Facing Multiple Lawsuits, ICE Decides Not To Punish Foreign Students For Furthering Their Education During A Pandemic

from the you'll-just-have-to-be-assholes-about-something-else,-ICE dept

ICE has already decided it won't make foreign students here on visas choose between their health and their education. The temporary relaxation of rules governing remote learning -- put in place in March when the coronavirus started rolling through the United States -- was suddenly (and inexplicably) reversed by ICE last week, even as COVID infection numbers continue to spike.

The reversal made no sense, unless disrupting the lives of foreigners here legally was the real point of ICE's unjustified rollback. With this rollback -- and no sign of abatement in the pandemic -- students here on visas were facing severe disruption. If the schools they were attending didn't offer in-person classes during the fall semester, their only option was to return home and hope everything came together internet-wise so they could continue their education.

ICE was immediately sued. MIT and Harvard went after the agency, claiming its reversal violated federal administrative law. Its lawsuit was joined by another 170 universities -- all of which faced the prospect of shedding foreign students or turning their campuses into COVID attack vectors. The agency was also sued by a number of state attorneys general for the same reason.

Fortunately for the ~100,000 affected foreign students, ICE has ditched its rollback, thanks to this legal pressure.

Facing eight federal lawsuits and opposition from hundreds of universities, the Trump administration on Tuesday rescinded a rule that would have required international students to transfer or leave the country if their schools held classes entirely online because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The decision was announced at the start of a hearing in a federal lawsuit in Boston brought by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said federal immigration authorities agreed to pull the July 6 directive and “return to the status quo.”

The status quo referred to here would be (unfortunately for the health of the nation) the pandemic status quo. Released on March 13, ICE's guidance for allowed foreign students to utilize online learning to further their studies without fear of losing their visas and being removed from the country.

The (temporary) move by ICE made no sense from a pandemic standpoint. And booting out non-immigrant students for something as minor as not being able to attend classes that aren't being held in physical classrooms makes even less sense when combined with the economic downturn resulting from the COVID crisis. Foreign students bring money into the country and create jobs. Very few have access to grants or loans funded with US tax dollars. The group NAFSA: Association of International Educators has run the numbers. Foreign students are worth billions every year.

NAFSA's latest analysis finds that international students studying at U.S. colleges and universities contributed $41 billion and supported 458,290 jobs to the U.S. economy during the 2018-2019 academic year.

This number grows along with the number of students visiting the US to study. Encouraging foreign students to attend US schools makes a whole lot more sense than chasing them out because the administration has arbitrarily decided we don't have to worry about the coronavirus anymore.

Filed Under: covid-19, distance learning, education, foreign students, ice, pandemic, students, visas

Universities Ask Court To Block ICE's Directive Ordering The Removal Of Foreign Students Engaged In Remote Learning

from the don't-be-a-dick,-ICE dept

MIT and Harvard are suing to have ICE's latest attack on (legal) foreign visitors to this country blocked. A few days ago, ICE retracted an exception it had previously issued in response to the COVID pandemic. This exemption was issued back in March to allow students here on visas to continue their studies, even if all of their classes were now online.

It's now July and the COVID crisis isn't over. In fact, it appears to be getting worse. The US is expressing its exceptionalism by dominating the world in the number of new cases daily. Schools are prepping for the fall semester and the reality of the situation is that moving back to normal classes, rather than sticking with remote learning, just isn't possible at this point in time.

That reality makes no difference to ICE. It has decided the crisis is over and any students here legally should exit the country if they can't take classes in person. MIT and Harvard have no intention of moving back to physical classes when school commences in a couple of months. And the schools don't feel their foreign students should be punished for not attending classes that aren't being held or putting their health at risk unnecessarily just because the administration has unilaterally declared it safe to return to school.

Here's how the schools describe the current situation in their lawsuit [PDF]:

Medical evidence and official governmental guidance indicate that indoor gatherings of any size are of particular concern. Densely populated classrooms that are attendant with on-campus instruction have the potential to turn into “super-spreader” situations that endanger the health of not only the university community, but also those in the surrounding areas and anyone else with whom community members may come into contact. Indeed, in recognition of the exceptional risk of indoor congregation, Harvard has limited undergraduate on-campus residency to 40% of capacity for the upcoming term. Similarly, MIT has limited undergraduate on-campus residency for the fall to members of the rising senior class and a limited number of additional students.

Even if it were possible to simply ignore the ramifications of bringing students back on campus to partake in "super-spreader" classes, ICE is demanding schools jump through a series of logistical hoops to ensure students here on visas can continue to be enrolled and stay in the country. The first demand is that physical classes must compose a certain percentage of the total curriculum. Then it gets even more difficult. Schools will be required to do the following for each and every foreign student enrolled.

[ICE] announced that universities that have adopted a hybrid model—a mixture of online and in-person classes—will have to certify for each student on an F1 visa that the “program is not entirely online, that the student is not taking an entirely online course load for the fall 2020 semester, and that the student is taking the minimum number of online classes required to make normal progress in their degree program.” To do so, universities on a hybrid model will be required to issue a new Form I-20 for each of these students—in some cases, numbering in the thousands per university—by August 4, 2020.

Even if ICE doesn't care about foreigners, you'd think it might have some consideration for the Americans running these schools. But it appears it doesn't. The clawback of the exemption means schools must start putting more people on campus -- including staff and administration -- even if it means increasing the risk of virus transmission. The lawsuit points out the original exemption was supposed to be in place "for the duration of the [COVID] emergency." Without prior notice or request for comment, ICE has decided the emergency is over… at least for foreign students.

This unjustified move will do an amazing amount of damage to foreign students.

The July 6 Directive will harm continuing F-1 students immensely. For many students affected by the July 6 Directive, it is infeasible or impossible to attempt to transfer to a program that offers in-person curriculum and therefore allows them to pursue their education from within the United States on F-1 visa status. These students will therefore likely be forced to leave the country. The consequences of this sudden displacement are both financial and personal. In addition to incurring substantial expenses to make international travel arrangements in the midst of a pandemic that has significantly reduced the availability of air travel, as well as losing their homes—in many instances at great cost associated with broken leases—some students will be forced to upend their young children’s lives by returning to their home countries, while others’ families will be split apart in order to comply with the July 6 Directive.

[...]

For F-1 students enrolled in a fully online program, under the July 6 Directive those students cannot lawfully remain in the United States to continue their studies. Unless this Court intervenes, these students will be required to make precipitous arrangements to return to their home countries amid a worldwide pandemic that has caused nations to close their borders and has considerably limited international travel options. They must abandon housing arrangements they have made, breach leases, pay exorbitant air fares, and risk COVID-19 infection on transoceanic flights. And if their departure is not timely, they risk detention by immigration authorities and formal removal from the country that may bar their return to the United States for ten years.

The schools are asking the court to strike down the directive. They point out the guidance violates US administrative law, which prohibits "arbitrary, capricious" agency actions. Directives that fail to consider "important aspects of the problem" are the very definition of these terms. The suit also notes that directives like these are supposed to be preceded with a "notice and comment" period, which obviously did not happen here. The plaintiffs are asking the court to permanently block the new policy and declare it unlawful. Hopefully, the court will see ICE's move for what it is: an abuse of its power to inflict misery on foreigners -- even those who are here legally.

Filed Under: covid-19, education, ice, immigration, online education, students, visas
Companies: harvard, mit

In The Middle Of A Pandemic, ICE Says Foreign Students Must Attend Physical Classes If They Don't Want To Be Kicked Out Of The Country

from the bunch-of-assholes-who-should-be-forced-to-work-from-home dept

I guess the cruelty is the point.

Months after duping a bunch of foreign students into signing up for classes at a fake college run by ICE, ICE is now informing other foreign students here legitimately that their choices for the fall 2020 semester are:

1. Increase their risk of COVID exposure

2. GTFO

With COVID going through another spike after a brief downturn, there's no reason to believe schools will be back to business as usual when studies resume in the fall. That's going to be a problem if you're here (legally!) on a student visa. ICE -- the agency that gets to decide these things -- has issued its new guidance. And that guidance says studying from home is no longer an option, even if that's the only option colleges will be providing. (h/t Aaron Reich)

Nonimmigrant F-1 and M-1 students attending schools operating entirely online may not take a full online course load and remain in the United States. The U.S. Department of State will not issue visas to students enrolled in schools and/or programs that are fully online for the fall semester nor will U.S. Customs and Border Protection permit these students to enter the United States. Active students currently in the United States enrolled in such programs must depart the country or take other measures, such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction to remain in lawful status. If not, they may face immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings.

