"US export regulations" dictating who can go to school in Sweden

[Urti]

It's pretty clear this thread was started as an excuse to troll people into a U.S. Hate thread. Isn't nation bashing against the forum rules? I see a mod-lock incoming.

[Mihalik]

My only problem with this is the current nationality of the kid.

I mean, I fully understand that countries and even multinationals have to protect their interests from hostile nations. But Sweden already granted Citizenship to this kid. Meaning the Swedish nation granted this person its trust and considers him one of their own. By extension considering the ties of alliance and respect between Sweden and the US/other western nations, the US should accept this kid as a Swede. Unless the US objects to all Swedes, or believe that the Swedes would hand this person Swedish papers with the intent to cause the US harm by proxy, they shouldn't object to him.

I personally find the place of birth irrelevant.

[Rukentuts]

Said immigration is a safety concern to people in the country.

Military tech != Civilian Life

Stop grasping in an attempt to make a glaring false equivalency less false.

[Pilobolus]

That's the whole problem.

Was he raised to be a sleeper agent by his parents?
Are they being pressured by friends of the old regime who tracked them down and are threatening extended family members back in Iraq?

There's a host of possibilities, and if you're working with sensitive military tech, you don't take those chances.

I think that's where some people are taking issue with this whole thing. The decision to reject him was based on a lot of "What ifs...?" with no actual data backing them up (Unless there was something in a background check on the parents that came up that wasn't mentioned in the article). I totally get why he was rejected but part of me is thinking "Oh come on! He's a 16 year old kid!"

[Deleted]

I think that's where some people are taking issue with this whole thing. The decision to reject him was based on a lot of "What ifs...?" with no actual data backing them up (Unless there was something in a background check on the parents that came up that wasn't mentioned in the article). I totally get why he was rejected but part of me is thinking "Oh come on! He's a 16 year old kid!"

Which is why I have a problem with it. They don't know he's a security risk, they just assume so because of where he was born.

[Elegiac]

Which is why I have a problem with it. They don't know he's a security risk, they just assume so because of where he was born.

And even if your equivalency wasn't fault, what makes you think you have the right to criticize the US' trade policy after that song and dance about how immigrants are criminals?

[Rukentuts]

Which is why I have a problem with it. They don't know he's a security risk, they just assume so because of where he was born.

Because you don't know how security clearances work.

Everyone is deemed a risk until proven otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why I have a problem with it.

And you were remarking about double standards how?

[Deleted]

And even if your equivalency wasn't fault, what makes you think you have the right to criticize the US' trade policy after that song and dance about how immigrants are criminals?

Well, obviously the trade polic thinks they're a security risk and not just some criminals due to country of birth, which is kind of worse. Someone that is 16 years old is surely going to be some secret sleeper agent that will pose a big security risk to your country.

[Pilobolus]

Because you don't know how security clearances work.

Everyone is deemed a risk until proven otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much this. I have a feeling that if I was in that position I would be rejecting a lot more people than accepting.

[Rukentuts]

Well, obviously the trade polic thinks they're a security risk and not just some criminals, which is kind of worse. Someone that is 16 years old is surely going to be some secret sleeper agent that will pose a big security risk to your country.

So you just go back to insisting the false equivalency isn't false?

[Elegiac]

Well, obviously the trade polic thinks they're a security risk and not just some criminals, which is kind of worse. Someone that is 16 years old is surely going to be some secret sleeper agent that will pose a big security risk to your country.

No, the correct answer is: you don't have the right to criticize.

[Endus]

Said immigration is a safety concern to people in the country.

You're confusing the difference between security concerns based on country of origin, and "safety" concerns based on racism.

[Deleted]

Said immigration is a safety concern to people in the country.

Also, as to what I said about the paranoia, as has been stated in swedish newspaper, translated with google:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/led...cle17408888.ab

Please don't use Aftonbladet as a source, quoting a homeless drug addict is ten times more trustworthy.

