TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Highlands Today

Amendment 1 Targets Florida's Anti-Asian Land Law

ADVERTISEMENT

By RASHA MADKOUR Associated Press Writer

The Tampa Tribune

Published: October 18, 2008

MIAMI (AP) - Asians can be barred from owning property in Florida - or so it says in the state constitution.
Amendment 1 on the Nov. 4 ballot would repeal a 1926 amendment that allowed the Legislature to ban "aliens ineligible for citizenship" - an old code word for Asian immigrants - from buying and owning real estate. Although the provision was never enforced and was invalidated by subsequent federal court rulings, backers of Amendment 1 believe the words should still be removed from the constitution.

"It's just not right to have institutionalized racism remain in our constitution even if it's not enforceable," said state Sen. Steve Geller, D-Cooper City, who sponsored the ballot measure.

Other state lawmakers, however, believe the law could be used to prevent foreign terrorist groups from buying real estate here.

Florida is the only state that still has an anti-Asian land law, after New Mexico, Wyoming and Kansas got rid of theirs in recent years. The campaign to repeal the provisions was inspired by the belated removal of anti-interracial marriage laws in Alabama and South Carolina about a decade ago. Law professor Gabriel Chin wondered what other racist and obsolete laws might still be on the books, and his students at the University of Cincinnati came across the alien land laws. They put together packets of information and mailed them to legislatures and newspapers in the four states that still had them.

Lawmakers in Kansas and Wyoming quickly repealed the statues. New Mexico and Florida, however, had the provisions in their constitutions, which require voter approval to change.

The challenge in Florida will be reaching the 60 percent threshold of "yes" votes without a well-funded campaign to explain the measure, backers say - especially because the mention of "aliens" could lead voters to believe it's connected to the illegal immigration debate.

"There's no money at stake, it's just a matter of principle - an important principle - but there's no payday loans or insurance industry to pay lobbyists to communicate this to anybody," said Chin, now at the University of Arizona. "So it really does put the burden on individual people to figure out what this means and it's not going to be easy to do it."

Geller agrees. "If people understand what it does and what it doesn't do, then it'll pass," he said. "I'm afraid it won't."

So far, publicity for the amendment has consisted mostly of letters and columns sent to newspapers, and a word-of-mouth effort among minority and civil rights groups like the NAACP, League of Women Voters and Florida Minority Community Reinvestment Coalition.

Winnie Tang of South Florida's Organization of Chinese Americans is optimistic that the grassroots campaign will work, even if it's an uphill battle educating voters about the measure. She noted that only 2.2 percent of Floridians are of Asian decent, and even many of them aren't informed about it.

The spate of alien land laws, as they're known, began in 1913 in California, where residents felt threatened by the farming prowess of Japanese immigrants. At the time, people from Asia were not allowed to become U.S. citizens, so laws barring them from land ownership indirectly targeted them using "aliens ineligible for citizenship" phrasing.

That obscure wording complicates the effort to get Amendment 1 passed. Asian-American activist Rita Acoba is afraid that voters will see the word "alien" and assume it's related to illegal immigration or a tool to keep terrorists from buying land.

"This has nothing to do with illegal aliens, it has nothing to do with terrorism," said Acoba, who lives in Panama City. "This is pure discriminatory and obsolete language ... and we need to remove it."

But not everyone sees it that way. Rep. Dennis Ross of Lakeland was among 31 Republicans to vote against the measure, which 83 House lawmakers supported. In the Senate, the bill passed unanimously.

Ross said the provision could prove to be useful tool, regardless of its original intent. He said because national security is at risk and the housing market is in shambles, he's concerned a group like the Taliban could buy a development in foreclosure in the Sunshine State.

If that happens and the terrorist organization uses local property to advance their agenda, Ross said the Legislature should have the ability to regulate the conveyance of that property. He believes this provision allows them to do that, since terrorists are now included in the list of people ineligible for U.S. citizenship.

"It's really not an issue," Ross granted, "but it could become an issue."

Even then, Ross said he's not actively campaigning against the amendment. But when he goes to the polls, he said he'll vote no - probably.

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT