“Lobbying” as the reflexive reason for all political ills is tiresome, especially considering aggressive lobbying by universities is likely what caused this reversal.

Exactly. It’s “lobbying” when the other side does it, but “standing up for what’s right” when my side does it.

That it's tiresome does not invalidate the argument. In fact, if the policy change was made because of university lobbying and not because of the public outcry, that's downright depressing. It means we still had no control over this outcome, we're just lucky that some people in power agreed with us here.

One way public outcry is expressed is through lobbying. Honestly, I think the issue here is that people mistakenly believe lobbying consists of shadowy groups slipping bribes under the table to elected officials when in reality it’s just people coming together to advocate for issues they care about.

So you're actually opting into your democracy being a plutocracy because it's tiresome?

Have you ever called an elected official to express support for a bill? Congratulations! You're now an official member of the Plutocratic Lobbyist Upper Class(TM). Branded monocles and top hats are available for purchase on our website.

I'm pretty sure the lawsuits had more to do with it than anything else.

Lawsuits are one facet of lobbying.

Literally no one was "lobbying" for this policy. This was a nativist reflex, designed to seize an opportunity to expel a few foreigners who would otherwise not be removable. It's very much in keeping with the anti-immigration stances the administration has taken in other areas.

Why do you think lobbying had anything to do with this?

I interpreted this as mostly driven by the nativism of Trump et al.