Foriegners not being able to buy land.........

[USVirgin]

Hi Jazz,

 

I don't know what kind of US citizen you are, but you have certainly been a financial asset to Thailand.

[Old Hippie]

"...your continuing criticism/whining about Bay Area real estate ..."

 

Hmmm....I used the bay area, as that is what I am most familiar with, the some of the problems I mentioned are relevent to the problems Thailand would face. I also mentioned Hawaii a few times. Additionally, the comments were relevent to the points I was making.

 

You obviously missed the part of my rant where I said I had no problem with People who become citezens and use the property as a residence, owning land. I object strongly to foreign investment firms buying up prime real estate, and never living in the country, or in some cases, never even setting foot here. I further objest to high ranking members of foreign governments buying shopping centers, office complexes, etc, when members of our government/citezens can't invest in real estate in their countries. I am a firm believer that what goes there should go here in terms of land ownership.

 

"...t's not a right for "citizens born here."

 

Sorry dude, but I see it as I do have rights, immigrants have privilidges, there is a difference. Most countries see it that way. Both my adopted parents are immigrants, both served in the US Armed forces, etc...my foster parents were also immigrants. Again, go back and read the posts. I have no problems with leagle immigrants, becomming citezens, and buying homes as a residence. I do have a serious problem with investors getting off a plane, buying up prime land, and going home...especially if I can't do iti n their country. I have said that enough times now for that point to have registered.

 

"...As a natualized US citizen, I'm offended by "citizens born here" type of comments/logic...."

 

No doubt you are offended, but tell me, can I go to a foreign country , and demand the same treament/privilidges/rights as someone born there? Probably not, and that might be the reason your family came here, for more rights/privilidges/freedoms...etc... (same reason everyone comes here...)

 

 

"...I have high opinion of myself and consider myself to be an asset to USA despite the fact that I wasn't "Born in the USA" ... I vote, serve in the jury, pay my taxes without too much cheating and I fucking care about the country ... Hell, I think that makes me more "American" than 90% of "citizens born here" ... I sure pay taxes more than 90% of 'em ..."

 

Good that you have high self esteem. But what do you want? A pat on the back for obeying the law?

 

Look, we give all kinds of hiring preferences to people applying for governemnt jobs (such as the post office, civil service etc...)

extra points added for being from somewhere, a member of a minority group, speaking a particular language, gender etc...don't you think a priority should be given to people born here? especially if they served in the military.

 

"...My parents came to the Bay Area with practically nothing in 1976 and were able to buy after many years to saving. Believe me, they weren't making much ... "

 

1976, SFO was still a working class city, and prices though higher than the national average maybe (?) were more in line with earnings. That was still the tail end of the single income family...notsure when they started considering both incomes on mortgagues.

 

"...As a natualized US citizen, I'm offended..."

 

As someone born in California and raised in San Francisco, I am offended by someone comming here and telling me I can move to Kansas if I don't like what my birth place has become...think about it, How would you feel if I went to the city.country of your birth, and told you, "...hey if you don't like it here, move..." I think you'd be justified in being a bit pissed off.

 

Sorry if you found my comments offensive, But that is my feeling on this matter. People born in a particular country should have priority for government jobs, (jobs in generel really) and land ownership, especially land ownership when it comes to people who don't live/reside in that country. Many countries have that as their policy. To put this back on topic, Thailand seems to understand the problems I outlined, and thus has strict laws on foreigners owning land.

 

"... they worked for US Government..."

 

BTW, if you don't mind me asking, what country did you come from? Can I go there (if I wanted to) become a citezen, take a government job, or any job? and buy land? If not, why not?

[gummigut]

Old Hippie said:

I object strongly to foreign investment firms buying up prime real estate, and never living in the country, or in some cases, never even setting foot here. I further objest to high ranking members of foreign governments buying shopping centers, office complexes, etc, when members of our government/citezens can't invest in real estate in their countries.

 

I disagree. The US, as countries go, is developed, transparent, with enforceable rules. Oh, and a decent real estate tax (unlike Thailand). Opportunities for earning abound.

 

If a foreigner wants to invest in US real estate, I say let them. It takes investment away from that country and brings it to the US. Also, the person/entity investing has to pay market rates as the real estate market in America is pretty well researched so it won't go cheap. They also have to pay for the cost of carrying that land through taxes which goes to "America" in general.

