All about Ohio bill seeking to restrict property rights of Green Card holders
This came amid a larger trend in recent years of Republican-controlled US states moving to restrict the property rights of non-citizens citing concerns over national security and the necessity of controlling 'foreign influence'.
A growing trend
The Permanent Residency Card, more commonly known as the Green Card, gives holders the right to permanently live and work in the United States. As such, Green Card holders enjoy the same property rights as US citizens.
But growing national security and economic concerns have prompted both federal and state lawmakers to scrutinise the ownership of American land by non-citizens.
Between January 2023 and July 2024, at least 22 states enacted legislation restricting or regulating the purchase of agricultural land, critical infrastructure, and in some cases, residential or commercial property by foreign nationals, entities, or governments, said Sukanya Raman, country head, India of US-based immigration firm Davies & Associates LLC.
Broader in scope
The Republican-sponsored House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 88 in Ohio propose a 25-mile (roughly 40 km) restriction zone around military bases, power stations, water treatment plants, gas pipelines, and transport facilities. This list is broad enough to 'effectively blanket the entirety of the state of Ohio,' one Republican senator told local media.
The Bills are also broader in scope than similar legislation enacted in states like Florida, Texas, Montana, and Utah. These states' laws have targeted designated 'foreign adversary' nations such as China, Iran, Russia, or North Korea, unlike the Ohio Bills which propose restrictions on all Green Card Holders, regardless of their country of origin.
That said, provisions in previous drafts of the Bills requiring existing landowners from 'foreign adversary' countries to sell their property within two years have now been dropped.
Legal challenge likely
The Ohio Bills are still in their early stages, and could change significantly as they are put to vote in the state legislature over the coming months. But if passed in their current, maximalist form, they would restrict land ownership by all non-citizens, including legal permanent residents.
This would be unprecedented in the US. To date, no federal law prohibits Indian Green Card holders from purchasing or owning land in the country. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Green Card holders are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law.
Any law or policy that discriminates against them based solely on immigration status may face constitutional challenges and be struck down, Raman says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
13 minutes ago
- The Hindu
'We are going back to the medieval times,' says Rahul Gandhi on new Bills
Referring the constitutional Bills aimed at removing persons from office if they are jailed for any offence for more than 30 days, Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) said these legislation take one back to 'the medieval times when the king could just remove anybody at his will.' Mr. Gandhi was speaking at the felicitation programme for the Opposition's joint candidate for the Vice-Presidential polls, Justice (retired) B. Sudershan Reddy. 'We are going back to the medieval times when the king could just remove anybody at his will,' Mr. Gandhi said. There was no concept of what an elected person was, he said, adding, 'If he doesn't like your face, he tells ED [Enforcement Directorate] to put a case, and then a democratically elected person is wiped out within 30 days… this is new.' Also read | TDP and JD(U) support the Bills but express reservation about several 'grey areas' in the legislations The Opposition parliamentary leaders met on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) to discuss their strategy to oppose the Bills. As per sources, it was suggested by a few leaders at the meeting that the Opposition should not nominate any of its members to the Parliament's Joint Committee which would be constituted to review the legislation. 'Any kind of participation will be equal to legitimising these Bills,' a senior leader opined. However, the Opposition has not taken a final call on this. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin too flayed the Bills. Ms. Banerjee, in a long post on X, said these legislation aimed to 'finish the independence of our judiciary.' The Bills are 'nothing short of a Hitlerian assault on the very soul of Indian democracy,' she said. Ms. Banerjee claimed that the Bills were to 'empower' the Union government 'to intrude upon the mandate of the people, handing sweeping powers to unelected authorities like the ED and the CBI to interfere in the functioning of elected State governments'. 'It is a step to empower the Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister in a sinister manner at the expense of the basic principles of our Constitution,' the Trinamool Congress chairperson said. False cases DMK chief Mr. Stalin said this was how 'dictatorships' begin. 'Steal votes, Silence rivals and Crush States,' he wrote on X. Condemning the Bills, he said, 'The plan of these Bills is clear. It allows the BJP to foist false cases against political opponents in power across States and remove them by misusing provisions that treat even a 30-day arrest as a ground for removal of an elected leader, without any conviction or trial. This unconstitutional amendment will certainly be struck down by the courts because guilt is decided only after trial, not by the mere registration of a case.' CPI(M) General Secretary M.A. Baby said the Bills exposed the government's 'neo-fascist characteristics' and was a 'direct assault on our democracy'. Communist Party of India Rajya Sabha member P. Sandosh Kumar said the three Bills would open 'floodgates of vendetta politics'. CPI(ML) Liberation general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya said the Bills would sound the 'death knell' for federalism. 'Every State government opposed to the BJP's politics and policies will henceforth be rendered permanently destabilised and dysfunctional. Every NDA ally will be on tenterhooks to fall in line with the BJP,' he said in a statement.
Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
The Democrats who find 'abundance liberalism' threatening
The Democratic Party could use a makeover. Donald Trump's victory in November showed that the party can no longer rely on bashing him to win elections. The Republican president is trusted more than Democrats, whose approval rating is the lowest it's been in 35 years. Democrats are searching for a positive vision to inspire voters, and leading the pack, at least among party elites, is the brand of 'abundance'. Popularised in a recent book by journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, abundance types advocate for overhauling a decades-old liberalism of bureaucratic red tape with one that builds clean energy, infrastructure and, above all, affordable housing. Even Zohran Mamdani, the socialist Democratic nominee for New York City mayor who wants to freeze rents, has given the abundance wing of the Democratic Party a few nods. But the high-powered Maryland suburbs outside Washington suggest the politics of abundance can be treacherous. Montgomery County is one of the 30 richest counties in America. Nearly 75% of its 1m residents voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. When the Democratic-controlled county council entertained a plan last autumn to rezone large swathes of exclusively single-family-home neighbourhoods—allowing for multi-unit dwellings, townhouses and apartment buildings—liberal suburbanites rained hell. 'This is a radical change that will be the death of single-family communities,' said one man, as hundreds gathered to mock and boo council members in a high-school auditorium. 'There was massive resistance,' recalled Will Jawando, a council member. 'People were apoplectic.' That backlash helped whittle down the proposed rezoning to little more than 1% of single-family homes along main thoroughfares, which the council passed this July, over more boos and groans. Left-leaning suburbanites have many reasons to oppose rezoning, from concerns about overcrowding their high-performing schools to parking, wastewater management and traffic. But they boil down to one: they like the suburbs. 'There is always a reason for why housing shouldn't be built,' says Andrew Friedson, the council member behind the rezoning reform. To dislodge the 'country-club mentality' thwarting rezoning in Montgomery County, he intends to ask homeowners how their children and grandchildren could afford to live there. 'When it comes to housing, expanding the supply of homes will reduce the rapid acceleration of housing values. That is what abundance is supposed to do,' says Richard Kahlenberg, author of the book 'Excluded' and director of housing policy at the Progressive Policy Institute. When Donald Trump took the White House in 2016, yard signs began to pop up with platitudes like 'Black Lives Matter', 'No Human is Illegal' and 'Science is Real'. 'None of that requires an ounce of sacrifice on the account of progressive elites,' says Mr Kahlenberg, a county resident. 'Voters who are completely opposed to building a wall with Mexico are quite comfortable building walls around their communities.' Homeowners naturally reject the charge of elitism. They see so-called affordable housing as a Trojan horse—a means by which developers can lay claim to the suburbs. 'No developer giveaways at our expense,' read yard signs outside quaint million-dollar homes on the drive into Washington. Far from making housing more affordable, residents expect the arrival of luxury developments to raise their home values. They can point to a house in the town of Chevy Chase that sold for $1.6m and was converted into three luxury townhouses, each listed for more than $3m. 