Quiz, Snapshot: Your biggest geopolitical enemy is buying your country’s farmland. In fact, it is buying so much, that this could possibly become a matter of national security during a crisis or war. Do you prevent it from buying more?
That’s clearly a trick question for Democrats. After all, what if treating your enemies as your enemies “will prolong the growing anti-Asian hatred”?
That’s what could lead to efforts to prevent buyers with ties to the Chinese Communist Party from taking over more of our farmland, according to the report. Farm success. Although the measure has bipartisan appeal, New York Democrat Grace Meng opposes it, saying it could incite hatred.
Last month, the House Appropriations Commission adopted language that would prevent individuals or interests with ties to China from buying more land and ban land already purchased from agricultural subsidies as part of the spending bill. $197 billion for the US. Ministry of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.
“Current trends in the United States are leading us to create a monopoly on Chinese-owned farmland,” said GOP Washington Representative Dan Newhouse, who proposed the amendment.
“There are currently no federal protections against the creation of this monopoly,” he said.
Chinese investors controlled about 192,000 acres of farmland in the US at the start of 2020, worth $1.9 billion, according to Politico. This is less than Canada and other European countries own and a small fraction of the arable land of the United States.
However, Chinese investment in foreign agriculture increased tenfold between 2009 and 2018. USDA and agricultural investment are part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to secure the country’s food chain. Of course, should the situation arise, it could also be used to instill insecurity in a geopolitical opponent – especially if that opponent is the US.
This has largely created a rare moment of bipartisan harmony.
Should the US ban China from owning US farmland?
Yes: 98% (59 Votes)
No: 2% (1 Vote)
The amendment was put forward by a Newhouse Republican – a a free man, that’s for sure, but a Republican nonetheless – and it slipped out of a Democratic-controlled committee.
As Politico noted, voices as diverse as the former Vice President Mike Pence and Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have called for tightening restrictions.
Enter Meng, first vice president of the Asian Pacific American Congress, who argued that the language could lead to more hate crimes.
“It will prolong already growing anti-Asian hatred,” she warned of the bill’s markup, according to Success Farming.
“Can we honestly say this amendment, which applies only to one country, will have no consequences for Asian Americans across our country?” Meng said. “Let’s include all of our opponents.”
Newhouse replied that the language was “about communist China,” adding, “This is not a call to attention in any negative way to any group of people in this country.”
However, that only scratches the surface of how remarkable Meng’s remarks are.
First, I’m curious what kind of person would be curious enough in the world to notice the language of foreign ownership of farmland coming from the Appropriations Commission’s agricultural appropriations subcommittee, but still mad enough to make it ignite the flames of anti-Asian hatred in their hearts.
This seems like an incredibly small subset of individuals that Meng wants to avoid inciting – if it does, it exists.
Yes, Meng’s countermeasures appear to be to punish buyers from other countries, especially “all of our competitors”. However, there is only one adversary that has the resources and is not meant to be the destabilizing force of the US food chain: China.
If Russia, Iran or North Korea wants a design on buying American farmland, rest assured that Republicans and Democrats can join hands again and punish those countries.
However, despite the complexity of a comprehensive ban on American farmland ownership by our adversaries – including only what the adversary requires – such a ban is practically is a ban on China and only Chinese in everything but language.
That means our anti-Asian bigotry subcommittee will be just as excited to see a C-SPAN 3 handover as he would if it were just a routine. property rights regulations associated with Beijing.
For now, it’s unclear how much weight Meng’s objections will carry.
Politico reported on Monday that “Meng, Newhouse and the committee leaders said they would find a solution when the law passes Congress. The measure is expected to reach the House before the end of July as part of a broader appropriations package, although the Senate has yet to draft its own version of the spending bill.
“We are new in this process,” said Democratic Representative Sanford Bishop of Georgia, chair of the subcommittee on agricultural appropriations. “I suggest we sit down and work through it so we can accomplish our goals, but do it in a way that is sensitive to all those who might be a little annoyed by this approach.”
Note Bishop’s language: “who may be slightly offended by the approach.” Not “those who can threatened by approach, “just” is offended. “This is about people being professionally offended, not about any kind of tangible threat to the Asian American community.
Perhaps there is a way to appease both sides without reducing the revision value. However, if its effectiveness is diluted, Meng and the Democrats are solely responsible for anything that endangers America. food supply.
After all, the test isn’t that hard: Do you want to protect America’s food chain from America’s Greatest Rival or not?
Any answer other than yes is no, no matter how well-meaning it may sound.
https://www.westernjournal.com/democrat-lawmaker-oblivious-china-buys-us-farmland-sets-stage-foreign-monopoly-food-production/ | Democrat Lawmaker Oblivious as China Buys Up US Farmland, Sets Stage for Foreign Monopoly on Our Own Food Production