Hacker News Reader

Comment by returningfory2 | Hacker News Reader

> This is perhaps pedantically, but not practically correct.

I think it is practically correct though, if you look at what the DOJ is specifically claiming. They are not claiming that every foreign person is exempt from export control restrictions. They are only claiming specifically that refugees and asylees are exempt, and this is what the lawsuit is about. Based on my understanding of the INA I think they're right, because refugees and asylees are generally put in the same category as permanent residents.

View on HN

By the way, SpaceX's updated job descriptions are consistent with this interpretation. They now say:

"To conform to U.S. Government export regulations, applicant must be a (i) U.S. citizen or national, (ii) U.S. lawful, permanent resident (aka green card holder), (iii) Refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1157, or (iv) Asylee under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, or be eligible to obtain the required authorizations from the U.S. Department of State. Learn more about the ITAR"

They have explicitly added refugee and asylee.

Sure, they were told back in 2020 they were being investigated for this, updating their boilerplate for compliance with the law is just about the minimal level of compliance.

Compliance with the law seems like a fairly binary thing. They (as argued) weren't and now they are. Do you have a specific way in mind that they should become more compliant?

Updating the job postings addresses "SpaceX routinely discouraged asylees and refugees from applying", but does not mean they have resolved the other half: "refused to hire or consider them".

It does not mean they failed to address it either... This is pure speculation and irrelevant.

I'm just saying that if you're going to say you comply you'll at least update those kinds of statements. You can't claim at all to comply if you're still saying "citizens and green card holders only."

That could easily be a veneer of compliance, where you're still rejecting all those similarly situated candidates, or rejecting them at comparatively higher rates, but just doing so without explicitly stating their status as the reason. That would be much harder to prove but not actually complying with the law.

Gold star for not obviously violating federal law after being told they were under investigation

You say that as if it's fair for the government to expect that everyone is fully comfortable with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations.

> You say that as if it's fair for the government to expect that everyone is fully comfortable with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations.

Is it "only" hundreds of thousands? I would have figured it is at least tens or hundreds of millions.

Also don't forget that they have to keep up on all of the changes.

Is that an unreasonable expectation for a multi-billion dollar firm with a proportional legal department that regularly ignites explosives on public property?

Not everyone with everything. But the HR department of a billion dollar company should be fully comfortable with federal regulations regarding HR. I don't see how that's remotely controversial.

It is remotely controversial.

Do we really want to condone this legalistic regulatory cancer, where we now have to suffer even more boilerplate drivel being copypasta'd into the job postings? This is how we've ended up with at least 7 disclaimers on everything we buy.

I'd find the press release much more compelling if DOJ focused on actual harm actual people suffered, and dropped the handwaving about people being discouraged by simplistically-worded job postings. Generally if you're in a narrow corner case like ITAR-eligible but not citizen or permanent resident, you know to read through simple phrasings as stand-ins for the actual requirements.

> In job postings and public statements over several years, SpaceX wrongly claimed that under federal regulations known as “export control laws,” SpaceX could hire only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, sometimes referred to as “green card holders.”

I would say it's totally fair if you're trying to discriminate based upon said regulations.

This reads more like trying to comply with the regulations and doing so imperfectly, rather than using the regs as a pretext to discriminate.

This verge article[1] lays out some of the timeline, and it seems that even a week after the investigation opened Elon tweeted about how at least a green card was required[2]. At best it feels like they were not interpreting the law in good faith.

  [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/24/23844450/doj-spacex-lawsuit-hiring-discrimination
  [2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1272973320586055682?s=20

Can you teach me how to read minds the way you apparently do?

No, you're right, it could also be years of ignorance from multiple levels of SpaceX combined with an obstinance to not consider changing their position even in the light of a federal investigation.

What is even the motive to misconstrue the regs here? Just a hatred of asylees?

A major government contractor such as SpaceX should be especially comfortable with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations.

I can't imagine this isn't going to disappear when a bunch of national security suits walk into the judges chamber.

SpaceX is such a strategic advantage for the US military. If starship achieves anything close to its orbital payload cost reduction, it effectively means the US owns space and orbit.

What if the government just nationalized SpaceX using their legal infractions as a cover?

All their engineers then quit because their RSUs are now worthless.

The government let people on Wall Street keep their RSU style compensation after 2008. It's not like most engineers can sell their RSUs except on quarterly redemption days. Or the government could otherwise match the compensation. It has a lot of money.

SpaceX employees can't sell their RSUs period, since it's a private company. They're counting on a big payday at an IPO that will never happen if it gets nationalised.

They can. SpaceX facilitates the sales so people can cash out their RSUs without violating securities laws.

1 - compare the govt and spacex track records. does that really seem wise?

2 - we can't really nationalize stuff, constitutionally. it's been limited to voluntary bailouts of last resort (aig, amtrak) which i think we should stop

They're just going to pay a fine and agree/be enjoined not to do it anymore (as others have noted, their job ads already now mention these categories as being eligible).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com