Dept Of Justice Investigating SpaceX For Not Hiring Non-US Citizens

[Robotbeat]

Here’s a Jacobs listing for NASA work:

[envy887]

Reading the suit, I think it's notable that the DOJ does not claim that SpaceX ever directly said "refugees and asylees cannot work here". This is interesting because "must be a citizen or LPR", which is what SpaceX did say, is a perfectly valid response to anyone not a asylee/refugee, e.g. someone who wants to work on a H1B visa. It is factually correct that those people MUST seek LPR/citizen status (or State approval) to work with controlled materials.

It's also interesting that DOJ does not claim that SpaceX rejected a refugee/asylee who proved their ability to work - they only claim that SpaceX rejected people who "self-identified" as an asylees/refugees. But self-identifying is completely insufficient for ITAR, so if someone hasn't provided the documents to prove their status, then marking "not ITAR" is technically correct.

There are also some other absurd claims like "ITAR and EAR do not contain employment or hiring restrictions. They do not require employers to limit jobs based on citizenship or immigration status". That's just laughable.

I'm sure this is headed for a settlement where SpaceX implements a bunch of corrective actions to improve their hiring processes, but doesn't pay any significant amounts of fines.

[mrhuggy]

Here is the full document on this case, also attached  it as a PDF

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23926009-doj-v-spacex

It basically reads like a argument over how SpaceX has implemented the rules on hiring people and ITAR, DOJ is saying that SpaceX has been overdoing it when it comes to ITAR and that people have been rejected because of it when they shouldn't of been.

Ok SpaceX may of overly done the ITAR in terms of hiring people but the sanctions that the DOJ want like forcing SpaceX to hire the people, paying them the wages they would of got with interest from when they would of got hired does seem to be overly doing that sanctionsby a bit.

[dondar]

As I am sure it was said already to SpaceX in 2021 they need to split SpaceX into security clearance (make it "everything") and the export free group and put information firewall in between. As far as current work force goes ~99% of them fit in the first group.


This lack of focus is f-ing everywhere.

ITAR circus is about security clearance "availability" and limitations of "sharing" info with other countries.

[redneck]

As I am sure it was said already to SpaceX in 2021 they need to split SpaceX into security clearance (make it "everything") and the export free group and put information firewall in between. As far as current work force goes ~99% of them fit in the first group.


This lack of focus is f-ing everywhere.

ITAR circus is about security clearance "availability" and limitations of "sharing" info with other countries.

And then the next time some bureaucrat gets a wild hair and demands proof that the "uncleared" never had access to classified anything?? Putting the company i the position of guilty until proven innocent by way of proving a negative??

[ulm_atms]

As I am sure it was said already to SpaceX in 2021 they need to split SpaceX into security clearance (make it "everything") and the export free group and put information firewall in between. As far as current work force goes ~99% of them fit in the first group.


This lack of focus is f-ing everywhere.

ITAR circus is about security clearance "availability" and limitations of "sharing" info with other countries.

And then the next time some bureaucrat gets a wild hair and demands proof that the "uncleared" never had access to classified anything?? Putting the company i the position of guilty until proven innocent by way of proving a negative??

And this right here is the ENTIRE issue with ITAR in the first place.  Follow it to the letter which is about as fuzzy as fuzz or get beat down when you can't prove a negative....or some stupid crap like that.

Fix the ACTUAL problem(ITAR language) instead of all this other BS that only makes the problem worse!

ITAR is one of those thing with good meaning but a crap show on implementation.

[rsnellenberger]

As I am sure it was said already to SpaceX in 2021 they need to split SpaceX into security clearance (make it "everything") and the export free group and put information firewall in between. As far as current work force goes ~99% of them fit in the first group.


This lack of focus is f-ing everywhere.

ITAR circus is about security clearance "availability" and limitations of "sharing" info with other countries.

If SpaceX ends up being required to provide ITAR-free "compliance" jobs to folks, that office should be located in Left Armpit, North Dakota or somewhere on the Seward Peninsula.

[Robotbeat]

As I am sure it was said already to SpaceX in 2021 they need to split SpaceX into security clearance (make it "everything") and the export free group and put information firewall in between. As far as current work force goes ~99% of them fit in the first group.


This lack of focus is f-ing everywhere.

ITAR circus is about security clearance "availability" and limitations of "sharing" info with other countries.

This isn’t practical. Which is why NASA only offers internships to citizens.

[DistantTemple]

In the current climate, with clandestine operations being carried out against NATO partners, (hacking closed down part of Polish railways today), and as some say raised threats to European, NATO and US interests, a change in the law is needed to exempt any section of a company involved in sensitive technology from "employing non citizens" etc.
Any Musk industry could be at a raised risk of espionage or attack due to the help Starlink continues to give Ukraine, and has largely mitigated the lack of access to Soyuz launches. An issue with either Starlink or F9 would "Give Comfort" to Russia. Viasat, and possibly Dozor-Teleport (today)(https://www.pcmag.com/news/wagner-hackers-say-they-shut-down-russian-satellite-internet-provider ) Are proof of the danger.
Could a presidential decree do anything. Could such a change be added to the next Ukraine funding package legislation?

[Robotbeat]

Permanent residence is probably fine, too.

