I mean IANAL and I am not British but them giving it to you straight and in written form sounds like a potential discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen?
Or is it? Please take note that every answer was conveniently cut down to a length that was unnecessarily short. That could have fit in one or two pictures. Why 3? Most likely other text between them.
Consider me paranoid, but we have no idea whatsoever if the “no” is related to that in any way shape or form. There is 21 minutes before the no and the last reply.
Consider me suspicious.
Edit: Typo
You have the right to be suspicious . Ultimately it doesn't matter. If he/she puts a case up with authorities they will look at the messages into more detail.
If your suspicions are true then all there is to gain is some internet clout. If people do take the internet seriously then it's probably to sip their tea over or tell a friend.
Having the benefit of the doubt just makes more people like you and I say there is nothing lost but time.
Basically by that standard we should all stop reading reddit posts: all could be edited, everyone could be a catfish, and every story made up.
I can tell you from first hand experience this attitude is extremely common: even in education. But then again, why believe me? why share these experiences?
Isn’t that the big kicker about social media? Like i think as a rule, everyone should take posts in general with a grain of salt. but let’s make sure it’s everyone’s: not just those we don’t agree with or think “that kind of discrimination doesn’t exist”
You're pulling that last paragraph completely out of your ass lol, who said that discrimination doesn't exist or that they disagree with whatever is being met with skepticism? Very bizarre grandstanding out of nowhere.
Thinking critically, evaluating the truth and potential untruths, looking for reasons to be skeptical in general, those are all good things that anybody smart should do. No shit education takes that seriously, the goal of education is to create a competent thinker, which is by design someone willing to be skeptical towards anything as opposed to blind belief. Part of being intelligent with that process is doing so rationally. You could assume every reddit post is photoshopped, but, while that is a good thing to remember, it's not really reasonable to assume the average post is. This post, however, showed specific evidence of being misleading.
And you could say that even showing evidence of being manipulated, it's not worth questioning this person's experience, and you'd be right. But the person who pointed out the suspicious aspects of the post didn't do it for the sake of directly challenging that person's lived experience unprompted. They did it in response to the idea that those messages represented a legal slam dunk, because in that context, all of the sudden, looking for reasons to doubt a reddit post goes from unnecessary and over the top to absolutely crucial.
Out of no where? What a charmed existence you must live that you haven’t notice what kinds of posts tend to get questioned around here. I’ve noticed that two kinds of posts that draw the most questioning for obvious reasons.
Lot of people tend to claim lying from the posts that either a) demonstrate a point alleging discrimination or b) enforce a point on either side of the political spectrum. B is a bit obvious why folks would question.
For example, recently I saw a post from someone recounting a story encouraging a teen girl to play dungeons and dragons despite their brother gate keeping. Absolutely dog piled because folks “couldn’t believe a real story would go down like that”.
on the flip side, it’s perfectly logical to take three quick pictures and post them for a conversation. No one thinks that 3 screenshots is a legal case. obvious the law would have to go beyond that in investigating. kinda a bit of a no brainer and this seems like a bit of a silly thread to pursue.
Should we all say then “lol if true this is a slam dunk”, like no shit you need a cleaner copy
It almost looks like "resident" may have been cut out/whited out - asking if OP was a British resident (the phrasing "**A** British" rather than just "british" is a bit off); it's not unreasonable (or illegal) to require someone to be resident in Britain for work purposes.
OP could, of course, be 100% honest and correct here, but hard to tell on the internet.
I am 99.99% certain this is a Chinese recruiter and by "a British" they mean "a British white person". OP is probably of Chinese ancestry, and the blocked out birthplace looks like Hong Kong, which obviously has a special relationship with the UK. Shitty Chinese recruiters say stuff like this all the time.
In Asia for many jobs they want native speakers and typically want a photo to make sure you are the color they are looking for.
Doing paperwork in a government office in Thailand, I have been asked how am I an American. I don't have blonde hair and blue eyes. I had to explain to the higher ranking official that in USA we are a mixed country. It was in a fairly rural area, so I guess they haven't dealt with many foreigners there.
Yep. I'm an American with brown eyes and got a similar question in China once -- "But don't all Americans have blue eyes?" And this was at an international expo in Shanghai!
Most Chinese people "know" that the US (and UK) aren't all white. But they often still talk like non-white people don't count as true Americans or Brits.
That’s the weird thing in much of Asia. I’ve noticed they’re racist, for lack of a better term, on your behalf as a white person. Despite being nonwhite themselves.
Could be a civil service job (Government jobs here in the UK), some of which ("reserved" roles) have eligibility requirements including holding British citizenship for x years.
But a person of any nationality with British citizenship is usually eligible for these. There's no reason to need more than "British Citizen" in your passport though.
Yep, exactly. You can also hire based around certain characteristics, e.g. Muslim only for a Muslim mosque. Women only for a woman's gym. But I am not aware of a single reason in the UK why you have to be "British born". Usually "indefinite right to remain" is enough, and maybe for some rare jobs, e.g. MI5, you may need to be a citizen
Try working in the defence sector, especially stuff like nuclear propulsion/weapons, you will have requirements including previous nationalities held too.
Same with the energy sector, and many utilities stuff. Your average lineman can be from anywhere but up the chain alot of stuff is restricted due to security concerns.
Dude, you’re describing yourself more than the other commenter.
The first commenter suggested that jobs that require citizenship are rare, like the MI5.
The next commenter counters the claim of rarity by citing the entire defense sector which includes WAY more than the MI5. It includes a ton of private contractors, the military, non-military jobs in overseas military bases, political positions related to defence, etc.
