This article really hit home with me. My girlfriend is an international student, so I'm all too aware of the ridiculous things these people have to deal with even in normal times. With COVID-19 and current politics, the immigration system has gone from slow to glacial, and now they're trying to cut staff. We've had to worry about work authorization in the past -- i.e. that my girlfriend might not be able to get a job after college because the approval is taking so long and that she would be forced to leave the country if she couldn't get a job within the allotted time. Right now, she can't legally drive (!!!) because her work authorization renewal, which she applied for with ample time, hasn't come through yet. In a couple months, we'll be back to worrying about job loss and deportation...
It's so stressful to worry about your transportation, your income & career prospects, your education, your friends & loved ones, and your entire life in the States being taken away because of politics that change with the whims of the current administration. My heart goes out to the people who have lost the chance to attend great universities, work at great companies, and live in the States because of this. Hurting them only comes back around to hurt us.
> We've had to worry about work authorization in the past -- i.e. that my girlfriend might not be able to get a job after college because the approval is taking so long and that she would be forced to leave the country if she couldn't get a job within the allotted time. Right now, she can't legally drive (!!!) because her work authorization renewal, which she applied for with ample time, hasn't come through yet. In a couple months, we'll be back to worrying about job loss and deportation...
That is one legal route, but it takes time, and immigration being the reason for a hasty greencard marriage that the couple wasn't already naturally for, is never a good thing for the relationship and mental health of the couple.
It does make me wonder though why there isn't a "long-term relationship visa" for people who haven't reached marriage yet but want to be together and be eligible to work, and require some evidence that the two have been together stably for some period of time. In many cases one party is a US citizen and it would be in the best interest of the mental health of that US citizen to allow his/her partner to be together with them, and from the government perspective would thus be indirectly in the best interest of the country.
> It does make me wonder though why there isn't a "long-term relationship visa" for people who haven't reached marriage yet but want to be together and be eligible to work
What purpose would this status serve that marriage wouldn't? What is the idea behind planning to be in a permanent relationship, but not marrying?
> What is the idea behind planning to be in a permanent relationship, but not marrying?
What? This seems perfectly normal to me. At least for me any serious relationship is always with at least the vision of permanence, starting from the very beginning of when you call yourselves official -- unless it fails at some point.
Considering most such failures occur in the first couple years, as you're still getting to understand each other, it's probably a bad idea to jump the gun into marriage that early while you still don't have a full understanding of each other. But that doesn't make it any less "planning to be permanent".
I'd also say that people who meet "the one" earlier on should arguably stay unmarried for longer. If you meet at 20, I'd say wait till 25+ till you marry. A lot can change in a person between 20 and 25. If you meet at 30, you can cut that shorter a bit and that's fine because most people know what they want in life at 30.
But a 22 year old US citizen who has been in a 2 year stable relationship with an F1 student, possibly living together, with permanent intent? I'd say don't rush them into marriage, but for goodness sake, let them be happily together.
I'll have that status here in the Canadian province of Quebec later this year when my partner and I pass 1 year of living together. We'll be called common-law partners. That counts the same as marriage for many purposes, including tax and immigration rights within the Canadian system, but not for everything (e.g. no automatic inheritance and no need for divorce if we split). Many of the other legal differences can be reduced or eliminated by preparing contracts or documents like wills, but not all.
It's a great step before marriage, to provide recognition and protections for people who want a different bundle of legal consequences than marriage provides, for people who object to marriage on any number of reasons of principle, for people who want to defer the legally binding wedding until after the pandemic when their family can attend, to have less of a relationship hierarchy in polyamorous or open relationships, while waiting for just the right romantic moment to propose or to be able to obtain the right engagement ring, etc.
A lot of people either don't like marriage or don't view it as a valuable priority, even if they have a relationship. Federal government statistics from here in Quebec in 2016 show that only 34.3% of the province's population age 15 or over was married, and fully 22% of that population had a common-law partner. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fo... (I'm not sure why they started that stat at 15, since the earliest you can get married in Canada is 16 and even that requires permission from e.g. a court or parent. Maybe it's for uniform reporting versus pre-2015 data where earlier ages were sometimes legal.)
Same is true in Alberta. You don't even have to live together in Canada, just be able to prove you lived together for 1 year somewhere.
I met my girl in Australia and between working on a farm together for a year and then a "short" visitor visa (6 months) in Canada we met that 1+ year requirement. Didn't hurt that I do IT remotely.
My understanding is that it was originally set up to allow gay couples to apply, as most countries didn't/still don't have gay marriage laws on the books. However only offering it to one group would be discriminatory, so everyone can use it, in theory. In my apartment building there is at least one other couple, a Scottish guy and Canadian girl, who did the same.
Plus, as the parent mentions, regular marriage is on the decline in N. America too.
That said, common law still carries weight in things like inheritance, and if you split they can petition for your property and money, just like in a divorce. They just have fewer/more limited rights to things, and there is a 2-year window to file after splitting, while a divorce decree can be far more encompassing and longer lasting.
