[deytempo]

People complain so much about the USA immigration law, however the USA remains to be one of the only countries where you can own property if you are not a natural born citizen. There are those who think the latter should change to protect its natural born citizens. Is it a simpler matter to immigrate to India?

[gdfasfklshg4]

> USA remains to be one of the only countries where you can own property if you are not a natural born citizen.

This is just not true.

[deytempo]

You are implying that it isn’t one of the only countries where this is the case?

[gdfasfklshg4]

Yes.

[barry-cotter]

If you have a well paying job getting a work visa is by all accounts not difficult. If you’re legally resident for twelve years you can naturalise, or seven years if you’re married to an Indian citizen.

Most developed countries will let anyone with the requisite funds buy property, with no particular restrictions on foreigners. It’s certainly the case in the EU, Japan, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

[deytempo]

I am not talking about most “developed” countries. I am taking about most countries.

[_jgdh]

> one of the only countries

I live in Europe. I wonder what my Chinese landlords (who've lived their whole lives in China) would say if they read your comment.

[deytempo]

So are there more countries that let foreigners own land or more that do not?

[mikeash]

Where do people get crazy ideas like this?

[deytempo]

A survey of the differing laws of nations.

[mikeash]

Can you share your data? I did a quick search and found few countries that forbid property ownership for non-citizens, and no mention of any restrictions on naturalized citizens.

[catach]

A system can have both good and bad parts. The good parts cannot protect the system from criticism about the bad parts.