Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gustomaximus | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program

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.

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.

> And thanks to our laws, people can simply have children in the US and they are automatic citizens.

Under which law? I thought this was debunked time and time again as an urban legend.

The fourteenth amendment[0].

"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."

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

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.

True things are "debunked" on the internet every day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

New converts to a religion are always the most zealous.

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?

This argument is pretty much the dictionary definition of prejudice.

"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

No, it's not.

My predjudice would be that naturalized citizens actually tend to being more jingoistic and loyal in order to prove that they really do belong.

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.

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.

> 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.

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 is not (just) a privilege.

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.

He was the CO. And we don't "motivate."

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.

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.

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.

I share your amazement.

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.

So yeah, it's a very alien concept to me as well.

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."

I can understand your point of view, but...

...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.

See, it doesn't make any sense either way... IMHO

> Things become so bad in your own tribe that you leave

That's gross over-simplification: it might have applied to you/your family, but is by no means universal.

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 agree about the displaying foreign flags thing. It just seems rude to me.

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.

I assume legally one cannot discriminate against naturalized citizens.

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.

Me to I would assume to be a CIA officer you would have the be a naturalborn citizen at least.

I am fairly sure that in the UK both your parents if not grandparents have to be citizens.

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.

"decision makers are selected on confidence and ego rather than ability" - That was spot on!

Dual agent

now you have a problem - your first lady is a naturalised citizen

Reply on news.ycombinator.com