Yeah, most of what I said applies to all of Canada, except for the specific statistics about Quebec which are even more shifted against marriage than the rest of Canada. Also I believe the status that was created for same-sex couples is civil unions, which at least in Quebec still exists as a separate option as well.
What you said about common law applying to inheritance and splitting doesn't actually apply to Quebec, however. No rights exist in that context here unless otherwise agreed in certain ways. Very different legal regime than the rest of Canada. (Technically common-law partners are called de facto spouses or de facto partners under some Quebec laws, though others include them under the definition of spouse despite not being married. Makes sense since Quebec doesn't use the common-law legal system with respect to relations between people, as opposed to between people and the government where it does.)
Be careful. The only automatic common-law things that the Québec government kick in are the “bad” ones (paying taxes). If you want to benefit from the full protection of a common law relationship, you have to actively register.
There's no such thing as registering a common-law relationship in Quebec, unless you mean a civil union which is legally entirely different. By common-law partner I mean (as do the federal government statistics I cited) what the Quebec government and legislation often call de facto spouse, de facto partner, or sometimes shoehorn into the definition of spouse despite not being married.
And the taxes aren't always a bad thing. In my case, my partner makes much less income than me, so starting this year we can shift medical expenses to her tax return to save with the medical expenses tax credit. We'll also qualify to share health insurance plans despite not being married.
Let me circle back and invite you to make sure you know all the limitations of being common law partners (which you seem to be). For my wife and I for example, the fear that her parents might have the final say in her health decisions if she's incapacitated meant we needed more than simply common law.
Well, as for that particular point, https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/incapacity-being-unable-t... makes it appear that spouses and common-law partners and parents are all equally able to submit a request to a court for protective supervision if the person in question hasn't prepared a protection mandate (formerly known as mandate in case of incapacity). And you and your wife were just as able to override that by giving protection mandates to each other before you married as you are now. Do you know otherwise?
In our case, there are strong financial reasons not to get married yet: she's a student receiving Quebec financial aid, and since we're unmarried and childless at the moment, Quebec doesn't consider my income or assets in student aid decisions (unlike how e.g. Ontario treats common-law partners). Once that changes, we may reconsider.
I and almost everyone I know studied in the US and most of my friends stay there now. In the end, being allowed in a country to study and then potentially to continue living there is a privilige. For the most part all of us were already from the priviliged parts of our country (almost no one I knew from India who went to the US was from anything less than middle class in India). This is all the more important when you consider the draconian rules India puts even on folks who used to be it's citizens, leave alone other nationals. Until the Trump administration, the US still had one of the most liberal immigration policies of any country. We don't need a girlfriend visa on top of that. The only beef I have is the constant moving of goal posts - just make the rules up and stick to them, whatever they are.
Let me also add that (a) I'm a US citizen (b) I'm dating someone who's not, and we're in a stable relationship but not ready for marriage yet (c) if my partner cannot stay in the US, I'll consider moving to her country because it's dead easy for me to get a visa and work there, and I'll be happy living either here or there long term.
If they want to keep this US citizen's talent in the US, they need to make sure their immigration policy is up to par.
> one of the most liberal immigration policies of any country
Uh, no. In a lot of countries, obtaining a work visa to live there and work there is as simple as a local company handing you an offer letter for a highly-skilled job.
It's the US that loves to intrude on employer-employee relationships. That kind of BS doesn't happen in e.g. China. If a company wants your talent, they'll find a way to get you a visa. For STEM jobs it's not even a question.
Singapore might even hand you a landed permanent residence (LPR) card if you have a PhD out of a well-known academic institution. You need to meet certain criteria within your first year there but goddamn the immigration policy is much more sensible for the future of the country.
In China, you only qualify for one year (and I think now 3 year for special cases) working visas and you have a really hard chance of obtaining permanent residency. Almost all foreigners are temporary residents. So while you can come and work...you aren’t supposed to immigrate.
Plus you are subject to political whimsy if your country of origin does something the CPC doesn’t like (even if you are Canadian).
H1B only needs to be obtained once and almost always terminates in a greencard. A Chinese Z visa...you need to go through the motion every year, and if your employer decides they no longer want you, you have 30 days to leave the country or find a new job that will miraculously be able to renew your visa quickly.
The government isn’t going to say no, but alibaba doesn’t play nice like an American company with a Chinese branch office (MS China, for example).
> H1B only needs to be obtained once and almost always terminates in a greencard.
Citation needed. I bet most H1b visas terminate in the applicants leaving the country. Like mine.
Many H1b applicants are from countries where it's harder to impossible to get green cards in a reasonable amount of time. If you make the mistake of coming from a big country like India or China, you can we but forget about it. It's easier if you come from, say, New Zealand or Switzerland.
The US immigration system needed work before. It is a total catastrophe now, if you are someone interested in working in the US.
Not to be flippant, but since you emphasised the severity of that predicament so much: In a country with decent public transport (ie most countries) that wouldn’t be a problem. I’ve only ever owned a car in the USA; no need elsewhere.
