This entire piece is a great example of CIS's dishonest advocacy and pretend expertise.
I'm tempted to just respond with "Because of time zones and technology issues, dummy."
But it's worth going through each one of CIS's bad-faith arguments and making clear why they're wrong.
I'm tempted to just respond with "Because of time zones and technology issues, dummy."
But it's worth going through each one of CIS's bad-faith arguments and making clear why they're wrong.
CIS begins the piece by claiming that nothing has been decided yet so it's too early to sue.
But ICE told schools last week they have until Wednesday to decide if they're going online-only, and until early August to redo all foreign students' paperwork under the new guidance.
But ICE told schools last week they have until Wednesday to decide if they're going online-only, and until early August to redo all foreign students' paperwork under the new guidance.
CIS says ICE was "merely floating an idea." Which is absurd.
Even DOJ admits that on July 6, ICE issued "guidance" and made "policy decisions" which "set forth ... reporting requirements"
/also, when CIS said "standing" they meant "ripeness." DOJ doesn't even argue ripeness!
Even DOJ admits that on July 6, ICE issued "guidance" and made "policy decisions" which "set forth ... reporting requirements"
/also, when CIS said "standing" they meant "ripeness." DOJ doesn't even argue ripeness!
After getting the law wrong and misrepresenting ICE's actions, CIS then flippantly argues that international students don't need to be in the US.
Of course, again, we're back to time zones and tech. It is literally impossible for some students to study from their home countries.
Of course, again, we're back to time zones and tech. It is literally impossible for some students to study from their home countries.
Now, spot the framing of the issue in that paragraph as whether international students "need to be issued a student visa."
That was just one part of ICE's guidance. The other was about *kicking out students already here.*
It takes CIS another 7 paragraphs to even mention that.
That was just one part of ICE's guidance. The other was about *kicking out students already here.*
It takes CIS another 7 paragraphs to even mention that.
In fact, throughout the piece, CIS only mentions students being kicked out of the United States *a single time,* while repeatedly focusing on whether the government should issue new visas to foreign students.
They know it's a losing issue... so they ignore it almost entirely.
They know it's a losing issue... so they ignore it almost entirely.
Moving on, CIS then pivots to characterizing the ICE decision last week as "softening" a current regulation.
But as they're forced to acknowledge, at the start of the pandemic, ICE waived the rule entirely—so the July 6 guidance didn't "soften" anything. It made them harder.
But as they're forced to acknowledge, at the start of the pandemic, ICE waived the rule entirely—so the July 6 guidance didn't "soften" anything. It made them harder.
CIS then moves to their main argument: actually, this is about protecting the US from terrorists. Seriously.
What CIS dishonestly leaves out? Even with online-only classes, students must report addresses and schools must track progress.
In other words: they're still tracked!
What CIS dishonestly leaves out? Even with online-only classes, students must report addresses and schools must track progress.
In other words: they're still tracked!
CIS then moves on to cynically claiming that universities only care about this because of their budgets.
This is a common tactic for CIS. Ignore all benefits from immigrants, but if you can't, try to characterize the benefit as actually a downside, despite all evidence.
This is a common tactic for CIS. Ignore all benefits from immigrants, but if you can't, try to characterize the benefit as actually a downside, despite all evidence.
Pivoting briefly, CIS then throws in another one of their common tactics; characterizing millions of law-abiding immigrants as potential fraudsters in an attempt to make people less sympathetic.
This tossed-off paragraph is throwing everything at the wall an hoping it sticks.
This tossed-off paragraph is throwing everything at the wall an hoping it sticks.
Finally, CIS concludes with incoherence.
Which is it, CIS? Universities are doing this to "cushion their budgets" because they need the money? Or is it a "public relations manuever" with no real purpose?
It's the perfect end to a CIS piece; self-contradictory and deceptive.
Which is it, CIS? Universities are doing this to "cushion their budgets" because they need the money? Or is it a "public relations manuever" with no real purpose?
It's the perfect end to a CIS piece; self-contradictory and deceptive.
