NASA's New Policy For Excluding Certain Foreign Nationals
Keith’s 11 Aug update: Sources report that the person (referenced below) who was told that they could not attend the JPL Planetary Science Summer School has now been told by NASA HQ that they can attend after all.
Keith’s 7 Aug 10:11 am note: The following is posted in a Closed Facebook page “Young Scientists for Planetary Exploration“. The group has 1,549 members. I was made aware of this issue last night in great detail before I asked to join the group. When my membership was approved just now I was confronted with a warning that I would be banned for life if I posted anything from this group. I was not aware of this restriction when I asked to join – only after the fact. This is an important issue that needs to be surfaced. I will not identify the individual who posted this. I expect to be banned momentarily. Oh well.
Keith’s 7 Aug 8:11 pm note: I have been kicked out of the group (one would assume) for raising this issue. You’re welcome. What is really odd is that Andy Rivkin, one of the people who run this Facebook group, violates their own rules with regard to publicly discussing content from within the group.
“I’ve been participating in this year’s JPL Planetary Science Summer School for the past 9 weeks, and was told only today that I have been declined further participation in the program, and will be withdrawn from next week’s session at JPL. The reason I was given was that my place of birth was in Hong Kong, regardless of the fact that my citizenship is Canadian. NASA regards all persons born in Hong Kong as Chinese Nationals, including those like myself who were born prior to the 1997 handover, were never granted Chinese citizenship, and have immigrated to other countries like Canada. After contacting some people to try to understand why I was informed of this so late, it has come to my attention that this is a NASA-wide issue (not just JPL or PSSS) that was enacted just today by the NASA HQ Security Branch.”
– Hong Kong Policy Act Report, State Department
– Designated Countries List, NASA HQ Security
From my experience and discussions on this in Nasa that border on surreal, “just implemented” is code word for next week it will be something else, especially should you figure out a workaround.
Wut? This is blantant racism. There is no reason opportunities should be limited by circumstances surrounding a person’s birth. I’ve been living in the US for most of my life. There is no reason racism should exist in modern America…
And this is also the sort of thing that could get me in trouble. My employer (University of Colorado) has very clear policies against discrimination based on national origin (among other things.) I really hope none of my NASA contracts require me to do something my employer forbids.
I’m absolutely certain that the University of Colorado does not forbid you from following government regulations protecting national security .
“National security”? Denying someone just because of their place of birth is not “national security”. It is racism under the guise of “national security”. NASA, for all the values it represents, is not a place for this kind of discrimination.
Well, the University of Colorado made it absolutely clear to me that, if I ever discriminated against anyone on the basis of national origin, they would fire me. When I was hired, they required training on issues like this, and this is exactly what they told me. How do you recunsille this fact with your opinions?
There is a distinction between discrimination based on national origin where the presumption is that you are dealing only with US citizens, and discrimination based on citizenship where that presumption does not hold. For instance the university is prohibited by law from hireing illegal aliens. This is discrimination based on citizenship that strongly correlates with, but is not the same as, discrimination based on nation of origin.
I suggest that you talk to your human resources representative at the university, since this is an important issue in the workplace, especially where research is conducted. You seem to be confused about the distinctions and this could have serrious consequences for you and those you work with.
A federal rule enacting discrimination based on national origin (NOT citizenship) would be ILLEGAL.
You tell ’em, Wendy.
Its not racism, it’s nationalism and national security. The facts of this case are very scetchy, considering that it is a personal report from any agreived individual, but believe me NASA does not discriminate against naturalized citizens born in mainland china. I know – I work on NASA programs with several such individuals.
The facts of this case are unclear, but there was also a link to a NASA document which states the policy quite clearly. It specifies the approvals required for “Foreign National visitors.” Additional approvals are required if the foreign national was “born in or a citizen of” one of the ~30 countries on the following list. That means your colleagues are not affected, since, as US citizen, they are not foreign nationals. It would apply to the case described: A Canadian citizen (not a listed country, but a foreign national) born in Hong Kong (a listed country.) The document was also updated on July 1 of this year, and notes the change was adding Hong Kong to the list.
Hong Kong was “leased” to GB after China lost the Opium war. After WWI and WWII most of the treaties forced upon China during the Ching dynasty was voided. However, the British got to keep HK until 1997 when the lease expired. However, the Chinese governments (ROC and PRC) never recognize HK as either an independent country or part of GB. Legally people born in HK are considered Chinese citizens. In legal sense NASA was correct to consider the person as born in China. Asking NASA (or the State Department to be exact) to treat people from HK differently from mainlanders will not work in the current international legal framework. However, it is just beyond absurd to assume a young person learning to study planets can be a threat to NASA in anyway, especially at a highly guarded facility such as JPL.I think the organizer of the summer school should talk to someone at the NASA security to get a waiver for this person, but it might be too late at this point.
Unfortunately, citizenship is not relevant. Take a look at the NASA policy Keath provided a link to. It specifically says “born in or citizens of”. As written, it could even apply to a person with Canadian parents who happened to be living in Hong Kong on the date of birth. (Although I’d to see someone try to make that stick in court.)
So it isn’t just “foreign nationals.”
Yes, it is. The full quote is “Foreign nationals born in or citizens of” the listed countries. As I noted, I doubt that this would stand up in any American court. But, unfortunately, I’m not sure if a foriegn national would have standing to sue in an American court.
So a Canadian born in Hong Kong is…. a foreign national. I always knew we couldn’t trust those Canadians.
You may think that’s funny, but it isn’t. The PI of one of the instruments on Juno is a Canadian citizen who’se been living in the US for decades. You don’t want to know how much paperwork was required to get ITAR restrictions waived. The IR instrument was even more trouble, since it was provided by that great military power and threat to national security, Italy.
