More Schools Report Visa Revocations and Student Detentions

Reports have surfaced of a significant increase in the number of international student visas being revoked and students being detained across various universities in the United States. This follows heightened immigration scrutiny, particularly under the administration of Donald Trump. According to Senator Marco Rubio, more than 300 international student visas have been pulled in recent months, primarily targeting students involved in political activism or minor infractions. WeAreHigherEd has named 30 schools where students' visas have been revoked. 

Campus Abductions — We Are Higher Ed

Key Universities Affected

• University of California System (UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley):
  Universities within the University of California system, which hosts a large international student population, have reported multiple visa cancellations. These revocations have affected students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, political activism, or perceived violations of U.S. immigration policies. For instance, the University of California has seen as many as 20 students affected in recent weeks.

• Columbia University:
  At Columbia University, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist, has gained significant media attention. Khalil, who was detained and faced deportation, exemplifies the growing concerns over student rights and the growing impact of politically charged visa revocations.

• Tufts University:
  Tufts University is currently battling the Trump administration over the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student whose visa was revoked. Her detention and the ensuing legal battles highlight the growing tensions between academic freedom and government policy. Tufts and its student body are advocating for Öztürk's release and seeking clarification on the legal processes involved.

• University of Minnesota:
  At the University of Minnesota, one international graduate student was detained as part of an ongoing federal crackdown on visa violations. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions continue to raise concerns over the rights of international students to remain in the country, especially as visa renewals and compliance checks become more stringent.

• Arizona State University:
  Arizona State University has also reported incidents of international students having their visas revoked without prior notice. These revocations have affected students from various countries, creating uncertainty within the international student community at the university.

• Cornell University:
  At Cornell University, international students have similarly faced unexpected visa cancellations. This has raised concerns about the ability of universities to adequately support their international student populations, as students are left to navigate the complexities of visa status without sufficient notice or explanation.

• North Carolina State University:
  North Carolina State University is another institution where international students have had their visas revoked without notice. The university has expressed concern over the lack of clarity from immigration authorities, which has left students in a precarious situation.

• University of Oregon:
  The University of Oregon has experienced several cases of international students having their visas revoked. This has been particularly troubling for students who were actively pursuing their education in the U.S. and now face the prospect of deportation or being forced to leave the country unexpectedly.

• University of Texas:
  At the University of Texas, international students have faced visa issues, with several reports of revocations and detentions, affecting students who are working toward completing their degrees. This has sparked protests and advocacy efforts from both students and university administration, seeking more transparency in the process.

• University of Colorado:
  The University of Colorado has similarly reported instances of international student visa revocations, particularly affecting those involved in political activism. The university has been working to support students impacted by these actions, although many are left in limbo regarding their ability to continue their studies.

• University of Michigan:
  The University of Michigan has also been impacted by a wave of visa revocations. Similar to other institutions, students involved in political protests or activism have found themselves under scrutiny, facing the risk of detention or deportation. Students, faculty, and staff are pushing for clearer policies and legal protections to support international students, who are increasingly at risk due to the political environment.

The Broader Implications

These incidents of visa revocation and detentions are seen as part of a broader trend of increasing immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that these actions infringe upon students' rights, potentially violating freedom of speech and academic freedom. International students, especially those participating in protests or political discourse, have found themselves at risk of being detained or deported, with little prior notice or transparency regarding the reasons for such actions.

Moreover, the economic impact of these actions is significant. In 2023, a record 253,355 student visa applications were denied, representing a 36% refusal rate. This has major implications not only for the affected students but also for U.S. universities that rely heavily on international students for tuition revenue. The financial loss could be as much as $7.6 billion in tuition fees and living expenses, further emphasizing the broader consequences of these policies.

Legal and Administrative Responses

Many universities are rallying behind their international student populations, with advocacy efforts from institutions like Tufts University and Columbia University. These universities have criticized the abruptness of the visa cancellations and detentions, calling for more transparency and due process.

However, despite these efforts, the political climate surrounding U.S. immigration remains volatile, and it is unclear whether policy changes will result in more lenient or more restrictive measures for international students.

Conclusion

These stories underscore the fragile position of international students in the U.S. today. With incidents of detentions and visa revocations increasing, students face significant challenges navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law, particularly those involved in political or activist circles. University administrations and students alike continue to call for clearer policies, protections for international student rights, and more transparent practices to avoid the unintended consequences of politically motivated visa actions.

This issue remains ongoing, with much at stake for both 

State Department Responds to Questions About Student Visa Revocations

(Higher Education Inquirer) Can you tell us more about the process that the State Department is using to decide what student visas are revoked? Should students from particular countries, like Iran and China, be concerned? Besides pro-Palestinian activists, are there any other areas of activism that may be targeted, such as those concerned about climate change?

 (US State Department) 

The United States has zero tolerance for non-citizens who violate U.S. laws. Those who break the law, including students, may face visa denial, visa revocation, and/or deportation.

All visa applicants, no matter the visa type and where they are located, are continuously vetted.  Security vetting runs from the time of each application, through adjudication of the visa, and afterwards during the validity period of every issued visa, to ensure the individual remains eligible to travel to the United States.

 

When considering revocations, the Department looks at information that arises after the visa was issued that may indicate a potential visa ineligibility under U.S. immigration laws. This can include everything from arrests, criminal convictions, and engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with the visa classification, to an overstay.

 

Given our commitment to and responsibility for national security, the Department uses all available tools to receive and review concerning information about possible ineligibilities.

U.S. Visa Suspensions Under Trump Administration Derail Dreams of Ecuadorian Students (Primicias)

In a sharp blow to international academic mobility, the Trump administration has suspended student visa interviews across U.S. embassies and consulates, leaving thousands of foreign students—including many from Ecuador—in limbo. The policy, though not enshrined in law, is already having profound effects on individuals and institutions alike.

For students like Valeria, a 23-year-old from Quito, the consequences are deeply personal. After receiving her acceptance letter from a university in Pennsylvania and paying her tuition, Valeria now finds herself unsure whether she can even enter the country. “I called the consulate, contacted five immigration attorneys—even my university doesn’t know what’s going on,” she told Primicias. “Nobody can tell me if I’ll be allowed in or deported.”

Valeria’s uncertainty stems from an executive directive that halts interviews for F-1 (academic), M-1 (vocational), and J-1 (exchange visitor) visas—crucial legal pathways for hundreds of thousands of international students entering the U.S. annually. Though the suspension is being framed as temporary, it has already disrupted the educational futures of prospective students worldwide, including many from Latin America.

“This is not a symbolic gesture,” warned U.S.-based immigration consultant Pablo Acosta. “It’s an executive decision with immediate and real-life consequences.”

A Chilling Effect on International Education

International students are more than just a demographic. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), over one million international students were enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions during the 2022–2023 academic year. They represented about 5.6% of the total U.S. college student population and contributed more than $38 billion to the American economy, according to data from NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Each institution, on average, hosts about 400 international students, although figures vary significantly depending on size and global ranking. This flow of students not only brings financial support but enriches academic life and sustains graduate programs in STEM, business, and other high-demand fields.

The suspension of visa interviews threatens to destabilize this ecosystem.

Looking Elsewhere: Canada and Europe

The Trump administration’s restrictive stance is driving many Ecuadorian students to look north to Canada or across the Atlantic to Europe. José Villamar, a student from Guayaquil who had planned to study environmental engineering in Texas, described how the suspension has frozen his plans. “Without the visa interview, the university can’t issue my I-20. Everything is on hold.”

Visa advisors are now encouraging students to consider alternatives. “The advantage of Canada is its consistency,” explained Norman Ordóñez, a visa consultant in Ecuador. “You can study, work, and eventually apply for residency. The U.S. is putting that dream on hold. Meanwhile, countries like Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands are becoming more attractive due to their transparent pathways and financial aid programs.”

Collateral Damage: U.S. Higher Ed and the Global Reputation

While the Trump administration frames its policy as a national security and immigration control measure, it risks damaging the global reputation of U.S. higher education. Inconsistency, unpredictability, and politicization of visa policy undermine institutional planning and student confidence.

In interviews with Primicias, affected students expressed despair over losing control of their futures for reasons far beyond their efforts. “The hardest part isn’t changing countries,” said Valeria. “It’s giving up on a dream for reasons that have nothing to do with your hard work.”

The Higher Education Inquirer sees this as part of a broader pattern of hostility toward international engagement within U.S. academia, especially under right-wing populist regimes. The long-term consequences could include a decline in enrollment, brain drain, and weakened international partnerships.

As global education becomes more competitive, the United States may find that once-burned students and institutions don’t easily return.

---

For more on this developing story and others impacting international education, student rights, and global equity in higher education, follow The Higher Education Inquirer. 

Universities (and Thousands of International Students) Gaming the Visa System

We are following a story first exposed by two Bloomberg journalists about universities that are taking unfair advantage of the US visa system. The program is called Day 1 CPT. 

The CPT (Curricular Practical Training) program has been around for decades, but has evolved over time to give foreigners the ability to work immediately in the US. The student visa system is managed by the Immigration and Custom Enforcement's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). A 244 page list of the certified schools is here.

According to the Bloomberg article, "By exploiting a federal on-the-job-training rule, people from India, China and elsewhere can work full time while completing most classes online and showing up in person only a few times a year."

The article listed Harrisburg University of Science and Technology (Pennsylvania-Middle States), University of the Cumberlands (Kentucky-SACS), Trine University (Indiana, Michigan,Virginia-HLC), Campbellsville University (Kentucky, California, Illinois, Florida-SACS), Westcliff University (California-WSCUC), and New England College (New Hampshire-NECHE). All of these colleges and universities in the Bloomberg article are regionally accredited. 

Other Schools that Issue Day 1 CPT Visas

HEI has located a number of other schools that issue Day1 CPT visas: Sofia University (California), Saint Peter's University (New Jersey), McDaniel College (Maryland), Monroe College (New York), Sullivan University (Kentucky), National Louis University (Illinois, Florida), Dallas Baptist University (Texas), California Institute of Advanced Management (California), Tennessee Wesleyan University (Tennessee), Humphreys University (California), International Technical University (California), Ottawa University (Kansas, Arizona, Wisconsin),  Computer Systems Institute (Illinois, Massachusetts), St. Francis College (New York), University of Fairfax (Virginia), and American National University (Virginia).

The F-1 Student Visa System  

The US issues more than 400,000 F-1 student visas each year, but the number that are Day 1 CPT visas is unknown--because Day 1 CPT visas are not issued directly by the government. Instead, they are authorized by the Designated School Official (DSO) at the student's university. 

While the actual authorization for Day 1 CPT is typically handled by the Designated School Official (DSO) at the student's university, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) sets the overall guidelines and regulations governing the program.

The number of Day 1 CPT visas issued each year depends on the number of students enrolled in eligible programs at universities that offer Day 1 CPT and the number of those students who meet the eligibility criteria and apply for work authorization.  

For some, this gets an untold number of foreigners the opportunity to game the system: getting to work immediately in the US while waiting to win the visa lottery.  And when some win, they quit going to school.  

Larger Questions of Fairness and Justice

Bloomberg indicated that this legal (but questionable) visa scheme began in 2014, but did not mention whether the students' employers were complicit or actively involved in gaming the system. 

They also failed to mention the much larger issue of the federal government issuing so many F-1 student visas, while large numbers of American born students are denied access to state universities and private schools that receive federal funds. 

F-1 visa holders also compete with domestic students for good jobs after graduation, potentially leading to lower wages and reduced opportunities for U.S. citizens.

US-China Trade War Escalates: What It Means for Chinese Students in America

The ongoing US-China trade war has intensified tensions between the two global superpowers, and higher education is feeling the impact. As President Donald Trump’s administration enforces harsher policies on China, international students—particularly those from China—are now caught in the crossfire of this economic and diplomatic battle. The implications for Chinese students hoping to study in the United States, as well as for American universities that have long relied on them, are becoming increasingly significant.

Visa Restrictions and Increased Scrutiny

One of the most immediate effects of the trade war has been on the student visa process. The Trump administration has imposed new restrictions on Chinese students, especially those studying in fields deemed sensitive to national security interests. This includes graduate students in areas like artificial intelligence, robotics, and quantum computing. The new visa policies make it more difficult for these students to enter the US, with extended waiting times and heightened scrutiny of visa applications.

While the US has historically been a top destination for Chinese students—who are not only drawn by world-class educational institutions but also the promise of future career opportunities—the tightening of visa regulations has caused many to reconsider. The fear of being caught in political crosswinds, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the trade war, has led to a growing number of Chinese students looking to study in countries with more stable diplomatic relations and less restrictive policies, such as Canada, Australia, or the UK.

Impact on US Universities and Research

US universities are feeling the ripple effects of this trade war, as Chinese students make up the largest group of international students in the country. According to the Institute of International Education, Chinese students contribute more than $14 billion annually to the US economy through tuition and living expenses. Universities that once welcomed these students with open arms are now grappling with declining enrollment numbers and the prospect of losing a significant revenue stream.

Research partnerships are also suffering. Chinese students, many of whom are pursuing graduate degrees in STEM fields, have been vital contributors to cutting-edge research at American universities. With restrictions tightening, universities may struggle to maintain their leadership in global innovation. Furthermore, many research projects that rely on international collaboration face delays or cancellations due to political tensions and fears of intellectual property theft.

Which Universities Will Be Hurt the Most?

Some of the most prestigious US universities stand to be disproportionately affected by the tightening of Chinese student visas and the broader trade conflict. Institutions that rely heavily on Chinese students both for their enrollment numbers and financial contributions may face significant challenges.

1. Top Ivy League Schools
   Ivy League schools, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, have long been magnets for Chinese students. Harvard alone enrolled nearly 5,000 international students from China in recent years, and the closure of this recruitment pipeline could lead to steep declines in overall student numbers and financial stability for these schools. These universities also rely on international students to contribute to academic diversity and global research partnerships.

