29 ms·

DOJ sues SpaceX for discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring

182 points by hnuser0000 3y ago

Transpire7487 3y ago
I thought that SpaceX, due to the nature of their work (rockets) were specifically prohibited from hiring non-citizens? Edit: seems like the DOJ is claiming that that is not the case. Weird…so this is basically going to boil down to each side arguing their interpretation of a regulation. Can’t say this doesn’t smell just a little political.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- xNeil 3y ago
  Per the website linked, asylees and refugees do not come under the export control act, as opposed to citizens of other nations. The timing of the lawsuit does seem interesting though.
  - Transpire7487 3y ago
    I haven’t been following bird man’s (X man?) shenanigans for a long time, what happened?
    - soperj 3y ago
      He hasn't even owned twitter for a year... clearly you've followed his shenanigans a little.
      - Transpire7487 3y ago
        I suppose a “long time” is relative. I don’t have a Twitter account and haven’t cared much about what he does for about…3 months or so? with a 24 hour news cycle that fees like an eternity. I thought gp was alluding to something within the last few days.
  - master_crab 3y ago
    IANAL but aren’t asylees and refugees still a citizen of the nation they left?
    - thebooktocome 3y ago
      It’s complicated, but not always. Regardless, the ITAR issue is secondary; they hire for roles that do not touch ITAR.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Regardless, the ITAR issue is secondary I dunno, if the people they are discriminating against are “US persons” and not “foreign persons” under ITAR, then the whole ITAR argument for discrimination, whether its direct coverage or some kind of indirect risk creating something that Tesla wants to try to argue is a bona fide occupational qualification justifying discrimination, is cut off at the root.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        > It’s complicated, but not always. If the refugee has a new citizenship in their host nation, then in what sense are they still a refugee?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    It’s not citizenship (otherwise asylees, refugees, and even permanent resident aliens would be excluded.) A “foreign person” is defined in ITAR (22 CFR Sec. 120.63), by reference to two sections of immigration law in Title 8 of the US Code, as someone who is none of the following: a US citizen, a lawful permanent resident, an asylee or refugee, a person lawfully admitted for permanent residency (I haven’t done the analysis to see if this is distinct from “lawful permanent resident” or if its overlap with different language between the categories referenced from different parts of Title 8 of the US Code), a person lawfully admitted for certain classes of temporary residency.
- ihsw 3y ago
  [dead]
- Quillbert182 3y ago
  If they aren't, they probably should be.
- WaitWaitWha 3y ago
  I was wondering about that too. They are restricted from exporting the knowledge and are restricted (ITAR, EAR, FARS/DFARS, etc.) in some roles to use non-US citizens, and not even "lawful permanent residents" are allowed to take them. (Background 19 in DoJ filling) Export means sharing the information with non-US citizen or green card holder, irrelevant where the action takes place (i.e. the non-US recipient can be in Richmond, VA; it is the citizenship/green card that matters not the location). It is possible that the roles identified by the DOJ are not under these restriction. That said, how is this going to be resolved with the compliance requirements
  - Transpire7487 3y ago
    I went and clicked on a random job posting for SpaceX and there are references to refugees and asylees being allowed to apply now. Seems like it’s going to boil down to “we interpreted the regulation wrong, oopsies”.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Weird…so this is basically going to boil down to each side arguing their interpretation of a regulation. Legal disputes often center on disputes on the meaning of law (including regulations.) That's…not weird at all. > Can’t say this doesn’t smell just a little political. Yes, government actions often smell just a little “of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government”.
  - Transpire7487 3y ago
    Well at least you admit that the pretence of the Department of Justice being non-partisan/independent is just a facade.
- foooorsyth 3y ago
  >Can’t say this doesn’t smell just a little political. The President of the United States very publicly called for Musk and his companies to be investigated back in November of ‘22. Ironically, this was because of supposed relationships with other countries. https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-says-elon-musks-relationships-with-other-countries-worthy-being-looked-at-2022-11-09/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-says-elon-musks-rel... So he deserves investigation due to foreign business relationships, then gets sued for not hiring (edge-case) foreigners to build state of the art rocket technology. Cue the Curb Your Enthusiasm theme song.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - foooorsyth 3y ago
      Both laws in this case being related to business relationships with potential adversaries of the United States, with the Executive branch straddling arguably opposing public positions. But you already understood that and you’re pretending that the irony isn’t there because you don’t like Musk, right?
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        No I really don’t see any conflict between “don’t collaborate with officials of a foreign government” and “don’t discourage foreign-born people from applying for jobs that you offer.”
        foooorsyth 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Uh oh! I just might be. Can you explain what the conflict is between those two positions?
- HWR_14 3y ago
  SpaceX is prohibited from hiring non-US-persons (for at least some roles.) US Persons includes all US citizens, and several other groups of people. It is also illegal to use the differences between types of US Persons in hiring decisions. The lawsuit is because SpaceX wrote US citizens instead of US Persons. They now list all categories of US Persons in their job listings (in response to this suit, most likely), so this is about past behavior and probably will be trivially settled for a fine. There is also an active question of if the discrimination is still happening, in which case the governments goal is to prevent compliance only in the job listings.
moonmagick 3y ago
[flagged]
steno132 3y ago
[flagged]
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  He’s kind of a weirdo and definitely makes some spectacularly bad decisions, but a an industrialist it’s hard to argue that anyone is even playing in the same ballpark.
  - steno132 3y ago
    Exactly. He's mercurial, he doesn't think things through properly but how many founders have created a $1 trillion company? Let alone SpaceX, Boring Co, Neuralink, and X.ai
CoastalCoder 3y ago
I'm curious what the root cause of this is. - Ongoing disagreement between SpaceX and DOJ regarding applicable law? - SpaceX HR misunderstanding, at the time, the applicable law? (I can see how this category of applicants might be rare enough that HR people fail to account for them.) - SpaceX HR policy lining up with DOJ's view, but hiring managers choosing candidates with a suspicious statistical distribution?
- solardev 3y ago
  Could this be a political act, trying to make an example out of SpaceX to please immigrants and asylees who largely vote Democrat? Kinda like the labor people going after Starbucks with a vengeance after years of nothing under Trump.
  - skc 3y ago
    Is this even true? That refugees and asylees largely vote democrat? I ask because a lot of these people come from countries that are highly conservative in nature and culture.
    - solardev 3y ago
