On July 6th, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed Ronald Reagan’s enduring wisdom that “Government is not the solution to the problem”, but the problem itself. As if it was not enough that the coronavirus pandemic had jeopardised the spring and summer plans of almost every university student, the government chose not to confront its invisible enemy like it has been doing for the past five months, but to facilitate the enemy’s plunder of domestic higher education. The government’s recently adopted guidelines on immigration have produced considerable uncertainty and anxiety for the 1 million international students enrolled at American universities. Leaving them with more questions than answers and despoiling them of the chance to resume their studies properly, this misguided, ambiguous policy deserves criticism, even if promulgated by those whom we frequently endorse.
More specifically, ICE has issued a statement that foreign students are ineligible to remain in the United States and must return to their home countries, if they attend no in-person classes. This is understandable at first glance. F-1 visa holders, involved in the so-called “hybrid” education, are seemingly exempt, provided they combine some on-campus learning with online studies, whereas those who do not fall into this category, might as well attend their classes from the comfort of their homes. The acting deputy Homeland Security Secretary, Ken Cuccinelli, certainly thinks so. In his interview with CNN, he asserted that the new rule “provides massive flexibility, gives the opportunity to do anything short of 100% online classes”, and that it should incite universities to reopen and live up to their ordinary standards of tuition. After all, digital courses cannot be compared to learning in a classroom or a lecture hall, and both customers, i.e. the students, and the authorities, who subsidise those institutions with federal grants, have a shared interest in getting their money’s worth. Moreover, Cuccinelli mentioned that students are allowed to take more than one online class, which used to be the pre-pandemic limit, to qualify for the I-20 form, obtain their visa, and begin their studies this fall.
However, this decision has several unforeseen consequences. Firstly, it has no well-defined provisions. This is particularly the case for those who have already gone home and may struggle to re-enter the country, if their colleges shift from the fully online mode to the hybrid one during the year, and for those who might find themselves starting on campus in September, but having to go digital later in the semester, due to COVID-19.
Currently, the latter scenario is very realistic: the number of infected US citizens is still rising. Many schools are planning to switch to remote-only instruction following the Thanksgiving break, and only 24% of the universities polled by the Chronicle of Higher Education, are preparing for the equilibrating approach of hybrid instruction. More than 50% are currently planning an in-person semester, but that could easily change, and as not every university might successfully accommodate the transition to the hybrid phase, some international students will face uncertainty about their immigration status.
ICE has not yet provided many answers to these concerns, which only adds to the problem’s gravity. Thus far, foreign students have been told that they should transfer to a school with in-person instruction to remain in the country, but this procedure that, no doubt, should differ from the customary transfer process given the pressing concerns of time and its potential temporariness, is yet to be outlined.
Many are likewise nescient of whether shifting from a hybrid to an online-only format is exempt from this. The director of the Centre for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, proposes that a student would still be regarded as enrolled in a hybrid course under such circumstances, as classes before that point were not held exclusively online and were listed as such at the time of one’s visa application. However, others have displayed less confidence in the government agency’s capacity to recognise this. It does not help that universities have to certify to ICE that the program one attends “is not entirely online”, and that one “is taking the minimum number of online classes required to make normal progress” towards their degree, whilst no clarification of “normal progress” has been given.
Thus, Harvard and MIT have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, citing that ICE has violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Both universities argue that they and their students were making arrangements based on the organisation’s past statement that the waiver of online learning restrictions, introduced in spring to help reduce the threat posed by the coronavirus, would remain effective “for the duration of the emergency”. Here, it is important to note that President Donald Trump has not yet rescinded his declaration of emergency, and is unlikely to do so given the exponential growth of COVID-19 cases all across the nation. Other schools, such as the University of California and Cornell University, have supported this lawsuit either by submitting an amicus brief or filing separate lawsuits. The state attorneys general of Massachusetts and California are ready to litigate against ICE over this issue, as well.
This guidance could further inflict harm on the students, despite its benevolent intentions to return US college students to the instruction standards they deserve. For those residing abroad, this is especially true. Countless obstacles present themselves before such students, including internet restrictions, exhausting time-zone differences, and poor Wi-Fi connection. Moreover, the administration’s decision may have ramifications on their career prospects. This is because students, present in the US on F-1 visas, can legally apply for internships and work experience, only after having stayed in the country for the two preceding semesters. In turn, this means that multiple Class of 2024 members would struggle to satisfy this requirement, which might disadvantage them in competing for internships. In addition, in-person courses might not be available in the appropriate discipline; some hybrid-going universities have announced that only lab-based courses will be taught in-person. Clearly, these are not particularly useful for business majors, aspiring journalists or political analysts, and arts students, and would not answer their demands, no matter how much they contribute in fee instalments.
I have not always opposed the Trump administration or ICE over the past four years. I remember saluting his efforts to punish China, limit the influx of illegal migrants, and resuscitate American manufacturing. Still, wrongs should be pointed out, when they are indeed wrong. Students understandably deserve to be on campus, and schools are beholden to them to deliver the education they would have wanted. International students, while a net benefit to the economy, should not be the priority for the American government.
However, this decision is hasty, since it leaves many questions unanswered and breeds anxiety. When the country’s institutions moved online in March, ICE seemed cooperative and intelligent: it let foreigners continue their studies in the US, despite their only attending online classes. Perhaps, the government should have contemplated other measures, inter alia, restricting access based on the people’s antibody or coronavirus tests. Otherwise, the pandemic and the state are working in tandem to complicate the lives of students, many of whom, like myself, cherish our opportunity to study on American soil.