2. STEM-focused Universities
   Universities with strong STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) programs, such as the University of California, Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford, are among those most vulnerable. Chinese students make up a significant portion of graduate students in these fields, and many of them are involved in high-level research that contributes to American leadership in technology and innovation. The loss of Chinese graduate students could hinder research capabilities and potentially delay technological advancements.

3. Public Research Universities
   Public institutions like the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) also stand to lose large numbers of Chinese students. Many of these universities have established robust partnerships with Chinese institutions, facilitating exchange programs and joint research initiatives. With stricter visa policies and increased scrutiny, these collaborations could be jeopardized, weakening their global research standing.

4. Private Universities in Major Urban Centers
   Private universities, particularly those in major metropolitan areas like New York University (NYU), Columbia University, and University of Southern California (USC), which have long attracted a significant number of international students, may face financial strain as enrollment drops. These schools have benefited from the influx of full-paying international students, and their financial health could be seriously impacted if Chinese students—who often pay full tuition—choose to study elsewhere.

The Decline of Confucius Institutes: Another Impact of US-China Tensions

Adding another layer of complexity to the current situation is the steady decline of Confucius Institutes in the United States since 2018. These centers for Chinese language and cultural education were established with the goal of promoting Chinese culture, language, and knowledge of China’s social and political history. However, under the Trump administration, a growing number of universities have shut down or severed ties with their Confucius Institutes due to concerns over academic freedom and potential Chinese government influence.

The closure of Confucius Institutes is a direct result of the broader geopolitical tensions between the two nations. Critics argue that these centers, funded by the Chinese government, acted as a soft-power tool for Beijing, with the potential to influence curricula and suppress criticism of China’s policies. In 2020, the US State Department designated several Confucius Institutes as "foreign missions," further heightening scrutiny and prompting additional closures.

For US universities, the decline of Confucius Institutes has meant the loss of a long-established funding source, along with a reduction in cultural exchange programs that could have helped to mitigate the loss of students from China. Additionally, universities that hosted these centers are now grappling with how to reshape their Chinese language and cultural studies programs, often without the same level of institutional support.  In 2025, only five Confucius Institutes remain:

• Alfred University; Alfred, New York.
• Pacific Lutheran University; Tacoma, Washington.
• San Diego Global Knowledge University; San Diego, California.
• Troy University; Troy, Alabama.
• Webster University; St. Louis, Missouri.
• Wesleyan College; Macon, Georgia.

Increasing Tensions on US Campuses

As US-China relations continue to sour, tensions are also rising on US university campuses. A report from Radio Free Asia in August 2023 highlighted growing concerns about Chinese influence on US college campuses, particularly through initiatives like Confucius Institutes and Chinese student organizations. These groups, some of which have been accused of suppressing free speech and monitoring dissent, have faced increasing scrutiny from both US authorities and university administrations. In some cases, these organizations have been linked to the Chinese government’s broader propaganda efforts.

Students and faculty who advocate for human rights or criticize Chinese policies—especially regarding issues like Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang—have reported facing pressure or surveillance from Chinese-backed student groups. This growing sense of insecurity has led to a polarized environment, where Chinese students, in particular, are caught between their loyalty to their home country and the need to navigate a politically charged academic space.

Moreover, the US government’s push to restrict Chinese students in certain fields has further stoked fears of academic suppression and retaliation. The situation has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, making it difficult for both US and Chinese students to pursue their academic goals without being caught in the middle of geopolitical tensions.

The Broader Educational Landscape

In response to these challenges, some US universities are beginning to adjust their strategies to attract a more diverse range of international students. As the US-China relationship continues to sour, universities are looking to other countries—particularly those in Asia, Europe, and Latin America—to build new partnerships and recruitment channels.

While some US institutions are already shifting their focus to regions outside of China, others are doubling down on their internationalization efforts, exploring new ways to make studying in the US more attractive to foreign students. This includes offering scholarships and financial incentives for students from non-traditional countries, as well as expanding online learning opportunities for international students who may feel uneasy about traveling to the US under the current political climate.

Trade War as a Catalyst for Change

Though the US-China trade war presents significant challenges for both Chinese students and American universities, it also serves as a catalyst for change in higher education. This ongoing trade dispute underscores the importance of diversifying international student bodies and fostering collaborations beyond traditional powerhouses like China.

However, the situation raises larger questions about the future of global education. As more students choose to study elsewhere in the wake of tightened restrictions, the US risks losing its position as the world's leading destination for higher education. This would have lasting economic and cultural consequences, not only for the universities that rely on international students but also for the broader American public, which benefits from the ideas and innovation that foreign students bring to the country.

Looking Ahead

As the US-China trade war continues to unfold, the long-term impact on the international student landscape remains uncertain. While the trade war may ultimately result in stronger policies aimed at protecting US interests, it also threatens to undermine the very foundation of higher education in America—the free exchange of ideas and the global collaboration that drives innovation.

For US universities, the challenge now is to balance national security concerns with the need to remain open to international talent. The key will be maintaining a welcoming environment for students from all over the world while navigating the complexities of global politics. After all, the future of American higher education—and its ability to lead on the world stage—depends on the continued exchange of ideas, research, and cultural experiences, regardless of geopolitical conflicts.

Iranian Students Face Uncertainty Amid Renewed U.S. Travel Ban

On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a sweeping travel ban, restricting entry for nationals from 19 countries—completely barring people from 12 nations and partially restricting those from seven others—citing national security concerns. This move has significant implications for Iranian students seeking education in the United States.

Impact on Iranian Students

Iranian students have historically faced challenges in obtaining U.S. visas due to stringent screening processes and political tensions between the two countries. The renewed travel ban exacerbates these difficulties, effectively halting new visa issuances for most Iranian nationals. 

Many Iranian students, even those admitted to prestigious U.S. universities, are now in limbo. Visa interviews have been suspended, and the processing of existing applications has slowed considerably. Some students have reported waiting over a year for visa approvals, with no clear timeline for resolution.

Legal Challenges and Advocacy

In response to these developments, a group of fifteen Iranian students and researchers filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the indefinite suspension of visa interviews and the expansion of social media vetting for applicants. The plaintiffs argue that these measures are discriminatory and violate the Administrative Procedures Act.

Advocacy organizations have also raised concerns about the broader implications of the travel ban. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) highlighted that federal law prohibits the issuance of student visas for Iranian students seeking to study in fields related to Iran's energy sector or nuclear sciences, further limiting educational opportunities.

Broader Implications for U.S. Higher Education

The travel ban's impact extends beyond individual students, affecting U.S. higher education institutions that benefit from the diversity and talent of international students. Universities may experience decreased enrollment from Iranian students, leading to potential financial and cultural losses. Moreover, the increased scrutiny and visa delays could deter prospective students from considering the U.S. as a viable destination for higher education.

