
US visa curbs on Chinese students may backfire on the administration's decision
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
One night in 1978, President Jimmy Carter got a phone call at 3 a.m. from a top adviser who was visiting China "Deng Xiaoping insisted I call you now, to see if you would permit 5,000 Chinese students to come to American universities," said the official, Frank Press."Tell him to send 100,000," Carter replied.By Christmas time that year, the first group of 52 Chinese students had arrived in the United States , just ahead of the formal establishment of US-China diplomatic relations on New Year's Day. A month later, Deng, then China's top leader, made a historic visit to America during which he watched John Denver sing "Take Me Home, Country Roads" and was photographed wearing a cowboy hat.It's almost hard to believe how little contact there had been between the United States and modern China before that. Sinologist John K. Fairbank wrote in 1971: "Since 1950 Washington has officially sent more men to the moon than it has to China." The visits by Deng, and more important, by those first Chinese students, began a new chapter that would fundamentally change China -- and the world. The United States gained access to a vast market and talent pool, while China found a model and a partner for transforming its economy.Now that chapter has closed, after the Trump administration announced that it would begin "aggressively" revoking the visas of Chinese students Wednesday.For the millions of Chinese who have studied in the United States, myself included, it is a sobering and disheartening development. It marks a turning point that America, long a beacon of openness and opportunity, would start shutting its doors to Chinese who aspire for a good education and a future in a society that values freedom and human dignity.By curbing people-to-people exchanges, President Donald Trump is taking a decisive step toward decoupling from China. To treat Chinese students and professionals in science and technology broadly not as contributors, but as potential security risks, reflects a foreign policy driven more by insecurity and retreat than by the self-assurance of a global leader.Reaction to the new policy in China, reflected in the US Embassy 's social media accounts, was mixed. Some commenters thanked the United States for "sending China's brightest minds back." Others drew historical parallels, comparing the Trump administration's isolationist turn to China's Ming and Qing dynasties -- once global powers that declined after turning inward and were ultimately defeated in foreign invasions. One commenter remarked that the policy's narrow-mindedness would "make America small again."The shift also comes at a time when many young Chinese, disillusioned by political repression and economic stagnation under Xi Jinping's leadership, are trying to flee the country to seek freedom and opportunities."Xi is pushing many of the best and the brightest to leave China," said Thomas E. Kellogg, executive director of Georgetown's Center for Asian Law and a leading scholar of legal reform in China. "The US should be taking advantage of this historic brain drain, not shutting the door to many talented Chinese young people."The number of Chinese students in the United States dropped to about 277,000 in the 2023-24 academic year, a 25% decline from its peak four years earlier, according to government data. Students from China remained the second-largest group of international students, after those from India. In fact, applications for post-graduation temporary employment permits rose by 12% in 2023-24 over the prior year, signaling more interest in working in the United States despite the challenges.The new visa policy will leave many of these students with little choice but to leave, or at the least reconsider their future in the United States.I interviewed a doctoral candidate in computer science at a top US university, a young man from China who first dreamed of studying in America at 17, when he began to question Chinese government propaganda. He arrived eight years ago and never seriously considering returning. But now, facing the threat of visa revocation, he said he is no longer sure if he can -- or even wants to -- stay."America doesn't feel worth it anymore," he said, asking me not to identify him for fear of retribution from Washington. The immigration process is fraught with anxiety, he said, and the returns no longer seem to justify the stress. He said he was exploring work visa options in Canada, Australia and Western Europe, even though he has a job offer from a big tech company on the West Coast of the United States."The pay might be lower," he said, "but those countries offer more personal freedom."His experience is in stark contrast to that of Dong Jielin, who was among the first Chinese students to come to the United States after the Cultural Revolution. When she arrived at Carnegie Mellon University in 1982 on a U.S. scholarship, she knew little about the country beyond what the Chinese state media had portrayed: a capitalist society in perpetual crisis and a people living in misery.It didn't take long for her perception to shift. "The moment I walked into a supermarket, I could see that life here was far from miserable," she told me in an interview. Encounters with Americans quickly dispelled other myths as well. "They were not vicious or hostile," she said. "They were warm and kind."Dong went on to earn a doctoral degree in physics, build a career in finance and technology, become a U.S. citizen and raise a family.The US government has good reasons to worry about national security risks from China, including espionage and intellectual property theft. The FBI calls the Chinese government the most prolific sponsor of talent recruitment programs that aim to transfer scientific and technological breakthroughs to China.It also makes sense to block people with ties to China's military industrial complex.But it's something else entirely to deny visas to 18-year-old students simply because they are Chinese and hope to pursue a STEM degree in the United States.US officials often say they aim to distinguish between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people. That distinction was emphasized during Trump's first term. It's largely absent now.US policy now targets anyone with ties to the