I'm amazed a naturalised citizen would be given so much information access. There must be significantly higher risk of naturalised citizens having loyalty to their former country or ties that can be used to manipulate them. And while these people must be valuable for their insight it seems amazing he would not be kept in more of an information bubble.
Almost everything I read abut the CIA seems incompetent to some level. I know they use that line 'you only hear about our failures' but things where you see a large proportion of their actions (successful or not) like all the coups, it seems there is no oversight to quality of their work and I'm guessing decision makers are selected on confidence and ego rather than ability.
I genuinely wonder if the world would be a better place, if they were scaled back and reorganised to purely focus on their primary purpose only of being intelligence source only for the president and other elected policy makers.
What I am amazed at is that a naturalized citizen would run the citizenship gauntlet, actually become a citizen, and then go and betray the country they presumably worked for.
On the other hand, there's no effort or merit in being born at a particular geographical location.
The funny thing is I would have agreed with you before I ended up in a position where such choices have meaning. I, and I suspect yourself, have never been in the least patriotic or nationalistic and always held things like 'support the home team' with disdain since, as you said, why should I particularly care if something happens to occur in the same general geographic location where I happened to be?
I've spent a good deal of my life traveling away from US borders, and I'm far from pleased about the current direction of the US - and I've never been what you'd consider patriotic or nationalistic. Nonetheless, I somehow have a very different feeling towards the US than I do to any of the countries I've visited - even ones where I could now obtain citizenship if I so desired.
I think country forms a bond much like family. And much like with family, many of us never even recognize that bond until you're far removed from it. By contrast, I've very much enjoyed my travels but I hold no allegiance to any of these countries - even ones I've resided in for years. I can't really explain it, since I never thought I'd feel this way. I suppose what I'm getting at is that you can't really judge, or predict, people until you've walked a decade in their shoes.
Reminds me of the contrast between SF and LA. After living in SF for a year, all of a sudden, driving down Market Street, I had this overwhelming sense that I was home now.
Lived in LA for a lot longer, loved the weather, but never got that feeling that I was home. My thoughts were that this is temporary, and I'm just here to make make money and leave.
I don't think the guy went into the CIA from the start with the goal of betraying. As it says in the article, he left the CIA disgruntled since his career plateaued, and most likely was offered compensation for the information he had.
So if you were a foreign government and you wanted to place a loyal agent into a privileged position inside the CIA, how would you do it? Just have them enter the country on a tourist visa, walk up to the front door and ask for launch codes?
>So if you were a foreign government and you wanted to place a loyal agent into a privileged position inside the CIA, how would you do it?
A better strategy would be to recruit someone who already has access to the information you want. Consider the difficulty in "placing a loyal agent":
1. Getting them into the country setting up a life for them,
2. Getting them through citizenship (might take five-twenty years, might never happen),
3. Getting them hired at the CIA and hoping they get sufficient clearance,
4. Getting them moved in to a role with access to the information you want.
2,3,4 all require a number of things going right, nothing going wrong and each would take many years. Success would require a large number of attempts and the successful attempts might take over a decade before you get useful intelligence. I'm not sure anything like what you suggest has ever happened, the closest I can think of is the technique of placing agents in a foreign country and having them associate with targets of interest or report back intelligence[0].
Let's say we take your alternate approach and try to find someone already in the position we want, and turn them.
Who are you most likely to have leverage over: An ex-national with family still living within your reach, that you can use as leverage? Or some anonymous U.S. citizen who's been pre-selected for their loyalty by the CIA, who you'd have to first identify, then track down their family or other leverage, then coordinate a hostage situation in such a way that they wouldn't just immediately blow the whistle?
I don't think either option is easy. The spy game isn't meant to be easy.
China has plenty of manpower and a traditional outlook spanning millennia - they can play the long game. Besides, you don’t need laser focus - throw tons of kids to all your targets (cia, fbi, general government) and some are bound to reach a sensitive position that can produce good intel.
I think you're substantially understating the difficult in recruiting spies. Any mistakes there and the recruiting nation would not only end up with double agents but also expose their handles, methods of contact, etc. Perhaps the biggest issue is that you'd need, as a foreign nation, to know more about the loyalties of intelligence agents than the country they're working for.
