Why not just put chips in their heads?
July 6, 2000 12:26 AM   Subscribe

Why not just put chips in their heads? Big Brother for real. . .
posted by aflakete (11 comments total)
It's nice that they get to pay for it as well.
posted by Mocata at 4:37 AM on July 6, 2000

I don't know, Mocata, seems like a small price to pay for gaining permanent entry to the US, with an American education, too.

The 99.99% of foreign students with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from keeping the INS informed of their major and their scholastic progress (including their graduation, so we can have a reasonable expectation of when they will return home). Remember that these are not American citizens, these are guests, here for a pre-determined period for a pre-determined purpose. Staying beyond that period - or, straying from that purpose - should rightfully result in the student being asked politely to return to their home country.
posted by m.polo at 7:25 AM on July 6, 2000

"Say a student studying physical education decides to change to nuclear physics, They'll keep close eye on those students" So, you know, they can catch the student building the basement equivelant of an H-Bomb.

Ohh well, I just watch Fox News for the *JEREMY IRONS* interview coming up. *Girlish Scream*
posted by tiaka at 7:41 AM on July 6, 2000

It seems draconian, but considering what an american education means, even here in Canada where the two are quite comperable, it's understandable.

I mean, Potential Employee A goes to University of Waterloo for Computer Science, and Potential Employee B goes takes CS at MIT. Who's your preference? It's tough, because U of W's a top-ranked school, internationally speaking, but MIT's CS program ranks significantly higher.

If I'm going somewhere 'far away' to study, it's because it's going to pay for itself in the edge it gives me when I come back.
posted by cCranium at 7:48 AM on July 6, 2000

Oh, fair enough, M. Polo - I think every country keeps discreet tabs on its foreign students. Slow news day at Fox, perhaps. As for 'what American education means', it depends what level - US undergraduate degrees aren't that prestigious internationally, but postgraduate ones are.
posted by Mocata at 8:29 AM on July 6, 2000

Is any undergraduate degree prestigious?
posted by cCranium at 8:58 AM on July 6, 2000

This new policy came about as a result of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorism, who also recommend establishing the US military as the lead agency in charge of responding to domestic terrorism -- another unprecedented attack on civil liberties in the US. If this doesn't sit well with you, you're not alone. Check out Kendall Clark's The Political Economy of Terrorism for some insight into whose interests are served by these egregious policies.
posted by sudama at 9:09 AM on July 6, 2000

It's a little scary, but terrorism is an issue. Some steps need to be taken to insure national security.

What's troubling is that I doubt this policy will be enforced equitably. Students from Canada, the U.K, etc. will likely be under less scrutiny than students from more 'threatening' countries.

Indeed, it seems like a sort of federal "ethnic profiling" scheme. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

posted by aladfar at 9:39 AM on July 6, 2000

It seems like rather than enforcing the limitations we already have, they're just adding these new, more draconian laws. I mean, the WTC terrorist was on an expired student visa-- why didn't INS track him down when it expired and find out what he was still doing here? But rather than ask tough questions like that and pointing fingers, they put new, harsher laws on the books and charge foreign students to enforce them.

It's easy for us to sit at our computers and say "It's a small price to pay for a U.S. education", but many foreign students are putting themselves in poverty and debt just to come here, let alone pay some extra "you might be a terrorist" fine.
posted by wiremommy at 10:01 AM on July 6, 2000

Is it a one time fee, or once per semester? $100 is not gonna kill anybody, sure it will be a bother, but if such a relativly small amount is the tipping point, they really could not afford to be here anyway. I would rather we not give people from other countries any reason to terrorize us. We are pretty far away from most of the people who wanna do us harm, and if we kept our hands clean it probably would not be worth the bother to come over here and blow things up.
Sudama: How is the Army heading up security an attack on civil liberty? I recall something saying that was not a duty they should be assigned, but I do not see the danger. Truthfuly it seems like one of the few useful things they could be doing in peacetime. I would much rather that, than have them running around policing other countries in blue helmets.
wiremommy: Your argument sounds just like the NRA's stand on gun control law. Is it intentional?
posted by thirteen at 10:33 AM on July 6, 2000

You mean we don't do this already? Granted, I think we should be much less restrictive towards people from other countries wanting to come here to STAY than we presently are, but if they're just visiting in order to take advantage of our colleges, hell yes watch them. What's the INS there for anyway?

We should most definitely NOT do this to law-abiding americans, but it's very easy for a terrorist to come to the USA posing as a student. Granted, this will make things uncomfortable for sincere students from foreign lands, but we have to protect our country.

If they don't want to be watched like a hawk while on our shores, they should apply for citizenship and not return home. Of course, my opinion about our piss-poor immigration policies would belong on a whole 'nother thread.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:22 PM on July 6, 2000

« Older T-206   |   The Last Refuge... invaded... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments