Foreign
Student Affairs and the Patriot Act
It is a well-known fact that
America is considered the land of opportunity within the global community.
People from around the world come to the United States to participate in the
excellent educational system, especially higher learning, and schools for
vocational skills. A controversial issue that stems from foreign student
affairs in the United States is the intense monitoring and reporting that the
students are subjected to. Because of the Patriot Act, enacted October 26, 2001
after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, government
involvement in foreign student affairs has taken on a different, more
domineering role. This issue ranges from newly limited access to research
materials by foreign students of higher education, to increased difficulty in
obtaining visas and other documentation. There is no doubt that the Patriot Act
has changed how foreign students are treated in the United States. However, the
question is whether or not the new regulations and procedures are actually
helping the effort against terrorism or are misplaced security and terrorist
risks that leads to more regulations and government spending without reducing
the risk of terrorist attacks.
The legislative history of
foreign student affairs has thus far been small and of little importance to
national security or terrorist monitoring. According to a CRS Report for
Congress, “Monitoring Foreign Students in the Unites States: The Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS),” “the Unites States has
expressively permitted foreign students to study in U.S. institutions” since
the Immigration Act of 1924 (Siskin 4). In 1996 foreign student monitoring fell
into the legislation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) which “added statutory language” directing the
Attorney General and the Secretary of State and Education to develop a program
by January 1, 1998 to collect specific data on students from at least five
countries; the countries being selected exclusively by the aforementioned
authorities. The data to be collected would be: identification and address of
the foreign student, classification (higher education student, vocational
student, or cultural exchange student), visa information, academic status (i.e.
full-time enrollment) and any disciplinary action taken by the institution as a
result of a crime committed by the foreign student. Under this law, educational
institutions would also have to report the collected information to the former
Immigrant and Naturalization Services (INS) as a condition of continued ability
to enroll foreign students. There has not been a lot of controversy over these
former policies. It wasn’t until the Patriot Act that foreign student
monitoring became a more debatable issue.
After the terrorist attacks
of September 11th, many U.S. citizens were frightened and searched
for something to be done by the government to insure their protection;
protection even against foreign students since, according to Lee Ferran of ABC
News, “Several of the hijackers attended more than a dozen American flight
schools in the weeks before the attacks to learn how to fly the jets” (Ferran)
with student visas. Therefore, within the Patriot Act there became Title IV-
Section 416: Foreign Student Monitoring Program. In short, the Patriot Act
“included provisions to expand the foreign student tracking system and
authorized $36.8 million in appropriations for the system” (Siskin 5). Further
in this title was the creation of the SEVIS organization, specifically focusing
on foreign students. Through the SEVIS organization, the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Reform Act explained the new provisions, further
strengthening the foreign student tracking system. Some of the new provisions, regulations and
monitoring techniques include application to a SEVIS certified school (only
institutions foreign students can apply to), institution reporting to the SEVIS
system, the Embassy or Consulate in the student’s home country reporting to the
SEVIS system and a checking with other databases for student eligibility for a
Visa, reporting to the SEVIS upon/by port of arrival and then even more
reporting on behalf of the student from his or her American institution. Fees
are also required buy this policy in U.S. dollars (Siskin 7) as well as face to
face interviews with visa applicants. Within the SEVIS system, foreign students
are tracked from application to American educational institution all the way to
their graduation or completion of academic career. All of the foreign student’s
information has to be reported to the SEVIS system including classes that are
being taken, grade point average and any other “reasonable” information since
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act does not apply to foreign
students. Some of these new regulations may not seem so unreasonable; more
reporting, more hassle, but it’s for the protection of the American people and
government from American-taught terrorists, right?
In this ongoing controversy
of the Patriot Act, foreign student affairs and SEVIS, most of us will readily
agree that protecting the American people and nation is important and
regulations should be employed to make sure another terrorist attack will never
scar our land and people again. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is
on the question of are these new regulations and policies appropriate,
reasonable and just. Whereas some are convinced that any measure to protect the
U.S. against terrorism is appropriate, beyond reasonable and just, others
maintain that the Patriot Act, foreign student monitoring and SEVIS
organizations are inhibiting foreign students from educational liberties and
have an unreasonable amount of reporting responsibilities and financial
appropriations.
In her Report for Congress,
“Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation,” Ruth Wasem
explains that on the one hand some endorse “closer scrutiny of foreign students
entering and studying in the United States,” illustrating some people’s belief
that “foreign students are the category of aliens most likely to include spies
and terrorists” (Wasem 14). This statement is supported by the terrorist
bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 where one of the men who was
convicted “had entered the United States on a student visa, dropped out of
school, and yet stayed in the country” (Wasem 14) as well as the fact that the
September 11th terrorists also had U.S. student visas for vocational
schools. The Institute of International Education has even provided information
that “there are now 32 percent more international students studying at U.S.
colleges and universities than there were a decade ago” (Institute) showing
that the provisions in Title IV of the Patriot act are not impeding students
from other counties coming to the U.S. to study. Siskin also reports that
“there have been few stories in the press of foreign students having problems
entering the United States as a result of the implementation of SEVIS”
(Siskin).So it would seem that just because there is more monitoring and
regulation, foreign student enrollment continues to increase. Also the
parameters of the Foreign Student Monitoring System are appropriate because the
people most likely to be terrorists and spies are highly educated people. Although
I agree with these examples and explanations on why foreign students need to be
extensively monitored in the present time of heightened terrorist activity, I
still insist that the new provisions and regulations do more harm than good.
 |
On the other side of the
issue is the position that this emphasis on foreign student monitoring is
misplaced and that such scrutiny may lead to “excessive government monitoring
without reducing the risk of terrorism” (Wasem) which would mean wasteful
government spending. There is also a big concern about the feasibility of the
systems for foreign student tracking, specifically about the work that goes
into the immense amount of reporting, the reliability of the systems and the
ambiguousness of the visa process. Another major concern within the monitoring
of foreign students is in their ability to access certain types of research for
programs that they have already been cleared and admitted to.
Concerning the reality of the many foreign
monitoring systems including SEVIS, there have been numerous lamentations about
it not just from the students, but from the institutions as well. Among the
complaints are technical difficulties, discrepancies between agencies and
systems, and “additional burdens on schools” beyond reporting just for the
students (the schools are “required to report on people who are not enrolled in
their institutions” but have accompanied the student i.e spouses or children)
(Siskin 10). Some of these errors within the SEVIS system could even lead to
unjustified enforcement actions against innocent students. Concerning visas, a
notice from the U.S. Government Accountability Office states that “the time
needed for adjudication of individual cases will continue to be difficult to
predict” (Siskin 11). What all of this means is that the systems are too
complex and grandiose for reasonable and appropriate reporting. Also, that even
though students are still coming in great number, the measures taken for the
visa process are also unreasonable. Students should be able to know when they
are going to get their needed documentation. Then there is the problems
students face when they get into the schools and institutions they have been
accepted to.
Concerning the academic
careers of foreign students there have become some major concerns about
academic freedom. Mr. Al-Arian, a professor of computer science at the
University of South Florida who was terminated from his position because of
suspected terrorist support, stated: “I think as long as the fear of terrorism
predominates, there are a substantial number of people in our society who are
going to be willing to trade some liberty for increased security, and academic
freedom may be just one casualty of that tradeoff” (Vroom 5). Mr. Al-Arian’s
statement encompasses the reason why the Patriot Act was created and connects
the violation of rights to academia. Cynthia Vroom, a member of the Office of
the General Council at UCOP, commented on matters related to the Patriot Act
and the University. Vroom reveals that for the first time, biological sciences
are being faced with severe restrictions to research, specifically eluding to
the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act, which is one of these offspring laws “that
requires much higher level of security for anyone having access to biohazarsous
materials” (Vroom 2). She described, “With respect to campus research, the
aspects of the Patriot Act people are most concerned about are the Bioterrorism
Provision and increased regulation of foreign students” which has bread many
federal regulations and laws concerning foreign students and specific research
materials. She goes on to explain that “The concern is that [these new laws and
regulations] could have a chilling effect on the ability to do research freely
and publish results” (Vroom 1).
Vroom continues to illustrate
the effects of the Patriot Act and its offspring laws and regulation. She
explains that many people in the research realm approve of foreign student
monitoring but, she concedes, that there are concerns that “these increased
controls will impact UC’s ability to get the best and the brightest” (Vroom 2).
Together with background checks for anyone working with any of a select list of
pathogens these new regulations have led to nationals from a list of six
countries to be restricted to any kind of biohazardous research. “That list of
countries is growing and is making it difficult for universities to pursue
certain kinds of biohazardous research” Vroom continues. She uses a story about a graduate student at
the University of Connecticut to illustrate the repercussions of the new laws
and regulations that have stemmed from the Patriot Act. The student “came
across some anthrax while he was cleaning out freezers. His first instinct was
never throw away a specimen, so he put it in one of his freezers and somehow
the FBI found out about it and arrested him. He is now on a watch list and a
marked man forever” (Vroom 3). To be arrested and marked on the FBI’s watch
list forever because a student was simply doing his job and following safety
regulations is absurd. In this light, the Patriot Act as it concerns foreign
students and the new laws and regulations from the act are not reasonable, fair
or just.
As Mr. Al-Arian so precisely
puts it, there are going to be negative implications to the government enacting
“safety measures” to protect the U.S. nation and its people from terrorist
attacks. The issue isn’t if there should or shouldn’t be foreign student monitoring;
many people inside and outside of the academic community agree that there is no
harm in monitoring them. The issue is the negative effects the new policies in
the Patriot Act and the policies stemming from it. The Patriot Act and Title
IV, even though having appropriate intentions, do not have appropriate
processes and procedures as demonstrated by Cynthia Vroom. It is clear that
punishing foreign students with unreasonable rules and regulations because of
one atrocious incident is unfair and unjust. In my opinion, the government
needs to re-appropriate the money back into, say, the educational systems and
not waste their time and resources on watching students only trying to better
their lives.
International Student Statistics in the United States
No comments:
Post a Comment