And similarly, I think you're greatly exaggerating the difficulties in obtaining US citizenship. It's a process that can take as few as 4 years. And thanks to our laws, people can simply have children in the US and they are automatic citizens.
And there's the third option that sort of meets both these opposite extremes in the middle and that's simply recruiting people already within the nation. Given the reported brain drain of the US intelligence forces, getting a substantial fraction of valuable targets (computer scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) into positions of intelligence does not seem like it would be all that improbable. Countries like China are already at a major advantage here given the huge numbers of Chinese involved in STEM.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
I think the poster is saying the children are automatically citizens. The parents would not be citizens; but, anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Robert Hanssen was an nth generation white American from Chicago, the son of a cop, and he sold out intelligence operatives (who were later murdered) just for cash. Aldrich Ames: similar story.
> Robert Hanssen was an nth generation white American from Chicago, the son of a cop, and he sold out intelligence operatives (who were later murdered) just for cash. Aldrich Ames: similar story.
Thing 1 was an object with no gun powder in it and it exploded. Thing 2: similar story.
This is a logical error related to the difference between the converse and the contrapositive. There may be a relationship where A implies a greater likelihood of B. Finding various examples of Not_A where B occurs can be rhetorically effective but it isn't sound reasoning to argue that show A does not imply a greater likelihood of B.
This reply seems poor logic. It feels like (apologies if I've misinterpreted) by claiming if a born citizen can turn there is no reason not to treat naturalised citizens desperately. It would be like me pointing out sober drivers that have had accidents to explain why we shouldn't limit drink driving.
And I respect the ideology of once some someone is a citizen, they should have full rights. Though ideology and practicality do not always meet efficiently and in something like this I feel practicality is needed.
So circling back for clarity, my point was I suspect (note, saying I suspect not know) there is higher risk of a naturalised citizen harbouring loyalty to their origin country and/or being more easily manipulated via family ties etc. This would vary by country and circumstance so is not black and white but in this situation where you know Chinese agents are very active, I find it amazing, for right or wrong, an agency would take that chance. And with hindsight, this is a very correct view.
The poor logic is your unfounded assumption that naturalized citizens are somehow more prone to this type of crime than citizens by birth.
If you want to assert that, you'll need to back it up with evidence. Until you do, there's no reason to assume it -- if anything, one could flip your logic around and claim that birth citizenship should correlate with higher risk since a born citizen didn't have to do anything to "earn" it and so doesn't value their citizenship/country as much as someone who had to put in significant effort and jump through a lot of hoops to get naturalized.
Plus naturalized citizens need to pass a lot more screening, from getting the visa to enter the country in the first place, and on each next step afterwards - they are under the constant surveillance for years even before they apply for the job that requires any security clearances.
Is there really no reason for you to assume a naturalized citizen might possibly have loyalty to his former country? Really, you can't see any reason at all? Nothing?
For one, you're not considering malicious actors not acting independently. It's not easier to get an nth generation citizen than a naturalised one to apply for a CIA role.
There is a way of limiting the severity of such a situation though; just caveat the clearance so the bearer is restricted from accessing any information relating to their country of origin (or any other countries they or close relatives have a potential conflict with). It seems surprising that wasn't done here, regardless of his original intent.
This is similar to the situation where some people notices that born again Christians are more religious than people who've been Christians their whole lives. And this makes sense on some level, to have to actively seek out membership (religious or national) implies a greater degree of effort or commitment than someone who has never known non-membership.
There are naturalized citizens everywhere in our security agencies. Many from former and current adversaries. They are full citizens. If they pass the background check they are entitled to the same privileges as any other citizen.
A job in an intelligence organization requiring a high level security clearance IS a privilege. As a leader in an organization I worked for used to say, "You earn your place here every day."
And plenty of naturalized citizens have earned their place.
Yeah, that's inspiring and all, but if you have a domestic and a naturalized candidate for the job who are both equally qualified, and the naturalized one has a 10% higher chance of being turned, just go with domestic right? Might not be "fair" to the naturalized candidate who worked hard to get where he was but fairness is not always the priority.
