Supreme Court Partially Approves Administration’s Travel Ban

On Monday, June 26, the Supreme Court granted partial approval for President Trump’s second Executive Order issued in March, which stopped the inflow of refugees for 120 days and blocked travel for 90 days from six countries: Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, and Somalia. The Court also agreed to hear two cases filed against the travel ban in the first session of the October Term 2017.In a narrow decision, the Supreme Court granted the administration’s petitions to enforce the travel ban, but only for those “foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”In order to avoid violating the rights of a person or entity already in the United States, the Court will allow travelers with existing connections to enter the U.S. As outlined by the American Immigration Council, the categories for this exception include:

• Individuals with a valid visa issued on or before June 26, 2017

• Individuals with visas who are coming to live or visit with family members

• Students admitted to U.S. colleges or universities

• Workers with accepted offers of employment with U.S. businesses

• Lecturers invited to speak in the U.S.

• Other types of business travelers

• Refugees with close family connections

In a press release, Dr. Esther D. Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, argues that:

“International educators are relieved to be able to tell our international students and scholars that they should not be afraid to come to our campuses to study, work and exchange ideas. We are pleased the court acknowledged that students and scholars and others with connections to the United States could not be barred from our country simply because of their nationality or religion, at least while the underlying litigation continues.“Unfortunately, individuals from the affected countries with no ties to the United States will be subject to the ban on the grounds that a lack of connection to the United States somehow provides evidence of a national security threat. If that is the case, then we should be making every effort to create connections and ties through robust international exchange and travel, and we call on the administration to make clear in its guidance that prospective students and scholars should not be afraid to seek admission to the United States regardless of their current ties.”

It is unclear if the Court’s decision is prospective or retrospective only and how it will affect individuals who form bona fide relationships after June 26, 2017. Travelers from one of the designated Muslim-majority countries may be barred from entering the U.S. if the purpose of their trip is not to visit family but other reasons.Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch expressed partial dissent with the Court’s majority opinion. They argue that the entire injunction should have been lifted because the unclear phrasing of the compromise will “burden executive officials with the task of deciding – on peril of contempt – whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country.”Given the Supreme Court’s ruling and a memorandum issued by President Trump on June 14, the ban is set to go into effect at 8 pm EST on June 29. However, the 90-day period set forth in the Executive Order would end in late September, before the Court meets. Since the point would be moot, it is possible the Supreme Court would end up not reviewing the case at all in October.

Retired High-ranking Admiral and General: To Accept the FY2018 Budget Proposal is a Mistake

In a recent Politico article, retired Admiral Mike Mullen and retired General James Jones make a case for global engagement and international aid, urging Congress not to accept the Trump administration’s proposed FY2018 budget, specifically the 32% cut to the Department of State and USAID accounts. They warn:

“This is exactly the wrong decision at a time when development efforts in the world’s poorest and most fragile countries are needed more than ever. In turn, these severe cuts to USAID would only increase the risk to Americans and to our brave military service members. Congress should reject this dangerous path.”

Mullen and Jones claim that while the goal to strengthen national security is commendable, military action is not necessarily the best course to take in all situations. Helping states develop and promoting good relations is another critical method of ensuring national security. They discourage people to think of development assistance as just charity, but rather to consider it as another effective tool for the United States to use:

“American security is advanced by the development of stable nations that are making progress on social development, economic growth and good governance”.

Jones and Mullen further suggest that:

“Congress can, and should, make America safer with a robust and strategic Phase Zero initiative that engages the U.S. government, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector to synergistically prevent conflict and promote security, development, and governance rooted in the rule of law. Such an initiative — accompanied by other targeted reforms to our foreign assistance programs — would fill a dangerous vacuum that military intervention alone simply cannot address. Proactive conflict-prevention strategies are far less expensive in terms of resources and lives expended than reactive use of our Armed Forces.”

Jones and Mullen, together with 14 other high-ranking military officials, also submitted testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in support of protecting the State-Foreign Operations (SFOPS) budget.Their Politico article and congressional testimony were referenced by Members of Congress during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing and a House SFOPS Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on June 14. Both hearings featured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as a witness, who reviewed the administration’s FY2018 budget proposal for the Department of State

Alliance Statement: Administration's Cuba Travel Policy Hinders Public Diplomacy

Statement by Ilir Zherka, Executive Director of the Alliance for Internatioanl Exchange:

President Trump’s new policies towards Cuba includes a detrimental restriction for Americans traveling to the island for educational purposes. The administration’s argument for cancelling this travel category is the erroneous assumption that people-to-people exchanges do not help the Cuban people and instead only benefits the Cuban government.

