completely off-the-wall question

[kaigou]

(No, this has nothing to do with any plans for world domination. JUST ASKIN', really.)

What happens if more than 50% of your country's tangible property -- land -- is purchased/owned/occupied by nationals of another country? I mean, is there any scenario in which you could visualize or rationalize or imagine buying out a country? Or maybe just causing significant political shifts (assuming it's a multi-party and/or non-authoritarian regime)? Or... what happens when refugees from another country completely overwhelm the existing population (numbers-wise)? Could you end up with such chaos that the country ends up in a state of quasi-claimant by the nationals of a second country?

Feel free to reference books, movies, other fiction that's addressed such ideas, or your own experience and/or theories, academic or just fantastical, or real-world political, economic, financial, etc.

[Consider it purely curiosity on my part, but probably a curiosity that's buttressed by my own culture's assumptions that a nation is made up of its people & its land, which is where the foregone conclusion resides that a massive paradigm shift of people & ownership would have to, therefore, affect the nation as a whole.]

Comments

[tiercel]

I don't have any personal knowledge, but something about your question trips my memory. Leaving aside just straight-out imperialism, I would look into the histories of island nations, particularly Hawaii. Somewhere in the back of my mind, there's a vague memory of Japanese folks buying up large section of Hawaiian real estate back in the... 80s? Maybe? Alas, I don't know what kind of effect that had on Hawaii, but I'd be surprised if someone hadn't written a book or two about it.

[kaigou]

Land speculation! Another keyword for today's pathetic google-fu... and that led me to an article about the current/recent tension between Indonesia & Singapore... where the latter intends to build more (on landfill), which means it needs sand & gravel for the concrete. Except that according to Indonesia, Singapore is getting this sand & gravel... by stealing it from the various uninhabited islands that ring Indonesia. (Some of the islands are reportedly "disappearing" as a result of the massive, uhm, theft.)

I mean, there's land piracy, but I never thought of it being this literal.

[l-clausewitz.livejournal.com]

Oh, that Singaporean "land-stealing." For me, this is one of the issues that shows the colossal incompetence of the Indonesian government, since much of the mining and trade in sand and gravel is actually done by poor Indonesians digging up single boatloads (and the boats weren't even very big), rowing them over, and then selling them rather cheaply in Singapore. When the government is confronted with the fact that this trade stemmed from its inability to stimulate the economy and create more productive employment opportunities, it just starts mouthing off vague promises and excuses.

[kaigou]

Entrepreneurs are everywhere!

So not surprised -- makes a great deal more sense. (I was trying to figure out how in the hell you could have barges, y'know, slink as they sneak up to an island and then, uhm, carve some of it out.) That, and the snarky tone in the article about Singapore "hoarding" sand -- I mean, there's hoarding salt in wintry areas, and I get hoarding fresh water or gasoline or whatever else governments save for their people, but sand? Can't you, like, buy that? Doesn't Australia have entire regions that are a whole lot of sand?

Still... if I had a boat and a crew of people to dig, and the market were right there, I'd probably have thought of doing the snatch-and-sell as well. It's basic economics: there's demand, and someone's gonna supply. Although I have to say that it's just an amusing side-note to think of some Indonesian Coast Guard ship doing its rounds, and some little low-rank dweeb with the binoculars asking his CO, "doesn't that island out there seem... a little shorter today, sir?"

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

Well, I imagine there are situations where you could have something like your buyout. You'd have to set it up carefully, though, because the outcome will depend on a huge number of variables, or so I should think. How does the country in question treat property rights in land? (In Anglo-American law at least, land is very different from personal property.) What sorts of immigration rules are in place, and how well enforced are they? (Just because I own a bit of real estate in another country doesn't necessarily mean I can occupy it, or bring in fellow nationals to occupy it.) Technical ownership aside, who has physical control over the property? Is this country one where the existing population has a strong sense of national identity, that it would work to keep? Do the buyers think their home nation would use military force to secure what they consider to be their rights? And so on, and on, and on.

