Florida ban on Chinese buying property goes to U.S. appeals court | Hacker News Reader

Florida ban on Chinese buying property goes to U.S. appeals court

asia.nikkei.com

33 pointsmikhael28 comments

Am I wrong in thinking that if they had just made it a ban on foreign buyers, Florida would be in the clear? As it stands, it sure sounds an awful lot like a rehash of the Chinese Exclusion Act[0] (I'm aware that countries other than China are on the list).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

>Signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last May, SB264 (23R) prohibits nationals from China, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia and North Korea from buying homes in the state.

Law seems to be tuned, roughly, to states hostile to the United States. I agree though, if FL had just made this a ban on foreign real estate speculation they'd probably be okay.

Florida has a lot of Latin America and European wealth flowing into their real estate (Miami, primarily), which they would likely be adverse to preventing.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2023/12/21/7...

Every nation listed there is under embargo or some other trade restriction by the US State department. https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...

I don't think it's out of line to prohibit nationals from those countries from purchasing homes or land in the US. Especially since nationals of those states with the ability/capital to purchase homes are, IMO, more than likely to be part of the governing regimes.

Everyone is forever part of a regime that holds family hostage.

The funny thing is that putting "China" vs. "Russia" in the headline will elicit a different knee-jerk reaction, but they're both included.

I get that the source is Nikkei Asia , and China is the only Asian country* on the list, but the headline and a good chunk of the article made the law seem like it was exclusively targeting Chinese nationals.

*not counting Russia

I think you'll find that North Korea is generally considered to be a country in Asia, too.

What continent contains Iran, Syria and (as the other comment pointed out) North Korea?

Oof yeah I didn’t think that one through.

Still I think the general idea is pertinent. Why the focus on China?

Well, they have the funds do they not? I don't think there's a class of wealthy real estate investors from DPRK eager to get into the condo market in South Florida. In that context it makes perfect sense to focus on China. Still, given the expansive jurisprudence on targeting specific races, and the general allergy we have in American politics to doing anything even adjacent to that idea, it would've been better to draft a more expansive policy for the bill.

Personally I think foreign real estate investment is bad, and should be severely dealt with. I don't think it's fair for rich foreigners to essentially park cash in American housing. That specific sense that this activity is wrong can be generalized into a better policy solution, where we don't have to pretend that it's only bad when the Chinese or the Russians or whoever does it. It's also bad for private equity to do this, but that's a separate topic.

Completely banning all foreign speculators would likely crash the housing market there.

Oh wow, promise?

Why would Asian-Americans be upset with this? If all of the EU suddenly went authoritarian and hostile toward the US, would people be upset to see similar laws against EU citizens?

Depends whether they're owners or renters.

> Why would Asian-Americans be upset with this?

Most of the article is under paywall, but does it say that Asian Americans are upset with this?

I only read “Chinese plaintiffs” which implies, to me, Chinese citizens not Chinese ethnicity.

It mentions it at least twice.

Did we read the same article? I didn't see it mentioned even once.

The article answers this:

> "That's not because of anything that the law says," Li said. "I think [it's] the broader stigmatization and chilling effect that the law has created for not only Chinese people in the state of Florida, but Asian Americans in general."

And

> Li said the Asian American community is concerned about worsening anti-Asian behaviors in the U.S.

And

> "But what ends up happening is that it's really Chinese people and Asian Americans here that end up being harmed by many of these statements and much of this discriminatory rhetoric, because it gives the general impression that it's OK to attack even Americans."

Sounds more like made-up propaganda to drive a wedge in a multicultural society.

Probably because lots of Asian Americans have family members who are still Chinese citizens. China doesn't allow dual citizenship, so their parents and grandparents may be barred from buying property even if they've lived here for a long time and have a green card.

You may suggest they get American citizenship, which would be fair normally but I think asking someone to give up their citizenship of their birth country in order to own a home is wrong. It's a part of their identity.

Naturalization is neither cheap or simple either.

Foreign based entities should not be afforded any privileges under US law. They must at least primarily and mostly reside in the US to be afforded privileges like engaging in non-essential commerce.

This law is based on citizenship not ethnicity, right? So is it really discriminatory? I also think it is fair to restrict actions for citizens from states that are adversaries of the US. Do we really want companies or housing or infrastructure to be owned by citizens of those states, that can be influenced by their government?

Meh, flood the market with housing and watch speculation end. Build a low-rise on top of every commercial lot. Every year commit to building even more housing than the last. Paint over parking lots and 6-lane roads with apartment complexes. Even Airbnb will stutter under the surplus of cheap housing.

But nah, instead we get everything but that.

People act like you can just build housing everywhere and in abundance.

There's so much infrastructure around it that you need to build, like sewer and power capacity.

It’s also Florida, you stomp your foot and you almost hit water, so building low/high rises everywhere is mostly out of the question. Anyway, give it 20 to 30 years and it will all be under water anyway.

Yes, that is part of development and should be, if it were competent, one of the objectives of US government: to let people house themselves. You might as well say "you're forgetting that building also need walls".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com