This brief is interesting because of the MIT president's personal engagement. Rafael Reif is a Venezuelan immigrant who has been moved to speak out against an immigration ban . Reif understands the immigration issues well as a Jew whose ancestors were refugees to Venezuela, and who has watched his home country disintegrate under Chavez.
I applaud the move. Yet it is important to put all the cards on the table.
I can't help to be bothered by what could pass of hypocrisy at various levels. The article explains that 40% of MIT's grad students are "international". This means MIT's problem is a BUSINESS problem. At well over $50K per year per student the university-as-a-business (rather than an altruistic entity) is concerned about a drop in revenue should immigration policy change. Let's not pretend this is all about good intentions, pink unicorns and ice cream. This is a business fighting for their revenue sources. And they have every right --even the responsibility-- to do so. I respect that. No issues there so long as everyone is honest about it.
The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants. I'm sorry, I don't buy that one bit. We already have great talent in this country. What we don't have is affordable schools (and books, etc.). A school like MIT (don't mean to focus on them, pick any school) can charge exorbitant tuition to foreign-born students and make millions. And the students pay for it. Not so with us-born students. Particularly given the state of the economy, unemployment, etc.
This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.
This isn't to say immigration isn't good. I am not anti-immigrant at all. That would mean being against what allowed my own family to LEGALLY come to the US eons ago. No. My problem is with the fear-mongering that goes along with these arguments. It's dishonest and unnecessary.
It is OK to say we want immigrants because they are important to our continued cultural and economic growth. It's OK to say we want refugees because it is important to continue to define ourselves as a caring and socially conscious people. These things don't need to be embellished with "if we don't let immigrants in nobody is going to start companies, no jobs will be created and no innovation will be had". Sorry, immigrants don't have a monopoly on this. And they sure as heck don't have magical powers. We have lots of very capable and creating people already in the country. Let's don't diminish them to dumber-than-a-rock status.
As for MIT and other universities. They should be honest and say "we are going to lose a ton of money because we make a killing with foreign students". I can respect that. They are, after all, businesses.
On the other hand, if MIT had no foreign students and charged a LOT less for tuition it would be full of wonderful, capable, creative and eager-to-contribute US residents. The problem is very few can justify spending over $200K on a university education today. That's what these universities are trying to protect.
Most grad students do not pay full tuition, period. Many US students, and I would imagine those who get accepted to MIT most likely, qualify for NSF grants which cover the cost of graduate education. So your argument that MIT is acting as a "business to maximize its profit" is not very convincing.
I agree with you that some of the positions might be a bit extreme: the US is most certainly capable of producing highly qualified researchers, entrepreneurs etc.
Edit: One more point I would want to add is that currently, US universities, and the US itself, is seen as a very desirable place to live and do research. This might change if the country institutes a policy of (implicit) religious discrimination.
> The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants.
That's a silly straw-man.
The reasonable form of the argument is about marginal effects: for each smart immigrant you remove, America becomes dumber, for each smart immigrant you add, America becomes smarter. That form of the argument is evidently true regardless of how many smart people were born in America.
> This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation
It's not that there wouldn't be any, just less. America will be poorer — not destitute, but less rich — if it keeps out smart immigrants.
> This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.
Go to any research lab in the US; you'll probably see more immigrants than native-born. Far more, in many places. If America cancels visas and closes borders, it will still launch businesses, it will still occasionally produce a unicorn, but it will be crippled in basic science.
The article, as you say, mentions international graduate students. Most of these are probably funded by grants or the university itself (as is the case for most STEM graduate students in the US). So I doubt MIT - or any university - is making money off them.
No, that's not right. MIT takes few foreign undergrads, and the graduate students are almost all paid for by grants. It is actually harder for MIT to find funding for foreign than domestic grad students.
The
The principal issues are
- MIT values the skills and intelligence of foreign grad students, who contribute greatly to the research enterprise.
- MIT's president is a Jewish immigrant from Venezuela who understands well illiberalism and is horrified by seeing in the US some of the things he saw in Chavez. Reif has been quite apolitical (see his bland letter after election), but the immigration ban has riled him up.
Very well put. The crux of so much of this comes down to business interests. When you finally wade through the bullshit and get to the heart of it, it's about money. Not ideals or the end of the free world.
Good luck fighting this fight here, though. It's like arguing that Star Trek is good on a Star Wars fanfic forum. They're just not ready to hear that.
Is it really that hard to believe that the US enjoys a disproportionate number of smart immigrants that isn't sustainable with the US's population alone, and that we are at risk of losing this extremely valuable population? To believe keeping out immigrants won't harm the competitiveness of American talent means you believe that the natives are some how exceptional compared to the rest of the worlds population by place of birth alone. Or do you just not care if smart people live, work and defend another nation if it means people who got here first have higher employment?