      I think "immigrants" as a whole, yes: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/among/immigrant-status/immigrants/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... Even the people who can't vote lean that way: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/07/22/are-unaut... Even if they can't vote, some of their family members can, and their kids and their friends will be able to. There's a reason major cities are often blue (largely linked to their history of immigration), and across generations, these loyalties can build up. (Also, the Democrats largely gave up on the rural areas as a matter of political strategy, but that's a separate story). Asylees and refugees on the other hand... I can entirely believe that, but I guess we won't see the bigger picture of that (vs large-scale immigration from Central/South America) for a while.
invalidopcode 3y ago
US Government: You have to careful about potentially leaking export controlled material, or your employees will be held personally responsible and go to jail. SpaceX: Okay, will be extra careful Also US Government: How dare you be too careful! (probably) SpaceX: WTF
- Dudester230602 3y ago
  [flagged]
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  This is a really dishonest interpretation of events. US law states that asylees have been vetted thoroughly and can take these positions the same as any US citizen or green card holder (if you had read the article).
  - coding123 3y ago
    You can't vet anyone thoroughly though! You can reply yes I love the united states a million times, read the constitution a million times and still be part of some sect.
    - joshuamorton 3y ago
      This applies equally to citizens and permanent residents.
      - coding123 3y ago
        the statement applies equally - the percentage chance that someone is compromised in a certain direction is not.
- arcticfox 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
_sentient 3y ago
[flagged]
questime 3y ago
[flagged]
endisneigh 3y ago
maybe I need to read this again more carefully but I fail to see what SpaceX is doing wrong here. This: > Because SpaceX works with certain goods, software, technology and technical data (referred to here as export-controlled items), SpaceX must comply with export control laws and regulations, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations. Under these regulations, asylees, refugees, lawful permanent residents, U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals working at U.S. companies can access export-controlled items without authorization from the U.S. government. Therefore, these laws do not require SpaceX to treat asylees and refugees differently than U.S. citizens or green card holders. Find more information here on how employers can avoid discrimination when complying with export control requirements. Seems to be the issue. But why would it be against the law for a US company to discriminate against someone without valid immigration status? I assume the issue here is a refugee has some authorization for lawful employment and SpaceX still doesn't want to hire them wholesale, hence the suit. IMHO the United States' convoluted immigration and refugee policy is to blame. Why not triage everyone to being "legal permanent resident" and remove the distinction between refugee/asylee and other types of lawful residents? I'd need to read more but ultimately they're a lawful resident or not. What's the point of considering them a "refugee" if they're entitled to the same benefits as a lawful resident anyway? Either we trust them enough to be in this country and therefore be entitled to the benefits that entails, or not.
- wslack 3y ago
  It's the "permanent" bit. Being an asylee or refugee isn't necessarily a permanent status - like if your home country gets out of a civil war or a coup leader ends the coup and goes into exile, you no longer need to fear for your life if you go back. > If you are a refugee, you are required by law to apply for permanent resident status 1 year after being admitted to the United States in refugee status. If you are an asylee, you are not required to apply for permanent resident status after being granted asylum for 1 year.
  - BeetleB 3y ago
    And this happens. When I was in grad school I knew a Lithuanian refugee. He was a fellow student - came when he was younger (high school?), but still on a refugee status by the time he entered grad school. And at the time he was fighting off being sent back to Lithuania because apparently conditions had improved back there. The real problem was that his parents and most of his family had obtained the green card by that point, and for whatever reason there were delays in processing him. So only he would be forced to return.
Manuel_D 3y ago
> In job postings and public statements over several years, SpaceX wrongly claimed that under federal regulations known as “export control laws,” SpaceX could hire only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, sometimes referred to as “green card holders.” Export control laws impose no such hiring restrictions. This is perhaps pedantically, but not practically correct. ITAR restrictions, for example, prohibit foreigners from using or testing night vision equipment (even on US soil). If a team is hiring a rocket engineer, and it's a violation of ITAR for them to see technical data on SpaceX's rocket program then it's effectively impossible for a non-US person to perform in this role. Perhaps SpaceX could have phrased things differently, like "this job requires access to ITAR-controlled technical material..." Now, as to whether or not asylees are able to access ITAR restricted material seems a bit more complicated. Searching around the internet it seems that only some asylees are able to access ITAR material: https://exportcompliancesolutions.com/blog/2018/09/20/u-s-persons-include-just-citizens/ https://exportcompliancesolutions.com/blog/2018/09/20/u-s-pe...
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  > SpaceX recruits and hires for a variety of positions, including welders, cooks, crane operators, baristas and dishwashers, as well as information technology specialists, software engineers, business analysts, rocket engineers and marketing professionals. The jobs at issue in the lawsuit are not limited to those that require advanced degrees. The fact that SpaceX deals in ITAR does not prevent them from hiring refugees for roles that do not handle ITAR.
  - btilly 3y ago
    For SpaceX to internally segment ITAR from non-ITAR is a huge bureaucratic overhead for them which leads to a possibility of mistakes. Doubly so since one of their explicit concerns is having foreign agents steal their trade secrets. And therefore they have to be guarding against intentional attempts to access what your job role says you don't have access to. Given that, it makes a lot of sense for them to simply require ITAR compliance in all roles.
    - 3y ago
master_crab 3y ago
Interesting. As a company angling or fulfilling large government contracts for sensitive projects I would have thought they had at least some requirements to avoid hiring non US-persons. Curious if they have a valid argument to have extended that practice to the whole company as this release seems to state.
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
This seems like an unreasonably convoluted rule. Why should citizens, permanent residents, asylees and refugees, but not visa holders be able to access export-controlled information? It seems almost guaranteed to trip up employers in visa-heavy industries.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Who would pay for lawyers if we did not have absurdly convoluted laws?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Probably; we did before they got anything like this complex.
omginternets 3y ago
Wait, are refugees a protected class? I guess my question is equivalent to "is this a racial discrimination suit in disguise?"
glitchc 3y ago
Space work requires clearance in all nations. This DoJ lawsuit doesn't make sense given that the primary client for SpaceX is NASA.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - glitchc 3y ago
    For? That space work requires clearance or that NASA is SpaceX's primary customer?
    - JohnMakin 3y ago
      "Space work requires clearance from every country."
      - glitchc 3y ago
        Of course you understand I mean in the country with a space program benefitting from that work. In which case, it's at least true in North America, UK, EU, India, Russia, Japan, China, Australia. Not sure if any others have a space program. Coincidentally, these countries also have restrictions on foreign nationals and entities contributing to the program. Can you think of a nation that has a space program where it is not?
