Comments on: U.S. and Canada Differ on More than the Spelling of “Defense”

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:45:44 +0000

Consider this:
A country identified in 126.1.

Two citizens of this country “(one)” an oppressor of the people and “(two)” one of the people.

Citizen (one)emigrates to the US. Citizen (two) emigrates to Australia.

(one) becomes a US citizen (or gets a green card). He (the ex-oppressor - the likes of whom the prohibition was put in place for)now has unfettered access to ITAR type data etc.

(two) becomes an Australian citizen (dual national), he works in Defense and gets a security clearance. As he is from a proscribed country he cannot access ITAR type data etc (maybe a special consideration from DoS may allow him access on a one time special consideration).

So the ex-oppressor is fine for access but the ex-oppressee is not. Is there anyone that believes that DoS has a logic section that filters their judgments and decisions to see if they logically make any sense at all?

By: Vito

Vito — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:18:28 +0000

I’m sorry, but being a US citizen by birth, I am proud to live in a free, democratic and fair country such as the USA. Yet, I cringe at the idea of a double set of rules which grossly discriminate, based on national origin, against those individuals who are legally living in another free and democratic country.

I guess it has never occurred to those who matter at the State Department that such dual national individuals of Canada, UK, Australia, or any other country are very much the equivalent of our US permanent resident aliens… US persons according to ITAR.

When will the ITAR be amended to either (1)restrict transfer of defense technology to US permanent resident aliens; or (2)allow transfer of defense technology to Canadian, UK, Australian or any other country’s dual national individuals - who in many cases have the only fault of being born in a country subject to U.S. arms embargo, such as China and Syria?