ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

DHS Issues Initiative to Encourage More Students to Study, Remain in US

Rate this Entry

The press release makes it all sound so wonderful:



Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton today announced a new initiative to streamline the international student visa process for foreign students seeking to study in the United States. The Study in the States initiative is a key component of a government-wide effort to encourage the best and brightest foreign students to study and remain in the U.S.


"Attracting the best and brightest international talent to our colleges and universities is an important part of our nation's economic, scientific and technological innovation and competitiveness," said Secretary Napolitano. "Foreign students and exchange visitors bring invaluable contributions to our nation, and the Study in the States initiative is an important step in empowering the next generation of international entrepreneurs, right here in America."


More than 1.1 million active nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors and their dependents study in our nation's world class system of universities, exchange programs, and training opportunities. The Study in the States initiative will examine regulatory changes, expand public engagement between the government and academia, and provide a central on-line information hub for DHS and its agency partners to provide current and prospective students with updated and relevant visa requirements in a streamlined, user-friendly format.


"Study in the States encourages international students who seek the wealth of educational opportunities available in the U.S. to remain here following their studies and apply their new skills here in our country," said ICE Director Morton. "We aim to strike a balance--providing an open and welcoming experience for international students and visitors seeking information, while maintaining the integrity and security of our visa process. This site is an important step toward reaching that goal."



But it's one thing to issue press releases and web sites with helpful information. It's another far more difficult thing to change internal policies and a seemingly intractible mindset amongst examiners and officers who believe their primary mission is to keep as many people out of the country as they can and not do what's best for the country (though they probably believe that keeping as many people out IS what's best fot the country).


Just ask an immigration lawyer that handles EB-1 petitions for extraordinary ability aliens whether USCIS genuinely appears interested in attracting the best and brightest and you'll get an earful regarding a soaring denial rate for these petitions and jaw dropping examples of incredibly gifted individuals who are being humiliated and basically run out of the country. Director Mayorkas has held several stakeholders calls on this subject and knows about which I write, but there is little evidence he has had any ability to get the situation under control. Best of luck.


Until Secretary Napolitano, Director Mayorkas, Director Morton and senior officials across DHS can figure out how to truly change policies achieve the stated objectives and then actually get examiners carry out those policies either by incentivizing correct behavior or punishing failing to abide by stated policies, then you really have accomplished little.


Secretary Napolitano - don't just talk the talk. Show us you can walk the walk.

Submit "DHS Issues Initiative to Encourage More Students to Study, Remain in US" to Facebook Submit "DHS Issues Initiative to Encourage More Students to Study, Remain in US" to Twitter Submit "DHS Issues Initiative to Encourage More Students to Study, Remain in US" to Google Submit "DHS Issues Initiative to Encourage More Students to Study, Remain in US" to StumbleUpon Submit "DHS Issues Initiative to Encourage More Students to Study, Remain in US" to Reddit Submit "DHS Issues Initiative to Encourage More Students to Study, Remain in US" to Digg Submit "DHS Issues Initiative to Encourage More Students to Study, Remain in US" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Simple Guy tired of waiting...'s Avatar
    This is just lip work. I ask these guys this question. for an F1 student who has an MS from US and is doing his/her MBA why isn't he/she allowed to get another OPT for an MBA? Who made this crap rule where in one can get another OPT only if the degree level is higher than previous attained degree..There are many such rules which do not make sense and students are ready to leave..building fancy websites won't solve the problem. and believe me these students are not idiots in the first place..they know when it is just lip service. and this is just lip service and nothing else!!!
  2. George Chell's Avatar
    The first question is whether the brain dead bureaucrats in the state department and their equally brain dead consular officers agree and not try and implement section 214(b) thus starting a warfare between two departments which simply dont like each other?

    The second issue is we simply dont have a choice. We can either allow as many foreign students into this country whether they stay after graduation or not, due to the money it will bring. Americans simply do not have the money and the cash strapped universities such as UW Seattle have put a cap on instate students due to budget cuts and they are considering the same in Colorado and California. Without foreign students university will lay off more people, unemployment will increase further and we will see the economy head towards another great recession if not a depression. Perhaps this is what bigots and racists at CIS and FAIR such as Stein and Kirkorian want. Advocating not letting in foreign students as CIS and FAIR do, without fighting to help Americans attend college (ie., fighting budget cuts) is tantamount to bigotry and racism...nothing less. And that is what people like Stein, Kirkorian and Camarotta are...bigots and racists!
  3. George Chell's Avatar
    Forget the Homeland Security or the State Department. With American Universities such as these, I wonder whether foreign students will look for other countries to get an eduation...

