comment: >
  
  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.
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.