@dang - Flagging as [dupe] shouldn't remove an article from the HN front page, especially when none of the other articles are actively on the front page.
Also, all [dupe] article comments should be merged and visible under each separate [dupe] article, so organic user dialogue isn't split up and minimized.
This is just another step in a broad-based program to make sure as few highly qualified people as possible can come to learn and work in the US.
(1) F1 visas have been effectively banned in much of the world since COVID started - the required interviews could only be done in now-closed centers.
(2) H1B, L1, H4, and J1 visas have been suspended until the end of the year, leaving OPT transfers, H1B lottery winners (already a 1 in 3 shot), H1B transfers, and others in the lurch.
(3) RFEs (a first step to visa denials) have been on a steep rise.
As a result, not only are we kicking people out, but international applications to US schools have absolutely collapsed; fewer people are even trying. The US is actively abandoning its goal of being the land of opportunity, and it makes me sad.
Weren't these visas supposed to be for bringing talented individuals with expertise deemed to be missing in the US? Was the visa system ever 'just' for bringing 'highly qualified' individuals? If America wants highly qualified individuals, it seems to me that 'nurturing' that talent is more important.
Bringing in uniquely talented individuals who can distribute expert knowledge accomplishes that.
Bringing an IT worker who does a good JAVA/.Net programming does not accomplish that... right?
Minor nit: I believe H1B transfers for people already in the country are still being processed. But your broader point of the US government actively preventing global talent from entering the country stands. Very sad indeed.
> The US is actively abandoning its goal of being the land of opportunity, and it makes me sad.
Yes - this is active, but not irrational, because this is a reversion to mercantilism of the earlier centuries (it is not a conservative position, but a regressive one).
The only people welcome to this country are "growing things in the ground".
Because if the only thing that you consider to be productive is farming (as in production == farming), then the whole social requirements of education, research or specialization is irrelevant. And in fact, those people are a drain on the food security and profitability of the extractive industry of farming.
Maybe because it is fresh, I was struck by a bit of the lyrics from Hamilton as being a direct reference to this thought that the rest of America is just "moving money around" in the service industries (even the industry, where every stage is just making something from somebody else's raw material, till you get to the Appalachian coal mines).
Don't tax the South 'cause we got it made in the shade /
In Virginia, we plant seeds in the ground /
We create, you just wanna move our money around /
This financial plan is an outrageous demand
> (1) F1 visas have been effectively banned in much of the world since COVID started - the required interviews could only be done in now-closed centers.
Wouldn't lock-downs have resulted in the consulates being required to close in much of the world?
And how much reciprocity is there? Are Americans even allowed to travel to most of the world today? There are stories about schools in places like UK having to charter planes to bring students since it's impossible to get there otherwise. Making this all into a narrative about xenophobic americans seems near-sighted.
The US allows over 1 million immigrants per year. Maybe less the past year, but still extremely high on an immigrant per capita basis.
H1B was being abused and needed to be reigned in.
There are still plenty of people coming into the country through various means, the US is still extremely generous with immigration.
There are plenty of qualified citizens here and in the zero sum game that is hiring national immigration policy should put their needs first before anyone else's.
Or, maybe American’s have grown tired of educating state sponsored (China) students whose sponsors quite literally seek to exfiltrate knowledge from U.S. academia and industry. Do you think I as an American would be welcome to attend a Chinese university 100% remotely? Do you think China would allow any American to attend a program in China that could help the U.S. build a competitive or defensive advantage?
- International student cannot legally attend a 100% online school from the US (with an F or M status).
- International student in school with "Hybrid" models (some in person, some online) cannot have a 100% "online semester". The school will need to certify that the student is not taking 100% online classes.
- If a Hybrid school moves to a fully online halfway through, the student needs to depart the US (or transfer to another school)
This only applies for the student to be legally _within_ the US of course.
EDIT: The law already prevented this, basically. Spring and Summer had special exemptions granted by DHS. So this is just a reversal to the "usual policy", which it seems many school expected would not happen (at least not that quickly).
My university is scrambling to understand the exact consequences.