This opens up students here lawfully to all sorts of negative consequences.

First, transferring isn't always an option. And even if it is, it's rarely an easy option. No college likes to lose a paying customer, so the process is far from straightforward.

If there are nothing but online classes available when universities reopen, students can attempt to wait it out and hope physical classes reopen before removal proceedings are initiated. Given ICE's thirst for punishing students here on visas, it seems the agency would make the easiest removals a priority, ignoring the more complicated cases that involve the "worst of the worst" and their pending criminal charges. Civil proceedings are easier than criminal proceedings, and ICE has made it clear -- through its fake college and other efforts -- which one it prefers.

Once students are removed or leave voluntarily, they're faced with more obstacles. Not every country provides easy access to broadband connections. And if there isn't a connection problem, there might be a software problem. American schools rely on American tech companies for remote learning. Any number of countries have blocked or limited access to American services (like Google's suite of educational/productivity products) for any number of reasons, including their ability to host content students' home countries don't like.

The best case scenario still involves students being forced to endure the hassle of finding a college offering classes they can physically attend in the middle of a pandemic and having that university accept their transfer request. Whatever funding or grants are in play might not transfer as smoothly, leaving students underfunded. And that's not even touching the expenses of physically moving elsewhere in the country to continue their studies.

Issuing this guidance in the middle of ongoing COVID-related lockdowns indicates ICE is willing to disrupt the lives of foreigners who have broken no laws just because it can. Yet another reason ICE deserves to go the way of your local police department: stripped of funding and repurposed to help, rather than harm.

Filed Under: covid-19, dhs, distance learning, foreign students, ice, pandemic, visas

UK Government Department Says It Will Cost $7 To Send It An Email, But Only If You Are A Foreigner

from the no-real-reason,-we're-just-racist-bigots dept

Last June, the UK held a referendum on whether to stay in the European Union, or to make a British exit -- Brexit. The majority of those casting their votes -- but only 36% of the UK electorate -- chose to turn their backs on Europe and its people. Since then, the British government has been taking every opportunity to burnish its xenophobic credentials, and with some success: recent figures show that EU citizens who have been resident in the UK for years are leaving in droves.

But it seems that the UK government feels it hasn't punished those foolish enough to live beyond the white cliffs of Dover as much as it could, and has come up with a cunning new plan to show Jane and Johnny Foreigner they are not welcome in any way, shape or form. The government department that handles immigration and the granting of UK visas has just announced that there will be some additional discrimination, specifically:

customers [applying from outside the UK] who contact UK Visas and Immigration by email will be charged £5.48 [about $7]

While true-blue emails born in the pure digital air of Britain's sceptered isle can still be sent free of charge, any emails containing filthy foreign IP packets will be whacked with a $7 charge, presumably to have their electrons scrubbed clean of transmissible diseases and the smell of garlic.

The underlying message to people thinking about visiting the UK should therefore be clear: you and your pathetic tourist spending power are no longer wanted. Just like in the US.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: brexit, charging, emails, fees, uk, visas

Freshman Representative Serves Up Immigration Bill That Would Make The DHS Do Things It Already Does

from the voted-'most-likely-to-kiss-ass' dept

In what looks to be the FNG currying favor with the new boss, rookie Congressman Jim Banks is introducing a bill that would turn the DHS's social media prying from something it would like to do to something it has to do.

Congressman Jim Banks (IN-03) today will introduce the Visa Investigation and Social Media Act (VISA) of 2017, legislation to strengthen the vetting process for visa applicants. The bill is the first piece of legislation that Congressman Banks will introduce.

While CBP and DHS have been asking incoming foreigners for social media info for a while now, the process has been voluntary -- or at least as voluntary as any process can be when one side holds all the power. New DHS Secretary John Kelly suggested this would expand further in the near future, moving from requests for social media handles to demands for account passwords.

Rep. Banks appears to be making a move to codify the DHS's requests for social media info. It doesn't go so far as to demand account passwords, but it would make examination of foreigners' social media accounts part of the vetting process. The bill's text hasn't been posted yet, but here's what Rep. Banks' website says the legislation will include.