What Indian Students Need to Know About U.S. Higher Education Debt and Credential Recognition

Thousands of Indian students continue to pursue U.S. higher education each year, seeking advanced degrees and better career opportunities. In the 2022–2023 academic year, India remained the second-largest source of international students in the U.S., with over 200,000 enrolled, according to the Institute of International Education (IIE). Yet, the path to U.S. education is fraught with financial and credentialing challenges that deserve closer scrutiny.

Student Debt and Loan Access
Unlike U.S. citizens, Indian students are generally ineligible for federal student loans and must rely on private loans, often with higher interest rates and stricter terms. A 2021 report by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) found that Indian international students borrowing privately face interest rates ranging from 10% to 15% per annum, far above typical U.S. federal loan rates. Currency fluctuations can increase repayment costs significantly.

Many Indian families take on substantial debt; a 2023 survey by Avanse Financial Services showed that over 60% of Indian students studying abroad rely on education loans, averaging INR 20 lakhs (~$24,000 USD). Yet loan terms, hidden fees, and limited borrower protections often trap families in cycles of debt.

Credential Recognition and Employment
Returning Indian graduates face challenges as U.S. degrees may not seamlessly transfer to regulated Indian professions such as medicine, engineering, or law. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has strict rules on recognizing foreign credentials, and lack of equivalency delays or blocks career advancement.

The National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) reports that nearly 30% of Indian graduates from abroad struggle to find jobs that match their qualifications, partly due to mismatched credential recognition. This gap affects long-term earning potential and job security.

Visa and Immigration Policy Impacts
Recent changes to U.S. visa policies have added uncertainty. The U.S. Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) has tightened rules around work permits like Optional Practical Training (OPT), limiting post-graduation employment options. According to the Migration Policy Institute, between 2017 and 2022, Indian student visa approvals saw a decline of nearly 15%, reflecting stricter scrutiny.

Why This Matters
Indian students and their families deserve transparent information and protections to avoid costly mistakes. Investigative reporting reveals how financial products and policies can disadvantage international students disproportionately.

HEI’s coverage aims to empower Indian students with insights on loan options, credential evaluation, and visa regulations—key factors in making informed decisions about studying in the U.S.

---

Sources:

• Institute of International Education (IIE), Open Doors Report 2023

• International Finance Corporation (IFC), “International Student Financing Report,” 2021

• Avanse Financial Services, Indian Student Loan Survey, 2023

• All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) guidelines on foreign credential recognition

• National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) employment data, 2022

• Migration Policy Institute, U.S. Student Visa Trends, 2017–2022

Is it safe for international students to attend US universities? Here's a list of alternatives.

In recent decades, the United States has been a top destination for international students, offering world-class universities, diverse academic programs, and a global reputation for innovation and research. Yet in recent years, many prospective international students and their families are asking a difficult question: Is it still safe to attend US universities?

This concern isn't unfounded. Safety for international students isn't just about crime rates—it includes factors like political climate, visa policies, healthcare access, racism and xenophobia, campus support, and overall quality of life. Let’s explore these factors and how they compare to alternatives like Canada, the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands.

---

The United States: A Complex Landscape

Safety on Campus:
Many US universities are located in relatively safe college towns and invest heavily in campus security. However, the rise in mass shootings—including those at or near educational institutions—has sparked fear among both domestic and international students. While statistically rare, the prevalence of gun violence in the US is significantly higher than in other developed nations.

Political and Social Climate:
Under recent administrations, shifting immigration policies and fluctuating visa rules have made the US a less predictable destination. While the Biden administration has worked to stabilize student visa policies, uncertainty remains. Reports of xenophobic incidents have also raised alarms, particularly for students from Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds.

Healthcare Concerns:
The US has no universal healthcare system. International students are often required to purchase private insurance, which can be expensive and confusing. Access to mental health services, though improving, varies widely by institution.

Post-Graduation Opportunities:
The US still offers compelling Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM extensions for international students looking to work post-graduation, but the pathway to long-term work or permanent residency remains complicated.

---

Alternatives Worth Considering

Canada

• Pros: Politically stable, comparatively easier immigration pathways, high-quality universities (e.g., University of Toronto, McGill), and widespread public support for international students.

• Safety: Low crime rates and almost no gun violence.

• Work & Immigration: Canada has one of the most international-student-friendly post-graduation work permit programs. Many students transition to permanent residency with relative ease.

United Kingdom

• Pros: Rich academic heritage, home to globally ranked institutions (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial), English-speaking environment.

• Safety: Urban areas face petty crime but gun violence is rare.

• Work & Immigration: Recent changes allow graduates to stay for up to 2 years post-study (3 years for PhDs), a significant improvement over prior policies.

Australia

• Pros: High academic standards, English-speaking, growing international student population, welcoming attitude.

• Safety: Generally safe, though some cities report instances of racial tension.

• Work & Immigration: Australia offers generous post-study work visas and clearer paths to permanent residency compared to the US.

Germany

• Pros: No or low tuition at many public universities, strong engineering and technical programs, growing English-taught courses.

• Safety: Very low crime, excellent public infrastructure.

• Work & Immigration: Post-study work options are available, and Germany is actively recruiting skilled graduates into its workforce.

France

• Pros: Prestigious institutions (e.g., Sorbonne, Sciences Po), growing number of English-language programs, rich culture.

• Safety: Urban areas may experience occasional unrest, but campuses are generally safe.

• Work & Immigration: Non-EU students can work part-time and stay for a period after graduation. The government has signaled increasing openness to skilled international graduates.

Ireland

• Pros: English-speaking, welcoming culture, growing reputation in tech and pharma education, strong ties to US multinationals with Irish HQs.

• Safety: One of the safest countries in Europe with low crime rates.

• Work & Immigration: Students can work part-time and stay up to two years post-graduation (Graduate Stay Back Visa). Ireland also offers a relatively smooth path to work visas and longer-term residency.

Netherlands

• Pros: Known for its high quality of life, wide selection of English-taught programs (especially at the master’s level), and a progressive, inclusive society.

• Safety: Very safe, well-regulated cities with strong infrastructure and low crime.

• Work & Immigration: Offers a one-year "Orientation Year" visa after graduation for job-seeking. The Netherlands has a growing demand for international talent, particularly in tech, business, and engineering.

---

Making the Right Choice

For many students, the US remains attractive for its research opportunities, innovation hubs, and alumni networks. But safety, cost of living, mental health support, and post-graduation outcomes are now more significant factors than ever.

Choosing where to study abroad is deeply personal—and increasingly strategic. Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands all offer strong alternatives that may be more welcoming and stable in today’s climate.

Prospective international students should weigh these factors carefully, consult with advisors, and consider long-term goals—educational, professional, and personal—when making their decisions.

International Students Increasingly Wary of Study in US

Since Donald Trump returned to the U.S. presidency in January 2025, international perceptions of American higher education have shifted dramatically. Around the globe, students, educators, and policymakers are reassessing the value, safety, and accessibility of studying or collaborating with U.S. institutions. Here is a snapshot of specific reactions from different parts of the world.

