You say that like it is correct to do it, as if that makes it right to have those close to our enemies do it.
No foreign company should operate our border or our ports because we have nothing to say about who they hire. If it is an American company, we have strong pressure we can bring to bear in the company through the industrial security regulations, or even the FBI if necessary.
"You say that like it is correct to do it, as if that makes it right to have those close to our enemies do it".
Wow, I have said nothing that would lead you to think that was my intent. Did you even read my posts on this thread?
My point was that it has been a "FOREIGN" power SUCCESSFULLY running these ports for many years. I would much prefer a US company do it, but YOU made it sound as if "foreign" was inherently risky. I was just pointing out that you came late to the party, and that a foreign company has caused no apparent security problems so far. This may completely change after this merger, and if so, we should use Contractual Law to rectify it.
It is NOT "OUR" business to stop legitimate International business transactions. It is our business who operates our ports. Can you see the difference?
"No foreign company should operate our border or our ports because we have nothing to say about who they hire".
DHS, FBI, and the Coast Guard have plenty of input.
"If it is an American company, we have strong pressure we can bring to bear in the company through the industrial security regulations, or even the FBI if necessary."
While I agree (and want an American company to run these operations) stopping this sale will deeply harm foreign business investment in the US. A better way to handle this, is that if this merger (that is what is actually going on) harms our National Security, we cancel these contracts. It IS that simple.
LLS