The VISA Act of 2017 would require the Department of Homeland Security to include the following in the background check of any individual applying for a visa to the United States:

A review of the applicant’s publicly available social media activity (i.e. public tweets, YouTube videos, Facebook photos and posts);

An interview of each applicant who is age eleven years or older;

A fraud-prevention check of each applicant’s documentation; and

A requirement that the applicant provide an English translation of his or her documentation.

Rep. Banks says this is no different than the process companies use to vet new hires. That's a truly bogus comparison. While some companies view applicants' social media posts when considering them for employment, very few are demanding social media account information as part of the application process. Those that do tend to drop the policies as soon as they're made public. (And child labor laws pretty much rule out interviews of tweens and teens.)

What's most troubling about this new rep's bill is its complete uselessness. The only real change it makes is dropping three years from the interview requirement (from 14 to 11). Everything else is something Customs already does. Vetting of social media posts has been part of the process for months. Banks' bill just makes it a requirement for the DHS to perform social media checks on all applicants. The legal ball will get pushed downhill, which will force applicants to hand over this info. ("In compliance with [insert US Code info here], DHS/CBP require applicants to provide social media account information, etc.") This may make it easier for the DHS to start demanding passwords, but the bill limits itself to public posts.

As for the rest of it, it's completely redundant. Extensive background checks are run on all applicants against several databases and Customs has required an English translation of visa applicants' documentation for years.

Banks likes corporate analogies so he should be aware his effort looks like a new hire trying to make his mark -- not by being a valuable addition to the company -- but by enthusiastically offering up worthless suggestions that signal your "Company Man" virtues to upper management.

Filed Under: dhs, jim banks, social media, visas

Basically The Entire Tech Industry Signs Onto A Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Exec Order

from the we-need-to-stand-up dept

I've been quite clear how I feel about Donald Trump's awful executive order that places a blanket ban on people entering the US (even if they had valid visas) from 7 countries, including a permanent block on Syrian refugees. Tons of people have been protesting this decision, and multiple courts have ruled against it. There has been some discussion over whether or not the tech industry was really going to stand up against this move, and some of the early statements about the executive order were a bit weak. However, late Sunday night, basically the entire technology industry (plus some companies from other industries as well) signed onto an amicus brief calling the order illegal and unconstitutional (technically, it's a motion asking for permission to file the amicus brief, with that brief attached).

The brief was filed in the Ninth Circuit appeals court, which is one of the first appeals courts considering the executive order, after a federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on enforcing the exec order. On Sunday, the appeals court refused to reverse the lower court, keeping the TRO in place. However, it also gave both parties (the lawsuit itself was filed by the state of Washington) a very quick turnaround time to file written arguments to be considered.

Given that incredibly short time frame, the fact that 97 companies -- including some of the world's largest -- but also some tiny ones, like the Copia Institute (the think tank arm of Techdirt), were able to come together and not only get a detailed amicus brief together, but also get sign on from all of those companies (on Super Bowl Sunday, no less), is impressive. Having been through the process in which amicus briefs with multiple signers has been done before, normally there's lots of hemming and hawing from different companies and nitpicking over certain choices. It takes a lot of effort. Update: Another 30 companies have signed on as well.

But this issue was so important and so core and fundamental to our basic values, that basically the entire industry came together and signed onto this. You name the company, and it's probably signed on. There are the big guys: Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple (despite a false Washington Post article that claimed none of them had signed on). There are lots of other huge names as well, including Twitter, Snap, Uber, Airbnb, Lyft, Dropbox, Cloudflare, Box, eBay, GitHub, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Medium, Mozilla, Patreon, Paypal, Pinterest, Reddit, Salesforce, Spotfy, Stripe, Wikimedia, Yelp, Y Combinator and many, many more. Update: Among the notable companies in the "late" sign on, were SpaceX, Tesla, Slack, Pandora, Adobe, HP, Evernote, Udacity and more...

I highly recommend reading the full amicus brief -- which makes an economic argument, a moral argument and a legal argument all wrapped up in one.

Immigrants make many of the Nation’s greatest discoveries, and create some of the country’s most innovative and iconic companies. Immigrants are among our leading entrepreneurs, politicians, artists, and philanthropists. The experience and energy of people who come to our country to seek a better life for themselves and their children—to pursue the “American Dream”—are woven throughout the social, political, and economic fabric of the Nation.