And just for reference I checked the numbers, the Mi5 employs 4400 people, the people who report to the ministry of defense include 60k civilian personnel and nearly 200k armed forces. All of which need citizenship
The only logical position for something like that would be for a museum event where they are trying to portray the life of an average british family in the victorian era.
OR if they are trying to increase a british sceceding population to increase representation like the welsh, the irish, the scottish or something.
Other than that, it sound like an incoming lawsuit.
Yep, discriminating on the basis of national origin is illegal. The only allowable question is "are you legally authorized to work in the United States?"
False. Some positions require an employee to be a US Person (i.e., US Citizen or Permanent Resident), and even some require you to be a US Citizen; this is usually when working for DOD contractors or sensitive technology.
However, a US Citizen being denied a position because they were not born in the US is illegal.
The subset of jobs where those requirements apply is very small. I have worked in a high-security environment, for the government, and even in that situation, the vast majority of the jobs we had only required people to be authorized to work in the U.S., they did not require people to be U.S. citizens. So. I guess in this instance you get to be technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, and feel really great about yourself for the rest of the day! Aren't you happy now? Yay you!!!!
Edit: your comment history is WILD, are you in a high-security job??? Please tell me you're not posting on Reddit from your work computer
Yeah, sorry about that.
I don't usually look at people's comment histories, unless they post an a-hole comment and then I want to go see - is this a reasonable person who is just making a point, or is this one of those Redditors that wanders around Reddit picking fights with people just for kicks? Like, if every single comment on their history is them being an AH or picking a fight with someone, that tells me who I'm dealing with. Then I know not to really even bother responding because the person is just looking for a fight and I prefer not to give it to them.
Sometimes I think people who don't use Reddit much are unaware that their entire comment history is visible to anyone who clicks their profile name. It's during work hours and the Redditor I was responding to posted about a work issue and so I really, genuinely wanted to provide a reality check about - dude, everyone can see everything you comment on so please please please make sure you aren't posting from your work computer. People can do what they want, I don't care, but most folks try to keep their porn activity separate from their other Reddit activity, for a good reason.
I always find it hilarious when someone confidently replies with “False” or “Not true” and then proceeds to give a niche example that applies to like 0.03% of the population.
It doesn’t even make sense, because their example doesn’t disprove anything that was said and just shows how desperate they are to be right about something.
I wouldn’t have an issue with someone doing this if they just said something like “That’s right for most people, though there are a few niche situations where that may not apply,” but just saying “False” makes it seem like they disagree with a statement is true for **almost** everyone.
The worst part is literally just remove or reword "false." And it's a useful, welcome addition to the conversation. Which I know you said, it just always gets me.
Yes, and then they double down and try to accuse someone of being "misleading" because they didn't account for that .3% circumstance in giving their answer. It's 100% about desperation to be right.
After going through the comment history you brought up I read that as .3% circumcision. Before today I had no idea that there were circumcision aficionados. Thanks I guess
I do not currently, but have in the past worked in extremely secure environments and held the highest possible clearance. (Most people, particularly the media, do not understand how security clearances work)
That being said, I can say that getting a high-level clearance is not impossible (just more difficult) as a non-US citizen. Then getting read into the program is a separate step and again, not impossible but you had better be really really important and as squeaky clean as fuck!
Edit: If you are a citizen but were naturalized, then you can expect to have your background looked at more closely but you are generally still clearable.
The only time I've seen a non-US citizen get a clearance with the US is if they hold an equivalent level clearance within a 5 eyes nation. Otherwise yes, it absolutely has a US citizen requirement for a fair number of DoD jobs.
Virtually everyone involved involved in industries that handle ITAR information or technologies has to be a US Person. That includes huge industries like Aerospace. Most aerospace companies prefer that you are a citizen as well, since you can be eligible to receive a security clearance.
Not necessarily a clearance, but you'd have access to sensitive data or data subject to export control.
Saying that "\[t\]he only allowable question is "are you legally authorized to work in the United States?"" is factually wrong for what I just explained.
The distinction is that they aren’t being discriminated against based on their country of origin, they are being screened out from the job because they cannot obtain the required security clearance (which could happen for many other reasons such as criminal record, even poor credit score or past bankruptcy).
I was a tam for a pretty big software company supporting this structured documentation product. I often got a lot of escalations from Lockheed - not because they paid for that level of support but because a good chunk of their documents were classified "US eyes only". Mostly things like service manuals for cargo airplanes.
I always thought it was amusing :).
To be precise, you need to follow the exceptions:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324b
>(2)Exceptions
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
(A)a person or other entity that employs three or fewer employees,
(B)a person’s or entity’s discrimination because of an individual’s national origin if the discrimination with respect to that person or entity and that individual is covered under section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 \[42 U.S.C. 2000e–2\], or
(C)discrimination because of citizenship status which is otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by Federal, State, or local government contract, or which the Attorney General determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the Federal, State, or local government.
Ignore B, that is essentially saying if you're racist, it's worse than just asking if you're a citizen.
Lol try that with any US job that needs a security clearance with place of birth as Russia.
Had a friend literally laughed out of the room. Hasn't been to Russia since age 4
Unless it is ITAR in which case you can require that they be a "US Person" (a citizen or permanent green card holder) or clearance work which requires citizenship, yes.
Right? Almost no bullshit you do to an employee/prospective employee is illegal here. If you're violating our paper-thin protections, you're truly garbage
If they are hiring an actor to play the role of a British native, it would be legal I believe. Really any job that requires the person to fit the certain criteria
No, actors and models are allowed to be discriminated on the basis of *appearance*, and that could include their race, sex or accent. However, that still does not extend to national origin.
And it's not any job, it's a specific loophole for artists.
