Compromise reached on student visas

After nearly three months of debate over immigration policies, the Senate Judiciary Committee has introduced a compromise piece of legislation for the issuing of student visas.

If passed, the bill will place new restrictions on the issuance of some student visas and require colleges and federal officials to more closely track the movements of foreign students in the United States.

College lobbyists have met this bill with praise, as it offers more flexibility on student visas that was not contained in other senate proposals.

"The bill is a good solution to closing some loopholes that existed in immigration policies," said Paul Hassen, a spokesman for the American Council on Education. "The measures are reasonable in attempting to create an efficient and effective way of monitoring foreign students coming to the United States."

Since Sept. 11, there has been intense public concern about loopholes in the immigration system, namely because at least one of the 19 hijackers entered the United States on a student visa and never showed up for classes.

The visa legislation would generally prohibit the federal government from issuing student visas to people from countries that the State Department considers to be sponsors of terrorism. These countries include Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Unlike previous proposals, however, the bill will allow for individual applicants to be exempted from these restrictions if they are determined to pose no safety or security threat to the U.S.

"What we're doing is fine tuning a system where the roles are clearly defined and the communication between the colleges, universities, the State Department, and the [Immigration and Naturalization Services] is enhanced and improved," Hassen said.

Moreover, the proposed legislation will require colleges and federal officials to track the activities of foreign students in the United States. Colleges would have to report more information about foreign students to the immigration service, including the student's date of entry, date of enrollment and field of study.

According to Joyce Randolph, the executive director of the University's Office of International Programs, Penn will have few difficulties in upholding the requirements of the proposal.

"Should this bill pass, I think that the provisions are things that the University will have no problem complying with," Randolph said.

In spite of past concerns over whether the legislation would be unfair to students applying for visas, Randolph said that she was relieved and felt that this proposal was balanced.

"Our office understands the concerns of the U.S. government, and we are also concerned about the rights of individuals," Randolph said. "These provisions struck a compromise position."

Yet other members of the Penn community are wary to accept certain measures of this bill, namely the provision that prohibits the immigration of students from terrorist-affiliated countries.

"The restrictions on student visas from countries considered to be 'sponsors of terrorism' is by far the most disturbing feature of this bill, but it seems that here... the administration has decided to respond constructively to its critics," Political Science Professor Rogers Smith said. "It has abandoned provisions for a total ban and instead permits considerations of individual exceptions."

In the 1999-2000 academic year, a total of 3,370 students from countries deemed to be terrorism sponsors attended American colleges, according to the Institute of International Education.

Randolph added that there are "very few" students attending Penn from these places.

Political Science Professor Avery Goldstein was cautious to note the potential for more countries to be added to this list.

"This bill sets up a system that means that the State Department designates countries as sponsors of terrorism," Goldstein said. "There is a possibility for other countries who send large numbers of students to the United States to be put on these lists."

Smith added that the bill, in general, is much more reasonable than previous proposals.

"The provisions for monitoring in various ways can of course be abused, but they're not on their face inappropriate," he said. "On the whole, the bill strikes me as a defensible compromise."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.