People-to-people interactions, however, allow for increased cultural understanding between Cubans and Americans, helping to overcome mistrust between the two nations. The United States has engaged with citizens of other countries through public diplomacy programs when facing tense relationships with their foreign governments. We applaud the Members of Congress that have opposed these new policy measures, such as Senator Jeff Flake and Representative Mark Sandford, both of whom introduced legislation that would eliminate travel restrictions to Cuba.

The United States should continue to be a leader in connecting Americans to people all over the world because, by doing so, we are also advancing our national security interests.

Pennsylvania Appropriator Stresses Power of Exchanges During House Hearing on FY2018 State Department Budget

During this week’s House State-Foreign Operations (SFOPS) Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing on the administration’s FY2018 budget request for the Department of State, Pennsylvania Congressman Charlie Dent (R) voiced his strong support for educational and cultural exchange programs and expressed concern about the 55% cut to exchange program funding proposed by the Trump administration for FY2018.Focusing particularly on the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange (CBYX) program, Congressman Dent explained:

“On cultural exchange programs – something that’s important. It’s a 55% cut. I’m familiar with one of them, the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange program ... We invest in that, the Germans invest in it. The highest levels of that government will talk to me about it and say it’s important … I think when we make these kinds of cuts, we have to think about not only our investment but others who are investing in the same types of programs. Particularly allies and particularly when they’re relatively small numbers of dollars and multibillion dollar budgets. I think we have to be a little bit more nuanced and precise because I think it sends a message for a relatively small amount of money. It sends a bad message … In that case, we’re talking about former enemies who are now great allies.”

To which Secretary Tillerson replied:

“I think not just in allies but even as we’re trying to develop relationships with adversaries, to give us the ability to talk to one another and understand one another, these types of cultural people-to-people programs are very important. … The best diplomatic tool really is economic development and economic relations between countries because as people can tie their own economic well-being to this other nation and they see benefits of those relationships, that strengthens the understanding of the population of one another. The cultural exchanges only help strengthen that.”

To read about the Senate Hearing, please click here

Exchange Programs Highlighted During Senate Hearing on FY2018 State Department Budget

Educational and cultural exchange programs were mentioned twice during a hearing of the Senate State-Foreign Operations (SFOPS) Appropriations Subcommittee this week. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared before the committee to review the administration’s FY2018 budget request for the U.S. Department of State. During their questioning of the Secretary, Senators John Boozman (R-AR) and Chris Coons (D-DE) both attested to the positive impact of exchange programs and asked the Secretary to reconsider the steep funding cuts to people-to-people exchanges proposed by the administration for the next fiscal year.Speaking specifically about the Fulbright program, Senator Boozman noted:

“As an Arkansan and someone who believes you change the world through engagement, the Fulbright program has been something that we’re proud of in the state of Arkansas. We’re talking about a 47% overall cut there. I wish that would be something that you look at, too. [A number of years ago] I was in Israel and visiting with the Finance Minister from Palestine and it turned out that he had been to summer school at the University of Arkansas. Went on and finished up at the University of Texas…Those things are so so very valuable.”

Secretary Tillerson responded by saying:

“We see the Fulbright program as extremely valuable as well … Our reduction in the budget … we understand it will have an impact. What we want to do is to the extent that we can help in attracting more private donations to support the program and perhaps begin to attract donations from countries who have benefited from the Fulbright program as well. So, it’s not in any way an indication of our view of the value of that program.”

Noting that cutting exchange program funding in half is not a choice he himself would have made, Senator Coons highlighted the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) as a program with a significant positive impact:

“We have people to people programs like the Fulbright scholarships that have had a big positive impact and that elevate the reputation we enjoy in the world … The Young African Leaders Initiative is a relatively modest in-scope program that has had a big impact. I thought it was not the choice I would have made to cut all the educational and cultural exchange programs in half, and YALI would be one of them. I hope you will reconsider that because I think these are powerful programs that connect us to parts of the world where we benefit from a positive relationship and that next generation of leaders.”