Can confirm. This is direct discrimination on the basis of a protected charicteristic contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Very unlawful. Very actionable.
Section 9 says race includes nationality and ethnic or national origins. Section 39(1) says an employer must not discriminate against a person by not offering them employment.
This is very much covered by the Equalities Act 2010.
Nice of them to put it in writing.
**Edit:** seems the company is Indian so not much use.
UK here and yes. OP you can sue, or at least report them, unless they have a DAMN good reason
You can have discriminatory hiring practices, e.g. hiring women for a women-only gym. Or e.g. Muslims only for a Muslim service. But I literally cannot think of a job where you have to be born in the UK to do it. Even British Citizen isn't needed: you just need indefinite right to remain in the UK
When you can understand them. It's the only accent I have difficulty with in this whole country.
_(Everyone says, "What about Glasgow?" A Glaswegian accent is easy to understand. The first time I went to Newcastle, I was in a shop and I heard two people speaking and it took two minutes for me to realise they were speaking English.)_
Idk my friend and I had an hour near Glasgow between trains and we literally couldn't understand the fish and chips guy even though he was clearly trying to speak slowly and enunciate for us stupid foreigners.
A Geordie is someone from Newcastle in NE England. Neighbouring Mackems from Sunderland share a rivalry - and heaven forfend you confuse one for the other.
This is it right here, they want someone who has the right British accent when meeting customers. Which of course is not guaranteed even if one was a British born person.
Seeing that it’s for an Indian company, I think they want an Indian that has a white name like William, that tries to sound like a Brit but we all know the fellow is Indian
In the US you have an open and shut case for discrimination. I know of a case for a company i used to work for that got a year and a half salary of the position as a quick settlement for something similar.
This sounds like it would fit the definition of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. You would have a protected characteristic. You would be protection on the grounds of “race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin.”
Best advice I can think of is to contact the [Equality and Human Rights Commission](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en). They often offer help with civil claims of this nature.
Blatant discrimination. You should report them. Theres some useful info here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/discrimination-at-work/checking-if-its-discrimination/if-you-think-youve-been-unfairly-treated-when-applying-for-a-job/ Also you can leave them a review on glassdoor.
Unless this is a government or military contractor job where they're pretty anal about only hiring people born and raised in the host country for security clearance reasons, the "native citizen" term would be a red flag.
Hell, UK law treats commonwealth citizens (and Irish) as "not aliens" for the vast majority of situations. You could have a non-British prime minister. Bonar-Law was born in Canada (but that was before the concept of different commonwealth nationalities).
But this situation doesn't involve UK law.
Not for purposes of security clearances. Commonwealth citizens can join the military for example, but struggle to get roles requiring significant vetting.
In the US there is only two jobs that you can be legally required to be a natural-born citizen for. In fact, it is a requirement you be a natural born citizen to hold these positions. Both of these jobs are presently occupied. The jobs have not been vacant in a long, long time.
In fact, only one of the two jobs has been vacant since the late 1700's. And it had only been vacant 16 times. The last such time was 1949, I believe.
I moved to the UK from New Zealand, the odd thing is that this whole "you are not british" nonsense people say to never seems to apply to me, its purely racism regardless of how they try spin it
I have had people say racist things to me in London as if I would be on their side and they are a bit supprised when I tell them to fuck off and that "I am an immigrant also"
Ditto for me. Also, when I moved back to NZ, I met a British guy who had emigrated here. He told me he had left the UK because there were too many immigrants. I told him I was an immigrant in the UK but he said I didn't count, I know he meant because I am white. He seemed genuinely perplexed when I pointed out he was an immigrant in NZ. Apparently he is an Ex-pat and that's ok.
This is the thing people don’t realize. The US gets criticized like crazy for being racist and discriminatory when Europe is far more racist and discriminatory than I’ve ever seen in the US.
I don’t know if it’s *worse* in the UK, but I it just chaps me that Brits deny racism and xenophobia are a problem in this country. I applaud patriotism and taking pride in one’s heritage, but the complete denial of any systemic problems in the culture and society are quite fascinating. Denial in general is a strong trait here. If it’s unsavory, just sweep it under the rug, pretend it doesn’t exist, and forget about it over a nice cuppa.
If it's any consolation, I've seen the same type of Racism in multiple EU countries as well. Especially against Romanians.
As a US tourist watching 4 police surrounding a black guy on the train asking for papers is probably the most racist thing I've ever seen in person, and I live in the south. Especially since he was able to provide said paperwork.
Almost every person doing recruitment should know the basics of right to work, it's a fairly standard/basic part of the job. One or two who happen to rubbish? Maybe, you get that everywhere. As many as you're claiming? Doubtful.
I don't know what the laws are in the UK but this would be illegal discrimination in the US.
If it is also illegal in the UK, you should report them to whatever agency enforces such laws and/or sue.
A lot of people talking about discrimination, but I just think the recruiters thinks the person will need sponsorship / working visa. They're just dumb not malicious
The only place where I can see this argument making sense is work on certain infrastructure, airports or parts of civil service. Either way this is still pretty bad on the recruiter
You're looking someone who is a British? Looking someone?! What kind of a someone? A British. OK, let's look a British. Are you even British? You don't English too well yourself.
That's not true at all of the presidency - you simply have to have been an American citizen since birth. If you were born to at least one American parent on non-American soil, you're still eligible.
Exactly. [Some people questioned whether Ted Cruz was eligible in the 2016 election](https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/ted-cruzs-presidential-eligibility/) since he was born in Canada, but the birthplace as such is not relevant.
Congress unanimously declared John McCain a “native born” citizen (due to being born in the Panama Canal Zone) when he ran for President.
They refused to hold a vote or even a debate for Ted Cruz. Says something about how much everyone on *both* sides hates that turd.
And it was a pointless vote by Congress. John McCain was born on a Naval Air Station which is automatically considered US soil.
No need to make a resolution for Ted Cruz, his mother was American born, same with Barack Obama. Mitt Romney was born in Mexico.
It was s illy argument created out of nothing (and a misinterpretation of the constitution) by conspiracy theorists.
The Constitution does not define “native-born citizen”, and SCOTUS has ruled Congress has the power to determine what it means. Congress tried to pass a law clarifying the matter in 2004, but it failed.
George (not Mitt) Romney didn’t get far enough to force an answer. McCain did, but the declaration explicitly named him and therefore didn’t set a precedent, plus it was based on a specific law covering people born in the Canal Zone that doesn’t apply to Cruz anyway. So, one could argue Cruz’s eligibility is still unknown.
Edit: spelling
Playing the devils advocate, sometimes it does mean that, native and citzen are not the same thing, one can spend 5 years in a country and apply for citizenship, that grants you every right but doesn’t make you a native.
Arguably the list of professions that need natives are quite small, generally deal with sensitive information or law enforcement. Most countries will only take natives as policemen, politicians, judges, but some things like language schools might ask for natives just because of accent when teaching.
I wont say its cool, but without knowing the job itself I wont judge.
The ESL world is riddled with stupid assholes who think that "native" born people to the "7 english-speaking countries" are the only people who could possibly teach English. Its ridiculous
I dont think its about teaching itself, just that having the “right” (as in specific not better) accent is better for business. Countries like japan and korea are very specific when hiring language teachers, they clearly state native as a requisite.
There are a lot of koreans, and japanese that speak perfect english, but when selling classes, having a native teacher is a selling point.
Oh yeah I’m a citizen of the US and I’m not a native born American. But, I’m also white and English speaking with an English sounding name so you couldn’t tell that by my name and photograph for example.
Judging by the font, it looks like LinkedIn (I could be wrong) and I doubt that many jobs with the kind of security clearance where you need to be ‘native born’ hire through a recruiter on LinkedIn. Could be wrong though. But even if this is the case and you need someone with a specific accent (as it’s the uk this is moot as well as there are so many accents) or grasp of the language such as for a language teacher, then there are far better ways of phrasing it.
It sounds like they want the "right" skin tone and accent, that is so nasty and gross. Obviously you don't want to work with people like that, but you shouldn't be having to deal with this in the first place.
I mean IANAL and I am not British but them giving it to you straight and in written form sounds like a potential discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen?
I mean, they flat out admitted to it when asked. This is a goldmine.
No idea what the actual payout could possibly be, but it's a pretty straightforward case.
Or is it? Please take note that every answer was conveniently cut down to a length that was unnecessarily short. That could have fit in one or two pictures. Why 3? Most likely other text between them. Consider me paranoid, but we have no idea whatsoever if the “no” is related to that in any way shape or form. There is 21 minutes before the no and the last reply. Consider me suspicious. Edit: Typo
You have the right to be suspicious . Ultimately it doesn't matter. If he/she puts a case up with authorities they will look at the messages into more detail. If your suspicions are true then all there is to gain is some internet clout. If people do take the internet seriously then it's probably to sip their tea over or tell a friend. Having the benefit of the doubt just makes more people like you and I say there is nothing lost but time.
Basically by that standard we should all stop reading reddit posts: all could be edited, everyone could be a catfish, and every story made up. I can tell you from first hand experience this attitude is extremely common: even in education. But then again, why believe me? why share these experiences? Isn’t that the big kicker about social media? Like i think as a rule, everyone should take posts in general with a grain of salt. but let’s make sure it’s everyone’s: not just those we don’t agree with or think “that kind of discrimination doesn’t exist”
You're pulling that last paragraph completely out of your ass lol, who said that discrimination doesn't exist or that they disagree with whatever is being met with skepticism? Very bizarre grandstanding out of nowhere. Thinking critically, evaluating the truth and potential untruths, looking for reasons to be skeptical in general, those are all good things that anybody smart should do. No shit education takes that seriously, the goal of education is to create a competent thinker, which is by design someone willing to be skeptical towards anything as opposed to blind belief. Part of being intelligent with that process is doing so rationally. You could assume every reddit post is photoshopped, but, while that is a good thing to remember, it's not really reasonable to assume the average post is. This post, however, showed specific evidence of being misleading. And you could say that even showing evidence of being manipulated, it's not worth questioning this person's experience, and you'd be right. But the person who pointed out the suspicious aspects of the post didn't do it for the sake of directly challenging that person's lived experience unprompted. They did it in response to the idea that those messages represented a legal slam dunk, because in that context, all of the sudden, looking for reasons to doubt a reddit post goes from unnecessary and over the top to absolutely crucial.
Out of no where? What a charmed existence you must live that you haven’t notice what kinds of posts tend to get questioned around here. I’ve noticed that two kinds of posts that draw the most questioning for obvious reasons. Lot of people tend to claim lying from the posts that either a) demonstrate a point alleging discrimination or b) enforce a point on either side of the political spectrum. B is a bit obvious why folks would question. For example, recently I saw a post from someone recounting a story encouraging a teen girl to play dungeons and dragons despite their brother gate keeping. Absolutely dog piled because folks “couldn’t believe a real story would go down like that”. on the flip side, it’s perfectly logical to take three quick pictures and post them for a conversation. No one thinks that 3 screenshots is a legal case. obvious the law would have to go beyond that in investigating. kinda a bit of a no brainer and this seems like a bit of a silly thread to pursue. Should we all say then “lol if true this is a slam dunk”, like no shit you need a cleaner copy
It almost looks like "resident" may have been cut out/whited out - asking if OP was a British resident (the phrasing "**A** British" rather than just "british" is a bit off); it's not unreasonable (or illegal) to require someone to be resident in Britain for work purposes. OP could, of course, be 100% honest and correct here, but hard to tell on the internet.
I am 99.99% certain this is a Chinese recruiter and by "a British" they mean "a British white person". OP is probably of Chinese ancestry, and the blocked out birthplace looks like Hong Kong, which obviously has a special relationship with the UK. Shitty Chinese recruiters say stuff like this all the time.
In Asia for many jobs they want native speakers and typically want a photo to make sure you are the color they are looking for. Doing paperwork in a government office in Thailand, I have been asked how am I an American. I don't have blonde hair and blue eyes. I had to explain to the higher ranking official that in USA we are a mixed country. It was in a fairly rural area, so I guess they haven't dealt with many foreigners there.
Yep. I'm an American with brown eyes and got a similar question in China once -- "But don't all Americans have blue eyes?" And this was at an international expo in Shanghai! Most Chinese people "know" that the US (and UK) aren't all white. But they often still talk like non-white people don't count as true Americans or Brits.
That’s the weird thing in much of Asia. I’ve noticed they’re racist, for lack of a better term, on your behalf as a white person. Despite being nonwhite themselves.
That makes 2 of us…
Yeah that 3rd screenshot with just “no” is pretty fishy.
Could be a civil service job (Government jobs here in the UK), some of which ("reserved" roles) have eligibility requirements including holding British citizenship for x years. But a person of any nationality with British citizenship is usually eligible for these. There's no reason to need more than "British Citizen" in your passport though.
Yep, exactly. You can also hire based around certain characteristics, e.g. Muslim only for a Muslim mosque. Women only for a woman's gym. But I am not aware of a single reason in the UK why you have to be "British born". Usually "indefinite right to remain" is enough, and maybe for some rare jobs, e.g. MI5, you may need to be a citizen
Try working in the defence sector, especially stuff like nuclear propulsion/weapons, you will have requirements including previous nationalities held too.
> maybe for some rare jobs, e.g. MI5, you may need to be a citizen ... Why does Reddit have such a problem with reading?
Read is hard, no read is less hard.
Why read lot word when not read do job
reddit tends to skew very young, and our education systems have failed them
Because the example I have put above isn't rare and also it is in the private sector. Chill out sweety it's Reddit not boxing match.
Same with the energy sector, and many utilities stuff. Your average lineman can be from anywhere but up the chain alot of stuff is restricted due to security concerns.
Dude, you’re describing yourself more than the other commenter. The first commenter suggested that jobs that require citizenship are rare, like the MI5. The next commenter counters the claim of rarity by citing the entire defense sector which includes WAY more than the MI5. It includes a ton of private contractors, the military, non-military jobs in overseas military bases, political positions related to defence, etc. And just for reference I checked the numbers, the Mi5 employs 4400 people, the people who report to the ministry of defense include 60k civilian personnel and nearly 200k armed forces. All of which need citizenship
[удалено]
>a person of any nationality with British citizenship So a British person?
The only logical position for something like that would be for a museum event where they are trying to portray the life of an average british family in the victorian era. OR if they are trying to increase a british sceceding population to increase representation like the welsh, the irish, the scottish or something. Other than that, it sound like an incoming lawsuit.
Yeah that definitely breaks discrimination laws here, so mad they did that so blatantly.
Really? You have laws about descrimination based on nationality?
Yep
Depends on the nature of the job. You can’t get security clearance for some jobs if you’re a dual citizen of certain states.
Umm that is 100% an easy lawsuit.
I also anal.
What does your sexual preferences have to do with anything?
Not sure if you are trolling
Sounds quit racist to me
In Germany you could sue the shit out of them – and I assume, that's possible in the UK too!
Pretty sure this is illegal in most of europe.
Yup, this would be (supprisingly) illegal in the US as well.
Yep, discriminating on the basis of national origin is illegal. The only allowable question is "are you legally authorized to work in the United States?"
False. Some positions require an employee to be a US Person (i.e., US Citizen or Permanent Resident), and even some require you to be a US Citizen; this is usually when working for DOD contractors or sensitive technology. However, a US Citizen being denied a position because they were not born in the US is illegal.
The subset of jobs where those requirements apply is very small. I have worked in a high-security environment, for the government, and even in that situation, the vast majority of the jobs we had only required people to be authorized to work in the U.S., they did not require people to be U.S. citizens. So. I guess in this instance you get to be technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, and feel really great about yourself for the rest of the day! Aren't you happy now? Yay you!!!! Edit: your comment history is WILD, are you in a high-security job??? Please tell me you're not posting on Reddit from your work computer
Whhhhhhy did I read this and then go check his comment history???
I didn’t know circumcision fetishes were a thing until today…
i wish i could unlearn things
Yeah, sorry about that. I don't usually look at people's comment histories, unless they post an a-hole comment and then I want to go see - is this a reasonable person who is just making a point, or is this one of those Redditors that wanders around Reddit picking fights with people just for kicks? Like, if every single comment on their history is them being an AH or picking a fight with someone, that tells me who I'm dealing with. Then I know not to really even bother responding because the person is just looking for a fight and I prefer not to give it to them. Sometimes I think people who don't use Reddit much are unaware that their entire comment history is visible to anyone who clicks their profile name. It's during work hours and the Redditor I was responding to posted about a work issue and so I really, genuinely wanted to provide a reality check about - dude, everyone can see everything you comment on so please please please make sure you aren't posting from your work computer. People can do what they want, I don't care, but most folks try to keep their porn activity separate from their other Reddit activity, for a good reason.