 

As for the foreign government official part... If the funds were earned legally, then I have no problems. If it was the Columbian Cartel, then I'd have problems.

 

As for having the reciprocal right of buying land in that foreigner's country... That's peanuts. What that does is inhibits the economy of the foreign country. NOT the US (well, in the most efficient macro view, yes, but not to the extent of the foreign country).

 

OH, you infer "citizens born here" have more rights than naturalized.

 

What about me? I was born in Hong Kong. American Citizen from birth. How do I fit with regards to "Citizen's Born here"?

 

I remember an ignorant American arguing with me that I can't become President.

 

Some people should READ the constitution!

 

Of course I could. Though feasibly, it ain't happening in this lifetime!

 

Old Hippie said:

Sorry dude, but I see it as I do have rights, immigrants have privilidges, there is a difference.

 

On the inference that "citizens born here" have more rights than naturalized.

 

This is just plain wrong. It goes against the founding principles of the forfathers as well.

 

If a person has gone through the process of becoming a naturalized citizen, they've EARNED all the rights to citizenship (except for the ability to become US President).

 

It's thoughts like this that lead to the superior airs America assumes and problems like Guantanamo.

 

As an American, I'm ashamed at the detention without due process that's occuring at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. We're not talking weeks or months, but we're talking 3 years, 4 years, and probably longer. I don't think any country has the right to imprison anyone without some sort of process for that length of time. For the US to do it is a crying shame.

 

US, land of the free. Aarrgghhh.

 

<<burp>>

[cavanami]

Strongly disagree!

 

>If a person has gone through the process of becoming a >naturalized citizen, they've EARNED all the rights to citizenship >(except for the ability to become US President).

 

Nothing has been earned!

 

Serving in the military earns rights, civil service earns rights...holding up your right hand and swearing an oath, earns you the privilege to serve that country.

 

The USA is screwed up with people expecting instant rights...hey my grandfather served in WW I, my father in WW II, me in the Asian Vacation...we SERVED and we EARNED with blood, sweat and tears!!! ::

[bust]

The reality is foreign investment in the property market always pushes housing prices up. Great for the investor but the down side is it more often than not makes the housing affordability beyond many of your average families reach. I know here in Oz they call it the "Great Australian Dream" Unfortunately to many that is all it will ever be. The property market investors often base where they park their money on exchange and interest rates. This is done often without any consideration to the long term effect of the economy and social fabric of the community they invest in. Greedy fuckers IMO. I would rather see them invest in infrastructure rather than place young families at a disadvantage to enter the property market.

[Old Hippie]

This is exactly my point. There is no way anyone will convince me that foreign investment in realestate does not effect the real estate prices in that market, as I said, and I think illustrated, it helps drive up demand. It happens in many markets, and it WILL happen in Thailand.

[pe7e]

# The reality is foreign investment in the property market always pushes housing prices up #

You are wrong, the thing that pushes up housing prices up is the desire of many people to live in that area, their ability to pay and a shortage of available housing. Their nationality is not a factor, just supply and demand at work, if an inward investment were made to the housing stocks that exceeded the demand, the prices would drop.

 

# I would rather see them invest in infrastructure rather than place young families at a disadvantage to enter the property market #

 

Again you are incorrect, an investment in the infrastructure will increase the desirability of an area and prices will increase accordingly. Think what would happen to prices in a isolated area of BKK if a sky train link was put in.

 

What's your theory on why BKK property prices have sky rocketed over recent years, dispite a ban on foreign ownership? I would think it's more to do with the population trippling due to the massive growth in the manufacturing sector, and not a handfull of Johnny foriegners buying up condos in Pattaya.

[Old Hippie]

"...t takes investment away from that country and brings it to the US...."

 

True. But what about when the foreign investor sells the property at a profit and takes the money out of the country (USA)? OK so initially, he pulls 1 million out of his economy, puts it in the USA economy...now he sells the property fro 2-3 million, takes it back...now he just pulled 2-3 million out of the US economy right? Also, he is taking away a property from a potential domestic buyer, helping to drive up prices, and maybe driving up the rental costs as well (depending on the market)...

 

"...As for the foreign government official part... If the funds were earned legally, then I have no problems. If it was the Columbian Cartel, then I'd have problems. ..."