Growing Caution Among Prospective International Students

According to a Keystone Education Group survey, about 42% of international students said they are less likely to consider studying in the U.S. Concerns about visa restrictions, political instability, and potential discrimination have driven many to explore alternative destinations such as Canada, Australia, and Germany.

China: Escalating Distrust and Diversion

Chinese students and families, once the largest international cohort in U.S. higher education, are increasingly turning away from American universities. Recent visa revocations, national security allegations, and rising U.S.-China tensions have severely impacted perceptions. A Reuters report highlights that many Chinese students now prefer pursuing studies in the United Kingdom, Italy, or remaining within China's expanding higher education system.

United Kingdom: An Opportunistic Shift

British universities are actively courting students and researchers who might otherwise have chosen the U.S. In response to Trump's policies, institutions like Oxford and Cambridge are emphasizing their commitment to academic freedom, diversity, and international collaboration. The UK government has also streamlined visa processes to attract displaced academic talent.

Norway: Academic Haven Building

Norway has launched a new program aimed at luring top researchers away from American institutions. Framed as a defense of academic freedom and critical scientific research, this initiative offers generous funding packages, stable working environments, and a clear commitment to maintaining the autonomy of scholarship. Norwegian universities view this moment as an opportunity to boost their global standing.

European Union (General): Retreat and Redirection

Across the broader European Union, there is a sense of retreat from American partnerships. Universities in Germany, France, and the Netherlands are seeing increased interest from international students previously targeting the U.S. Meanwhile, collaborative research initiatives are pivoting towards intra-European or Asia-Europe partnerships, avoiding U.S.-centric agreements.

Latin America: Disillusionment and Regional Investment

Students and academics in Latin American nations such as Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia are increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. as an educational destination. Instead, there is growing investment in regional university systems and partnerships with European institutions. For many, the perception of an unwelcoming and politically unstable United States has made alternatives more attractive.

Australia and Canada: Beneficiaries of American Decline

Australia and Canada continue to benefit from the shifting landscape. Both countries are marketing themselves as safe, progressive, and welcoming alternatives to the U.S. for higher education. Universities in Melbourne, Toronto, Vancouver, and Sydney report record numbers of applications from international students.

Middle East: Caution and Cultural Shifts

In Gulf nations like the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, caution dominates discussions around sending students to the U.S. Political tensions and concerns about racial profiling have led to a pivot toward local branch campuses of Western universities and institutions in Europe and Asia.

Conclusion

The "Trump 2.0" era has fundamentally altered the international image of American higher education. While elite institutions may weather the storm to some extent, the broader sector faces declining international enrollments, shrinking influence in global research, and a steady erosion of the "American Dream" narrative. In this moment of geopolitical and educational reconfiguration, U.S. higher education's dominance is no longer taken for granted.

---

Sources:

• Keystone Education Group Survey, 2025

• Reuters, April 2025: "Trump Visa Cuts and Tariff Hikes Turn Chinese Students Away"

• The Guardian, April 2025: "Norway Launches Scheme to Lure Top Researchers Away from US Universities"

• Washington Post, April 2025: "Trump's Crackdown on Foreign Students is a Gift to China"

• Times of India, April 2025: "42% of International Students Unlikely to Consider US"

U.S. Government Targets Student Activism: Over 300 Visas Revoked Amid Escalating Deportations

In a controversial move, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Thursday that the State Department had revoked the visas of more than 300 students, a number that is expected to rise. This action is part of the White House’s growing crackdown on foreign-born students, many of whom have been involved in political activism, particularly related to pro-Palestinian protests that have been sweeping college campuses.

Rubio made it clear that the government’s focus is on what he referred to as “these lunatics” – individuals who, according to him, are using their student visas not for education but for activism. His statements, made during a visit to Guyana, came amid reports of increasing detentions and deportations of students from countries like Iran, Turkey, and Palestine.

"It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas," Rubio said, underscoring the administration’s intent to target those engaging in political activism. Some of these arrests have taken place in dramatic fashion, with students detained by masked immigration agents and sent to detention centers, often far from their homes, with limited explanation.

Among the high-profile cases is that of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national studying in the U.S. on a student visa. Ozturk was arrested earlier this week in Somerville, Massachusetts, and is currently being held in a Louisiana detention facility. Her arrest follows her involvement in a Tufts University student newspaper article that called on the institution to divest from companies with ties to Israel and to acknowledge what she referred to as the Palestinian genocide. Importantly, Ozturk’s essay did not mention Hamas, yet her arrest has raised concerns over the broader political targeting of students engaged in activism.

Many of the students caught up in this crackdown are believed to have been involved in the pro-Palestinian protests that gained momentum on campuses last year. While the administration has not provided specific reasons for targeting these students, far-right pro-Israel groups have compiled lists of individuals they accuse of promoting anti-U.S. or anti-Israel sentiments. These lists have reportedly been shared with U.S. immigration authorities, further intensifying the political climate surrounding these detentions.

The move is part of a larger agenda by the Trump administration to clamp down on the activities of legal permanent residents and student visa holders. Immigration experts warn that such actions undermine the fundamental American right to free speech and assembly, particularly in academic settings.

Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, described the current situation as "uniquely disturbing," stating that it sends a message to the brightest minds around the world who traditionally chose to study in the U.S. for its openness and intellectual freedom. The message, he argues, is now one of rejection.

The administration's actions are said to be guided by an immigration provision dating back to the Cold War, which allows the revocation of visas if a student's activities are seen as posing "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Some of the students targeted, including Ozturk, have had their visas revoked under this justification, despite no clear evidence of criminal activity.

Other notable individuals caught in the crosshairs include Alireza Doroudi, a doctoral student from Iran at the University of Alabama, and Badar Khan Suri, an Indian graduate student at Georgetown University. Both have been detained without clear charges, sparking concerns over whether their arrests are retaliatory measures for their political views. Suri, for instance, was allegedly detained for spreading Hamas propaganda, although he has denied such claims.

This wave of detentions and visa revocations also extends to other students like Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia University student who participated in protests. Despite being a legal permanent resident, Chung now faces deportation. Similarly, Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian student at Columbia, was detained by ICE after allegedly overstaying her student visa.

The increasing number of student arrests and deportations is drawing the attention of human rights advocates, who argue that these actions are a direct attack on free speech. Samah Sisay, one of the attorneys representing detained students, expressed concern that the government's actions are not only targeting specific political views but are also intended to intimidate future student activists.

This crackdown is also raising questions about the role of U.S. universities in protecting their students. In one high-profile case, Columbia University agreed to implement significant changes after President Trump threatened to withdraw $400 million in federal research funding over accusations that the university was not doing enough to address harassment of Jewish students.

As these events unfold, the future of student activism in the U.S. appears increasingly uncertain. If these trends continue, more students may face the loss of their visas, deportation, or even criminal charges related to their political beliefs and actions on campus. The implications for free speech, academic freedom, and international student exchange are profound, and advocates are calling for a reassessment of policies that allow such widespread and seemingly arbitrary actions against students.

In the face of this growing repression, one thing is clear: the United States is now sending a strong message to the world about what it will and will not tolerate in its universities. Whether that message will stifle the tradition of academic activism remains to be seen.

