Live data from Hacker News

U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

bloomberg.com

221–230 of 293 posts

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#221
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are so obviously wrong. Every single class I took had attendance taken. I went to university a few years ago. https://www.lssu.edu/financial-aid/retaining-aid-eligibility...

You are both wrong because you're making strongly absolutist claims. Why don't you both get it through your heads that different situations can be different.

I'm downvoting you because you seem to be missing the asymmetry of the two claims. TheAdamAndChe implies that attendance is always required at schools offering federal financial aid. filoleg says approximately "Not always, here's an example where it wasn't". filoleg is not making the absolutist claim that no universities require attendance, merely providing an example that disproves the absolutist claim.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A part of me believes this is more feature and less bug of the government. "Blame the disfunction, not the leadership thats elected every 2 years".

How is this not a bug? A straightforward patch would be the introduction of FPTP and moving the executive role from the office of the head-of-state to a body controlled by congress.

I would argue the end-users (voters) mostly consider this a bug while the developers (majority party legislators at the state level) consider it a feature.

Also, the founding fathers famously made it difficult for Congress to change anything, so dysfunction was definitely a feature.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A part of me believes this is more feature and less bug of the government. "Blame the disfunction, not the leadership thats elected every 2 years".

How is this not a bug? A straightforward patch would be the introduction of FPTP and moving the executive role from the office of the head-of-state to a body controlled by congress.

> A straightforward patch would be the introduction of FPTP

The US uses FPTP for most elections, that's actually central to the problem.

If you mean “a system approximating proportional repreaentation”, that's a valid fix, but problematic, both in terms of choosing the right one and the fact that doing so itself has ideological as well as functional impacts on outcomes, which means that the status quo faction which would ideologically be disadvantaged will be hard to sway no matter what the functional argument is. So you'd need unchallenged control by the opposing faction, which would have to be willing to surrender that control to a multiparty system which might be favorable ideologically, but not organizationally. And even that only is talking about the House. It's outright Constitutionally prohibited, even by Constitutional amendment, for the Senate.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not a bug? A straightforward patch would be the introduction of FPTP and moving the executive role from the office of the head-of-state to a body controlled by congress.

I would argue the end-users (voters) mostly consider this a bug while the developers (majority party legislators at the state level) consider it a feature. Also, the founding fathers famously made it difficult for Congress to change anything, so dysfunction was definitely a feature.

> I would argue the end-users (voters) mostly consider this a bug while the developers (majority party legislators at the state level) consider it a feature.

Voters consider the paralysis a feature when it is presenting a hostile legislative majority or executive from realizing their agenda, and a bug when it is preventing a friendly one.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not a bug? A straightforward patch would be the introduction of FPTP and moving the executive role from the office of the head-of-state to a body controlled by congress.

FPTP tends to lead to the same heavily divided two major party politics you already have, it just avoids the possibility of winning with Something like MMP is probably a better system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_repr... ). Baby steps though.

> FPTP tends to lead to the same heavily divided two major party politics you already have, it just avoids the possibility of winning with No, it doesn't. FPTP is a synonym for single-member plurality, which enables wins with less than 50% of the popular vote when there are more than two candidates.

You may mean majority-runoff (which the US already uses for a fair number of elections) or instant runoff, instead of FPTP, both of which require a kind of majority, but are otherwise very close to FPTP in their incentives and effects.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#226

Elementary school politics. This would be a hilarious sitcom if it weren't for all the thousands of people getting hurt by this dysfunctional joke of a government.

[flagged]

reminds of of the quote attributed to Karl Rove

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#227

Such an embarrassing blunder, of many blunders, for this administration.

I was under the impression that the law that was already in place was that purely online courses were not allowed. And that it had been in place for a long time. After coming out and stating "this is already the law", and resulting pushback against it, the thing changed by this administration was to allow purely online courses for visa students. Are you saying that allowing purely online learning for students with vi…

The problem isn't the original rule, or the possible retraction of the temporary exemption of that rule. Of course at some point it will be retracted. It was, however, instituted for the purpose of dealing with a state of emergency, which is still officially in place. The government has some leeway in policy making, but capricious & unreasoned decisions can be struck down, and this could fall into that category given the circumstances that produced the policy still obtained. (Regarding capricious/unreasoned decisions, see also the Supreme Court's recent ruling on DACA: It was not because the SC said DACA couldn't be eliminated, it was because the policy change did not go through the legally mandated process for such changes)

The problem was also the timing. Students under an F1 visa must remain enrolled in an eligible program. If they are not, they have 60 days to leave the country. College semesters often end around mid-May, we're in mid-July, meaning as of the date of this announcement last week, students in online courses had already failed to be enrolled in an applicable program for nearly 60 days and would have a week or three to pack their bags and leave the country.

Before that, they could try to figure out if their mix of online or hybrid courses qualified as sufficiently "in person". This was without formal definitions from the administration of what constituted a sufficiently "in-person" course with respect to hybrid courses: The general policy was announced but there was never any official posting to the Federal Register that detailed the definitions, limits, exceptions, etc. In the announcement, such details were promised, but never materialized.

So, students had 1-2 weeks to panic and determine if their schools:

1) had any in-person courses

2) if so, determine if any applied to their program

3) If 1 & 2 were a "no", find, apply, get accepted, and register at an alternate school with applicable in-person courses

4) Having spent time on 1,2 & 3, vacate the country within a handful of days.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#228
Foreign students are big money for the Industrial Education Complex and the loss of that revenue presented a real threat. Since the alumni of the IEC, no matter what political party, run, well, everything, the idea had no chance. At best it was political theater to agitate the base.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Narcissistic populist racists. "It's not me, it's you."

It's too bad populist has become a dirty word, because in theory it sounds great - i.e. democracy.

To extreme anti-populists, democracy is synonymous with mob rule.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#230
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why didn’t such a drastic decision have to be passed via the legislative process? The legislature can stop pretty much any form of bad executive overreach, by passing a bill. The problem is that (enough of) the legislature did not want to stop this.

That isn’t very reassuring. He shouldn’t have had the power to unilaterally make this decision in the first place. While the legislature might have not passed a law that overrode his decision. I doubt they would have passed a law saying it was permissible.

The executive branch has the power to execute laws and regulations. I think what they're doing here is choosing to execute a law/regulation that they should've waived due to the pandemic.

That's why it's not necessarily an overreach, but instead just an inhumane choice to not take special circumstances into account when choosing to execute a particular regulation.

Post reply on HN