BUILDING A "NATIONAL CIVILIZATION" AT HOME AND ABROAD:

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND CHANGING

U.S. POLITICAL ECONOMY

By

Fanta Aw

Submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts of Sciences

of American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Philosophy

In

Sociology

Chair:

Esther Ngan-ling Chow

Bette Dickerson r/2---~#-~ Russell Stone

Dean of the College V6-~ 3J \1D\ \ Date

2011 American University Washington D.C. 20016 AMERICAN UNIVERSrTV llMARY 912. s UMI Number: 3484793

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI _.--Dissertation Publishing....___

UMI 3484793 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Pro uesr

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ©COPYRIGHT

by

FantaAw

2011

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING A "NATIONAL CIVILIZATION" AT HOME AND ABROAD:

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND CHANGING

U.S. POLITICAL ECONOMY

BY

FantaAw

ABSTRACT

The research study examines the relationship of international students to changing

U.S. political economy. The research attempts to move international students from the periphery to the center of understanding the changing U.S. political economy in the twenty-first century. I argue that international students play an important role in building a U.S. "national civilization" at home and abroad.

Using a historical case study method, I demonstrate how international students contribute to U.S. national and international interests and explore the ways in which international students as social, cultural, economic and political capitals advance the goals of the state. International student exchange operates on the tacit principle of

Western superiority and the transformation of developing nations according to models and policies of advanced nations, most particularly that of the U.S.

International student mobility has enabled the United States to extend its hegemonic power overseas beyond military might and economic aid. International

11 students become actors in advancing U.S. "national civilization." Given their potential as agents of change in their home countries, international students further U.S. foreign policy objectives by implementing U.S. economic models, promoting U.S.-style

"democracy" and culture.

With the rise of the neoliberal state, the promotion of free-market enterprise, and commodification of higher education, international students have become important human and economic capital. The United States economy benefits greatly from the supply of international students in the science and engineering fields. These students are the intellectual "braceros" advancing the U.S. knowledge economy and as skilled migrants fuel innovation and entrepreneurship.

The state plays an important role in facilitating the migration of international students. However, in a post 9/11 world order, the state has exhibited a schizophrenic approach to the international student program by constructing international students as friends and foes.

Given the contributions of international students and the conflicting position of the state, the United States must clearly define its relationship to international students and must re-examine its current immigration policies if it is to maintain its dominance in cross-border education, given increased competition for students by other major receiving nation states.

111 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have been possible without the support of many scholars,

colleagues, international education advocates, and friends. Each encouraged me to push the limit of my intellect and have inspired me to "dare to ask" difficult questions and seek

answers.

I am indebted to Dr. Esther Ngan-ling Chow for her mentorship, guidance, and

support. As my dissertation chair, her faith and unwavering support became the fuel I

needed to persevere. She has generously given of her time and could always be counted

on to walk the journey with me. She is a remarkable scholar who never ceases to inspire

me!

I am grateful to Dr. Bette Dickerson for serving on my committee and for her

friendship and support. She has provided important moral support over the years.

Thanks to Dr. Russell Stone, for serving on my committee, for his encouragement

and for believing in my work.

I am indebted to a number of individuals and organizations who had a direct and

indirect hand in shaping this study. My best friend, Dr. Christine Chin, was instrumental

in helping me refine my thinking about the framework. I thank her for her patience and

for listening to my incessant babbles about my study.

To Dr. Shireen Lewis and her organization, SISTERMENTORS, for providing

the needed structure and guidance I needed to complete this study. I have learned from

lV Shireen the importance of goal setting and accountability. I could not have done this without Shireen and her untiring support and SISTERMENTORS.

To Dr. Gary Wright, my former supervisor. Gary is the person responsible for my being in the field of international education. I learned to love the work and the field of international education by watching him in action.

To NAFSA: Association oflnternational Educators, and to the thousands of

international students I have had the pleasure of advising and interacting with at

American University. You became the inspiration for this work.