I don't think MIT would charge US citizens $200K when they have a $13+B endowment along with healthy company research sponsorship and licencing revenue ($60M/year).
But yes, as soon as I read the article I immediately thought of lost revenue from foreign students from certain countries.
> At well over $50K per year per student the university-as-a-business (rather than an altruistic entity) is concerned about a drop in revenue should immigration policy change. Let's not pretend this is all about good intentions, pink unicorns and ice cream.
> A school like MIT (don't mean to focus on them, pick any school) can charge exorbitant tuition to foreign-born students and make millions. And the students pay for it.
Most international students do not have the resources to pay for graduate school and are either funded via grants, teaching or research assistantships or personal-loans. In particular students from these 7 countries. They might have been doing well in their respective countries but the same money after conversion into dollars doesn't have as much purchasing power in the US.
> The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants. I'm sorry, I don't buy that one bit. We already have great talent in this country.
Sure, all international students and faculty are evaluated at par with US citizens. Any bias here is counterproductive to competitiveness and research output of top schools who've signed the brief. So yes, great talent, enough to fill 60% capacity. That is not equivalent to dumb as a rock.
>This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.
According to the article, "It cites one estimate that international students directly contributed $32.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported or contributed to the creation of 400,000 American jobs in the 2015-2016 academic year.". So unless you mean that the total contribution to US economy was $32.8 billion and only 400,000 jobs in total were created in 2015-2016 academic year, the article isn't saying US is a wasteland of a country. Moreover students, post-docs and professors doesn't exactly mean hordes of immigrants.
> They should be honest and say "we are going to lose a ton of money because we make a killing with foreign students".
Again, most PhD students are funded via grants, which depend on good research output, which depend on a competitive admission process which selects the best talent.
>On the other hand, if MIT had no foreign students and charged a LOT less for tuition it would be full of wonderful, capable, creative and eager-to-contribute US residents.
If you say that MIT makes a ton of money by charging more from foreign students, I don't see how you can argue that by taking in none they can charge a lot less for tuition.
Bottom-line: I agree with the general idea of verifying what you read and reading between lines, but based on facts and not assumptions.
In state tuition is 45k a year. Regardless of if the US economy is in a bad state US colleges can charge a huge amount to US students because the US govt is willing to offer huge student loans.
In order to sue, MIT has to show it was harmed. That's why it's talking about the international students like a statistic. It has to put it in that kind of context.
And what's the problem with that, exactly? That's what the free market is all about. The solution you're implicitly proposing is that we ban all foreign students because of a few bad eggs.
Have you also measured the impact foreign students had on the institutions they attended? How many grants were given because of proposals from foreign students? How about how many US educated diplomats and/or foreign officials ended up improving their country's relations with the US because of their education experience?
9 out of 10 despots prefer Coke to Pepsi. Maybe it's just because Coke is better and you don't need a magical conspiracy theory about how Coke is the cause of despotism.
This is nice, but the thing that is going to hurt them massively here is standing issues.
All of the harm to the plaintiffs in these cases is very attenuated compared to direct lawsuits from people affected.
The current 9th circuit one has a large chance of getting reversed on standing issues (en banc most likely), and honestly, probably should be.
Past that ,the real best hope is that folks like Thomas, et al will ask "remind me again why, if the constitution gives this power to congress, you believe it's okay for congress to give all of it to the executive branch"
But that seems unlikely.
More likely roberts decides he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.
MIT filed an amicus curiae brief. This isn't saying "we assert standing" but saying "we have an interest in this case, and here are our thoughts on the matter."
Given that the plaintiffs in the suit are people who have been denied entry by the executive order but have valid visas, I doubt standing would be denied. And I'm pretty sure one of the lawsuits has an affected green card member as a plaintiff, which is going to be very hard to deny standing to.
If I understand the attorneys-general' strategy correctly, they're recycling the same standing argument that the 5th circuit upheld in Texas v. US, just in pursuit of a different objective. Of course a circuit split could ensue but given that Texas had 25 co-plaintiffs there's a good chance that they're now hoist by their own petard.
I'm very weak on civil procedure though so feel free to tell me I'm an idiot.
> remind me again why, if the constitution gives this power to congress, you believe it's okay for congress to give all of it to the executive branch
Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power? I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D
1 million unemployed in the federal government, upwards of 15 million in the states!
but thats only possible if you believe the Supreme Court's rulings are based on a strict understanding of the constitution they are all reading, or if it is based on the past of least resistance. (its the latter)
the above argument has a thin chance of surviving in 2017
The 9th Circuit one was not a decision on the EO itself, rather the temporary restraining order that the judge in Seattle placed on the EO while arguments were heard to determine its legality.
