Behind the upgrade of visa restrictions: America's dilemma.

On May 28th local time, the U.S. State Department issued a notice stating that it will begin vigorously revoking visas for Chinese international students. In recent years, the U.S. government has repeatedly caused obstacles for Chinese international student visas, which can be roughly divided into four categories: - Listing universities and research institutions in entity lists; - Visa control; - Restricting normal exchanges between China and the U.S.; - Conducting continuous investigations on researchers. This time, the main focus is on visa control, but compared to the past when it was specific to a certain field, this time, the impact is evidently bigger. The notice mentioned that the restrictions will target students who have connections with the Chinese government or study in key areas. It also mentioned that visa standards will be modified and scrutiny on all future visa applications from China will be strengthened. The U.S. proposed the so-called "key areas" without giving any clear criteria, leaving a lot of room for interpretation, which has raised many questions in public opinion. To understand why the U.S. is once again acting recklessly in the field of education, it is crucial to understand the logic behind the actions of the U.S. government. The U.S. State Department mentioned in the notice that the background of this restriction is cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security. Recently, the U.S. government has implemented a series of actions to restrict international students, aiming to put pressure on U.S. universities to comply with its directives in curriculum design, research projects, staff hiring, and administrative management - in simple terms, to obey the U.S. government. For this, multiple departments have participated. Last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced the revocation of Harvard University's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) qualification, effectively cutting off the enrollment pipeline from the universities. On the other hand, the U.S. State Department is sealing the entry route for students. In the U.S. administrative system, there are various ways to restrict international students. As early as March this year, related actions began to take place. From March to April, the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) accounts of over 200 American universities and thousands of international students were terminated without warning. SEVIS, managed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security, specifically administers through the aforementioned Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). This system is used to track and record the activities of international students in the U.S. At the same time, the U.S. State Department revoked hundreds of visas. These actions were all about directly preventing students from going to or staying in the U.S. Among them, the actions of the Department of Homeland Security are more related to these international students within the U.S. When a SEVIS account is terminated, it usually means that these international students lose their legal status and face the risk of deportation. At this point, the school would advise these international students to immediately initiate departure procedures. But the actions initiated by the Department of Homeland Security are more susceptible to intervention. At that time, U.S. courts actively intervened in the events, prohibiting their execution. Ultimately, the U.S. government also compromised, stating that it would restore the accounts of these students. All of these signs have made the U.S. government realize that forced measures are not effective, and they need a more "clever" top-level design. Unlike the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department of the U.S. has broad discretionary power and can revoke the visas of foreign nationals at any time for reasons such as "national security" or "public safety," without the need for judicial review. However, if only the visa is revoked, international students who have already entered the U.S. can still stay in the country (within the time limit specified in their entry records), seek redress, appeal, or reapply for a visa, without facing immediate deportation. Last month, the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement updated the SEVIS management rules, adding a provision that if the State Department revokes a visa, the international student's SEVIS account can also be terminated. Therefore, the State Department of the U.S. modified visa standards while the Department of Homeland Security executed deportation procedures; through this coordination, they formed a closed loop for managing international students. It can be seen that this kind of cooperation is the result of the operation of the U.S. administrative system. However, the problem is, why did policy adjustments initially aimed at all international students end up evolving into a "precision strike" against China at the level of the State Department? The development of the situation can be traced back to when the Department of Homeland Security canceled Harvard University's SEVP qualification. From that point on, some forces within the U.S. began to forcibly shift the focus onto China. When the Department of Homeland Security canceled Harvard University's SEVP qualification, the announcement stated: Harvard University was held responsible for cooperating with the Chinese government, encouraging acts of violence, anti-Semitism, and supporting terrorism on campus. The mention of "cooperation with the Chinese government" in that context seemed particularly abrupt and deliberate. Originally, the Department of Homeland Security had no need to mention China. After examining the documents related to this incident, it was found that all the references to China came from another agency - the House Committee on China. And now, with the State Department of the U.S. issuing a notice specifically targeting China, the targeting in these actions goes even further. It was noted that originally, the State Department of the U.S. was supposed to target all international students. Before announcing the revocation of Chinese international student visas, the State Department