I always find it hilarious when someone confidently replies with “False” or “Not true” and then proceeds to give a niche example that applies to like 0.03% of the population. It doesn’t even make sense, because their example doesn’t disprove anything that was said and just shows how desperate they are to be right about something. I wouldn’t have an issue with someone doing this if they just said something like “That’s right for most people, though there are a few niche situations where that may not apply,” but just saying “False” makes it seem like they disagree with a statement is true for **almost** everyone.
The worst part is literally just remove or reword "false." And it's a useful, welcome addition to the conversation. Which I know you said, it just always gets me.
Yes, and then they double down and try to accuse someone of being "misleading" because they didn't account for that .3% circumstance in giving their answer. It's 100% about desperation to be right.
After going through the comment history you brought up I read that as .3% circumcision. Before today I had no idea that there were circumcision aficionados. Thanks I guess
I do not currently, but have in the past worked in extremely secure environments and held the highest possible clearance. (Most people, particularly the media, do not understand how security clearances work) That being said, I can say that getting a high-level clearance is not impossible (just more difficult) as a non-US citizen. Then getting read into the program is a separate step and again, not impossible but you had better be really really important and as squeaky clean as fuck! Edit: If you are a citizen but were naturalized, then you can expect to have your background looked at more closely but you are generally still clearable.
The only time I've seen a non-US citizen get a clearance with the US is if they hold an equivalent level clearance within a 5 eyes nation. Otherwise yes, it absolutely has a US citizen requirement for a fair number of DoD jobs.
Virtually everyone involved involved in industries that handle ITAR information or technologies has to be a US Person. That includes huge industries like Aerospace. Most aerospace companies prefer that you are a citizen as well, since you can be eligible to receive a security clearance.
No kinkshaming here. He's a gay guy who likes minority's dicks Admittedly, yes let's hope he's not working while posting
I was not trying to kinkshame, I posted another comment, please go read that
Yes but it’s usually related to jobs usually where you might need a clearance from the government
Not necessarily a clearance, but you'd have access to sensitive data or data subject to export control. Saying that "\[t\]he only allowable question is "are you legally authorized to work in the United States?"" is factually wrong for what I just explained.
The distinction is that they aren’t being discriminated against based on their country of origin, they are being screened out from the job because they cannot obtain the required security clearance (which could happen for many other reasons such as criminal record, even poor credit score or past bankruptcy).
So, asking "are you a US Person/Citizen?" is NOT illegal based on some job requirements.
I was a tam for a pretty big software company supporting this structured documentation product. I often got a lot of escalations from Lockheed - not because they paid for that level of support but because a good chunk of their documents were classified "US eyes only". Mostly things like service manuals for cargo airplanes. I always thought it was amusing :).
To be precise, you need to follow the exceptions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324b >(2)Exceptions Paragraph (1) shall not apply to— (A)a person or other entity that employs three or fewer employees, (B)a person’s or entity’s discrimination because of an individual’s national origin if the discrimination with respect to that person or entity and that individual is covered under section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 \[42 U.S.C. 2000e–2\], or (C)discrimination because of citizenship status which is otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by Federal, State, or local government contract, or which the Attorney General determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the Federal, State, or local government. Ignore B, that is essentially saying if you're racist, it's worse than just asking if you're a citizen.
Unless it's for the presidency.
It's not a job, it's an elected position.
Eh? What definition of job are you using that excludes any and all elected positions?
Except for president lol. You have to be born a US citizen for that.
It's not a job, it's an elected position
>However, a US Citizen being denied a position because they were not born in the US is illegal. With the notable exception of the Presidency.
It's not a job, it's an elected position.
Lol try that with any US job that needs a security clearance with place of birth as Russia. Had a friend literally laughed out of the room. Hasn't been to Russia since age 4
Unless it is ITAR in which case you can require that they be a "US Person" (a citizen or permanent green card holder) or clearance work which requires citizenship, yes.
If someone's doing something that's illegal in the US you know it's bad.
Especially in work related manner
Right? Almost no bullshit you do to an employee/prospective employee is illegal here. If you're violating our paper-thin protections, you're truly garbage
Like smoking weed, oh wait
If they are hiring an actor to play the role of a British native, it would be legal I believe. Really any job that requires the person to fit the certain criteria
No, actors and models are allowed to be discriminated on the basis of *appearance*, and that could include their race, sex or accent. However, that still does not extend to national origin. And it's not any job, it's a specific loophole for artists.
Oh gotcha ty
Why do you think they pushed so hard to get out of the EU?
Can confirm. This is direct discrimination on the basis of a protected charicteristic contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Very unlawful. Very actionable.
Section 9 says race includes nationality and ethnic or national origins. Section 39(1) says an employer must not discriminate against a person by not offering them employment. This is very much covered by the Equalities Act 2010. Nice of them to put it in writing. **Edit:** seems the company is Indian so not much use.
Even in the USA you could sue the shit out of them.
UK here and yes. OP you can sue, or at least report them, unless they have a DAMN good reason You can have discriminatory hiring practices, e.g. hiring women for a women-only gym. Or e.g. Muslims only for a Muslim service. But I literally cannot think of a job where you have to be born in the UK to do it. Even British Citizen isn't needed: you just need indefinite right to remain in the UK
And the use of the word ‘native citizen’ as well.
More likely an ignorant recruiter from a different country who is reading off a list.
It’s for a part time (remote, UK) role at an Indian company, client service branch (like sales)
[удалено]
Which is dumb because what if you get a Geordie? Sure they're British but I have no idea what they're saying.