'It's a total scam to benefit developers instead of representing the people that live here,' said Gerald Smith, an interior architect, who is among the dozens protesting the rezoning effort on Connecticut Avenue, a thoroughfare into Washington. Democratic infighting has fuelled a competition for progressive virtue. Kim Persaud, a community activist from the heavily Hispanic town of Wheaton, called rezoning a 'racist policy' and 'blatant injustice' that would displace black and Hispanic renters so wealthy white people can live in luxury condos. She said the majority of those for rezoning are 'young white kids who come from privilege' and whose parents could gift them a down payment. During a county hearing, one self-described white, privileged young renter said that the rezoning proposal was necessary to house 'the thousands of queer people, people of colour and immigrants who live in dangerous, conservative states and need to move to our sanctuary county'. It's not as if rezoning's opponents despise all of abundance liberalism. Marc Elrich, the county's Democratic chief executive, is a critic of the movement. But he wants to build, too. Mr Elrich hopes to make Montgomery County resemble its more business-oriented neighbour, Virginia, where regulations ensure that new buildings are in line with a community's existing character and taxes on development are spread out over time. In May Mr Elrich announced the county's first-ever Tax Increment Financing proposal, which aims to spur development in the eastern part of the county. Under the plan taxes would directly fund infrastructure such as roads and utilities. The backlash to rezoning in Montgomery County shows the limits of abundance liberalism as a national political programme for the Democratic Party. The suburbs are not built like New York City, nor do their residents want them to be. 'These ideologues want to urbanise everything. People move to the suburbs for quiet. The more they are estranged from real people, the more they are going to lose,' says Mr Elrich, warning his fellow Democrats. Mr Friedson, the local abundance crusader, has made many enemies who wish to sink his race for county executive. To make housing abundant and affordable, he sees the need for a new Democratic coalition, one that is younger, more engaged and more diverse. In other words, a party that does not yet exist.
India Today
43 minutes ago
- India Today
Musk might back Vance for President in 2028 as he halts own party plan
Elon Musk, a friend turned critic of US President Donald Trump, has a frontrunner in mind for the 2028 US Presidential race, and it is not Trump. Instead, Musk is seemingly focussing on Vice President JD Vance, widely seen as a likely heir to the MAGA movement after Trump's second had pledged that his proposed "America Party" would challenge the two-party system. But he recently told close associates that he would rather focus on his business ventures than risk splitting the Republican vote in Washington, according to the Wall Street seemingly believes that forming a new party could strain his relationship with Vance. The Tesla CEO has indicated that he would provide financial support if Vance decides to run for President in 2024, Musk contributed nearly 300 million dollars to Trump and other Republican campaigns, helping secure Trump's second HAS NOT ENTIRELY RULED OUT LAUNCHING AMERICA PARTYDespite signals to support Vance, Musk has not entirely ruled out launching his own political party. He is reportedly waiting to see the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections before making a final first threatened to start a new party last month during a public clash with Trump over the so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act (BBBA), which Musk described as a "disgusting abomination".His initial plan was modest: to contest a handful of Senate and House seats, enough to sway key votes on controversial response to the Journal's report, Musk posted on X, "Nothing @WSJ says should ever be thought of as true," offering no further comment."My hope is that by the midterms, he's come back into the fold (sic)," Vance said in the interview, which aired earlier this June, a Trump confidant told Axios that the President was left emotional over the bitter online feud with his "first buddy" Musk."The president was actually hurt," the source said. "Yes, he has feelings, and he was hurt the way anyone would be when a friend turns on them."Musk criticised Trump's proposed Build Back Better America (BBBA) spending package as fiscally irresponsible, labelling it a "disgusting abomination" that would undermine his efforts with the Department of Government Efficiency and add trillions to the deficit.- EndsMust Watch
