Houston Chronicle
Jan. 30 editorial, “Is bill banning Asian landownership about hate — or national security?”
“There is no discernment about what type of land is being purchased or who is doing the purchasing,” [Rep. Gene] Wu said earlier this month. “It targets individuals indiscriminately.”
Besides fanning anti-Asian sentiment, the bill also raises constitutional and economic concerns.
By barring individuals, particularly those from specific national backgrounds, the bill suggests that those communities in general are not to be trusted, a common refrain in a long history of exclusion and discrimination, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
These sorts of claims, linking national origin to American loyalty and belonging, are old fodder, used again and again in efforts to restrict or ban Asian immigration and land ownership. Amid a global pandemic that has seen a surge of anti-Chinese and anti-Asian sentiment, the flame needs no further kindling.
In response to protests in Houston and Austin, Kolkhorst emphasized that the bill will not restrict citizens nor legal permanent residents from purchasing land. She also said she would consider including people “in the pipeline to become citizens,” according to Chronicle reporting.
— Houston Chronicle Editorial Board
San Antonio Express-News
Jan. 30 editorial, “A glaring lack of transparency in Supreme Court leak investigation.”
The investigation comprised 126 interviews with 97 court employees, determining 82 of them — not including the nine justices — had access to the draft. Their printer logs, search histories, court-issued laptops and cellphones were searched.
The court concluded none of these employees was responsible for the leak.
The initial report didn’t mention if justices or their spouses had been interviewed.
A day later, after criticism from the left and the right over this omission, Marshal Gail A. Curley said the justices and their spouses were interviewed but unlike their 87…
Read the full article here
