Kobach says bill stops China from buying KS farms. It might block immigrants from owning homes

Kansas Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach wants to block foreign interests from buying up Kansas farm land. But legislation he’s pushing on this issue may also block immigrants from purchasing homes in the state if they are not yet naturalized as U.S. citizens.

States controlled by Republicans and Democrats have considered legislative responses in recent years as concerns about national security and food supply mount over Chinese-owned companies acquiring farmland across the country.

Lawmakers in Kansas are considering two possible solutions prohibiting foreign actors from buying Kansas land. But both could apply to land beyond agriculture and critics say they are written so broadly that recent immigrants will face discrimination in home ownership or buying land for small businesses.

Rep. Rui Xu, a Westwood Democrat and the only Chinese American member of the Kansas House, said that under this bill his own parents would have been blocked from buying their first home in 1996, five years before they became U.S. citizens.

“To actually attack immigrants like this is just a continuation of what we saw throughout COVID of people reacting to what the Chinese government is doing and attacking Chinese Americans or Chinese immigrants to the state who just want to live their lives,” he said.

Republican leadership in both chambers have said limits on home ownership should be avoided in the final legislation.

Senate Bill 100, the legislation introduced on behalf of Kobach in the Kansas Senate, would bar legal residents from any country from owning land in Kansas outside the state’s four largest counties.

Roger McEowen, an agricultural law and taxation professor at Washburn University, said Kobach’s version of the bill was overly broad in prohibiting majority ownership in property by any foreign company or foreign national.

“That’s not a foreign adversary. That’s Canada,” he said. “That bothers me.”

Kobach, a Republican who took office in January, inaccurately claimed Wednesday that criticism that the bill prevented home ownership for immigrants was “100% false.”

“SB 100 was drafted to prevent the national security threat that arises when foreign adversaries purchase large amounts of agricultural land. It was written to allow foreign nationals to still be able to purchase houses and businesses,” Kobach said in a statement. “It strikes the right balance in the interest of national security and in the interest of Kansas.”

On Thursday a spokesperson for his office noted in a text message that the bill only prohibited land ownership in “rural counties” and that any land purchases were permitted in Johnson, Sedgwick, Shawnee and Wyandotte counties.

The office didn’t respond to questions about Kansas’ other 101 counties where the legislation would block legal immigrants on visas and green cards from purchasing homes or other real estate.

That prohibition includes Lawrence and Manhattan, home to two research universities that host students and faculty from around the world, and cities in southwest Kansas that for decades have been home to large immigrant and refugee populations.

A House version of the bill written by Rep. Ken Rahjes, an Agra Republican who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, is more limited, the bill only prohibits ownership to foreign adversaries and their agents. But there is disagreement among experts of the implications.

The U.S. Federal Government defines foreign adversaries as China, Russia, Venezuela and Cuba.

McEowen said he believed the bill would only block ownership for citizens of those countries who were working for or on behalf of the government itself.

“All you have to do is show that you’re not controlled by a foreign adversary,” he said.

Angela Ferguson, a Kansas City-based immigration attorney, said it would block ownership to any current citizen of those countries. She said both bills would be certain to confront legal challenges.

“The bill seeks to create an underclass in American society permanently blocked from the American dream of home ownership,” Ferguson said in an email.

Rahjes said his committee will likely consider amendments to the bill to address the concerns, including adding language specifying it applies only to agricultural land.

“As we learn going through this process, if there are things that need to be changed that’s fine,” Rahjes said. “I want a more common sense approach, if you will, to this rather than just getting a headline or throw something out there and see where it lands.”

And Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, told reporters Thursday that any legislation should allow home ownership for those legally in the country.

“If those are unintended consequences, those need to be dealt with and worked out,” Masterson said. “You don’t want to wait until something becomes a big problem before you deal with it.”

He added that the focus should be on hostile foreign governments.

“It would be foolish for us to allow property ownership particularly next to some of our military installations,” he said.

In Missouri, lawmakers have for years tried to claw back a 2013 law that allowed foreign entities to own up to 1% of Missouri land. Opponents of the law say foreign ownership poses national security and food insecurity risks.

Currently, there is very little land owned in Kansas by Chinese companies. According to a 2021 USDA report, 31% of foreign owned land in the U.S. is owned by Canadian investors with Chinese interests holding less than 1% of foreign owned land.

In an informational hearing on the issue Wednesday, Xu warned his colleagues to separate their feelings about the Chinese government from their treatment of Chinese Americans.

“There’s a difference and actions that we take and things that we say will end up having an impact on people like me,” he said.

The Star’s Kacen Bayless contributed to this report.