Advocates fear litmus test in new student visa rules
While the resumption of visa applications was welcomed, the State Department's announcement that it would require public access to applicants' posts added a new layer of uncertainty to the process.
'It's good news, bad news. I mean, I'm happy that the interviews are opening up again, because there's a lot of students that are running out of time to get here in the fall, and so that was creating a lot of stress and anxiety for them. But also … there's still a lot of uncertainty,' said Shaun Carver, executive director of International House at the University of California, Berkeley.
'I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to check people's social media accounts to come to the United States and make sure that they have the right intentions … I think what we've learned from this administration is that there's no clarity on what they're looking,' he added. 'Is it anything critical of Trump will be triggered that you're not allowed to come or are they looking for something that's more specific to national security, not just political viewpoints?'
The State Department said it would look for those 'who pose a threat to U.S. national security.' A person who refuses to make their social media accounts public could be denied a student visa to the United States.
While a student could delete their social media profiles entirely, it is unclear if that would also set off alarm bells.
'Every visa adjudication is a national security decision. The United States must be vigilant during the visa issuance process to ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests, and that all applicants credibly establish their eligibility for the visa sought, including that they intend to engage in activities consistent with the terms for their admission,' the department's announcement stated.
The State Department paused all processing and new interview appointments for visa applications in May in order to update its social media policies.
Some theorize the change comes after Trump administration agencies arrested numerous pro-Palestinian campus activists this spring with a plan to deport them based on Secretary Marco Rubio's determination these individuals are a threat to the country's foreign policy.
So far, the administration's strategy is tied up in lawsuits.
'I think the motivation for it, in part, comes from the difficulty the Trump administration has had in removing people from the country who were student protesters that they wanted to deport and have run into longer court cases in the effort to deport them,' said Stuart Anderson, executive director for the National Foundation for American Policy. 'And I think their frustration with getting people out of the country once they're here and they have greater legal rights has motivated an effort to deny more people visas before they come in.'
Anderson pointed out that reviewing social media profiles would be a time-consuming process and wondered if AI or keywords would be implemented to speed the process along.
'How subjective will this be? There could be very obvious ones, if someone has made some really obvious statements … that promote terrorism or violence. But I think the question would be on whether someone maybe has an opinion that may be different from whoever is reviewing their media profile,' he concluded.
The Hill has reached out to the State Department for comment.
The pause was criticized by advocates and caused panic among students and colleges because those coming to the U.S. couldn't make travel or housing arrangements, and universities could not receive payments from these students, until their visas were approved.
It also added a new level of stress for foreign students who may be reconsidering coming to the U.S. amid the actions of the Trump administrations.
The federal government has arrested or stripped the visas for dozens of foreign students and is currently in a lawsuit with Harvard after it tried to take away the university's ability to enroll international students.
While the actions against Harvard have been blocked by a judge, the overall environment has given foreign students second thoughts.
A person familiar with the discussions also told The Associated Press that consulates were instructed to prioritize foreign students who were enrolling in schools with a less than 15 percent foreign student population in its student body.
'Just anecdotally, from my own experience at I-House, typically India and China represent about 10 percent of our community. This year, so far, it's 5 percent so we're seeing a large decline in Indian and Chinese students,' Carver said, referencing Berkeley's International House.
Anecdotally, he shared that an international student who previously studied in the U.S. and now works at Oxford University in Britain told him that 'every day he's getting emails from folks saying, 'I've been admitted to Harvard or MIT or Cal or Stanford,' and he's getting emails from folks saying, 'Can you help me? I want to come to Oxford.''
'These universities in the UK and Canada and elsewhere are really seeing an opportunity to get the best and brightest to not just change universities or change states, whatever the current situation, but just get out of this uncertainty that currently exists and the tone of the United States,' Carver said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump isn't trying to ‘erase history' at Smithsonian — he's reversing a destructive woke takeover
Liberals were up in arms this week after President Trump said he wanted a review of the Smithsonian Institute — saying their displays were too negative, and too focused on slavery. But Trump isn't trying to 'erase history,' he's looking to reverse a woke movement that has indeed rewritten the American story to highlight suffering rather than providing a balanced picture of our past. Trump's criticism that the Smithsonian is overly focused on slavery is not unreasonable: In nearly every exhibit, critical race theory in general, or slavery specifically, makes an appearance. For instance, its new Benjamin Franklin exhibit on his innovations includes a whole section on slavery — with assumptions, but no proof, that slaves assisted Franklin in his electrical innovations. Even if they hadn't, the curators argue that without their work around the house, Franklin couldn't have spent the time on his experiments! 'Franklin held people enslaved during the time he pursued his electrical experiments. Their labor in his household helped make time that he could use to study electricity. Family, friends, and visitors directly participated in electrical experiments. The records are few and unclear, but enslaved people may also have directly assisted his research.' Another example of the obsession with slavery comes from the National Portrait Gallery; nearly every early Founding Father's description includes a statement on slavery. For example, the description for Thomas Jefferson includes the statement: 'Although Jefferson once called slavery 'an abominable crime,' he consistently enslaved African Americans, including his late wife Martha's half-sister, Sally Hemings, with whom he had several children.' The overemphasis on the history of slavery is a fairly recent development, an offshoot of the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2019, Lonnie G. Bunch III took over as the Secretary of the Smithsonian. Prior to that, Bunch was the founding director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is nearly exclusively focused on the legacy of slavery, with exhibits such as In Slavery's Wake, Slavery and Freedom, and Make Good the Promise, which deal with the history of slavery. Also in 2019, the Smithsonian collaborated with the New York Times on its 1619 Project, which falsely claims that the United States started, not with the Declaration of Independence or Revolutionary War, but when the first slave ship arrived. As curator Mary Elliot remarked at the time: 'This is a shared history, everyone inherited the legacies of slavery.' But America's history is more than just about slavery, and not everyone inherited this legacy — after all, America is also a nation of immigrants who came after the Civil War. In the Smithsonian 2020 annual report, more obsession with slavery comes into view. The Smithsonian is on a mission to have a completely searchable digital museum called 'The Searchable Museum Initiative.' One may think it would begin with digitization of some our greatest moments in history, such as the landing on the moon, the passing of the US Constitution, or even its great Natural History collections. You would be wrong; the digitization began 'with the museum's Slavery and Freedom exhibition.' The annual report claims that 'The Searchable Museum will provide rich, interactive, digital experiences that match the immersive experience of a visit to the physical museum' — unfortunately, likely as biased as a visit to the museum themselves. The problem with modern museums is not just about the obsession with slavery; it's also about dishonestly painting all of American history as evil and full of horrors — with little or no redeeming qualities. For instance, in the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum in NYC, George Washington hardly gets a mention, but his silhouette is used in a description of him as a 'town destroyer' — supposedly a nickname that Native Americans still use to describe our first President. And yet there's no mention in either of the American Indian Museums — in NYC or DC — about slavery practiced by Native Americans, both before Europeans' arrival and afterward. For example, the Cherokee owned slaves. In 1835, 15,000 Cherokee owned 1,592 African slaves; by the Civil War onset, 17,000 Cherokee owned 4,000 African slaves. While museums should provide an honest account of history, they should not be afraid to showcase and celebrate American achievement, which includes ending slavery. At present, however, museums seem more interested in pushing a woke, revisionist history of the United States. With two new Smithsonian museums in development, the National Museum of the American Latino and the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, we can expect more of the same — unless we take action against woke propaganda now. Elizabeth Weiss is a professor emeritus of anthropology at San José State University and author of 'On the Warpath: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors.'
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Klobuchar weighs in on deepfake video of her talking about Sydney Sweeney
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) addressed the deepfake video that went viral last month of the senator's likeness offering a 'vulgar and absurd critique' of actress Sydney Sweeney's 'great jeans' ad campaign. In a New York Times op-ed, the moderate Democrat called on Congress to pass legislation to protect Americans from the harms of deepfakes, saying the issue requires urgent action amid the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. 'I learned that lesson in a visceral way over the last month when a fake video of me — opining on, of all things, the actress Sydney Sweeney's jeans — went viral,' she wrote in the op-ed. Klobuchar said after she co-led a hearing on data privacy last month, she noticed 'a clip of me from that hearing circulating widely on X, to the tune of more than a million views,' which the senator then clicked on to watch. 'That's when I heard my voice — but certainly not me — spewing a vulgar and absurd critique of an ad campaign for jeans featuring Sydney Sweeney,' she said, referring to the controversial American Eagle advertisement that touted the actress's 'great jeans.' Klobuchar explained the AI deepfake featured her using derogatory phrases and 'lamenting that Democrats were 'too fat to wear jeans or too ugly to go outside.'' 'Though I could immediately tell that someone used footage from the hearing to make a deepfake, there was no getting around the fact that it looked and sounded very real,' she said. Klobuchar said when the clip spread to other platforms, TikTok took it down, and Meta labeled the video as artificial intelligence. But she said the social platform X 'refused to take it down or label it.' 'X's response was that I should try to get a 'Community Note' to say it was a fake, something the company would not help add,' she added. The Hill has reached out to X for comment. Klobuchar noted that her experience 'does not in any way represent the gravest threat posed by deepfakes' and pointed to other recent examples, including when someone used AI to pretend to be Secretary of State Marco Rubio and contacted various high-level government officials. President Trump in May signed into law a bill that Klobuchar pushed for, cracking down on so-called deepfake revenge porn — or sexually explicit AI images and videos that are posted without the victim's consent. Klobuchar is calling now for Congress to pass her bipartisan 'No Fakes Act,' which 'would give people the right to demand that social media companies remove deepfakes of their voice and likeness, while making exceptions for speech protected by the First Amendment,' she said. 'In the United States, and within the bounds of our Constitution, we must put in place common-sense safeguards for artificial intelligence. They must at least include labeling requirements for content that is substantially generated by A.I.,' she wrote in the op-ed. She warned that the country is 'at just the tip of the iceberg,' noting, 'The internet has an endless appetite for flashy, controversial content that stokes anger. The people who create these videos aren't going to stop at Sydney Sweeney's jeans.' 'We can love the technology and we can use the technology, but we can't cede all the power over our own images and our privacy,' she wrote. 'It is time for members of Congress to stand up for their constituents, stop currying favor with the tech companies and set the record straight. In a democracy, we do that by enacting laws. And it is long past time to pass one.'