had already globally suspended the acceptance of new visa applications from foreign students and visiting scholars, and extensively reviewed information on international students within the U.S.if any problems were found regarding the qualifications and activities of these students in the U.S., their visas would have been revoked in the first place. In other words, if there were any issues, they could have been dealt with through the existing procedures; there was no need to create a separate system specifically targeting China. Xin Qiang, Deputy Director of the Fudan University Center for American Studies, told the analyst: The way the U.S. is doing this is similar to its recent escalation of tariffs on China over the past two months, and raising the fentanyl issue. The U.S. is now using a policy tactic of bringing up some originally baseless topics, and then demanding that other countries negotiate with it to solve the issue on that basis. Previously, the U.S. built a border wall and then demanded Mexico to cooperate with it to solve the immigration issue, which had a similar characteristic. In simple terms, it's like starting a fire and then asking the neighbors to hurry up and put it out. The reason the U.S. is employing this "arson" tactic is because it believes that such threats can compel other countries to submit to its established policy goals.Method has its profound internal reasons:From tariffs and fentanyl to education, these issues are all hot topics in American society, and the United States, relying on its own administrative power, finds it difficult to resolve these issues. Take the education issue, for example. The education problem in the United States has persisted for a long time but has always been difficult to make actual progress. First, the surface disputes between the U.S. government and universities have gradually turned into a verbal battle between the two sides. Since Trump took office earlier this year, there has been a hope to reform universities, but it has met with more opposition, leading to escalating contradictions between the two sides. Over the past two months, many universities that had previously taken a low-key approach have changed their attitudes and started openly criticizing the Trump administration. Secondly, upon delving into its internal mechanisms, it can be observed that the elite system that U.S. universities have long held is fundamentally opposed to the MAGA ideology advocated by the Trump administration. The elite system of American universities is based on academic excellence, a global perspective, and social responsibility. These behaviors, in the MAGA ideology, are seen as putting American interests secondary and wasting American resources. As mentioned by a White House spokesperson, there is a problem with the orientation of higher education in the United States. The country needs engineers, but universities are focusing on cultivating humanities students. This fundamental opposition is also why both sides find it difficult to seek consensus through moderate means. However, the U.S. government cannot directly intervene in university management, so what can be done? They bundle what they can manage (such as visas and national security) with reforming universities to create a reason for intervention. The problem is, if combined with China-related issues, the consequences could be very dangerous: the politicians in the U.S. who engage in political opportunism, once they involve China, become crazy and anti-intellectual. The House of Representatives' "China Task Force Committee" is one example of this. Every now and then, the House's "China Task Force Committee" stirs up university issues. In a recent round, the Chairman of the House's "China Task Force Committee", Muller, mentioned: "We strongly oppose the infiltration and influence of the Chinese government on our academic institutions... We must ensure that American higher education continues to focus on academic integrity and not serve the interests of hostile foreign powers." It can be seen that the House's "China Task Force Committee" presents a broad association - anyone who cooperates with China may be subject to Chinese infiltration and influence. They recklessly throw dirt on all normal interactions, something these opportunistic politicians are fond of doing. Let's take a closer look at the entities leading restrictions on China in the education field since 2018: Previous restrictions at least have clear boundaries. From the entity list of the Department of Commerce to the visa policies of the State Department, these focus on specific areas related to military and cutting-edge technologies. Now, the United States is seeking comprehensive strengthening of visa review for China and widespread cancellations of exchange programs, involving more and more institutions. This escalation not only expands the impact of policies but also makes the issue more binary and continuously shrinks various spaces for U.S.-China cooperation. In the long run, this manipulation may further weaken the space for rational discussions and policy-making. After analyzing this, we can make a judgment on the US actions this time: This time's visa restrictions against China are the result of the U.S. shifting its internal conflicts externally. The event is being exploited by various political forces and riding on hot topics, quickly escalating into a complex and intense dispute. It shows that this policy adjustment is not only based on strategic considerations but also a direct reflection of internal political maneuvering in the United States, leading to a rapid deterioration of the problem in an irrational way. This characteristic also demonstrates that the U.S.'s strategy is undergoing new changes. From the logic of internal U.S. actions, the United States itself needs to be vigilant about the bloodthirsty nature of opportunistic politicians. From the perspective of U.S.-China relations, the U.S. should realize that accumulating bargaining chips against China in this way is meaningless. The United States should work towards pushing for solutions with China, rather than creating additional uncertainties and disrupting the foundation for negotiations. This article is excerpted from the "Yuyuantan T" WeChat public account, GMTEight Editor: Zhang Jinliang.