>” Visa requirements for students have always been strict and coming to the US to take online-only courses has been prohibited.”
So it’s a reinforcement of policy rather than change although some institutions would like to see accommodation for this kind of circumstance —which is understandable if students came here with the intent to attend in person, but it’s worth noting the the visa requirements have not changed
That requirement was waived this spring. They're unwaiving it.[0]
Rigid enforcement of rules designed for a world that doesn't exist anymore, and won't for a while, is a deliberate choice and not one that we have to make.
The pandemic is an ongoing rolling emergency. Making life worse for people for no good reason may be the default, but that doesn't mean that the people who can waive the rule shouldn't be held responsible when they decide not to. Inaction and action are nearly indistinguishable from the side of the people being affected.
[0] See this guidance from March: "Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 emergency, SEVP will allow F-1 and/or M-1 students to temporarily count online classes towards a full course of study in excess of the limits... This temporary provision is only in effect for the duration of the emergency" Absolutely nothing substantive has changed since then, but ICE has apparently changed its mind and- implausibly- decided the emergency is over. It's absurd.
Foreign students can only take 1 online class at our institution due to current policy. When we scrambled to move all online during the stay-home orders, one question we didn't have answered was whether or not those students could even stay if we went entirely online.
The policy didn't change at all, it's super restrictive.
What institutions I'm affiliated with are asking is for temporary flexibility during COVID-19. Specific start and end dates based on periodic review of health measures.
And the answer is still a resounding 'no' from any sort of federal representative we can get in touch with.
This, honestly, feels like the federal immigration department is trying to punish schools who are more cautious about opening up like nothing is happening. It tastes bad.
edit: edited to reflect the inaccuracy as pointed out by PeterisP. SEVIS is overseen by ICE, not the department of education. Our representatives for SEVIS are generally connected to the DoE in some fashion. I didn't realize folks wouldn't know that ICE oversees immigrants, and that the Ed Department isn't responsible for making this policy.
“It’s the law” is a terrible rationale though. Our values should inform our laws and their interpretation, not the other way around.
There is a clear externality forcing this situation and it is clearly more detrimental to force them out of the country than to just make special accommodations/provisions. Pass a bill if that makes it more palatable and set it to have a termination date with the ability to “re-up” if this situation continues. But shrugging and going “them’s the rules” when it suits us and being flexible elsewhere (freelancers getting unemployment benefits, for instance) seems arbitrary and, frankly, capricious.
It's a total dick move by them to enforce it right now. If the student is normally enrolled full time in person and they just have this/next semester online, they shouldn't be required to pack their bags and leave for just one or two semesters. That's very different from the intent of not letting online students physically enter the us for no reason. Already many students were stuck here in may since international travel was restricted by many countries. Doing stupid pointless shit like this has no positive effect.
Technically it may be a reenforcement but Corona Virus has changed quite a few things and it is also a practical fact that a lot of people are stranded and cannot travel to their home countries right now that easily. So you cannot just "enforce" the law and it needs a more balanced approach by the administration. If they don't act according to the current situation, it is not a good thing regardless of what the law is. Immigration is very discretionary when it comes to these types of situations. They can always say "Hey there is this law but considering where we are with Corona, we will give you some flexibility".
Right, but unlike a designed-to-be-online program, depending on the university/each individual class, many of the classes are not going to be designed with timezone differences in mind, not designed to get through local internet filters, etc. The thinking behind the rules is that there is no need to live in the US to participate in a fully-online program, but this is not applicable to a regular program that is temporarily forced to run online due to the pandemic only.
Additionally, this ignores the financial losses (ex costs of breaking leases, selling property, expensive/hard to schedule air travel which may require more legs than usual now, shipping, large currency conversions) caused by a sudden move back. Additionally, there will be costs to get internet access and other necessary materials back home. Some institutions still have not announced their plans, and they can change at any time.
These are people who want to and have been living on campus. They are not just taking advantage of the visa to sit in front of a computer screen for four years--so there is no reason they should have to leave. This clearly has no relevance to the initial intent of the policy, and refusing to waive it in this case demonstrates the government's effort to hurt people of other nationalities in any way possible.
