And in the meantime, shut the fuck up?
These four short paragraphs together constitute one of the dumbest arguments I’ve seen here in a long time. Actually, I think that calling it an argument would be too generous. It’s a complete non-response to the issue at hand.
No-one has said legal points don’t need legal views. But intelligent people understand that policy questions and legal questions are not the same thing. Questions of morality and principle and ethics are also not necessarily legal questions. Something you even recognize in your next dumb sentence.
As for the policy sentence, thanks for repeating what everyone knows. You’re really helping here! Of course, elections often present voters with choices where none of the candidates will do what you want. What are you supposed to do then? Just not vote? Also, how is it Obama voters’ fault if he failed to keep his promise to them about shutting down Gitmo? I spent most of his presidency criticizing him for that, as well as for his drone strikes and other Middle East aggression, and his deportation agenda.
Who has argued for open borders or unencumbered movement in this thread? I’ll wait here while you find the citation for me. We’ve been talking about people who were already approved and in the United States, and who have significant reliance interests at stake. As a lawyer, do you know what reliance means, or do I need to explain it to you?
The last sentence is mega dumb. I wasn’t deriding lawyers as a whole; I think lawyers are great. I spend a LOT of time reading law-related stuff, I listen to legal podcasts run by lawyers all the time, and I respect the scholarly and the legal work done by myriad lawyers that I could list, and thousands of others whose names I don’t know. But almost none of the smart lawyers I’ve ever encountered is silly enough to mistake policy arguments for legal arguments, and almost none of them believe that “It’s legal” is a sufficient final response to a debate over policy.
Clearly, you’re an iconoclast.
If they were honest one of the main reasons schools are ticked off is they are afraid of losing cheap labor for labs and lower level courses.
U.S. law also already encompasses the Administrative Procedures Act, which sets forth a whole laundry list of actions that must be taken before regulations can be changed, all of which the Trump Administration completely blew off. Read the complaint and then explain to me why you think it has no merit. Show your work, please. There’s no need to change any law here to end up with a fair and reasonable result.
And if you’re looking for someone who engaged in substantial and consistent ranting about treatment of Muslims in the U.S. after 9/11, there aren’t a ton of posters here with a more solid record than mine.
This ruling hits undergrads just as much. They don’t perform those roles
For schools with large foreign graduate student populations, that might be true. I came to the United States as a foreign student, and entered a PhD program, and part of the requirements for receiving my fellowship and stipend was that I had to work as a TA for lower-division courses. But my university didn’t admit foreign students as cheap labor; they could quite easily have filled their grad student ranks from American applicants. They admitted foreign students because they wanted good candidates, wherever they happened to be from, and because this sort of intellectual and cultural diversity is a good thing for a university.
The biggest financial consequence of this decision is likely to be for the universities who admit hundreds or even thousands of foreign undergraduate students, and it’s not because those students are cheap labor for labs and lower level courses. Undergrad students, especially at state universities, pay significantly higher tuition than the vast majority of American students, because most American students at state schools get in-state tuition rates, which foreign students don’t get.
At my school (California State University), in-state tuition is $6,798 per year; out-of-state tuition is $18,678. That’s almost three times as much. As I said above, this ruling is basically America shooting itself in the foot. The money that those foreign students bring not only supports the universities and their employees, but, at a time when state budget appropriations for universities are stagnating, it also helps to subsidize the lower fees charged to in-state students. And the foreign students also pump money into their local economies. They rent apartments; they buy cars; they go out to restaurants and bars and clubs.
Around here in tech fields 70-80% of grad students are foreign. That’s pretty common all over the US. Very few foreign students go into liberal arts grad school for English, History, Psychology, etc. This is not a new thing, 30 years ago my GF got her MS degree and for the big ceremony they only hand out PhD diplomas, around 80% were foreign.
Students who are US citizens or permanent residents can get good paying jobs in the tech field with just a BS degree. The marginal value of a graduate degree from a earnings perspective is fairly small, so the incentive is to get out into the workforce and maybe get an MS or MBA part-time.
For foreign students, the only way to stay in the US post graduation is to qualify for an H1-B visa. It is extremely difficult to do so without a graduate degree. Hence there is incentive for foreign students to continue full-time in school (keeping their student visas) until they complete a graduate degree (and hopefully can convince a company to sponser their H1-B visa).
But, no one (until Harvard, I guess) was arguing that it wasn’t legal. They were saying it’s the wrong thing to do. Eva_Luna may now be making the case that by short-cutting the process, the administration may have done something wrong, but no one made that case in this thread until now.
So, up until EL’s post, you were arguing against no one, making a case against no one’s claims.
Now, Harvard and MIT are suing the administration, probably for the reasons that EL laid out – maybe you could address that in some other thread, one that argues that what they are doing is against the law.
WAG: Probably it is viewed that they could take the same classes from their home country, there is no need to be here on Visa to go to a University that you can’t attend in person?
Read the complaint. It’s not always that simple. Say you are Chinese and your government blocks large portions of the Internet? Say you are Syrian and there’s an ongoing civil war? Say you live somewhere where stable internet access isn’t a thing for any number of other reasons?
Also, if you complete a degree at a U.S. university, you are eligible for a year or more of post-graduation employment authorization in your field of study under Optional Practical Training. But not if you haven’t been continuously enrolled for the academic year before your graduation. You would also not be eligible for Curricular Practical Training during your degree program if you aren’t in the U.S. Read the complaint - it’s quite well-reasoned.
I get it, sounds like the law needs to take a nuanced approach to the way it was written. I am not a fan of legalistic approaches to things but AK has the right of it. If the law is bad law, work to change it.
From a whole lot of the post, I see people decrying the law. They don’t want ENFORCEMENT of a law, because they don’t like that law. There is only one way to have it your way, change that law.
Say classes, both lectures and tests, are live, and will be at 2:00 in the morning every day.
Say you’ve signed a year long lease on an apartment already. Say you’ve signed a year long lease, school starts as usual, then goes all on line abruptly in October.
What law are you talking about? There is already a law, the Administrative Procedure Act, requiring that the Government provide a notice and comment period before changing regulations. The Government did no such thing, therefore the change in visa policy is unlawful. It’s the same rationale for why the Supreme Court allowed DACA to continue; the rule of law requires that the Government follow existing law when it changes policies and regulations. Nobody here has argued that the Government has no right to change the law at all, just as it had the right to overturn DACA, but it does need to follow the law in doing so.
What is your point?
Just adding some more reasons that this is a dumb decision on the part of ICE, even for kids who have great internet access in their home country.
I’ve just read the complaint by Harvard and MIT, and some of the relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations.
It is notable that, in the complaint, the requirement that foreign students may not take all online classes and still remain in the United States is a RULE, and apparently not a LAW. It appears in the Code of Federal Regulations, and NOT the U.S. Code. This means that it is a RULE created by a federal agency, and not a LAW (or a statute) passed by the United State Congress.
The distinction between these two things is incredibly important in administrative law cases. While is it permissible for the executive branch, and for its departments and agencies, to change the RULES, there are procedures that they are supposed to go through in order to do that. The executive branch and its agencies have discretion, but that discretion is not unlimited or uncontrolled. That is why the complaint by Harvard and MIT says:
I’m not going to speculate about whether or not this complaint will be successful. I’m not a lawyer, and I’m definitely not an administrative law expert. But a couple of things are worth noting.
If there is one area of law that this administration has consistently and reliably fucked up, it is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). That’s pretty much what lost the census case and the DACA case. In both cases, the Trump administration could have done exactly what it wanted to do—add a citizenship question to the census, and repeal DACA—if it had gone about things properly, and not been so sloppy with respect to the APA.
Historically, the normal winning percentage for the government in APA cases is about 70 percent. For the Trump administration, it’s well under 10 percent, and that includes cases in front of District Courts, Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Court, often in front of Trump-appointed judges.This administration just can’t get out of its own way. That doesn’t mean that it’s going to lose this case, of course, but the track record is not good.
The other thing I wanted to note is the phrase "relied on’ in the last sentence that I quoted from the complaint. This is an appeal to what is termed a “reliance interest,” and it can be an important issue in these administrative cases. Basically, if a whole bunch of people relied on the government’s words and actions when making important life decisions, the courts will often take that into account. Part of Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in the DACA case noted the administrations failure even to take reliance interests into account when making the decision to rescind DACA.
I’m not sure the relevance of my position on harassment of muslim students post 9-11 is on this issue. FWIW, almost all the international students I’ve had in my lab were from Saudi Arabia (I had three Saudi students at one time, at one point) and parts of Africa, India, and Pakistan, and represent a wide range of ethnicities and religions. I’m advocating for them all.
I find it not credible that you know my posting history well enough to ascertain if my anger at disrupting students lives and forcing universities to decide between protecting public health and financial hardship is morally consistent with other positions I’ve taken.
It’s bad policy from a fiscal, educational, and moral stand point. It’s also unnecessary policy, and again, I find the original ruling that students must be face to face because otherwise they could be terrorists abhorrent to begin with, and enforcing it during a pandemic absolutely shocking.
Not all schools are the same and not all use even grad students the same way. My grad students, for example, were not used as TAs unless they were paid to do so. While it may be common in R1 PhD granting programs, masters programs generally don’t do that.