6 ms·
> This is perhaps pedantically, but not practically correct. I think it is practically correct though, if you look at what the DOJ is specifically claiming. Th
by returningfory2 3y ago
> This is perhaps pedantically, but not practically correct.
I think it is practically correct though, if you look at what the DOJ is specifically claiming. They are not claiming that every foreign person is exempt from export control restrictions. They are only claiming specifically that refugees and asylees are exempt, and this is what the lawsuit is about. Based on my understanding of the INA I think they're right, because refugees and asylees are generally put in the same category as permanent residents.
- returningfory2 3y agoBy the way, SpaceX's updated job descriptions are consistent with this interpretation. They now say: "To conform to U.S. Government export regulations, applicant must be a (i) U.S. citizen or national, (ii) U.S. lawful, permanent resident (aka green card holder), (iii) Refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1157, or (iv) Asylee under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, or be eligible to obtain the required authorizations from the U.S. Department of State. Learn more about the ITAR" They have explicitly added refugee and asylee.
- zerocrates 3y agoSure, they were told back in 2020 they were being investigated for this, updating their boilerplate for compliance with the law is just about the minimal level of compliance.
- sokoloff 3y agoCompliance with the law seems like a fairly binary thing. They (as argued) weren't and now they are. Do you have a specific way in mind that they should become more compliant?
- burkaman 3y agoUpdating the job postings addresses "SpaceX routinely discouraged asylees and refugees from applying", but does not mean they have resolved the other half: "refused to hire or consider them".
- deelowe 3y agoIt does not mean they failed to address it either... This is pure speculation and irrelevant.
- zerocrates 3y agoI'm just saying that if you're going to say you comply you'll at least update those kinds of statements. You can't claim at all to comply if you're still saying "citizens and green card holders only." That could easily be a veneer of compliance, where you're still rejecting all those similarly situated candidates, or rejecting them at comparatively higher rates, but just doing so without explicitly stating their status as the reason. That would be much harder to prove but not actually complying with the law.
- DrBenCarson 3y agoGold star for not obviously violating federal law after being told they were under investigation
- CWuestefeld 3y agoYou say that as if it's fair for the government to expect that everyone is fully comfortable with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations.
- meragrin_ 3y ago> You say that as if it's fair for the government to expect that everyone is fully comfortable with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations. Is it "only" hundreds of thousands? I would have figured it is at least tens or hundreds of millions. Also don't forget that they have to keep up on all of the changes.
- DrBenCarson 3y agoIs that an unreasonable expectation for a multi-billion dollar firm with a proportional legal department that regularly ignites explosives on public property?
- uxp8u61q 3y agoNot everyone with everything. But the HR department of a billion dollar company should be fully comfortable with federal regulations regarding HR. I don't see how that's remotely controversial.
- hollerith 3y agoIt is remotely controversial.
- DrBenCarson 3y ago[flagged]
- tomohawk 3y ago[flagged]
- returningfory2 3y agoAn asylee is someone whose application for asylum has been approved. The hack in which you cross the border illegally and then apply for asylum does get you a work permit, but won't get you one of these jobs.
- AtlasBarfed 3y agoI can't imagine this isn't going to disappear when a bunch of national security suits walk into the judges chamber. SpaceX is such a strategic advantage for the US military. If starship achieves anything close to its orbital payload cost reduction, it effectively means the US owns space and orbit.
- HWR_14 3y agoWhat if the government just nationalized SpaceX using their legal infractions as a cover?
- mannerheim 3y agoAll their engineers then quit because their RSUs are now worthless.
- HWR_14 3y agoThe government let people on Wall Street keep their RSU style compensation after 2008. It's not like most engineers can sell their RSUs except on quarterly redemption days. Or the government could otherwise match the compensation. It has a lot of money.
- mannerheim 3y agoSpaceX employees can't sell their RSUs period, since it's a private company. They're counting on a big payday at an IPO that will never happen if it gets nationalised.
- HWR_14 3y agoThey can. SpaceX facilitates the sales so people can cash out their RSUs without violating securities laws.
- ShrigmaMale 3y ago1 - compare the govt and spacex track records. does that really seem wise? 2 - we can't really nationalize stuff, constitutionally. it's been limited to voluntary bailouts of last resort (aig, amtrak) which i think we should stop