If a nation feels threatened enough, and isn't worried about the equivalent of the Marines swooping in to support the buyers, it can do anything from restrict the way foreign nationals can use or transfer real property to expropriating it back again, with or without reasonable compensation. Doing things like this would have consequences, of course, but so does defaulting on sovereign debt, and nations have been known to do that, or to threaten to do it when strategically necessary. On the other hand, if it doesn't feel threatened, or doesn't have enough power or protection from other powers to resist, I imagine eventually you could find a consensus in favor of some sort of merger with the country the buyers hail from. Or something less than consensus, but sufficient to force the affiliation -- although in that case I think you can expect that there's going to be a terrorism issue for rather a long time as a consequence.

[kaigou]

Lots of countries have limits on foreign ownership -- I had no idea that the US has among the most liberal of foreign-ownership allowances. But then, first-world versus third-world (where massive speculation would be an issue). But at least I picked some terms from your reply that led to another happy hour of googling, plus ended up reading up on possession versus "historical possession" (especially in the cases of several islands in the South Pacific). Thank you!

[hollyberries]

I could be completely wrong, but I think one branch of Zionism had this idea re: the establishment of Israel? Whether it worked or not, well...

[kaigou]

OMFG. Massively un-PC to draw such a connection, but wow, talk about a perfect real-world example. (Not to mention hard to find, since most historical accounts, including Wiki, just start with 'Israel declared independence' and I'm going, but what, it sprang full-grown from the head of Palestine Zeus?) But finally tracked down a more thorough background history and by gum, you're right on the dot. Thank you!

[hollyberries]

It's very much an awkward point in conversation and pretty much the elephant in the room, but the fact is that Israel did some pretty illegal things and are still doing them, and I don't much feel like going beyond saying this. I'm not Jewish or Palestinian, and I have no personal stake in the whole conflict, so it maybe un-PC for me to bring any of this up.

It remains that the entire affair, from 1900s onwards, leaves a terrible taste in my mouth.

[kaigou]

It occurred to me that Cyprus might also be an example. Turkey invaded, and after fighting to a standstill, I believe it was UN mandate that literally cut the island in half, put up a wall, and fifty years later we still have Turkish Cyprus and Greek Cyprus, and it'll probably be another several generations (or more) before the twain ever meet. Still, that annexation was imposed by external forces -- as a way to end the endless fighting, but in a way it did validate the imposition by an external force, even if Turkey only got half the island instead of all of it.

(I'm glossing somewhat, since it's more complex than that, but I didn't think you'd want a dissertation.)

[nagasvoice]

Annexation is a common result of large-scale immigration and property rights changes (not the same things, but often overlapping).
Also, "Our nationals are in your country and you're treating them terribly!" is always a grand excuse for an invasion.
The Ottoman Empire deliberately and consciously uprooted and replanted big populations of ethnic groups and tribal people (expected to be loyal to the Empire) into territories where the bordering country's enforcement was weak, where the Empire had some sway over what happened (tribute etc.), or which they owned but did not feel secure in that ownership. This was often by offering the people rewards of some kind to move in there; sometimes full citizenship was enough reward, meaning they weren't getting direct money or title to the land in the country where they were going, to do any of this.
The result, hundreds of years later, can be seen in border-crossing populations of Turks, Afghans, and so on. The Balkans have been in this state since forever. I'm not as sure about the history of Eastern Germany or Poland.

[kaigou]

I ended up reading about the Ottoman Empire some today (and then we talked about it over dinner) and... well, let's just say my previous opinion of "slightly less than impressed" got downgraded further to something around the level of "ridiculously far from impressed". Textbook imperialism at the extremes, oh yay.

[edenfalling]

Or... what happens when refugees from another country completely overwhelm the existing population (numbers-wise)? Could you end up with such chaos that the country ends up in a state of quasi-claimant by the nationals of a second country?