I want to mention the fact the Elon Musk actually supports the Travel ban, but maybe because he has govt contracts with NASA, and wants more contracts and money.
Sad to see him stoop to that level.
This is just not true. His tweet specifically said this was not the best way forward. I appreciate that you have strong opinions, but just because you don't think he's taking a strong enough stand doesn't mean you can put words in his mouth.
It's also interesting to note which elite universities are not present as signatories. Notice that Caltech is missing. I'm curious about whether that is due to the significant funding they effectively receive as the managers of JPL and are concerned about retribution.
It's indefensible IMO not to stand behind their community, many of whom are Iranian.
Musk doesn't support it and if he stays true to his business interests wouldn't. He is a capitalist. He would support brain drain from other countries into his, where presumably as one of the leaders in technology, he would have a better talent pool of labor to hire from, rather than compete against abroad.
[+] [-] mhneu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ue_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rebootthesystem|9 years ago|reply
I can't help to be bothered by what could pass of hypocrisy at various levels. The article explains that 40% of MIT's grad students are "international". This means MIT's problem is a BUSINESS problem. At well over $50K per year per student the university-as-a-business (rather than an altruistic entity) is concerned about a drop in revenue should immigration policy change. Let's not pretend this is all about good intentions, pink unicorns and ice cream. This is a business fighting for their revenue sources. And they have every right --even the responsibility-- to do so. I respect that. No issues there so long as everyone is honest about it.
The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants. I'm sorry, I don't buy that one bit. We already have great talent in this country. What we don't have is affordable schools (and books, etc.). A school like MIT (don't mean to focus on them, pick any school) can charge exorbitant tuition to foreign-born students and make millions. And the students pay for it. Not so with us-born students. Particularly given the state of the economy, unemployment, etc.
This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.
This isn't to say immigration isn't good. I am not anti-immigrant at all. That would mean being against what allowed my own family to LEGALLY come to the US eons ago. No. My problem is with the fear-mongering that goes along with these arguments. It's dishonest and unnecessary.
It is OK to say we want immigrants because they are important to our continued cultural and economic growth. It's OK to say we want refugees because it is important to continue to define ourselves as a caring and socially conscious people. These things don't need to be embellished with "if we don't let immigrants in nobody is going to start companies, no jobs will be created and no innovation will be had". Sorry, immigrants don't have a monopoly on this. And they sure as heck don't have magical powers. We have lots of very capable and creating people already in the country. Let's don't diminish them to dumber-than-a-rock status.
As for MIT and other universities. They should be honest and say "we are going to lose a ton of money because we make a killing with foreign students". I can respect that. They are, after all, businesses.
On the other hand, if MIT had no foreign students and charged a LOT less for tuition it would be full of wonderful, capable, creative and eager-to-contribute US residents. The problem is very few can justify spending over $200K on a university education today. That's what these universities are trying to protect.
[+] [-] pm90|9 years ago|reply
I agree with you that some of the positions might be a bit extreme: the US is most certainly capable of producing highly qualified researchers, entrepreneurs etc.
Edit: One more point I would want to add is that currently, US universities, and the US itself, is seen as a very desirable place to live and do research. This might change if the country institutes a policy of (implicit) religious discrimination.
[+] [-] drodgers|9 years ago|reply
That's a silly straw-man.
The reasonable form of the argument is about marginal effects: for each smart immigrant you remove, America becomes dumber, for each smart immigrant you add, America becomes smarter. That form of the argument is evidently true regardless of how many smart people were born in America.
> This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation
It's not that there wouldn't be any, just less. America will be poorer — not destitute, but less rich — if it keeps out smart immigrants.
[+] [-] tetromino_|9 years ago|reply
Go to any research lab in the US; you'll probably see more immigrants than native-born. Far more, in many places. If America cancels visas and closes borders, it will still launch businesses, it will still occasionally produce a unicorn, but it will be crippled in basic science.
[+] [-] hypersoar|9 years ago|reply
Undergraduates, however, are a different matter.
[+] [-] mhneu|9 years ago|reply
- MIT values the skills and intelligence of foreign grad students, who contribute greatly to the research enterprise.
- MIT's president is a Jewish immigrant from Venezuela who understands well illiberalism and is horrified by seeing in the US some of the things he saw in Chavez. Reif has been quite apolitical (see his bland letter after election), but the immigration ban has riled him up.
[+] [-] coderdude|9 years ago|reply
Good luck fighting this fight here, though. It's like arguing that Star Trek is good on a Star Wars fanfic forum. They're just not ready to hear that.