For decades, stable U.S. immigration policy has embodied the principles that we are a people descended from immigrants, that we welcome new immigrants, and that we provide a home for refugees seeking protection. At the same time, America has long recognized the importance of protecting ourselves against those who would do us harm. But it has done so while maintaining our fundamental commitment to welcoming immigrants—through increased background checks and other controls on people seeking to enter our country.

[....]

The Order effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies. It hinders the ability of American companies to attract great talent; increases costs imposed on business; makes it more difficult for American firms to compete in the international marketplace; and gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations— and hire new employees—outside the United States.

The Order violates the immigration laws and the Constitution. In 1965, Congress prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin precisely so that the Nation could not shut its doors to immigrants based on where they come from. Moreover, any discretion under the immigration laws must be exercised reasonably, and subject to meaningful constraints.

There's much more in the full brief, and hopefully the court allows it and recognizes how momentous this is. I've never seen anything that so many tech companies have gotten behind (including things like SOPA), and this happened so fast that it is literally unprecedented. A whole bunch of people put in a tremendous effort to actually get this done (including more than a few having to miss the Super Bowl to get this done...). Andy Pincus from Mayer Brown deserves a specific shoutout for being the main lawyer putting the brief together.

We shall see what happens from here, but having basically the entire tech industry rise up in a single voice to say that this order is not right is nice to see. In this day and age, it's easy not to speak out and to just sit on the sidelines. But this is important, and when it mattered all of these companies spoke out.

Filed Under: amicus brief, donald trump, executive order, muslim ban, tech industry, travel, visas
Companies: apple, copia institute, facebook, google, microsoft, netflix, snap, twitter

The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot

from the fake-news dept

We've already made our views clear on the horrible nature of the Trump administration's ban on travelers who were born in seven predominantly Muslim countries. The administration has been trying to defend the program, but its talking points are (once again) falling apart. For example, the idea that this only "inconvenienced" a tiny percentage of people and was only temporary — government lawyers have now revealed that over 100,000 visas were permanently revoked. Permanently.

But the story that's gotten a lot more attention is how Trump aide Kellyanne Conway went on TV last night and tried to back up another talking point: that this is no different than what President Obama did with Iraqi visas. That's not true, but we'll get to that. Even if it were true, Conway seemed to literally make up a terrorist attack that didn't happen, calling it the "Bowling Green Massacre."

Of course, there was no such massacre. This has resulted in lots and lots of social media mocking about the "massacre" that didn't exist. Some of the mocking is actually quite funny. And, of course, you might want to go donate to the Bowling Green Massacre Fund to support the victims.

Conway, of course, has said that she merely misspoke and had meant to say "Bowling Green terrorists" and then further pointed to a 2013 article about the two arrested Iraqis, claiming that it was a sign that "dozens" of terrorists could live in the US as refugees.

Even ignoring the ridiculous massacre claim, and accepting the idea that she just meant to say "terrorists", absolutely everything about this story fails to make her point unless you actively distort it. Let's dig in:

• The two Iraqis were "terrorists" set to carry out a bombing plot. Nope. It turns out that the two guys arrested were involved yet another of the FBI's "own plots." If you're new to this, for years we've covered how the FBI (rather than actually taking on criminal activity) has been inventing its own fake terrorist plots, and then using undercover agents and informants to bully dupes into "joining" the non-existent, FBI-created, FBI-financed, FBI-supplied "plots." We've written about examples of this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (so don't go in the comments and ask why this story is on Techdirt...)

  And the "Bowling Green Terrorists" story is the same exact thing all over again:

  From that fall through the following spring, the FBI informant invited Alwan to participate in 10 operations to send weapons or money to Iraq.

• There was no bombing plot against Americans. The FBI's "own plot" here didn't even involve attacks on America. It was just about sending (non-existent) money and weapons to Iraq:

  ...throughout their interactions with undercover FBI agents in 2010 and 2011, Alwan and Hammadi never discussed plans to attack anyone or cause destruction on U.S. soil. And while they were found guilty of attempting to provide material support to al Queda militants back in Iraq, the men never indicated that they were personally in contact with any militants, attempted to procure weapons for such individuals, or attempted to provide any of their own money to such individuals. Rather, they showed up when and where the FBI informant told them to and helped physically load decoy supplies into whatever they were allegedly being shipped from.

