Controversial Texas Land Ownership Bill Sparks Outcry Over Discrimination and Legal Ambiguities
HB 1743’s wording — “an individual who is not a citizen of the United States” — would include legal permanent residents and visa holders, effectively barring many from homeownership.
April 29, 2025
Austin, TX — A bill under consideration in the Texas Legislature has ignited a firestorm of public backlash, as community members, legal immigrants, academics, and civil rights advocates voiced overwhelming opposition to House Bill 1743 in a charged public hearing on Monday.
Sponsored by Rep. Mitch Little and other lawmakers, HB 1743 aims to restrict land ownership and acquisition by certain foreign individuals and entities from countries deemed adversarial, establish a new agricultural intelligence office, and create criminal penalties for violations. While its proponents frame the bill as a national security measure to protect Texas land, critics see it as a racially charged and constitutionally questionable attempt to revive discriminatory policies of the past.
“This bill is discriminatory and unconstitutional”
Among the most impassioned voices opposing the bill was Michelle Hu, a naturalized U.S. citizen, who warned that the legislation dangerously conflates nationality with loyalty.
“This bill appears to draw lines based on national origin in a way that risks discriminating against lawful immigrants and naturalized citizens,” Hu testified. “I find it troubling to be potentially associated with foreign governments simply because of where I was born.”
Dozens of speakers expressed similar fears, with one resident stating,
“Today, 80 years after the end of WWII, you are trying to pass a bill prohibiting the Chinese from owning agricultural land — in exactly the same way that was done to Jews.”
The bill specifically targets nationals from China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia. Many commenters likened the bill to historical legislation like the Chinese Exclusion Act and the “alien land laws” of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Dr. Yi Ding, an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at Dallas on an H-1B visa, voiced deep concern that the bill would jeopardize his family’s future.
“This legislation would unfairly and indiscriminately target law-abiding residents like myself,” Ding said. “It would also have a devastating chilling effect on Texas’ higher education system by discouraging international talent from coming here.”
Conflict with visa requirements and fear of retaliation
A critical flaw, many opponents argue, lies in the bill’s requirement for property buyers to prove Texas residency — a legal impossibility for many visa holders due to federal immigration restrictions.
Tao Huong, a U.S. citizen who lived for 15 years in Texas as a legal immigrant, explained how current immigration laws require visa holders to maintain their domicile abroad.
“For someone on a work visa or student visa, they can’t claim Texas as their residence without risking their visa status being revoked,” Huong testified. “I was once in that position. If this law had existed then, I could never have bought a home, built stability, or raised my children here.”
Rep. Rafael Anchia, during the hearing, pressed Huong for clarification and confirmed that HB 1743’s wording — “an individual who is not a citizen of the United States” — would include legal permanent residents and visa holders, effectively barring many from homeownership.
Economic Fallout and Investment Risks
Beyond civil liberties concerns, business leaders and academics pointed to potential economic damage. Opponents argued the bill would stifle foreign investment, destabilize real estate markets, and reduce job opportunities — especially in the tech and manufacturing sectors.
One commenter warned,
“Manufacturers need stability to invest... They must own their factories. Without ownership, they won’t come. Now, even leasing will not be an option.”
Another said,
“This bill will seriously impact people who would like to invest and contribute to Texas’ economic growth. It eliminates jobs and opportunities.”
A USDA report cited during testimony revealed that only 3.6% of Texas’ agricultural land is foreign-owned, with Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany — not China — listed as the top foreign stakeholders.
Supporters Invoke National Security and Sovereignty
While the majority of testimony opposed the bill, some speakers endorsed HB 1743 as a crucial step to protect Texas land from foreign adversaries.
Christin Bentley, representing the Republican Party of Texas, declared,
“This bill takes a bold stand to protect Texas by preventing hostile foreign individuals and entities from purchasing our agricultural land and other real property.”
Another supporter, Deborah Kelting Fite, described HB 1743 as “one of the best Texas Land Grab bills” and praised it as part of a broader national movement, pointing to similar legislation recently passed in Arkansas.
Legal Challenges Loom
Opponents also questioned the bill’s legal integrity, calling its language vague, overly broad, and in conflict with both federal laws and constitutional protections.
Michelle Hu pointed out,
“The language of the bill is vague and overly broad, which increases the risk of unintended consequences.”
Many raised concerns that the bill violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and places undue burden on individuals and businesses with its expansive reporting requirements for any real property interests.
Attorney Jack Lu argued that the bill is unnecessary, given existing federal protections like the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) and the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act.
“Rather than strengthening national security, it risks imposing additional layers of regulation and uncertainty without providing meaningful new safeguards,” he said.
The Human Toll: “This is about the American Dream”
Again and again, residents emphasized the human impact of HB 1743. For many, the right to own property is inseparable from the American Dream.
“I cannot imagine how my law-abiding neighbors could suddenly become a threat to our national security,” one Sugar Land resident testified.
“I believe they also deserve the same rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in Texas.”
Sylvia Sun, a mother and community member, expressed anguish over the climate the bill would create:
“This risks putting my kid’s future in danger. It fosters hate, distrust, and division — not safety.”
Calls for Amendments and Alternative Solutions
Some opponents offered constructive alternatives. Lauren Shen urged lawmakers to:
“Please remove the individual portion from the bill. Thank you!”
Others suggested enhancing the role of CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) and developing evidence-based policies that target actual security threats — not national origin.
Conclusion: A Legislative Crossroads
As Texas lawmakers weigh the fate of HB 1743, they stand at a legislative crossroads. Will they prioritize perceived security threats by enacting sweeping restrictions on foreign land ownership — or will they heed the calls of thousands who fear the bill undermines American values of equality, inclusion, and opportunity?
For now, the future of HB 1743 remains uncertain — but its impact on communities across Texas is already deeply felt.