Secret Clearance for a Naturalized US Citizen (how much, contractors)

[Pandoras]

Don't quit your job until you get your clearance and formal offer. I would be cautious regarding what you tell your current boss.

Good luck with your job, that sounds interesting.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

...... I would be willing to bet that far more native-born Americans have been found guilty of espionage than naturalized ctizens, proportionately as well as numerically.

For one thing, if many Americans have been found guilty of espionage, it just goes to show that the security screening process isn't airtight.

For another, it's a different matter. We CAN'T screen out everyone, but we CAN do the work with the ones raised here (in the vast majority of cases - in rare instances there might be a unique talent). We CAN do a very good job of investigating those born in this country, but we can't go into a foreign nation and thoroughly investigate lifelong social contacts, it wouldn't be allowed. So we should be doing the best we can, which is to hire only those whom we can investigate thoroughly.

It's one thing to assert that everyone who applies for a clearance should be investigated for any possibility of a conflicting allegiance. That should be done--and is. It's quite another thing to suggest that everyone born in a foreign country--from Arnold Schwarzenneger to George Soros to General Shalikashvilli to Zbigniew Brzezinski--OUR FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR--to Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright--TWO FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE--to John Deutsch--FORMER CIA DIRECTOR--should be presumed unworthy.

There weren't unworthy, but there were plenty of people born in this country who could have done their jobs. For God's sake, look at Kissinger - brilliant, but the cause of so many deaths. Someone else could have been just as effective a tool of the military industrial complex.

Should someone who emigrates from, say, Iran, be looked at closely in a security investigation regarding their allegiances? Yes--just like everyone else. In the case of Iran, there are a lot of people who fled that country when the Shah was deposed, knowing that the revolutionaries would kill their entire family; those people are, as one would expect, rabidly against the current regime. Just like Holocaust refugees could be counted on to be among the most solidly anti-Nazi citizens. Just like South Vietnamese, Cuban, and Cambodian refugees are among the most vehemently anti-Communist American citizens you can find. Just like a lot of immigrants from former Soviet Bloc countries absolutely hate the Russian government.

Yes, they claim to be rabidly against those regimes and Communism. The vast majority actually are, in my opinion. But the spies aren't carrying bombs around with them everywhere and muttering dire threats against the USA, they're acting like the genuine article.

No--you only said they should be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to a huge portion of federal government positions.

My Dad was definitely not a second-class citizen ..... it might be accurate to call naturalized citizens a DIFFERENT class than those born and raised here. But the naturalized ones can't be investigated as thoroughly as the ones entirely from here, and there are enough of the latter to fill the positions.

If you're worried about spies, worry about people like Aldrich Ames (born in the River Falls, Wisconsin), Kendall Myers (born in Washington, DC), Jonathan Pollard (born Galveston, TX), Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (born in New York, NY), Bradley Manning (born in Crescent, OK), John Walker Lindh (born in Washington, DC), Adam Gadahn/Pearlman (born in Oregon).

Yes, we should also worry about the ones born and raised here. But they can be investigated thoroughly, even if they aren't always, and even if some slip through the cracks.

In fact, what I think these cases show is that the presumption of loyalty on the part of US-born citizens is (or at least was at one time) a weak point in the investigation process.

Yes.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by Woof

... we can't go into a foreign nation and thoroughly investigate lifelong social contacts, it wouldn't be allowed. So we should be doing the best we can, which is to hire only those whom we can investigate thoroughly.

And how would you know? Have you ever worked as a clearance investigator? Have you ever worked for the US government? You keep talking as if you have some experience or expertise on this subject from out there, 3,000 miles from where these decisions are made.

To your point: Do you really think Brzezinski's background wasn't investigated?

Do you really think the USG has no resources at its disposal to do these kinds of background checks? I work for the US government. And I have relatives and friends who do as well. They definitely look into all your foreign contacts when they investigate someone for a clearance. It's certainly not illegal.

As to this claim that naturalized citizens are more likely to be sleeper agents: Funny how you cling to theoreticals (based on no facts whatsoever) and yet can't find an argument against the fact that 1. foreign-born Americans trusted with our most guarded secrets include one CIA director, two US secretaries of State, two national security advisors, and at least one general (all of whom you dismiss as "tools" of the "complex" whose employees you are ostensibly so concerned about ensuring the loyalty of), and 2. nearly every person (maybe even all of them) convicted of espionage, treason, or other anti-US acts has been someone born in the USA.

Oh, yeah--ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Originally Posted by Woof

...it might be accurate to call naturalized citizens a DIFFERENT class than those born and raised here. But the naturalized ones can't be investigated as thoroughly as the ones entirely from here....

Ah--so "separate class" isn't second-class--just a "different" class! Just like "separate but equal." Now where have I heard that before?

I think one of us does in fact need to go back and take a course in logic--and it ain't me.

I've wasted enough time trying to reason with the unreasonable.

[tsuric]

Originally Posted by Woof

For another, it's a different matter. We CAN'T screen out everyone, but we CAN do the work with the ones raised here (in the vast majority of cases - in rare instances there might be a unique talent). We CAN do a very good job of investigating those born in this country, but we can't go into a foreign nation and thoroughly investigate lifelong social contacts, it wouldn't be allowed. So we should be doing the best we can, which is to hire only those whom we can investigate thoroughly.

Ummmm lots of Americans born here have several foreign contacts.

I guess we gotta cut out home born Americans who have traveled overseas too? Who knows who their influences were overseas? We should also cut out Americans who have any foreign born parents too?? Who knows what their extended family contacts are??

WTH hiiyighigihfutrdtesektyfkyioufougyifiyitydtirx

[vauser]

Originally Posted by Ben 'n Jen

I work with many naturalized citizens with clearances. All of them love the US more than many native born Americans and take their clearances much more seriously.

A first clearance adjudication can take over a year to process. I'm currently in my 5th re-up and it's been in work since Apr 2011. So don't quit your day job yet...wait for the clearance to process because it's gonna be a while.

Thanks but I have been told there would be an interim clearance and if that passes, I should be okay to take up the position. The catch is - I am planning to move to this new position in a new company (as opposed to doing an internal transfer or something), so if I said I would wait for the clearance to be approved (regardless of how long it takes), they would most likely not be inclined to offer the position as I am sure their need is rather immediate.

Would it be advisable to take up the position after an interim clearance approval or would that be risky?

[Deeman804]

Originally Posted by katyusha25

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you cannot be a dual citizen when getting a clearance. You do have to denounce your foreign citizenship, unless there are other circumstance I am unaware of.

I worked with a guy who was let go because he would not give up his dual citizenship to Iran. Now, maybe it was because it was Iran, but I'm not sure they make exceptions.

I have heard the same thing. I know someone that had a dual citizenship with South Korea and would not give it up.

[South Jersey Styx]

Originally Posted by Woof

Your emotional tirades don't change the facts . . . When you have both taken courses in reading comprehension and logic, you might want to visit this thread again, and read what I said in my first post. People who were raised in other countries MAY have been set up as spies

Emotional tirade?
My three sentences do not comprise a tirade. Before attempting to insult the reading and comprehension skills of people, check the definition of "tirade".

So, back to the topic. In Post #3, you said:

Originally Posted by Woof

Personally, I don't think the US should be using naturalized citizens at all when there is a need for a security clearance, if there is any chance whatsoever that the person can see or obtain classified information. Anyone raised in a foreign land MIGHT be a spy, there's simply no way to tell.

You made your opinion and believe that the “U.S. should [not] be using naturalized citizens” in positions requiring a security clearance.

That’s fine if you believe that. However, I did not agree 100% with your statement, citing one example: people in the military.

As an FYI (to this thread), my statement regarding naturalized citizens in the military referred to a group of neighbors and family friends (naturalized citizens) who fought in two wars awhile back: the Korean War and Vietnam War. Many of them returned to Korea and Vietnam to fight, serving in several tours. These men/naturalized citizens were from foreign countries –- countries that, at the time, were U. S. territories. Some of them were injured or affected in psychological ways.

And, now that decades have passed since then, turns out that none of them were spies.

Yes (as you reiterate later one), a naturalized citizen /someone raised in a foreign land MIGHT be a spy, but not everyone from a foreign land IS a spy or will BECOME a spy.

[CAVA1990]

I can't think of any instances off-hand of disloyalty involving a naturalized citizen, though I can think of plenty involving folks born here, all the way back to Benedict Arnold. I'd be more leery of a native born tea party Republican nowadays since they have so much disdain for our government and our culture in general.

[katyusha25]

Originally Posted by cdmurphy

Not automatically true. This page has a good explanation of what disqualifies you. You have to express your willingness to give up your dual citizenship and destroy your passport if you have one.

I had to research this recently. My husband and I are both dual citizens. He is eligible for clearance because he became an Irish citizen automatically by birth, and has never applied for a passport. I am ineligible for clearance because I applied for and was granted post-nuptial citizenship.

FWIW, it says on that site that country of citizenship doesn't matter.

I thought there might've been other deciding factors. Good to know, thanks!

[Lehuster]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

I can't think of any instances off-hand of disloyalty involving a naturalized citizen,

Off the top of my head,

Larry Wu-Tai Chin
Katrina Leung
Dongfan Chung
Chi Mak
Tai Shen Kuo
Carlos Alvarez
Elsa Alvarez
Otto Attila Gilbert
Noshir Gowadia