When does a New York college become an international EB-5 visa scam?

In 2011, Sherry Li hatched the idea to create a $6 billion Chinese Disneyland in the Catskills, with a for-profit college, a casino, shopping venues, eateries, Chinese-themed rides, and a community full of wealthy Communist Chinese immigrants...just a few miles away from nearby villages of American peasants. The ideas were Trump-like, and like several of Donald Trump's business efforts, most likely to fail without political ties at all levels, and lots of money. In this case, Li needed hundreds of millions just to start, most from wealthy Chinese investors. Together with her business associate Mike Wang, Li paid out large sums of money to establish political ties, but politicians claim not to know her. In 2019, this fantastic scheme, whittled down to a school with no buildings, no students, and one person sitting at a desk, looks more like a swindle. But without victims coming forward, and most are unlikely to come forward, this relatively unknown businesswoman will continue what can now be called a scam.

(Note: I have tried communicating with Sherry Li and Mike Wang, her media director, several times via phone, email, and social media. Someone at the Thompson Education Center does answer the phone, and says "they are out of the country." But this person cannot tell me when they left or when they are returning to the US. When I mentioned that their social media was not updated or even monitored, she admitted "we're not operating anything.")

Related link: Visa Mill Promoters Drop $760K on Key Republicans and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo (2018)

China City of America is a multi-phased construction project planned for the town of Thompson, Sullivan County, in the Catskill Mountains region of the U.S. state of New York. The current project, Thompson Education Center (TEC), is a proposed college for foreign students, situated in a 573-acre parcel which borders a state-protected wetland.

In December 2011, China City LLC applied to be a USCIS recognized EB-5 visa Regional Center, but the business was never approved by US Homeland Security. The EB-5 immigrant investor program grants permanent residency to foreign investors in exchange for job-creating investments in the United States. The 880 Regional Centers sponsor capital investment projects for foreign entrepreneurs seeking green card status. Approximately 85 percent of EB-5 participants are Chinese, but there is a quota system, and waits for Chinese applicants can be as long as 15 years.

More than a year later, China City America publicly presented its idea to build a 2,200-acre Chinese theme park, hotel, and casino for an estimated $6 billion. According to The Economist, the plan "would attract 1.5 million visitors annually" and "transform the struggling economy" in upstate New York while seducing thousands of wealthy Chinese investors through the federal EB-5 visa program. The initial capital investment of $325 million would include $127.5 million from EB-5 investors, $132.5 million from equity investors, and $65 million from the U.S. government.

According to the scheme, each Chinese client would pay a small investment up front: a $65,000 non-refundable deposit. One catch was that in return, Li's business would have to quickly create at least 10 new jobs per investor. Local, national, and international media articles conveyed a variety of interests and concerns about the project while local officials and residents expressed both hope and skepticism.

[The initial presentation by Sherry Li starts at about 7:15 in this Youtube video. The comments are in some cases brutally honest, in other cases racist.]

Sherry Xue Li, an Oyster Bay, Long Island businesswoman, has been the chief executive officer and founder of China City of America. Li reported to the Associated Press that she came to the US in 1991, at the age of 19, and has a background in development and finance. Everything about her wealth seems to be a mystery that can only be gleaned from detective work by media outlets and groups like Defeat China City of America on Facebook.

According to her LinkedIn page, Sherry Li has a master's degree from NYU and was a Vice President of Hengli International Corporation (1995-1998), Executive Assistant at Money Securities (1997-1999), and President of China Financial Services (2003-2011).

SEC records show that Sherry Xue Li had been a major shareholder in BRS Group, Inc., a Delaware company dealing in scrap copper imports to China and China Electronic Holdings. Sherry Xue Li sold her stake in China Electronic in 2010 and BRS in 2011. In the video you will see in a moment, Sherry Li also mentions that she has a young child.

According to Lachlan Markay at The Daily Beast, "Li rarely, if ever, talks to the press, issuing her statements mainly through press releases in which she boasts of her meetings with Republican officeholders and Trump administration officials." The other officer of the Thompson Education Center is Mike Lianbo Wang who has appeared in a few TEC press releases.

At a 2013 town council meeting where Sherry Li first pitched the plan, she stated that "Each dynasty will have its building and will have rides go with it," China City’s website features golden dragons, and projects an initial investment of $325 million — with $10 million going to a "Temple of Heaven," $24 million on a hotel and entertainment complex, and $20 million to construct a 'Forbidden City.'" In its second meeting with the town council, Thomas J. Shepstone represented China City. Shepstone was known in the region as a defender of fracking. According to Paula Medley of the Basha Kill Area Association the project couldn't be developed on the scale proposed by China City without damaging environmentally sensitive wetlands.

In 2014, Town of Thompson supervisor Bill Rieber became frustrated with Li's constantly shifting plans and the Town of Thompson declined to approve the project, but the project was granted approval for three wells in 2016. In the same year, Sullivan county lawyer Jacob Billig sued China City of America for failing to pay him fees for service. A settlement was reached out of court for $25,000.

Thompson Education Center

While the larger China City project has stalled, the Thompson Education Center (TEC) is still being planned. The proposed for-profit college campus is on a 573 acre parcel of land near Route 17, Exit 112, which borders Wild Turnpike in Thompson, New York and extends to the town of Mamakating. The mostly undeveloped land for the project is in proximity to an environmentally protected wetland, the Harlen Swamp Wetland Complex. It is also near Monticello, New York, a village with a poverty rate of about 36 percent. TEC press releases have promised that the "high-end" project would create at least 20,000 jobs.

Thompson Education Center plans to have a school of business, a film & arts school, and programs in nursing and medical training, culinary arts, high school equivalency and executive and vocational training. The project includes four classroom buildings, student dormitories, student townhouses and a student center. TEC claims to have entered into agreements with US and Chinese high schools, colleges, education institutions and systems to provide students to the institution. TEC claims also that it has been working with several U.S. accredited colleges on undergraduate programs and ESL programs.

In a January 2017 presentation to the Monticello Rotary, Sherry Li claimed that China City had executed letters of understanding with the Catskill Regional Hospital for its nursing program, and with Phoenix, a Chinese media company that has educated 80,000 students.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in June 2017 Lianbo Wang donated $329,500 to a joint fund between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC). About $86,000 was diverted to the RNC’s legal fund. Politico also reported on the large donations by Wang and Li.

In August 2017, Thompson Education Center appeared before the Town of Thompson, with a plan for a campus that would include 732 dorm rooms for 2,508 students, 276 homes for faculty members, and a college president’s house to be built in a “Founding Trustee Village.” Another source stated that the campus would also include a community center, three recreational buildings, three playgrounds, a sports stadium, a performing arts center, a library and museum, a conference center, a business center, a medical center and an inn for visitors.

In September 2017, TEC sponsored a golf tournament benefiting the Catskill Regional Medical Center (CRMC) Foundation. Ms. Li also visited Congressman Steve Stivers, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, in Washington, D.C.