Quite a lot of the Americas, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Australia, etc have bad public transport. From your username and use of the British-style "transport" rather than American "transportation", I'm guessing you have some connection to Hong Kong. I am quite willing to believe that's one of the places with good transport. But it's nowhere near the global norm if you look at the over-200 countries and separately administered regions/dependencies/teritories around the world.
I've lived in Europe, SE Asia, Australia, and very briefly America.
I used to own a car in the UK about 20 years ago. Since then, bicycle and public transport (and renting a car if I need one).
Europe (I now live in Berlin, but I've been most places in Europe) is obviously fine. There's 3 different rail systems, plus trams, plus buses. Plentiful bicycle lanes. Big wide pavements made for walking. And the city is so compact it's possible (even pleasant) to walk to the other side in a few hours.
Australia (Perth, one of their least pedestrian-friendly cities) was sometimes a pain. Do-able - I lived there for almost 10 years with no car, but it was unusual enough to be remarked on. There is public transport, and it's mostly excellent; on time, affordable, clean and safe. But the scale of the city makes transport tedious regardless of method (half the population of Berlin, about 10 times the size).
In SE Asia the "public" transport was non-existent, but you could get a tuk-tuk/red car/whatever to wherever for a few dollars (a 6-hour tuk-tuk ride in Sri Lanka cost us $20, getting anywhere in Phnom Penh was $2). And walking is usually fine - hot, sweaty, and fascinating. Transport is never a problem there.
In San Diego, there was nothing. No pavement. No bus service (and I was advised not to take whatever bus there was because it was dangerous). Walking to the local 7-11 half a mile away was a 20-minute adventure dealing with road systems that made no provision for pedestrians at all.
Obviously I haven't seen a bunch of the places you mention (they're on the list), but so far the USA (well, San Diego) is a completely different experience from the others. I would not want to live in San Diego without a car.
Hong Kong does indeed have excellent public transport, and you are right that public transport is mediocre in many territories, particularly in rural areas. But most places really don’t require you to have a car (for starters, because many people cannot afford one). Thus, there is almost always a relatively cheap and decent option to get around, from matatus in Kenya, jeepneys in the Philippines, songthaew in Laos, to the agua guagua in Puerto Rico and the marshrutka in the former USSR. That has been my experience in all the places you mentioned except the USA and Australia.
Let me rephrase my point a bit - independently of the quality of public transport, not being able to drive is not a big deal in most places except the USA. (An additional indicator for that might be the fact that the driver’s license operates as the de-facto ID card in the US.)
As an immigrant, your driver's license is often tied to the date on which your visa expires.
However, you are also sometimes legally allowed to be in the US while you're in some kind of pending state -- for example, if your old visa/work authorization is expired but your new work authorization is pending and a decision hasn't been made about it yet.
The DMV needs an end date in the future, so they won't give you a license without one. So you can be legally present in the US, but not able to legally get a driver's license.
I too am an immigrant to the United States and it's frustrating to read this, and not because the reasons most people might think. I came here as a child and I am reminded every day of the privilege American residency and citizenship affords me. The family that I left behind in my home country is still struggling to make ends meet, while I was, as recently as Feb. 2020, making nearly $200K per year as an attorney. I lost my job due to Covid-19, but I am optimistic that my future is bright, mostly because America is still a land of opportunity, unlike the vast majority of the world.
Mr. Duruk's thought's are frustrating to read because he assumes his privilege. He assumes he's owed an easy and straightforward journey to citizenship, that his future as a foreign-student shouldn't be jeopardized in the least by the political whims of the local population, as if the ravaged parts of THIS nation which screamed out and democratically elected a protectionist president do not deserve to be heard at the international's community's expense.
America isn't perfect, no country is, but having lived here for twenty years, having experienced life in other places, and having traveled internationally, I wouldn't chose another place as my home--and apparently neither would Mr. Duruk.
While I do not agree with this administration's immigration policies, I have enough perspective to realize that immigration policy is ultimately beholden to the local population. That is what democracy entails. Nobody owes anybody anything in life, complaining as if you are owed something reeks of privilege and a sense of entitlement.
> He assumes he's owed an easy and straightforward journey to citizenship, that his future as a foreign-student shouldn't be jeopardized in the least by the political whims of the local population, as if the ravaged parts of THIS nation which screamed out and democratically elected a protectionist president do not deserve to be heard at the international's community's expense.
I don't think that's it. What the person seems to begrudge is them breaking the implicit deal. No one will ever willingly pay $200k to a university if vastly improved career prospects were not promised at the end of it.
Countries are expected to have a cohesive foreign policy across Govts. When the world most 'credible' country starts changing policies based on which side of the bed the president woke up on, it can get quite irritating for those stuck in the midst.
> I wouldn't chose another place as my home--and apparently neither would Mr. Duruk
Being better than a rapidly Islamizing Turkey under dictatorial rule isn't a huge positive.
Also, it might be a coincidence, but it can rub people the wrong way that immigration is significantly easier for predominantly white Europeans (no visa needed to visit in practice (for audition, interview) and no waiting periods for immigration) as compared to people from Islamic countries (single entry visas) or Asia (infinite waiting periods).
