I think this is an issue that flies largely under peoples radar. We have both the Michigan NITC and the Trans Texas Corridor, and both represent problems involving national susceptibility to the increasingly strong inflow of foreign interests. The Trans Texas Corridor was a proposal that is suspected to be a part of a broader revamping of the US transportation system by creating "super highways" or "super corridors" which basically allow streamlined travel over great distances in the country. Only...it wasn't going to be owned by the US. At least the Texas part of this system was going to be owned by a foreign company, Cigna, which would have complete ownership of the corridor, tax rights, and lands immediately around the corridor. You might consider Wikipedia a good place to view the information, except that Wikipedia provides the skeletal interpretation of the event while whitewashing (omitting) all of the controversy that lay at the heart of it's inevitable rejection. In short, the US government and the State of Texas saw no problem in this, but the people of Texas did, they gathered together, and the brought down this super-corridor proposal in Texas...for now. Now you have Michigan's NITC program up north. Similar to Texas (and all those old west movies were slick suits held town meetings showing the great virtues and gains of allowing Oil, Railroads, Dams, etc so be built on, through, or around their land with negligible faults if any) except that this one apparently seems to be less of an overt douuche. They are willing to completely shoulder the costs and burden of this bridge which will make it a virtually free bridge to Michigan. It's headed by the Canadians. Most of us grow up with that saying that nothings free, and that's the first caveat of this sale. But I think the points that have been found so far address the concerns more sharply... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mickey-blashfield/michigan-proposal-6_b_2065909.html In both these cases, you have the US government willingly allowing the undermining of business, land, and all else involved- basically seceding these things to foreign interests. I've heard the term "a nation of shops" before, but I thought it was only third world countries that undergo the selling of national property and public welfare to private interests abroad. The most startling thing I see in these two events is that the government is willing and ready to allow this and that it was the people- grassroots, everyday people that became aware through conscientious independent researchers- who eventually stopped this. You can argue that these are small examples, but they are the most recent examples, and not even the most overt. HSBC is not an American based bank, it is an English bank allowed to work in American. It has become so large that "it can not fail" and, of course, the lunacy continues. Even while you argue about the immigration of every Mexican or South American person here and there, the far more serious and undermining immigration of foreign corporate interests and corporate entities have a more serious effect on our country.
