So do you believe that, as soon as universities went fully online back in March, all international students should have been required to leave the country, on international flights in the middle of a global pandemic?
Do you think that would have led to more problems, or fewer problems, than temporarily waiving the requirements?
Do i need to have an opinion on it to speak on whether or not I feel like laws and rules are made to be followed?
I personally don’t care one way or the other, but i do think its stupid and counterproductive to list rules, and laws that are able to be skirted or flat out ignored.
It probably would have led to problems for the students and maybe that was the point, which takes me back to my point. Get rid of the subjective nature that allows subjective application of rules or laws. If you need exceptions, then list them. If it needs to be amended or changed, amend it or change it, but the dumb fucking fact that this is/was probably a political move just reinforces my idea.
They rules were not skirted or ignored.
The rule was temporarily amended to create a new exception that was not foreseen, and that amended rule was followed as written.
I think that’s the part you’re fighting against.
So in March, when ICE issued this guidance:
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 stated in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(G) and 8 CFR 214.2(m)(9) (v). This temporary provision is only in effect for the duration of the emergency and in accordance with the procedural change documents filed in a timely manner to SEVP.
You think that was “stupid and counterproductive”?
Yes, i think them issuing that guidance (to themselves it seems) is above their pay grade. ICE is an enforcement agency.
This would be akin to the sheriffs department saying, we will no longer arresting people on domestic abuse charges during Covid 19, as we understand living with an SO is stressful.
Let’s go back to the beginning: What rules is ICE operating under? Are they the laws that are put forth from Congress? Or were they given unilateral power to determine who to deport and who not?
The guidance it to colleges and universities and to the students themselves so we all know the pantheon of rules impacting international students.
They are letting us know the guidelines under which an international student may be in the US.
It’s like a speed limit sign- if the county changes the speed limit after doing a review and posts a new sign, they’re not telling themselves who to ticket, they’re telling us what the new rules are.
Wait, so which is it? That it’s wrong to not enforce a law as you suggested, or that they don’t have the authority to be making these decisions?
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at. I think we should accept as base principles that they have the authority to make the decisions they have been making, as outlined in post 144.
Yeah, I don’t understand what he is talking about either.
Here is the rule:
(G) For F-1 students enrolled in classes for credit or classroom hours, no more than the equivalent of one class or three credits per session, term, semester, trimester, or quarter may be counted toward the full course of study requirement if the class is taken on-line or through distance education and does not require the student’s physical attendance for classes, examination or other purposes integral to completion of the class. An on-line or distance education course is a course that is offered principally through the use of television, audio, or computer transmission including open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, or satellite, audio conferencing, or computer conferencing. If the F-1 student’s course of study is in a language study program, no on-line or distance education classes may be considered to count toward a student’s full course of study requirement.
So either they have the authority to make that rule or they don’t. If they don’t, then it’s kind of strange that everyone is following it. And if they do, then they have the authority to change it IAW the rules regarding changes.
I don’t know what so hard to understand about it.
I do think that the way the federal government and some federal law enforcement agencies work trends too far law enforcement agencies being able to do whatever they want. However, the proposed alternative where we flesh out every application of every law when writing it so that there will never be an unintended consequence wouldn’t be possible. Even if we put the best and brightest people into Washington, there are still going to be consequences they’d never be able to account for, and you’re still going to wind up in the scenario where LEOs have to figure it out on the fly with no blueprint.
We also probably don’t need more complex laws. Laws are ridiculously complex, so complex that if you aren’t actually a lawyer it’s really easy to break a bunch of laws by accident. If every law had to have an exception for everything you could imagine coming up, it would be a complete nightmare. This is a case of (to paraphrase Reinhold Neibuhr) democracy being about proximate solutions to insoluble problems.
I think this debate is one of the reasons I support parliamentary systems - because when you have a split system like the US, the end result is that the executive branch will find a way to do whatever they want, and any attempt to rein it in from the legislative branch will be too slow-moving to be a real restraint.
Well said.
Congress makes and establishes laws, Federal agencies, make rules according to those laws.
If a law is written in such a way that eliminates the possibility (in this case, reasons for Visa’s) then there needs to be a rule in place about re-establishing the visa instead of the agency deciding whether or not to enforce it based upon something new or political.
If the default is :
Meet these criteria or be deported, then that is the baseline
After that, establish rules regarding keeping, establishing, or maintaining, or possible loss of visa
But stop determining whether or not you are going to enforce the law.
Yeah, and the agency made the rule about on-line classes.
You keep saying “whether or not you’re going to enforce the law”. No one is deciding to just not enforce the law.
The agency with oversight is amending the enforcement criteria using accepted processes for doing so, and will re-evaluate when those temporarily amended criteria are no longer needed.
It’s not like this happens all the time- this is a singular event that wasn’t for seen so the appropriate process for amending the criteria was followed.
I’m really not sure what your beef is. This wasn’t arbitrary or capricious, just unexpected.
My beef, is that any politician with a beef can use these processes as they see fit. When it happens to one side, the other side howls.
If the enforcement mechanism wasn’t being utilized as a blunt weapon politically, I’d likely have zero issue with it (but it does, it has and likely will continue)
Yesterday it was Trump, before that it was Obama
Where you stand on the political spectrum should have no bearing on the enforcement of rules or law.
Problem is that the change to not enforce this right now was the apolitical part. It made sense for the common good.
Returning back to the rule as originally written was the political move, and it received appropriate push back in order to serve the common good.
So your complaint is with the motivations for enforcing the rule, not the motivations to “not enforce” it.
ETA Happy birthday!
My complaint, is that motivations should have no bearing. Maybe my ultimate complaint is the political nature of all enforcement or lack of.
I’m sorry that makes no sense- motivations are everything. The rules and laws should serve the common good. The common good should not be sacrificed at the alter of unwavering enforcement.
Capricious and arbitrary lack of enforcement is not good.
Measured accommodation using identified protocols to respond to crises, very good.
In this particular case, Yes. But that “very good” judgement call being subjective is not always “very good”
Like ICE trying to do their jobs awhile back and sanctuary cities putting up roadblocks
What laws or rules were the sanctuary cities not enforcing?
The response to the risk of poor judgement is not to prevent the use of any judgement.
All human endeavors come with risks provide mechanisms for oversight and processes that can be followed and we do the best we can.
We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and we can’t prevent ourselves in doing right in case someone, somewhere might do wrong.