        joshuamorton 3y ago
        A significant amount of work on non-government space program doesn't require clearance.[0] But even NASA has non-cleared jobs. It does require compliance with ITAR (the topic of this suit), but ITAR explicitly considers asylees and refugees to be US persons. In other words, for non-cleared work (which is to say: most of SpaceX's work, their roles don't usually require clearance) asylees and refugees are just as capable as citizens or permanent residents. [0]: Specifically, looking at SpaceX's own job postings, their work on Starshield and other military contracts, as well as on-site work on air force bases requires clearance, but other roles don't generally.
tekla 3y ago
[flagged]
- oliv5900 3y ago
  Depends on if that thing is praiseworthy. Then Elon is just a figurehead who knows nothing and does nothing. But if its a negative thing, then obviously Elon is responsible and nothing happens without his consent. /s
nphase 3y ago
A friend with specific knowledge about these suits just informed me that these lawsuits are in fact incredibly common. Many large companies have multiple open audits with the feds at any given time over alleged discriminatory practices - in fact so many of them occur that there is a cap set for how many of them can be open at any given time. This is less political or specific than it appears at face value.
- arcticfox 3y ago
  Nobody would ever follow the rules if these lawsuits didn't exist, this lawsuit seems both banal and necessary.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    But why didn't they just settle is my question.
    - cobertos 3y ago
      Because settlement happens after a lawsuit is brought? Settlement is a means of reaching agreement before a trial, and is encouraged by the court as to save the court resouces, if parties can work it out amongst themselves
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        Fair point - clearly I am not very well versed in the law :) Is there a point at which money would exchange hands before a formal suit is filed? If so, that is the stage I am surprised this didn't progress past.
        HWR_14 3y ago
        There is such a point where money would exchange hands before a formal suit between two private actors. For instance, I might want to settle with you quickly and privately to avoid having to admit what I did. The government, on the other hand, wants the publicity of having filed the suit to deter other companies from doing the same thing. I don't believe they frequently settle before filing a formal suit.
hersko 3y ago
This DOJ seems very political.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  All of these institutions have been hijacked. Not just DOJ. We have lost where the north star is. My steel man argument is that Democrats are doing this for votes.
  - 0xDEF 3y ago
    Elon Musk might not have the reputation he had three years ago but SpaceX is still incredibly well regarded.
- myko 3y ago
  In what way? This is a clear violation and SpaceX has already corrected their mistake, check their job postings which are now updated: https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6858296002?gh_jid=6858296002 https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6858296002?gh_jid=6...
whimsicalism 3y ago
I have no sense of how common these sorts of investigations are so I have no idea if it is political, but fwiw I feel like I see US Citizen for ITAR requirements not infrequently. I am surprised this could not be settled with a small payment and a fix to their job listings.
robomartin 3y ago
For the uninformed... Before posting any opinion on this, please go learn about ITAR. Companies like SpaceX exist under this umbrella. I have worked under ITAR rules for many years. I've had to go fix ITAR violation disasters at some of these companies. If you have never sat in a conference room with a bunch of lawyers to discuss degrees of exposure and how to repair the damage done by unqualified employees, you likely don't have enough context to voice a valid opinion about any of this. My take: This is a stunt to squeeze Musk where it hurts. Politics at its worst.
- guhidalg 3y ago
  I too have read the relevant ITAR policies and no where in them does it say you cannot hire non-citizens if your company is engaged in ITAR compliance. As said somewhere else in the comments, if your organization does not have robust systems to segregate employee access based on ITAR status, clearance level, project membership, or any other need-to-know reason, then not hiring US citizens is the least of your concerns.
  - robomartin 3y ago
    Like I said: "If you have never sat in a conference room with a bunch of lawyers"... Typical internet. HN isn't immune. Some of us actually live the reality of what is being discussed, others think that a google search makes them experts. It's like people making categorical statements about business when they never ran anything even close to a non-trivial business.
- myko 3y ago
  Your take is ill informed. SpaceX have already corrected their mistake. Check their job postings, they've complied with the legal requirement: https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6858296002?gh_jid=6858296002 https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6858296002?gh_jid=6... This is pretty standard stuff. Next they'll pay a fine based on the outcome of the DOJs filing here, because they were not in compliance previously. It's kind of terrifying to see so folks jump to conclusions like this.
ta8645 3y ago
This seems politically motivated, rather than something in the pursuit of justice. If it was about justice, step one would be to send an official legal document, giving SpaceX authority to hire non US citizens.
VectorLock 3y ago
I probably have to take training classes every year as a hiring manager about what I can and cannot ask in the hiring process, and not asking citizenship and anything beyond "Are you eligible to work in the US?" I forsee a bunch of these training classes in SpaceX's future.
coding123 3y ago
Seems more like a contract negotiation and or political. DOJ is clearly against Elon Musk and is punishing him. That and/or specifically people that do not like Elon Must and is directing the DOJ to find things to do against him. Show me the same data on hiring asylees at Google side by side and I'll believe them.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  The focus specifically on refugees/asylees makes it look political, when they're a very small proportion of people excluded due to their approach to ITAR. I'm sure large numbers of engineers from all over the world have browsed their job listings in the past to see that they're automatically excluded because they're not US citizens, and that's not led to any trouble, or at least no newsworthy trouble.
- Bloating 3y ago
  [flagged]
pengaru 3y ago
The irony here is Explorer-1 flew on a rocket developed largely by post-war German defectors. You'd think a rocket company of all places would know there's clearly precedence of non-citizens contributing to the US development of spaceflight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#American_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#American_car... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_rocket_scientists_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_rocket_scientis...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
This makes me lose faith in the justice system, as well as trust in the powers that be. This isn't justice, this is political. And unfortunately, it will even receive popular support, just because people simply don't personally like the CEO of the company. To heck with truth and justice, let's tar and feather the Muskerino man!
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Up until now you had faith in the justice system, feeling that it was not used for "political" purposes?
- whats_a_quasar 3y ago
  What? This is a routine sort of H.R. lawsuit because SpaceX had incorrectly excluded some people who could work there under U.S. export control
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  I'm not convinced this will receive popular support, it is too obviously stupid.
