[Source/Observer Network, Liu Chenghui] Under the pretext of "national security" and "economic sovereignty," a number of U.S. states have recently been promoting an "anti-Chinese property purchase" trend.

Zhang Xiang (name transliteration), a Chinese professor who went to the United States more than twenty years ago, may become another victim.

The Hong Kong-based English-language South China Morning Post noticed on the 23rd that Zhang Xiang (name transliteration), a genetics professor at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio, recently hurriedly cut short his trip and drove over 1,000 miles (about 1,609 kilometers) back within two days to oppose a proposal that might force him to sell his property, even though he is already a permanent resident of the United States.

"I never thought there would come a day when I would have to defend myself before you simply because of my ethnicity," he complained at a hearing in the Ohio State Capitol on the morning of May 20th.

"I never imagined that, just because of my ethnicity, I would lose my house in Ohio!"

In 1998, Mr. Zhang arrived in the United States with a suitcase and a $100 bill. Today, he leads an important research institution supporting hundreds of life scientists nationwide.

At the hearing, he tried to make the members of the Ohio State Public Safety Committee believe that he has always lived the "American Dream" all these years.

But will American politicians listen to his plea?

Ohio State Representative Angela King Social Media

This year, Ohio Republican representative Angela King (Angela King) proposed House Bill No. 1 (HB 1), aiming to ban individuals, governments, and enterprises from "enemy countries" from purchasing specific land and properties in the state. Countries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba are all on this so-called "enemy country" list.

According to the details of the bill, any entity directly or indirectly controlled by "enemy countries" will be prohibited from owning land within 25 miles (40.2 kilometers) around "critical infrastructure and military facilities" in Ohio. These "critical infrastructures" include: military bases, water treatment plants, power plants, gas pipelines, railways, dams, broadband networks, etc.

This ban even applies to American green card holders like Mr. Zhang. According to Senate Bill No. 88 (SB 88), Mr. Zhang will be required to sell his house within two years.

"We have found foreign hostile forces attempting to infiltrate Ohio," Angela King claimed in a statement, citing that a Chinese company had attempted to buy land in Paulding County and had previously planned to acquire land only 15 miles (24 kilometers) away from the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. The transaction was ultimately rejected by the U.S. military for being considered a "major national security threat."

This bill has sparked controversy in Ohio. For example, Democratic state representative Cecil Thomas (Cecil Thomas) questioned during the hearing whether a smaller radius around smaller facilities could serve as a compromise solution (such as the 10-mile radius defined in Indiana). He also expressed concern that China might retaliate against Ohio farmers by halting their crop purchases.

Cleveland media worries that this bill will not only affect ordinary people but may also cause significant economic setbacks. If SB 88 is passed, a Chinese company's battery chemical production base in Lawrence County may be forced to sell, leading to the project's failure. This base is part of a $75 million investment project by the Chinese company, promising to create 65 local jobs.

Ohio is not alone. Several other U.S. states have either signed or are pushing similar bills.

In May 2023, Florida passed SB 264, prohibiting citizens from seven countries including China and Russia from purchasing property within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of military installations in Florida and limiting Chinese citizens' purchase of residential land exceeding 2 acres (8,100 square meters). While green card holders are exempt, they must still sell their properties if deemed "agents" (e.g., having connections with the Chinese government).

Several months later, numerous Chinese citizens residing in Florida jointly sued the state government, claiming that this move constituted "housing discrimination." The U.S. Federal Appellate Court ruled that the bill blatantly violated anti-discrimination protection clauses, preventing its enforcement against two Chinese citizens.

However, this ruling only applies to individual cases and does not completely prohibit the implementation of the bill.

In April 2023, dozens of Chinese Americans protested Florida's ban.

Texas also proposed SB 147 that same year, banning citizens from "enemy countries" including China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran (naturalized U.S. citizens are excluded) from purchasing any form of real estate. However, it failed to pass amid opposition from the local Chinese community.

Moreover, South Carolina, Idaho, Indiana, and others are also pushing similar bills.

Is Chinese property acquisition really that "dangerous"? Clearly, this is merely political manipulation by U.S. politicians for personal gain.

The Cleveland News website described it as a "nationwide wave of anti-Chinese sentiment." California-based media "Spectrum News" also specifically noted that when Angela King promoted the ban on Chinese property purchases in Ohio, tensions in U.S.-China trade conflicts were exacerbating geopolitical tensions.

Additionally, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, foreign-held land in the U.S. accounts for about 1.8% of the total, with China holding only a small portion. Moreover, many land transactions may be conducted through shell companies or third parties, making such regulatory challenges far beyond the scope of a simple ban order.

Even the bill's sponsor, Angela King, admitted: "We cannot track every piece of land."

Regarding the consideration by multiple U.S. states to ban Chinese property purchases, a spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry emphasized that the generalization of the concept of national security and the politicization of economic and trade investment issues violate market economy principles and international trade rules, damaging confidence in the U.S. market environment.

The spokesperson also stated that the essence of Sino-U.S. economic and trade cooperation is mutually beneficial and win-win. Over the years, Chinese enterprises' investments in the U.S. have made important contributions to promoting domestic employment and economic development in the U.S.

This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer Network and cannot be reprinted without permission.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7507558864871621132/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. Welcome to express your opinions by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.