Order Code RL31146
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Foreign Students in the United States:
Policies and Legislation
Updated March 28, 2002
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Foreign Students in the United States:
Policies and Legislation
Summary
The September 11 terrorist attacks by foreign nationals — reportedly including
several terrorists on student visas — are prompting a series of questions about foreign
students in the United States and the extent to which the U.S. government monitors
their admission and presence in this country. The arrival of letters on March 11, 2002,
in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) notified a flight school that
two September 11 terrorists had been approved for foreign student visas further
heightened concerns. Legislation that would address these concerns is now pending.
Potential foreign students, as well as all aliens, must satisfy Department of State
(DOS) consular officers abroad and INS inspectors upon entry to the United States
that they are not ineligible for visas under the so-called “grounds for inadmissibility”
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which include security and terrorist concerns.
The consular officers who process visa applicants are required to check DOS’s
automated lookout systems before issuing any visa. In FY1999, DOS identified 291
potential nonimmigrants (i.e., foreign nationals coming temporarily) as inadmissible
because of security or terrorist concerns.
The three visa categories used by foreign students are: F visas for academic
study; M visas for vocational study; and J visas for cultural exchange. The numbers
admitted have more than doubled over the past 2 decades. In FY1979, the total
number of foreign student and cultural exchange visas issued by DOS consular
officers was 224,030 and comprised 4% of all nonimmigrant visas issued. In FY1999,
DOS issued 537,755 visas to F, J, and M nonimmigrants, making up 9% of all
nonimmigrant visas issued.
In 1996, Congress enacted a provision that established a foreign student
monitoring system and required educational institutions to participate as a condition
of continued approval to enroll foreign students. The USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56)
includes provisions to expand the foreign student tracking system and authorizes
appropriations for the foreign student monitoring system, which had been funded
through $95 fees paid by the foreign students. The House-passed Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (H.R. 3525) and a comparable Senate bill (S.
1749) both would increase the monitoring of foreign students, and other bills have
been introduced.
Some are advocating closer scrutiny of foreign students entering and studying
in the United States. Supporters of this view assert that foreign students are the
category of aliens most likely to include spies and terrorists, and they argue that
increased monitoring of aliens on F, J, and M visas is essential to national security.
Some are suggesting that there should be a moratorium on issuance of new foreign
student visas until these questions are addressed. Others warn that this emphasis on
foreign students as a main security and terrorist risk is misplaced and that such
scrutiny may lead to excessive government intrusion without reducing the risk of
terrorism. Many also question the feasibility of systems for nonimmigrant tracking,
citing the work that remains on the reporting system for foreign students.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Foreign Student Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
F Visa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
J Visa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
M Visa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Screening Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Trends and Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Monitoring Foreign Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Duration of Status Visa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Security Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Strengthening Background Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Accelerating SEVIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Expanding Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Increasing Enforcement of Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Ensuring That INS Implements Laws and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act . . . . . . . . . . . 11
USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Figures
Figure 1. Visas for F, J, and M Nonimmigrants Issued in FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2. Region of Origin for F, J and M Nonimmigrants, FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 3. Academic Level of Foreign Students, 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4. Major Fields of Study of Foreign Students, 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

Foreign Students in the United States:
Policies and Legislation
Background
Since the Immigration Act of 1924, the United States has expressly permitted
foreign students to study in U.S. institutions. Most foreign students are at least 18
years old and are enrolled in higher education programs. If they attend public high
schools in the United States, the law requires that foreign students pay tuition, with
some exceptions. It also bars the admission of foreign students for the purpose of
attending public elementary schools. While foreign students are also barred from
receiving federal financial assistance, many are successful at gaining financial
assistance from the colleges and universities they attend.
Foreign students enrich the cultural diversity of the educational experience for
U.S. residents as well as enhancing the reputation of U.S. universities as world-class
institutions. While their presence is generally viewed as a positive one, concerns have
arisen in recent years that have caused Congress to take a new look at the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions that govern their admission. The
recent terrorist attacks conducted by foreign nationals — including several terrorists
on foreign student visas — are raising a series of questions about foreign students in
the United States, their rights and privileges, and the extent to which the U.S.
government monitors their presence in this country.
Foreign Student Visas
There are three main avenues for students from other countries to temporarily
come to the United States to study, and each involves admission as a nonimmigrant.
A nonimmigrant is an alien legally in the United States for a specific purpose and a
temporary period of time. There are more than 20 major nonimmigrant visa
categories, and they are commonly referred to by the letter that denotes their
subsection in the law.1 The three visa categories used by foreign students are: F visas
for academic study; M visas for vocational study; and J visas for cultural exchange.
F Visa. The most common visa for foreign students is the F-1 visa. It is
tailored for international students pursuing a full-time academic education. The F-1
student is generally admitted as a nonimmigrant for the period of the program of
study, referred to as the duration of status.2 The law requires that the student have
1 §101(a)(15) of INA.
2 Those entering as secondary school students are only admitted for 1 year.