Animats 3y ago
Space-X should be discriminating against non-US citizens. It's the target of substantial espionage attempts from China.[1][2] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/cyberattacks-russia-china-space-companies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/cyberattacks-... [2] https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/SafeguardingOurFuture/FINAL%20FINAL%20Safeguarding%20the%20US%20Space%20Industry%20-%20Digital.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/SafeguardingOurFutu...
- guhidalg 3y ago
  No they shouldn't be discriminating based on citizenship. That unnecessarily limits their access to talent. There may be roles within SpaceX that require a security clearance and therefore require US citizenships, but the discrimination should be applied based on the role and not as a blanket company policy.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    It's really, really hard to silo technical information in an organization against bad actors. Like, do you really want to start papering over all your conference room doors so nobody can snap a photo of schematics while they walk by? Constantly police which Slack channels they are in? Make sure they can't look at a coworker's monitor? Security against espionage is a defense-in-depth design, in the real world you can't just say "oh we have a single barrier — they won't be on Top Secret projects. problem solved."
    - guhidalg 3y ago
      > Like, do you really want to start papering over all your conference room doors so nobody can snap a photo of schematics while they walk by? Constantly police which Slack channels they are in? Make sure they can't look at a coworker's monitor? Yes. Have separate buildings, separate Slack instances (don't use clouds if you don't want information smeared across the world), badge access, etc... it's difficult sure but don't tell me our poor military industrial complex can't afford it.
cltby 3y ago
> The United States seeks fair consideration and back pay for asylees and refugees who were deterred or denied employment at SpaceX due to the alleged discrimination. Does anybody know how such penalties are calculated? In "role-based damages," penalties would be limited to the total wages for the hiring reqs in question. This corresponds to the counterfactual where each of the roles would have been gone to an asylee. But I could also see the DOJ arguing that every "deterred" asylee is owed foregone wages. This "applicant-based damages" doesn't correspond to any serious counterfactual, but it has the virtue of being a much bigger number.
exabrial 3y ago
I say this not because I'm an Elon Fan, but as someone who's forced to fund the Federal Governemnt: This is thoroughly a dumb lawsuit and a waste of Taxpayer money. I think it's completely fine for a company that regularly deals with classified or ITAR material to require _all_ employees of an organization meet that requirement. The government is like "Don't leak our / ITAR secrets, but we're forcing you to hire people that could potentially do so". What a waste of time. There are bigger fish to fry.
abledon 3y ago
How does being Canadian/Mexican work with ITAR? Any Exemptions for getting past those restrictions to work at SpaceX?
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
Wow, there is a ton of confusion in these comments about U.S. export law, and what this suit is about. U.S. export control law is intended to prevent technologies that have military significance from spreading beyond the U.S. There are two relevant regimes: Export Administration Regulations (EAR), administered by the Department of Commerce, and International Traffic in Arms regulation (ITAR), which is administered by the Department of State. ITAR regulates weapons and weapon-adjacent technologies, EAR regulates a much larger set of technologies with military significance. The provision of these export control laws that's relevant here is that U.S. companies can only allow "U.S. Persons" to access export-controlled technology. A "U.S. Person" is a technical term that currently includes four categories: U.S. Citizens, U.S. permanent residents (green card holders), asylum seekers, and refugees. Anyone not in these categories can only access export-controlled technology with a waiver. SpaceX, like many aerospace companies, deals with ITAR-regulated technology. (A rocket is the same thing as a missile, except for the bomb on the end). So, they hire only U.S. Persons. This is legal and quite common in the aerospace industry. It sucks for international engineers (there are so many amazing Iranian RF engineers ugh), but it's much easier to not need internal ITAR controls. The DOJ is alleging that SpaceX hired only the first two types of U.S. persons, and excluded asylum seekers and refugees, even though they're treated identically by export control law. Which, honestly, is a really common misunderstanding in the industry (and in these comments too). People have a sense of "ITAR is strict" and think that only U.S. citizens are allowed, and they forget about the other three categories. SpaceX is definitely wrong - they unlawfully discriminated against candidates based on national origin and citizenship. The DOJ is definitely right, and I have to assume SpaceX will settle rather than contesting the suit. It is possible that SpaceX deliberately discriminated against refugees and asylum seekers. But I suspect what happened is that they misunderstood export control law early on in the company's history, and their HR/Legal for whatever reason did not correct the wrong claims about export control law. (Though it is odd that the DOJ alleges discrimination in 2018-2020, SpaceX was a huge company at that point and should have clearly understood export control law). Source: A lot of export control briefings during onboarding at companies, hiring engineers for EAR-controlled roles. I also made that mistake myself by writing a posting that specified only U.S. citizens or permanent residents, though in my case HR caught it and corrected it.
- 3y ago
exabrial 3y ago
Summary: SpaceX, a company that regularly handles Top Secret US Government Classified Satellites and ITAR Material, is being sued by the the US Government for not hiring... foreign nationals that aren't allowed to handle Top Secret US Government Classified Satellites and ITAR Material.
black6 3y ago
This seems ripe for exploitation by foreign intelligence agencies: "Moreover, asylees’ and refugees’ permission to live and work in the United States does not expire, and they stand on equal footing with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents under export control laws. Under these laws, companies like SpaceX can hire asylees and refugees for the same positions they would hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. And once hired, asylees and refugees can access export-controlled information and materials without additional government approval, just like U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents."
snotrockets 3y ago
The takeaway here is that SpaceX HR didn't do their job when it comes to hiring.Question that is unanswered is in what other ways is SpaceX HR not doing their job.
slavboj 3y ago
So the idea is that the DOJ is deebly goncerned that one of their political enemies du jour is not hiring the "refugees" (in most cases economic migrants) they are illegally allowing to enter the country with approximately zero screening or even basic proof of identity, to work on highly sensitive dual use military technology.
lallysingh 3y ago
For comparison: I searched for "DOJ sues for discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring -spacex" on google to see other companies' headlines for this: - Microsoft - Aero Precision - Technology Hub - KForce Tech - Facebook - Giant Food - etc. If there's a political angle here, I'm more inclined to believe that Democrat-lead exec branches lead to more employment discrimination enforcement thatn Republican-lead ones.
- TheAlchemist 3y ago
  This is the power of information manipulation. Elon is of course turning this fairly common practice, into a conspiracy theory...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JEDI-HACKER 3y ago
[dead]
daniel-cussen 3y ago
[dead]
AnnoyedComment 3y ago
[dead]

