DHS新规反对评论，补充黄金范文

拖延症犯了，知道还剩个位数天才开始准备反对评论。看了之前的大神贴备受鼓舞（【黄金范文+加强版】花了一下午写的DHS新规反对评论，有需要的可以参考。试着写了一篇，在政策分析上借鉴了神贴，自己补充了一些关于移民价值和OPT价值的分析和数据。
博六了才想起来注册一亩三分地的账号。。想当年GRE写作怒砍3分哈哈，写完一看词汇匮乏的毛病一点没变。有英语，数据和论证逻辑的建议欢迎大家讨论！共勉！

我好像不能发引用的网址，我看看能不能回复补上吧，否则就截图了。

I strongly oppose the new proposal and would like to recommend the DHS to revise the proposal for the following reasons:
The proposal, although only target on the immigration status of the foreign students, could deeply harm the well-established path of introducing higher talents to US economy. Such path contains (1) acquiring advanced degree in US; (2) obtaining working practice via Optical Practical Training (OPT); (3) starting the career in US and contributing to the national economy. I could explain how the proposal affects those steps one by one.
(1)        Enrolling international students has already becomes an engine for the US economy. It provided more than $40 million dollars and supported more than 400 thousands jobs in the year 2018 [1]. While the fixed period of 4 years proposed by DHS covers the length of most education programs, it does not consider the possibility of finishing undergraduate in more than 4 years (~ 1/3 in all college graduates [2]) and all PhD students. If the proposal comes into effect as is, a great percentage of international students will have to apply for visa multiple times during their program, and the visa application process has become the main reason (34% in 2016 fall and 87% in 2019 fall) for the international student declining from the peak in 2016 to 2019 [1]. What’s more, the visa application is the only reason among the top 12 reasons whose agreement rate had a clear and continuous rise during the declining period from 2016 to 2019. Thus, the causality between the increasing complexity and time of visa application and the declining of incoming international students is obvious. Increasing the necessary times of visa application will extremely blow the motivation of studying in US for lots of future international students.
(2)        The proposal asks F-1 visa holders to file applications for EOS and EAD to apply post-OPT. USCIS carries out the review of both EAD and EOS, whose criteria partially overlap with that of each other. It is a waste of resources. In fact, there was a ~ 40% increase (from 70 days in 2016 to 94 days in 2019) in the approval time of OPT from 2016 to 2019, while the total approval number and approval rate stayed the same, which clearly showing the lack of resource of USCIS [3]. Also, the approval of EOS is 5-10 months [4], and the proposal does not state whether the long wait will be counted into the 90-day unemployment period for post-OPT applicants. Even if it is not, nearly on employers could tolerate such additional hold for the position. Such concerns, if not addressed, could completely make the current OPT program impractical. The data shows that, in 2018, the OPT program provided 332K potential candidates applying H1B and L1 [3] (post-OPT approved in 2018 + STEM extension approved from 2016-2018), and the total applicants of H1B visa [5] and L1 visa [6,7] are roughly 419K and 95K (approval number/approval rate) in the same year. While the two groups of people do not accurately overlap with each other, the data infers that the OPT program is a major provider for US foreign employees. If the OPT program is made impractical, the artery of global talents to US economy is largely blocked!
(3)        In the former section, I have discussed how important the OPT program is to the introduction of global talents. I always believe that there is a positive feedback loop between such talent collection and a welcoming and prosperous United States. 38% US Nobel prizes in natural science was won by immigrant scientists since the year 2000 [8], and more than half of the top American tech companies are founded by the first/second generation of immigrants [9]. Apart from those leaders in academia and industry, the high-skilled immigrants are the vital force to support the economic development, 57% of the technology workforce in the bay area are foreign born in 2017 [10]. The proposal affects the group of immigrants holding F and J visa, exhaustively covering those with or pursuing advanced education degrees, whose contribution to the aforementioned data does not need proof. “Immigrants, we got the job done”, but the proposal are getting those high-skilled immigrants down.
I understand the DHS’s purpose of decreasing the overstay rate of international students and visitors. However, the proposal is such a costly and severe action that aim to the wrong side of the problem. As a F-1 student who is currently with an on-going program, my stay in US is closely monitored by the univerisity’s international student office and recorded in multiple systems of CBP/POS, SEVP, SEVIS, USCIS. I could not think of a way to jump out of my program and overstay without letting the school suspending my F1 status. Once graduating, I might apply for post-OPT. Before I got my EAD approved, the school will only extend my D/S for only 90 days and will not update the D/S until the approval of EAD. Once I got employed, my staying status is determined by my post-OPT program and the STEM extension. Therefore, despite the D/S does not limit a fixed staying period, the staying of the visa holder is not without monitoring, auditing and regulation. In fact, the current system works just well. The overstay rate of F/M/J students decreases monotonically from 5.48% in 2016 to 3.09% in 2019 [11]. It is not the ways of treating visa holders that need to be improved. The methods to further decreasing overstay rate should be proposed in reinforcing the registration and verification of language schools and employers.

The current proposal is not only less efficient in mitigating the overstay rate, but also has a discriminative assumption to all of the international students and visitors. The fixed staying period only enforces some check points in their duration of stay, during which all of the possible transition has been well monitored by the current policy. Thus, the main result of the proposal is no more than forcing the visa holder out of US regularly for no substantial help to the overstay problem. It should be noted that everyone affected by this proposal has at least gone through the background checking once before their original visa is issued. Such proposal makes the visa no longer a welcome, but a label of “need check regularly” based on their origin prior to the latest background checking. As a 6th year PhD student holding F1 visa and plan to pursue a working opportunity with post OPT, I even prefer to check in regularly to the local police station or other authorities just like those who are out on bail. Afterall, it is not that different. We entered, and we learnt. We have us investigated, yet we are not trusted.

欢迎同步发布在置顶贴https://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/thread-672141-1-1.html 中，我来帮你编辑引用，感谢！

比我写的长好多👍👍👍顶一个

牛逼....

你可以把它发到那个帖子底下去，让更多的人看到

太强了 紫薯紫薯

QueenieV 发表于 2020-10-19 08:21
欢迎同步发布在置顶贴https://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/thread-672141-1-1.html 中，我来帮你编辑引用，感 ...

已经搬运啦~