[Mihalik]

It's pretty clear this thread was started as an excuse to troll people into a U.S. Hate thread. Isn't nation bashing against the forum rules? I see a mod-lock incoming.

You can't consider this nation bashing by any means. You have to admit, people being upset that the U.S can simply override their laws and culture is normal. By all intents and purposes that kid is a Swede. He is a Swedish citizen. His country has certain obligations towards him, legal, cultural and moral. It is a problem when they have to break their own laws and cultural norms, and deny the rights of one of their own citizens in order to placate the U.S.

This is the same reason why so many are so upset about Guantanamo Bay and Extraordinary Rendition. That for example pisses me off to no end, and I am offended that any sovereign nation is willing to cooperate with the U.S in the kidnapping, torture and abuse of its own citizens or citizens of other countries, without even as much as a hint of legal oversight. This is one aspect of the U.S War on Terror that 95% of the rest of the world didn't sign up for. Hell even Americans didn't sign up for this crap.

[Rukentuts]

No, the correct answer is: you don't have the right to criticize.

The correct answer is: he would never get Top Secret Clearance with the USA and therefore won't be working on our military tech and hence the firm doesn't want to educate an employee it can't use.

[Urti]

Well, obviously the trade polic thinks they're a security risk and not just some criminals, which is kind of worse. Someone that is 16 years old is surely going to be some secret sleeper agent that will pose a big security risk to your country.

Like Rukentuts above me said; in top level Gov't security work, you are always considered a risk until vetted otherwise. I'm a natural-born US veteran, and if I were to apply for a job requiring security clearance they would start from the exact same presumption; That I represent a threat, and the opposite must be proven.

This isn't a case of "innocent until proven guilty", it's a case of "guilty until proven innocent". Always has been, by necessity.

[Rukentuts]

This isn't a case of "innocent until proven guilty", it's a case of "guilty until proven innocent". Always has been, by necessity.

And you're never proven fully innocent. Many positions have you take polygraphs every little while.

[Endus]

I think that's where some people are taking issue with this whole thing. The decision to reject him was based on a lot of "What ifs...?" with no actual data backing them up (Unless there was something in a background check on the parents that came up that wasn't mentioned in the article). I totally get why he was rejected but part of me is thinking "Oh come on! He's a 16 year old kid!"

Like Rukentuts said; security clearances are assumed to not be granted, until they are. You have to apply for higher security clearances, and they can and will be denied for any potential risk factor like this.

And like I said; it's not whether he's an agent, or his parents are agents. It's about how they likely have family still in Iraq who might be vulnerable, and used as leverage against them. It's about how they might be asked seemingly innocent questions by a family member or friend they trust, who actually is a foreign agent, unbeknownst to them. It's not about whether they, personally, are a villain, it's that their circumstances make the likelihood that they will cause or be used to cause a breach that much more likely.

They also deny people with known gambling or substance abuse problems, for similar reasons; it provides a measure by which pressure can be brought to bear on them.

Hell, so far as I know I'm still approved for Secret-level clearance in Canada (used to work for Statistics Canada, and it required that). If I were to move to China for a year to work, I'd probably lose that clearance. Not because I've become a Chinese sleeper agent, but because there's a level of risk they can't quantify. They only allow for these kinds of permissions once they ELIMINATE risk factors. If you're potentially a risk for some reason, you'll be denied, that's how it works.

Well, obviously the trade polic thinks they're a security risk and not just some criminals due to country of birth, which is kind of worse. Someone that is 16 years old is surely going to be some secret sleeper agent that will pose a big security risk to your country.

That isn't at all what the suggestion is, here. As you'd know, if you knew anything at all about how security clearances are assigned and evaluated.

[Cybran]

It's pretty clear this thread was started as an excuse to troll people into a U.S. Hate thread. Isn't nation bashing against the forum rules? I see a mod-lock incoming.

It's allowed when it targets some countries or Europe as a whole.

[Elegiac]

It's allowed when it targets specific countries or Europe as a whole.

Coming from Mister "The EU is Satan Incarnate!"? Hilarity.