    http://www.al.com/cw/index.ssf/2011/09/crimson_white_barriers_still_p/8002002/comments-4.html
  4. CB's Avatar
    Greg, do you know what is the latest status of using the infamous Kazarian memo? It is the latest piece of ammunition in the arsenal of adjudicators to drive qualified people out of US. Will USCIS continue using it for time to come or is there a rethink on the use?
  5. TabathaSummers26's Avatar
    Specialists argue that business loans help people to live the way they want, because they can feel free to buy necessary goods. Furthermore, a lot of banks present collateral loan for different persons.
  6. Jim's Avatar
    America needs more immigrants. Be it more students, nurses, entrepreneurs.

    Time for more piece-meal immigration reforms.
  7. Do something before its too late's Avatar
    They need to increase the OPT to 3 years for stem/non stem and make it easier to transition to a Greencard, like its in canada. You wont believe the number of international students who're packing bags and heading back home or to more friendlier entrepreneurial nations like hong kong/singapore. They're not only being welcomed with insane amount of VC money but also easy opportunities to create tons of jobs which they are. Im seeing it with my own eyes.
  8. Simple Guy tired of waiting...'s Avatar
    I am surprised that there there are people still posting on this forum who are optimistic and are waiting for a miracle. This is not going to happen. I am not at all optimistic now and I am pretty sure that no body will even talk about it until 3 months before the elections next year!!!
  9. Jack's Avatar
    "America needs more immigrants."

    Only if we need a higher population: That's the big picture high immigration proponents ignore and it trumps all their arguments. We are already projected to reach as high as 1.2 billion within the century and immigrationists want to go even faster/higher? How does that make any sense? It's an insurmountable case to make considering at our current population we already deplete resources like water and farmland and are experiencing habitat and species loss. Since that cannot go on forever, it's just not realistic to think we can keep growing. Of course, that fact is hard for some people to accept and the elephant in the room is ignored due to political correctness over immigration policy.
  10. USC's Avatar
    "We are already projected to reach as high as 1.2 billion within the century"

    That's simply wrong. Hint: Take the current US population, use the basic mathematical formula taking into account current population, growth rate of 0.86%, 89 years (years left to end of century),even after adding in the immigration quota you get nowhere near 1 billion.
  11. Jack's Avatar
    "That's simply wrong."

    Tell that to the Census Bureau. Their number in the Statistical Abstract of the United States was actually 1,182,390. Even using your formula, the number will be very high. Maybe we'll get "only" 6 or 7 hundred million but it would be even higher if the more immigration people had their way. The funny thing is, they don't seem to think or talk much about what population their policy would lead to (let alone the implications of such a number). If they concede the population will reach, e.g., 1 billion, they brush all your evidence off as nothing to be concerned about. If you ask them at what population would you consider lowering immigration, it doesn't seem to compute.
  12. USC's Avatar
    "Tell that to the Census Bureau."

    You got this from the Census Bureau? Or was it some kooky "preaching to the choir fringe group" website?

    "Their number in the Statistical Abstract of the United States was actually 1,182,390."

    OK. I checked out your source. See link below. The Statistical Abstract does not give projections beyond 2050 (when the US population INCLUSIVE of immigration is projected to be only 439 Million) hence my above remark.

    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0003.pdf

    "Even using your formula, the number will be very high."

    It is hardly my formula. It is basic high school math. If the antis are going to use science as an argument against immigration then they might want to brush up on their math skills. In fact "my" formula results in a higher number because I used a constant figure of 0.86 (which I got from Wikipedia) for population growth whereas the census bureau has it declining over the years.

    "Maybe we'll get "only" 6 or 7 hundred million"

    Why not compute it and tell us what it would be? I have already told you how to compute it.

    "The funny thing is, they don't seem to think or talk much about what population their policy would lead to (let alone the implications of such a number)."

    If you are making an environmental argument against population growth then you need to realize that the relevant figure is the population of the world and not of a country. A person moving from one country to another does not increase the population. A person when he is born causes an increase of 1 and when a person dies he causes a decrease of 1. If you are serious about controlling population you have to indulge in measures such as forced, mass sterilizations, China's one child policy, withholding medical treatment from the chronically ill so that the death rate goes up. I would also point out that the public policy of the USA is to increase the poplation of the US, that is why the tax code permits you to claim an exemption for each and every one of your children. If you want to make a start you should be lobbying not just for an elimination of these exemptions but for an addition to gross income for every child that you have. Of course, this would result in a situation where the poor, the handicapped and the unemployed might find it impossible to have children. I would view such a policy as abhorrent and morally bankrupt.