International students should be allowed to stay as long as they're full-time, and are accepted into an accredited university with the intention of attending in person.
I guess the gray area here is that colleges, many of them being for-profit entities, are facing big drops in enrollment and can essentially sell US citizenship in exchange for tuition payments. Once an online course system is set up, the only cost is generating new user credentials.
* One of my friends went to live with her parents after her OPT expired. She was supposed to enroll in an M.S. in August, but due to COVID, the embassies in her country were shut down. While her university is hybrid, she chose to stay in her home country to take the online-only courses, which are (fortunately) discounted.
* My sister, who is trying to renew her F-1 and has no other status options, is hoping that her school doesn't go online.
* My mom, an immunocompromised professor, is asking the university for an exemption to their in-person requirement. The university said no. The word around is that a financial analyst explained to administration that if people don't have the "campus experience" and therefore stop paying for housing/dining halls, the university would face insolvency within 2 semesters.
All in all, it seems like a way to pressure universities to open. They cannot reasonably close and lose like 5-10% more of their revenue by losing all international students, especially if they haven't figured out online course delivery to recoup some fees from F-1s.
The point about your mom (and more broadly older faculty) is important. I hope it works out for her.
Vulnerable faculty will likely be forced to hold "in-person" lectures (ergo worsening their risk profiles) for the universities to create quasi-in-person courses: in that, videos will still be recorded and students probably won't show up but, on paper, it wouldn't be classified as an online course. This would likely be coupled with batch-scheduled exams being the only occasion the students need to show up in person for (or perhaps, those too are obviated via take-home exams?). This is essentially identical to some large enrollment, advanced CS theory courses I've taken.
As someone who studied in the US on an F1 visa, I can tell you that this rule has always been in place. The F1 visa was always extremely restrictive whether it was regarding minimum number of in person credits or regarding allowing students to work part time.
It seems especially cruel that they'd choose to enforce the rule at a time like this.
I know this will be very unpleasant and will entail a lot of hardship for a lot of people but I can't help but wonder if in the long term this will help to start reversing the "brain drain" problem that many developing nations are struggling with. They'll still have access to their classes and be able to acquire the requisite skills, but now they'll be building something in their home country not stuck in a middle tier position within the US.
Of course not saying that means the policies made are good or bad, I am just curious to the second order effect this will have.
As an international student myself, it has been a very confusing last few months, and now this. I am fortunate enough to be back in my home country but I know of many others who are stuck in the US due to travel restrictions or financial reasons. Forcing them to leave for a situation they cannot control during a pandemic is cruel.
I urge everyone to sign this petition[0] to help international students who are here to pursue higher education in the US, by asking ICE to rescind their decision.
All of those students who came to the US to try to get an education will remember this for the rest of their lives. When all of those future scientists, business leaders, journalists, politicians, artists, and so on think about the US, they will think back to how the US treated them at a time of global crisis.
I really hope universities can find a loophole around this. Three days of in-class lecture per semester, but allow for three unexcused absences for any reason.
Just another step on the way to the US becoming a pariah state. I'm really not looking forward to the next few years here. While electing a Democratic government might be able to reverse some of the policies, check out what the senate is doing to the judicial branch to see why that might not be enough, it won't return the trust or reputation of the US.
The nativist, anti-intellectual, and outright fascist elements of the US have gone from a vocal minority to a genuine force in American politics thanks to the Senate. While they still are a minority of the population, probably 20% if you cast the absolute widest net possible, due to gerrymandering, 2 Senators per state, lifetime judicial appointments, the electoral college, and extreme voter suppression they are in charge of huge swaths of the government. It's gonna be a wild ride.
In an ideal world, this is where the legislature steps in and passes a law that allows these students to stay for the 2020-21 school year, rather than assuming the executive branch just selectively continues non-enforcement of this requirement.
If you're a US citizen, you can contact your representative/senators offices and ask them to deal with this.
I'm expecting universities to begin to encourage international students to sign up for in-person lab classes to bypass this rule.