182 points by hnuser0000 3y ago

I thought that SpaceX, due to the nature of their work (rockets) were specifically prohibited from hiring non-citizens? Edit: seems like the DOJ is claiming that that is not the case. Weird…so this is basically going to boil down to each side arguing their interpretation of a regulation. Can’t say this doesn’t smell just a little political.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xNeil 3y ago
Per the website linked, asylees and refugees do not come under the export control act, as opposed to citizens of other nations. The timing of the lawsuit does seem interesting though.
- Transpire7487 3y ago
  I haven’t been following bird man’s (X man?) shenanigans for a long time, what happened?
  - soperj 3y ago
    He hasn't even owned twitter for a year... clearly you've followed his shenanigans a little.
    - Transpire7487 3y ago
      I suppose a “long time” is relative. I don’t have a Twitter account and haven’t cared much about what he does for about…3 months or so? with a 24 hour news cycle that fees like an eternity. I thought gp was alluding to something within the last few days.
- master_crab 3y ago
  IANAL but aren’t asylees and refugees still a citizen of the nation they left?
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    It’s complicated, but not always. Regardless, the ITAR issue is secondary; they hire for roles that do not touch ITAR.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Regardless, the ITAR issue is secondary I dunno, if the people they are discriminating against are “US persons” and not “foreign persons” under ITAR, then the whole ITAR argument for discrimination, whether its direct coverage or some kind of indirect risk creating something that Tesla wants to try to argue is a bona fide occupational qualification justifying discrimination, is cut off at the root.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > It’s complicated, but not always. If the refugee has a new citizenship in their host nation, then in what sense are they still a refugee?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  It’s not citizenship (otherwise asylees, refugees, and even permanent resident aliens would be excluded.) A “foreign person” is defined in ITAR (22 CFR Sec. 120.63), by reference to two sections of immigration law in Title 8 of the US Code, as someone who is none of the following: a US citizen, a lawful permanent resident, an asylee or refugee, a person lawfully admitted for permanent residency (I haven’t done the analysis to see if this is distinct from “lawful permanent resident” or if its overlap with different language between the categories referenced from different parts of Title 8 of the US Code), a person lawfully admitted for certain classes of temporary residency.
ihsw 3y ago
[dead]
Quillbert182 3y ago
If they aren't, they probably should be.
WaitWaitWha 3y ago
I was wondering about that too. They are restricted from exporting the knowledge and are restricted (ITAR, EAR, FARS/DFARS, etc.) in some roles to use non-US citizens, and not even "lawful permanent residents" are allowed to take them. (Background 19 in DoJ filling) Export means sharing the information with non-US citizen or green card holder, irrelevant where the action takes place (i.e. the non-US recipient can be in Richmond, VA; it is the citizenship/green card that matters not the location). It is possible that the roles identified by the DOJ are not under these restriction. That said, how is this going to be resolved with the compliance requirements
- Transpire7487 3y ago
  I went and clicked on a random job posting for SpaceX and there are references to refugees and asylees being allowed to apply now. Seems like it’s going to boil down to “we interpreted the regulation wrong, oopsies”.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Weird…so this is basically going to boil down to each side arguing their interpretation of a regulation. Legal disputes often center on disputes on the meaning of law (including regulations.) That's…not weird at all. > Can’t say this doesn’t smell just a little political. Yes, government actions often smell just a little “of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government”.
- Transpire7487 3y ago
  Well at least you admit that the pretence of the Department of Justice being non-partisan/independent is just a facade.
foooorsyth 3y ago
>Can’t say this doesn’t smell just a little political. The President of the United States very publicly called for Musk and his companies to be investigated back in November of ‘22. Ironically, this was because of supposed relationships with other countries. https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-says-elon-musks-relationships-with-other-countries-worthy-being-looked-at-2022-11-09/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-says-elon-musks-rel... So he deserves investigation due to foreign business relationships, then gets sued for not hiring (edge-case) foreigners to build state of the art rocket technology. Cue the Curb Your Enthusiasm theme song.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - foooorsyth 3y ago
    Both laws in this case being related to business relationships with potential adversaries of the United States, with the Executive branch straddling arguably opposing public positions. But you already understood that and you’re pretending that the irony isn’t there because you don’t like Musk, right?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      No I really don’t see any conflict between “don’t collaborate with officials of a foreign government” and “don’t discourage foreign-born people from applying for jobs that you offer.”
      - foooorsyth 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Uh oh! I just might be. Can you explain what the conflict is between those two positions?
HWR_14 3y ago
SpaceX is prohibited from hiring non-US-persons (for at least some roles.) US Persons includes all US citizens, and several other groups of people. It is also illegal to use the differences between types of US Persons in hiring decisions. The lawsuit is because SpaceX wrote US citizens instead of US Persons. They now list all categories of US Persons in their job listings (in response to this suit, most likely), so this is about past behavior and probably will be trivially settled for a fine. There is also an active question of if the discrimination is still happening, in which case the governments goal is to prevent compliance only in the job listings.

moonmagick 3y ago

[flagged]

steno132 3y ago

[flagged]

anonuser123456 3y ago
He’s kind of a weirdo and definitely makes some spectacularly bad decisions, but a an industrialist it’s hard to argue that anyone is even playing in the same ballpark.
- steno132 3y ago
  Exactly. He's mercurial, he doesn't think things through properly but how many founders have created a $1 trillion company? Let alone SpaceX, Boring Co, Neuralink, and X.ai

CoastalCoder 3y ago

I'm curious what the root cause of this is. - Ongoing disagreement between SpaceX and DOJ regarding applicable law? - SpaceX HR misunderstanding, at the time, the applicable law? (I can see how this category of applicants might be rare enough that HR people fail to account for them.) - SpaceX HR policy lining up with DOJ's view, but hiring managers choosing candidates with a suspicious statistical distribution?

solardev 3y ago
Could this be a political act, trying to make an example out of SpaceX to please immigrants and asylees who largely vote Democrat? Kinda like the labor people going after Starbucks with a vengeance after years of nothing under Trump.
- skc 3y ago
  Is this even true? That refugees and asylees largely vote democrat? I ask because a lot of these people come from countries that are highly conservative in nature and culture.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I think "immigrants" as a whole, yes: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/among/immigrant-status/immigrants/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... Even the people who can't vote lean that way: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/07/22/are-unaut... Even if they can't vote, some of their family members can, and their kids and their friends will be able to. There's a reason major cities are often blue (largely linked to their history of immigration), and across generations, these loyalties can build up. (Also, the Democrats largely gave up on the rural areas as a matter of political strategy, but that's a separate story). Asylees and refugees on the other hand... I can entirely believe that, but I guess we won't see the bigger picture of that (vs large-scale immigration from Central/South America) for a while.

invalidopcode 3y ago

US Government: You have to careful about potentially leaking export controlled material, or your employees will be held personally responsible and go to jail. SpaceX: Okay, will be extra careful Also US Government: How dare you be too careful! (probably) SpaceX: WTF

Dudester230602 3y ago
[flagged]
JohnMakin 3y ago
This is a really dishonest interpretation of events. US law states that asylees have been vetted thoroughly and can take these positions the same as any US citizen or green card holder (if you had read the article).
- coding123 3y ago
  You can't vet anyone thoroughly though! You can reply yes I love the united states a million times, read the constitution a million times and still be part of some sect.
  - joshuamorton 3y ago
    This applies equally to citizens and permanent residents.
    - coding123 3y ago
      the statement applies equally - the percentage chance that someone is compromised in a certain direction is not.
arcticfox 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

_sentient 3y ago

[flagged]

questime 3y ago

[flagged]

endisneigh 3y ago

maybe I need to read this again more carefully but I fail to see what SpaceX is doing wrong here. This: > Because SpaceX works with certain goods, software, technology and technical data (referred to here as export-controlled items), SpaceX must comply with export control laws and regulations, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations. Under these regulations, asylees, refugees, lawful permanent residents, U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals working at U.S. companies can access export-controlled items without authorization from the U.S. government. Therefore, these laws do not require SpaceX to treat asylees and refugees differently than U.S. citizens or green card holders. Find more information here on how employers can avoid discrimination when complying with export control requirements. Seems to be the issue. But why would it be against the law for a US company to discriminate against someone without valid immigration status? I assume the issue here is a refugee has some authorization for lawful employment and SpaceX still doesn't want to hire them wholesale, hence the suit. IMHO the United States' convoluted immigration and refugee policy is to blame. Why not triage everyone to being "legal permanent resident" and remove the distinction between refugee/asylee and other types of lawful residents? I'd need to read more but ultimately they're a lawful resident or not. What's the point of considering them a "refugee" if they're entitled to the same benefits as a lawful resident anyway? Either we trust them enough to be in this country and therefore be entitled to the benefits that entails, or not.

wslack 3y ago
It's the "permanent" bit. Being an asylee or refugee isn't necessarily a permanent status - like if your home country gets out of a civil war or a coup leader ends the coup and goes into exile, you no longer need to fear for your life if you go back. > If you are a refugee, you are required by law to apply for permanent resident status 1 year after being admitted to the United States in refugee status. If you are an asylee, you are not required to apply for permanent resident status after being granted asylum for 1 year.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  And this happens. When I was in grad school I knew a Lithuanian refugee. He was a fellow student - came when he was younger (high school?), but still on a refugee status by the time he entered grad school. And at the time he was fighting off being sent back to Lithuania because apparently conditions had improved back there. The real problem was that his parents and most of his family had obtained the green card by that point, and for whatever reason there were delays in processing him. So only he would be forced to return.

Manuel_D 3y ago

> In job postings and public statements over several years, SpaceX wrongly claimed that under federal regulations known as “export control laws,” SpaceX could hire only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, sometimes referred to as “green card holders.” Export control laws impose no such hiring restrictions. This is perhaps pedantically, but not practically correct. ITAR restrictions, for example, prohibit foreigners from using or testing night vision equipment (even on US soil). If a team is hiring a rocket engineer, and it's a violation of ITAR for them to see technical data on SpaceX's rocket program then it's effectively impossible for a non-US person to perform in this role. Perhaps SpaceX could have phrased things differently, like "this job requires access to ITAR-controlled technical material..." Now, as to whether or not asylees are able to access ITAR restricted material seems a bit more complicated. Searching around the internet it seems that only some asylees are able to access ITAR material: https://exportcompliancesolutions.com/blog/2018/09/20/u-s-persons-include-just-citizens/ https://exportcompliancesolutions.com/blog/2018/09/20/u-s-pe...

thebooktocome 3y ago
> SpaceX recruits and hires for a variety of positions, including welders, cooks, crane operators, baristas and dishwashers, as well as information technology specialists, software engineers, business analysts, rocket engineers and marketing professionals. The jobs at issue in the lawsuit are not limited to those that require advanced degrees. The fact that SpaceX deals in ITAR does not prevent them from hiring refugees for roles that do not handle ITAR.
- btilly 3y ago
  For SpaceX to internally segment ITAR from non-ITAR is a huge bureaucratic overhead for them which leads to a possibility of mistakes. Doubly so since one of their explicit concerns is having foreign agents steal their trade secrets. And therefore they have to be guarding against intentional attempts to access what your job role says you don't have access to. Given that, it makes a lot of sense for them to simply require ITAR compliance in all roles.
  - 3y ago

master_crab 3y ago

Interesting. As a company angling or fulfilling large government contracts for sensitive projects I would have thought they had at least some requirements to avoid hiring non US-persons. Curious if they have a valid argument to have extended that practice to the whole company as this release seems to state.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago

This seems like an unreasonably convoluted rule. Why should citizens, permanent residents, asylees and refugees, but not visa holders be able to access export-controlled information? It seems almost guaranteed to trip up employers in visa-heavy industries.

whimsicalism 3y ago
Who would pay for lawyers if we did not have absurdly convoluted laws?
- ben_w 3y ago
  Probably; we did before they got anything like this complex.

omginternets 3y ago

Wait, are refugees a protected class? I guess my question is equivalent to "is this a racial discrimination suit in disguise?"

glitchc 3y ago

Space work requires clearance in all nations. This DoJ lawsuit doesn't make sense given that the primary client for SpaceX is NASA.

