Why is it so hard to find a job now? Enter Ghost Jobs

No. Many (especially smaller) companies don't want to hire people who need visa sponsorship because it requires a decent amount of overhead. The company needs to have an immigration lawyer to prepare and submit paperwork, which many smaller companies don't want to bother with.

FWIW it's illegal to require "US citizenship" in a job description. You can, however, say "eligible to work in the US". (The former would be discriminatory against non-citizen permanent residents). Although I'm also not a lawyer.

There are actually situations where U.S. citizenship can be a requirement, e.g., cleared jobs but there needs to be a really good reason like not being able to obtain clearances.

> FWIW it's illegal to require "US citizenship" in a job description.

nonsense

tons of jobs advertisements required "US citizenship", because there is a security clearance attached

You're largely correct, as I understand it.

You cant discriminate in favor of citizens vs permanent residents unless the job legally requires citizenship.

SpaceX has been through the wringer on this one, so just copy & paste from their listing:

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 here.

Those companies are breaking the law. SpaceX was prosecuted for doing that.

Now SpaceX says:

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 here.

> Those companies are breaking the law.

If the position requires a security clearance, they are not breaking the law. Language like this is standard on defense contractor postings that require clearances (this from Lockeed):

> Security Clearance Statement: This position requires a government security clearance, you must be a US Citizen for consideration.

> SpaceX was prosecuted for doing that.

SpaceX was prosecuted for excluding refugees and asylees from export-controlled positions, not cleared positions.

Without cause, you can't discriminate for citizenship.

Just like you can't discriminate by race, unless you're a film director you want a black actress to play Rosa Parks.

Non-US citizens can't get a security clearance. Permanent residents can at most get a limited access authorization. The SpaceX case involved ITAR, not clearance.

is it illegal to put that phrase? i don't think so. There are a lot of shops that includes that and they usually come with clearance needed.

The SpaceX case was centered around ITAR regulations. ITAR jobs do not necessarily require security clearance. As the person you responded to mentioned, you have to be a citizen to get security clearance and related jobs. Asylum seekers and refugees can't get clearance.

    > unless the job legally requires citizenship

Can you provide any examples?

Defense.

> Learn more about the ITAR here

ITAR, defense, and clearances are completely unique worlds compared to the rest of the job market.

Yeah, SpaceX needs to conform to ITAR for most of their jobs given their industry but any cleared roles require US citizenship.

That said, if Elon used Tesla employees for Twitter business, what to say that he doesn't do the same for SpaceX business?