New National K-12 Report Shows Renewed Interest in Language Learning

A new report, National K-12 Foreign Language Enrollment Survey Report, provides a comprehensive update on the state of K-12 and K-16 foreign language enrollment data in the United States, where more than 21 percent of households speak a language other than English at home. The report is sponsored by the American Councils for International Education, in partnership with the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, the Center for Applied Linguistics, the Modern Language Association, and the National Councils for State Supervisors for Foreign Languages.According to the report, its goal is to help school districts, state departments of education, researchers, and government agencies identify schools receptive to language program expansion and improvement. Pilot programs in the identified schools can consequently serve as a model for other schools across the nation. The lack of consistent and comprehensive data on enrollment at the K-12 level hinders these groups to properly assess the state of foreign language education in the US and thus also the policies that surround it.Survey results also show that despite the availability of new teaching approaches, such as online or hybrid, the norm is still a face-to-face language teaching method. Alternatively, due to low enrollment in language classes, schools typically try to adopt online and extracurricular options. The problem lies in the low awareness of the value of languages among parents and students despite the demand for bilingual workers having doubled from 2010-2015.  The driving force for the presence of language programs in schools is parents.The report was launched at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C on June 1, 2017. At the event, report sponsors explained that more school districts are investing in dual-language immersion programs, but do not yet know the full impact or how to defend their presence and costs to school boards. According to the report, many schools are beginning to rely on neighboring institutions to bolster language programs in danger of disappearing due to limited resources.Key highlights of the report, include:

• 44 states plus DC report there is a world language/bilingual teacher shortage.
• New Jersey and DC have the highest percentage of K-12 students enrolled in a foreign language: 51.18% and 47.17% respectively.
• Spanish is the most widely taught program across all grades and accounts for 46% of all high school language programs.
• Chinese is the most popular Flagship language (Flagship languages include Arabic, Chinese, Hindi/Urdu, Korean, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Swahili, and Turkish); 80% of students in a Flagship program are enrolled in Chinese.
• 84% of K-8 students in the Euro zone are enrolled in a foreign language program while only 20% of K-12 students in the US are enrolled.

To help defend the presence and value of languages in school, the report made the following recommendation:

• “An effort should be undertaken to study the feasibility of comprehensive and consistent data collection across the pre-K-12 system.”
• “A national mandate, parallel to those fore STEM, to mandate compliance with language education data collection.”
• “Documentation of language learning efforts outside the formal education system in private and public sectors, particularly focused on technology-enabled instruction and practice, and in heritage communities across the country.”

Department of State data show 20% decline in visas issued to Muslim-majority countries

Visa issuance data released by the Department of State for the month of April showed an almost 20% decline in non-immigrant visas issued to “nearly 50 Muslim-majority countries” around the world compared to the 2016 monthly visa issuance average, Politico reported. Overall, non-immigrant visa issuance declined by 15 percent in April, compared to a 5 percent increase in March.The drop in visa issuance is even more significant when only looking at particular applicant populations, Politico explains:

• Non-immigrant visa issuance to Arab countries only decreased by almost 30 percent in April, compared to the 2016 monthly average

• The six countries targeted in the Trump administration’s March 6 executive order – Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen – saw a decline in visa issuance by 55 percent, compared to the 2016 monthly average

While the exact reasons for the decline are unknown and visa demand is cyclical and tends to increase during peak travel seasons, recent immigration-related actions by the Trump administration seem to have a “chilling” effect on travel to the U.S., Politico notes, quoting immigration lawyer Stephen Pattison:

“Some people may have canceled trips," Pattison said. "Some people may have traveled last year but not this year. But I think it would be naive to assume that’s what’s going on in Washington isn’t having an effect on consular adjudications.”

 Edward Alden, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations quoted by Politico, echoed this sentiment, adding that increased visa vetting procedures for visitors coming to the U.S. are likely also playing a role in the lower visa issuance rates:

“The uproar over the travel ban” could be discouraging people from all backgrounds from making the trek to the U.S. “That kind of stuff reverberates."“We are probably also seeing the real effect of somewhat more rigorous processes at the consulates.”