> I have enough perspective to realize that immigration policy is ultimately beholden to the local population.
Agreed, as long as the country doesn't pull a, "I've altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further".
I have always maintained a "reject them at the gate" policy. Don't welcome them with open arms, and then leave them to drown in the deep end.
F1 visa is non-immigrant; you are supposed to go back to your country after you're done with your studies or if you drop out. So the author was never promised a path to immigration, in fact, he actually promised to leave the US unless granted a change of status (which is a privilege and cannot be automatically expected, of course)
I believe Mr. Duruk is essentially complaining about false advertising from an entity that's commonly been known as trustworthy. I'd say there's enough evidence to entertain that complaint.
>I too am an immigrant to the United States and it's frustrating to read this, and not because the reasons most people might think. I came here as a child and I am reminded every day of the privilege American residency and citizenship affords me.
Amen and amen.
>Mr. Duruk's thought's are frustrating to read because he assumes his privilege. He assumes he's owed an easy and straightforward journey to citizenship
An example of this is the widely shared diagram explaining "How to move to the USA legally"(https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/6rbwfx/how_to_m...). The creator (Reason magazine, which I generally sympathize with more often than not)'s intent is to sarcastically mock the US immigration system's vagaries. But as many (not all, but enough) in the Reddit thread point out, why is the US (or any country) supposed to make entry into it for non-citizens "easy"? (This is completely separate from whether doing so might be a good decision for the country from a long-term economic perspective.)
>While I do not agree with this administration's immigration policies, I have enough perspective to realize that immigration policy is ultimately beholden to the local population. That is what democracy entails.
Indeed. In a democracy, the populace is always "right" in the sense that the populace is entitled to do whatever it votes to do that is compatible with its laws and relevant treaties. (And, of course, said democracy is always free to amend said laws and exit said treaties.) Again, this has nothing to do with whether the decisions the people and their elected representatives make is "right" in the sense of benefiting the country or people in the long term. Even if such a thing were possible to determine objectively, it doesn't matter because the people have spoken, for better or for worse.
It's been frustrating to see "democracy" defined too often as "what the people decide, unless it goes against what I and other experts think is correct". It's not supposed to work that way. The recent wave of looting and rioting is going to cause the people, temporarily cowed, to once again speak their mind and remind the world the next chance they get at the ballot box.
These are not people who simply were not allowed into the country.
These are people who went through all the right steps and were admitted to the country and who followed all the conditions of their visas, who are being kicked out simply to score political points.
Reading your comment and the original post really made me thankful for what I have. It goes to show that you have very little control of things in life. There are countless headwinds that influence the decisions you make. Some are invisible.
This ruling on international student is just plain cruel. I know how much hard work I had to put in to secure an F1 visa, and then had to invest in lease, buying a car etc. with very meager means. To come in the middle of that and tell everyone pack up and leave is just straight up evil. The next strategy will be deny visas for anyone re-applying for F-1, drastically reducing student numbers
US schools can't exactly support all those American students without income, and international students are that source of income.
My university (UIUC) heavily relies on international student tuition to provide facilities, pay teachers, and give financial support to students who need it, despite the fact that it's a public university; they simply don't get enough funding from the state.
Waitlists are based on state funding in many ways, and international students don't take up that funding allotment, and in many ways increase the number of subsidized students.
If it's a place like stanford which hasn't increase it admission count much since the 1960s, that is a completely different issue.
Soft power was always crucial to US success. US as a cultural juggernaut in the 20th century was a key reason the US won the Cold War - not hard power. Projecting “liberal values” out to the world was part of it.
Since the Iraq war, the emperor has increasingly had no clothes. Instead of moral progress to realize those ideal, things have increasingly devolved and the bottom keeps dropping out...
I have optimism that even now the majority of Americans hold to some ideals to aspire to, and that eventually given a generation, things can change. But I won’t hold my breath!
The US won the cold war despite the support of numerous dictators, oppressive domestic human rights situations and inequality, and literal invasions of sovereign countries. If anything, the US is a prime example of "might makes right".
Yes, though there was never a hot war between the Soviet Union and the US. Economic strength allowed for that kind of spending. Economic strength based on developing strong International Free Trade. Which required a lot of soft power
Easy because I grew up in the Valley during the 1960's and 70's. If you believed the muttering of military and aerospace engineers and the occasional ex-soviet engineer, or the girl material science engineer I knew that spent a year studying in the Soviet Union. Well you knew the war was over and the Soviets lost. Or you could believe the usual propaganda.
I am amazed how many people still choose to believe the propaganda.
People are tearing down statues and changing language while it is becoming increasingly difficult to openly question any sort of mainstream narrative. These changes were obvious to me beginning with COVID. I haven't been seeing much in the way of "liberal" values and I really question whether or not the US actually "won" the Cold War.
as, a former international student in the us. I wouldn't recommend, anyone coming here to be an undergrad f1 student. PHD yes, everything else no. You can go to various countries and be better. though other countries might be expensive. I went to a state school, which by large was affordable. and just come to the us for things like Spring break or vacation i.e experience american life.
