The issue of foreign investment and land purchases in Kansas is once again in the news.
Last week, Attorney General Kris Kobach called on the Kansas Legislature to restrict the ability of foreign individuals and corporations to purchase or lease large parcels of land in Kansas. Kobach warned that failure to address this issue posed a threat to national security and the food supply chain.
This issue is not new to Kansas, nor to other states. Last year, the Kansas Legislature considered, but did not act on, multiple bills that contained language limiting foreign control of Kansas land, joining more than 30 other states that considered similar legislation. This phenomenon raises significant questions about property rights, national security, and the real estate market.
A number of factors are driving the growing interest among state governments in regulating foreign investment and land ownership.
One of the primary reasons cited in support of these restrictions is national security. Some government officials have expressed concerns that allowing foreign citizens and corporations to buy large parcels of land gives them an undue influence over our politics and economy.
Geopolitical tensions between China and the United States have also certainly played a role in the recent implementation of land purchase and lease restrictions.
For example, proponents of these policies argue that real estate holdings provide a strategic footprint in a country or state, which may pose a national security threat. This argument often involves concerns over potential spying. These heightened political disputes, including the Chinese balloon incident earlier this year, have led to limiting Chinese investment in the name of protecting national interest.
Another factor contributing to support for these restrictions is worry over how foreign investment will impact local property markets.
Foreign investors have the ability to invest heavily in real estate, driving up property prices. This could lead to a scarcity of affordable land for local residents. Kobach echoed these concerns arguing that farmers would have to compete in local markets where foreign investment has distorted land value.
While restricting land purchases by foreign interests may address concerns related to national security and rising property prices, it also raises important questions about property rights and fairness.
The American Civil Liberties Union has already promised to fight state restrictions on the ability of foreign nationals living and working in the states to purchase land. They have argued that these bills are a discriminatory overreach by state governments.
Further, other groups, including those tied to agricultural interests, have cautioned state lawmakers about growing government involvement in the free market.
Opponents of these restrictions also caution that they play into unfounded, xenophobic fears, which divide our already fractured political landscape. This may be particularly true when considered with the fact that Chinese land ownership in Kansas is actually very limited.
Moving forward, Kansas must carefully consider the implications of such restrictions, weighing the potential benefits against the risks they pose to economic growth and property rights.
Brianne Heidbreder, PhD, is an associate professor of political science at Kansas State University.