DeDe Long is NAFSA’s vice president for public policy and practice and chair of the Public Policy Committee of NAFSA’s Board of Directors. She is the director of study abroad and international exchange at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville.
As we approach the end of 2009, the buzz is growing in Washington, DC, about a coming debate on immigration reform. Meanwhile, President Obama recently signaled again his understanding of the importance of international education and the importance of U.S. openness to talent and students from other countries. At the closing of his jobs summit in Washington, DC, earlier this month, he said:
Our strength has always been saying yes to the rest of the world, inviting ideas and different cultures and commerce. And we have not seen the same kinds of openness, I think, over the last several years that I’d like to see. Now, we’ve got to do it in a prudent way, but let’s just take the example of foreign students. One of the great things about this country is we get the best and the brightest talent to study here, and once they study here they start enjoying the intellectual freedom and the entrepreneurship, and they decide to stay, and they start new businesses. And suddenly you’ve got a whole new generation of folks who are creating Intel or other extraordinary businesses. If those students start seeing a closed door, then we are losing what is one of our greatest competitive advantages, and that’s something that I think we’re committed to doing.
This is why it is so important for international educators to note and take action on the release today of NAFSA’s latest paper, Visa and Immigration Policy for the Brain-Circulation Era. It puts forth a bold plan for addressing U.S. immigration and visa policies that reflects years of challenges and frustrations faced by NAFSA members and the international students and scholars we serve and highlights our collective concern that without a policy of openness and welcome to those students, the United States will be hampered both economically and in terms of its foreign policy. It is time for a frank but realistic discussion of the issues that we have faced since 9/11 that have resulted in an America that continues to appear less than welcoming and that doesn’t always reflect the values of openness and tolerance that our higher education institutions seek to instill in our students every day.
At the University of Arkansas, we are reminded every day as we pass by the Fulbright Peace Fountain and statue of the late Senator J. William Fulbright that our greatest hope for security is to bring people together, not keep them apart. Sen. Fulbright’s words ring exactly true today:
Educational exchange is not merely one of those nice but marginal activities in which we engage in international affairs, but rather, from the standpoint of future world peace and order, probably the most important and potentially rewarding of our foreign policy activities.
I believe that the recommendations NAFSA has put forward offer credible and politically sound solutions that will enhance our ability to do essential work in support of international educational exchange. Such reforms must be made if we truly are to embrace policies that promote a better world.
I hope that NAFSA members will rally behind this paper by sharing it widely and by engaging in this important conversation with decision-makers both on your campus and in Washington, DC. Be sure to join NAFSA’s Advocacy Centered Team (ACT) to stay informed of opportunities in the new year to engage in advocacy on this vital issue.
DeDe:
Nicely articulated. After I read the report I may respond again. One issue however, is that of the criticism by developing nations of western nations of robbing them of their best and brightest. I understand the rationale of an individual student for wanting to meet their own goals and self interest. These goals often benefit the U.S. I’m not complaining about this. I have assisted many student in obtaining their permanent residence in the U.S. But, the developing nations have a just criticism as well. I hope the report will address this moral impasse.
Mike
DeDe;
My concerns run along the lines of those mentioned by Michael. I have only been a member of NAFSA a few years, but the thrust of this report confuses me about the purpose of the organization. I guess what I’m wondering is why the organization would release a report that deals specifically with the immigration policy of the U.S. As an organization of international educators, it would seem that our concern would be for the free flow of students wherever they might want to study. This report emphasizes ways to get more students to come to the U. S. Besides the fact that there are other countries in the world who would like to have more strudents from other countries, it is also true that many developing countries need their brightest students to foster local growth.
I want to thank Vic Johnson, his team, NAFSA and any other contributors to this excellent report. I feel as though I may have written this myself, as it touches upon all of the issues that I have been discussing with colleagues over the past few years.
I aggressively pursued a career in international education and I feel just as I joined in 2002, America started to turn its back on the importance of open exchange in the name of protecting us from terrorists. I agree with Joel, that America doesn’t have to be the best or only choice, but I am saddened that America has been chasing demons and not proactively enriching our opportunity for global exchange.
I hope that congresspeople and others with the ability to influence decisions in our country read this paper and decide to respond enthusiastically to a call for reality check on all of the issues poignantly discussed in this report.
Hi Michael ,
I want to thank both you and Joel for your comments. You raise good points that are definitely part of NAFSA’s ongoing public policy discussion. This paper was carefully crafted to serve a particular purpose at this particular time– we need immigration and visa reform to better serve the needs of this country. And we hope that policy makers will respond to our call for change. This in no way means that NAFSA is not interested in the free flow of students around the world – it is definitely one of our core values. But we look for windows of opportunity and let’s hope we have one now.
Best, DeDe
To Dee Dee Long, Victor Johnson, and NAFSA’s Public Policy team,
I am so glad you have written this broad, logical and nuanced policy paper. We have to capitalize on the fact that the Obama administration (and perhaps the new Congress) better understand the importance of international education and the self-inflicted harm that current visa and immigration regulations and practices do to this enterprise.
There are a few elements that the paper does not address that I would like to note (see list below), that I know Victor is aware of, and that can be promoted in the context of this policy paper. These may have been left out intentionally to keep the paper from getting too long and detailed, or to avoid pushing one specific solution vs. a general approach.
1 More detailed suggestions for green card relief:
-elimination/revision of per-country limits and/or an increase in immigrant visa numbers for highly skilled and advanced-degree professionals
-creation of new fast-track avenue(s) to green card for teaching faculty and persons with advannced degrees (especially if from a U.S. university).
2 New, less restrictive avenues/options for work permission for F-1s and J-1s, but also for F-2s and H-4s.
3 Remove the prohibition for F-2s to pursue study/degrees.
4 Continued strong support for exemption from the H-1B cap for higher education.
Thanks for your great work on this!
Mark Schneider, University of Minnesota
DeDee, I thought Vic Johnson’s “white paper” was great. I appreciate that immigration reform, not just for students and scholars, was addressed. One concern is the last paragraph of the paper, which asks that F, M, and J individuals be granted driver’s licenses for the duration of their programs. This does not completely solve the problem since H-1B, TN, and O-1 individuals who have presumably been screened at least once by DOS and/or USCIS are left out of the picture. That is not a good way to encourage highly skilled international scientists to ply their trade in this country.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. I definitely think NAFSA is moving in the right direction with this statement.