Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

cs.jhu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 219 posts

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#181

Post by genwin »

rbehrends wrote: post #153
genwin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice to know my taxes pay for the lofty education of people who may have no intention of working in my country.

If you don't want them, other countries will be more than happy to take those unwanted Ph.D. students off your hands. Ph.D. students don't pay tuition because the remuneration they get for their work is part tuition waivers, part money. If they do not work for the university and are not eligible for tuition waivers, they have to pay tuition instead (both foreigners and US Americans). In practice, they are basically i…

If they are a net benefit to US taxpayers even when they plan to leave the US, that's a good point. We should give them a green card in advance though, plus ask their intention. There's got to be plenty of supply of worthy foreign students who intend to stay here. Taxpayer money is surely being left on the table if we are educating foreign students regardless of their intention of staying.

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#182

Post by genwin »

DanBC wrote: post #125
genwin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice to know my taxes pay for the lofty education of people who may have no intention of working in my country.

Excluding very bright people from top universities because those people are foreign would be a good way to stop those universities from being top.

I don't have a problem with educating foreign students, only those who have no intention of staying here, or those who won't be allowed to stay here. Top universities can stay top when we educate only those foreign students who can both be allowed to stay and have stated their intention of staying.

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#183

Post by rdouble »

genwin wrote: post #80
xanmas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PhD students, especially in the sciences, don't pay tuition.

Nice to know my taxes pay for the lofty education of people who may have no intention of working in my country.

Your taxes don't pay for students going to Johns Hopkins.

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#184

Post by DanBC »

genwin wrote: post #182
DanBC wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excluding very bright people from top universities because those people are foreign would be a good way to stop those universities from being top.

I don't have a problem with educating foreign students, only those who have no intention of staying here, or those who won't be allowed to stay here. Top universities can stay top when we educate only those foreign students who can both be allowed to stay and have stated their intention of staying.

Students are not a drain, even if tax payers fund them.

They spend money in the local economy. They help with competition and keeping standards up. They (as others have said) take back useful soft-power propaganda to their home countries.

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#185

Post by paradoja »

robomartin wrote: post #127
nostromo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-bo...

Nothing like real data. The US has over three times more immigrants than any other country. I should also note it is my belief --my belief-- that most people in the US, outside of certain groups, are for LEGAL immigration. Don't come here illegally or with a student visa and then cry foul if not welcomed. EDIT: the reference to student visas is about using them illegally to get in and then stay. It is NOT about not a…

> Nothing like real data. The US has over three times more immigrants than any other country.

That doesn't take into account the population of the US. Relative to other countries, the US does have lots of foreign-born population, but is far from being the one with more immigrants.

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#186

Post by genwin »

army wrote: post #128
genwin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice to know my taxes pay for the lofty education of people who may have no intention of working in my country.

a) Educating foreign students and sending them back to their home countries is a great example of how to do "soft power". This is actually the explicit intent of many programs, particularly Fulbright awards, where recipients are required to return to their home countries. b) The terms of the student visa require that visa-holders provide evidences that they have no intent to stay permanently in the country.

So we educate them at large expense and then end up living in tents when we're unemployable? Sub-optimal I say.

I'm fine with (b) as long as US taxpayers aren't footing the students' bills. Otherwise I see money wasted. If they are so worthy we'll pay their bills then we should want them to stay. The ones that leave regardless of our welcome mat can provide us with "soft power" back in their home countries.

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#187

Post by darkarmani »

TylerE wrote: post #19
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #12

I wonder if this is one of those vague "security" problems. It seems like if people get denied for normal stuff (overstaying, violating their visas, etc) they're told and can at least fight it a little. But when you get a black mark against you it seems like you get stuck in an administrative blackhole where nobody is authorised to tell you WHY or they themselves don't know. It was the same way with the no-fly list f…

It's actually good security practice. If the terrorist's find out they got flagged because of X, now they know not to do X any more.

> If the terrorist's find out they got flagged because of X

What terrorists? Good security practice is making a system that is usable, because otherwise the best practice would be to seal the boarder completely.

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#188

Post by genwin »

DanBC wrote: post #184
genwin wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a problem with educating foreign students, only those who have no intention of staying here, or those who won't be allowed to stay here. Top universities can stay top when we educate only those foreign students who can both be allowed to stay and have stated their intention of staying.

Students are not a drain, even if tax payers fund them. They spend money in the local economy. They help with competition and keeping standards up. They (as others have said) take back useful soft-power propaganda to their home countries.

The ones who leave are a drain compared to students who spend money in the local economy and pay US taxes the rest of their lives. We shouldn't push them away or educate the ones who have no stated intention of staying here. There will still be plenty who leave anyway to propagate propaganda.

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#189

Post by genwin »

rdouble wrote: post #183
genwin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice to know my taxes pay for the lofty education of people who may have no intention of working in my country.

Your taxes don't pay for students going to Johns Hopkins.

The link says "The US government invested more than $250,000 in Omar's education [at Johns Hopkins] through DARPA grants."

Re: Jordanian citizen was denied re-entry to the US on eve of his PhD defense at JHU

#190

Post by darkarmani »

rayiner wrote: post #111
mikeash wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there is no due process for these things. You're always playing a bit of a lottery whenever you interact with, well, just about anything. But when domestic police screw up (or not!) and you get in trouble, there's at least a process in place that tries to smooth things out. It's still not a guarantee, but if you didn't actually do anything wrong, the process makes a decent stab at ensuring that fa…

The problem with foreigners having rights is that it goes against very deep principles in the western tradition. If sovereignty means anything, it means the inherent power to create and enforce borders. Its like one of the defining charecteristics of a biological cell: the establishment of an "inside" and an "outside." Subjecting the inherent power of a sovereign entity to control access through its borders to judici…

> The problem with foreigners having rights is that it goes against very deep principles in the western tradition.

Except the Supreme Court has upheld various rights foreigners have w/r/t the bill of rights.

Post reply on HN