In 2018, residents sought for a revocation of a permit that the Fallsburg, New York building department had granted for a 9,000-square-foot building, claiming that the building was not a residential structure. The property is adjacent to the Thompson Education Center and is owned by Sherry Li.

Epoch Times reported that Sherry Li was featured in Chinese media promoting the school "as an 'easy' way to get an American green card." The May 17, 2018 Economist issue noted that Chinese media said that "investors in the scheme will find emigrating to America 'so easy.'" But the current wait time for Chinese nationals to receive an EB-5 visa is a decade and a half, and a new regulation for EB-5 visas may substantially raise the price for obtaining a green card.

In January 2019, at the Ivy Football Association Dinner, Sherry Li's Thompson Education Center said they planned to provide application counseling, exam preparation and tutoring for students by The Butler Method. Then in February, TEC announced plans to offer the Ivy League Prep program, to give students with sports trauma treatment-related classes, noting that the courses could be "transferred to Ivy League universities for college credits." At the time, TEC also reported that the project received three well permits, and that the construction road was completed, which should not have been news--the permits had been issued in 2016. The for-profit college with no buildings and no students also reportedly signed contracts with schools in China "to deliver 2,700 nursing program students every year." On a trip to Thailand in March 2019, Ms. Li met with the president of Thonburi University and discussed educational cooperation between TEC, its partners schools and colleges, and the Bangkok school.

In the same press release, Sherry Li's organiation reported that

"College Town covers an area of 650 acres, with over 5 million square feet of the construction area for educational campus and ancillary facilities. TEC has partnered with many prestigious universities in Unites States, planned to establish courses including, business schools, media arts, medical academies, culinary, various MBAs, special license training, high schools and their affiliated facilities to create an intelligent high-end university community. In 2019, Thompson Education Center will work with International University Alliance under the Ministry of Education to open 50 Thompson Education Center Extension campuses in China."

Meanwhile the Facebook and Twitter accounts for Thompson Education Center lie dormant: a giveaway that something is very wrong with this picture.

Silencing Higher Education: Trump’s War on Discourse About Genocide in Palestine

Academic institutions have long served as crucibles of free thought and protest. Yet under President Trump’s second term, universities have become battlegrounds in a sweeping campaign that conflates advocacy around the genocide in Gaza with antisemitism—and weaponizes Title VI and Title IX to stifle dissent. This article outlines the administration’s tactics, war crimes ramifications, and the universities ensnared so far.

---

War Crimes at Issue: Gaza Protests and U.S. Reaction

The conflict in Gaza has seen mounting allegations of genocide against Israel—claims underscored by protests on dozens of U.S. campuses. In response, the Trump administration has launched a social media “catch-and-revoke” system that uses AI to flag pro-Palestinian speech, leading to visa revocations and deportations—even targeting legal residents and green-card holders. Over 1,000 visa revocations were reported by mid-April 2025, rising to nearly 2,000 by mid-May—many later overturned by courts.

Activists such as Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University legal resident arrested during a protest, and Mohsen Mahdawi, detained during a citizenship interview, have been caught up in these actions—both cases widely criticized for infringing First Amendment rights. These responses reflect a concerted effort to equate peaceful protest with national-security threats under the guise of combating antisemitism.

---

Title VI Enforcement: Chilling Academic Freedom

Under a January 29, 2025 Executive Order, Trump directed federal agencies to squash antisemitism—including speech critical of Israel—by enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against universities.

In March 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities, warning of enforcement investigations over alleged antisemitism during pro-Gaza protests. This has had an unmistakable chilling effect on faculty, students, and campus activism.

---

Institutions Targeted and Financial Punishments

The administration’s pressure tactics have taken several forms.

Columbia University saw $400 million in federal grants and contracts canceled, tied to agencies including the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The university received an ultimatum to change discipline policies, suspend or expel protestors, ban masks, empower security with arrest authority, and restructure certain academic departments by March 20—under threat of permanent funding loss. Columbia ultimately settled for $200 million and restored funding.

George Washington University was accused by the DOJ of being “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic harassment during spring 2024 protests, especially affecting Jewish, American-Israeli, and Israeli students and faculty, and was given a deadline of August 22 to take corrective action.

UCLA recently had $584 million in federal funding suspended over similar antisemitism-related accusations and affirmative action concerns.

Harvard University is in settlement talks over nearly $500 million in frozen federal funding, negotiating compliance with federal guidelines in exchange for restoring money. Harvard also faces a separate Title VI/IX complaint over $49 million in DEI grants, with claims of race- and sex-based discrimination.

Other institutions under investigation include Johns Hopkins, NYU, Northwestern, UC Berkeley, University of Minnesota, and USC.

---

Legal Backlash and Academic Resistance

Universities and academic organizations have begun to push back.

The AAUP has filed suit against Trump’s executive orders on DEI, calling them vague, overreaching, and chilling to speech. Some institutions, including Harvard, have resisted enforcement efforts, defending academic freedom and constitutional rights—even as they weigh risks to federal funding.

Legal experts argue that Title VI enforcement in this context may be unconstitutional if motivated by ideological suppression rather than actual antisemitism.

---

The Battle for Free Speech and Human Rights

Trump’s strategy effectively conjoins criticism of genocide and advocacy for Palestinian rights with civil rights violations—casting a chilling effect across campuses nationwide. The consequences are profound.

Academic autonomy is undermined when universities must trade institutional integrity for compliance with politically driven mandates. Student activism, especially from international and Palestinian voices, faces existential threats via visa policies and deportation tactics. Human rights accountability is sidelined when federal power is used to muzzle discourse about atrocities abroad.

---

Sources:

• Harvard, Trump Administration Near Deal for $500 Million Settlement

• Trump administration says George Washington University violated law over Jewish students, faculty

• Why Harvard Decided to Challenge Donald Trump

• Columbia University Faces Ultimatum from Trump Administration

• UCLA Funding Suspended by Trump Administration

US CRACKS DOWN ON STUDENTS: VISAS REVOKED OVER SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS! (NLTV)

 

Hundreds of international students in the US have received emails from the Department of State (DOS) instructing them to self-deport after their F-1 visas were revoked due to campus activism or social media posts. This crackdown targets not just those who physically participated in activism, but also those who shared or liked 'anti-national' posts. Some Indian students may also be affected. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, confirmed the visa revocations, stating that over 300 visas had been revoked for "anti-national activities." He also launched an AI-powered app, "Catch and Revoke," to identify and cancel visas of students supporting designated terrorist groups like Hamas. New student visa applications are also under scrutiny, with applicants potentially being denied entry. The email sent to affected students warns them to self-deport, stating their visas were revoked under Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It also informs students that staying in the US without lawful status could lead to fines, detention, or deportation, and they would need to apply for a new visa to return in the future.

Some Conservatives May Be Right About Immigration and Labor: A Closer Look at a Shared Problem

Immigration debates often feature the refrain that new arrivals are “more American than us” and the advice that struggling workers should “just learn to code.” While these narratives may offer comfort, they obscure deeper realities shaping the American labor market—and on this issue, some conservatives’ frustrations reflect real challenges.

