Tweet
The press release makes it all sound so wonderful:
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton today announced a new initiative to streamline the international student visa process for foreign students seeking to study in the United States. The Study in the States initiative is a key component of a government-wide effort to encourage the best and brightest foreign students to study and remain in the U.S.
"Attracting the best and brightest international talent to our colleges and universities is an important part of our nation's economic, scientific and technological innovation and competitiveness," said Secretary Napolitano. "Foreign students and exchange visitors bring invaluable contributions to our nation, and the Study in the States initiative is an important step in empowering the next generation of international entrepreneurs, right here in America."
More than 1.1 million active nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors and their dependents study in our nation's world class system of universities, exchange programs, and training opportunities. The Study in the States initiative will examine regulatory changes, expand public engagement between the government and academia, and provide a central on-line information hub for DHS and its agency partners to provide current and prospective students with updated and relevant visa requirements in a streamlined, user-friendly format.
"Study in the States encourages international students who seek the wealth of educational opportunities available in the U.S. to remain here following their studies and apply their new skills here in our country," said ICE Director Morton. "We aim to strike a balance--providing an open and welcoming experience for international students and visitors seeking information, while maintaining the integrity and security of our visa process. This site is an important step toward reaching that goal."
But it's one thing to issue press releases and web sites with helpful information. It's another far more difficult thing to change internal policies and a seemingly intractible mindset amongst examiners and officers who believe their primary mission is to keep as many people out of the country as they can and not do what's best for the country (though they probably believe that keeping as many people out IS what's best fot the country).
Just ask an immigration lawyer that handles EB-1 petitions for extraordinary ability aliens whether USCIS genuinely appears interested in attracting the best and brightest and you'll get an earful regarding a soaring denial rate for these petitions and jaw dropping examples of incredibly gifted individuals who are being humiliated and basically run out of the country. Director Mayorkas has held several stakeholders calls on this subject and knows about which I write, but there is little evidence he has had any ability to get the situation under control. Best of luck.
Until Secretary Napolitano, Director Mayorkas, Director Morton and senior officials across DHS can figure out how to truly change policies achieve the stated objectives and then actually get examiners carry out those policies either by incentivizing correct behavior or punishing failing to abide by stated policies, then you really have accomplished little.
Secretary Napolitano - don't just talk the talk. Show us you can walk the walk.
This is dated January 13, 2000 almost 12 years ago. I have provided a link to their 2012 report. As a general rule a more recent version of a report supercedes an earlier version of the same report. Do you think an exception is warranted in this case?
"Both are relevant. Also, if a country has an unsustainable fertility rate it can only continue if they can send their excess population to other countries. If receiving countries tighten up their immigration policies (less slots for the excess population to go) it puts downward pressure on the sending country's fertility rate (toward a sustainable fertility rate). Thus, a national immigration policy can not only affect that country's population but world population."
I take it then that you would have no objection to immigration from the Western European countries many of which have a lower fertility (and growth rate) than the USA?
"Of course. But if that person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country, the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot. This is what happens when people move from lower eco-footprint countries into high footprint U.S."
Again, the same question. So, you have no objection to immigration from the Western European countries as they have a similar ecological footprint?
Am I right in concluding that it is your contention that immigration from Western Europe to the USA does not damage the environment but immigration from Africa to the USA has a devastating impact on the ecology and environment of the Planet Earth?
Do you know of a more recent projection from them for the year 2100? I have not seen one. Maybe they published some special longer range projections due to it being a new millennium.
"I take it then that you would have no objection to immigration from the Western European countries many of which have a lower fertility (and growth rate) than the USA?"
If you mean unlimited, I would object regardless of fertility. Theoretically, even if you know a person would not produce offspring they still add to your population (and footprint) during the span of their lifetime. Theoretically, if a European's individual footprint were to be the same if he moved to the U.S., even though the impact on the world footprint would be unchanged I would still rather have the local impact be in Europe rather than on my own country. In that regard, I have a home country bias.