---

CRS-2
a foreign residence that they have no intention of abandoning. Their spouses and
children may accompany them as F-2 nonimmigrants.
To obtain an F-1 visa, prospective students also must demonstrate that they have
met several criteria:
! They must be accepted by a school that has been approved by the Attorney
General.3
! They must document that they have sufficient funds or have made other
arrangements to cover all of their expenses for 12 months.4
! They must demonstrate that they have the scholastic preparation to pursue a
full course of study for the academic level to which they wish to be admitted
and must have a sufficient knowledge of English (or have made arrangements
with the school for special tutoring, or study in a language the student knows).
Once in the United States on an F visa, nonimmigrants are generally barred from
off-campus employment. Exceptions are for extreme financial hardship that arises
after arriving in the United States and for employment with an international
organization.5 F students are permitted to engage in on-campus employment if the
employment does not displace a U.S. resident. In addition, F students are permitted
to work in practical training that relates to their degree program, such as paid research
and teaching assistantships. An alien on an F visa who otherwise accepts employment
violates the terms of the visa and is subject to removal and other penalties discussed
later in this report.
J Visa. Foreign students are just one of many types of aliens who may enter the
United States on a J-1 visa, sometimes referred to as the Fulbright program. Others
admitted under this cultural exchange visa include scholars, professors, teachers,
trainees, specialists, foreign medical graduates, international visitors, au pairs, and
participants in student travel/work programs. Those seeking admission as a J-1
nonimmigrant must be participating in a cultural exchange program that the U.S.
Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (BECA)6 has
designated. They are admitted for the period of the program.7 Their spouses and
children may accompany them as J-2 nonimmigrants.
3 Schools that wish to receive foreign students must file a petition with the INS district
director. The particular supporting documents for the petition depend on the nature of the
petitioning school. Once a school is approved it can continue to receive foreign students
without any time limits; however, the approval may be withdrawn if the INS discovers that
the school has failed to comply with the law or regulations.
4 F, J, and M students are barred from federal financial aid. See §484(a)(5) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
5 The Immigration Act of 1990 created an F-1 pilot employment program, but authority for
this pilot off-campus work program expired September 30, 1996.
6 This bureau was formerly the United States Information Agency (USIA).
7 As with secondary students entering with F-1 visas, J-1 students in secondary school
programs are only admitted for up to 1 year.

---

CRS-3
Responsible officers of the sponsoring organizations must be U.S. citizens. The
programs that wish to sponsor J visas also must satisfy the following criteria:
! be a bona fide educational and cultural exchange program, with clearly defined
purposes and objectives;
! have at least five exchange visitors annually;
! provide cross-cultural activities;
! be reciprocal whenever possible;
! if not sponsored by the government, have a minimum stay for participants of
at least 3 weeks (except for those designated as “short term” scholars);
! provide information verifying the sponsoring program’s legal status,
citizenship, accreditation, and licensing;
! show that they are financially stable, able to meet the financial commitments
of the program, and have funds for the J nonimmigrant’s return airfare;
! ensure that the program is not to fill staff vacancies or adversely affect U.S.
workers;
! assure that participants have accident insurance, including insurance for
medical evacuations; and,
! provide full details of the selection process, placement, evaluation, and
supervision of participants.8
As with F visas, those seeking J visas must have a foreign residence they have
no intention of abandoning. However, many of those with J visas have an additional
foreign residency requirement in that they must return abroad for 2 years if they wish
to adjust to any other nonimmigrant status or to become a legal permanent resident
in the United States. This foreign residency requirement applies to J nonimmigrants
who meet any of the three following conditions:
! An agency of the U.S. government or their home government financed in
whole or in part — directly or indirectly — their participation in the program.
! The BECA designates their home country as clearly requiring the services or
skills in the field they are pursuing.
! They are coming to the United States to receive graduate medical training.

