Land Ownership Laws Restricting Certain Foreigners

[TGS]

Looking for some insight on the legal challenges and legitimacy regarding the new crop of laws, like Florida SB264, that typically fall along the lines of limiting the purchase of critical infrastructure, agricultural land, or land in general within a certain distance of same by entities and foreign nationals of China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and Iran.

The parts regarding foreign entities themselves seem fairly straight forward, but at first glance the provisions that restrict individual persons seem to be clearly in violation of our legal protections under the 1964 civil rights act that prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

Thoughts?

Note: this is not a political thread. This thread is to discuss the legal basis for these laws, their efficacy, and their legitimacy (or lack thereof).

[jh9]

Looking for some insight on the legal challenges and legitimacy regarding the new crop of laws, like Florida SB264, that typically fall along the lines of limiting the purchase of critical infrastructure, agricultural land, or land in general within a certain distance of same by entities and foreign nationals of China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and Iran.

The parts regarding foreign entities themselves seem fairly straight forward, but at first glance the provisions that restrict individual persons seem to be clearly in violation of our legal protections under the 1964 civil rights act that prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

Thoughts?

Note: this is not a political thread. This thread is to discuss the legal basis for these laws, their efficacy, and their legitimacy (or lack thereof).

It's a topic that's gotten some traction in several places. e.g. Saudi(?) ownership of real estate (and more importantly water rights) in AZ.

There are similarities between this (real estate) and the controversial Fairchild/Fujitsu merger back in 1986. I believe the ultimate resolution was Fairchild 'voluntarily' withdrew (and was later sold to a German company-- Allianz-- instead of a Japanese company).

A quick internet search going back down memory lane yields this:

https://apnews.com/article/e9b121b05...d0f22583b8ddff
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/17/b...ons-in-us.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...900-story.html

Of course, that's ancient history and the 2018 Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act is more recent. But AFAIK it's too recent to have been challenged all the way to SCOTUS. Or maybe it has been and I'm not aware of it. But I believe that legislation serves as the legal basis for blocking specific foreign investment. re: Florida; I don't know if there's a state-level mechanism similar to 'national security' to achieve the same goal. AFAIK that's the only legal mechanism in place?

[HeavyDuty]

Is national origin the same as nationality? In the absence of any legal precedence I’d argue no - basic human rights need to be extended to all regardless of citizenship, but other things like land ownership can and should be subject to restriction.

[TGS]

It's a topic that's gotten some traction in several places. e.g. Saudi(?) ownership of real estate (and more importantly water rights) in AZ.

There are similarities between this (real estate) and the controversial Fairchild/Fujitsu merger back in 1986. I believe the ultimate resolution was Fairchild 'voluntarily' withdrew (and was later sold to a German company-- Allianz-- instead of a Japanese company).

A quick internet search going back down memory lane yields this:

https://apnews.com/article/e9b121b05...d0f22583b8ddff
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/17/b...ons-in-us.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...900-story.html

Of course, that's ancient history and the 2018 Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act is more recent. But AFAIK it's too recent to have been challenged all the way to SCOTUS. Or maybe it has been and I'm not aware of it. But I believe that legislation serves as the legal basis for blocking specific foreign investment. re: Florida; I don't know if there's a state-level mechanism similar to 'national security' to achieve the same goal. AFAIK that's the only legal mechanism in place?

It's a good note, but like I said in the OP it's all pretty straight forward when we're talking foreign commercial entities. Regulating individual people is another issue, particularly when the regulation of said people extends beyond their connection to foreign commercial entities, governments, or political parties and can be based solely on the fact they are of a specific nationality...and the regulation is regarding activities that are typically viewed as a natural right among individuals in our founding ideology as reflected by the statement, "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", the latter being a revision of Locke's right to property, and generally been viewed as encompassing such. Several state constitutions are still more plain and guarantee the right to property, pulled verbatim from Locke. (note for @HeavyDuty)

But, back to the Saudi/AZ water rights thing......I'm not familiar with that. Is that regarding commercial entities or individuals? I.e. persons of KSA nationality are specifically written into a law?

[jh9]

But, back to the Saudi/AZ water rights thing......I'm not familiar with that. Is that regarding commercial entities or individuals? I.e. persons of KSA nationality are specifically written into a law?

I don't think there's anything currently being done to prevent Saudi corporations or individuals from owning real estate or using water. It is, however, a point of contention among some people in-state: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/ar...ate/index.html The AG and governor are talking about canceling the leases but I'm not aware of Florida-style SB264 legislation.

I assume the Florida law was red meat they knew probably wouldn't survive challenge? Desantis is setting up a POTUS run.

[DDTSGM]

Looking for some insight on the legal challenges and legitimacy regarding the new crop of laws, like Florida SB264, that typically fall along the lines of limiting the purchase of critical infrastructure, agricultural land, or land in general within a certain distance of same by entities and foreign nationals of China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and Iran.

The parts regarding foreign entities themselves seem fairly straight forward, but at first glance the provisions that restrict individual persons seem to be clearly in violation of our legal protections under the 1964 civil rights act that prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

I key in on 'foreign nationals' and tend to agree with the laws, even though they do seem to be be ripe for civil action.

[0ddl0t]

You can't buy a pistol in my state unless you're a resident, though I don't imagine that would fly for real estate...

[TGS]

You can't buy a pistol in my state unless you're a resident, though I don't imagine that would fly for real estate...

Correct, in that restrictions on foreign nationals buying property is a new thing. There has not typically been a restriction on foreign nationals buying property.

The federal restriction on non-immigrants purchasing firearms is only on the basis of residency status as non-immigrants.

A given foreign national is not banned from buying guns based on their particular national origin.

So, that's kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

[joshs]

Correct, in that restrictions on foreign nationals buying property is a new thing. There has not typically been a restriction on foreign nationals buying property.

The federal restriction on non-immigrants purchasing firearms is only on the basis of residency status as non-immigrants.

A given foreign national is not banned from buying guns based on their particular national origin.

So, that's kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

It looks to me like SB264 generally doesn't apply to LPRs either. That would have put it on highly constitutionally questionable grounds, but non-immigrant aliens generally have more limited rights.

There are quite a few areas of the law that restrict what someone can do based on country of origin. For example, our export laws generally restrict arms transfers to certain countries. Those restrictions can also restrict training on those arms to nationals of those countries. This applies even if the person is lawfully present in the US.

[TGS]

It looks to me like SB264 generally doesn't apply to LPRs either. That would have put it on highly constitutionally questionable grounds, but non-immigrant aliens generally have more limited rights.

There are quite a few areas of the law that restrict what someone can do based on country of origin. For example, our export laws generally restrict arms transfers to certain countries. Those restrictions can also restrict training on those arms to nationals of those countries. This applies even if the person is lawfully present in the US.

I'm not quite sure how to frame this question, so work with me here: do you have an example of a restriction based on country of origin which is a "domestic" matter, particularly at the state level? My use of the word "domestic" being not just referring to within the geographical U.S., but also in terms of subject matter as something that is not inherently military, combatant, security, etc in nature. As an example, whether a foreign national can enter the U.S. to participate in arms training is generally adjudicated as a foreign affairs matter before the person(s) enter the country, or to adjudicate their continued stay in the U.S. for a permissable purpose. Similarly, whether a foreign national of a country of concern intends to work in a sensitive field identified on the T.A.L. is a matter of foreign affairs, and adjudicated as part of the visa issuance and the risk to U.S. national security that the specific individual poses to by entering the country to participate in a specific activity which is very narrowly tailored (much, much more tailored than laws such as SB264). There's no violation of civil rights taking place, and the U.S. government is adjudicating their eligibility to enter the U.S. for a stated purpose.

Joe buying a house has historically not been a matter of foreign affairs, nor (to my knowledge) are other domestic issues such as...I don't know...getting a driver's license, buying a car, owning a pet dog, etc. Nor do these laws make buying a house a matter of foreign affairs, subject to such regulation, as they're only state laws prohibiting the purchase of property based on national origin. To my knowledge, there is no federal law that attempts to limit the domestic matters of a person based on national origin. Even more relevant law than what you referred to would be IRCA, which actually prohibits discrimination based on national origin of resident and non-resident aliens. Obviously it was only written to address the labor reforms, because in 1986 nobody was telling Chen or Fatima that it's illegal for them to buy a house. Still, that seems pretty instructive....

...and even if we say that a state government has a right to restrict an individual from purchasing property based on national origin and residency status (again, things not typically states issues, even non-immigrants can get a real ID, for instance), these laws are a very broad application compared to the tailoring involved in ITAR and visa issuances.