President Trump changes H-1B visa program
The H-1B visa program costs technology companies $100,000 per application. The question is whether it will incentivize companies to hire American workers.
- The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed rules would mean groups, including students and foreign media personnel, could only be in the United States for a limited period of time.
- The administration has said the changes are necessary to ensure proper oversight of the visa program and prevent abuse, but experts are skeptical of the administration’s reasoning.
- Institutions and groups that have publicly opposed the proposed rule include Columbia University, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Committee to Protect Journalists.
President Donald Trump suggested this week that the United States needs a path for high-skilled foreign workers to enter the country, sparking a wave of criticism from conservatives.
President Trump’s comments on the H-1B visa program reflect the views of business leaders but are controversial among members of his base who want a tougher approach to immigration.
At the same time, the Trump administration has quietly pushed a series of new restrictions on other visas for students and foreign journalists, raising other concerns for some about the future of academic and press freedom.
The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed rule would change existing policy by allowing F, J, and I visa holders (students, exchange visitors, and foreign media personnel) to enter the United States for a limited period of time. Such individuals are currently allowed to stay indefinitely as long as they comply with the conditions of their visas.
The new rules, first outlined in August, would allow international and exchange students to stay in the U.S. for up to four years during their programs. Foreign journalists are allowed to stay in the US for up to 240 days, with an exception for reporters from China who are allowed to stay in the US for up to 90 days.
According to the department’s proposal, individuals could apply for an extension if they need to stay in the United States beyond these periods.
Columbia University, industry group opposes
Lucas Guttentag, a professor at Stanford Law School, said this would be a “very dramatic change” with “really significant consequences” for both these individuals and the institutions they serve.
The administration similarly acknowledged the content of the proposed rule, adding that the changes would “impose additional costs” on these individuals and institutions but were necessary to “protect the integrity of the F, J, and I programs.”
The department received more than 20,000 comments during the proposal’s public comment period, which ended in September.
Columbia University and the President’s Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration opposed the proposed rule.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association also submitted comments to the American Immigration Council outlining the common view that the rule “relies on poorly supported logic and arguments to justify sweeping changes that could harm international students, U.S. institutions of higher education, and U.S. employers.”
Guttentag said federal agencies should consider such comments when deciding whether to issue final rules, and if they do, they should address common concerns raised by the public.
Experts skeptical of government claims of visa abuse
In justifying its efforts to make this change, the department said that the “significant increase” in the number of nonimmigrants coming to the United States through the F, J, and I visa classifications has “posed challenges to the Department’s ability to monitor and supervise these nonimmigrants while in the United States.”
The changes will increase oversight and reduce the likelihood that people will “abuse these programs,” the department said.
But experts rejected the idea that visa abuse would become widespread among groups affected by the changes.
“I think there are scammers and opportunities for abuse in everything in life,” Kate Angstia, supervisory policy and practice advisor for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told USA TODAY.
Guttentag echoed that sentiment, saying he was “deeply skeptical of unverified and generalized statements of abuse” by the administration.
New rules will be part of the administration’s ‘patchwork’
Guttentag said the proposed changes reflect the administration’s “hostility” toward immigrants, particularly international students. For example, the administration has sought to deport foreign-born student protesters who gave pro-Palestinian speeches, but a Boston judge has ruled the effort unconstitutional.
“It’s not just the single rule that’s difficult,” Angstia says. “The problem is that we have a patchwork of interacting policies and rules.”
Mr. Angustia also addressed the potential impact of the proposed rule on journalism, pointing to groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists Without Borders, which oppose the rule. The latter group said the rule “serves no purpose other than to erect unnecessary barriers to foreign reporters and will have a chilling effect on press freedom.”
Guttentag said there is no legal standard that requires the department to decide whether to issue a final rule within a certain period of time, adding that it could choose not to move forward with the proposal.
USA TODAY has reached out to the department for comment.
Breanna Frank is USA TODAY’s First Amendment reporter. Please contact bjfrank@usatoday.com..
USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded by the Freedom Forum in collaboration with our journalism funding partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
