Hacker News Reader

Comment by lvl102 | Hacker News Reader

I am just curious why we are allowing foreigners to buy homes in the US when we have a housing crisis. Here in New England, Chinese/Russians came in and started buying homes in the past two decades. Not only that, we end up educating their children for free in our public schools. Why? They don’t even let our companies operate in their country.

Edit: they should not be able to invest in real estate in the US if US citizens are not afforded the same rights in their county. Reciprocity. It’s not asking for much.

View on HN

I would simply avoid having a housing crisis by allowing people to build more housing. Seems pretty win-win to me.

Allowing the foreigner from a country with no reciprocal permission for us to build in their country works against this though. They're sucking capital out of their country which in the example used of Russia/China would build several more housing units and instead building fewer units in the US. Couple this with lack of reciprocity and what you did was a relative loss in housing potential.

We need to be forcing reciprocity to make sure we're actually maximizing available housing.

>I would simply avoid having a housing crisis by allowing people to build more housing. Seems pretty win-win to me.

The housing crisis is primarily driven by wealth inequality and poor financial decisions by the US government. Not building is a secondary problem.

I'm all for building more and denser housing, but if all the units are snatched by banks and wealthy investors, its not going to make the country more affordable.

You could just choose to not have a housing crisis, you know? It's not the foreigners fault that you insist on outlawing construction.

I’m against parking money in other countries that result in empty homes.

Home ownership should be only for people who are permanent residents (they can own up to 10 years or until they receive citizenship, to cut down on loophole abusers) or citizens.

Why should any country let mega rich people from other countries (let’s be honest if you have money in 3rd world country you’re most likely doing something sketchy.. otherwise you’d move here to work as a swe or something) who have no intention of living here.

Source: I’m a naturalized US citizen originally from 3rd world, grew up poor and I know income inequality there it’s far worse than what exists in US. I’m against dirt bag tier rich people from taking advantage of our system. We have plenty people doing that here already lol.

I would not say anything if they allowed US citizens to do the same in their country.

they don't pay taxes for the school systems?

Because we're better than them. We're a free market and that is that. We don't judge people by where they come from.

You had me until you started complaining about educating children. Who cares where they come from? Feed 'em and learn 'em.

Public schools = public goods. That’s all goodwill built over decades in many communities. Why are we just giving that away for free to people with interests against the US? Nope.

Because with free education, you bend their interests toward that of the US.

Whats your alternative? Force immigrant children into an undereducated class? Lets see how that works for you in 2 generations.

Shouldn't they have free housing too? Shelter is even more important than education.

I'd argue it'd be best for the billions of world children if the USA housed, fed, and educated them all. Every blessed one of them. The ones with parents rich enough to buy homes in foreign countries aren't probably the most needy amongst them of our help, either.

Why are you so opposed to children being fed, sheltered, and educated? Im not even suggesting going out and American Exceptionalisming the fuck out of them, like you are trying to make this sound.

In your goofy provocation, their housing is assumed. That's what you're caterwauling about, yea?

And yes, all people deserve shelter, education, and food.

In the thread we're under:

>You had me <referring about foreigners not being able to buy housing> until ... education ...

The 'provocation' was that their housing WASN'T even available to be bought, but that they should get an education. How do you consider it 'assumed' when the whole 'provocation' was the guy agreed they shouldn't be able to buy it?

Children do not have national interests. I insist this is a matter of basic decency and I am frankly surprised that anyone would act like this is controversial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com