The federal government could solve the ambiguity immediately by granting permanent residence to refugees/asylees. Instead they sue companies for “discrimination” to sort of launder the federal government’s own guilt.

[JayWee]

SpaceX employee #4 - Hans Koenigsmann - is a German citizen with a green card.

[DistantTemple]

SpaceX employee #4 - Hans Koenigsmann - is a German citizen with a green card.

Wernher von Braun was acquired from the enemy. He surrendered on 2nd May 1945. On 15 April 1955, von Braun became a naturalized citizen of the United States.  Exceptions prove little.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX employee #4 - Hans Koenigsmann - is a German citizen with a green card.

Permanent Residents (ie green card holders) are totally fine. That’s not the question.

[DistantTemple]

In the current climate, with clandestine operations being carried out against NATO partners, (hacking closed down part of Polish railways today), and as some say raised threats to European, NATO and US interests, a change in the law is needed to exempt any section of a company involved in sensitive technology from "employing non citizens" etc.
Any Musk industry could be at a raised risk of espionage or attack due to the help Starlink continues to give Ukraine, and has largely mitigated the lack of access to Soyuz launches. An issue with either Starlink or F9 would "Give Comfort" to Russia. Viasat, and possibly Dozor-Teleport (today)(https://www.pcmag.com/news/wagner-hackers-say-they-shut-down-russian-satellite-internet-provider ) Are proof of the danger.
Could a presidential decree do anything. Could such a change be added to the next Ukraine funding package legislation?

Quoting my own post to add to it with more information.
In the following case reported today, the suspect had gained (Sweedish) citizenship. Obviously this is a step removed from the US. However it shows again there is ongoing risk of hostile intelligence gathering.

“The business further consisted of acquiring data in the form of information about and the acquisition of various objects that the Russian state and the armed forces — due to export regulations and sanctions — were not able to procure on the open market.”

Swedish broadcaster SVT said Skvortsov had lived in Sweden for 25 years and obtained Swedish citizenship in 2012.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-sweden-gru-svt-stockholm-b2400526.html
Normally limiting ITAR etc to citizens/green cards etc at least provides some level of protection. IMO it is a mistake to risk reducing these protections in the current situation.

[envy887]

Permanent residence is probably fine, too.

The federal government could solve the ambiguity immediately by granting permanent residence to refugees/asylees. Instead they sue companies for “discrimination” to sort of launder the federal government’s own guilt.

Pretty much. The current situation is absurd. We're saying that we trust refugees enough to give them access to sensitive weapons technology, but at the same time we don't trust them enough to let them live here permanently.

That's an absurd contradiction. We need to pick one or the other.

[Starmang10]

so spacex  is getting investigated for following the law apparently???

[envy887]

Maybe someone who reads legalese can correct me, but by my reading of the ITAR definition, everyone who isn't both an "LPR" and a "protected person" is a "foreign person".

"§ 120.63 Foreign person.
Foreign person means any natural person who is not a lawful permanent resident as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20) or who is not a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). ..."

That seems to disprove the claim that non-LPR can work ITAR.

[Barley]

Maybe someone who reads legalese can correct me, but by my reading of the ITAR definition, everyone who isn't both an "LPR" and a "protected person" is a "foreign person".

"§ 120.63 Foreign person.
Foreign person means any natural person who is not a lawful permanent resident as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20) or who is not a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). ..."

That seems to disprove the claim that non-LPR can work ITAR.

When reading legalese you need to realize that "and", "or", and "not" do not mean "and", "or", and "not" at least in that order.   Also De Morgans laws are mere suggestions and don't apply much of the time.  The precedence and order of evaluation of operators are not well defined so they make it up as they go along, often with different results for apparently identical phrasing.

In the above lawyers will almost certainly read "or" as "and".

[whitelancer64]

Maybe someone who reads legalese can correct me, but by my reading of the ITAR definition, everyone who isn't both an "LPR" and a "protected person" is a "foreign person".

"§ 120.63 Foreign person.
Foreign person means any natural person who is not a lawful permanent resident as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20) or who is not a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). ..."

That seems to disprove the claim that non-LPR can work ITAR.

For reference:

This is part of ITAR:

22 CFR § 120.62 - U.S. person.

U.S. person means a person who is a lawful permanent resident as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20) or who is a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). It also means any corporation, business association, partnership, society, trust, or any other entity, organization, or group that is incorporated to do business in the United States. It also includes any governmental (Federal, state, or local) entity. It does not include any foreign person as defined in § 120.63.

This is part of immigration law:

8 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)

(20)The term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.

8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)

(3)“Protected individual” defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who—
(A)is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B)is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160(a) or 1255a(a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title; but does not include (i) an alien who fails to apply for naturalization within six months of the date the alien first becomes eligible (by virtue of period of lawful permanent residence) to apply for naturalization or, if later, within six months after November 6, 1986, and (ii) an alien who has applied on a timely basis, but has not been naturalized as a citizen within 2 years after the date of the application, unless the alien can establish that the alien is actively pursuing naturalization, except that time consumed in the Service’s processing the application shall not be counted toward the 2-year period.

[Robotbeat]

Just a reminder that sensitive technology is subject to many more restrictions than just ITAR. For instance, EAR which defines “U.S. Person” differently than the DoJ does for ITAR.