Democrat Gov votes to allow Chinese to own U.S. land | Drudge Retort

Advertisement

Thursday, June 05, 2025

Democrat Gov votes to allow Chinese to own U.S. land

Arizona won't ban the People's Republic of China from buying property here after Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a Republican-backed measure that would have added to the growing list of states banning the communist nation from making land purchases over national security concerns. Hobbs said in her veto message that while it is important to protect infrastructure, the bill is "ineffective at counter-espionage and does not directly protect our military assets."

Posted by boaz at 07:10 AM | 35 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why is it Democrats are always against common sense things? Things that even the most stupid amongst us knows should be done.

But she vetoes this? Why?

It truly doesnt make sense. That's why dems are losing.

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2025-06-05 07:11 AM | Reply

Why is it Democrats are always against common sense things?

^
Here, the Democrats defended the Free Market.

Why are you against the free market for real estate.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-05 08:57 AM | Reply

2. Beat me to it. It's a free market. What's the problem?

Hell, they could probably even pay cash.

#3 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2025-06-05 09:14 AM | Reply

"Even with all that, however, Shamp said her legislation was necessary to close any loopholes in existing federal restrictions."

Yeah, they should be able to demonstrate what this bill does in addition to what current federal mechanisms are in place already to prohibit sale of property to China. If it doesn't really do anything, then it's unnecessary.

This is where I don't think there is much of an ideological difference of opinion. It's just local politics. A legislature of one party trying to hit a governor of another party for not signing something making her out to be a commie.

People should know there is already a system in place to address this issue.

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2025-06-05 09:21 AM | Reply

People should know there is already a system in place to address this issue.

Sorta disagree with you on this one Eberly.

I sort of equate it to there was a "system" in place to address illegal immigration, but it didnt work. I sort of see it like that.

Plain and simple, I dont believe people from other nations should be buying U.S. property like land, especially near bases. While there may have been "systems" in place, it was still happening.

You have to plainly spell it out. That's just the world we live in. The Chinese will buy the land, but they will take a yard if you give them an inch.

We cant buy property in their land, why should they do that with us?

Why are you against the free market for real estate.

I'm not. Only for Americans. The world needs to stop at our door sometimes. This is one of them.

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2025-06-05 10:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Yeah, they should be able to demonstrate what this bill does in addition to what current federal mechanisms are in place already to prohibit sale of property to China.

What are these mechanisms? Why do subsidized CCP companies (which this bill addresses) already own land near US Bases?

North Dakota: Near Grand Forks Air Force Base, the Chinese Fufeng Group purchased 370 acres, although plans for a corn mill were reportedly halted.
Florida: Chinese companies own a significant amount of land near MacDill Air Force Base.
North Carolina: A company with a Chinese parent company owns land close to Fort Liberty.
California: Chinese companies own land in San Diego County near Camp Pendleton.
Texas: A Chinese billionaire owns a large tract of land in Val Verde County, home to Laughlin Air Force Base.
Michigan: A Chinese company acquired land near a major National Guard training facility in Grayling in 2023.

#6 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-06-05 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We cant buy property in their land, why should they do that with us?

You also can't but property in Mexico, but a Mexican illegal immigrant can but property in the US.

Illegal immigrants in the US have more freedoms than you do.

#7 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-06-05 11:18 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Here, the Democrats defended the Free Market.
Why are you against the free market for real estate.
#2 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Real estate, hasn't been a "free market" since the 1940s.

#8 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-06-05 11:19 AM | Reply

IAMRUNT, did you bring fungus to the U.S.?

#9 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-06-05 11:20 AM | Reply

"banning the communist nation from making land purchases over national security concerns"

So it's not even to protect the American middle class, or ensure Americans have the ability to afford a home.

Virtue Signaling.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-05 12:13 PM | Reply

#10,

But you still didnt comment on why we cant buy land in their countries...

Why is that ok?

And if they ban other nations citizens from owning property in their nation, why would they do that? Why would it be right for them but not right for us?

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2025-06-05 01:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"But you still didnt comment on why we cant buy land in their countries...
Why is that ok?"

It's their country, they can run it as they see fit, according to Boaz.

I would be fine with requiring reciprocity. However, that would be bad for the economy.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-05 01:16 PM | Reply

"Why would it be right for them but not right for us?"

Pretend it's guns, and then your question becomes laughable to Boaz.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-05 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

However, that would be bad for the economy.

No it wouldnt, lol

There's always someone willing to buy land..

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2025-06-05 01:55 PM | Reply

Less buyers means less demand.

You're saying an infinity tariff on foreigners purchasing land will have zero impact on the market.

Maybe you were on vacation when Trump undid two quarters of economic growth with just one day of tariffs?