[+] [-] mattnewton|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangerboysteve|9 years ago|reply
But yes, as soon as I read the article I immediately thought of lost revenue from foreign students from certain countries.
[+] [-] ashwinp92|9 years ago|reply
> At well over $50K per year per student the university-as-a-business (rather than an altruistic entity) is concerned about a drop in revenue should immigration policy change. Let's not pretend this is all about good intentions, pink unicorns and ice cream. > A school like MIT (don't mean to focus on them, pick any school) can charge exorbitant tuition to foreign-born students and make millions. And the students pay for it.
Most international students do not have the resources to pay for graduate school and are either funded via grants, teaching or research assistantships or personal-loans. In particular students from these 7 countries. They might have been doing well in their respective countries but the same money after conversion into dollars doesn't have as much purchasing power in the US.
> The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants. I'm sorry, I don't buy that one bit. We already have great talent in this country.
Sure, all international students and faculty are evaluated at par with US citizens. Any bias here is counterproductive to competitiveness and research output of top schools who've signed the brief. So yes, great talent, enough to fill 60% capacity. That is not equivalent to dumb as a rock.
>This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.
According to the article, "It cites one estimate that international students directly contributed $32.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported or contributed to the creation of 400,000 American jobs in the 2015-2016 academic year.". So unless you mean that the total contribution to US economy was $32.8 billion and only 400,000 jobs in total were created in 2015-2016 academic year, the article isn't saying US is a wasteland of a country. Moreover students, post-docs and professors doesn't exactly mean hordes of immigrants.
> They should be honest and say "we are going to lose a ton of money because we make a killing with foreign students".
Again, most PhD students are funded via grants, which depend on good research output, which depend on a competitive admission process which selects the best talent.
>On the other hand, if MIT had no foreign students and charged a LOT less for tuition it would be full of wonderful, capable, creative and eager-to-contribute US residents.
If you say that MIT makes a ton of money by charging more from foreign students, I don't see how you can argue that by taking in none they can charge a lot less for tuition.
Bottom-line: I agree with the general idea of verifying what you read and reading between lines, but based on facts and not assumptions.
[+] [-] placeybordeaux|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HarryHirsch|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enkid|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uberBoober|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Cyph0n|9 years ago|reply
Have you also measured the impact foreign students had on the institutions they attended? How many grants were given because of proposals from foreign students? How about how many US educated diplomats and/or foreign officials ended up improving their country's relations with the US because of their education experience?
[+] [-] Steko|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pboutros|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macscam|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beedogs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gozur88|9 years ago|reply
And... "President Pence".
[+] [-] DannyBee|9 years ago|reply
The current 9th circuit one has a large chance of getting reversed on standing issues (en banc most likely), and honestly, probably should be.
Past that ,the real best hope is that folks like Thomas, et al will ask "remind me again why, if the constitution gives this power to congress, you believe it's okay for congress to give all of it to the executive branch"
But that seems unlikely. More likely roberts decides he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.
[+] [-] jcranmer|9 years ago|reply
Given that the plaintiffs in the suit are people who have been denied entry by the executive order but have valid visas, I doubt standing would be denied. And I'm pretty sure one of the lawsuits has an affected green card member as a plaintiff, which is going to be very hard to deny standing to.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|9 years ago|reply
I'm very weak on civil procedure though so feel free to tell me I'm an idiot.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C15/15-40238-CV0...
[+] [-] elastic_church|9 years ago|reply
Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power? I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D
1 million unemployed in the federal government, upwards of 15 million in the states!
but thats only possible if you believe the Supreme Court's rulings are based on a strict understanding of the constitution they are all reading, or if it is based on the past of least resistance. (its the latter)
the above argument has a thin chance of surviving in 2017
[+] [-] st3v3r|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] redtree|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zackbloom|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/825502400454594561
He has continued to have meetings with the current administration since it was issued though.
[+] [-] anon-caltech|9 years ago|reply
It's indefensible IMO not to stand behind their community, many of whom are Iranian.
[+] [-] wallace_f|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redtree|9 years ago|reply
Now he has deals with NASA and the govt. and is directly being profited. You dont see the conflict of interest ?
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redtree|9 years ago|reply
"Please read immigration order. Lmk specific amendments. Will seek advisory council consensus & present to President." https://t.co/qLpbsP4lEk
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017
you know what this sounds like.. "Where in the world does it say that it is un-constitutional, show me proof"
try to read between the lines..
now please send me into a downvote oblivion
[+] [-] catwind7|9 years ago|reply
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/technology/elon-musk-trump-t...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/07/elon-musk...