6 ms·

> I believe this will continue and I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship

> I believe this will continue and I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk and they won't be allowed to work in areas of national security or national interest. I think this kind of policy is already in practice, maybe not in the federal government but in some highly sensitive private business. I heard, forgot the source, business like Lockheed martin has secret programs won’t hire you if your parents are born in mainland China. I found it reasonable, because the CCP will definitely take your remaining family members in China as hostages to make you do things.

oingoboingothro 5y ago
It need not be a policy to be applied in practice at the governmental level. Writing things down is FOIA bait both on the USG side and the prime side (which your Lockheed scenario is a good example of, actually, despite your distinguishing of the two environments). Primes and feds are able to communicate about matters like this without communicating, and do it routinely. Source: Need to know.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
It's a sign of the times that the top comment here seems to be tacitly endorsing discrimination against Chinese Americans, and the top reply is explicitly doing so.
- oyashirochama 5y ago
  It's literally a requirement for TS/SCI clearance due to conflict of interest and national security. Natural born citizenship and they look at relationships fairly deeply. Even higher requirements can be needed for these positions too.
  - _yo2u 5y ago
    For security clearances, country of birth is not a direct factor. SEAD 4 is used as an adjudication guideline and uses a holistic approach towards clearance suitability determination. For every risk factor, SEAD 4 outlines possible mitigation factors. There are plenty of naturalized citizens (yes incl. from high-risk countries) working in IC, DoD, DoE.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I mean, the CCP is known to threaten activists living abroad into silence by holding their families hostage. It's not much of a stretch to suggest that they'd do the same to get sensitive information. I'd honestly be surprised if they're not doing this already.
- fouric 5y ago
  This comment is libelous, emotionally-manipulative flamebait, and does not belong on HN. These security issues, and the surrounding discussion, are due to citizenship, loyalty to one's country, cultural differences, and the presence of family in a country that is a hostile foreign power, and have nothing to do with ethnicity (and nor were the GP's implying that), despite your claims to the contrary. Please don't turn random discussions into a race conflict.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    Some would say that the two highly upvoted comments calling for racial discrimination are what's causing the "race conflict." The parent comments are what doesn't belong on HN.
    - sajforbes 5y ago
      Nobody called for racial discrimination. Vetting needs to be done based on potential risks posed by connections (possible or confirmed) to a hostile foreign power that is both an autocratic regime and capable of using its influence to coerce people into committing espionage. Those same considerations would not apply to Taiwanese Americans. All western countries dealing with China need to consider their security policy carefully and comments like yours poison the well of debate by conflating racial discrimination with legitimate security concerns.
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        The argument you're making is identical to the argument that was made for interning Japanese Americans during WWII. There's a growing hysteria and paranoia about China, and suggestions that Chinese Americans should be put under blanket suspicion are incredibly disturbing.
        sajforbes 5y ago
        You're employing a red herring - the internment of Japanese Americans is not relevant to a security and vetting procedure. Whatever justification they used shouldn't change your assessment of how the specific justification used here bears on the present issue. I agree there is a problem of China paranoia, and your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination. While wanting to reduce this is admirable, national security is not the field to do it. The geopolitical forces shaping this shift are much larger than the national security apparatus - negating it at the expense of security is not their remit and never will be.

oingoboingothro 5y ago

It need not be a policy to be applied in practice at the governmental level. Writing things down is FOIA bait both on the USG side and the prime side (which your Lockheed scenario is a good example of, actually, despite your distinguishing of the two environments). Primes and feds are able to communicate about matters like this without communicating, and do it routinely. Source: Need to know.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

It's a sign of the times that the top comment here seems to be tacitly endorsing discrimination against Chinese Americans, and the top reply is explicitly doing so.

oyashirochama 5y ago
It's literally a requirement for TS/SCI clearance due to conflict of interest and national security. Natural born citizenship and they look at relationships fairly deeply. Even higher requirements can be needed for these positions too.
- _yo2u 5y ago
  For security clearances, country of birth is not a direct factor. SEAD 4 is used as an adjudication guideline and uses a holistic approach towards clearance suitability determination. For every risk factor, SEAD 4 outlines possible mitigation factors. There are plenty of naturalized citizens (yes incl. from high-risk countries) working in IC, DoD, DoE.
AussieWog93 5y ago
I mean, the CCP is known to threaten activists living abroad into silence by holding their families hostage. It's not much of a stretch to suggest that they'd do the same to get sensitive information. I'd honestly be surprised if they're not doing this already.
fouric 5y ago
This comment is libelous, emotionally-manipulative flamebait, and does not belong on HN. These security issues, and the surrounding discussion, are due to citizenship, loyalty to one's country, cultural differences, and the presence of family in a country that is a hostile foreign power, and have nothing to do with ethnicity (and nor were the GP's implying that), despite your claims to the contrary. Please don't turn random discussions into a race conflict.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  Some would say that the two highly upvoted comments calling for racial discrimination are what's causing the "race conflict." The parent comments are what doesn't belong on HN.
  - sajforbes 5y ago
    Nobody called for racial discrimination. Vetting needs to be done based on potential risks posed by connections (possible or confirmed) to a hostile foreign power that is both an autocratic regime and capable of using its influence to coerce people into committing espionage. Those same considerations would not apply to Taiwanese Americans. All western countries dealing with China need to consider their security policy carefully and comments like yours poison the well of debate by conflating racial discrimination with legitimate security concerns.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      The argument you're making is identical to the argument that was made for interning Japanese Americans during WWII. There's a growing hysteria and paranoia about China, and suggestions that Chinese Americans should be put under blanket suspicion are incredibly disturbing.
      - sajforbes 5y ago
        You're employing a red herring - the internment of Japanese Americans is not relevant to a security and vetting procedure. Whatever justification they used shouldn't change your assessment of how the specific justification used here bears on the present issue. I agree there is a problem of China paranoia, and your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination. While wanting to reduce this is admirable, national security is not the field to do it. The geopolitical forces shaping this shift are much larger than the national security apparatus - negating it at the expense of security is not their remit and never will be.