Are any HN'ers aware of policies emerging to this effect? I expect there to be some back-and-forth between educational institutions and the government on this one.
I had a similar first thought. A 0 credit, single class (1 hour per semester), in-person lab classes would reduce the 100% online to ... not. I wonder if there's rules in place to prevent this.
The whole thing is optimized for maximum cruelty, but the suggestion that students should transfer to another school that has in-person classes is just mockery.
In normal times transferring to another college is a process that takes 9-10 months. The admission rate for transfer applications is really low. And that's just for domestic transfer students. It is not even theoretically possible to transfer to another school in a couple of months. Not to mention that the F-1 student visa and the I-20 form needed to obtain such a visa are for a specific school only, so international students would also have to go back to their home countries and obtain new visas.
On the plus side, maybe this will help with the talent brain affecting the countries from where those students come. If it matters I live in a country heavily affected by emigration.
I'm genuine curious what economic benefits this brings. With the very limited economics I've learned, most students are net spenders in the country, them being here will only pour more money in. Economically, how does stopping them coming in help anyone?
My academic friends are going absolutely bananas over this. Particularly at the graduate level, and particularly in technical fields, this will leave some departments unable to function. Even domestic students will suffer. And that's all aside from the long term effect on national competitiveness. I've seen some mention mercantilism, but this isn't even effective as that. True mercantilism would mean doing even more to keep other countries from benefiting from those students' knowledge and labor. This is not mercantilism; it's a very different and almost suicidal kind of nativism.
What this policy completely misses is that some courses are real-time online, not recorded, and that people live in different timezones across the globe.
This is extremely personally harmful to people affected.
Instructors want to reduce their risk of exposure, which is understandable. But serving that interest also means a lot of international students will lose their visas. Would limiting seats in class to just international students be a good way to reconcile both parties' interests?
Edit: this would raise issues of fairness and equal treatment (a lot of students, especially those not accustomed to remote learning, would feel cheated). There probably is no perfect solution.
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755301
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23753413
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23753182
[+] [-] jb775|5 years ago|reply
Also, all [dupe] article comments should be merged and visible under each separate [dupe] article, so organic user dialogue isn't split up and minimized.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] curiousllama|5 years ago|reply
(1) F1 visas have been effectively banned in much of the world since COVID started - the required interviews could only be done in now-closed centers. (2) H1B, L1, H4, and J1 visas have been suspended until the end of the year, leaving OPT transfers, H1B lottery winners (already a 1 in 3 shot), H1B transfers, and others in the lurch. (3) RFEs (a first step to visa denials) have been on a steep rise.
As a result, not only are we kicking people out, but international applications to US schools have absolutely collapsed; fewer people are even trying. The US is actively abandoning its goal of being the land of opportunity, and it makes me sad.
[+] [-] three_seagrass|5 years ago|reply
40% of the Fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrant families [2][3], so the U.S. is really shooting itself in the foot (again).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy)
[2] F500 2010: http://research.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/20... (pdf)
[3] F500 2017: https://startupsusa.org/fortune500/
[+] [-] genericone|5 years ago|reply
Bringing in uniquely talented individuals who can distribute expert knowledge accomplishes that.
Bringing an IT worker who does a good JAVA/.Net programming does not accomplish that... right?
[+] [-] rajup|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gopalv|5 years ago|reply
Yes - this is active, but not irrational, because this is a reversion to mercantilism of the earlier centuries (it is not a conservative position, but a regressive one).
The only people welcome to this country are "growing things in the ground".
Because if the only thing that you consider to be productive is farming (as in production == farming), then the whole social requirements of education, research or specialization is irrelevant. And in fact, those people are a drain on the food security and profitability of the extractive industry of farming.
Maybe because it is fresh, I was struck by a bit of the lyrics from Hamilton as being a direct reference to this thought that the rest of America is just "moving money around" in the service industries (even the industry, where every stage is just making something from somebody else's raw material, till you get to the Appalachian coal mines).
[+] [-] ISL|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unishark|5 years ago|reply
Wouldn't lock-downs have resulted in the consulates being required to close in much of the world?