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-05 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No it wouldn't, lol. There's always someone willing to buy land.."

I would've said it's impossible to flunk Econ 101 with a single statement ... but there it is.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-06-05 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

We have earned more money than ever with the current tariffs. 60+ billion to be precise.

www.politico.com

#17 | Posted by boaz at 2025-06-05 02:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

boaz boaz,,,you know that politico is a right wing fake news site.....until the political janitors here post something from them

#18 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-06-05 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Texas Governor Gregg Abbott just signed into law a bill
that bans foreign ownership.
---but then he's not a commie.

#19 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-06-05 06:56 PM | Reply

---- off you stupid ----.

#20 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-06-05 10:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hobbs vetoing has been record setting here. I think it's a reflex action now.

We need to prevent communist China from buying land here. We also need to stop the Saudis from sucking up all our groundwater for alfalfa to feed their damned camels.

#21 | Posted by willowby at 2025-06-06 07:34 PM | Reply

We also need to stop the Saudis from sucking up all our groundwater for alfalfa to feed their damned camels.

They feed dairy cows, actually.

#22 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-06-06 07:43 PM | Reply

"Here, the Democrats defended the Free Market.
Why are you against the free market for real estate.
#2 | Posted by snoofy"

Lol - Democrats the defender of the free market now? Yes, your transformation into Globo-Homo has been completed. You have now fully severed yourself from any of the common sense the Dems had in the 1990's.

#23 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-06-06 07:44 PM | Reply

Biden Administration Rule Would Increase Authority to Block Foreign Deals (2024)
www.nytimes.com

... The Biden administration is seeking to broaden its powers significantly to block foreign investments by making it harder to buy land near military bases, a move that could make it harder for Chinese companies to build factories in the United States.

The Treasury Department proposed a new rule on Monday that would add more than 50 military installations across 30 states to a list of locations it has deemed sensitive to national security. If enacted, the rule would bolster a 2018 law that gave the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States the ability to block foreign land purchases if they are within a certain proximity of a base.

The proposal comes as Democrats and Republicans in Congress have become increasingly concerned that Chinese investments in the United States threaten national security and as the Biden administration has rolled out new tariffs to curb imports of Chinese electric vehicles and solar panels. ...

#24 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-06 07:59 PM | Reply

We need to prevent communist China from buying land here. We also need to stop the Saudis from sucking up all our groundwater for alfalfa to feed their damned camels.
#21 | Posted by willowby

Willowby,
I agree with you on both counts.
But Republicans will never go along with it because it doesn't benefit the rich.
Republicans are the ones selling rich foreigners a Golden Passport.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-06 08:07 PM | Reply

"ability to block foreign land purchases if they are within a certain proximity of a base"

See, this issue isn't about all of American land being for Americans. Just land near bases.

Even though I suspect a lot of people support limiting foreign ownership, including me. But that would be bad for business.

The alternative is what China and Cuba do, require foreign companies to partner with a local company.

Republicans will go full-on State Capitalism before too long:

In State Capitalism, Joshua Kurlantzick ranges across the world"Brazil, China, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and more"and argues that the increase in state capitalism across the globe has, on balance, contributed to a decline in democracy.
www.cfr.org

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-06 08:17 PM | Reply

@#26 ... The alternative is what China and Cuba do, require foreign companies to partner with a local company. ...

imo, it goes beyond, ~requiring foreign companies to partner with a local company.~

Back in the day, I worked for a company that was trying to expand into China.

One of the requirements that China imposed upon the company was that the China office had to be led by a Chinese national. Period, full stop.

#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-06 08:35 PM | Reply

Yes. That kind of thing.

Republicans would ---- their shorts if every foreign company here could be forced to hire a Trump-chosen head of US operations.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-06 08:37 PM | Reply

@#28 ... Republicans would ---- their shorts if every foreign company here could be forced to hire a Trump-chosen head of US operations. ...

Ya think?

#29 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-06 08:49 PM | Reply

Of course you support communist China, snoofy. You always have.

#30 | Posted by willowby at 2025-06-06 09:08 PM | Reply

- communist China

Um, about that....

www.futurelearn.com

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2025-06-06 09:15 PM | Reply

@#30 ... Of course you support communist China, snoofy. You always have. ...

So, nothing by your current alias but an ad hominem attack?

Do try to contribute instead of disrupting.

Jus' saying.

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-06 09:34 PM | Reply

"Less buyers means less demand."

Fewer.

#33 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-06-06 10:14 PM | Reply

Okay. Macroeconomics is built on the conceptualizations found in less, not fewer.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-06 10:46 PM | Reply

@#33 ... Fewer. ..

The concern seems to be the buyers, not the number of the buyers.

#35 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-06 10:53 PM | Reply

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy