About us
Our work
Members
Events & More
2024

Federal and State Bills Restricting Property Ownership by Foreign Entities

Committee of 100’s ongoing effort to identify and monitor legislation that restricts property ownership by foreign governments, businesses, and people shows a continuing effort by state governments and Congress to limit the ability of such entities to own property in the U.S.

As of December 13, 2024…

  • 252 bills restricting property ownership by foreign entities have been considered by 40 states (215 bills) and Congress (37 bills).
  • Of the 252 total bills, 36 have passed and were signed into law in Alabama (HB 379), Arkansas (SB 383), Florida (S 0264), Georgia (SB 420), Iowa (SF 2204 and SF 574), Idaho (H 0173 and H 0496), Indiana, (HB 1183 and SB 0477), Louisiana (HB 238 and HB 537), Mississippi (HB 280 and SB 2519), Montana (SB 203), North Carolina (S607), North Dakota (HB 1135 and SB 2371), Nebraska (LB 1120 and LB 1301), New Hampshire (HB 1358), Ohio (HB 33), Oklahoma (SB 1705 and SB 212), South Dakota (HB 1189 and HB 1231), Tennessee (HB 0040, HB 2553, SB 0122, and SB 2639), Utah (HB 0186 and HB 0516), Virginia (HB 2325 and SB 1438), and West Virginia (SB 548 and SF 0077).
  • Of the 252 total bills, 164 have been considered that would prohibit Chinese citizens from purchasing or owning some form of property.
  • Of the 36 bills that have been passed, 16 prohibit Chinese citizens from purchasing or owning some form of property in Arkansas (SB 383), Florida (S 0264), Georgia (SB 420), Indiana (HB 1183 and SB 0477), Mississippi (SB 2519), Nebraska (LB 1301), Ohio (HB 33), Oklahoma (SB 1705), South Dakota (HB 1231 and HB 1189), Tennessee (HB 0040, HB 2553, SB 0122, and SB 2639), and West Virginia (SB 548).

                Note that these counts may include companion bills.

 

Committee of 100 believes that passage of bills prohibiting property ownership by citizens of foreign countries would legitimize harmful and xenophobic claims about immigrants that would exacerbate rising anti-Asian violence that has negatively affected U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike. Should they take effect, these laws would also disproportionately affect a wide range of people of color living in the United States; most of the countries targeted in this legislation are majority non-white.

The interactive mapping tool below illustrates legislative activity by state governments and Congress pertaining to restriction of property ownership by foreign citizens, businesses, and governments, especially those related to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  Clicking a state (or “US,” which refers to federal legislation considered by the U.S. Congress) provides a detailed summary of all legislation considered by that state.  The tabs above the map allow users to view legislation that has passed or is currently under consideration.

These bills include provisions that encompass a wide range of restrictions on an extensive variety of properties by a large array of foreign entities and their respective countries.  This mapping tool allows users to navigate across this legislative landscape by specifying the provisions they are interested in through the dropdown menus above the map entities, and the glossary below the map details the terms used in these provisions.  The following template illustrates the formula of restrictions specified in each bill: Some entity (e.g. governments, nonresident aliens) belonging to some country(ies) (e.g. all foreign countries, foreign adversaries, PRC) are restricted from having some interest (e.g. prohibited from owning, leasing, or are regulated in some other way) in some property (e.g. all real property, agricultural property, state land). 

 

Glossary of terms

Entity restricted from property ownership

  • Government: A country’s government and affiliated governmental entities, which includes entities that are sponsored, funded, controlled, or owned by the government.
  • Businesses: Businesses, companies, corporations, or other organizations that are headquartered in, or organized under the laws of, a foreign country.
  • Nonresident aliens: Individual citizens of foreign countries that are not permanent U.S. residents.
  • Resident aliens: Individual citizens of foreign countries that are permanent U.S. residents.

 

Countries restricted from property ownership

 

Restriction type

  • Ownership Prohibited: prohibition of purchase and/or ownership of property.
  • Rent/lease Prohibited: prohibition of rental and/or lease of property.
  • Regulation (Other): Various regulations that do not directly prohibit buying, owning, renting, or leasing property, including reporting, monitoring, conducting studies about, and increasing penalties for foreign property ownership.

 

Property type

  • All Property: All real estate and real property, sometimes including water rights and/or mineral rights belonging to the property.
  • Residential: Real property that is zoned as residential property.
  • Agriculture: Real property that is used for farming, ranching, or timber production, and/or zoned for agricultural use.
  • Commercial:  Real property used for business or commercial use, and/or zoned for such use.
  • State land: Real property owned by and/or under the control of a state.
  • Sensitive land: Real property located within a certain (and variable) distance of a military facility and/or critical infrastructure.

 

Committee of 100 would like to thank Micah Brown, Staff Attorney at The National Agricultural Law Center for his research that has greatly aided this project.  If you see anything incorrect on this page, or know of new bills that haven’t been included, please email Committee of 100 Research and Data Scientist Sam Collitt at [email protected].

FAQ

The term “alien land laws” started in the mid-19th and early 20th centuries with the Western states in the U.S. attempting to limit the presence and permanence of Chinese and Japanese immigrants by forbidding “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from purchasing, and later from leasing property in the states in which these laws were passed. For example, In Oregon’s 1859 constitution, it stated that no “Chinaman” could own property in the state, and it protected specifically the rights of “white foreigners” the same property owning rights as enjoyed by native citizens.

On April 29, 1878, the Ninth Circuit Court in California denied Ah Yup the right to naturalize. The court did this by citing the 1802 naturalization laws and all revised statutes that had been passed since. At the time of Ah Yup’s petition, the laws granted all “free white persons” as well as all “aliens of African nativity, and persons of African descent” the right to naturalize. This led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which explicitly excluded Chinese immigrants from citizenship.

As U.S.-China relations have deteriorated, fears about Chinese influence and espionage have increased. Alien land laws are often framed as a way to limit foreign control of strategic assets, such as farmland, real estate near military bases, or critical infrastructure. Politicians have justified these laws by citing concerns about national security, particularly regarding potential surveillance or foreign ownership of resources critical to food and energy supplies.

Lastly, the increasing racism and xenophobia that has targeted Chinese and Asian Americans in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to increasing treatment of Asian citizens and immigrants as perpetual foreigners.

Alien laws have often reflected societal fears or biases. For example, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in the U.S. barred Chinese immigrants under the guise of protecting jobs, but it was largely rooted in racial prejudice. Policies today must be critically examined to ensure they address genuine national interests without being discriminatory. Transparent justification and public accountability are essential to avoid perpetuating exclusionary practices. Language in policies and public discourse matters. Framing immigration and alien laws in inclusive terms can prevent xenophobia and build public trust in the system.

Many alien laws have shifted based on economic need. For instance, during labor shortages in wartime, the U.S. instituted the Bracero Program (1942-1964) to bring in Mexican workers, even while other restrictive laws were still in place. As global economies evolve, immigration laws should be flexible enough to adapt to workforce demands while protecting worker rights—both for citizens and immigrants.

Ordinary citizens play a crucial role in preventing the rise of restrictive alien land laws, which historically have been used to limit land ownership or rights for immigrants and non-citizens.  Some recommendations include the following:

Educate Yourself and Others: learn about the history of alien land laws which targeted Japanese and Chinese immigrants, preventing them from owning land and building generational wealth. Through this education, share this knowledge with others through conversations, social media, or community events to highlight how such laws have historically perpetuated inequality and racial discrimination.

Advocate for Fair Legislation: contact your local, state, and federal representatives to express opposition to discriminatory laws and advocate for policies that promote equal rights for all residents, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

Build Coalitions: partner with organizations like APA Justice, Committee of 100 and others that work with immigrants and non-citizens to amplify their voices and protect their rights. Work with advocacy groups, faith organizations, and civil rights coalitions to create a broad-based movement opposing discriminatory laws.

Challenge Discriminatory Narratives: alien land laws are often rooted in xenophobic or protectionist rhetoric that portrays immigrants as threats to national security or the economy. Challenge these myths by sharing facts and emphasizing the contributions of immigrants to society.

Vote and Participate in Local Politics: vote for candidates who advocate for immigrant rights and oppose discriminatory legislation. Attend city council or state legislature meetings to voice concerns about alien land laws and ensure immigrant voices are included in policymaking.

If these alien land laws restrict foreign ownership or investment, some industries may be forced to scale back, resulting in fewer jobs and less economic activity in local markets. This could be particularly challenging for rural or economically underdeveloped regions that rely on foreign investment for growth and infrastructure. Over time, this could stifle local economies, reducing opportunities for entrepreneurship and limiting access to capital for small businesses.

Some of these laws also restrict the ability of immigrants to buy homes and gain an economic foothold in the United States.

These laws also create a sense of exclusion for immigrant communities, particularly Chinese Americans and other Asian groups, who may be disproportionately targeted by the perception that they are responsible for “outsider” investment in local property markets.  The rhetoric around these laws often includes stereotypes that associate certain ethnic groups with negative economic effects, creating divisions and reinforcing prejudices and xenophobia.

Similar Works