And how much reciprocity is there? Are Americans even allowed to travel to most of the world today? There are stories about schools in places like UK having to charter planes to bring students since it's impossible to get there otherwise. Making this all into a narrative about xenophobic americans seems near-sighted.
[+] [-] nopeNopeNooope|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fuckyah|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jimbokun|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TrackerFF|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twsttest|5 years ago|reply
H1B was being abused and needed to be reigned in.
There are still plenty of people coming into the country through various means, the US is still extremely generous with immigration.
There are plenty of qualified citizens here and in the zero sum game that is hiring national immigration policy should put their needs first before anyone else's.
[+] [-] jtdev|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_svd_doctor|5 years ago|reply
Key fact:
- International student cannot legally attend a 100% online school from the US (with an F or M status).
- International student in school with "Hybrid" models (some in person, some online) cannot have a 100% "online semester". The school will need to certify that the student is not taking 100% online classes.
- If a Hybrid school moves to a fully online halfway through, the student needs to depart the US (or transfer to another school)
This only applies for the student to be legally _within_ the US of course.
EDIT: The law already prevented this, basically. Spring and Summer had special exemptions granted by DHS. So this is just a reversal to the "usual policy", which it seems many school expected would not happen (at least not that quickly). My university is scrambling to understand the exact consequences.
[+] [-] mc32|5 years ago|reply
>” Visa requirements for students have always been strict and coming to the US to take online-only courses has been prohibited.”
So it’s a reinforcement of policy rather than change although some institutions would like to see accommodation for this kind of circumstance —which is understandable if students came here with the intent to attend in person, but it’s worth noting the the visa requirements have not changed
[+] [-] roywiggins|5 years ago|reply
Rigid enforcement of rules designed for a world that doesn't exist anymore, and won't for a while, is a deliberate choice and not one that we have to make.
The pandemic is an ongoing rolling emergency. Making life worse for people for no good reason may be the default, but that doesn't mean that the people who can waive the rule shouldn't be held responsible when they decide not to. Inaction and action are nearly indistinguishable from the side of the people being affected.
[0] See this guidance from March: "Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 emergency, SEVP will allow F-1 and/or M-1 students to temporarily count online classes towards a full course of study in excess of the limits... This temporary provision is only in effect for the duration of the emergency" Absolutely nothing substantive has changed since then, but ICE has apparently changed its mind and- implausibly- decided the emergency is over. It's absurd.
https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2...
[+] [-] Loughla|5 years ago|reply
The policy didn't change at all, it's super restrictive.
What institutions I'm affiliated with are asking is for temporary flexibility during COVID-19. Specific start and end dates based on periodic review of health measures.
And the answer is still a resounding 'no' from any sort of federal representative we can get in touch with.
This, honestly, feels like the federal immigration department is trying to punish schools who are more cautious about opening up like nothing is happening. It tastes bad.
edit: edited to reflect the inaccuracy as pointed out by PeterisP. SEVIS is overseen by ICE, not the department of education. Our representatives for SEVIS are generally connected to the DoE in some fashion. I didn't realize folks wouldn't know that ICE oversees immigrants, and that the Ed Department isn't responsible for making this policy.
[+] [-] Forgeties79|5 years ago|reply
There is a clear externality forcing this situation and it is clearly more detrimental to force them out of the country than to just make special accommodations/provisions. Pass a bill if that makes it more palatable and set it to have a termination date with the ability to “re-up” if this situation continues. But shrugging and going “them’s the rules” when it suits us and being flexible elsewhere (freelancers getting unemployment benefits, for instance) seems arbitrary and, frankly, capricious.
[+] [-] the_pwner224|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codegeek|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morpheuskafka|5 years ago|reply
Additionally, this ignores the financial losses (ex costs of breaking leases, selling property, expensive/hard to schedule air travel which may require more legs than usual now, shipping, large currency conversions) caused by a sudden move back. Additionally, there will be costs to get internet access and other necessary materials back home. Some institutions still have not announced their plans, and they can change at any time.