All Canadians are foreign nationals unless they are naturalized citizens . And therfore are subject to ITAR restrictions in dealing with then.
This may be pointless, but… You are accurately describing the existing laws. We, as citizens of a free and democratic country, are discussing whether those laws are ethical, appropriate, or even make sense at all. Simply saying, “that’s the law, so do it.” doesn’t really contribute to the discussion. You might try explaining why you support this regulation.
I know! and the worst part of it? They look just like us! 🙂
> I’m not sure if a foriegn national would have standing to sue in an American court.
Uh, why not?
I said I wasn’t sure. I have a vague memory about a very early Supreme Court ruling foreign nationals, as individuals, suing United States, as a nation. Beyond that, you’d need to ask a lawyer. I have no reason to think suits against individuals are an issue.
I don’t know about the details of this case, but this policy could easily have the completely opposite result from the intent. There are a large number of Canadian citizens who were born in Hong Kong and moved to Canada shortly before 1997. Either they or their parents voted with their feet, and are probably a lower security risk than many American-born, US citizens.
How many U.S. Astronauts were born in blacklisted countries? Hint: even HK!
NASA’s embarrassing and inexplicable policy of discrimination toward people of Chinese origin appears to stem from the long stranglehold held by Congressman Frank Wolf on the agency purse strings. But the policy has outlived him, and taken on a life of its own. Anti-Chinese prejudice hit a peak with the case of graduate student Bo Jiang, who was imprisoned without trial on the orders, for all practical purposes, of Mr. Wolf. I challenge anyone who supports this policy to speak out in this forum, for it defies explanation. But most of all, it makes a mockery of the simple quotation on the plaque that still stands, on the Moon, to be read by any who pass:
“We came in peace for all mankind.”
We came to show our rival we could kick his ass.
Kennedy conceived of the Moon Race as a nonviolent substitute for a perilous nuclear arms race that could have destroyed the world. It was a master stroke for its time. But times have changed.
no. he proposed sending men to the moon because he had campaigned on “the missile gap”
and everyone was freaking out about the Soviets beating us in space…
despite the nice rhetoric, it was the politics of nationalism that drove the moon race… and space was seen as “the high ground.”
A response to the missile gap would have been to build more missiles. Kennedy stated clearly that Apollo was a response to the prestige the USSR was gaining, particularly in the Western hemisphere, as a result of Sputnik, and later Gargarin’s flight.
Could we leave China out of this? The issue isn’t about China or Canada. You could substitute any of the 30-odd countries on that list for China and any country with a long history of friendly relation s for Canada. The legal and ethical issues would be the same if it was about a French citizen born in Lebanon.
Not quite. Lebanon is among the “Countries of Missile Technology Concern.” This makes it more of a concern than Hong Kong, which is only “under Sanction or Embargo by the United States” (as is Lebanon.)
Also, as I read the State Department’s Hong Kong Policy Act Report, Hong Kong has very good relations with the U.S. in matters of security and law enforcement. Thus the restriction on a Canadian citizen who was born in Hong Kong, while it may be required by the One China Policy, looks counterproductive to me. It somewhat resembles the case of Tsien Hsue-Shen (see Thread of the Silkworm.)
LOL, I work on NASA projects and with NASA employees and the idea that NASA in any way discriminates against US citizens of Chinese heritage or birth is completely, totally rediculious. On the mission I am now working on I can easily name five individuals of Asian origin or heritage (chinese, korean, Japanese ) that I work with and for.
NASA would practicly cease to function if this were the case.
So you are suggesting that the awesome technology embedded in Nanoracks is of greater strategic importance than, say, the fact that both Apple and Samsung choose to do all their high tech manufacturing in China? Or that it will serve our purpose more to encourage hostility and mistrust than understanding and collaboration?
NASA (like all agencies and citizens ) haven’t to follow ITAR regulations . What’s the big deal?
That’s so ungrammatical and poorly written that I can barely make out your point. The important questions are, in my opinion:
Is the policy legal? If discrimination based on place of birth is a crime under US law, a government agency should have no policies to do so.
If this form of discrimination is, technically, legal, does it accomplish the intended goals? I think this is unclear and highly debatable.
Even if it is legal and effective, are there undesirable side-effects? Regulations like this have, in the past, driven both young, promissing and old, experienced people away from NASA. How much brain-drain done national security justify?
I do not know of any major leader in American industry who would not agree that ITAR is bad law and should be repealed. Not the part on actual trade in arms, the part that says anything is in some insane way an “arm”. ITAR does not help American competitiveness, it hurts it. It restricts what US companies can sell, yet fails to protect IP in any way. Our foreign competitors gleefully advertise their satellites as “ITAR-Free” as if it were some kind of contamination. And it doesn’t even limit the burgeoning trade in actual armaments.
ITAR is an ill wind that blows no one any good.
Im sure all of your high up CEO friends agree with you on this issue, but I am not sure they would constitute a significant sample of major leaders of American industry.
For what it’s worth I have personally heard Mike Griffith grouse about ITAR.
So there are two issues here. One is the fact that you, Keith, were kicked out of the Facebook group for posting in public the group’s policy that anyone who reveals in public anything from the group will be expelled — a fact you did not know before joining the group. To me it seems the sort of thing one should know before joining.
The other issue is NASA’s policy of excluding “foreign nationals born in or citizens of” any of 30 listed nations. Apparently the One China Policy is the reason Hong Kong is on that list. Simply put, it means that if we deal diplomatically with the PRC, we cannot deal separately with any territory it claims (Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan.) It still seems odd that someone born in Hong Kong before 1997, who is now a citizen of Canada, should be subject to this restriction.