There are very few exceptions to the foreign residency requirement for J visa holders
who meet any of these criteria — even J visa holders who marry U.S. citizens are
required to return home for 2 years.9 Although many aliens with J-1 visas are
permitted to work in the programs in which they are participating, the work
restrictions for foreign students with a J-1 visa are similar to those for the F visa.
M Visa. Foreign students who wish to pursue a non-academic, e.g., vocational,
course of study apply for an M visa. This visa is the least used of the foreign student
visas. Much as the F students, those seeking an M visa must show that they have
8 22 CFR §514.
9 INA §212(e) provides only a few exceptions, including cases of exceptional hardship to the
spouse or child of a J-1 if that spouse or child is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien and
in cases of persecution on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion if the alien returned
home, and if it is in the national interest not to require the return.

---

CRS-4
been accepted by an approved school, have the financial means to pay for tuition and
expenses and otherwise support themselves for 1 year, and have the scholastic
preparation and language skills appropriate for the course of study. Their spouses and
children may accompany them as M-2 nonimmigrants. As with all of the student visa
categories, they must have a foreign residence they have no intention of abandoning.
Those with M visas are also barred from working in the United States, including in
on-campus employment.
Screening Procedures. Potential foreign students, as well as all aliens, must
satisfy Department of State’s (DOS) consular officers abroad and INS inspectors
upon entry to the United States that they are not ineligible for visas under the so-
called “grounds for inadmissibility” of the INA. These criteria include security and
terrorist concerns as well as health-related grounds and criminal history.10 Some
provisions may be waived/overcome in the cases of nonimmigrants, refugees, and
certain other aliens. To become a nonimmigrant, aliens also must demonstrate that
they are not “intending immigrants,” i.e., wanting to reside permanently in the United
States.
In terms of criminal and security and terrorist concerns, the consular officers who
process visa applicants are required to check DOS’s automated lookout systems
before issuing any visa; thus, the names of foreign students are run through various
databases, as are those of all other nonimmigrants seeking a visa to enter the United
States.11 In FY1999 (the most recent year for which complete data are available),
DOS identified 291 potential nonimmigrants as inadmissible because of security or
terrorist concerns. Of that number, 101 aliens were specifically identified for terrorist
activities, but 35 of them were able to overcome the ineligibility.12 In comparison,
DOS identified almost 5,000 aliens as inadmissible on criminal grounds in FY1999,
and about 1,200 overcame the ineligibility.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 originally included a requirement
that all visa applicants be fingerprinted, with waivers for A visa (diplomats) and G visa
(representatives of international organizations) nonimmigrants.13 The statutory
requirement for fingerprinting nonimmigrants was repealed in 1986, but the Attorney
10 §212(a) of INA lists the grounds for inadmissibility categories as: health-related grounds;
criminal history; security and terrorist concerns; public charge (e.g., indigence); seeking to
work without proper labor certification; illegal entrants and immigration law violations;
lacking proper documents; ineligible for citizenship; and, aliens previously removed. For
more information, see CRS Report RS20916, Immigration and Naturalization
Fundamentals, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
11 For background and a fuller discussion of the lookout system and related border security
issues, see CRS Report RL31019, Terrorism: Automated Lookout Systems and Border
Security Options and Issues, by William J. Krouse and Rafael F. Perl.
12 The inadmissibility of members and supporters of foreign terrorist organizations can be
waived under §212(d), which provides the Attorney General with that authority, if he deems
that it is in the national interest to do so. Such waivers are usually granted at the request of
the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Attorney General.
13 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, P.L. 82-414.