    "If you ask them at what population would you consider lowering immigration, it doesn't seem to compute."

    IMHO, when you target the immigrants you are targetting the wrong victims, you need to target the poor and seek a way to eliminate them.



  13. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    Jack, "does not seem to compute" is a fair description of your nonsense. None of your fuzzy math seems to compute. Even with the most aggressive growth projections by the end of the century the US will not be anywhere near today's population density of Europe (several times lower, to be exact).
  14. Do something before its too late's Avatar
    Jack is the reason why we need international students with US degrees to stay back in the US after their graduation
  15. Jack's Avatar
    Year 2100 projections:

    http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.txt


    "If you are making an environmental argument against population growth then you need to realize that the relevant figure is the population of the world and not of a country."

    Both are relevant. Also, if a country has an unsustainable fertility rate it can only continue if they can send their excess population to other countries. If receiving countries tighten up their immigration policies (less slots for the excess population to go) it puts downward pressure on the sending country's fertility rate (toward a sustainable fertility rate). Thus, a national immigration policy can not only affect that country's population but world population.



    "A person moving from one country to another does not increase the population."

    Of course. But if that person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country, the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot. This is what happens when people move from lower eco-footprint countries into high footprint U.S.


    "the tax code permits you to claim an exemption for each and every one of your children."

    And there are other child-based subsidies which not only encourage a higher domestic birthrate but for people to bring children to the U.S. (an often cited magnet for illegal immigration). Unlimited child credits are also fraud magnets.


    "Even with the most aggressive growth projections by the end of the century the US will not be anywhere near today's population density of Europe"

    This is a common type of argument. Here is an easy to understand rebuttal:

    The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.

    By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons.

    Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. They don't live solely on the land in their own nations. . . . they are spending their capital with no thought for the future.

    http://www.2think.org/tpe.shtml

  16. Anon's Avatar
    Jack, what is your argument for exporting the American way of life elsewhere? Does it not increase the carbon footprint over there? Also I think you base your argument that a country's natural resources are strained by its own population, but not from others. And you talk about Africa. Ever heard of blood diamonds? Do Africans consume an extreme number of diamonds? First take a lesson in history. Why did you think the world was colonized all over during the Industrial revolution.
  17. USC's Avatar
    "Year 2100 projections:"

    This is dated January 13, 2000 almost 12 years ago. I have provided a link to their 2012 report. As a general rule a more recent version of a report supercedes an earlier version of the same report. Do you think an exception is warranted in this case?

    "Both are relevant. Also, if a country has an unsustainable fertility rate it can only continue if they can send their excess population to other countries. If receiving countries tighten up their immigration policies (less slots for the excess population to go) it puts downward pressure on the sending country's fertility rate (toward a sustainable fertility rate). Thus, a national immigration policy can not only affect that country's population but world population."

    I take it then that you would have no objection to immigration from the Western European countries many of which have a lower fertility (and growth rate) than the USA?

    "Of course. But if that person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country, the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot. This is what happens when people move from lower eco-footprint countries into high footprint U.S."

    Again, the same question. So, you have no objection to immigration from the Western European countries as they have a similar ecological footprint?

    Am I right in concluding that it is your contention that immigration from Western Europe to the USA does not damage the environment but immigration from Africa to the USA has a devastating impact on the ecology and environment of the Planet Earth?









  18. Jack's Avatar
    "This is dated January 13, 2000 almost 12 years ago. As a general rule a more recent version of a report supercedes an earlier version of the same report."

    Do you know of a more recent projection from them for the year 2100? I have not seen one. Maybe they published some special longer range projections due to it being a new millennium.


    "I take it then that you would have no objection to immigration from the Western European countries many of which have a lower fertility (and growth rate) than the USA?"

    If you mean unlimited, I would object regardless of fertility. Theoretically, even if you know a person would not produce offspring they still add to your population (and footprint) during the span of their lifetime. Theoretically, if a European's individual footprint were to be the same if he moved to the U.S., even though the impact on the world footprint would be unchanged I would still rather have the local impact be in Europe rather than on my own country. In that regard, I have a home country bias.






Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: