold. >
  
  What if the person in question is an American citizen? That's essentially saying they're never allowed to own their own home in their country. >
  
  The original statement is clearly about citizens.  Dual citizenship is another issue.  First address a person who is not a citizen of the US buying land in the US.  It is a bad habit to extrapolate away from what is actually stated.  Seems to be a means to divert focus and create undue conflict. >
  
  Unpopular opinion but the US as a whole really should do more laws like this, land is a massive problem in the US and given the amount of homeless we have and the costs of owning a home, limiting foreign land ownership is a good idea.
  Not to mention it doesn't really make sense to allow people/companies from countries that have a horrible track record of human rights to own land since well we're basically supporting it and gaining from it. >
  
  Technically, we don’t have a land problem or house problem. We have ample properties that are vacant. What we have is greed problem. Banning people from buying property won’t fix anything. What we need is to ban corporations, hedge funds, or any person from owning multiple properties. >
  
  A distraction and a waste of time and money. As if this is a pressing issue for Texas. Political grandstanding at its best >
  
  I was thinking Texas must be killing it if they’ve made it down this far on their list of problems! >
  
  Won‘t they simply invest in shares of companies that own the real estate? >
  
  No they'll invest in the holding company that owns those companies. >
  
  Wait, but I thought Republicans loved Russia and Putin? So why are they banning Russian citizens? Or is it only Russian citizens fleeing Russia now cause they want nothing to do with their illegal Ukraine war? >
  
  Honestly, their "love of Russia" is probably not genuine.  Its purely based on contrarianism and an attempt to weaken the US government as to set conditions for themselves to gain power in the future. In a situation where they no longer had "the liberals" to use as a scapegoat they would very likely just make Russia&China their next scapegoats, calling Russia an "eastern horde" and a "ally of the Chinese". >
  
  I think North Koreans have more pressing issues than buying a house in Texas >
  
  I totally agree on this idea myself, how many homeless do we need on the streets as foreign nationals buy up our land and homes. Texas is no always wrong just mostly. >
  
  For everyone saying this is a good idea, you do realize it prevents US citizens from buying a home. Also, if you’re so concerned with companies buying up homes, why limit it to foreign companies?  Blackrock is doing way more damage than any foreign company. >
  
  How does it prevent a US Citizen from buying a home? >
  
  Because you can be a dual citizen. I currently serve in the military with several people that are dual citizens that would be prevented from buying a home under this bill. So you can serve the country but just not buy a home? >
  
  Thank you for explaining >
  
  Good. Include major corporations. >
  
  And all REITS from the 2016 TCJA.
  REITs = Real Estate Investment Trust 
  These are evil.  Allows foreign ownership with little disclosure required before ownership. >
  
  Good.  Texas finally does something right.  This should be law across the country. Foreign ownership of residential facilities, along with corporate ownership has pushed the housing market out of reach for a lot of people.
  They fucked up by singling out foreign countries instead of just a blanket ban on foreign ownership. >
  
  A state can’t make this decision. This is something only the federal government can do >
  
  
  This should be law across the country. >
  
  Looks like it's clock right once a decade time for Texas >
  
  In China, Russia, Iran and North Korea? This sounds like Texas. >
  
  Americans keep saying capitalism is better than communism until the commies found a way to beat them, how bout we just buy them. >
  
  A North Korean in Texas? I think only one person in North Korea can afford land on Texas.. >
  
  Unlikely to pass because Texas politicians have been bought off by oligarchs from these countries. >
  
  So shell companies from other more trusted countries launder their money. Pretty much how Russians and Iranians get around embargoes already. >
  
  Every green card holder from those countries is screwed by this law. Lawful immigrants usually have to get a green card first before they become a citizen. Dissidents from those nations will be barred from owning a home. Dual citizens will be barred from owning a home. This is a terrible law because it doesn’t exclude individuals of either category. Who have nothing to do with those governments or who simply want to own a primary home. This solves nothing. It targets groups of people based on national origin. Violating the 14th Amendment. >
  
  Texas doing something right for once but they forgot the Saudi's >
  
  Finally Texas does something right. >
  
  As much as I dislike those governments, this sounds like it's going to clash with other laws. >
  
  China and Russia is one thing, but how many people from Iran and North Korea are moving to the US who are aligned with their governments? I would guess vast majority of Iranian and North Korean citizens trying to buy property and settle down in the US are refugees or defectors. >
  
  Probably not many. Iran is pretty busy with its internal struggles. We may see an increase in Iranians coming here. >
  
  What about those dang Canadians? >
  
  Even if they could, how would they deal with defectors who the countries refuse to permit to give up citizenship? >
  
  What about the Saudis? Why do the Saudis own so much of Texas already? What about them? >
  
  This is so retro >
  
  I can see how this could be abused to go after people on the path to citizenship while saying Corporations aren't people therefore, they don't count. >
  
  Only American billionaires can own property >
  
  Foreigners should be allowed to own one residential and one commercial property. If they want more they need to become citizens.
  That's a sensible solution to the problem that no one seems to consider because ALL OR NOTHING is our stupid government's only ideas. >
  
  "citizens"
  What about corporations? >
  
  Bravo Texas 
  Hope it passes >
  
  But they can own guns right? >
  
  Hopefully Colorado will ban Texans from owning land there too. >
  
  It may not address a very serious issue they way it needs to be, but it’s better than nothing. >
  
  So what about the Chinese-American citizens? The Chinese seeking asylum and/or immigrating into the country, etc.? The Russians moving away from Putin's dictatorship? North Korean escapees?
  It's not surprising that we have foreign investors owning land and that is a huge issue, but there are still some foreign citizens who would like to own property still. >
  
  Would it be possible for shell companies to loophole this?
  I say this as Canada has tried the same thing, only with ridiculously easy loopholes. >
  
  I think the USA should take the same stance. >
  
  people do not choose what government thier born under considering this the law is unjust