It’s important to remember that Native Americans and African Americans have faced centuries of systemic discrimination and continue to endure economic and social inequities. This article does not minimize that history but focuses on the current frustrations of working-class white Americans who feel left behind.

For decades, both the political Right and neoliberal forces have contributed to the erosion of good-paying jobs across sectors, including higher education. Universities have increasingly relied on foreign labor programs, such as the H-1B visa, to hire international faculty and staff. This practice helps institutions keep labor costs down by paying lower wages compared to American workers, and it allows universities greater control—since many foreign employees’ immigration status depends on their employer, making it harder for them to challenge poor working conditions or demand better pay.

At the same time, higher education has seen a dramatic rise in adjunct and contingent faculty positions, often paid poorly and lacking job security or collective bargaining power. These labor strategies reflect a broader neoliberal trend toward weakening worker protections and maximizing institutional flexibility and control.

In the tech sector, companies like Amazon and Microsoft have filed tens of thousands of visa applications for entry- and mid-level positions paid below prevailing wages, further intensifying job competition. Employers are not legally required to demonstrate that qualified Americans are unavailable before hiring foreign workers—a key fact often overlooked.

This combination of labor importation, job cuts, and anti-labor policies fuels economic anxiety among working-class Americans, especially younger voters. Recent polls show a notable shift toward Republicans driven in part by concerns about immigration and job security.

Yet politicians and the media largely avoid scrutinizing these practices, unwilling to challenge corporate and institutional interests that benefit from them. The quiet growth of foreign labor programs and the erosion of worker rights receive far less attention than federal workforce reductions, which are framed as threats to American values.

This is not a critique of immigration or immigrants’ contributions. Instead, it calls for honest discussion about how bipartisan policies and institutional practices—including in higher education—have reshaped the labor market to the detriment of many Americans.

Meaningful solutions will require rebuilding worker protections, enforcing fair hiring practices, and creating economic opportunities for all. Acknowledging the shared frustrations across political lines can open pathways for progress.

---

Sources:

• The Hill, "Visa Bonds Pilot Program and Corporate Use of H-1B Visas," 2025

• Labor Department Office of Foreign Labor Certification Data, 2025

• Interview with Howard University Professor Ron Hira, H-1B expert

• Yale Youth Poll, 2025

• Statements from Microsoft, Amazon, and other corporations, 2025

• Higher Education labor reports on adjunct faculty, foreign labor, and collective bargaining, 2024–25

Higher Education Inquirer Asks State Department for List of Student Visa Revocations

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has requested a list of more than 300 students who have had their visas revoked.  We hope that other news outlets will follow suit.  At this point, we only know of a handful of high-profile cases, from Tufts University, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgetown.

According to the State Department Press Office:

 As the Secretary indicated, the Department revokes visas every day in order to secure America's borders and keep our communities safe -- and will continue to do so.  Because the process is ongoing, the number of revocations is dynamic. The Department generally does not provide statistics on visa revocations, and due to privacy considerations, we do not discuss individual visa cases.

 

Can Student Loan Debtors Work as Digital Nomads?

In recent years, the concept of working remotely while traveling—becoming a digital nomad—has become an aspirational lifestyle for many young professionals. The freedom to work from Bali, Buenos Aires, or Budapest with nothing more than a laptop and a Wi-Fi connection appeals to a generation burdened with economic precarity, stagnating wages, and dwindling faith in the American Dream.

But for over 40 million Americans burdened with student loan debt, the digital nomad lifestyle is not so simple. Can student loan debtors escape the geographic boundaries of the U.S. and work abroad without financial or legal risk? The answer depends on the type of loans, their repayment status, and how U.S. policy—particularly under presidential administrations—impacts enforcement and forgiveness.

The Debt No Passport Can Escape

Unlike credit card debt or even some tax liabilities, federal student loan debt follows Americans abroad. The U.S. Department of Education, through contracted servicers such as Aidvantage (a Maximus company), can still pursue debtors overseas. Wage garnishment, while difficult to enforce on foreign earnings, can be imposed if the debtor returns to the U.S. or has U.S.-based assets. More critically, failure to make payments can lead to loan acceleration, collection fees, and destruction of credit—regardless of one’s physical location.

Private student loans, meanwhile, can be even more punishing. While they don't have access to federal collection tools like tax refund garnishment, private lenders have fewer forgiveness options and are often aggressive in court.

Income-Driven Repayment and Remote Work

In theory, debtors enrolled in an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan could continue making small or even zero-dollar payments based on low or foreign-earned income. The Biden administration’s SAVE Plan is one such program, but its future is uncertain under political pressure and litigation.

However, reporting foreign income can be complex. Many digital nomads use foreign bank accounts, local clients, or under-the-table gigs, making it hard to verify income and remain compliant. The IRS, via the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), already monitors foreign financial activity of U.S. citizens. Student loan servicers may increasingly cross-reference this information under future administrations eager to enforce repayment—especially if a second Trump administration pursues cuts to loan forgiveness or implements harsh penalties.

The Visa Question

Living abroad full-time usually requires a visa that allows remote work—a gray area in many countries. Some nations, like Portugal, Estonia, and Costa Rica, offer special digital nomad visas. However, these often require proof of steady income. A heavily indebted American with little in the bank and fluctuating freelance income might not qualify. And overstaying a tourist visa while evading loan collectors could lead to a new form of 21st-century statelessness: not legally grounded in any system, and hunted by both creditors and immigration authorities.

Loopholes and Limitations

Some student loan debtors have used their overseas lifestyle to delay or dodge repayments, either by avoiding wage garnishment or reporting low-to-no income. But this is a short-term tactic that can have long-term consequences. Defaulting on federal loans leads to disqualification from forgiveness programs and adds ballooning interest and penalties.

On the other hand, those determined to pursue Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or new cancellation pathways must remain in qualifying U.S.-based work. International remote work doesn’t count, even if the employer is American or the job is virtual.

The Future of Debtors Abroad

With growing disillusionment in the U.S. labor market, housing unaffordability, and distrust in higher education, the idea of “exiting the system” is gaining appeal. Online forums like Reddit’s r/studentloandebt and r/digitalnomad are filled with testimonies of people seeking a way out—physically and financially.

But the federal student loan system was never designed with mobility in mind. Instead, it anchors borrowers to domestic obligations. Until policymakers make meaningful reforms—through widespread cancellation, interest elimination, or true debt jubilee—student loan debt will continue to act as a modern tether. For many, even paradise has strings attached.

Final Thoughts

Digital nomadism may offer a temporary reprieve from America’s financial rat race, but it is not a cure for systemic debt. For the student loan debtor, a life abroad might feel freer—but the burden of higher education’s broken promise still weighs heavily, no matter the zip code or time zone.

As the Higher Education Inquirer continues to investigate the exploitative nature of the U.S. credential economy, we invite student loan borrowers abroad or aspiring nomads to share their stories. In this new phase of global capitalism, the educated underclass is learning to move—but cannot yet escape.