Recent press reports on the California visa fraud case disclosed by authorities this week do a good deal to inform the public about the scope and nature of the case. The schools affected have been clear in saying that fraud is something they take seriously and guard against vigilantly, while acknowledging that there are limits to what they can know about every student who comes through their doors every day. The ICE special agent in charge of the case, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, notes that there has to this point been “no indication that any of the students had any terrorist ties.”
Apparently the anti-immigration group FAIR knows more than ICE does. In the same article, a spokesperson for the group had this to say: “This is an indication that a lot of the abuses that led to 9/11 are still taking place. The consequences are not just people getting phony grades. There are potential national security consequences at stake.” Given what is known about the case, it is unclear what exactly the connection to 9/11 or to “national security consequences” might be. The FAIR spokesperson himself acknowledges that one of the 9/11 hijackers was in United States on a student visa. That’s one out of 19 – numerous government sources, including the 9/11 Commission and the State Department, have confirmed repeatedly over the years that all of the other hijackers entered the United States on tourist visas.
Let’s put this in perspective. The vast majority of non-immigrants who come to the country every year do so on tourist visas—the visas used by almost all of the 9/11 terrorists. We know little about these people. For most of them, we do not track where they go, how long they stay here, what they do while they are here—or indeed, if they ever leave. By contrast, individuals who seek student visas – about 2% of the foreign visitors to our country each year – have to meet many requirements in order to apply for and receive them, and they are closely tracked while they are here. Foreign students and scholars are the only population of U.S. visa holders that is subject to monitoring while they are in our country, and that monitoring is extensive. We know much more about this small group of foreign visitors than about the other 98% of foreign visitors to our country.
Abuses of the U.S. system must be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. Perhaps the full scope of this case is not yet known. At the same time, there is good reason not to jump to the conclusion that violations of immigration status suggest intent to commit terrorist acts. If we took that approach to its logical conclusion, our country would move further to close its doors to those outside our borders, and we know that’s not good for our security. What is more, it is unproductive to respond to cases like these by simply adding yet more monitoring of a group of people that is already heavily monitored, diverting scarce resources away from our ability to pursue real threats. There is no evidence that the student visa system represents any more of a “vulnerability” in the immigration system than the visa categories used by the other 98% of our foreign visitors. In fact, foreign students have historically been among our most important foreign policy assets, connecting us with the leadership of other countries, creating avenues of cooperation among nations, and expanding the horizons of our own students toward a globally connected world.
Contrary to what a former DHS official told the Associated Press this week, U.S. colleges and universities have invested enormous effort, time, and expense in making the foreign student tracking system work. The reason it works as well as it does is because of a sustained collaborative effort between schools and the U.S. government. Improvement is always possible, and we continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security each day on these matters. But a serious approach to our national security requires thoughtful consideration about where we spend our resources, for what purpose, and to what effect.
Vic Johnson is NAFSA’s senior advisor for public policy.
Vic – Thank you for this concise and thoughtful response to an all too consistent refrain about international students being some sort of threat to national security when, in fact, they are precisely the type of individuals we want to spend time in our country and on our campuses sharing their insights and cultures, and learning about ours. You have put the presence of international students in proper perspective. As you said, we — the Higher Ed community — will continue do our part, but the rhetoric must be tempered.
I entirely agree with the general thrust of Vic Johnson’s piece however he is wrong when he says “we know little about these people” meaning those on tourist visas. It depends on the definition of little. US immigration is based the principle of intending immigration, meaning that people on tourist visas are deemed “guilty” of trying to immigrate to the US unless they can prove otherwise. The visa interview is therefore designed to interrogate real intentions. Procedures for tourist visas have also been stepped up but even in the old days before 9/11 tourists were not waved through at embassies.
Depending on the country, in addition to detailed questions about family and their life situation, applicants routinely produced any manner of documentation including personal bank records. “Tourist” visas also include people travelling on business since the two separate categories of visa were combined many years ago. So business records may need to be scrutinized and of course today everyone – including Americans – are interviewed personally either before departure or at entry or both.
We want Americans to travel and study in other countries and we want foreign tourists and students to study and travel to the US. I agree that we need to cut down or better yet – cut out the “anti” rhetoric. Instead let’s concentrate catching people (including Americans) who pose an actual security threat.
Thank you for your comment. As you note, the visa interview process is designed to try to ascertain applicants’ intentions with respect to their travel in the United States. The difference between foreign tourists and business travelers on the one hand and foreign students on the other is that once tourists and business travelers enter our country, no one reports on their changes of address or location, on the activities related to their visa status, or anything else. Students, on the other hand, are tracked in detail by college officials throughout their stay in the United States. This is what I meant when I wrote that we know very little about what the other 98% of our visitors are doing while they are here. My point was not that we ought to try to track every visitor’s every movement – that simply isn’t feasible and wouldn’t, in my view, increase our security. But, as I note in my post, neither does it serve security to pile on more monitoring of an already highly monitored group of people who pose no greater threat than anyone else.
I appauld the time and thought you placed into this article. I take homeland security very seriously. How quickly we forget. Tourist visas are a tradgedy waiting to happen. US colleges and Universities do spend lots of time and resources attempting to track foreign students.Unfortunately, with the system they way it is…its like swimming upstream.