Ohio lawmakers are considering legislation that would largely prohibit foreign people from owning land in the state.
Lawmakers pared back Ohio House Bill 1 late last year providing protections for naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, and members of the military.
Still, nearly a year after the bill’s introduction, opponents continue packing committee hearings to overflow in matching purple shirts. They insist the bill’s restrictions are too broad and discriminatory — punishing people for their heritage instead of their actions.
The measure’s restrictions apply to individuals from foreign adversaries including China, Russia, and Iran, and anywhere within ten miles of military facilities or other “critical infrastructure.”
Ohio defines critical infrastructure in state statute so broadly that includes cell phone towers and power lines. With a ten-mile radius, land in Ohio would be effectively off-limits.
Tuesday’s hearing was unusual. Two sitting lawmakers offered testimony for and against the bill. The list of people who wanted to speak was long enough that the chair, state Rep. Cindy Abrams, R-Harrison, split the hearing in two.
Proponent testimony
The vast majority of people who have testified on H.B. 1 have been opponents, but Tuesday several supporters showed up again to weigh in.
Adam Savit leads China Policy at the America First Policy Institute and praised lawmakers for building on existing state prohibitions related to farmland.
“These proximity restrictions are required,” he said, “to protect critical infrastructure and military bases from foreign owned adversaries in which the Communist Party of China, for example, either owns a controlling stake or most of their executives are directly related to the Communist Party.”
State Armor lobbies state governments to adopt policies aimed at countering the Chinese government.
Founder and CEO Michael Lucci said that “Ohio is being subjected to what’s called united front political warfare.” That’s a Chinese effort leveraging its diaspora to influence foreign opinion or policy.
Lucci pointed to Chinese laws requiring its citizens and businesses to cooperate with state intelligence authorities.
“There are roughly 1,000 entities in the United States that all in some way, are connected to the Chinese Communist Party,” Lucci said.
“They are telling you that you shouldn’t do this,” he added. “Whatever the Chinese Communist Party is telling you not to do is exactly what you should do.”
His colleague Jacqueline Deal insisted the measure isn’t targeting people of Chinese descent but added, “this is very real. It’s happening, that CCP, Chinese Communist Party-linked people in the United States are doing the CCP’s bidding.”
Deal also claimed the Ohio Chinese American Association, which has helped lead opposition to H.B. 1, is linked to United Chinese Americans.
That group in turn is an alleged United Front organization, Deal alleged, according to reporting from the right-wing outlet Daily Caller.
“I just want to make sure that there’s full transparency for you guys as you vote,” Deal told lawmakers.
United Chinese Americans has denied ties to the Chinese government and has pushed back on depictions of it and other civic groups as tools of a foreign power.
State Armor’s connections are also illuminating.
In 2023, The Concord Fund, a dark money organization connected to right-wing figure Leonard Leo, reported a $2.3 million grant for State Armor in its tax filings. According to State Armor’s filings the following year, that donation alone represented roughly two thirds of its revenue.
Opponent testimony
Yun Gao came to the U.S. on an international student visa and spent a decade working on her doctorate and postdoc work before getting a green card.
As a lawful permanent resident, she’d be able to purchase property under the current version of the bill. But she didn’t have her green card when she actually bought her home.
“If (H.B. 1) was passed during these years, it would be impossible for me to buy any house as home for my family,” she explained.
If there are legitimate national security concerns, Gao said, “They should be addressed through evidence-based reviews of genuinely risky transactions, not through sweeping bans.”
Hao Cong’s story is similar. After coming to the states on an F-1 student visa, it took her 11 years to become a permanent resident.
“The green card is not something we got overnight,” Cong told the committee. “We work for that. We pay taxes. We obey law. We try to contribute it to this country, to this state we love.”
And on a chilly morning, she got laughs explaining “we choose Ohio not because of weather, right? We all know people could choose California for weather, but we choose Ohio just because of people.”
Bowling Green State University Professor Louisa Ha argued the people most likely to be harmed by the bill are immigrants working on an H-1B visa.
“They live here and pay the same amount of tax as all other citizens,” Ha said. “They went through rigorous immigration check and a background (check) before they were allowed to (be) issued the H-1B visa.”
Junfang Grace Leng, like several others, questioned the logic behind restricting property ownership to protect national security.
She explained that although the bill effectively bans home ownership, it does nothing at all when it comes to renting.
“If renting near a base is allowed,” she asked, “how does a ban on ownership make Ohio safer?”