[riot504]

That is from the State Department. There are an array of different clearances.

http://www.dss.mil/psmo-i/ps_faqs.html#5

5. Are non-U.S. citizens eligible for a personnel security clearance? No. However, under rare circumstances, a non-U.S. citizen may be issued a Limited Access Authorization for access to classified information. Specific criteria and limitations are provided in the NISPOM. You may also contact your IS Rep for additional information.

[Mz]

I don't really know the details. I just know my ex husband was career military and he once kind of hand waved off the importance of some security clearance label in, probably, some TV show with the factoid that basically, if you are in the military at all, you have some level of security clearance.

I don't know the nomenclature. I don't know if "Top Secret" is really super duper special or if that is, like, anyone above the rank of E-1. But I also know that, for example, one path to citizenship in the US is to serve in the military. So, if all members of the military have some degree of clearance and some are not citizens, then 1+1=2, I think.

But I googled to find a reliable source rather than give that anecdotal evidence. FWIW.

[metaphor]

> ...one path to citizenship in the US is to serve in the military.

True statement.

> So, if all members of the military have some degree of clearance...

False assumption. Jobs that fall under services, personnel, public affairs, medical, contracting, vehicle maintenance, and supply come to mind. This is far from an exhaustive list and will vary in scope between branches of service.

[Mz]

I have personally met foreign nationals who were infantrymen. It is possible my statement is overly broad. But if being in the infantry, like my ex was, grants some degree of clearance, then I have personally known foreign nationals in the US military who must have had a security clearance to do their job at all.

I based my remarks on a remark my ex made. I spelled that out as clearly as I could.

My conclusion is correct that my background knowledge suggests, yes, it is possible for immigrants to have some degree of security clearance. But, hey, I googled it just to be sure and posted that. And it is correct that it is possible for foreign nationals to have a clearance.

[angry_octet]

People are confusing 'security clearance' with 'background investigation'. Non-citizens very rarely have any US security clearance.

It is normal for Army units to have many non-SECRET cleared members. It is one of the challenges of distributing ISR information to frontline units. Signals (communications) will tend to have clearances, and they couldn't progress if they couldn't get one. Officers are cleared.

[metaphor]

I specifically disputed your assumption that all members of the military have some degree of clearance by pointing to select jobs which explicitly do not require any level of security clearance whatsoever. Nothing more.

Specifically addressing infantrymen (Army MOS 11x, Marines MOS 03xx), it's not difficult to imagine a case enlisted immigrant on a defined path towards naturalization being granted iterim clearance to train and perform basic routine duties, but is constrained to non-deployable status and can neither participate in classified briefings nor handle classified material pending valid JPAS investivation disposition...which is all theoretical motherhood and apple pie, except a security clearance isn't actually mandatory for many infantry MOSs.

[Mz]

That is not my assumption. That is my recollection of what I was told by a knowledgeable individual whose word I trust on the subject.

It may be inaccurate. It is fine to share what you know. But, if you want to nitpick the hell out of a comment based on accuracy, you need to at least read the comment accurately and frame your objection or criticism with precise accuracy. If you cannot even accurately read and frame my comment while critiquing it, it basically gives me the impression that the whole point is to try do some kind of ugly social pecking order negging rather than improving accuracy of information in the discussion. And that generally does not go over well with me.

I am 100% fine with pedantry. If you know more than me, totes cool. But the inaccurate framing -- which suggests sloppy thinking on my part -- looks awfully suspicious from where I sit.

[riot504]

I was in the military with a secret clearance (standard I believe) and you are correct it is very mundane, nothing exciting. There were a few times I had to cover documents when people would come in and couldn't talk about certain projects, but it was nothing exciting. I believe intelligence is worthy at the aggregated level, not at the individual level most of us experience.

[Mz]

There were a few times I had to cover documents when people would come in and couldn't talk about certain projects

Sounds like my old insurance job.

You have to comply with both HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley in insurance. Confidentiality is a big deal. Turning papers face down is standard practice.

[maxerickson]

The first comment in the thread talks about dual nationals, presumably people who are naturalized US citizens.

Do you mean to apply everything you are saying to naturalized citizens?

[riot504]

I misinterpreted the statement then. Naturalized citizens are different, I thought it was in reference to those who come here for a job, then require a security clearance. That would create conflict in my opinion.