I guess I just don't believe the notion that ICE made this decision to try and force universities to reopen. It just makes so little sense. I understand that this administration's is interested in returning to normalcy, but surely university's aren't high on their priority list?
Meanwhile, we have now four years of evidence that at every moment where they can reduce the number of illegal immigrants to the US, they make that decision. Whether it's banning people based on their religion or kicking out people who have been legally living here for decades as refugees. It just makes far more sense that the administration's real goal here is to reduce the number of foreign students, not to force universities to reopen. The director of homeland security just doesn't want to admit it.
The focus is on the coercion because the Federal Government has very little direct coercive power over Universities; other manners of coercion (like withdrawing funding) would likely get stopped by the courts. But this threat is one way that the administration can hit Universities where it hurts.
> Meanwhile, we have now four years of evidence that at every moment where they can reduce the number of illegal immigrants to the US, they make that decision.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the intent behind this sort of protest, this moves universities into a more illegitimate category and jeopardizes their students' lives. It gives fuel to people who call universities as scams, and gives ICE an excuse to go after students and faculty for abetting this scheme. While this is fun to fantasize about on Twitter for Likes, universities are part of the countries' major institutions and are under major scrutiny so must follow the law to the letter.
Universities could pander and make the class on the US Constitution (a relatively short document) where the in-person component is an easy oral exam, given to each student individually so they do not have to gather in a classroom.
Other options which may be a good idea to do anyway is a public speaking class or a discussion class (almost exclusively on zoom) where students are asked to reflect on their goals and future plans.
They already have classes like that. The only difference is they're at their standard level of rigor. So you're just proposing increasing enrollment and dropping standards.
If it has to come to this, I would want some universities to start classes with a focus on mental health in the respective professions related to area of study. It would preserve relevancy to the field of study as well as promote discussion on a topic that's considered somewhat taboo.
> all I can feel sometimes is that I’ve bet on the wrong horse
This is a very American experience, where there is no safety net for being wrong if you run out of money on the bet, but we do have convenient bankruptcy laws when you run out of other people's money on top of that.
> The whole point of moving to the developed world is to not have to deal with developing world problems
The only unique thing about America is having the resources to do better, it just doesn't. so I am pretty thrilled that people are being forced to reconcile the difference between Hollywood propaganda and real life.
Most other major economic unions were forced to become more inclusive and empathic, by invasion and reeducation. The US has never been forced to reconcile any part of its culture, it is populated by people with incompatible extremes of ideologies wherever they came from, and it promotes those extremes for temporary unilateral control of US resources.
Your writing was very insightful, I hope this helps you patch your understanding of what America is and gives you a more objective way to use it as a tool.
No. But that‘s the point. International students have no good reason to come to the US anymore when they can be kicked out at any second, won‘t get a visa for finding a job after an education that doubles in cost every couple of years.
Btw you‘d be surprised how countries way way way smaller than the US have sizeable international student populations.
do you think that they really are just being flippantly "kicked out at any second"? or do you think it is because it's 2020 and the country is being ravaged by a highly contagious virus and every single american college campus is closed. Where are these students supposed to live? The dormitories are closed. How many college towns have enough available housing for 30,000+ displaced students. You know the American kids have to go home too.
Is there a country that is a more dependable country and that has the means to project power and influence around the world?
China? If we are worried about the US becoming "America first", I think China is even more nationalistic than the US and looks through a prism of does this benefit China.
India? Has no interest in foreign adventures. Especially under Modi, has become more nationalistic
Russia? See Ukraine.
Japan? Prevented by its constitution from foreign adventures
UK? Brexit
France? Actually, partially exited NATO decades ago. Very nationalistic.
Germany? Doesn't have much ability to project power. Depends on Russia for vital natural gas.
> Is there a country that is a more dependable country and that has the means to project power and influence around the world?
What's the purpose of the question? If you are looking for a place to work, live or do business with, the dependability is important, but I couldn't care less about whether eg Switzerland projects any power when making any personal or business decisions.
(Now, if I was the head of a country and looking for allies, that would be different. But I doubt many people are in that position.)
It is wise to improve our own self and not use others weakness as justification for our own.
Loss of reputation causes disastrous impacts one or the other and watching our own politics is similar to watching a self destructive person justifying their own actions.
I think this is the case of kettle self reflection? Unless any one who differs cannot be an American? The original author, many of us who comment here, are we reflecting on our own policies?
> International students, however, by and large, pay the full ride in most schools in undergrad and in master’s programs. Very few schools offer any scholarship to international students, and of those that do, the terms are often not as comparable.
In my experience this is almost completely false. They do have to pay out-of-state tuition to public schools, and they generally aren't eligible for taxpayer-funded need-based aid. But we don't blink at giving scholarships to international applicants just as often as domestic. Often international students dominate the applications to master's programs, and get all the scholarships too.
I was an international student (undergrad) and your impression is... well, it differs from mine.
No need-blind admission (except at the school I went to, the others literally told me I was too poor) and no government funded student loans (my private loans, which were still non-recourse, started accruing 12% interest the day I took them out)
Graduate school is slightly different in that you're often working for the school to cover the tuition, and who is eligible will be based on the donors and the program administrators.