 Politico notes that up until this spring, the State Department only made available annual visa issuance totals. With the new monthly breakdowns, a decline in visa issuance to Muslim-majority countries was already visible in March, but not to the same extent that was revealed by the April report.

Former Secretary of State Powell condemns proposed cuts to the Department of State

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell recently condemned severe funding cuts to the Department of State laid out in the Trump administration’s FY2018 Budget request, making a strong case for America’s need to stay engaged with and lead in the world.Powell acknowledges that the United States’ diplomatic efforts rely on a strong and resourced diplomatic machine. This “strategic 1 percent of our federal budget,” he argues, is essential for America’s ability to “advance[e] the cause of peace, responding when disease and disaster strike, lifting millions out of poverty and inspiring those yearning for freedom.”The former Secretary further explains:

“The idea that putting Americans ‘first’ requires a withdrawal from the world is simply wrongheaded, because a retreat would achieve exactly the opposite for our citizens. I learned that lesson the hard way when I became secretary of state after a decade of budget cuts that hollowed out our civilian foreign policy tools.”“Our diplomacy and development budget is not just about reducing spending and finding efficiencies. We need a frank conversation about what we stand for as that ‘shining city on a hill.’ And that conversation begins by acknowledging that we can’t do it on the cheap.”

 The Trump administration’s FY2018 budget proposal foresees a cut to the Department of State’s budget by 32 percent. This includes a 55 percent cut to Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs as compared to current funding levels under the FY2017 Omnibus bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in early May (see Administration’s FY2018 Budget Proposes Critical Cuts to Educational and Cultural Exchanges for a breakdown).

Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2016 Entry/Exit Overstay Report Provides Data on Student Visa Overstays

On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its Fiscal Year 2016 Entry/Exit Overstay Report that provides numbers and country-specific breakdowns for individuals who overstayed their U.S. visas during FY2016. For the first time, the report includes data on student travelers (F, M, and J visa categories). According to DHS,

“identifying overstays is important for national security, public safety, immigration enforcement, and processing applications for immigration benefits.”

DHS defines an overstay as an “immigrant who was lawfully admitted to the United States for an authorized period, but remained in the United States beyond his or her lawful period of admission.” There are two categories of overstays:

• Individuals for whom no departure has been recorded (Suspected in-country overstay)
• Individuals whose departure has been recorded after their lawfully periods of admission expired (Out-of-country overstays)

Of the total 50,437,278 “in-scope” nonimmigrants who had been admitted to the U.S. and were expected to depart in FY2016, 98.53 percent returned to their home countries, the DHS report shows. 1.47 percent (739,478 individuals) were overstays. The DHS report considers the following categories of nonimmigrant admissions as “in-scope”: temporary workers and families (temporary workers and trainees, intracompany transferees, treaty traders and investors, representatives of foreign information media), students, exchange visitors, temporary visitors for pleasure, temporary visitors for business, and other nonimmigrant classes of admission.”Specific to student visas, the DHS report shows the following:

• Total number of students on F, M, and J visa classes of admission in FY2016: 1,457,556*
• 2.81 percent suspected in-country overstay rate, 5.48 percent total overstay rate among student visa holders
• 975,046 F visa holders: 2.99 percent suspected in-country overstay rate (6.19 percent total overstay rate)
• 13,963 M visa holders: 2.94 percent suspected in-country overstay rate (11.6 percent total overstay rate)
• 468,547 J visa holders: 2.42 percent suspected in-country overstay rate (3.8 percent total overstay rate)

 *This overall student visa number does not include F/M/J classes of admissions for students with Canadian or Mexican citizenship. They are listed separately in the report (see Table 6).

New Model for International High Schools on U.S. College Campuses

With an interest to increase international enrollment, and revenue, some U.S. universities are seeking public-private partnerships to create or host international high schools on their campuses. As reported by Inside Higher Ed, this trends allows students to obtain university credits and a high school diploma simultaneously, while institutions benefit from a new international recruitment pathway.A new business model is emerging, in which public institutions partner with private companies, such as Maple Leaf Educational System or AKD educational Consulting, to operate the high schools on their respective campuses. The dynamic of this partnership consist of either a curriculum for participating students that overlaps with the university’s curriculum, or more of a “host” scenario, where the university leases out facilities to an international high school.As a recent example cited in the article, the University of Southern Maine (USM) started the International Academy, where international students can graduate with a high school degree as well as to receive college credit. In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, President Glenn Cummings stated:

“We’re trying to think about education a little bit differently and looking at models that attract students from around the world to our campus.”

