By: Anna Irving
In July 2023, Governor DeSantis approved the Foreign Principles Act[1] (the “Act”), which prohibits foreign principals from owning or acquiring farmland and certain real property in Florida.[i] For purposes of the statute, foreign principals are individuals who are not citizens or residents of the United States and are domiciled in a “foreign country of concern.” This term, “foreign country of concern,” includes: “(1) People’s Republic of China; (2) the Russian Federation; (3) the Islamic Republic of Iran; (4) the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; (5) the Republic of Cuba; (6) the Venezuelan regime of Nicolás Maduro; and (7) the Syrian Arab Republic.”[ii]
The Act prohibits foreign principals from owning or acquiring (except for a de minimus indirect interest) farmland or real property within ten miles from critical infrastructure or military installations. [iii] Critical infrastructure includes but is not limited to refineries, water treatment facilities, seaports, and airports.[iv] Thus, foreign principals are ineligible from purchasing property in major Floridian cities such as Miami or West Palm Beach.[v]
The Act places additional restrictions on the People’s Republic of China as these foreign principals cannot own or acquire (except for a de minimus interest) any real property in Florida.[vi] Notwithstanding the foregoing, natural persons may purchase one residential real property not within five miles of any military installation if they have a current verified United States visa and purchase the property in their name.[vii]
Foreign principals who acquired their land or real property prior to July 1, 2023, may retain their properties but must register with the appropriate state departments.[viii] Foreign principals who fail to abide by the Act may face penalties such as property forfeiture, fines, or imprisonment.[ix] Furthermore, knowingly violating the Act is a second-degree misdemeanor crime.[x]
Florida’s legislative intent behind the Act was to protect Florida’s food supply and national security against “China and other hostile foreign nations” by reducing their control over “hundreds of thousands of acres of critical agricultural lands in the U.S.”[xi] Yet, the nexus is attenuated. It is unclear how restricting natural persons from owning any farmland or restricting all Chinese immigrants to only owning one residential property will protect Florida against foreign farming threats; there is nothing to indicate that such residents will possess their land for injurious purposes. The Department of Justice has denounced the Act as it will “cause serious harm to people simply because of their national origin… and will not advance the State’s purported goal of increasing public safety…”[xii]
The racially discriminatory policies enumerated in the Act parallel historic anti-Asian regulations. Since the 18th century, the United States has favored white immigrants over non-white immigrants. This has been endorsed through federal naturalization laws, such as the Naturalization Act of 1790 that permitted “free white persons” to become citizens and explicitly excluded Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Native American, and Filipino persons. [xiii] It took over 100 years to recognize their mistake, and Congress passed the 1924 Immigration Act, which extended immigration restrictions to the Japanese.[xiv]
States mirrored federal anti-Asian sentiment by passing legislation to restrict Asian immigrants from owning property. Most notably in 1913, California passed its Alien Land Law, which permitted “aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States” to own or lease land. While the language was not explicitly discriminatory, it resulted in land ownership restrictions for only Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Native American, and Filipino individuals.[xv] Additionally, the Alien Land Law imposed onerous reporting requirements and violations in reporting would result in land forfeiture, fines, or imprisonment.[xvi] The legislature’s primary purpose in passing the law was to prohibit “Orientals who cannot become American citizens from controlling our rich agricultural lands” as “control of these rich lands means in time control of the products and control of the markets.”[xvii]
Finally, in Sei Fujii v. California[GAM1] , 242 P. 2d 617, 628 (1952), the California Supreme Court held that Alien Land Laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment as the Fourteenth Amendment protects all individuals against arbitrary discrimination, and the true purpose of the legislation, which was to eliminate Japanese competition in farming, arbitrarily discriminated against Asian-Americans because of their race.[xviii] The court did not find any indication that Asian immigrants would use their land against the State’s interests; “these people are legally here… they pay taxes; they are law-abiding citizens…they have proven from their conduct… that they are loyal to the United States.”[xix] Thus, while protecting the farming industry may be a valid legislative objective, discriminating against immigrants on the basis of their race may not be used as a method to accomplish that result.[xx] Governor DeSantis’ Act bears striking similarities to California’s Alien Land Laws as both restricted certain immigrants from owning farmland and real property on the basis of their race, supported by a legislative intent to minimize foreign influence over its states’ food supply.[xxi] Yet, neither state made a legitimate connection as to how restricting certain nationalities from becoming landowners would protect its farming interests.[xxii] Thus, the Foreign Principle’s Act functions as a modern-day Alien Land Law by arbitrarily restricting certain immigrants from purchasing or owning land on the basis of their race. As Florida continues to enforce this legislation, it is imperative to assess its compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment and its impact on property rights, national security, and international relations.
[i] §692.202(1), Fla. Stat. Ann.; §692.203(1), Fla. Stat. Ann.
[ii] §287.138(c), Fla. Stat. Ann.
[iii] §692.203(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Ann.
[iv] §692.201, Fla. Stat. Ann.
[v] Joseph M. Hernandez, Kevin M. Koushel, and Mamie Joeveer, Enter the Fray: Florida Restricts Certain Foreign Ownership of Real Property, Bilzin Sumberg, July 17, 2023, https://www.bilzin.com/we-think-big/insights/publications/2023/07/fl-restricts-foreign-ownership-of-real-property
[vi] §692.204(1)(a)(4), Fla. Stat. Ann.
[vii] §692.203(4), Fla. Stat. Ann.
[viii] §692.202(2), Fla. Stat. Ann.; §692.203(3), Fla. Stat. Ann.
[ix] §692.202(6)-(7), Fla. Stat. Ann.; §692.203(7), Fla. Stat. Ann.
[x] §692.202(8), Fla. Stat. Ann.; §692.203(8), Fla. Stat. Ann.
[xi] Governor Ron DeSantis Cracks Down on Communist China, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, May 8, 2023, https://www.flgov.com/2023/05/08/governor-ron-desantis-cracks-down-on-communist-china/#:~:text=With%20the%20legislation%20signed%20today,lead%20in%20protecting%20American%20interests
[xii] Julia Shapero, DOJ argues Florida law restricting Chinese land ownership is ‘unlawful’, The Hill, June 28, 2023, https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4072675-doj-argues-florida-law-restricting-chinese-land-ownership-is-unlawful/
[xiii] Gabriel J. Chin and Anna Ratner, The End of California’s Anti-Asian Alien Land Law: A Case Study in Reparations and Transitional Justice, 20 Asian-Am. L.J. 17, 21-22 (2022).
[xiv] The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act), Office of the Historian, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act#:~:text=Existing%20nationality%20laws%20dating%20from,admitted%20to%20the%20United%20States (last visited October 16, 2023).
[xv] 1913 Cal Stats. Ch. 113, §1 at 206.
[xvi] Chin and Ratner, supra, note 13, at 22.
[xvii] Fujii v. State, 242 P.2d at 628.
[xviii] Id.
[xix] Id. at 630-32
[xx] Id. at 628-29.
[xxi] Id. at 628; Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, supra, note 11.
[xxii] Fujii v. State, 242 P.2d at 628; Shapero, supra, note 12.