I think this is a fairly accurate general description of European colonization of the Americas, though at least some of the "refugees" would be better described as adventurers and profiteers. :-(

[kaigou]

Except that colonization is an indigenous landgrab, and there, the argument is that the land isn't "occupied" (as though those aren't actual people over there, looking pissed-off!) or that the land is occupied but by uncivilized people who "need" the "assistance" or whatever. Hell, the Australian land grab tried to legitimize itself by arguing that the continent was "empty" and therefore open for the taking. I mean, there's erasing, and then there's... that's just erasing on such a sheer chutzpah level that I can't even comprehend the level of erasure.

I was talking more about in cases where it's an established (recognized by other countries as legit/existing governed nation-state) legal entity, in what way a section of it could end up annexed. It appears that the process used in creating Israel is (for better or worse) unexpectedly pretty close to the scenario I had in mind, which in turn explains why so many [third-world] countries have extreme limitations on land-purchase by non-citizens. Not to mention the issue of land speculation by so-called investors from first-world countries with lots of cash to throw around.

What's cool about asking such vague open-ended questions is that I get better answers (and better questions that in turn prompt better answers) than if I were all specific and shit. And that in turn improves the story ideas. Wah.

[edenfalling]

Fair enough!

I find this discussion an interesting contrast to the history of German settlers in Europe. Various rulers had been in the habit of inviting Germans to come create towns and farms in their territory, since they felt that Germans were more orderly and productive subjects (and therefore a better tax base, I suppose). There were significant ethnic German minorities all through eastern Europe, western Russia, and the northern Balkans. (For example, there's a reason Bram Stoker thought German was a useful language for a visitor to Transylvania to speak.) This diaspora was probably useful from Austria-Hungary's point of view, and if that empire had survived, those German populations might be an example of the kind of ethnic and political shift you're talking about.

Except Austria-Hungary broke up, WWII happened, and those ethnic German enclaves pretty much vanished -- the people either died or migrated to Germany (often against their will), despite having resided in their "foreign" homes for generations. I suspect some of the bad feeling that triggered the expulsion of ethnic Germans may have been caused by a fear of the process you're postulating... especially since, IIRC, "protecting" an ethnic German population was Hitler's excuse for taking over parts of Czechoslovakia -- which, incidentally, he did with the agreement of other European nations.

[kaigou]

That sounds like a counterpart to how England ended up with a strong Norse contingent along the shores: if you want to protect your land from raiders, hire other raiders to come move in and be your buffer! Ingenious solution, if a bit on the risky side, if you ask me. But that also ended up being one of the big influences on why (or so I've read) that Old English -- and thus our Modern English -- is actually considerably more Norse/Teutonic than Romantic.

Still, the first time I read about the invitations from Wales to Norse settlers, I was like: isn't that kind of liking asking the fox to guard the henhouse? But apparently it worked, for the most part, and next thing you know, there's intermarrying and settling down and here we are.

I hadn't been aware that Hitler used ethnic Germans as the basis for any of his invasions, but I have seen that in other areas/histories, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. (Although the "agreement of other nations" does surprise me, tbh -- I mean, essentially granting another country permission to invade a third country on the grounds of having a substantial ethnic population there? Considering other situations -- like that the biggest ethnic minority in Vietnam are the Han Chinese -- it doesn't exactly set a comfortable precedent.)

[mishalak]

"All power comes from the barrel of a gun."

What happens if nationals of Country A purchase 51% of Country B? Not a lot unless Country B just completely fails at the whole national defense thing. If the owners from Country A are absentee landlords then it would be a simple matter for Country B to expropriate the land and unless Country A is willing to go to war that is the end of the matter if done according to laws and rules of Country B. Sure, there could be trade sanctions and whatnot, but unless Country A is incredibly dominant in Country B's trade that will not work. It is not as if the rest of the world would jump in to help Country A.

Likewise with refugees and migrants. Unless they are given citizenship they do not get to vote and most countries, unlike the United States, do not automatically give citizenship by birth within the nation's boarders. What it would come down to is if the refugees or immigrants can force the issue by moral force or martial force. If the refugees are unarmed what is to stop Country B from returning them to Country A?