• There was never any support for the claim that they were part of a larger cell of terrorist refugees: Again, this was a tiny "plot" manufactured by the FBI to send weapons and money to Iraq, not to attack the US. And while Conway has been blowing up Twitter by claiming this ABC story proves that other refugee "terrorists" were here, that article is from 2013, and not a single other person has been arrested, no other terrorist plots associated with refugees (real or fake) have been found or (more importantly) taken place.

  Hell, even former DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller pointed out that the ABC story "is garbage":

• Conway claimed that the media didn't report on the Bowling Green situation... but her proof that it happened is pointing to an article from ABC. Enough said on that.

• What Obama did in response to that was different: This has been a key talking point for those supporting the ban. They claim that no one complained about Obama "ban" for six months on people from Iraq in response to the Bowling Green "terrorists." Except that's simply false. As has been carefully reported in a ton of places, what President Obama did in 2011 was entirely different. There was no ban. There was no stoppage. A single type of visa just had more stringent vetting put in place that briefly slowed the throughput of applications. If you want the most thorough explanation I've seen for just how different the two situations are, read the analysis at Foreign Policy Magazine.

• Even if President Obama had done the same thing, people should still be upset: Because banning all people from a certain country or set of countries without a specific reason or threat, and (in the process) wreaking havoc on the lives of tons of people, including permanent residents and American citizens, deserves to be condemned as simply cruel.

In summary, Kellyanne Conway is using a non-existent "Bowling Green Massacre" to defend an inhumane policy, based on falsely arguing that two refugees, who were ensnared in a plot created by the FBI to send fake money and fake weapons back to Iraq (and not to attack America), were the tip of the iceberg of a bunch of refugee terrorists (who didn't actually exist) planning to attack America (which never happened) and because of that fake plot, fake massacre and fake terrorists, President Obama similarly banned people from Iraq -- which was something he didn't do. Is that about the sum of it?

Filed Under: bowling green massacre, bowling green terrorists, fbi, humanity, immigration, kellyanne conway, lies, own plots, president obama, president trump, visas

Lofgren Introducing Bill To Revamp Immigration For Entrepreneurs & Skilled Workers

from the sounds-good-on-paper dept

One of the more controversial subjects we've discussed over the years is immigration & visa policy when it comes to skilled foreign workers. At this point, there's more than enough evidence to support two key points: that a skilled immigration & visa program done well creates economic growth and jobs within the country (as opposed to pushing those folks to other countries where they create growth and jobs away from the US) and that the current skilled visa system is massively abused. This often makes it difficult to have serious discussion on the topic, because every time we talk about the importance of getting a program that works well and doesn't send skilled workers away from the US, opponents of the system focus solely on the abuses of the program. However, if you can separate the two issues out and recognize that immigration is not a zero sum game (i.e., a foreign worker doesn't necessarily mean one fewer job for an American worker), then you can start to look at creating a better program for skilled workers.

It looks like Rep. Zoe Lofgren is trying to do exactly that, with a new bill (which again, has a terrible acronym): the Immigration Driving Entrepreneurship in America... or IDEA Act. On the face of it, the bill seems to hit on a few key points that we've discussed in the past. It focuses on getting immigrants with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) green cards, and making it easier for students in those areas to get visas. This has been a huge issue, where top notch students and skilled workers were often forced to go back home, rather than create jobs and growth in the US.

Also, embedded in all of this appears to be a version of the startup visa, that we've discussed for many years. I still have significant concerns about the specific implementation of a startup visa, and the fact that it still relies on venture capitalists as the gatekeeper. That is, a foreign entrepreneur needs to secure money from a venture capitalist to get the visa. I think this relies way too heavily on the venture capital system, which (contrary to what some VCs believe) is not necessary to build a successful startup. It also could put the entrepreneurs in a tricky position where they need a venture capitalist's support not for monetary reasons, but for immigration reasons, and that opens up the system for abuse. However, the overall concept of granting visas to entrepreneurs is good, and hopefully the specific details will help get around these concerns within the bill.

Importantly, the bill also does not pretend that the current H-1b and L-visa programs are free from abuse. Instead, it tries to reform both of those programs to stop the widespread abuse, wherein those visas too often are used as a way to sneak in cheap labor, rather than for their actual intended purposes of keeping significantly skilled labor here.

Finally, the program appears to try to use the money from these new visas to invest in scholarship programs in those important STEM areas, which seems like a good way to invest back into education for future workers.

There are some devils in the details, but it's nice to see a comprehensive attempt to take on a few of these issues that really are impacting US innovation and economic growth.