The Kwantlen Polytechnic and Thompson Rivers Universities in Canada already have similar models running while the University of Northern British Columbia is in the process of developing an international high school with a Chinese company. Sal Ferreras, the provost and vice president for academic at Kwantlen Polytechnic, spoke about this relationship:

“These are students [from China] that have achieved a certain amount of English training -- they’re not coming to us raw -- and also are familiar with our system and familiar with British Columbia. We would like to maintain a stronger connection to a large network that would maintain a steady stream of foreign students from this particular country.”

Despite the benefits of the public-private partnership model with international companies, critics of such partnerships question the leasing of public spaces to private for profit international high schools. However, for universities like USM, there is a mutually beneficial cultural enrichment experience between international and domestic students through this program. Furthermore, the partnership also allows the university to attract potential students from markets in which they have limited access.

Administration’s 2018 Budget Jeopardizes our Nation’s Public Diplomacy Efforts

For Immediate Release
Contact: 202-293-6141

Fate of Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs Rests with Congress

Washington, DC (May 23, 2017) – The budget released today by President Donald Trump proposes an unprecedented cut of 32 percent to the International Affairs budget, and a 55 percent cut to the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) specifically. ECA funds and oversees a wide range of critical international exchange programs which enable people-to-people diplomacy.

In March, the administration made a similar recommendation to cut the State Department budget in the so-called skinny budget, but Congressional champions, including Senators Lindsay Graham and Patrick Leahy and Representatives Hal Rogers and Nita Lowey, ensured funding for the critical work of exchange programs were sustained for another year – providing a significant increase of seven percent in the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Omnibus Bill.

“If adopted, these cuts would greatly harm our nation’s public diplomacy efforts,” said Ilir Zherka, Executive Director of the Alliance for International Exchange. “As Defense Secretary James Mattis has suggested, the way to reduce the possibility of war is to increase people-to-people diplomacy – which is at the heart of cultural and educational exchanges.

“Fortunately, Congress has consistently demonstrated a strong, bipartisan commitment to exchange programs, even as recently as last month. Gutting exchange programs isn’t a win for the taxpayer, because the investment in America’s national security is immense. Over 90 percent of ECA funding is spent in the United States or on Americans implementing these programs. Because of that investment, 1 in 3 world leaders today have been on a U.S. exchange program.

“As we continue to make the case for strong funding in fiscal year 2018, we will once again count on bipartisan congressional leaders and the thousands of exchange supporters across the country who will work to ensure that these programs are maintained.”

Background on Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

Exchange programs enhance U.S. national security and prosperity by building productive partnerships, mutual understanding, and personal connections that help us address critical global issues including strengthening the world economy and combating terrorism. They also create a welcoming environment for over a million international students to study in the U.S. In 2015, these students added more than $32 billion dollars to our economy and supported over 400,000 U.S. jobs.

The cost of these programs is considerably less than 1 percent of the federal budget, and the return-on-investment is immense. Almost all the exchange program allocation is spent in the U.S. or on Americans. To be most effective, U.S. funding for exchange programs should be balanced and strategic by reaching a range of people from many different countries.

Last month, Congress passed (and the President signed into law) a $1 trillion spending bill to fund the government through September 30. It includes an increase of 7 percent for ECA programs. The new level of $634.1 million (from $590.9 million in FY16) is just short of the high-water mark of $635 million in FY10. This is extremely significant – especially in light of the Administration’s request for a 24 percent cut.

###

The Alliance for International Exchange is an association dedicated to promote the growth and impact of exchange programs. Since 1993, it serves as the collective public policy voice for now over 90 nongovernmental organizations comprising the international educational and cultural exchange community in the United States.  The Alliance expands awareness of the impact of people-to-people connections.