---

CRS-5
General still has the discretionary authority to require fingerprints of aliens applying
for nonimmigrant visas “for the purposes of identification and investigation.”14
Trends and Characteristics
Foreign students have been coming to study in the United States for almost a
century, and the numbers admitted have more than doubled over the past 2 decades.
In FY1979, the total number of F and J visas issued by DOS consular officers was
224,030 and comprised 4% of all nonimmigrant visas issued.15 In FY1989, the
number of F, M, and J visas had grown to 373,932, constituting 5% of all
nonimmigrant visas DOS issued. By FY1999, the most recent year data are available,
DOS had issued 537,755 visas to F, J, and M nonimmigrants, and these categories
made up 9% of all nonimmigrant visas issued. As Figure 1 illustrates, F academic
students lead with 285,435 visas issued in FY1999. The J cultural exchange visitors
followed with 245,743, and the M students trailed with only 6,577 visas issued in
FY1999.
Figure 1. Visas for F, J, and M Nonimmigrants Issued in FY1999
Thousands
350
Students & Exchange Visitors
Family
300
285.435
245.743
250
200
150
100
50
6.577
0
Academic (F)
Cultural Exchange (J)
Vocational (M)
Source: CRS presentation of U.S. Department of State Bureau of Consular
Affairs data.
The majority of the 537,755 visas issued to F, J and M nonimmigrants in 1999
were issued to nationals of Asian countries — 58.7% as Figure 2 depicts. Just over
a quarter (27.9%) came from European countries. African and Latin American
countries had comparable portions, 5.8% and 6.8% respectively. Canada and Oceania
combined are less than 1%.
14 Immigration and Nationality Amendments of 1986, P.L. 99-653.
15 The M vias was not established until 1981 by P.L. 97-116.

---

CRS-6
Figure 2. Region of Origin for F, J and M Nonimmigrants, FY1999
Asia
58.7%
Africa
5.8%
Latin America
6.8%
Canada/Oceania
0.8%
Europe
27.9%
Source: CRS presentation of U.S. Department of State Bureau of Consular
Affairs data on 537,755 nonimmigrants issued visas.
Figure 3. Academic Level of Foreign Students, 1999-2000
Bachelor
34.6%
Associate
11.6%
Other (including
practical training)
11.4%
Graduate
42.3%
Source: CRS presentation of International Educational Exchange Open Doors
data on 514,723 students.

---

CRS-7
According to International Educational Exchange’s Open Doors survey of U.S.
colleges and universities, the largest group (42.3%) of foreign students enrolled in
1999-2000 were in graduate degree programs. As Figure 3 presents, about one-third
(34.6%) were enrolled in bachelor degree programs. Comparable proportions —
11.6% and 11.4% — were respectively enrolled in associate degree programs or other
programs (including practical training programs).16
Figure 4. Major Fields of Study of Foreign Students, 1999-2000
Undeclared
6.4%
Business
20.1%
Other
17.5%
Intensive
English
Engineering
4.1%
14.9%
Social Sciences
8.1%
Fine & Applied Arts
Physical &
Life Sciences
6.3%
Health
Math &
7.3%
4.2% Computer Sciences
11.1%
Source: CRS presentation of International Educational Exchange Open Doors
data on 514,723 students.
The fields of study undertaken by foreign students appear to be quite diverse, as
Figure 4 shows. The largest category is business, which is the field of study of only
20.1% of foreign students. Engineering along with mathematics and computer
sciences follow with 14.9% and 11.1%, respectively.
Monitoring Foreign Students
Duration of Status Visa. While most nonimmigrants are admitted with visas
that have a precise expiration date, foreign postsecondary students are admitted for
“duration of status,” which lasts as long as they are full-time students or participating
according to the terms of their exchange programs. It is difficult for INS to know
when foreign students have overstayed because the duration of status lacks a fixed
termination date and schools, although required to report students who stop
16 Trade schools, such as flight schools, generally do not participate in this privately-
conducted annual survey.