JohnMakin 3y ago
[flagged]
- glitchc 3y ago
  For? That space work requires clearance or that NASA is SpaceX's primary customer?
  - JohnMakin 3y ago
    "Space work requires clearance from every country."
    - glitchc 3y ago
      Of course you understand I mean in the country with a space program benefitting from that work. In which case, it's at least true in North America, UK, EU, India, Russia, Japan, China, Australia. Not sure if any others have a space program. Coincidentally, these countries also have restrictions on foreign nationals and entities contributing to the program. Can you think of a nation that has a space program where it is not?
      - joshuamorton 3y ago
        A significant amount of work on non-government space program doesn't require clearance.[0] But even NASA has non-cleared jobs. It does require compliance with ITAR (the topic of this suit), but ITAR explicitly considers asylees and refugees to be US persons. In other words, for non-cleared work (which is to say: most of SpaceX's work, their roles don't usually require clearance) asylees and refugees are just as capable as citizens or permanent residents. [0]: Specifically, looking at SpaceX's own job postings, their work on Starshield and other military contracts, as well as on-site work on air force bases requires clearance, but other roles don't generally.

tekla 3y ago

[flagged]

oliv5900 3y ago
Depends on if that thing is praiseworthy. Then Elon is just a figurehead who knows nothing and does nothing. But if its a negative thing, then obviously Elon is responsible and nothing happens without his consent. /s

nphase 3y ago

A friend with specific knowledge about these suits just informed me that these lawsuits are in fact incredibly common. Many large companies have multiple open audits with the feds at any given time over alleged discriminatory practices - in fact so many of them occur that there is a cap set for how many of them can be open at any given time. This is less political or specific than it appears at face value.

arcticfox 3y ago
Nobody would ever follow the rules if these lawsuits didn't exist, this lawsuit seems both banal and necessary.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  But why didn't they just settle is my question.
  - cobertos 3y ago
    Because settlement happens after a lawsuit is brought? Settlement is a means of reaching agreement before a trial, and is encouraged by the court as to save the court resouces, if parties can work it out amongst themselves
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Fair point - clearly I am not very well versed in the law :) Is there a point at which money would exchange hands before a formal suit is filed? If so, that is the stage I am surprised this didn't progress past.
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        There is such a point where money would exchange hands before a formal suit between two private actors. For instance, I might want to settle with you quickly and privately to avoid having to admit what I did. The government, on the other hand, wants the publicity of having filed the suit to deter other companies from doing the same thing. I don't believe they frequently settle before filing a formal suit.

hersko 3y ago

This DOJ seems very political.

systemvoltage 3y ago
All of these institutions have been hijacked. Not just DOJ. We have lost where the north star is. My steel man argument is that Democrats are doing this for votes.
- 0xDEF 3y ago
  Elon Musk might not have the reputation he had three years ago but SpaceX is still incredibly well regarded.
myko 3y ago
In what way? This is a clear violation and SpaceX has already corrected their mistake, check their job postings which are now updated: https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6858296002?gh_jid=6858296002 https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6858296002?gh_jid=6...

whimsicalism 3y ago

I have no sense of how common these sorts of investigations are so I have no idea if it is political, but fwiw I feel like I see US Citizen for ITAR requirements not infrequently. I am surprised this could not be settled with a small payment and a fix to their job listings.

robomartin 3y ago

For the uninformed... Before posting any opinion on this, please go learn about ITAR. Companies like SpaceX exist under this umbrella. I have worked under ITAR rules for many years. I've had to go fix ITAR violation disasters at some of these companies. If you have never sat in a conference room with a bunch of lawyers to discuss degrees of exposure and how to repair the damage done by unqualified employees, you likely don't have enough context to voice a valid opinion about any of this. My take: This is a stunt to squeeze Musk where it hurts. Politics at its worst.

guhidalg 3y ago
I too have read the relevant ITAR policies and no where in them does it say you cannot hire non-citizens if your company is engaged in ITAR compliance. As said somewhere else in the comments, if your organization does not have robust systems to segregate employee access based on ITAR status, clearance level, project membership, or any other need-to-know reason, then not hiring US citizens is the least of your concerns.
- robomartin 3y ago
  Like I said: "If you have never sat in a conference room with a bunch of lawyers"... Typical internet. HN isn't immune. Some of us actually live the reality of what is being discussed, others think that a google search makes them experts. It's like people making categorical statements about business when they never ran anything even close to a non-trivial business.
myko 3y ago
Your take is ill informed. SpaceX have already corrected their mistake. Check their job postings, they've complied with the legal requirement: https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6858296002?gh_jid=6858296002 https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6858296002?gh_jid=6... This is pretty standard stuff. Next they'll pay a fine based on the outcome of the DOJs filing here, because they were not in compliance previously. It's kind of terrifying to see so folks jump to conclusions like this.

ta8645 3y ago

This seems politically motivated, rather than something in the pursuit of justice. If it was about justice, step one would be to send an official legal document, giving SpaceX authority to hire non US citizens.

VectorLock 3y ago

I probably have to take training classes every year as a hiring manager about what I can and cannot ask in the hiring process, and not asking citizenship and anything beyond "Are you eligible to work in the US?" I forsee a bunch of these training classes in SpaceX's future.

coding123 3y ago

Seems more like a contract negotiation and or political. DOJ is clearly against Elon Musk and is punishing him. That and/or specifically people that do not like Elon Must and is directing the DOJ to find things to do against him. Show me the same data on hiring asylees at Google side by side and I'll believe them.

bluescrn 3y ago
The focus specifically on refugees/asylees makes it look political, when they're a very small proportion of people excluded due to their approach to ITAR. I'm sure large numbers of engineers from all over the world have browsed their job listings in the past to see that they're automatically excluded because they're not US citizens, and that's not led to any trouble, or at least no newsworthy trouble.
Bloating 3y ago
[flagged]

pengaru 3y ago

The irony here is Explorer-1 flew on a rocket developed largely by post-war German defectors. You'd think a rocket company of all places would know there's clearly precedence of non-citizens contributing to the US development of spaceflight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#American_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#American_car... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_rocket_scientists_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_rocket_scientis...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

This makes me lose faith in the justice system, as well as trust in the powers that be. This isn't justice, this is political. And unfortunately, it will even receive popular support, just because people simply don't personally like the CEO of the company. To heck with truth and justice, let's tar and feather the Muskerino man!

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Up until now you had faith in the justice system, feeling that it was not used for "political" purposes?
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
What? This is a routine sort of H.R. lawsuit because SpaceX had incorrectly excluded some people who could work there under U.S. export control
sebzim4500 3y ago
I'm not convinced this will receive popular support, it is too obviously stupid.