I have been on the admissions committee at a university and literally chose students to award scholarships to.
You can be too poor to be eligible for a visa (which goes for any country I'm aware of), there is a govt requirement to be able to support yourself. Otherwise I find it odd that schools would tell you anything about why you weren't accepted.
As for "no government funded student loans", I said there were no taxpayer-funded student need-based aid.
Graduate school includes Master's programs which the blog post was also talking about, and which only rarely come with teaching or research assistantships (those are primarily for supporting phd students). But international students are just as eligible for those as anyone else. It's much more common for MS students to get a scholarship than an assistantship.
For phd students, the primary sources of funding is overwhelmingly research grants the faculty member themselves get from the NSF and NIH. These grants almost never require the supported students to have permanent residency. Many programs (e.g. phd in electrical and mechanical engineering and many schools) would cease to exist if that were a requirement.
Is this curiosity, or a moving goalpost as part of an argument?
Seems to me that completely depends on the school. Maybe international students will only come to a particular school if they get a free ride, while local domestic students will pay the tuition for the convenience of being near home.
At tuition-driven schools (i.e. most schools, but not the big ranked research schools we always hear about), most students are there as sources of revenue, except for the stars they can entice with full scholarships.
At research schools, research grants are the main source of revenue. The rest is a sideshow.
Also in either type of school, if they live off campus (far more common for MS and phd students than undergrad) then they are less revenue per student. Schools are essentially in the hotel business too. We are learning all about this lately.
> Is this curiosity, or a moving goalpost as part of an argument?
The reason I ask is because there seems to be a side argument on who is paying more, domestic or international students. I would’ve thought foreigners pay more (that seems to be the case in the UK), but would defer to your first hand expertise.
However, what the article is predicated on is just that international students bring in “enough” revenue that they can be used as leverage against the universities. I was wondering whether you’d concede that.
not sure if this applies in states, but here in Canada, the graduate studies simply see more international students because local students are more interested in working rather than continuing education beyond an undergrad degree.
Yes this is exactly what happens in STEM. It is less well-regarded domestically as a vocation, while in many other countries it is considered as a pinnacle of achievement (not to mention a stepping-stone to residency). So our top students go into medicine/law/business or whatever instead, while top students from other cultures come for STEM grad school.
I agree with this 100%. US higher ed is largely funded by tax (direct and indirect). International students paying full tuition, even if true, is insignificant. I think there’s been a misguided focus on admitting international students over the past two decades. Some of the reasons behind it are valid such as diversity and globalization. However, it’s also contributed to skyrocketing tuition costs.
The post implies that supply and demand is driving up tuition costs, and is stating that higher education is heavily funded by tax.
The latter part resonates with me. Taxes provide major funding to big public schools like Ohio State, where most American students attend school. Phd programs are often fully funded by NSF and other government agencies. The article seems to be talking about private schools, which are much more expensive but not the only option. And while this may not be true at Harvard, across the country most Americans going to private schools are paying full tuition. This is a big part of the reason private school are viewed as unequal, wealth divides. Poorer american students often can’t go to many private schools where they can’t get financial aid to attend. The school will only have scholarships for a small number of students, and the rest need to be wealthy enough to pay the tuition.
They lose their status when the school goes online, since they are not currently enrolled in in-person classes. They will probably have to apply to reinstate their status in order to return.
Even if those applications are likely to be accepted, dealing with immigration bureaucracy is an absolute nightmare and anyone who is even slightly an edge case is gonna go through hell.
In addition to the big risk, hassle and cost of flying back to your home country and having to find housing for an uncertain amount of time, all amid a global pandemic.
> Most fundamentally, I’ve always thought that the United States had a more profound respect for human dignity.
It is always surprising to me that the US has been able to mostly maintain this image all while operating a global network of torture prisons and, now, domestic concentration camps for both adults and children, and while imprisoning 20x+ of its ethnic minorities, per capita, compared to China (which has, by various accounts, 1M+ in labor camps).
Do people not generally know what conditions inside US prisons are like? Are the torture facilities not common knowledge?
As for your traditional neutral nations not that involved in the world I don't consider that a good example. History is pretty clear what happens once you venture out.
I think the moment you start playing the field in changing the world the world, even if you try to promote things that are 'right' things get muddy fast.
Erm, actually it is set a lot higher for almost every developed nation. Yes, European countries have been involved in some atrocious crimes but post WW2, the US is the only developed nation that engages in such things.
Becoming a world venturing power does not imply that those atrocities are necessary, or justifiable. Most of these things are totally avoidable. Putting immigrant kids in cages, imprisoning minorities in large numbers and persistently denying affordable healthcare to citizens is something the US can absolutely choose not to do without compromising its status as a world power.
I think much of the west for the latter half of the 20th century was happy to have the US do these things, while they kept their hands more or less out of it and could wave their finger when they wished... without having to worry about what would happen if they tried.