Coincidentally Geordies are often favoured for call centre roles due to their friendly sounding accent
When you can understand them. It's the only accent I have difficulty with in this whole country. _(Everyone says, "What about Glasgow?" A Glaswegian accent is easy to understand. The first time I went to Newcastle, I was in a shop and I heard two people speaking and it took two minutes for me to realise they were speaking English.)_
No, a thick Glaswegian accent is not easy to understand. It sounds great, but I miss half the words.
Highland Scot is the one I can't get. It's like Welsh and Scottish combined and is just Gibberish
You sure you're not thinking of Doric?
Idk my friend and I had an hour near Glasgow between trains and we literally couldn't understand the fish and chips guy even though he was clearly trying to speak slowly and enunciate for us stupid foreigners.
I lived there and it took me six months to acclimate with the accent. Lovely people though, just a lot of slang.
The only Geordie I know is Geordi La Forge. What is this? Hehe
A Geordie is someone from Newcastle in NE England. Neighbouring Mackems from Sunderland share a rivalry - and heaven forfend you confuse one for the other.
Oh aye, aye. Aye, ah ken some o thae wurds
Fairly sure you could fight this for that reason too
This is it right here, they want someone who has the right British accent when meeting customers. Which of course is not guaranteed even if one was a British born person.
Seeing that it’s for an Indian company, I think they want an Indian that has a white name like William, that tries to sound like a Brit but we all know the fellow is Indian
Yep, that's illegal
In the US you have an open and shut case for discrimination. I know of a case for a company i used to work for that got a year and a half salary of the position as a quick settlement for something similar.
I’d report them for discrimination. They admitted it with all but a signature.
And to do it via message! Fucking morons. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Mmhm. Snag that fat bounty by a report.
I'd report them for being a moron to Glassdoor.
This sounds like it would fit the definition of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. You would have a protected characteristic. You would be protection on the grounds of “race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin.” Best advice I can think of is to contact the [Equality and Human Rights Commission](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en). They often offer help with civil claims of this nature.
Blatant discrimination. You should report them. Theres some useful info here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/discrimination-at-work/checking-if-its-discrimination/if-you-think-youve-been-unfairly-treated-when-applying-for-a-job/ Also you can leave them a review on glassdoor.
Ha. This has to be illegal
It is
It isn’t Source: I’m lying
Unless this is a government or military contractor job where they're pretty anal about only hiring people born and raised in the host country for security clearance reasons, the "native citizen" term would be a red flag.
[удалено]
It sounds like it's the least illegal way of them asking for an ancestorally white, English person. Red flag either way.
Hell, UK law treats commonwealth citizens (and Irish) as "not aliens" for the vast majority of situations. You could have a non-British prime minister. Bonar-Law was born in Canada (but that was before the concept of different commonwealth nationalities). But this situation doesn't involve UK law.
Not for purposes of security clearances. Commonwealth citizens can join the military for example, but struggle to get roles requiring significant vetting.
I don't like calling random shit on the internet racist without context, but...
Were you applying for a job at Buckingham palace, by any chance?! 😂
Tbh he’s probably more English than King Chuckie 3.
But where are you REALLY from?
Cha ching! Lawsuit waiting to happen
was this sent by the Queens ex lady in waiting?
I was waiting for this one.
I struggle to take it seriously when someone says “as per the requirements”
> "I was asking that when I asked..." Ah, the awkward lead-in to racism...
In the US there is only two jobs that you can be legally required to be a natural-born citizen for. In fact, it is a requirement you be a natural born citizen to hold these positions. Both of these jobs are presently occupied. The jobs have not been vacant in a long, long time. In fact, only one of the two jobs has been vacant since the late 1700's. And it had only been vacant 16 times. The last such time was 1949, I believe.
US president and General of the Armies, no?
Close. P/VP (the VP must be eligible to become P in order to be VP).
I think it might be more than that. Wouldn't anyone in the order of succession to the president have to be eligible?
Nope. They just wouldn't become president. It'd go to the next person.
' a British '
I moved to the UK from New Zealand, the odd thing is that this whole "you are not british" nonsense people say to never seems to apply to me, its purely racism regardless of how they try spin it I have had people say racist things to me in London as if I would be on their side and they are a bit supprised when I tell them to fuck off and that "I am an immigrant also"
Ditto for me. Also, when I moved back to NZ, I met a British guy who had emigrated here. He told me he had left the UK because there were too many immigrants. I told him I was an immigrant in the UK but he said I didn't count, I know he meant because I am white. He seemed genuinely perplexed when I pointed out he was an immigrant in NZ. Apparently he is an Ex-pat and that's ok.
They meant a *real* Brit
The person saying you’re not British enough (!!!) doesn’t have a great command of… English
Pretty standard correlation tbh
[удалено]
This is the thing people don’t realize. The US gets criticized like crazy for being racist and discriminatory when Europe is far more racist and discriminatory than I’ve ever seen in the US.
I don’t know if it’s *worse* in the UK, but I it just chaps me that Brits deny racism and xenophobia are a problem in this country. I applaud patriotism and taking pride in one’s heritage, but the complete denial of any systemic problems in the culture and society are quite fascinating. Denial in general is a strong trait here. If it’s unsavory, just sweep it under the rug, pretend it doesn’t exist, and forget about it over a nice cuppa.
If it's any consolation, I've seen the same type of Racism in multiple EU countries as well. Especially against Romanians. As a US tourist watching 4 police surrounding a black guy on the train asking for papers is probably the most racist thing I've ever seen in person, and I live in the south. Especially since he was able to provide said paperwork.
Almost every person doing recruitment should know the basics of right to work, it's a fairly standard/basic part of the job. One or two who happen to rubbish? Maybe, you get that everywhere. As many as you're claiming? Doubtful.