If, to use the perilous real world example, what if the United States of America were willing to spend the money and take the economic hit that finding and deporting all illegal immigrants were to entail, what would happen? There would, due to the lapse of time, be a lot of uncomfortable edge cases, but would any of the other countries stop the United States from doing so or even contest the legality of the action? On the other hand what if the United States were to do nothing and, even, to throw open the gates to everyone from Mexico and given them the vote, what then? Would the migrants actually try to reunite with Mexico as in the paranoid fantasies of the nativists or would it be a whole lot messier and more complicated? I suspect that a great many of the people willing to go would have a personal agenda different than what the leaders of any movement would hope.

My favorite real world example of an attempt is the "Free State Project". Libertarians pledging to move to one state to give themselves more influence over politics and to take over. So far it has failed to find enough people willing to actually migrate for libertarianism. I doubt it will actually come about due to politics not being a primary motivator for the vast majority of people (see also liberals moving to Canada due to conservatism of the US). The only way it could happen would be with subsidies on the part of some government to move people and then I suspect Country B would take action to stop the move or a mass migration due to economic issues.

[kaigou]

Politics are often a reason to talk big, but from what I can tell, people don't walk them unless either a) they're in a position that's much much worse politically and/or b) there's an additional emotional context like religion or family or culture. I mean, libertarians moving to NH from anywhere else in the states may be looking at potential improvement (ideal-wise) but for the most part, they're not gaining any major rights they don't already have, as a citizen living elsewhere. But if, say, we were talking the gulag or the ghetto or some other significant marginalization where you have no privileges at all (and may even be in danger in re life & limb), then a move to a place that re-enfranchises you would be obviously attractive. Double that if you're moving with a whole host of family, friends, fellow religious-types, etc.

Instead of a situation like the US exporting people, I was thinking more of mass exoduses -- like when PRC was getting ready to take back HK from the British. I know so many people who left Hong Kong and came to the US & Canada, rather than stick around for the PRC's arrival. I'm told Vancouver's Cantonese population shot up by a huge percentage, relatively. I wouldn't be surprised if others bore out my own understanding, which is that it only takes a handful of people to say, "my uncle lives there" or "my sister moved there" and then it's "our neighbors have family there" and "I know some people who know some people who say that's a good place" and even strangers may catch word and decide to migrate in that direction as well. At least then you'd feel like you were moving someplace new but with a kind of buffer of fellow-newcomers who know where you'd come from, eh?

Citizenship and ownership is another situation, but mass exodus and/or refugees could swarm a neighboring country in times of famine or war or whatnot, and most developed countries wouldn't bar the gates, just for humanitarian reasons. (Not saying they wouldn't put the refugees in limited-access camps, but still, that's more in the door than people were before.)

At least that scenario gets people into the country, and from there, it's connections -- how many others (close or distantly known) had settled previously, who might lend a hand or do the sponsorship thing. Even countries where the ownership is strictly limited (like Thailand, frex) have allowances for non-Thai who marry Thai citizens, or who are adopted into Thai families. So there are other ways to get a foothold, as well.

[majoline]

I will have to look it up, but for a long time at Gulfport Seabee base there was a multiple ton pile of raw aluminum from a country that did buy freedom from the US. I don't remember the details exactly however.

I don't know if I gave you enough details to google either.

[kaigou]

Nope, I'm finding nothing. But if you think of any additional terms that might apply for googling, let me know. I can't think of any country that got to buy its freedom from the US -- most of them we've kept as territories, unless you're talking situations of long-term lease like Panama? no idea.

[majoline]

Nope, it most certainly wasn't Panama, it was a Caribbean country. Or an island nation in the Pacific, that much I do remember.

My googling isn't finding anything, but I don't know if that's because that was something on the mild down-low and I'd have to look the file up at work, damnit or if I'm not remembering enough. :(