The Trump Administration’s newly proposed visa laws for international students may not bring significant changes in the immigration flow. On August 27, the Department of Homeland Security proposed new visa rules for international students that have garnered attention. The information was shared worldwide by foreign media as the US is still considered the best destination to study abroad. While social media users have reacted positively to the decision, as an international student living in the US, I believe this won’t lead to substantial changes.

The proposed rules aim to limit international students’ stay in the US to four years. However, it’s worth noting that student visas are currently issued for a specific period, typically up to five years. Nevertheless, students are required to depart the US once their student status is terminated, regardless of the visa’s validity period. What’s more concerning is the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict student visa extensions, which could significantly impact international students’ plans.

According to USCIS guidelines, “International students can extend their stay in the US on a student visa by applying for an extension through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The student must submit the extension application before their current status expires. The student must also be approved for the extension and have the necessary documents, such as an updated I-20 form, to prove they are still in compliance with US immigration laws.”

According to US Government data, in the 2023 fiscal year, the CBP calculated a total overstay rate of 1.45 percent, or 565,155 overstay events.  In other words, 98.55 percent of the in-scope non immigrant visitors departed the United States on-time and in accordance with the terms of their admission. Now, non-immigrants include tourists, students, etc. The Trump administration revoked 6,000 visas and not all the visas are for “overstaying.”

In other words, the overstaying students’ percentage would be very minimal if it can be calculated.

Why would students bother utilizing the ‘Duration of Status’ system when visa extensions are possible but come with significant challenges? 

The issue lies in the fact that extending a student visa requires enrolling in a related course, which can be costly, especially for international students who often face ‘out-of-state’ fees that more than double their expenses.

Whether a student departs after completing their course, it’s easy to verify their travel history. Even with the existing five-year visa, students typically don’t stay that long. Typically, students don’t stay in the US for the full five-year visa duration, returning home after finishing their studies, whether that’s a four-year program or a two-year master’s.

Regarding work authorization, students receive one year of OPT (Optional Practical Training), while STEM students get three years. During this period, they must report their workplaces to  the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and ensure the job is related to their field of study. The proposed rule reduces the job search period from 60 days to 30 days, which may add pressure but is unlikely to prevent visa abuse.

International students usually begin job hunting in their final semester and would need to leave the US within 30 days of completing their coursework if they don’t secure a job. While this tighter deadline might create stress, it’s unlikely to be a game-changer. Students, both domestic and international, typically start job hunting before graduation and would adapt to the new timeframe. This law might add pressure, but it’s unlikely to bring about ultimate reform.”

The DHS claims that the new rule will reduce abuse by limiting the time certain visa holders can stay in the US, easing the burden on federal employees to oversee foreign students. However, it’s unclear how limiting the stay period will reduce the verification burden on federal employees.

Moreover, how this could reduce the pressure on the federal employees it’s not clear.  The DHS noted, “This new proposed rule would end that abuse once and for all by limiting the amount of time certain visa holders are allowed to remain in the U.S., easing the burden on the federal government to properly oversee foreign students and their history.” But to find who are overstaying in the US, Federal employees after all have to do all the processes to find the violators. 

Another quote from the DHS states, “This proposed rule was first proposed under President Trump in 2020 but was withdrawn by the Biden Administration in 2021 much to the detriment of U.S. citizens and taxpayers.” But the reality is students do not live on taxpayers’ dollars and they all have to bring the money from their home country excluding little amounts, if they are in on-campus jobs. International students are not allowed to work off campus and the on-campus jobs they can have pay very little in comparison to their tuition fees. 

The Trump administration’s move to tighten student visa laws seems like a costly effort to find tiny cases of abuse. Instead of achieving its purpose, this policy might have severe negative consequences, including loss of revenue for colleges, staff shortages due to international students’ absence, and rising fees for in-state students. This could ultimately benefit countries like Canada and the UK, which might attract more international students.

There’s already been an 11% decrease in international students in the US, largely due to the tension fueled by press releases and proposed laws rather than actual changes. This trend could continue if the US doesn’t adopt a more welcoming approach, potentially losing talented students to other countries.

While I support the US government’s efforts to curb visa violations and overstays, targeting law-abiding international students won’t solve the country’s immigration issues. Students arrive on non-immigrant visas with legitimate intentions. Instead of restricting genuine students, a more effective approach would be to focus on thorough background checks and revoke visas for those who violate the terms. This would not only prevent potential security threats but also create  safer campus environments, while allowing deserving candidates to pursue higher education in the US.

The proposal also reflects resentment toward students who enroll in multiple courses, often referred to as “forever students.” However, this concept lacks a clear definition. While an international student with a five-year visa could theoretically continue enrolling in schools for the full duration, the high cost of education in the US makes this scenario unlikely.

International students, who often come from financially well-off backgrounds, contribute significantly to US universities by paying double the tuition fees of domestic students. These students are subject to strict regulations, including limited work authorization through the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which allows them to work off-campus for a specific period.

It’s worth noting that most students who study abroad undergo thorough verification and background checks before entering the US. The new proposal’s effectiveness in preventing visa abuse remains to be seen, but it’s already sparked international concern, with some media outlets portraying the US as anti-foreigner.

If negative reports about the proposal deter aspiring students, it could lead to a decline in international student enrollment, potentially resulting in increased fees for American students. International students often work on campus, supporting college operations, rather than working off-campus. Ultimately, limiting student entry based on financial background won’t address the issue of illegal border crossings, which requires a more comprehensive solution.