Brazil Restores Certainty to Higher Education Funding with New Science Program

The Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), Brazil’s higher education body, recently announced a new international financing regime to replace the Sciences Without Borders (CSF) initiative. According to the PIE news, Mais Ciência, Mais Desenvolvimento (More Science, More Development), or MSMD, will grant more autonomy to universities by requiring institutions to form a coherent internationalization strategy together with international partners, while decreasing the federal involvement in the program.MSMD’s three main goals are:

1. to improve Brazilian internationalization;

2. to enhance bilateral relationships with overseas partners; and

3. to upskill graduate students so they can bring back their skills to Brazil.

While MSMD will not be released in full until July, CAPES has said that the new program will allow for foreign institutions to have more structured relationships with Brazilian universities, resulting in sustained inward and outward mobility programs.At Brazil’s International Education Association’s Annual Conference, Connie McManus Pimentel, CAPES’ director of international relations, told delegates that the change will also entail targeted funding towards postgraduate students and early career researchers looking to research abroad.MSMD’s predecessor, CSF, had a centralized structure in which decision making occurred at the federal level. Representatives of Brazil’s higher education institutions had voiced their reservations with this model. In an interview with the PIE news, Jose Celso Freire, president of Sao Paulo University and of Brazil’s International Education Association, said of CSF:

 “We’d like it to be a program where you have much more than only mobility but capacity building where a university that has a good international office, a global relations office…can create possibilities for others to develop cooperation, to understand about internationalization, to understand how they can develop research together.”

For the foreseeable future, MSMD will focus only on STEM fields because they are considered the most productive, important for Brazil at a point in time where the country’s economy is in a deep recession with high unemployment.

Survey Reveals How International Students Perceive American Schools

The Brookings Institution released its 2017 Report on American Education, revealing survey results of international high schools students in the U.S. and their perspective on American education. The report, administered by the Brown Center on Education Policy, is a replicate and a comparative analysis of a similar study conducted in 2001. Key findings of the survey include reported differences in the difficulty of classes, the amount of time dedicated to out-of-school activities and homework, value placed in sports and math, and emphasis on learning a second language.Data results shows that even 16 years later, not much has changed in terms of international students’ perceptions and values. Over 600 past high school exchange participants in the AFS international program were contacted for this survey, with a response rate of 45.3 percent.When asked how U.S. classes compare to courses at home, 55.9% of international students reported in 2001 that classes were “a lot easier”, compared to 66.4% in 2016. Likewise, in terms of the total amount of time spent on homework, in 2001, 34% of international students thought Americans devote much less time to schoolwork than what they were used to from their home countries; that number increased to 44% in the 2016 survey.The rise of social media and the amount of time students spend on social media activities were a new development highlighted in the 2017 report, which was not a factor included in the 2001 survey. Also not included in the 2001 survey was the relative importance of learning a foreign language. More than half of respondents said it is considered “much less” important in the U.S. to study foreign languages than in their home countries. Similarly, another intriguing finding is the importance international students place on Math compared to the value American students place on sports.To read the full Report, click here.

Former President George W. Bush and Senator Bob Corker Express Support for U.S. Foreign Aid Programs

In light of the sharp cuts to the International Affairs budget recently proposed by the Trump administration, former President George W. Bush in an interview with NPR argued for continued foreign aid funding as well as citizenship pathways for undocumented immigrants. Similarly, U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed back against proposed funding cuts to humanitarian assistance programs, according to the Associated Press.Bush specifically expressed support for U.S. aid programs that fight AIDS in Africa, citing security and moral imperatives to fund the programs. He explained that “it's in our national security interests as well as in our moral interest to continue funding this program.” Bush further observed that the country periodically experiences swings in isolationist sentiment and voiced caution about undervaluing relationships with other countries.Corker vocally defended U.S. foreign aid after a recent trip to a refugee settlement in Uganda. Corker told the AP that “without U.S. leadership, these people would have no hope. I think Americans, if they saw what I see here, and I see in other places, would be glad that our country does what it does.”Andrew Natsios, former head of USAID for the Bush administration, recently described the Trump Administration’s calls for foreign aid cuts as attacks on the legacies of former Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush senior, and Bush junior, all of whom increased foreign aid spending. Natsios further stressed the important role of soft power for U.S. global engagement:

“I think the notion that the administration seems to have that there aren't going to be any threats to the United States that require soft power response is nonsense.”