Filed Under: immigration, skilled workers, visas, zoe lofgren

US Response To Massive Decline In Foreign Travelers: Keep Crazy Policies, But Set Up Ad Campaign

from the uh,-yeah dept

Sometimes it feels like the US government likes to take incompetence to new levels. It should come as little surprise that foreign tourism to the US is way down. Basically ever since the Patriot Act, visiting the US has become a huge pain for foreign tourists, and with our lovely new "we see you naked or we touch your private parts" strategy for airline passengers (thank you, TSA), it appears that things are getting even worse. So, if you're the US government, how do you respond? Do you start thinking about modifying such policies to make visiting the US less unwelcoming? Do you start thinking about more effective, but less insulting security procedures? Do you start looking at why those foreign tourists are staying away in droves? The answer appears to be no, no and no.

Instead, you set up a "public/private partnership" to launch an expensive ad campaign and you fund part of it by charging those very tourists to enter the country.

Yes, the US government and the travel industry have teamed up to launch the new "Corporation for Travel Promotion," (CTP) which will seek to run a huge advertising campaign to foreigners, trying to convince them that once you get past the unfriendly gropers at our borders, the US really is quite nice. The US Travel Association, which is a part of this effort, does say that it would be a good idea to use the CTP to convince the government (which, um, we thought was a part of the CTP) to create a "more efficient and friendly entrance procedure," but notes that work will be "challenging." So, for now, it sounds like the main focus will be on advertising how cool the Golden Gate Bridge looks, if you can actually get into the country.

Filed Under: advertising campaign, foreign travellers, tsa, us government, visas

How Can The Startup Visa Be Improved Upon?

from the fixing-it-bit-by-bit dept

When the startup visa was first put forth by Paul Graham, I was a big supporter. When Brad Feld took the idea and got political support for it, I was still a big supporter. But when the bill was actually introduced, I expressed some serious worries about it -- specifically over the fact that it was entirely focused on enterpreneurs who could raise a certain amount of money. As I noted, there were some potentially serious unintended consequences of requiring enterpreneurs to raise a specific amount of money just to stay in the country. The leverage between enterpreneurs and VCs can be a delicate enough balance without adding in the fact that you might get deported if you don't take the deal being handed to you.

While many of the people I know and respect in the industry have been vocal champions of the current bill, it was good to see at least someone make a big deal of these serious deficiencies in the bill. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry wrote up a post for Business Insider that basically reflects this same viewpoint. We both think that a startup/entrepreneur visa makes a ton of sense, and it's something the country needs, but we're a bit worried by the current bill, which seems entirely focused on venture capital, rather than actual entrepreneurship.

Some have responded and suggested that this is better than nothing, but I'm not entirely convinced of that. A bad bill with unintended consequences could create more harm than good and could derail future attempts to put forth more serious (and needed) reform.

In the end, I think (former VC) Jeff Nolan put it best: this is a "well-intentioned bad idea that shouldn't be stopped." The real thing is that it should be fixed. Now, some of the bill's supporters have suggested that the problems with this bill are necessary, in that it's the only way they'll get passed, but that seems like a defeatist attitude. We have an opportunity to actually get this right and to bring smart entrepreneurs who can create a lot of jobs and tremendous value to the US. We shouldn't rush it through in the easiest manner possible: we should focus on getting it right, even if it takes more effort.

Update: It looks like the folks at the Kaufman Foundation have had similar concerns as well, supporting the concept, but worried about tying it to funding. They suggest an alternative, focused on job creation:

Here's a way to improve on the Kerry-Lugar plan. Create a true "job creator's visa," one tied directly and only to job creation by new immigrant entrepreneurs. The visa could be a temporary one for immigrants already here on another visa who establish a business. It could then be extended if the firm hires at least one American non-family resident. The visa should become permanent once the enterprise crosses a certain job threshold (such as five or 10 workers). But it would not be tied to financing.

There are plenty of immigrants who might qualify: the one million skilled foreign workers now here on H1-B visas who otherwise must go home after six years, as well as the roughly 60,000 foreign students who earn degrees at American universities each year. These are far larger numbers than those who could qualify under the Kerry-Lugar proposal.

Filed Under: enterpreneurs, entrepreneur visa, immigration, startup visa, startups, venture capitalists, visas