Can anyone explain a rational political motivation behind this? I realize "less immigrants" is the hand-wavy explanation, but how does this benefit those in charge?

▲

linotype 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Can anyone explain a rational political motivation behind this? I realize "less immigrants" is the hand-wavy explanation, but how does this benefit those in charge?

I recommend you read the link, which in the first few words outlines “non-immigrants” and my summary.

> Adjudicating Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants in Their Country of Residence

▲

mnky9800n 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Immigrants don’t apply for non immigrant visas

▲

throw-the-towel 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not defending the US here, but are you saying that overstaying your visa does not exist?

	▲	viceconsole 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Their point was that this change applies to non-immigrant visas (which in theory are only issued to people who do not intend to immigrate to the US), not immigrant visas. While true, the State Department already made the same change to immigrant visas a few days ago: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/a...

▲

wheelerwj 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This might also be tied to the incident with the South Korean nationals in Georgia.

	▲	throw-the-towel 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		(Note: Georgia as in Atlanta, not Tbilisi.)

▲

chillingeffect 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It validates xenophobia. In a xenophobic population. This keeps them in charge. That is all. This administration is all about cutting off their nose to spite thir face.

▲

jeffbee 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It aligns with their effort to ruin the economic situation of American universities.

▲

tupac_speedrap 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, what America needs now is more students working in the grey economy after their student visa expires.

▲

chillingeffect 2 days ago | parent [-]

We either let them in and grow our economy or compete with them.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	jeffbee 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Right. It is also rather inconsistent to be the guy who says he is working on the trade imbalance, while simultaneously wrecking one of America's biggest export sectors: education, housing for education, and travel for education.

▲

efitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Please refer me to the part of the Constitution that enumerates the responsibility of the US government to preserve the business model of the modern university system?

▲

tzs 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Unless you are arguing that government actions should not be criticized unless they are in violation of the Constitution, your comment makes no sense in the context of any comment that is an ancestor of it in the comment tree.

Did you response to the wrong comment or get a little mixed up about the shape of the comments tree or what?

	▲	efitz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		click on the “parent” link for my comment

▲

MangoToupe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Or to capitalism itself, for that matter! We could easily become a modern country if we just had the will.

The recourse to the constitution is silly. It has barely any relevance to the country we've become.