Call to Action: Oppose ICE Changes to Student and Exchange Visitor Program
July 14 Update: Federal immigration officials rescinded the new guidelines for the Student Exchange Visitor Program, reverting back to guidance from March 2020 that allows exceptions to in-person class requirements due to the pandemic.
On July 6, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced they will be modifying the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which allows international students to study in the United States on F-1 and M-1 visas. As a result of the changes, students who have these visas will be required to leave the U.S. if their college or university is not offering in-person classes. In-person classwork has always been a requirement for these visas, but in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic the SEVP allowed foreign students to take their spring and summer classes online while staying in the country. ICE’s recent announcement makes it clear that this accommodation will not be available as of the fall 2020 semester, and international students whose schools are not offering in-person classes must transfer to a school that does offer in-person instruction — or “depart the country.”
To do: Please write a letter to your members of Congress expressing your opposition to this change. In five minutes or less, submit a letter to all of your elected representatives at once via our website. Go HERE to submit your letter.
Background: International students on F-1 visas who are attending schools that adopt a hybrid model of online and in-person classes may be able to stay if their school certifies to SEVP that their program is not entirely online and the student is taking the “minimum number of online classes required to make normal progress in their degree program.” Unfortunately, even this limited leeway does not apply to F-1 visa students here for English language programs or M-1 students pursuing vocational degrees, as they may not enroll in any online courses at all without violating their visa requirements.
At this point, several universities, including UCLA, UC Irvine, the entire California State University system, UMass, Harvard, Georgetown, and BYU-Hawaii have stated that their instruction will be online in the fall. Some schools will allow portions of the student body to live on campus but will deliver most or all class instruction remotely. Other schools anticipate employing a hybrid model but are preparing for the need to go completely online if the risk of in-person instruction and on-campus living is too much. In addition, a large number of graduate and professional schools have announced that all instruction will be online this autumn. If an international student starts the semester with in-class instruction but is later required to switch to online classes due to changed circumstances, the student has 10 days to leave the country or “take alternative steps to maintain their nonimmigrant status,” such as transferring to another institution or applying for medical leave.
International students have always been a huge boon to the U.S. and have allowed us to attract talent from all over the globe, with substantial economic benefits. International students pay the highest rates of tuition, and this funding allows universities to subsidize tuition for domestic students. Universities value the perspective and diversity that international students bring to the classroom, which enhances the experience and understanding of U.S. students as they prepare for their own careers. And with the American college-age population decreasing, international students have been an important means of keeping classes full, tuition revenue up, and institutions thriving.
According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, international students studying at U.S. colleges and universities contributed $41 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2018–19 school year and supported more than 450,000 jobs. But the long-term economic and political impact of attracting international talent is even more pronounced in helping the U.S. maintain its global competitiveness. Since 2000, 40% of American Nobel prizes in chemistry, medicine, and physics were awarded to immigrants, and 23% of billion-dollar start-up companies in the U.S. were founded or co-founded by an international student. In addition, 62 world leaders have received higher education in our country, which is a valuable tool for promoting our interests abroad.
For decades, the U.S. was the top destination for students who wanted to study abroad, due to its prestigious post-secondary institutions. Unfortunately, over the past four years, new enrollment of international students has continued to decrease, due in part to the anti-immigrant policies our government has been enacting and our national conversation about welcoming and accepting individuals from other countries. Countries such as Australia and Canada are now attracting a much larger share of the international talent pool.
Of the recent changes announced by ICE, Esther Brimmer, executive director and CEO of NAFSA, wrote, “[The] guidance issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is harmful to international students and puts their health and well-being and that of the entire higher education community at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States remains unpredictable and institutions should be trusted and be given the authority to make decisions that are right for their campuses based on their local circumstances. With a global competition for talent, we must ensure that students feel safe and can attain the best education and experience possible here in the United States. Unfortunately, this administration continues to enact policies which only increase the barriers to studying here, and that’s a serious concern. At a time when new international student enrollment is in decline, our nation risks losing global talent with new policies that hurt us academically and economically.”
Similarly, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, which is made up of college and university leaders, condemned the new ICE policy noting that it will harm our country’s ability to attract and retain global talent and will “unduly pressure colleges and universities — already experiencing historic fiscal strains and uncertainty — to prematurely open in-person courses or else risk losing invaluable student enrollments and contributions.”
As COVID-19 cases continue to rise in the U.S., public health concerns are a top priority. Just this week, over 120 students living in fraternity houses near the University of Washington campus tested positive for the virus, illustrating how quickly it can spread in communal living situations. No student, U.S. or international, should be forced to choose between their health and completing their studies. ICE’s pronouncement states that students who have gone home for the summer will not be permitted to re-enter the U.S. unless they can prove they satisfy the new SEVP requirements. At this point, requiring international students to transfer to a school that can guarantee in-person instruction is unrealistic and cost-prohibitive, if not impossible.
Per the MWEG Principles of Ethical Government, we are committed to “promoting ethical government for the protection and well-being of our brothers and sisters.” Over one million men and women come to the U.S. each year to advance their education and develop their skills. Their presence blesses and enriches our country both here and abroad. ICE’s new policy is unnecessary, callous, and does not advance any American interests.