Reminds me of the diversity debate at Google where google jobs are talked about like some kind of award or trophy of excellence and not just selling your labor to Google
Yeah, that's a super plan and all. Doesn't work that way. And all foreign contact risks are quantitatively evaluated, for naturalized and US-born individuals.
Well the grandparent disagrees with those evaluations. I have no opinion.
My point is, there's a difference between deserving a job the most and being the best candidate for it. Whether someone has "earned" a job on a moral level should not be the only factor in hiring them. I am also surprised you decided to take your supervisor's motivational comment so literally.
It's probably that kind of politically-correct approach that creates skewed risk assessments in situations such as this one. Reality is what it is, not what we'd like it to be.
It's not necessarily because of political correctness. A person with a family background and who may have been brought up in the target country has language skills and cultural knowledge that it would be difficult to learn otherwise. Those are useful skills for an intelligence agency to have.
For example, a native Pashto speaker who spent their formative years in Pakistan is likely to prove a valuable asset, and it's hard to leverage that value without giving them access to sensitive information.
Your immigration and naturalization background is considered when you go through security clearance background checks. There's no tolerance for political correctness there, but neither is someone presumed to be a spy because they're naturalized.
There are lots of reasons people might 'turn' assuming these aren't long term espionage assets. From what I've read, the real reasons are mostly banal and extremely petty at their core, but of course they always use some higher principle to justify their actions.
Then again, I am always amazed at certain types of immigrants who come over with an attitude of entitlement and national pride for the countries they just left because, frankly those countries sucked, or they wouldn't be here.
I'm actually a naturalized citizen myself, came over as an infant. I can't even begin to imagine the nerve or some immigrants who display their national flags in their windows or outside their homes.
It was my parents view, and one which I share, that we came over to become Americans, not to become XYZ-Americans.
It has always given me a certain perspective to life in that no matter how bad things from time to time seem, all I have to do, is think about the alternate universe where my parents chose to stay, and how incredibly bad my life would have been. For that I'm forever grateful to this country.
No weirder than hanging an American flag outside one's house. "Oh don't mind my little totem there. Yeah, no, I'm too tribal to recognize the absurdity of this practice."
...let's pretend you are just a simple totem believing tribalist. Things become so bad in your own tribe that you leave, despite worries as to whether another tribe would ever accept you as one of their own, much less even accept you in.
Thankfully, you find a tribe that is willing to take you in.
After some time you decorate your hut with your last tribes totems and tattoo your children with the old tribes symbols.
It may be an over-simplification but it is more universal or common than you might think. I recently discovered that my father's entire family emigrated from their home country as a result of political persecution. This is a pretty common theme in American history. In fact, much of the progress and greatness of the United States was built by immigrants because of the opportunities this country gave to them.
An alternative point of view is that no society, tribe or nation is perfect, and on the other hand there are plenty of great things about the history and culture of either place that are worth preserving. As an immigrant, it's my privilege and opportunity to adopt the best ideas/habits of both my origin country and my chosen one, and to spread the good things in each of the places that's not (yet) sufficiently aware of the possible alternatives.
Displaying pride for one's roots is by no means an indication that one would reject the values of one's new home. Cross-pollination of ideas is what makes progress happen. That applies just as much to someone moving from California to New Jersey as it applies to immigration. Personally, I think a full-on "leave behind your old self" approach doesn't yield the most benefits for either the individual or society as a whole, unless your origin country is indeed an unequivocal shithole.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm definitely not implying America, or any country is perfect, far from it. I think that we do have something special here, which not many other countries have...
> Cross-pollination of ideas is what makes progress happen...Personally, I think a full-on "leave behind your old self" approach doesn't yield the most benefits for either the individual or society as a whole, unless your origin country is indeed an unequivocal shithole.
I mostly agree with you, up to a point. I don't see it as an all or nothing question. While, I strongly believe that there are some things, beliefs, superstitions, and bigotries which would be better serve everyone (humanity), if they were left leave in their respective 'shitholes'
To me it's a gray area, I don't want or expect people to completely assimilate, but unless you're a foreign national, here for an extended period of time without the intent of becoming a citizen, it's just plain weird to display another countries flag in the country you've chosen to move to aside from fun hollow displays in celebration or whatnot.
(I understand the larger discussion of whether nationalism itself is an outdated concept...but i digress)
I mean, I personally would never consider hanging any country's flag in a prominent spot. But for people who do, I'd wager it's likely that they it's to celebrate culture and memories, not necessarily to display allegiance. Sure there are others too. But seeing it this way allows me to not be offended and instead view it as merely quaint, sometimes odd.
Ideally, both sides should try to avoid bad blood.
A lot of the Manhattan Project scientists were naturalized citizens, including many of the greats: Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, Hans Bethe, James Franck, etc.
Slightly different scenario, but my cousin was born in the UK and therefor was a British citizen but was also an Irish citizen through his mother. He works at big defense contractor and had to get security clearance (pretty low level one). Because of his dual citizenship he is not allowed to work on certain projects. I suppose it might count as exporting classified information to a foreign national or something like that.
It is not so surprising. A naturalized citizen from that country of origin would probably have a much easier time dealing with assets in the region than a white American.
The only citizenship requirement for a clearance in the US is that you personally are a citizen. There is no distinguishing between naturalized and natural born on that requirement. Though you will likely have a harder time on the background check as naturalized, since you will have more foreign contacts which you are supposed to report.
This combined with the OPM hack should make us very worried about China. The OPM hack is probably the single most damaging hack to the US intelligence community. CIA info was safe from what I understood, except maybe those who switched agencies. However this individual leaked a large number of CIA agents, that added on top puts China at a tremendous advantage.
CIA also recruits from governmental agencies, so it's a really big deal. Basically means if you currently for the government and not already in "in the black", your future employment opportunities in intelligence are nil for fear of compromise.
It’s far more dire than some spy agency slapfighting. Look at the other headline today about proud, patriotic Americans kow-towing to Foxconn for the political sleight of hand of a few jobs. And yet another headline is about court martialing top brass in the US Navy because the “world police” can’t navigate peacetime waters in Asia without causing fatalities. Meanwhile, a new class of Chinese nuke sub is spotted openly flying a Chinese flag off the Senkaku islands in brazen defiance of the American protection racket in Asia. No one will be more pleased than Okinawa to see their supposed protectors go away. They’ve been hostages since before WWII. Japan is getting squeezed from the North by Russia. Indonesia is openly talking about joining China’s team. African kids are learning Chinese in school. And in Hawaii, the sloppy, lazy ineptitude and panicky fear-mongering are on full display.
Who in their right mind would trust such people as stewards of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal?
The game is up, but no one in America seems to know it yet. Those who are paying attention are just hoping America doesn’t take everyone else down with them.
American Declinism has been a popular meme since the 50s, some day it will be true I guess [1]:
>Twenty-two years ago, in a refreshingly clear-sighted article for Foreign Affairs, Harvard’s Samuel P. Huntington noted that the theme of "America’s decline" had in fact been a constant in American culture and politics since at least the late 1950s. It had come, he wrote, in several distinct waves: in reaction to the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik; to the Vietnam War; to the oil shock of 1973; to Soviet aggression in the late 1970s; and to the general unease that accompanied the end of the Cold War. Since Huntington wrote, we can add at least two more waves: in reaction to 9/11, and to the current "Great Recession."….
>What the long history of American "declinism" — as opposed to America’s actual possible decline — suggests is that these anxieties have an existence of their own that is quite distinct from the actual geopolitical position of our country; that they arise as much from something deeply rooted in the collective psyche of our chattering classes as from sober political and economic analyses.
>For whatever reason, it is clear that for more than half a century, many of America’s leading commentators have had a powerful impulse consistently to see the United States as a weak, "bred out" basket case that will fall to stronger rivals as inevitably as Rome fell to the barbarians, or France to Henry V at Agincourt.
This is true, and I'm old enough to just remember the "inevitability" of Japan taking over the world at the end of the 1980s and start of the 1990s. Ooops.
But this time.. .hmm.
When the former (conservative) deputy prime minster of Australia says:
THE 16-month delay in the United States posting an ambassador to Canberra is a sign that Australia has been “downgraded”, says former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer.[1]
and
The United States has been without an ambassador in Australia since September 2016 and Mr Fischer said the long wait was now "beyond acceptable" and bordering on a "diplomatic insult".[2]
it's hard not to think that the US is withdrawing from the world. Plus, of course the US President explicitly says that.
One might argue about the word "decline", but the US isn't the leader it once was.
I think not a new ambassador when there are only 3 months left in your term as President and all of your appointees are being stonewalled in Congress is fairly reasonable. Not appointing an ambassador at all in your first year of office is less reasonable.
Thanks for trivializing my analysis, but I don’t see myself as a chronic doomsayer. In fact, I’m bullish on Asia and know from firsthand experience that Americans are, as a culture, increasingly moving out of the game at hand. I don’t expect any accolades for being right, but you could at least not puke some lukewarm theory about how America can never be wrong at my feet.
If you're living in Hong Kong and you've been paid to oust US spies, why on Earth would you ever set foot in America again? Especially after you've already been investigated by the FBI for what you were doing.
Money, it says he was offered a CIA contract, apparently many retired agents work as independent contractors after retiring. His mistake was not asking for FU money from China, considering the great service he performed. It's not China doesn't have the money
He was obviously not aware the FBI looked at his journals containing the names of the CIA moles - what's really weird is the FBI did not arrest him immediately afterwards instead of waiting five years for his next trip to the USA.
May I have a pure theoretical argument about high order spying based on a naive moral principle, i.e. Treat the others the way you like to be treated.
1.I don't like to be spied. So I don't spy anybody not spying on me. First order spy is not good. Don't do it.
2.If I found I'm spied by a notorious group(Maybe CIA), then I have to find out how I'm spied. I'll use spy method which the other group is using, bribery, steal etc. to get the information of the informant stealing my secret. Because this spying is high order spying, i.e. spy on spy, then it is justified.
It makes sense but it’s naive, you’ve basically tied an arm behind your back before going into the savagest fight of your life. Information is the lifeblood of policy, so you want as much as possible, all the time, regardless of how it’s gathered. You can make exceptions towards your citizens because of some high ideal (or more prosaic needs for social peace), but everyone else is a natural target and fair game. Even allies spy on each other, just a bit less because there is often no need (information will be willingly provided).
This is why we need supranational orgs (UN, WTO etc): because foreign relationships, left to their natural state, are a lawless Far West.
One thing I find rather odd is how noone raises an eyebrow that apparently the US happily admitts to having some enormous spy network in China.
It is especially puzzeling if one compares it with the reaction to foreign countries supposedly making posts or buying ads on Facebook or Youtube with the intent of influencing elections in the US.
Would you be surprised if China had an intelligence network in the US? I don't think any major country would be surprised - the "great game" is as active as ever...
I guess the argument is not just about US "happily admitts to having some enormous spy network in China", but about accuse other countries spy on US as if its a crime while US is very happy to do the same thing to other countries.
As analogy, you can accuse others stealing when yourself can stand on a moral ground of not stealing.
Or you can steal but then don't accuse others. That's fine because you don't see stealing is a crime based on your value. "great game" is as active as ever, every body is doing this.
But if you accuse others stealing while happily admit you steal all the time and in very large scale, then there will be surprise, not for every body but for some body.
"you" means anybody, could be "me", "s/he". No offense
Espionage is a crime in most (all?) countries though?
Part of the "game" is pretending that you're not involved in espionage despite all players knowing that it occurs. Morals don't really come into it, since there is no reward for having the most "fair" intelligence agencies.
Really? Spying on other countries is a bit of an open secret. Hell, the US often spies on allies and vice versa.
My understanding is that as long as protocol is followed, it's just a fact of life. If a country oversteps it's bounds then then the spy (often using embassy employment as a cover) is expelled.
>One thing I find rather odd is how noone raises an eyebrow that apparently the US happily admitts to having some enormous spy network in China.
What do you think the CIA does? Are you really so naive as to not believe that US spy agencies don't, well, SPY? We have both declared and undeclared agents, as every major country does.
>It is especially puzzeling if one compares it with the reaction to foreign countries supposedly making posts or buying ads on Facebook or Youtube with the intent of influencing elections in the US.