Take a look at those nation's actions before that and you'll get abetter feel of how things go.
might sound unbelievable, but as a black dude from a 3rd world country, it's mostly the liberal media, NYT, WAPO cnn etc. then put in the allure of Hollywood etc. Funny thing, before you come to america, all you see on tv is mostly clean cities, no traffic in LA, a pristine NY. but visit those cities oh damn, complete clusterfuck, and see people shooting drugs on the streets etc. man, I was mad hip hop sold me dreams about sunset blvd, LA
You’re facetious, but I agree with GP’s point that the high esteem in which many foreigners hold the USA (primarily foreigners that have never been there) is based on depictions from glamorous movies and TV series.
Yes. I’m not blaming the TV shows and movies for portraying the things they do rather than bleak reality, and I’m not blaming people for wanting to watch what they want to watch.
I’m just arguing (purely descriptively) that quite possibly the prominent depictions in US movies and TV shows have given many people an impression of the US that is more glorious than reality; and that this discrepancy is greater regarding the US than most other countries.
Your retort might be formulated too dramatically, which makes it easy to dismiss (or downvote).
Having said that, yes, when I came across that sentence you quote
(> Most fundamentally, I’ve always thought that the United States had a more profound respect for human dignity.)
I had to chuckle as well at the (then) naïveté of the author. Apart from immigration, the incarceration and homicide rates I’d also adduce capital punishment, the issues surrounding policing and race, as well as health insurance.
Still, much better than many other countries! But certainly not near the top.
>and while imprisoning 20x+ of its ethnic minorities, per capita, compared to China (which has, by various accounts, 1M+ in labor camps).
Ignoring the "and you are lynching Negroes"[1] argument you're trying to make, your argument doesn't make sense on a logical level. How can you compare a relative figure ("20x+") with an absolute one ("1M+")? At least compare apples to apples.
The commenter was a) comparing two rates (incarceration rate of minorities) between countries by providing their ratio, and then furthermore b) providing an additional related piece of information, namely an absolute level in one of those countries. Perfectly sound, logically and all.
It turns out that lynching black people in the United States was (and unfortunately remains) a very legitimate problem/criticism. The legalized system of prison slavery is another.
But, even those aside: Global network of CIA torture prisons. Concentration camps in Texas. Universal surveillance of all communications without judicial oversight. Extrajudicial assassination of citizens.
These are real things, happening today. Do people just ignore them because they don’t fit the “land of the free” narrative?
If the ability to post anonymous criticisms online is the only counter you have, well, then it’s not much, sorry. Harsher words are directed against those in power in almost every country over the Internet.
I don’t agree as long as Julian Assange is sitting in prison and being tortured (all without a trial!) because he published a video of the US military committing war crimes.
Oh we sell a path to American citizenship, but it's not the international students. It's the EB-5 visa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa The purchase price of US permanent residence is as little as $900k, and until last November 21 it was as low as $500k.
Sure, the international students often don't pay that much, but in many cases they don't end up with good access to permanent residence either, let alone citizenship.
I have a feeling schools will figure out a straightforward loophole out of this. I'm also thinking that the USCIS/DHS might not have the ability/will/power to fully enforce something like this.
> The whole point of moving to the developed world is to not have to deal with developing world problems.
Tell that to the people living in Appalachia or on skid row in LA.
Like most third-world countries, the US is a fine place to live, if you have money and/or access to power. But if you're not in that category, don't expect anything from public institutions.
1) when people move to the US to avoid developing world problems, by and large they aren't moving to the places you mention. From my experience growing up in a rural state, most people who grow up there stay there - most people who move to the US aren't going _there_ for opportunities
2) the types of problems faced back home by people seeking asylum or by refugees are very different from the types of problems being faced by poor people in the US. Does being poor in the US suck? Yes, absolutely. We should do better. But let's not pretend it's comparable to living in a war zone.
The point seems to be backwards and forced anyway. It's hard to enter the developed world. It's hard to get permission stay. Generally these things are much easier to do in developing countries from what I've seen.
I’m curious what part of the country you actually live in. As somebody who just got back from a couple of weeks in boring, rural, flyover country: it’s no surprise that the people who live there are so intensely patriotic.
So I'm literally "stuck" in rural Maine for this entire month. The landscape might be pretty sometimes, but there is absolutely nothing of value here. There are no jobs, no industry, no creativity, nothing being made or done or thought of here. The only people still left are the ones who couldn't run away. It actively feels like the town is dying, and it's not due to COVID as most people here think it's a hoax. What could these people possibly have to be patriotic of?
This is my home town. My mother still lives here. I cannot fathom how. The grocery stores look so run down the the Walmart one town over has entire chunks of the store just flat and open and missing. I tried to purchase a basketball the other day and there was not a single one to be found in any of the three low quality dollar stores or anywhere else. I tried to get something mailed to me and instead of prompt delivery it disappeared into a USPS facility for five days.
I moved from SF to rural Appalachia* for a year around 2012. It was actually pretty nice. People were very friendly. Rent for a cute 2bd house on half an acre, walking distance from downtown, was $425/mo. Kroger had all the same things you find in supermarkets everywhere. Great climbing was an hour away in the Red River Gorge. Hiking and outdoor activities everywhere. I pick banjo now.
