[scatterhead]

It's wild to me that we frame legitimate concerns as xenophobic.

The second sentence explains why the nationality matters:

> Some farms are foreign-owned and are shipping the crop to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal to grow because it takes too much water.

In this globalistic world it's worth considering that stringent policy in one area of the world can be worked around by taking advantage of lax policy in another area of the world. It's not xenophobic to talk about that. It would be ignorant not to.

[slg]

>In this globalistic world it's worth considering that stringent policy in one area of the world can be worked around by taking advantage of lax policy in another area of the world. It's not xenophobic to talk about that. It would be ignorant not to.

Saudi owned farms circumventing Saudi laws is an issue for the people of Saudi Arabia. If it is legal in the US, it should be legal for everyone. If you want it to be illegal in the US, it should be illegal for everyone. The owners are and should be irrelevant.

[scatterhead]

> If it is legal in the US, it should be legal for everyone

That's a strawman. No one is arguing against that.

How a resource is being used by foreign corporations is an important input to policy decisions.

We're at a point in today's society where the mere suggestion that nationality might be relevant is met with accusations of xenophobia. It's the same way with race or sex.

[slg]

> We're at a point in today's society where the mere suggestion that nationality might be relevant is met with accusations of xenophobia.

How is the nationality relevant? Would this behavior be acceptable if the farms were owned by an Australian company? What about a publicly traded American company? What about an Arizonan billionaire? I don’t see how that would change anything.

Monopolizing natural resources is bad regardless of the nationality or residency of the people profiting.

[phendrenad2]

For saying it's a strawman, you're doing a lot of litigation in the court of public opinion.

[morelisp]

Race exists literally only to draw unfair distinctions.

[effingwewt]

Then how would you explain nature being 'unfair'.

Race exists due to nature and we use it to denote distinctions in our collective race.

We should celebrate our differences, not pretend they don't exist, or are merely humans being derogatory to each other.

[viciousvoxel]

While I agree with your conclusion, unless by "nature" you mean "human nature," the statement > Race exists due to nature is absolutely false. Race is a cultural construct and has little to do with biology or national origin.

[lisasays]

The owners are and should be irrelevant.

In geopolitics (especially as applied to critical resources) -- and that's what this comes down to, really; not simply greed -- this never the case, of course.

It's always relevant who the owners of are - and what kinds of influence led them to being able to put down stakes where they have.

You might say it's the name of the game, in fact.

[zekrioca]

So is it always relevant to be xenophobic?

[lisasays]

It's not xenophobia. It's simply a matter of being aware of how things work.

[tough]

It's always relevant to know who's trying to fuck with you

[HybridCurve]

Aside from purely capitalistic motivations, there is such a thing as environmental warfare. Unless you want to naively assume that any foreign nation might always have the best interests of another in mind when exploiting their resources.

[morelisp]

> If you want it to be illegal in the US, it should be illegal for everyone.

It is reasonable for a region to decide its natural resources should benefit the people who live there above people who do not live there.

[Eumenes]

This 100%.

[scatterhead]

A company is not separable from the regulatory environment and culture in which it's based. A British company opening a diamond mine in Botswana is a very different story from a Namibian company opening the same diamond mine.