>Look at the politics of this and where ICEs actions stand on the spectrum of immigration, foreign relations and COVID (and probably a couple other issues that I'm not thinking of) and it all makes sense.

The COVID angle seems to me to be a total fig-leaf for other aims, seeing as the administration didn't do much for public health wrt covid - no strictly enforced lockdowns, no leadership on calling out states opening up too early, and not showing the president wearing a face covering. Also lets be real, the average international student is far less likely to transmit the virus than your average face-covering conspiracy-theorist American. (Especially those from China or SK - places where there are already cultural norms formed around limiting spread of infectious diseases)

Let's call a spade a spade. This is an attempt to enforce extralegal policy limiting immigration to the US via reducing the number of people on student visas.

The administration's policy on COVID is that it wants everything open and open yesterday, virus be damned. This new ICE policy that punishes universities for not doing so and tailors the punishment to mostly exempt the areas that vote for him. The schools attracting foreigners tend to be in left leaning college towns or in left leaning cities. The smaller state universities and community colleges that are in redder voting areas aren't nearly as dependent on foreign labor because they don't have as big grad student programs.

You're right about where this falls on immigration.

That'd be some interesting data to show backing up your claims this affects only the more left leaning campuses.

FWIW, Stephen Miller, an immigration advisor, has, in the past suggested limiting issuing student visas to "hurt universities whose faculty and students had been critical of Trump" [0]. With this in mind, this motivation becomes more clear and this wouldn't be the first policy from this administration that does collateral damage to their base.

0 - https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/409436-trump-con...

It's like the tax policy change a few years ago to reduce the mortgage interest deduction. This had a much bigger effect on expensive cities and suburbs which are more in Democratic-voting states (CA, NY, CT, NJ, MA, WA, MD, etc). The Republican party lost a few Representatives in those states but it was worth it to them to get the tax bill passed and stick it to the libs.

Look at any county by county map showing who voted for who in a presidential election in the last 20yr. The cities lean left. Where are the universities with graduate programs big enough to attract substantial foreign interest located? Mostly cities. So who gets hurt by this policy the most? Places (and people) who lean left.

This is ignoring the many state schools in those states which attract tens of thousands of international students each year

True, it's a messy policy (like any other broad brush federal policy) and he's throwing a lot of his own supporters under the bus.

Looking at the map of results from the 2016 election in Indiana (where I went to college), the state was solidly pro-Trump but you can easily spot the blue counties where IU Bloomington (Monroe) and Notre Dame (St Joseph) are located. The only other counties where Hillary won are Marion (Indianapolis) and Lake (basically a suburb of Chicago). Tippecanoe county (Purdue Univ) is pink and went for Trump with 49%.

This indicates that even in a "red state", the university towns with lots of international students are already voting left and hurting them with this policy probably wouldn't affect the outcome of the next election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...

> This is an attempt to enforce extralegal policy limiting immigration to the US via reducing the number of people on student visas.

I suspect this a "heads I win/tails you lose" situation. If schools don't reopen to in-person classes, thousands of foreign kids get kicked out. If schools do open, then hey, the COVID thing can't be that bad since things are back to normal

Obviously landlords and businesses will lose out because of the decision to go fully online. They might anyway, since there wouldn't be any requirement I'm aware of that the student visa holders would have to stay near a school they were merely logging into. They could spend their semesters anywhere in the country in theory.

But surely even if the foreign students are forced to leave the US they'll stay enrolled in (and paying for) the classes. Isn't the education the point?

> But surely even if the foreign students are forced to leave the US they'll stay enrolled in (and paying for) the classes. Isn't the education the point?

Given that returning to, say, Beijing would mean your 3 PM Friday class at Harvard happens at 3:00 am Saturday, local (this isn't Coursera – most of these classes will be conducted online with real-time instruction, as they were for the remainder of last semester), I'd expect a lot of students would seek to transfer elsewhere.

Can you elaborate more?

This measure restricts immigration, a declared goal of Trumps sdministration. And it basically tries to force Universities to open for the fall semester. Again something the administration wants.

It only works, so, if t holds up in court. There, Trumps administration doesn't have the best track record.

Not that.

I mean, the commenter argued that this whole thing is better for the business even nearby the campus. How could that be? As far as I can see, this actually destroys the business nearby the campus.

No, they noted that the news of Boston area landlords and businesses losing billions due to these restrictions will probably be met with general applause less than an hour or two outside the city, thus bad news becomes good news, the urban / rural-ish divide.

Immigration restrictions in general would probably be applauded, but immigration restrictions that only directly affect colleges and cities? Slam dunk for Trump among his base.

Ah, that. Agree, less students means less business. Assuming foreign students permanently live near campus, it would even hurt more during Covid-related closures.

EDIT: I read OP that this policy ams to force campuses to open for fall. That would mean more students on site. Even without international ones, that is more than now.

Its a pretty blue state - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Massachusetts

There have been very few Trump signs here in Hampden county, an hour and a half west and one of the most Republican areas of the state. Mask compliance is nearly universal as well. New Hampshire is its own thing, of course.