Animats 3y ago

Space-X should be discriminating against non-US citizens. It's the target of substantial espionage attempts from China.[1][2] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/cyberattacks-russia-china-space-companies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/cyberattacks-... [2] https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/SafeguardingOurFuture/FINAL%20FINAL%20Safeguarding%20the%20US%20Space%20Industry%20-%20Digital.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/SafeguardingOurFutu...

guhidalg 3y ago
No they shouldn't be discriminating based on citizenship. That unnecessarily limits their access to talent. There may be roles within SpaceX that require a security clearance and therefore require US citizenships, but the discrimination should be applied based on the role and not as a blanket company policy.
- justrealist 3y ago
  It's really, really hard to silo technical information in an organization against bad actors. Like, do you really want to start papering over all your conference room doors so nobody can snap a photo of schematics while they walk by? Constantly police which Slack channels they are in? Make sure they can't look at a coworker's monitor? Security against espionage is a defense-in-depth design, in the real world you can't just say "oh we have a single barrier — they won't be on Top Secret projects. problem solved."
  - guhidalg 3y ago
    > Like, do you really want to start papering over all your conference room doors so nobody can snap a photo of schematics while they walk by? Constantly police which Slack channels they are in? Make sure they can't look at a coworker's monitor? Yes. Have separate buildings, separate Slack instances (don't use clouds if you don't want information smeared across the world), badge access, etc... it's difficult sure but don't tell me our poor military industrial complex can't afford it.

cltby 3y ago

> The United States seeks fair consideration and back pay for asylees and refugees who were deterred or denied employment at SpaceX due to the alleged discrimination. Does anybody know how such penalties are calculated? In "role-based damages," penalties would be limited to the total wages for the hiring reqs in question. This corresponds to the counterfactual where each of the roles would have been gone to an asylee. But I could also see the DOJ arguing that every "deterred" asylee is owed foregone wages. This "applicant-based damages" doesn't correspond to any serious counterfactual, but it has the virtue of being a much bigger number.

exabrial 3y ago

I say this not because I'm an Elon Fan, but as someone who's forced to fund the Federal Governemnt: This is thoroughly a dumb lawsuit and a waste of Taxpayer money. I think it's completely fine for a company that regularly deals with classified or ITAR material to require _all_ employees of an organization meet that requirement. The government is like "Don't leak our / ITAR secrets, but we're forcing you to hire people that could potentially do so". What a waste of time. There are bigger fish to fry.

abledon 3y ago

How does being Canadian/Mexican work with ITAR? Any Exemptions for getting past those restrictions to work at SpaceX?

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

Wow, there is a ton of confusion in these comments about U.S. export law, and what this suit is about. U.S. export control law is intended to prevent technologies that have military significance from spreading beyond the U.S. There are two relevant regimes: Export Administration Regulations (EAR), administered by the Department of Commerce, and International Traffic in Arms regulation (ITAR), which is administered by the Department of State. ITAR regulates weapons and weapon-adjacent technologies, EAR regulates a much larger set of technologies with military significance. The provision of these export control laws that's relevant here is that U.S. companies can only allow "U.S. Persons" to access export-controlled technology. A "U.S. Person" is a technical term that currently includes four categories: U.S. Citizens, U.S. permanent residents (green card holders), asylum seekers, and refugees. Anyone not in these categories can only access export-controlled technology with a waiver. SpaceX, like many aerospace companies, deals with ITAR-regulated technology. (A rocket is the same thing as a missile, except for the bomb on the end). So, they hire only U.S. Persons. This is legal and quite common in the aerospace industry. It sucks for international engineers (there are so many amazing Iranian RF engineers ugh), but it's much easier to not need internal ITAR controls. The DOJ is alleging that SpaceX hired only the first two types of U.S. persons, and excluded asylum seekers and refugees, even though they're treated identically by export control law. Which, honestly, is a really common misunderstanding in the industry (and in these comments too). People have a sense of "ITAR is strict" and think that only U.S. citizens are allowed, and they forget about the other three categories. SpaceX is definitely wrong - they unlawfully discriminated against candidates based on national origin and citizenship. The DOJ is definitely right, and I have to assume SpaceX will settle rather than contesting the suit. It is possible that SpaceX deliberately discriminated against refugees and asylum seekers. But I suspect what happened is that they misunderstood export control law early on in the company's history, and their HR/Legal for whatever reason did not correct the wrong claims about export control law. (Though it is odd that the DOJ alleges discrimination in 2018-2020, SpaceX was a huge company at that point and should have clearly understood export control law). Source: A lot of export control briefings during onboarding at companies, hiring engineers for EAR-controlled roles. I also made that mistake myself by writing a posting that specified only U.S. citizens or permanent residents, though in my case HR caught it and corrected it.

3y ago

exabrial 3y ago

Summary: SpaceX, a company that regularly handles Top Secret US Government Classified Satellites and ITAR Material, is being sued by the the US Government for not hiring... foreign nationals that aren't allowed to handle Top Secret US Government Classified Satellites and ITAR Material.

black6 3y ago

This seems ripe for exploitation by foreign intelligence agencies: "Moreover, asylees’ and refugees’ permission to live and work in the United States does not expire, and they stand on equal footing with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents under export control laws. Under these laws, companies like SpaceX can hire asylees and refugees for the same positions they would hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. And once hired, asylees and refugees can access export-controlled information and materials without additional government approval, just like U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents."

snotrockets 3y ago

The takeaway here is that SpaceX HR didn't do their job when it comes to hiring.Question that is unanswered is in what other ways is SpaceX HR not doing their job.

slavboj 3y ago

So the idea is that the DOJ is deebly goncerned that one of their political enemies du jour is not hiring the "refugees" (in most cases economic migrants) they are illegally allowing to enter the country with approximately zero screening or even basic proof of identity, to work on highly sensitive dual use military technology.

lallysingh 3y ago

For comparison: I searched for "DOJ sues for discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring -spacex" on google to see other companies' headlines for this: - Microsoft - Aero Precision - Technology Hub - KForce Tech - Facebook - Giant Food - etc. If there's a political angle here, I'm more inclined to believe that Democrat-lead exec branches lead to more employment discrimination enforcement thatn Republican-lead ones.

TheAlchemist 3y ago
This is the power of information manipulation. Elon is of course turning this fairly common practice, into a conspiracy theory...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JEDI-HACKER 3y ago

[dead]

daniel-cussen 3y ago

[dead]

AnnoyedComment 3y ago

[dead]