{"id":23709,"date":"2020-10-07T13:04:40","date_gmt":"2020-10-07T17:04:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=23709"},"modified":"2020-10-07T13:04:42","modified_gmt":"2020-10-07T17:04:42","slug":"dhs-student-exchange-visa-restrict-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/10\/07\/dhs-student-exchange-visa-restrict-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"DHS wants to tighten leash on student and exchange visas; is it enough?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Amid growing concerns about espionage, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security<\/a> (DHS) is moving to place time limits on foreign student and exchange visas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the first time, F-1 student visas (more than 1 million issued in 2019) and J-1 exchange visitor visas (353,300) would be subject to two- or four-year expirations. The new rules, according to the Center for Immigration Studies<\/a> (CIS), would replace the \u201claissez-faire, essentially open-ended schedules that have given rise to fraud, espionage and terrorism.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite predictable caterwauling from left-wing media outlets<\/a>, such safeguards are entirely reasonable, long overdue, and perhaps still too loose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As DHS explains: “These\nchanges ensure that the Department has an effective mechanism to periodically\nand directly assess whether these non-immigrants are complying with the\nconditions of their classifications and U.S. immigration laws, and to obtain\ntimely and accurate information about the activities they have engaged in and\nplan to engage in during their temporary stay in the United States.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acting on security concerns swirling around the F and J visa programs, the State Department rescinded more than 1,000 visas<\/a> from Chinese nationals last month. The revocations came after years of espionage<\/a> by Chinese students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CIS derides the current F\nvisa program \u201cas elastic as students and the sponsors who benefit from the\nbillions in tuition or affordable labor want it to be, with no national\nsecurity evaluations, check-ins with trained DHS officers, or proof of need for\nyears stretching even into decades.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two-year visa expirations \u2014 with an opportunity for extensions by a DHS immigration officer \u2014 would apply to countries with visa overstay rates exceeding 10 percent: Nigeria, Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Also on the restricted list are the terrorist-linked nations of Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Chad, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Libya.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curiously, China gets more leeway. Though citing \u201cmultiple examples\u201d of stateside spying by Beijing, DHS gives Chinese nationals the same four-year visa terms as other countries (excluding the above), with the same renewal protocols. This seems unduly lax, considering the incidence of espionage and the thousands of Chinese student overstays<\/a> each year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn light of ongoing\nespionage cases involving the J and F visas, nothing about the proposed\nrestrictions comes off as particularly draconian,\u201d CIS concludes. \u201cThe visa\nprograms are not to be eliminated, the numbers granted not capped.\nOpportunities for renewal and extension are baked into the new cake.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Americans can only hope that\ncontinued opportunities for espionage and terrorism aren\u2019t baked in as well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public comments on the proposed rules are being accepted through Oct. 26. They can be submitted here<\/a>.#<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Amid growing concerns about espionage, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is moving to place time limits on foreign student and exchange visas. For the first time, F-1 student visas (more than 1 million issued in 2019) and J-1 exchange visitor visas (353,300) would be subject to two- or four-year expirations. The new rules,<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":15422,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[8562],"tags":[1524,625,858,4367],"yst_prominent_words":[4363,4014,2410,2371,2298,9531,10068,6664,10066,10067,1963,1948,2995,2296,2560,4042,2318,1939,2172,2170],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23709"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23709"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23709\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23710,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23709\/revisions\/23710"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15422"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23709"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=23709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}