Above all else, I am forever grateful to my family, particularly my mother,

Aminata Sylla Aw, my father Djibril Aw, and my siblings, Mountaga and Ousmane, who

love me unconditionally and taught me to believe in myself. I am very fortunate to be

born in such an amazing family. My parents have taught us to value education and to

always aim for excellence. Their love, commitment, and sacrifices to ensure that we, their

children, had the best in life are simply remarkable. I am confident that the love of

learning will be passed on to the next generation, my twin nephews Djibril and Rodrigo

Amaro Aw.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xiii

Chapter

1. RESEARCH PROBLEM ...... 1

Introduction ...... 1

Study Background ...... 3

Statement of Problem and Subproblems ...... 8

Significance of Research ...... 11

Delimitation of Study ...... 13

Organization of the Dissertation ...... 14

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 17

Major Terminology ...... 17

Review of the Literature ...... 20

International Education Exchange and Student Mobility to the United States ...... 21

Trends in International Enrollment...... 23

International Graduate Science and Engineering Enrollments ...... 25

VI U.S. Dependence on International Student Enrollments ...... 26

Sociological Theories and Conceptual Frameworks ...... 27

Human Capital Theory ...... 31

Historical-Structural Perspectives ...... 37

Global Integration Theory ...... 38

Gramsci's "National Civilization" Theory and the Modernization Paradigm ...... 44

3. METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 51

Research Design ...... 51

Purpose of Study ...... 53

Sources of Data and Method ...... 55

Challenges and Limitations of the Study ...... 61

4. INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: A TOOL FOR ADVANCING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY ...... 64

U.S. Modernization Paradigm ...... 66

International Education as a Modernization Paradigm ...... 68

The Fulbright Program-A Hallmark of U.S. Foreign Policy during the Cold War ...... 71

The Fulbright Program ...... 74

Immigration Regulations and the Fulbright Program ...... 78

Historical Flow of Foreign Fulbright Students to the U.S.-1949- 2007 ...... 81

Student Flow from Other Nations under State- and Privately-Sponsored Initiatives ...... 88

OPEC Nations and the Urge to Modernize American-Style ...... 92 vu The Case of Iran ...... 94

Educating World Leaders-Strategies for Extending U.S. "National Civilization" ...... 97

Conclusion ...... 100

5. U.S. "ACADEMIC CAPITALISM" AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS ...... 102

Rise of the Knowledge-Based Economy in the United States ...... 103

Universities as Engines of the Knowledge Economy ...... 105

The Commercialization of Higher Education ...... 107

International Students as Sources of Revenue and Human Capital...... 110

International Students: Human Capital for Academic Research and Teaching ...... 116

The Importance of International Students to Research and Teaching Functions of Universities ...... 126

Internalization of Science and Engineering Disciplines ...... 130

Internationalization of Doctoral Programs in Science and Engineering Fields ...... 136

Conclusion ...... 141

6. INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AS SKILLED MIGRANTS IN THE U.S. KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY ...... 144

Highly-Skilled Migrants in the U.S. Labor Force ...... 146

International Students: Studies Become a Precursor to Highly-Skilled Migration ...... 148

Intellectual Property Contributions of Immigrants to the United States ...... 159

International Students Become Immigrant Entrepreneurs ...... 160

vm Immigration Policies as Feeder System for Migration of the Highly- Skilled ...... 164

H-lB Visa-Feeder for the Migration oflnternational Students ...... 164

Permanent Residence Based on Employment: Gateway to Permanent Migration ...... 176

Conclusion ...... 179

7. INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS: FRIENDS ORFOES?...... 182

Immigration Landscape and International Students ...... 183

Landscape Prior to 9/11 ...... 187

The IIRIRA of 1996 ...... 192

CIPRIS ...... 193

Post 9/11 Policy Discourses and International Students ...... 197

The USA PATRIOT Act of2001 ...... 201

Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) ...... 202

National Security Entry-Exit Registration (NSEER) ...... 203

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of2002 ...... 206

Antiterrorism Screening Process: Visa Mantis and Visa Condor ...... 207

US-VISIT Program ...... 210

Homeland Security Act of 2002 ...... 210

Politics of Fear and Control ...... 211

9/11 and International Student Enrollment...... 213

Global Competition for International Students ...... 219

Conclusion ...... 222

lX 8. CONCLUSION ...... 225

APPENDICES ...... 237

REFERENCES ...... 254

x LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. International Fulbright Students by Regions from 1949-2007 ...... 82

Table 4.2. Leading Countries of Origin of International Students and Percentage Share, 1960-2010 ...... 90

Table 4.3. International Student Enrollment from Select OPEC Countries, 1955-2005 ...... 93

Table 5.1. Primary Source of Funding for International Students, 1960-2008 ...... 111

