4 ms·

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 th

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.

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.