This document provides background information and summarizes the debate over student visas and laboratory security following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 1999. The links to the left will lead you to public documents that we have found.
One of the most
shocking revelations about the September 11th terrorists was that the individuals
who piloted the hijacked the planes learned how to fly at American aviation
schools. How was it that men who intended to engage in acts of war entered
the country legally under student visas? In the ensuing weeks a clear answer
emerged: our borders are porous and our bureaucracies charged with keeping
undesirables out of this country had neither the tools nor the resources to
do an adequate job. In particular the Immigration and Naturalization Service
was overwhelmed with the tasks given to it by our government.
In the wake of
the September 11th tragedy, The Congress moved quickly to pass the U.S. Patriot
Act to tighten controls over who is allowed into the United States, provide
better monitoring of visitors during their stay here, and ensure they leave
when their visa or work permit expires. The focus, of course, was on residents
of countries regarded as hostile to the United States, countries that could
be havens for terrorists. Yet separating potential terrorists from other foreign
visitors is no easy task. Since the suspect countries are Islamic there was
the understandable concern that broad prohibitions would be deemed prejudicial.
Moreover, it is important for the United States to remain on good terms with
some of these Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as we need
their cooperation for diplomatic and strategic purposes.
Regulating foreign
students and researchers is a particularly difficult problem. The superiority
of American colleges and universities attracts large numbers of foreign students
each year, including many of the best and the brightest from developing countries.
Scientific laboratories make heavy use of doctoral students and post-doctoral
fellows who are residents of other countries. The head of one active organization
noted that foreigners "make up 30 percent of the work force [in labs]
. . . if you are going to bar them from work in this country it is going to
have a significant impact." Colleges and universities were not only concerned
about their right to enroll foreign students, but they also feared they would
be stuck with a burdensome increase in their record keeping and could be forced
to play more of a policing role in keeping tabs on their foreign students.
Hispanic American organizations feared that the new focus on immigration and
visas would increase suspicion about Hispanics living in this country.
Lobbying on this
legislation was tricky. There were certainly plenty of organizations that
were concerned about the law being drawn too tightly, but in the atmosphere
that enveloped the country after September 11th, no organization could appear
to be anything less than 100 percent patriotic. Thus there was no frontal
assault on its goals and the lobbying that ensued focused on the details of
the legislation. In addition to enrollment issues, colleges and universities
had to deal with a related matter: who should be allowed to handle certain
kinds of dangerous substances in labs. For example is it in the nation's interests
to allow foreign scientists training here to gather expertise on anthrax?
Looking back one participant said, "We were very much advocates for balance
. . . we need to enhance homeland security but the example we would use, a
moratorium on all international students, it would be like saying you are
going to have a moratorium for six months on oil from the Middle East."
In the end legislators made some pragmatic concessions and most of those lobbying
felt that although the legislation made life more difficult for their organization,
they could live with the changes in our post 911 world.