Chinese Communist Party. But the party has nearly 100 million members, about 1 in 7 Chinese. And most children in China grow up as members of the Young Pioneers and Communist Youth League, school-based party organizations. It's just the way of life in a country ruled by a Leninist party.As one commenter put it on the US Embassy's WeChat account, "How could any Chinese not be associated with the Party?"The policy is also very likely to backfire.Researchers found that Chinese undergraduates at US universities were more predisposed to favor liberal democracy than their peers in China. However, they said, exposure to xenophobic, anti-Chinese comments by Americans significantly decreased their belief that political reforms are desirable for China. Those who experienced discrimination were more likely to reject democratic values in favor of autocratic ones.Chinese who have studied abroad also face growing suspicion at home. The government and some employers believe that exposure to Western values makes their fellow Chinese politically unreliable.Dong Mingzhu, chair of the appliance giant Gree Electric, said recently that her company will never hire a graduate from a foreign university. "There are spies among them," she said.On the Chinese internet, some people compared her to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who announced the visa policy.Dong Jielin, the former student who was among the first to come to the United States, said the experience had a profound impact on her life, giving her the opportunity to explore the frontiers of science and technology.It is understandable, she said, that the government is raising screening standards for student visas. "But I believe the vast majority of those who stay in the US will, over time, become loyal American citizens," she said, just like herself.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
US' biggest enemy openly rebukes Trump diplomat for...; not China, Iran, Russia, the country is...
Donald Trump (File) US-Cuba relations: has accused the United States mission of fomenting internal discord in the island nation, and issued a verbal warning to Mike Hammer, the top US diplomat in Havana. In a statement on Friday, the Cuban Foreign Ministry said it has issued a verbal warning to Hammer, accusing the US Chief of Mission of 'interventionist' behavior, Reuters reported. Cuba slams US diplomat for 'interventionist' behavior Cuba alleged that Mike Hammer had incited 'Cuban citizens to commit serious criminal acts, attack the constitutional order, or encourage them to act against the authorities', and claimed that his actions violated the Vienna Convention norms on diplomatic relations, the report said. 'The immunity he (Hammer) enjoys as a representative of his country cannot be used as cover for acts contrary to the sovereignty and internal order of the country to which he is accredited, in this case Cuba,' Cuba's statement said. The latest escalation is being view as part of rising tensions between US and Cuba– long time foes since the Cold War era– under the Donald Trump administration. Cuba, which was close ties to the erstwhile Soviet Union, is still considered close to Russia, the US' arch nemesis. Why Cuba chastised Trump diplomat? Cuba's scathing chastisement of Mike Hammer comes after the US diplomat, who arrived in the Caribbean nation six months ago, started meeting political dissident across the Island, drawing the ire of the Cuban government, which has accused him of seeking to foment unrest in the country. Since his arrival, Cuba has criticized Hammer on multiple occasions, but has not restricted his travels across the island. The Cuban foreign ministry's statement comes days after Hammer told a presser in Miami that Trump administration was preparing further sanctions against Cuba. US' response to Cuba's statement Meanwhile, the US statement has defended the actions of its top diplomat in Cuba, saying 'Chief of Mission Mike Hammer and the U.S. Embassy proudly represent President Trump by implementing an America First foreign policy and seeking accountability for the Cuban regime for its malign influence across the Americas.' 'We will continue to meet with Cuban patriots, religious leaders, and those fighting for the freedoms of Cubans,' a State Department official said, according to Reuters. The rising US-Cuba tensions come at a time when the country is facing its worst economic crisis in decades, a predicament Cuba blames on the Cold War-era US embargo, which restricted financial transactions, trade, tourism and fuel imports into the island nation.


Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Greta Thunberg to sail to Gaza on aid ship as 75% population faces food shortage
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg is preparing to sail to Gaza on Sunday as part of a humanitarian mission, according to a report by the New York Post. The 22-year-old from Sweden will travel on board the 'Madleen,' a ship carrying aid for people in war-hit Gaza. The trip is organised by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC), which aims to challenge the Israeli blockade on the region. Speaking about the mission, Thunberg said, 'The world cannot be silent bystanders. This silence and passivity that we are seeing from most of the world is deadly. We are seeing a systematic starvation of 2 million people. Every single one of us has a moral obligation to do everything we can to fight for a free Palestine.' The World Health Organisation has warned that people in Gaza face the risk of famine, with around 75 per cent of the population in serious need of food. The FFC has tried to send aid by sea before. A previous ship, the 'Conscience,' was hit by drones in international waters on 2 May, near Malta. The group said Israel was behind the attack, but Israel has not confirmed or denied it. Thunberg will be joined by other well-known figures, including actor Liam Cunningham and European Parliament member Rima Hassan. However, the trip has drawn criticism, especially online and from commentators in Australia. On Sky News Australia, host Danica De Giorgio called Thunberg the 'big loser of the week.' The mission takes place as international talks continue over a possible ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Hamas is considering a US-backed proposal that could lead to a 60-day truce and the release of some hostages.


Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Resource war: How commercial assets turned into front line weaponry
Chennai: Recently, J.D. Vance, the US vice president, confirmed what the world feared. He termed the competition between the US and China in developing artificial intelligence (AI) as an 'arms race'. Policy makers in both the countries believe that whoever wins this race will dominate the world, going forward. At the core of this battle is computing power and this has given a fresh impetus to the chip war that began between the US and China five years ago. In May 2020, during his first term as the president of the US, Donald Trump fired the first salvo. The US commerce department added Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies to the 'Entity List', a measure which prevented the company that sells smartphones, telecom equipment and cloud computing services from accessing advanced computer chips produced or developed using US technology or software. The reason? The US feared that Huawei's attractively priced products, backed by Chinese government subsidy, would soon dominate the next generation telecom networks, ending American clout in the field. The move had a debilitating impact on Huawei. Its global expansion took a hit and revenue crashed. 'A corporate giant faced technological asphyxiation," Chris Miller, in his book Chip War, wrote. According to him, this development reminded China of its weakness. 'In nearly every step of the process of producing semiconductors, China is staggeringly dependent on foreign technology, almost all of which is controlled by its geopolitical rivals—Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or the US," he wrote. China began investing billions of dollars to develop its own semiconductor technology in a bid to free itself from America's chip choke, he added. But the US is in no mood to make this endeavour easy for China. It has progressively tightened restrictions on China's semiconductor sector. The 'Entity List' has since grown to include over 140 Chinese companies—fabrication units, semiconductor tool companies and even investment companies that operate in the sector. Restrictions have extended from chips with high bandwidth memory to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and software tools. China, which sees US restrictions as an attempt to deny it the technological greatness it deserves, has retaliated. It began imposing restrictions on export of critical and rare earth minerals that are crucial for production of weapons, semiconductors and electric vehicles. There are 17 rare earth minerals and China has absolute control on most of them (see chart). In October 2023, it introduced export permits for graphite needed to produce lithium ion batteries. In December that year, it banned transfer of rare earth minerals extraction and separation technologies and the technology to make magnets. China, over the years, has mastered these technologies. In the same month, it banned the export of antimony, gallium and germanium apart from imposing stricter review of graphite exports to the US. In February 2025, in response to Donald Trump imposing 10% tariffs on all Chinese products, the middle kingdom added five more critical minerals— tungsten, indium, bismuth, tellurium and molybdenum to the export control list. This meant that companies require special export licenses to export the minerals. On 4 April, after Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, China further added seven more minerals and magnets to the export restrictions list. There is no clarity whether these restrictions have been suspended after the recent US and China trade talks in Geneva. The US is now scrambling to find alternate sources for these minerals. All of a sudden, economic resources which were till recently seen predominantly as commercial assets, have acquired new edge as strategic instruments. They are no longer controlled just by the market— geopolitics has a greater say over them. A short history Demand for resources began to rise after the Industrial Revolution in 1760 which introduced the use of metals such as iron and steel. The rise of mechanized factory systems increased output and thus, demand for resources. As the demand rose, countries such as Great Britain, France and Belgium began colonizing the world in search of resources. 'Colonization was all about exploitation of natural resources," said S. Gurumurthy, writer and a corporate advisor. The British empire met its demand for cotton, tea, leather, coal and iron ore from India for almost two centuries, he added. Post World War II, resources were seen as market instruments. They were freely traded for a price. According to the World Trade Organization, between 1950 and 2024, global trade volumes grew by 4,500%. 'It was also a period when countries used trade to increase co-dependence in the hope that it would enhance peace and welfare," Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director, Observer Research Foundation — America, said. Europe bought gas from Russia in the hope that the latter would leave them alone. The US built a strong economic relationship with China on the assumption that the Asian nation could integrate with the global economy, eliminate poverty, and embrace democratic principles. Of course, trade in resources has not been entirely free. Nations have imposed restrictions. In the last 75 years, the US is the biggest culprit. As a sole super power, it denied various countries technology and resources that it deemed were dual use—for both civil and military applications. As the US-China rivalry intensifies, the weaponization is spilling beyond dual use technologies. China, it appears, is not loath to leveraging the domination it has built in the global economy. The new normal China accounts for more than 30% of global manufacturing output. This is the highest concentration of manufacturing in one place," said Jaishankar. The US had a similar share for a short period of time immediately after World War II when the protracted war had destroyed much of production facilities in mainland Europe and Japan. 'China has managed to achieve this without a war," he said, adding 'it is now trying to use its manufacturing power as a strategic leverage." It is not just manufacturing. Consider China's domination in the shipping space. It controls over 100 ports across 63 nations. As of 2022, it had 96% share in container production, 48% of global ship building orders and 80% of ship-to-shore cranes. It has similar domination across many sectors. 'What is worrying is that China has revealed its intention to weaponize goods, logistics or the entire supply chain," said an Indian government official who did not want to be identified. There is a conscious attempt by China to make the world depend on it. Simultaneously, it is reducing its dependence on the world. The restriction on export of rare earth minerals is just a beginning, he added. The resentment For more than four decades, China had silently focused on growing its economy. It eased rules to attract manufacturing taking advantage of its low wage costs. It invested in infrastructure—power, roads, ports and airports. It enabled building factories at unheard of scale which substantially reduced the cost of production. Global brands rushed to China to take advantage of it. Until a few years ago, 85% of all iPhone produced by Apple were assembled in China. At one point in time, almost all of Nike's shoes were produced in China. There were warnings within the US about this excessive dependence. Michael Pillsbury's book, The Hundred-Year Marathon, detailed China's secret desire to upstage the US as a global superpower. He, indeed many others, pointed out that China harboured a deep resentment and a sense of injury for losing its status as a middle kingdom when it dominated the world—economically, culturally and militarily. In the early 1700s, China (and India) had a large share of the world economy. On the eve of the Industrial Revolution, in 1760, it accounted for a third of the global economy. In the two centuries that followed, it lost out significantly. By 1979, China's share of the global economy was just 2%. Chinese consider the period between 1839 and 1945 a 'century of humiliation' that saw political fragmentation, decline and subjugation by foreign powers such as Russia, Japan and the West. The Chinese yearned to regain this lost glory. Today, China has 19% share in the global GDP, fast catching up with the US' 27%. Late wakeup call Policy makers in the US, for years, took a benign view of China's growth. Pillsbury pointed out that they saw their China policy as a commercial win and ignored the strategic dimension. Only when China began to assert itself, did they realise the depth of US' dependence on China and its real motive. It is not a surprise that Pillsbury, as Trump's advisor, is the architect of US' China policy now. Today, the US and China are engaged in a contest. The US is playing to its strength by denying advanced technology to China. By focusing on the massive $295 trade deficit (in 2024) and imposing massive tariffs, the Trump administration wants to reduce its dependence. China, for its part, is thinking long term to upstage the US. Lizzi Lee, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute's Centre for China Analysis, best described its strategy in a recent Financial Times article. He wrote: 'Xi is not looking to win the trade war in a conventional sense. He's positioning China for a drawn-out, grinding, contest by building domestic capacity, hardening supply chain and rooting out perceived vulnerabilities to foreign pressure." India play As the US and China fight for supremacy, India needs to have a strategy to deal with the fallout. 'Countries, be it China or the US, have exclusive rights over their resources. Weaponizing such resources is the new normal," said Ajay Srivastava, founder, Global Trade Research Initiative, a trade focussed think tank. India needs to put in place policies to minimise the impact of such decisions. India should identify and develop resources that the world would need and use it as a bargaining chip, he added. 'India may lack such resources now but we need to identify those and invest now," Gurumurthy added. China, Jaishankar said, does not have all the resources within its nation. It had worked assiduously to tap these critical minerals across the world, especially from African nations. China's strength, he added, is in developing the ability to process them in an effective manner. 'India needs to follow a similar strategy. We should strike deals with nations which have these resources and import the mineral for processing in India. That will give us control over it," he explained. India has already drawn up a list of critical minerals and has taken steps to secure them. It is part of the Mineral Security Partnership, a multi-nation initiative led by the US comprising 40 countries. It has struck, or is close to striking, a few deals in Latin America and Africa. But processing the minerals is easier said than done. It is capital intensive and requires a long lead time. Investors don't support such projects unless there is a strong business case. Experts have also suggested that India should frame policies to suit its strengths. Some have questioned pushing electrification of vehicles in a big way. With India lacking the raw material to make batteries, the rise in electric vehicles will shift India's energy dependence from West Asia to China. Others have recommended that India should invest heavily in taking a lead in green hydrogen. India is blessed with abundant sunlight and focus on storage systems can help it use solar power to drive green hydrogen efforts. India's efforts, such as production-linked incentives, have cut its dependence on China for solar cells and modules. More needs to be done if India has to become self-sufficient. To make all this possible, the country, particularly its private sector, would need to invest in research and development. If there is one thing that can come in India's way is its hubris, warned experts. 'What is needed is a long term vision and a step-by-step approach to achieve it," GTRI's Srivastava said.