The Truth About The Foreign Student Fiasco

#AbolishICE? Starting as a far-left slogan of the 2018 election season, the phrase has resurged in popularity due to widespread frustration over ICE’s recent proclamation regarding the status of foreign students studying in the United States. On Monday, the agency announced that international students on F-1 and M-1 visas can only be in America if their institution will resume in-person or hybrid learning in the fall. Foreigners attending universities solely delivering online education due to the pandemic will be barred from re-entering the country; those already here under that category have been directed to leave the country.

The declaration has created uncertainty for countless international students, many of whom have stayed in the U.S. since the pandemic’s beginning and had planned to remain in the country for the upcoming academic semester. Immediately, advocacy groups repudiated ICE’s directive, characterizing it as xenophobic and anti-immigrant. Given the overuse and abuse of those terms in modern-day America, it is important to undertake a deeper analysis of the issue to better understand ICE’s rationale for its decision. From a surface perspective, it is difficult to find adequate justification.

If Trump want[ed] to protect recent U.S. graduates in this unprecedentedly tight labor market, he would have limited competition by suspending Optional Practical Training (OPT)…alternatively, [this] decision can be perceived as a leverage tool to compel universities to reopen.

In late June, President Trump suspended several worker visa classes — H-1B, H-2B, J-1 and L-1 — to protect Americans amidst record unemployment due to COVID-19. With roughly 40 million Americans out of work due to mass coronavirus-related layoffs, the temporary immigration suspension seeks to prioritize U.S. workers over foreigners as they re-enter the labor force. Provisionally restricting international students studying at universities providing virtual instruction due to COVID-19, however, does not impact American jobs. If Trump did want to protect recent U.S. graduates in this unprecedentedly tight labor market, he would have limited competition by suspending Optional Practical Training (OPT), which provides a one-year extendable work permit to all foreign graduates. But the President did not.

Alternatively, the decision can be perceived as a leverage tool to compel universities to reopen. In fact, immediately after ICE released its decision, President Trump tweeted:

         “SCHOOLS MUST OPEN IN THE FALL!!!”

In turn, ICE’s directive can be viewed as a positive action by those who want campuses to return to normalcy — to allow their international students to stay in America, universities that initially planned to deliver remote learning may restructure their plans to welcome more students back to campus.

In assessing this issue, it is also important to understand that, under normal circumstances, foreign student visa recipients are not allowed to attend virtual American institutions and must enroll in on-campus learning. Students were exempt from that rule during this past semester due to the abrupt arrival of the pandemic. However, the reason for this policy stems from a different watershed event: 9/11.

It is also important to understand that, under normal circumstances, foreign student visa recipients are not allowed to attend virtual American institutions and must enroll in on-campus learning. Students were exempt from that rule during this past semester due to the abrupt arrival of the pandemic

When the government cannot monitor whether student visa recipients are actually attending classes on campus, America’s national security is threatened. This was the reality prior to the September 11 attacks. Hani Hanjour, one of the Saudi Arabian hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77, actually entered the United States as a foreign student to study English at a California college. Despite failing to attend classes, Hanjour’s visa violation was not observed by the U.S. government, which lacked adequate oversight at the time; while he was supposed to be learning English, Hanjour, instead, was orchestrating a terrorist attack to kill Americans. After this disaster, which left 2,977 victims dead, new regulations were implemented to address student visa fraud. Today, academic institutions are required to send enrollment attestations for each international student to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Students who fail to show up to campus or attend classes have their information forwarded to ICE for potential removal.

The reality is that foreign students studying away from campus and online in America makes it difficult for the SEVP to track their whereabouts. Beyond potential national security hazards that can emerge, the inability to monitor international students’ activity also creates a risk of visa overstaying. It is estimated that 40% of the 11 million illegal aliens in America entered the country with valid documents that subsequently expired. Given the relative ease of obtaining a student visa, it is likely that a significant portion of the 4.5 million visa overstays entered the United States on educational grounds.

It would be wrong to assert that international students at Dartmouth and other reputable universities seek to circumvent U.S. immigration law. However, nationwide, the F-1 student visa program is enormous. Hundreds of thousands of student visas are issued each year, and over one million foreigners study in the United States. Many educational programs that attract foreigners have extremely low entry barriers and, sometimes, are even diploma mills. Indeed, ICE has documented F-1 fraud scams, where foreign nationals have enrolled in illegitimate institutions to stay in America and benefit from OPT work permits. These problems with the student visa program are amplified when SEVP is unable to oversee foreign students’ activity, which will be the case for international students studying in the U.S. online during the upcoming semester.

We at The Review have great respect for the hundreds of international students at Dartmouth, including the many international students who have contributed to this publication over the years. Dartmouth’s international students raise the academic caliber of our community and work tirelessly to make the most of an education that many of their domestic peers take for granted. ICE’s decision was abrupt, and they deserve better.

Evidently, ICE does have reasonable grounds to restrict international students studying remotely off-campus, beyond racism and xenophobia. That said, this topic is extremely sensitive. Many foreign students currently studying in the U.S. are unable to return home due to travel restrictions; studying in a different time zone can sometimes be impossible; some international students have already secured their housing deposits for the upcoming year and will not be able to recuperate their payments. We at The Review have great respect for the hundreds of international students at Dartmouth, including the many international students who have contributed to this publication over the years. Dartmouth’s international students raise the academic caliber of our community and work tirelessly to make the most of an education that many of their domestic peers take for granted. ICE’s decision was abrupt, and they deserve better.

Part of this current problem can be attributed to ICE’s failure to appropriately consult with universities to develop a mutually beneficial plan that would have given administrations time to adjust and devise appropriate reopening plans. It also can be attributed to universities’ routine refusal to accept even well-intentioned regulations on America’s student visa system. According to Jessica Vaughan, the Director of Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, the higher education industry heavily pressures Congress and the DHS to oppose any measures that would restrict the United States’ foreign student intake. When stakeholders refuse to collaborate with the government, and vice-versa, the public is left with sudden, hurried decisions that produce no winners.

Two things can be true regarding ICE’s decision… First, the decision is neither racist nor xenophobic, given there are legitimate reasons to ensure foreign students are studying on-campus. Second, the announcement was abrupt, imposing a severe burden on many international students and leaving them in precarious situations.

Two things can be true regarding ICE’s decision to prohibit international students from studying in the U.S. at online institutions. First, the decision is neither racist nor xenophobic, given there are legitimate reasons to ensure foreign students are studying on-campus. Second, the announcement was abrupt, imposing a severe burden on many international students and leaving them in precarious situations. The Dartmouth administration will be supporting Harvard and MIT in their legal attempt to reverse ICE’s measure. If such efforts are successful, Dartmouth will carry on with its unpopular reopening plan that severely limits in-person classroom engagement and the number of students allowed on campus. Given the circumstances, The Review would prefer Dartmouth to revise its fall plan to adopt hybrid learning, bring more students back to campus and protect international students — something the vast majority of the student body desires. Unfortunately, it appears this frenzy will continue to fester, with no solution in sight; it’s 2020, after all.