It's not "puzzeling" at all. Big difference between spying and actively trying to influence an election.
Yeah, big difference. But both are illegal. Both are things that pseudo-naive people and commentators bloviate about Russia or China doing. Both are actively pursued all the time by US administrations... for decades¹. And that's the nice side of US policy, the one that doesn't end up with hundreds of thousands of bombs dropped on your country by super-patriots.
If you imply China is doing sabotage, then I would suggest you check your information source. My bet would be western MSM . The reality is sabotaging US is against China's own interest as the view by Chinese elite while most western MSM speculate otherwise.
On the other hand, CIA has a reputation of sabotage in history. Not against China in last couple of decades though.
what on earth is puzzling about it? who wouldn't be outraged? do you think people ought to just roll over and say 'well i guess we deserve it'?
the public reaction (among those who actually believe in russian interference) is one of outrage, not shock that such a thing happens.
we go to war and kill people abroad, many civilians, and nobody galaxy-brains when america executes a murderer. this may come as a surprise, but in-group and out-group ethical dynamics differ substantially in nearly all circumstances.
Life in prison. If it risks the lives and sometimes costs the lives of Americans performing a highly dangerous mission for America, I support life in prison even if the name of just 1 informant is given
> If it risks the lives and sometimes costs the lives of Americans performing a highly dangerous mission for America
Granted it probably risked the lives of non-Americans even more performing a dangerous mission for America. American agents are usually not harmed, it would be a major fuck up from the Chinese side to knowingly assassinating CIA agents. But what they would not think twice about executing Chinese agents who supplied information to the Americans.
Is it really news to you that life, politics, and international relations have tribal and competitive aspects to them? You can be superrational, but that will cause you to lose horribly to the rest of the players. Unless you believe that China would be especially magnanimous in reversed circumstances, what is your point?
That's treason, so it's fair for me. Russians and Chinese probably shoot betraying spies after being debriefed and tortured. It's part of the equation, that's why they should ask for millions and millions, risk vs reward.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined...
People complain about racism whenever ethnically Chinese or in this case a naturalized Chinese citizen within the IC is subjected to extra security scrutiny, but China has a very effective intelligence program taking advantage of these people, and is very aggressive at pursuing espionage against the US. This is probably not sustainable.
There are 4.8 million Chinese-Americans in the United States. The last time we publicly charged one of them with espionage, the judge ended up publicly apologizing to them and the government cut a $1.8MM settlement. People complain about racism when arguments are rooted in racism.
Not to mention the American resident we falsely accused of being a communist and then basically forced back to China to kickstart their rocket and nuclear programs:
Yup he worked with Jack Parsons, the entire original crew of rocket scientists we're driven out and Jack Parsons was on his way to Israel when he "accidentally" died in the middle of moving. One if the other engineers moved to France and became a famous french visual artist. The Chinese member of the team was thrown out for completely racist reasons and went on to found the Chinese nuclear missile program. The social cost of racism is so immense it's mind boggling. Without racism neither NK nor China would have nukes. I'm
I don't agree with your implication that shadowy intelligence agencies killed Jack Parsons, but the story of Jack Parsons is fascinating! I think he just mixed too many random rocket fuel precursors. Or maybe L Ron Hubbard really did successfully curse him. There are a few fun books written about this.
Racism or not it's reality IMO. Blackmail or patriotism does wonders to "help" your old country. FBI can threaten you or your brother in law with jail for x, y and Z unless you help them. So can the Chinese
I think it has to be done, but it should be done respectfully and proportionately — a high ranking CIA case officer merits much more scrutiny than a NASA scientist, etc. I think we have seen enough serious counterintelligence failures over the past decade that something has to be done culturally and technically.
It's unclear what it is you think needs to be done here, and since the preceding post seems to suggest that our government persecute the families of those suspected to be involved in espionage, some clarity would be welcome.
I assume he was pointing out why having family or close connections overseas and in a potentially hostile or at least adversarial nation has long been a factor in clearance investigations.