---

CRS-8
attending, have not been required until recently to systematically report data on the
progress of the foreign student (see below).
For many years previously, a foreign student was admitted for only 1 year and
had to renew the visa with INS each subsequent year for as long as the student was
enrolled. The INS then issued regulations in 1978 and 1981 allowing for visa validity
periods longer than 1 year. In regulations in 1983 and 1987 that were aimed at
“eliminating burdensome paperwork,” INS reduced the reporting requirements and
established the “duration of status” policy that remains in practice currently.17
Security Concerns. In 1995, INS began a review of the admission and
monitoring of foreign students. Impetus for the review came in part from former
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh who expressed concern that
possible terrorists could use foreign student status as a way of entering the United
States.18 Those concerned with the security risks of the foreign student visa often
pointed out that one of the men convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist
bombing had entered the United States on a student visa, dropped out of school, and
yet stayed in the country.
Former INS Commissioner Doris Meisner emphasized plans to automate a
foreign student reporting and monitoring system when she testified before the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration in 1995.19 INS had not
been maintaining the addresses of foreign students, and reviews of the reporting
system questioned the accuracy of the data.20 The National Commission on
Terrorism, a bi-partisan commission established by Congress, cited the vulnerability
of the foreign student visa in its June 2000 report, which recommended, among other
things, that the INS automated system to monitor foreign students be enhanced and
expanded.21 Reports of evidence that several of the terrorists involved in the
17 Federal Register, v. 44, November 22, 1978, p. 54620; Federal Register, v. 46, January
23, 1981, p. 7267; Federal Register, v. 48, April 5, 1983, p. 14575; and, Federal Register,
v. 52, April 22, 1987, p. 13223.
18 For a discussion of Mr. Freeh’s memorandum, see: Interpreter Releases, v. 71, December
19, 1994.
19 U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Examining Nonimmigrant
Immigration Issues. Senate Hearing 104-814, Serial No. J-104-48. Washington, September
28, 1995.
20 There have long been record keeping requirements for schools with foreign students,
covering such information as name, address, country of citizenship, enrollment status, and
field of study. The regulations were revised in 1983 so that schools no longer had to report
changes in status directly to INS. Since 1983, schools have had 3 business days to respond
to requests for information about a foreign student. INS could bar schools that did not meet
record keeping requirements from enrolling foreign students. (8 CFR §214.3(g)(1))
21 National Commission on Terrorism. Countering the Changing Threat of International
Terrorism, June 5, 2000. For a discussion of this report, see CRS Report RS20598,
National Commission on Terrorism Report: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Raphael F. Perl.

---

CRS-9
September 11 attacks entered the United States on foreign student visas has led many
others to echo the earlier calls for a better monitoring system.
Reporting Requirements. When Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, it added statutory
language mandating that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretaries
of State and Education, develop by January 1, 1998, a program to collect data on F,
J, and M nonimmigrants from at least five countries. By 2003, the data collection
must include all countries. This provision, §641 of IIRIRA, requires that INS collect
the following data elements:
! identity and address of the alien;
! nonimmigrant classification of the alien, date of visa issuance, and any change
or extension;
! academic status of the alien (e.g., full-time enrollment); and
! any disciplinary action taken by the school, college, or university as a result of
a crime committed by the alien.
INS is to collect the information electronically “where practical.” According to §641
of IIRIRA, educational institutions are required to report this information to INS as
a condition of continued approval to enroll foreign students.22
In July 2001, INS announced that the second phase of its foreign student
monitoring system, referred to as the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System (SEVIS), will begin at 12 Boston area institutions in November 2001. From
June 1997 to October 1999, INS conducted the first pilot program known as the
Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (CIPRIS) at
21 educational institutions in Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina,
at Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport, and at the INS Texas Service Center. The CIPRIS
institutions are expected to be on the SEVIS system by the end of 2001, and INS
plans to expand SEVIS to San Diego, Seattle, Chicago, Denver, and Dallas by the end
of 2002. SEVIS is funded by fees that the foreign students pay, and INS estimates
it will expend $32.3 million to institute the system nationwide. INS expects to have
the automated monitoring system operating nationwide by the 2003 deadline.
Many educational institutions across the country expressed reservations about
these new reporting requirements. They stated that the data collection system would
be burdensome and unnecessarily consume staff time. Many argued they would be
turned into an enforcement agent of INS and expressed concern that the
confidentiality of their student records would be compromised.23 As a result of the
September 11 attack and subsequent reports that several of the terrorists had foreign
22 The law also required, as of April 1, 1997, that the educational institutions collect a fee (not
to exceed $100) from each of the foreign students to remit to the Attorney General to carry
out the program. The 106th Congress amended this provision so that INS rather then the
institutions would collect the fee (P.L. 106-396).
23 Interpreter Releases, v. 74, March 17, 1997.

---

CRS-10
student visas, those views appear to have changed, and educational institutions have
stopped their calls to repeal §641 of IIRIRA.24
Current Issues
Some are advocating a closer monitoring of aliens in the United States,
particularly those present on foreign student visas. Supporters of this view assert that
foreign students are the most likely class of nonimmigrants to include spies and
terrorists, and they argue that increased monitoring of aliens on F, J, and M visas is
essential to national security. Some are suggesting that there should be a moratorium
on issuance of new foreign student visas until these questions are addressed. Others
warn that this emphasis on foreign students as a major security and terrorist risk is
misplaced and that such scrutiny may lead to excessive government intrusion without
reducing the risk of terrorism. Many also question the feasibility of systems for
nonimmigrant tracking, citing the work that remains on the reporting system for
foreign students. A variety of options are being raised, and several of the major issues
sparked by these options are discussed below.
Strengthening Background Checks. Some are suggesting that the policy
of fingerprinting foreign students as a condition of their admission be reinstated.
Others are exploring whether more advanced biometric identifiers should be used to
screen foreign students to ascertain that they are indeed who they say they are and
that they are not inadmissible to the United States. Proponents of enhanced screening
assert that once these fingerprints or biometric identifiers are stored in an automated
database, it can be continuously updated as new intelligence and law enforcement data
become available to identify potentially deportable aliens already in the United States
as well as exclude inadmissible aliens from entering. Those who oppose strengthening
background checks for foreign students focus less on the principle and more on the
feasibility. Opponents refer to the assessments made 20 years ago that the
fingerprinting requirements were burdensome and time consuming. They speculate
that the costs of putting in place a modern system with biometric identifiers would be
significant. They also cite the diplomatic complications that could arise under
reciprocity when U.S. citizens seek to travel to other nations.
Accelerating SEVIS. Many maintain that waiting until 2003 to have SEVIS
fully operational nationwide is not acceptable given the current security threats. They
argue that INS must accelerate the implementation of the foreign student monitoring
system, and some are advocating special funding for INS to do so. While opposition
to SEVIS has all but disappeared, some caution that its usefulness in detecting
terrorist or security risks is quite limited and that too much emphasis on its
implementation may pull needed INS resources from other important priorities. As
discussed below in the context of the USA Patriot Act, the former perspective has
prevailed.
24 For the new position of the NAFSA: Association of International Educators, see: Thinking
Clearly about Foreign Students and Terrorism, by Marlene M. Johnson, undated, at
[http://www.nafsa.org] under the heading “public policy” and subheading “NAFSA on the
issues.”

---

CRS-11
Expanding Reporting Requirements. Some advocate more frequent
reporting requirements so that foreign students who drop out or do not show up
would be tagged in the monitoring system more quickly. Currently, §641 does not
specify how often educational institutions must report the status of foreign students,
and some fear that, as a result, the timeliness of the data is problematic. Adding
additional data elements to help identify student transfers or changes in major fields
of study that may fit a risk profile, some maintain, should also be considered. Others
express concern that expanding the reporting requirements would slow the
implementation and may also result in a system so complex that it is less feasible. Still
others assert that the reporting responsibility should shift from the educational
institution back to the foreign student, making them once again report to INS
annually. Opponents of this option argue that adding almost one-half million foreign
student visa renewals to the workload of INS, an agency that already has millions of
petitions pending, would be impractical and may make it even more cumbersome to
identify security risks.
Increasing Enforcement of Schools. It appears that some schools,
notably flight schools as reported by the media, have been admitting foreign nationals
who lack proper visas to study in the United States, i.e., an F, J, or M visa. Those
who argue further legislation is not necessary point out that such practices violate
immigration law, placing the foreign national at risk of deportation as well as placing
the educational institution at risk of losing federal approval to enroll foreign students.
Supporters of increased enforcement assert that closer monitoring and stricter
penalties for schools that violate the law are needed to ensure that lax practices are
stopped. Most proponents of increased enforcement would target vocational schools,
especially flight schools, and intensive English language schools because of migration
patterns reportedly followed by the foreign nationals involved in the September 11
attack.
Ensuring That INS Implements Laws and Policies. The arrival of
letters on March 11, 2002, in which the INS notified a flight school that two of the
September 11 terrorists — Mohammad Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi — had been
approved for foreign student visas called into question INS’s ability to carry out its
laws and policies. As it turns out, INS had actually approved the student visas for
Atta and Al-Shehhi on July 17, 2001 and August 9, 2001, respectively. While neither
INS nor DOS reportedly had any information at that time that would have indicated
that the two men might be terrorists, it does appear that Atta might have been
inadmissible on grounds of violating other provisions in INA when he re-entered the
United States in January 2001.25
Legislation
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. On December
19, 2001, the House passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform
25 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary. The INS’s March
2002 Notification of the Approval of Pilot Training Status for Terrorist Hijackers
Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi. Washington, March 19, 2002. For hearing
testimony, see [http://www.house.gov/judiciary/immigration.htm].