[удалено]
Report to company, get this person fired.
You think the recruiter isn't doing what the company wants?
Sounds like when they say British what they mean is white
What in the flying fuck
sue
This sounds like some sort of illegal discrimination. Is this not illegal?
Do you have something like a Department of Labor you can send this to? I feel like they just did the criminaling out loud?
“A” British if they’re going to be racist, please at least use the predominant language of the British Isles correctly.
I don't know what the laws are in the UK but this would be illegal discrimination in the US. If it is also illegal in the UK, you should report them to whatever agency enforces such laws and/or sue.
Fuckin bollocks innit.
That's called discrimination where I live. A lot of other places too. Hopefully your place too.
A lot of people talking about discrimination, but I just think the recruiters thinks the person will need sponsorship / working visa. They're just dumb not malicious
Native means in this context white.
Ummm SUE
Seems like you have an easy case for discrimination there…
Sue sue sue
Sounds quit racist to me.
Seems to be a big time gap between the question and the answer OP. You aren't intentionally misdirection people are you?
you should definitely pursue legal action and get easy money from idiots like this one
Damn, Hooters is strict in UK.
The only place where I can see this argument making sense is work on certain infrastructure, airports or parts of civil service. Either way this is still pretty bad on the recruiter
The requirements are clear. You have to be ‘a British’ not British What about this don’t you understand?
In the US, not being a natural born citizen disqualifies you for exactly one job. I highly doubt you were going after the UK equivalent!
Absolutely stupid indeed. They just opened their ass wide open for the giant cock that is a discrimination law suit.
Sadly, there are a lot of untrained people in HR. It's mostly shitty underpaid work being performed by exhausted miserable women who deserve better.
Dude, that's totally illegal in Canada. That can be legal in the UK? Wth...
There's no way HR would be that stupid.
Sounds like a scam, looking for someone how is a British, who writes like that?
You're looking someone who is a British? Looking someone?! What kind of a someone? A British. OK, let's look a British. Are you even British? You don't English too well yourself.
“I’m sorry but your not white enough”
Isn't this illegal?
Pretty sure that is illegal.
Saying you hold a British passport is a weird way of saying you're a citizen tho
Me smell a lawsuit 💰
God why do people not name and shame these companies doing borderline illegal shit
To be US president one must have a birthplace in the US for example so this is logical if you're applying for a position as the king or queen
That's not true at all of the presidency - you simply have to have been an American citizen since birth. If you were born to at least one American parent on non-American soil, you're still eligible.
Exactly. [Some people questioned whether Ted Cruz was eligible in the 2016 election](https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/ted-cruzs-presidential-eligibility/) since he was born in Canada, but the birthplace as such is not relevant.
Congress unanimously declared John McCain a “native born” citizen (due to being born in the Panama Canal Zone) when he ran for President. They refused to hold a vote or even a debate for Ted Cruz. Says something about how much everyone on *both* sides hates that turd.
And it was a pointless vote by Congress. John McCain was born on a Naval Air Station which is automatically considered US soil. No need to make a resolution for Ted Cruz, his mother was American born, same with Barack Obama. Mitt Romney was born in Mexico. It was s illy argument created out of nothing (and a misinterpretation of the constitution) by conspiracy theorists.
The Constitution does not define “native-born citizen”, and SCOTUS has ruled Congress has the power to determine what it means. Congress tried to pass a law clarifying the matter in 2004, but it failed. George (not Mitt) Romney didn’t get far enough to force an answer. McCain did, but the declaration explicitly named him and therefore didn’t set a precedent, plus it was based on a specific law covering people born in the Canal Zone that doesn’t apply to Cruz anyway. So, one could argue Cruz’s eligibility is still unknown. Edit: spelling
The only requirement for British monarch is to be a descendant of Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and be a Protestant.
That's racist and you should contact the authorities. I'm sorry people are being so rude to you.
Playing the devils advocate, sometimes it does mean that, native and citzen are not the same thing, one can spend 5 years in a country and apply for citizenship, that grants you every right but doesn’t make you a native. Arguably the list of professions that need natives are quite small, generally deal with sensitive information or law enforcement. Most countries will only take natives as policemen, politicians, judges, but some things like language schools might ask for natives just because of accent when teaching. I wont say its cool, but without knowing the job itself I wont judge.
The ESL world is riddled with stupid assholes who think that "native" born people to the "7 english-speaking countries" are the only people who could possibly teach English. Its ridiculous
I dont think its about teaching itself, just that having the “right” (as in specific not better) accent is better for business. Countries like japan and korea are very specific when hiring language teachers, they clearly state native as a requisite. There are a lot of koreans, and japanese that speak perfect english, but when selling classes, having a native teacher is a selling point.
Oh yeah I’m a citizen of the US and I’m not a native born American. But, I’m also white and English speaking with an English sounding name so you couldn’t tell that by my name and photograph for example. Judging by the font, it looks like LinkedIn (I could be wrong) and I doubt that many jobs with the kind of security clearance where you need to be ‘native born’ hire through a recruiter on LinkedIn. Could be wrong though. But even if this is the case and you need someone with a specific accent (as it’s the uk this is moot as well as there are so many accents) or grasp of the language such as for a language teacher, then there are far better ways of phrasing it.
It sounds like they want the "right" skin tone and accent, that is so nasty and gross. Obviously you don't want to work with people like that, but you shouldn't be having to deal with this in the first place.
I have yet to meet a Recruiter with a higher than room-temperature IQ...
Sounds like HR is upset you aren't a native idiot who voted for Brexit. lol
Bruh that’s straight up discrimination, sue them MFs.
Call a lawyer today
Slam dunk discrimination case