How is this not a theft? (well, the law just was made up for this...that is not the question. Im puzzled on the principled law, moral and ethics argument trying to justify this, and whether implications were considered?). This is in my view a short-sighted, non-principled, purely emotional decision which, however, destroys the very foundations (globally) of individual-property rights on which modern western society (especially in the US) stands.

Such virtue signaling move by the US is projecting incredible one sided double standard (in absolute terms, not in relative to any other nation). Are these lawmakers aware of the un-intended consequences? or are they intended infact ? (Something the for instance P. Zeihan has be ranting about for a while -- de-globalization and US increasingly isolationist policies?)

If China invades Taiwan, does half of Vancouver go up for auction?