The Republican Platform in 2016 included a robust foreign aid program. Natsios also stated that the Trump campaign issued a statement supporting robust foreign aid, but the administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 includes a drastic cut of approximately 28% to the State Department.

Germany’s International Student Population Grows 6%

Recent data from DAAD, the German Academic Exchange Service, the international student population in Germany rose to 340,000 in 2016, according to the PIE News. The growth is remarkable considering the German government released a six-year plan in 2014 to increase international student numbers from 100,000 to 350,000 by 2020. Germany will likely surpass its goal by the end of the 2017 academic year.The increase in English-taught Masters programs has been credited with the 12% increase in foreign master’s degree-seeking students as it attracts people not only from English-speaking countries, but all over the world. The number of students seeking Bachelor’s degrees also increased by 10%. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given Germany’s historic prestige in the field, the most popular major among foreign students remains engineering.As the world’s fourth largest economy, Germany has prioritized education in recent years and increased federal education spending by 9.3% of GDP, according to the Education in Germany 2014 report. The UN predicts Germany’s population to decline from 82 million to 74.5 million by 2050. Attracting international students is one way in which the country hopes to maintain its status as a global innovator and the EU’s largest economy.Germany’s challenge will be to ensure that the students obtaining degrees in English-taught programs have the incentive and capability of staying and working in Germany after graduation. So far Germany’s efforts are reaping rewards. A new study by the British Council shows that even publicly declaring a welcoming policy on its own helps to attract international students.

University Leadership Unite in Opposition to Executive Order Travel Ban

31 of the top universities in the United States joined forces and filed an amicus brief challenging the Trump administration’s revised travel ban. Although the new version of the Executive Order only bars people from six specific Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S., universities are already seeing negative effects on their campuses. As stated in the briefing, filed on March 31, the Executive Order threatens universities’ ability to attract top talent and to educate tomorrow’s leaders, and is hindering international student applications.Universities agree that the timing of the new travel restrictions comes at a critical time in the school year’s application season. Accepted students may not be able to obtain visas on time and could chose other study destinations. Moreover, prospective visiting faculty and scholars are also impacted. According to amici: “many admissions letters for fall of 2017 have been sent out in the past month, and prospective international students have a short window to decide whether to attend a United States college or university.”As per the Mitchell Hamline School of Law definition, an amicus brief is a “legal document filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter. The briefs advise the court of relevant, additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider.” This briefing was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of Maryland, which will hear oral arguments in May.Read the full brief here and see below for a list of the signee universities:Boston   University,   Brandeis   University,   Brown   University, Bucknell University, Carnegie   Mellon   University,   Case   Western   Reserve   University,   Columbia  University,  Cornell  University,  Dartmouth  College,  Duke  University,  Emory   University,   George   Washington   University,   Georgetown   niversity,   Harvard   University,   Johns   Hopkins   University,   Massachusetts   Institute   of   Technology, Middlebury    College, Northeastern    University, Northwestern University,  Princeton  University,  Rice  University,  Stanford  University,  Tufts University, University   of   Chicago,   University   of   Michigan,  University   of   Pennsylvania, University    of    Southern    California,    Vanderbilt    University,    Washington  University, Worcester  Polytechnic  Institute,  and  Yale  University

Latin America Agents Report Decline in English Language Learning in the U.S.

The PIE News reports that interest among Latin American students to study in the United States will stagnate with students seeking other English Language destinations. Agents at the International Association of Language Centers workshop in Boston said that the White House’s anti-immigration rhetoric has given rise to concern among families of Latin American students being unsafe and unwelcome in the United States.This is not to say that interest in learning English through study abroad has decreased, just that more students will go to other countries, such as Canada. Canada has reported a spike in interest from Latin American students while 40 percent of U.S. institutions have seen a drop in application numbers. Comparatively lower study costs, work rights, and a welcoming approach have contributed to the diversion of students from the U.S. to Canada. Isabel Matos, director of ICCE, an international student recruitment agency, stated that Canada had already replaced the United States as the most popular destination for Brazilians to learn English.While the U.S. visa system has been engulfed in turmoil, on December 1, 2016, Canada lifted its visa restriction for Mexican students attending language programs lasting less than six months. Michael Bailey, a Canadian embassy officer in Mexico, said that the government expects to see an increase in bilateral government-to-government programs, scholarship programs and exchange opportunities in the next six to 12 months.