If you're actually interested in the migration patterns within the Appalachian region, this report may be helpful.[0] You'll find that even within this region, more people are moving towards the economic opportunities offered by cities, not to rural counties to get away from "city problems." I assure you the problems of rural counties are worse.
Criticizing the institutions doesn’t mean you hate them. You’re making a cognitive error when you assume people hate the U.S. when they describe its problems.
Stop thinking of the US as a monolith, we have a shared language and history and some amount of shared culture but we're stratified socially, politically, and geographically.
There are plenty of places in Europe you can write the same comments about individually, just as there are places in the US where little of them hold water.
Yeah, my comment does seem to depict America as a monolith.
I mean, no one in the world thinks Silicon Valley is lacking in relevance. And no doubt many other places have their crap sorted out too.
But my point remains, America on the whole needs to do more "developing" than sitting on it's laurels as a "1st world country".
Just because someone, somewhere in America is doing ok doesn't mean you should give up drinking water/healthcare/education/sensible-financial-services for other people.
Also - as you say - not like America is alone in this, and far from being the worst place to live in the world - even with Trump.
But being media-wise very visible in the world we seem to see a lot more "America is wonderful." than acknowledgement of the flaws.
My own country - Australia - largely digs up dirt for it's economy, also has a history of ignoring experts, has it's own dark history, etc etc. I am so disappointed in my own country too.
The United States has been disenfranchising its own citizens for decades particulary economically.
Students from around the world should be allowed to stay but this world view is so foreign, pun not intended, from my perspective as a mixed man from a broken background.
Hoping that some colleges pull a fast one, like having one in-person lecture a week that are widely known to be shams and not for actual attendance, perhaps a lecture about a Simpsons episode, to maintain the “in-person” eligibility while having nobody attend, and then litigate the issue in court when the government tries to call them on it.
Shouldn't International Students have to "pay a full ride"? I mean most of the stipulations with grants are intended to keep the knowledge and donations within the community. That seems entitled and very "woe is me" to me.
Yeah, I agree with that. I guess I just mean I think it distracts a little bit and makes the point weaker overall. No one should be treated like that though, and I wholly believe that there is suffering associated with that
I don't think the author is complaining about that. He just brings it up to explain that they bring in cash for universities so targeting their immigration status is a point of leverage between the government and universities.
He's complaint seems to be that the US is not treating immigrants with dignity.
Australia: we want more international students. you are worth $16b+ to us annually. (some estimates go to $30b of on-value)
Also Australia: Oh, covid: no money for you, indigent peons!
Basically, if you cannot afford to eat, as a displaced international student its begging, or starving. No help.
Truly amazing lack of insight into future study outcomes here.
We used to have a strategy called "the colombo plan" which was free tertiary education on a requirement to go back home and this built links into emerging economies which liked us.
Now, our strategy is to milk international students dry, keep the ones who can survive exclusionist immigration policy, and screw everyone over if the risk-side tanks. Great plan!
I'm an immigrant in Australia. When millions of citizens and residents are out of jobs, I think asking the govt to provide free money to international students might be asking a bit too much. I don't think any other country is doing it. From a humanitarian point of view I can totally understand, but for policy makers that wouldn't be a high priority especially after the catastrophic bush fires this year.
> Now, our strategy is to milk international students dry, keep the ones who can survive exclusionist immigration policy, and screw everyone over if the risk-side tanks. Great plan!
Whilst at the same time ignoring local students almost completely.
I’ll be the devil’s advocate here. US as a country of choice for education, work and life is unbeatable. The author himself is looking forward to getting the citizenship soon. US also has a lot of structural issues, as any country and any structure of government does. US educational institutions and the teaching will still hold appeal and after Covid settles down, it’ll still continue to attract international students.
While international students pay full price, international students also receive scholarships and the student loan crisis of (mostly) American students shows that American students are not as subsidized as the author claims.
Economy is interlinked - international students end up in tech sector jobs, earn exorbitant sums (PM in a FANG company is earning $400K while average American wage is closer to $50K), possibly joining social media businesses (morally challenged business models) and further straining the social fabric in the US. This is my conjecture, based on my experience. I’m an international student and studied in a premier US university and have all my friends working mostly in SF and NYC.
Of late, I’m starting to judge things on the basis of what heals US and avoid picking things in isolation.
In summary, I see that the immigration rules have been harshly implemented, but again, it’s covid and I’m not sure what a measured response is anymore. US is well within its right to control immigration as it feels like, internationals like US because there is something about US that’s hard to unpack, but as a whole, something to cherish and love. In my opinion, the author is fair to call out the immigration rule implementation, everything else feels like a rant and I have a hard time buying into the criticism.
It's so stressful to worry about your transportation, your income & career prospects, your education, your friends & loved ones, and your entire life in the States being taken away because of politics that change with the whims of the current administration. My heart goes out to the people who have lost the chance to attend great universities, work at great companies, and live in the States because of this. Hurting them only comes back around to hurt us.