I don't advocate them doing anything unconstitutional; merely that in the initial clearance process and ongoing clearance process for cleared employees that relations hostile or adversarial foreign powers continue to be a factor in investigation. It might mean putting more resources into specifically China-focused CI in the screening and review process. It might mean longer clearance processing (as a result) for people with extensive contacts with China (and since I go to China multiple times/year, I'd fall under this). It might mean borderline cases with lots of connections to China get denied whereas lots of connections to e.g. Brazil don't.
And this should be much higher for people in particularly sensitive positions (like case officers at CIA) vs. NASA scientists working on largely open source science.
They don't have an obvious foreign power to which they may have pre-existing relationships. They could still be motivated for financial, ego, or ideological reasons.
USSR/Russia was more often ideologically motivated people (and very small amounts of money). Israeli spying in the US has been "for the benefit of Israel" (and possibly tacitly supported by some of all of USG, potentially somewhat officially). Chinese spying seems to be largely of the "loyalty" form. A lot of it is pure commercial or military technology from commercial entities.
All things being equal, someone with minimal foreign relations is going to be a better security risk for USG than someone with extensive relationships with foreign entities. For intelligence aimed at a foreign country, it's obviously an asset to have a lot of interconnectedness with that country, so it's a balancing act; you'd probably be willing to take that risk for a case officer but probably less so for a support staff. For positions where technical skill is required and in short supply, it may be worth that risk too; you'd have to look at the totality of the situation.
Since China has such an active intelligence program focused on the US, it's a greater risk than, say, Germany or the UK.
but a naturalized citizen is more likely to be committed to the ideals of the new country? Why else would you go through that (especially given that countries like China don't allow for dual citizenship)
Native Americans is always understood to mean the indigenous people of North and South America and their descendants. "American Indians" is a term that has fallen out of favor due to its roots in colonialism.
Edit: Yes, technically, people born in North and South America now are native to it. But Native Americans isn't a technical term, it is a cultural one that is widely understood to be so.
Sounds like a stellar way to miss out on talent, alienate people thereby creating opportunities for foreign intelligence agencies, and create institutional and cultural blind spots. Much like the obsession with Islamic terrorism, it ignores the potential of betrayal from racially/culturally “safe” places.
Most of all though, if your security relies on racism to succeed, it’s already failing. You can’t psychically find traitors, and traitors don’t have a race. Traitors can be turned from any group and the only defense is to evaluate everyone impartially, relentlessly, and consistently. If you find those measures insufficient, don’t turn to profiling race, study behavior!
Profiling is like torture... it appeals to people who don’t understand a damned thing about how either fails in practice... or it appeals to people who already like such ideas regardless of merit.
For reference, they’re saying it’s worse than anything that occurred during the Cold War in terms of informants lost/killed, including more than lost via Aldrich Ames (he was eventually arrested in 1994).
I always suspected that the Obama Administration DOJ 'discrimination' lawsuit against Palintir had ulterior motives.
A company which employees close to 40% Asians. I suspect someone's infiltration project went awry. "How could they possibly reject these candidates whose resume's we carefully tailored to be hired... Must be discrimination."
---
Shadowy Data-Mining Firm Palantir Hit With Discrimination Suit
Palantir is accused by the Department of Labor of discriminating against Asian job applicant
The whole thing sounded absurd from the beginning. Do Asians even suffer discrimination in the United States? Honestly, the only organizations I know of actively discriminating against Asians, are Ivy League Universities.
> The whole thing sounded absurd from the beginning. Do Asians even suffer discrimination in the United States? Honestly, the only organizations I know of actively discriminating against Asians, are Ivy League Universities.
That's... sort of a huge amount of discrimination.
Well, somehow we've decided "positive discrimination" aka "affirmative action" is a "good" form of discrimination, otherwise there would be less diversity (which would be "bad")
Almost everything I read abut the CIA seems incompetent to some level. I know they use that line 'you only hear about our failures' but things where you see a large proportion of their actions (successful or not) like all the coups, it seems there is no oversight to quality of their work and I'm guessing decision makers are selected on confidence and ego rather than ability.
I genuinely wonder if the world would be a better place, if they were scaled back and reorganised to purely focus on their primary purpose only of being intelligence source only for the president and other elected policy makers.