Bill Overview
Title: Securing America’s Land from Foreign Interference Act
Description: This bill requires the President to take actions as necessary to prohibit members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (or foreign individuals or entities acting on behalf of the CCP) from purchasing real estate located in the United States. The bill also modifies an existing civil penalty for failing to satisfy a reporting requirement relating to a foreign individual or entity that acquires or transfers an interest in U.S. agricultural land. Under this bill, the civil penalty for failing to report the required information to the Department of Agriculture must be at least 10% of the fair market value of the relevant interest in agricultural land.
Sponsors: Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
Target Audience
Population: Global potential real estate investors and affiliates of the Chinese Communist Party
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill directly targets foreign individuals or entities acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, prohibiting them from purchasing real estate in the United States.
- The bill involves existing regulatory frameworks concerning foreign acquisition of U.S. agricultural land, expanding the penalties for non-compliance.
- The policy will indirectly impact the global community of investors, particularly those interested in U.S. real estate, as it reflects growing scrutiny over foreign direct investment from certain entities.
- There is a broader geopolitical context where countries closely monitor foreign ownership of domestic resources.
- Awareness and reactions to the policy could spread among international real estate markets and investment communities worldwide.
Reasoning
- The primary affected group by this policy will be foreign investors from China, particularly those affiliated with the CCP, and American sectors linked to real estate and agriculture dealing with foreign investments.
- While the restriction might prevent some potentially beneficial investments, it aims to safeguard national interests linked to land ownership.
- U.S. entities involved in real estate may see fluctuating demand and need to adjust to new compliance regulations, but the broader domestic population might feel little direct impact.
- Considering the scope of the policy, its impact on well-being for most U.S. citizens could be minimal except for those directly involved in land sale and foreign investment transactions.
Simulated Interviews
Real Estate Agent (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could reduce my international clientele which has been growing over the past years.
- I am concerned about the extra complications and potential decline in demand from foreign investors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy directly affects me.
- It seems more like a political move rather than something impacting local residents right away.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Farmer (Rural Iowa)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increase in penalties and reporting may deter foreign leases or make it cumbersome.
- However, it might protect local interests in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
International Business Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will require a re-evaluation of our investment strategies with Chinese partners.
- On a personal level, my existing real estate dealings might get disrupted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
School Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't foresee this having any direct impact on my life or plans.
- It's a bit reassuring knowing agricultural and residential lands might be more protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Real Estate Developer (Houston, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could make securing capital more challenging if foreign funding is restricted.
- Might have to pivot to other markets for financing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Attorney specializing in international law (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might increase my workload initially due to compliance queries.
- Long-term impacts could reduce my client base interested in U.S. real estate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might prioritize local conservation efforts and limit foreign commercial interests.
- Overall, my work doesn't intersect with these aspects heavily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't really impact my real estate dealings.
- Most of my buyers and tenants are local, so I'm unaffected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Real Estate Investor (Boston, MA)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will close some doors to properties previously easy to access through my network.
- But it might open market opportunities with reduced foreign competition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $72000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $74000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $78000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $85000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- The scope and efficiency of the enforcement mechanisms will be critical in determining the effective reach and financial impact of the policy.
- Legal challenges from affected foreign entities may increase costs and delay implementation.
- Broader diplomatic implications could arise from directly targeting a specific foreign government and its affiliates.