[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.