 

I was referring to Severel Phillipine officials, past and present. You decide if the money was "Leagally earned" or not...I'd tend to bet no myself...

 

"...As for having the reciprocal right of buying land in that foreigner's country... That's peanuts. What that does is inhibits the economy of the foreign country. NOT the US (well, in the most efficient macro view, yes, but not to the extent of the foreign country). .."

 

You lost me on this. For me, it is more the principle than the actual ability to buy the land in a foreign country.

 

"...OH, you infer "citizens born here" have more rights than naturalized. .."

 

Hmmm...ok actually, no, Not saying that at all. In many cases, a U.S. Citezen, born here might take a back seat to an immigrant/naturalized citezen, depends on the circumstances. In Things like government jobs, I do think a person born in this country should have a priority over someone who was not. Sorry, but I see it that way. Oddly, my adopted dad, who is an immigrant also sees it that way.

 

Go to any foreign country, and see if you can get a government job. My guess is the locals in those countries would take my position on this. That doesn't mean I am right of course, it's just how I feel about it.

 

"...What about me? I was born in Hong Kong. American Citizen from birth. How do I fit with regards to "Citizen's Born here"? ..."

 

Hmmm, ok I don't getyou here either...you were born in HKG? How were you a citezen from birth? Earlier, I thought you said you were naturalized...? Were your parents Americans? Or Citezens? I don't follow you here, I'll answer when that is clear. My tentative answer is to say, that you weren't born in the USA, so you should have a lower priority for a governemnt job than someone who was. I also stated that I would have no problem with you becomming a citezen and buying property. I would however have a problem with you NOT being a citezen, buying property, and then returning to HKG...and as I stated, the problem for me would be compounded if I were not allowed to do the same in HKG...there is a principle involved here.

 

 

...On the inference that "citizens born here" have more rights than naturalized.

 

This is just plain wrong. It goes against the founding principles of the forfathers as well...."

 

I did not infer that at all. I previously agreed that that is not the case. I perhapes did not state it properly. All citezens have the same rights, I agree.

 

"...If a person has gone through the process of becoming a naturalized citizen, they've EARNED all the rights to citizenship (except for the ability to become US President)..."

 

OK, here is the heart of the matter...and perhapes where my statements may have been confusing ...ok Let's be clear, with very few exceptions, NO ONE born outside the USA has a RIGHT to become a USA citezen! Period. You can't just show up at our door step and demand to become a citezen. When a person is given the PRIVILIDGE of becomming a US citezen, it is, as you said, after they have gone through a process. Again, being allowed to come here, and go through that process is a PRIVILIDGE, NOT A RIGHT!

 

Once a person is given the PRIVILIDGE to come here, compleates the process, becomes a citezen, then yes, they have the same rights as any US Citezen. One major exception, Your citezenship can be taken away, Mine cannot. True, I can lose many rights as punishment for a crime, but I can't be kicked out of the USA, you can. In short, abuse the privilidge, lose your rights...That is a fundamental difference between people born here, and people who immigrated here, and became citezens, like it or not, and it is not my doing!

 

Additionally, as I said, in the case of Government jobs, I feel first priority should go to Veterns born here, then people born here, before people not born here (citezen or not). We give priority points for many different things on the civil service examne, I think being a native born American should be one of them... again, just how I see it, you are welcome to call it any ugly name you want.

 

OK all that said, let's get it back on track to the original point of this thread. I agree with Thais not wanting to sell their country off to foreigners.

[Guest]

As a natualized US citizen, I'm offended by "citizens born here" type of comments/logic. I

And you have every right to be offended. I have lived in Thailand over 10 years, pay taxes (more than some of the wealthiest citizens of Thailand because I declare all of my income), and yet I cannot buy property.

[Old Hippie]

"...# The reality is foreign investment in the property market always pushes housing prices up #

You are wrong, the thing that pushes up housing prices up is the desire of many people to live in that area, their ability to pay and a shortage of available housing. Their nationality is not a factor, just supply and demand at work, if an inward investment were made to the housing stocks that exceeded the demand, the prices would drop..."

 

This goes back to what I said before about Supply and demand. True, the Nationality of foreign investors is irrelevent, but the fact that fact that they are there, does help drive up the demand, and thus the prices.