These are people who want to and have been living on campus. They are not just taking advantage of the visa to sit in front of a computer screen for four years--so there is no reason they should have to leave. This clearly has no relevance to the initial intent of the policy, and refusing to waive it in this case demonstrates the government's effort to hurt people of other nationalities in any way possible.
[+] [-] jb775|5 years ago|reply
I guess the gray area here is that colleges, many of them being for-profit entities, are facing big drops in enrollment and can essentially sell US citizenship in exchange for tuition payments. Once an online course system is set up, the only cost is generating new user credentials.
[+] [-] the_svd_doctor|5 years ago|reply
This is a big overstatement. There are many far from trivial steps between being a F/M student and getting citizenship.
It certainly is a way for people to start they "immigration journey" to the US, though, obviously.
[+] [-] thefrozenone|5 years ago|reply
* One of my friends went to live with her parents after her OPT expired. She was supposed to enroll in an M.S. in August, but due to COVID, the embassies in her country were shut down. While her university is hybrid, she chose to stay in her home country to take the online-only courses, which are (fortunately) discounted.
* My sister, who is trying to renew her F-1 and has no other status options, is hoping that her school doesn't go online.
* My mom, an immunocompromised professor, is asking the university for an exemption to their in-person requirement. The university said no. The word around is that a financial analyst explained to administration that if people don't have the "campus experience" and therefore stop paying for housing/dining halls, the university would face insolvency within 2 semesters.
All in all, it seems like a way to pressure universities to open. They cannot reasonably close and lose like 5-10% more of their revenue by losing all international students, especially if they haven't figured out online course delivery to recoup some fees from F-1s.
[+] [-] krnsll|5 years ago|reply
Vulnerable faculty will likely be forced to hold "in-person" lectures (ergo worsening their risk profiles) for the universities to create quasi-in-person courses: in that, videos will still be recorded and students probably won't show up but, on paper, it wouldn't be classified as an online course. This would likely be coupled with batch-scheduled exams being the only occasion the students need to show up in person for (or perhaps, those too are obviated via take-home exams?). This is essentially identical to some large enrollment, advanced CS theory courses I've taken.
[+] [-] arrayjumper|5 years ago|reply
It seems especially cruel that they'd choose to enforce the rule at a time like this.
[+] [-] hpoe|5 years ago|reply
Of course not saying that means the policies made are good or bad, I am just curious to the second order effect this will have.
[+] [-] siraben|5 years ago|reply
I urge everyone to sign this petition[0] to help international students who are here to pursue higher education in the US, by asking ICE to rescind their decision.
[0] https://www.change.org/p/ice-let-international-students-stay
[+] [-] humanistbot|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eloisius|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sm0ss117|5 years ago|reply
The nativist, anti-intellectual, and outright fascist elements of the US have gone from a vocal minority to a genuine force in American politics thanks to the Senate. While they still are a minority of the population, probably 20% if you cast the absolute widest net possible, due to gerrymandering, 2 Senators per state, lifetime judicial appointments, the electoral college, and extreme voter suppression they are in charge of huge swaths of the government. It's gonna be a wild ride.
[+] [-] dangoor|5 years ago|reply
If you're a US citizen, you can contact your representative/senators offices and ask them to deal with this.
[+] [-] ISL|5 years ago|reply
Are any HN'ers aware of policies emerging to this effect? I expect there to be some back-and-forth between educational institutions and the government on this one.
[+] [-] RHSeeger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blue11|5 years ago|reply
In normal times transferring to another college is a process that takes 9-10 months. The admission rate for transfer applications is really low. And that's just for domestic transfer students. It is not even theoretically possible to transfer to another school in a couple of months. Not to mention that the F-1 student visa and the I-20 form needed to obtain such a visa are for a specific school only, so international students would also have to go back to their home countries and obtain new visas.
[+] [-] paganel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yizhang7210|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notacoward|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xixixao|5 years ago|reply
This is extremely personally harmful to people affected.
[+] [-] ralmidani|5 years ago|reply
Edit: this would raise issues of fairness and equal treatment (a lot of students, especially those not accustomed to remote learning, would feel cheated). There probably is no perfect solution.