Are you sure about that? It's the norm in Europe. E.g. you can't work for UK security services (MI5, MI6) unless one of your parents was also British, you lived in the UK for a while and you might be required to give up dual citizenship.

> Are you sure about that? It's the norm in Europe. E.g. you can't work for UK security services (MI5, MI6) unless one of your parents was also British, you lived in the UK for a while and you might be required to give up dual citizenship.

I think it's actually similar for US security clearances, though not explicitly codified like that.

IIRC, if you're a dual citizen, you have to renounce the non-American one. Apparently it's not good enough to say "I'll renounce it if you ask," since that's conditional (on them requesting it). You have to renounce it unconditionally. I think that even applies to allied countries (e.g. no US-Canadian dual citizens).

I think the US would also reject a clearance if the applicant had relatives that were in a situation that could be used to exploit them (e.g. foreign nationals, living in a non-friendly country, etc).

Basically, the idea is that you shouldn't have any (discoverable) competing loyalties, and you shouldn't have anything in your life that makes you vulnerable to manipulation.

Disclaimer: I have no actual expertise in this area, but I did spend an afternoon browsing the government website where they described security clearance rejection appeals.

You can get approved for secret clearance if you are a citizen of a NATO ally. I guess because you can be vetted. Higher than that I think would be hard.

I know US citizens who have Secret clearance and still maintain dual citizenship. And that includes some countries that aren't even treaty allies.

I know dual citizen US folk with secret clearances. DoD is pickier with Top Secret.

It depends on the country. You will have to renounce for some even for S.

You are correct my brother got denied top secret clearance despite being active duty military because his wife is from a Caribbean nation. To get the right clearance is hard.

> US security clearances

The last U.S. administration quite clearly showed us that clearances mean utterly nothing and are a quickly bypasssble joke in the U.S.

Constitutional amendment that the government can't deny citizens "privileges" and that they get equal protection under the law. There's a whole mess of court cases around that and it can get complicated. But it's going to be tough to get something like you suggest past the courts.

Those don’t meaningfully apply for security clearances where an argument can be made that it exposes someone to the possibility of blackmail, etc. (such as extended family in the mainland being held hostage, which has happened)

It will. Yet, any country has the right to discriminate in any way against someone wishing to enter the country. It's once those people are let in, and given citizenship or PR that they enjoy protections against discrimination.

This would have to be a "moving forward policy". Anyone in the US already enjoys protection against discrimination based on place of their birth or race.

In the future, it could be a condition of entry that people acknowledge they are not allowed to work in certain industries, for the government, or universities etc.

It already happens with naturalized citizens not being allowed to be president.

Well you have security clearances already no?

Yes, the cohort with security clearances is very white and eurocentric, which perpetuates a racial/ethnic divide between the in and outgroups for power in the US. Yes, you can't be legally discriminated against when seeking to be a wage slave, but if you want to get into the real echelons of secrecy and power, it's status quo, and without transparency.