Letter to the Editor: Politico "They Think We Are Slaves"

Editor
POLITICO

Dear Editor:

POLITICO’s coverage of the Au Pair Program (“They Think We Are Slaves,” March 27) was surprisingly one-sided. While any report of an au pair having a less than positive stay in America is troubling, one would get the impression from your story that this is the rule rather than the exception.

While the article repeatedly mentions a State Department 2015 Au Pair report, nowhere does it point out that in that very report 93% of au pairs and 92% of host families surveyed responded that they would recommend the au pair program to others. Indeed, the article does not feature a single au pair who had a satisfying experience.

Your article also mistakenly conflates “incidents” with “complaints” to the Department of State to suggest that the latter are very high. In fact, the “complaints” sited in the article cover a wide variety of situations, including illnesses and accidents. Moreover, the article anonymously quotes au pairs whose stories cannot be verified.

The au pair program has thrived for over thirty years because both host families and au pairs are genuinely satisfied and appreciative of the unique cultural exchange benefits it provides. It is a shame that this article and your inflammatory title maligns a program that has created tens of thousands of profoundly deep and personal relationships across cultures, borders, and generations.

Sincerely,

Ilir Zherka
Executive Director

As published in Politico in response to: ‘They Think We Are Slaves’ on March 27, 2017.

Summer Work Travel Data Released in Department of State Report

The U.S. Department of State released its 2016 Summer Work Travel Monitoring Report, a study conducted by the Office of Private Sector Exchange (ECA/EC). The report analyzes the program through 446 field site visits across 25 states, and interviews with 1,582 exchange visitors and 362 host placements. Overall, the findings show that 97% of all SWT exchange visitors interviewed reported being happy or somewhat happy with their program experience, and nearly 90% were happy with their sponsors. Over 90% reported having the chance to practice English in their workplaces, and 87% were happy with their housing.Specific season findings are also detailed in the report. For instance, during Winter, more participants said they engaged in cultural activities, but a common issue was low work hours resulting from snowfall. During Spring, less countries participated in the program and fewer cultural activities were available, but more participants reported having opportunities to practice English. Lastly, the Summer season is much more organized in terms of arranging housing and transportation for participants. Data also indicated high levels of sponsor-employer communication.The report also includes findings from the Camp Counselor category review, most notably that nearly all Camp Counselors (95%) said they participated in cultural activities. Yet despite the positive findings, challenges in the program remain. 20% of respondents reported having problems with transportation, and 15% indicated not being happy with their housing. As noted in the report, OPA noted a lack of interaction with Americans among exchange visitors working as housekeepers, and staffing agency placements that may not meet the regulatory requirements.

Political Climate Affecting International Student Applications

A new survey reveals that nearly 40 percent of U.S. higher education institutions are seeing a drop in the amount of applications from international students. At 39 percent, the highest declines involved undergraduate applications from the Middle East, as reported by Inside Higher Ed. More than 250 U.S. colleges and universities participated in the survey, which was conducted by six higher education groups including the Institute of International Education and NAFSA: Association of International Educators.This decline in applications and concerns about future enrollment is more noticeable because steady increases in the international student population have become the norm – reaching an all-time high in 2016 at about 1,050,000[1]. The decline is of concern to the institutions and to the American people for several reasons. International students typically pay full tuition, essentially subsidizing the cost for American students going to school on financial aid. Furthermore, international students comprise more than half of the graduates with a P.H.D in STEM fields (Science, Engineering, Technology, Medicine), according to the Atlantic.International students that decide not to apply to the U.S. will likely go to Canada, Britain, Australia or Norway – a shift that will negatively impact American innovation, as stated in the Atlantic. As highlighted by Inside Higher Ed, the list of major concerns for prospective international students, especially those from Middle East, Asia, and Latin America, include:

• Perception of the U.S. as providing a less welcoming and tolerant climate for immigrants
• Perception or a rise in student visa denials at U.S. embassies and consulates
• Concerns that benefits and restrictions around visas could change, especially around the ability to travel, re-entry after travel and employment opportunities
• Concerns that the executive order travel ban might expand to include additional countries

---

[1] IIE’s Open Doors Report 2016