4 ms·

> By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified

> By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified Not so. The Constitution is very clear on eligibility requirements for the President. A natural born American citizen of Chinese descent who otherwise satisfies the requirements in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is perfectly eligible to run for the office. If there is concern about potential leverage foreign states have over that candidate--as there rightly would be if our natural born American had close family in PRC--voters might vote for someone else. My position is that such a motivation on the part of the voters is ethical. > I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions). First, I agree that your or your son's relationship to a Chinese national should not be sufficient grounds to deny you or your son any given job. My position is that a narrowly tailored policy to reject candidates with high risk of coercion from sensitive positions, or to limit such employees' access to sensitive data, is probably OK. Having close family residing in PRC unfortunately does raise the risk of coercive pressure being applied. If your wife has no surviving close relatives in PRC and she never goes to visit, you and your son should be assessed to have no greater vulnerability to coercion than any other citizen with otherwise similar circumstances (debts, addictions, etc.). Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. That means you accept that the government has an interest in protecting classified information from foreign powers, and that your relationship raises your risk profile. Do you not accept that private companies have an interest in protecting their IP and customer data from theft or sabotage? Or do you not accept that your relationship also raises your risk profile for these positions? Just because a position may not require a clearance does not mean that position is not highly sensitive to a potential insider threat. And unfortunately the PLA's targets are not restricted to intelligence agencies; they target virtually every sector of our economy.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
> Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. This has to do with companies making their own rules about what is right or wrong without any checks, balances, or voter feedback. Security clearances are actually defined by law, I’m against corporations becoming their own extra judicial entities.
- kyboren 7y ago
  > This has to do with companies making their own rules about what is right or wrong without any checks, balances, or voter feedback. As far as I understand, companies are generally free to make their own hiring decisions, so long as they do not amount to discrimination against a protected class. That limitation, by the way, stems from federal legislation--so companies are very much not extra-legal entities operating without any judicial accountability. If a state or federal Congress decide to further regulate companies' hiring decisions, they are free to do so. I don't understand what exactly you would like companies to do: Simply ignore potential security risks? Do you have a specific process you advocate should be used to evaluate risks? What different kind of restrictions on companies' personnel decisions would you like to see? Do you just have a problem with a focus on risk from family members in PRC as opposed to a broader vetting process where that is only one risk factor? > Security clearances are actually defined by law I am not sure that an exact formula for grant/deny decisions exists in statute. These decisions strike me as inherently subjective, although certain facts are obviously pertinent to the decision. I would be very interested to read the relevant laws and regulations, though, if you'd be so kind as to point me to them.
- munmaek 7y ago
  As long as companies are operating faithfully within the law, they’re free to do that. And you’re free to criticize it and boycott it. Companies like Apple and others should be allowed to be concerned about theft of sensitive data just as much as the government. Just because it’s not a matter of national security doesn’t mean it’s okay. Nobody here is trying to discriminate against a race. The problem is having ties to relatives living under a government that is known for making people disappear. The same would apply for a white person with many relatives there, etc. Your argument of companies not being allowed to take cautionary steps against a foreign government doesn’t hold water.
- pm90 7y ago
  > I’m against corporations becoming their own extra judicial entities. They already are, with most disputes being settled with Binding Arbitration rather than via the court systems. Others have already pointed out though, that a company needs to act in its own interests and one of the things it would certainly find interesting is whether an individual is capable of being coerced into sabotaging/sharing corporate trade secrets.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

> Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. This has to do with companies making their own rules about what is right or wrong without any checks, balances, or voter feedback. Security clearances are actually defined by law, I’m against corporations becoming their own extra judicial entities.

kyboren 7y ago
> This has to do with companies making their own rules about what is right or wrong without any checks, balances, or voter feedback. As far as I understand, companies are generally free to make their own hiring decisions, so long as they do not amount to discrimination against a protected class. That limitation, by the way, stems from federal legislation--so companies are very much not extra-legal entities operating without any judicial accountability. If a state or federal Congress decide to further regulate companies' hiring decisions, they are free to do so. I don't understand what exactly you would like companies to do: Simply ignore potential security risks? Do you have a specific process you advocate should be used to evaluate risks? What different kind of restrictions on companies' personnel decisions would you like to see? Do you just have a problem with a focus on risk from family members in PRC as opposed to a broader vetting process where that is only one risk factor? > Security clearances are actually defined by law I am not sure that an exact formula for grant/deny decisions exists in statute. These decisions strike me as inherently subjective, although certain facts are obviously pertinent to the decision. I would be very interested to read the relevant laws and regulations, though, if you'd be so kind as to point me to them.
munmaek 7y ago
As long as companies are operating faithfully within the law, they’re free to do that. And you’re free to criticize it and boycott it. Companies like Apple and others should be allowed to be concerned about theft of sensitive data just as much as the government. Just because it’s not a matter of national security doesn’t mean it’s okay. Nobody here is trying to discriminate against a race. The problem is having ties to relatives living under a government that is known for making people disappear. The same would apply for a white person with many relatives there, etc. Your argument of companies not being allowed to take cautionary steps against a foreign government doesn’t hold water.
pm90 7y ago
> I’m against corporations becoming their own extra judicial entities. They already are, with most disputes being settled with Binding Arbitration rather than via the court systems. Others have already pointed out though, that a company needs to act in its own interests and one of the things it would certainly find interesting is whether an individual is capable of being coerced into sabotaging/sharing corporate trade secrets.