Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the prepare-yourself-for-further-tuition-increases dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

International students will be forced to leave the U.S. or transfer to another college if their schools offer classes entirely online this fall, under new guidelines issued Monday by federal immigration authorities.

The guidelines, issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, provide additional pressure for universities to reopen even amid growing concerns about the recent spread of COVID-19 among young adults. Colleges received the guidance the same day that some institutions, including Harvard University, announced that all instruction will be offered remotely.

[...] Those attending schools that are staying online must "depart the country or take other measures, such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction," according to the guidance.

[...] Of particular concern is a stipulation saying students won't be exempt from the rules even if an outbreak forces their schools online during the fall term. It's unclear what would happen if a student ended up in that scenario but faced travel restrictions from their home country, said Terry Hartle, the council's senior vice president.

[...] Colleges across the U.S. were already expecting sharp decreases in international enrollment this fall, but losing all international students could be disastrous for some. Many depend on tuition revenue from international students, who typically pay higher tuition rates. Last year, universities in the U.S. attracted nearly 1.1 million students from abroad.

[...] The administration has long sought deep cuts to legal immigration, but the goal was elusive before the coronavirus.

The BBC notes:

[...] Large numbers of foreign students travel to the US to study every year and are a significant source of revenue for universities as many pay full tuition.

[...] Harvard has announced all course instruction will be delivered online when students return for the new academic year, including those living at the university.

[...] Monday's announcement said foreign students who remain in the US while enrolled in online courses and fail to switch to in-person courses could face "immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings".

The rule applies to holders of F-1 and M-1 visas, which are for academic and vocational students. The State Department issued 388,839 F visas and 9,518 M visas in the fiscal year 2019, according to the agency's data.

According to the US Commerce Department, international students contributed $45 billion (£36 billion) to the country's economy in 2018.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Dr Spin on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:59AM (25 children)

    by Dr Spin (5239) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @09:59AM (#1018124)

    You don't know how luck you are -

    In America, you have the constitutional right to remain dead.

    Here in the outside world, we can be required by the government to, at any time, and without notice, rise from the dead and
    defend their dubious covid death statistics.

    --
    Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Funny=2, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @10:58AM (24 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @10:58AM (#1018137)

    Indeed. The government will even support you in death to the tune of $1.4 billion. Purse-strings attached of course, but hey. It's nice to know that even after your death, you'll still be a citizen.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:44AM (23 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:44AM (#1018148) Journal

      Courage, citizen! In Soviet America, you still get to vote after you're dead.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:19PM (18 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:19PM (#1018177) Journal

        You've really gone off the deep end, Phoenix. You're as Christian as a Ba'al figurine at this point.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:31PM (#1018248)

          I think his claim of being a Democrat was when he was down in Dixie....

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:39PM (16 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:39PM (#1018252) Journal

          No, you are the one who has lost her mind. I commented on getting a refund on a college education the students paid for but didn't receive, an entirely secular topic, and you link it to Christianity somehow. You're a militant atheist who cannot tolerate others' beliefs.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:40PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:40PM (#1018255)

            She's not even an atheist, just anti-christian.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 09 2020, @12:42AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday July 09 2020, @12:42AM (#1018443) Journal

              I'm anti-Abrahamic religions. If anything the religion I'm most anti is Islam, not Christianity.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:23PM (1 child)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:23PM (#1018370) Journal

            Chill, Phoenix! It's the recovery. This is not like you. It will all soon be over. Try to take the historical perspective. And remember, Machiavelli's advice is really just quick and dirty politics, when the fundamentals of maintaining a republic have been neglected for far too long, and things have been reduced to naked self-interest and wars and rumors of wars. In the long run, never works.

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:06PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:06PM (#1018634) Journal

              It will all soon be over.

              Define "over." Do you mean "It's Miller Time!" over, "The Rapture" over, "Game of Thrones" over, "The Party would like to speak with you, Comrade," over, or some other?

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 09 2020, @12:42AM (11 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday July 09 2020, @12:42AM (#1018442) Journal

            I have mentioned, in direct replies to you on this very forum at least 3 or 4 times, that I am a Deist (or that's the closest thing to it; most people wouldn't recognize "panentheist" and think I mean "pantheist").

            The irony is, by any workable definition of what it is to *be* God...*you* are an atheist. A devil-worshiper, for certain. Yahweh does not meet the criteria for what it is to be God, yet you worship him as if he did. And it shows in your actions, and your specific pattern of breakdown. All your useless virtue signaling about where you live and who you married and what you do with your time means jack shit if you are, as your Jesus was fond of calling people, a "whited sepulcher."

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:02PM (1 child)

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday July 09 2020, @01:02PM (#1018633) Journal

              A bigot by any other name, smells the same.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 10 2020, @01:13AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday July 10 2020, @01:13AM (#1018919) Journal

                So you have no actual rebuttals to any of my arguments, and all you're gonna do is throw insults? Classic. There is far less daylight between you and the fundamentalists you claim to shit on than you think.

                Also, "Fallacy fallacy" alert! Someone can be a bigot and still be correct! Even if they're correct for the wrong reasons they're still right. I'm no bigot though: you just want to believe that, as if it would make my arguments any less potent or correct if I were one. You are one of those whitewashed mausoleums Jesus spoke of, Phoenix...

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Thursday July 09 2020, @04:17PM (8 children)

              by DeVilla (5354) on Thursday July 09 2020, @04:17PM (#1018701)

              Yahweh does not meet the criteria for what it is to be God, yet you worship him as if he did.

              Where are those documented? Just curious.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @08:28PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @08:28PM (#1018805)

                While I can't answer for her, the standard criteria for "God," as opposed to "god," is the ultimate supreme being, a sort of One-Above-All. They usually possesses the "omni-" traits or other "perfect" traits, a non-contingent existence, and a "creator" aspect. Yahweh, as depicted in the Old Testament and understood by early Yawistic religions, was none of those. Instead, the name applied to a tutelar, as can be easily gleaned from the bible itself through references such as "the god of Israel" vs "god of the Babylonians." As such, Yahweh is commonly depicted as lacking a non-contingent existence, was not the creator of the cosmos or other gods, and lacking in perfection as recognized at the time. Over time due to the dominance of the Yahweh worshipers in the region, they slowly transitioned from a polytheistic situation, to a henotheistic, to a monotheistic one. Because of this, there are attempts, both honest and otherwise, to rehabilitate the earlier stories in the bible as showing monotheism to various degrees of success. But they are limited in the ability to claim definitive success because they are relying on stories and language constructs that weren't written with such an interpretation in mind.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 10 2020, @01:10AM (6 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday July 10 2020, @01:10AM (#1018917) Journal

                The AC below you raised some excellent points, but I'm going to add some of my own (and I've said these to ol' devilbird up there at least once, which means he's just been sticking his head in the sand ever since):

                Non-contingent existence ("divine aseity" in the argot of theologians) goes hand-in-hand with complete perfection and absolute self-sufficiency. In plain English, if a being is truly God, it lacks for nothing, and nothing added to it, taken from it, or otherwise changed in conjunction with it could improve it.

                This immediately leads into a problem I've seen called "the problem of non-God objects." Briefly: consider a state of affairs which we shall call "GodWorld" in which nothing but God exists. By definition this is the most perfect possible state, since anything that is not-God, and in this I am including such things as spacetime and the universe itself, is less perfect than God. Furthermore, a truly perfect, self-sufficient being has in the most profound, literal, and global sense *no reason to create.* Anything. Ever. Why and how could it? Even leaving aside the assertion that a perfect being cannot/would not create imperfection, by definition the perfect being lacks nothing, and nothing it creates could make it better. I would allow an exception for copies/aspects of itself, but there's still no reason for it to do so.

                In other words, the very fact that Yahweh is said to be God coupled with the fact that we exist means he cannot, by definition, be God. And this isn't even an anti-Yahweh argument; it's actually fatal to any God-concept that makes conscious decisions! Yahweh himself has dozens and dozens more arguments against his Godhood.

                I will expand on one here because it tends to cause the kind of glitchage in a Christian (or Muslim!) brain you normally associate with a computer getting a fat lightning bolt through the PSU: the incompatibility of free will theodicies and heaven. This one neatly drives a sharpened Problem of Evil stake through the heart of essentially every theodicy I've ever heard and the free will argument itself by pointing out a flaw in its premises: this being "Yahweh values free will so highly that he will allow sin to exist, which leads to evil." And the counter is "this theodicy makes your heaven, the only thing you live for, logically impossible." Here's how:

                There are four possibilities for the truth table derivable from the statements "sin exists" and "free will exists."
                1) There is no sin in heaven, and there is free will as well
                2) There is sin in heaven, and there is free will as well
                3) There is no sin in heaven, and there is no free will there either
                4) There is sin in heaven, and there is no free will their either.

                Now option 4 is absurd on the face of it to a Christian or Muslim. Option 2 would be accepted by very few of them, as it opens up the possibility of getting kicked out of heaven, as well as the much more interesting possibility that Yahweh has had multiple rebellions from multiple Lucifer-figures over time, and we've only ever heard about the last one.

                Option 3 completely defeats the purpose of running a free will theodicy, since Yahweh can't value free will that highly if it isn't there in heaven and if the test for getting into heaven is "proper" use of free will in the first place. This leaves the committed believer with only Option 1, but they are now trapped: this amounts to saying "there is free will both on earth and in heaven, but sin only on earth." What *this* means is that sin is *not* a function of free will, but one of circumstance, and by definition *outside the scope of human choice!*

                I am honestly surprised at how unimaginative Muslims and Christians are on this subject. This is not an original argument to me, but I did come up with it independently, and have since seen it in at least three other places, one of which I took the term "GodWorld" from.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Friday July 10 2020, @03:42AM (5 children)

                  by DeVilla (5354) on Friday July 10 2020, @03:42AM (#1018954)

                  Some question regarding non-God objects:

                  • So a God must not ponder anything but itself? Todo so is imperfect?
                  • It can only imagine the perfection of itself?
                  • It can only sit in the static state of its own all-powerful perfection?
                  • Why? Because some person defined perfection that way?
                  • Your definition of something all-powerfully perfect comes with the inability of the perfect thing to co-exist with anything but itself?

                  Regarding the truth table, assuming the perfect all-powerful can choose to craft a thing, is it not possible that it could consider a myriad of potentially imperfect materials (sinful material?) before selecting one or more such materials with which to create a perfect thing? It's not capable of perfecting something imperfect? Or it's not allowed to consider the exercise? Does the assertion that it does not need to do so somehow impose the requirement that it must not try?

                  As far as "sin" being outside the scope of human choice, I think Martin Luther and the reformers actually agree with that point. I think they assert that "normal" people (not their Savior) are sinners and they can't do anything to fix that. If they become not-sinful, it was God's (seemingly) arbitrary decision alone to make that so. That it's God picking the "keepers" and "discards" not based on any quality of any given person in question. Admittedly, that's not a universal belief. Some folks (including some modern Lutheran amusingly enough) seem to believe God turns every person into a "keeper". That doesn't work for the "Conditional Election"-ists though. They get to have freewill to save themselves while God knows in the future they can be made into "keepers". I assume your "God" wouldn't create the non-keepers to begin with nor would have to allowed the "keepers" to be crafted up from a non-perfect state.

                  Sure there are a lot of unimaginative religious folks, but I don't think they are alone in that. It sounds like you and those who you agree with are admitting to being imperfect beings capable of assuming the ability to define the acceptable bounds of a being presumably infinite complexity and ability It sounds like when Hannity on Fox tries to simplify a multifaceted problem into a simple black & white, yes or no question.

                  Mind you, if you read all this assuming I'm trying to build the case for the God of any particular religion, then you are missing my argument, perhaps due to a preconception. I'm currently just trying to work my way to imaging an "all-powerful" being who is so omnipotent that it can chose to imagine or simulate a universe that would produce the mythology of a "Malcolm Reynolds".

                  This all make me think about "The Last Answer". Can your kind of "God" commit suicide? Is it allowed to consider it? Is it allowed to not consider it? Could it be perfect by succeeding, there by ending a chain of reincarnations by achieving a state of nirvanaesque nonexistence?

                  Just to note after skimming the above, when I refer to "your God" or "your "God"", I'm referring to your definition of the perfect "God", not a specific god. I do allude to the Abraham-ic God and something like the Hindu Gods or other Asian dieties. Specifically I think I remember you saying your a deist. I'm not specifically trying to address a deity you may believe. I'm still just working on the assertion that "Yahweh does not meet the criteria for what it is to be God" and the assumption that we know "the criteria for what it is to be God". I think you've made me chuckle once before with something like that because. It sounds like you are "no true Scotsmen"ing God and the idea makes me giggle.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 10 2020, @06:20AM (4 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday July 10 2020, @06:20AM (#1018978) Journal

                    This all looks tiresomely familiar...didn't you attempt this as an AC last time?

                    Most hilariously of all, your objection "Because some person defined perfection that way?" hits at an even deeper problem with the Yahweh mythos: his believers do indeed "define perfection" in some way, mostly to suit them. I am not assuming to have experienced perfection directly; rather I am pointing out that *by the very definitions these people use,* Yahweh cannot be perfect. That is, even granting the definitions of "perfect" a Jew, Christian, or Muslim uses, Yahweh fails to measure up.

                    Do you get it now? However you define perfection, it's part of these arguments that a God *is* perfect and nothing else is. Show that this is not the case given the *other* things a believer attributes to their God, and the game is up.

                    And I have to say the majority of your post is simply irrelevant. Your bullet points show that you didn't understand the things I said; a perfect God *could* ponder imperfections, it would just have no reason to. "Imagination" does not enter the picture. "Static" (and "dynamic") have no place here since, among other things, there is no need for time as we understand it, perhaps not even causality.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @07:46AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @07:46AM (#1018984)

                      I would like to offer this as a tip from someone who does this professionally: You need to stop adopting burdens of proof unnecessarily. It makes things complicated for no reason and having your additional premises fall just allows the opportunity for your opponent to claim victory when they haven't met their burden either.

                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday July 11 2020, @12:52AM (1 child)

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday July 11 2020, @12:52AM (#1019294) Journal

                        Yes, that is a big problem: for all my cynicism i still tend to assume that anyone able to argue coherently has at least *some* shred of good faith left in them :/

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2020, @03:48AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2020, @03:48AM (#1019369)

                          It isn't even a good faith/bad faith dichotomy either. As I said, it can complicate the issues involved and people can lose track of things. It is easier to just avoid the issue completely.

                          By way of example, I was discussing with an acquaintance a highly technical issue between trivalent/MVL logic and intuitionistic logic. The topic of fuzzy systems was brought up by him, completely in good faith. Eventually, the analogy between values broke down and we both agreed I was right and the discussion concluded. Except, and this only occurred to us the next day, that we never actually reached the conclusion as to the original discussion. The reason why neither of us saw it was because the shifted burden onto his fuzzy systems completely obfuscated the underlying argument and we both got confused as to what inferences were discharged from discourse by the failed premises.

                          As another example, my reply attempts to minimize the introduction of new premises, so that way when the resulting contradiction arises is more likely to discharge the "correct" assumption and prevent their failure. That is why I didn't adopt your argument directly, stuck to particular god concepts in question, defined terms to the extent necessary to draw the requisite inferences, used already entailed or scholarly-accepted facts or conclusions, and allowed room for disagreement without necessarily proving fatal to the general discourse nor to its domain set while maintaining proper burden adoption. I also attempted to be as precise and accurate as possible to the defined terms and arguments without being overly complex or verbose given the limitations of this forum.

                    • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Friday July 10 2020, @01:54PM

                      by DeVilla (5354) on Friday July 10 2020, @01:54PM (#1019058)

                      I don't I post AC last time, but I didn't debate anything either. I just asked if you were really "no true Scotsmen"ing God and left it at that.

                      I get now that you are using a definition of *these people*. I'm not confident if the folks I know who are among *these people* would agree with your definition. Well among the ones I know who have actually considered any of this at any kind of depth.

                      About the rest, I guess I'm guess a bumbling idiot. Thanks for clarifying that.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:00PM (3 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 08 2020, @02:00PM (#1018200) Journal

        you still get to vote after you're dead.

        Only if you're going to vote Republican.

        Dead people who vote any other way don't get to vote after death.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:14PM (#1018216)

          At least they were real Americans when they were alive. It's the busloads of Mexicans driving around and voting in every single State that the President needs to protect us from.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:41PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:41PM (#1018256) Journal

          Dead people vote whichever way the Board of Elections wants them to.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:38PM (#1018329)

          You only have to be brain dead to vote republican.