---

CRS-12
Act of 2001 (H.R. 3525), sponsored by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner,
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and it has been sent to the Senate. This
bill is nearly identical to a bipartisan Senate bill (S. 1749, also titled the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001), that incorporates key
provisions from two other border security and visa entry reform bills — S. 1627
(Feinstein-Kyl) and S. 1618 (Kennedy-Brownback). Senate floor action on the bill
may occur soon.
Among the many provisions of H.R. 3525/S. 1749 aimed at visa issuance reform
are provisions that would close perceived loopholes in the admission of foreign
students. Specifically, Title V of H.R. 3525/S. 1749 would establish electronic means
to monitor and verify:
! documentation of acceptance of student by approved school or designated
exchange program;
! transmittal of documentation to DOS;
! issuance of nonimmigrant visa to student or exchange visitor;
! admission of student or exchange visitor to the U.S.;
! notice to school or exchange program that nonimmigrant has been admitted to
the U.S.;
! registration and enrollment of nonimmigrant in school or exchange program;
and
! any other relevant act by the nonimmigrant, including changing schools or
programs.
The bill also would create (within 120 days of enactment) a transitional program until
the monitoring system is fully implemented that would restrict issuance of a F, J, or
M visa unless DOS has received electronic evidence from approved institution that
alien is accepted and the consular officer has adequately reviewed the applicant’s
record. It additionally would require DOS to transmit to INS that the alien has been
issued a visa and, in turn, INS to notify the approved institution that the alien has been
admitted to the U.S. and, within 30 days of registration deadline, the institution to
notify INS if the alien fails to enroll.
USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56). The USA Patriot Act, which passed the
House on October 24 and the Senate on October 25, 2001, includes provisions to
expand the foreign student tracking system and authorizes $36 million in
appropriations for the foreign student monitoring system, which had been funded
through $95 fees paid by the foreign students. Congress appropriated funds in
FY2002 to aimed at fully implementing SEVIS.
Other Legislation. Many of the bills aimed at thwarting terrorism contain
provisions regarding foreign students. They range in scope from tightening up the
monitoring of foreign students under current law to establishing a temporary
moratorium on the admission of foreign students until national security concerns are
addressed. The following bills are not an exhaustive list, but cover those that have
foreign students as the primary focus:
! H.R. 3002, introduced by Representative John Sweeney, would require the
establishment of the foreign student monitoring system within 180 days of

---

CRS-13
enactment. H.R. 3002 stipulates that if INS and DOS cannot meet this
deadline, priority should be given to tracking students from countries listed as
aiding terrorism or those countries the Attorney General deems as a national
security risk.
! Representative Betty McCullom has introduced H.R. 3033, which would
authorize appropriations (such sums as may be necessary) for the foreign
student monitoring system.
! S. 1518/H.R. 3077 would expand the foreign student tracking system to
include information on immediate family members who are accompanying the
student. These companion bills introduced by Senator Kit Bond and
Representative Mike Castle would require the school to inform the Attorney
General within 30 days if a student fails to attend the institution and would
instruct the Attorney General to add an alien’s failure to attend school to the
National Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification Index.
! Representative Peter Deutsch has introduced legislation (H.R. 2988) that
would regulate flight schools. H.R. 2988 would, among other things, require
flight schools to obtain a set of fingerprints and proof of identity for all
students and to verify that all noncitizens who are enrolled are lawfully
admitted as nonimmigrants. The bill would establish civil penalties for
violations, with the amounts escalating from $3,000 to $7,000 per violation.
! Senator Olympia Snowe has introduced S. 1455 which would amend federal
aviation law to prohibit a person from providing training in the operation of
any jet-propelled aircraft to any alien within the United States unless the
Attorney General certifies to such person that a background investigation of
such alien has been completed.
! Representative Michael Bilirakis has introduced H.R. 3181, which would
establish a temporary moratorium on the issuance of visas for nonimmigrant
foreign students and other exchange program participants and would reform
procedures for issuance of nonimmigrant student visas and for admission at
ports of entry to the United States.
! Representative Marge Roukema has introduced H.R. 322, which would
establish a temporary moratorium on the issuance of visas for nonimmigrant
foreign students and other exchange program participants and would expand
reporting requirements for universities under the foreign student monitoring
program.
! H.R. 3515, introduced by Representative George Miller, would add provisions
aimed at ensuring that aliens studying in the United States comply with the
terms and conditions applicable to such study.

---