https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10977.htm#9

https://www.clearancejobs.com/

For example, Edward Snowden had a clearance and worked for a private company, Booz Allen after first working for the NSA as a security guard then the CIA.

When you start in a new job, if it is a security clearance designated position, your clearance can be reactivated. If there has been a gap between old and new your eligibility for a clearance will have to be re-evaluated, also when changing employers. (You could have been fired or left under a cloud, a significant marker for security concerns.)

All clearances require a government sponsor. So tech companies can't maintain someone with a clearance unless they are working on a govt program. IC may be a little more flexible on that.

Indeed, one of my biggest career mistakes was not taking a job that would have included a Q clearance back before 9/11, when they were handed out much more quickly and freely.

"an industrial or commercial contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency, including all subcontractors; a personal services contractor; or any other category of person who acts for or on behalf of an agency as determined by the appropriate agency head."

Under the purview doesn't mean that you are employed directly by the US Government. Again, from the example, Snowden had a clearance from his previous employment. Yeah, it had to get transferred but he didn't have to get re-cleared all over again.

A clearance is held by a specific agency. Say I work for contractor company C, on a contract with three-letter agency TLA. TLA grants me a clearance at whatever level, and they keep track of it. If I switch jobs to another position that requires a clearance -- maybe I go to company D, maybe I stay at C but on a contract for four-letter agency FLA [1] -- then TLA can transfer the clearance to the new agency FLA, and now FLA is the holder. Depending on the specifics of TLA and FLA, this can be "quick" (in government time), or in the worst cases it will take just as long as getting a clearance from scratch.

If I go to company D, but the new position does not require a clearance, then it becomes inactive. I can say I previously had a clearance, and if not much time has passed then getting it reactivated (if I go to a third job that needs it again) may be a relatively quick process. But if I am not at a job that is keeping it active, then I have no right to access classified data or anything.

In other words, if Facebook is hiring cleared people, they have to be working with a government agency that is holding the clearances.

On the other topic: obviously you have to be a US citizen. Immigrants/naturalized citizens are fine; I've known many cleared immigrants. Dual-citizenship I'm not sure about, you might have to renounce your old citizenship.

[1] This is an NGA joke. NGA: because the intelligence is silent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geospatial-Intelligen...

edit - You can't immigrate to a country then expect to receive a Top Secret clearance regardless if it is the US or any other country. I don't suspect Russia will give me a clearance if I were to immigrate and find employment at a tech company. There would be a major national security incident waiting to happen.

2. Do you have to be a U.S. citizen to receive a security clearance from the State Department?

As outlined in Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, eligibility for access to classified information may only be granted to employees who are United States citizens. However, an exception is allowed in specific situations wherein there are compelling reasons for limited access to be granted to an immigrant alien or foreign national employee who possess a special expertise that is needed for specific programs, projects, contracts, licenses, certificates, or grants.

http://www.dss.mil/psmo-i/ps_faqs.html#5

5. Are non-U.S. citizens eligible for a personnel security clearance? No. However, under rare circumstances, a non-U.S. citizen may be issued a Limited Access Authorization for access to classified information. Specific criteria and limitations are provided in the NISPOM. You may also contact your IS Rep for additional information.

I don't know the nomenclature. I don't know if "Top Secret" is really super duper special or if that is, like, anyone above the rank of E-1. But I also know that, for example, one path to citizenship in the US is to serve in the military. So, if all members of the military have some degree of clearance and some are not citizens, then 1+1=2, I think.

But I googled to find a reliable source rather than give that anecdotal evidence. FWIW.

True statement.

> So, if all members of the military have some degree of clearance...

False assumption. Jobs that fall under services, personnel, public affairs, medical, contracting, vehicle maintenance, and supply come to mind. This is far from an exhaustive list and will vary in scope between branches of service.

I based my remarks on a remark my ex made. I spelled that out as clearly as I could.

My conclusion is correct that my background knowledge suggests, yes, it is possible for immigrants to have some degree of security clearance. But, hey, I googled it just to be sure and posted that. And it is correct that it is possible for foreign nationals to have a clearance.

It is normal for Army units to have many non-SECRET cleared members. It is one of the challenges of distributing ISR information to frontline units. Signals (communications) will tend to have clearances, and they couldn't progress if they couldn't get one. Officers are cleared.

Specifically addressing infantrymen (Army MOS 11x, Marines MOS 03xx), it's not difficult to imagine a case enlisted immigrant on a defined path towards naturalization being granted iterim clearance to train and perform basic routine duties, but is constrained to non-deployable status and can neither participate in classified briefings nor handle classified material pending valid JPAS investivation disposition...which is all theoretical motherhood and apple pie, except a security clearance isn't actually mandatory for many infantry MOSs.

It may be inaccurate. It is fine to share what you know. But, if you want to nitpick the hell out of a comment based on accuracy, you need to at least read the comment accurately and frame your objection or criticism with precise accuracy. If you cannot even accurately read and frame my comment while critiquing it, it basically gives me the impression that the whole point is to try do some kind of ugly social pecking order negging rather than improving accuracy of information in the discussion. And that generally does not go over well with me.

I am 100% fine with pedantry. If you know more than me, totes cool. But the inaccurate framing -- which suggests sloppy thinking on my part -- looks awfully suspicious from where I sit.

Sounds like my old insurance job.

You have to comply with both HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley in insurance. Confidentiality is a big deal. Turning papers face down is standard practice.

Do you mean to apply everything you are saying to naturalized citizens?

The below poster is incorrect. In order to move forward in the process in some cases you will need to formally renounce and physically destroy you foreign passport in front of your investigator.

I know that sounds bad, but keep in mind no one is forcing people to obtain a clearance.