Table 5.2. International Students Contribution from Tuition/Fees and Living Expenses (2008-09), Top 10 States ...... 113

Table 5.3. Source of Academic R&D Funding for 1980-2007 (in Millions) ...... 117

Table 5.4. Percentage of Graduates and First Professional Degree Students who Received Support by Source of Aid, Type of Degree and Student Characteristics - 2003 ...... 122

Table 5.5a. Graduate Student Enrollment in Sciences and Engineering Programs (MA and PhD) by Percentages ...... 132

Table 5.5b. Percentage Change in Enrollment of International and Domestic Graduate Students (MA and PhD) in S&E, Ten-Year Trends ...... 135

Table 5.6a. International Student Enrollment in PhD Programs in S&E by Percentage ...... 13 7

Table 5.6b. Percentage Change in Enrollment oflnternational and Domestic PhD Students, Ten-Year Trends ...... 139

Table 6.1. Number of International Doctoral Recipients by Field, Select Years, 1980-2005 ...... 150

Table 6.2. Percentage of International Doctoral Recipients with Employment in the U.S., 1980-2005 ...... 152

Table 6.3. Percentage of Foreign PhD Recipients in S&E with Employment Offers ...... 154

XI Table 6.4. Percentage of Temporary Residents Receiving S&E Doctorates who were in the U.S. Five Years after Graduation by Country ...... 157

Table 6.5. Top 25 Leading Companies with Approved H-lB Petitions - October 1999 to February 2000 ...... 172

XU LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC21 American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act

ACWIA American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act

BICE Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

BCIS Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

CASE Council for the Advancement and Support of Education

CBP Custom and Border Patrol

CIPRIS Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students

CLASS Consular Lookout and Support System

cos Council of Graduate Schools

CPS Current Population Survey

D&B Dunn and Bradstreet's Million Dollar Database

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOL Department of Labor

DOS Department of State

DSO Designated School Official

FBI Federal Bureau oflnvestigations

FSI Foreign Service Institute

GAO General Accountability Office

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IIE Institute of International Education

Xlll IMMAC90 Immigration Act of 190

INA Immigration and Nationality Act

INS U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

IT Information Technology

LCA Labor Condition Application

NAFSA NAFSA: Association of International Educators

NCT National Commission on Terrorism

NSEERS National Security Entry-Exit Registration System

NSF National Science Foundation

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

PMIC The President's Management Improvement Council

R&D Research and Development

RO Responsible Officer

SAO Security Advisory Opinion

S&E Science and Engineering

SED Survey of Earned Doctorates

SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System

SEVP Student and Exchange Visa Program

TAL Technology Alert List

TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

UN United Nations

XlV US AID United States Agency for International Development

USA PATRIOT Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

USC IS United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

US-VISIT United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

xv CHAPTER 1

RESEARCH PROBLEM

Introduction

The United States holds a dominant position in the global political economy. This dominance is characterized by military, political, economic, and cultural hegemony.

However, often absent from discourse of U.S. power and hegemony is another dimension

of power derived from educational knowledge. The fact is that the U.S. enjoys the lion's

share of cross-border education estimated at close to 20 percent of all international

student mobility (Bhandari and Chow 2010). Students from all around the world flock to

U.S. shores in search of advanced studies at various U.S. institutions of higher education.

Upon completion of degrees, some students choose to return home, and in doing so,

advance U.S. economic, cultural, and political paradigms abroad, while others decide to

remain in the U.S. to seek employment and therefore contribute to advances in the

knowledge economy.

The fact that the United States receives the gigantic share of cross-border

education means that it enjoys being the center for international education and has the

ability to create and disseminate knowledge broadly and in unique ways by exporting and

importing international education. International students who study in the United States

supply important human capital to fuel innovation and grow the U.S. economy while also

1 2

providing social, political, and cultural capital by advancing U.S. public diplomacy objectives around the world. However, discourse related to U.S. hegemony rarely accounts for this important dimension of the U.S.' role in the world (i.e., international students and U.S. education).

The absence of international students in discussions of U.S. hegemony derives from the fact that the issue of who are international students and how they should be conceptualized in the migration literature and U.S. political economy becomes a complicated one due to immigration classifications. In the case of the U.S., international students are classified as nonimmigrant students. With this classification comes implication for how the state, institutions of higher education and the larger society perceive and choose to respond to them. Because students do not fall into the category of skilled or unskilled migrants based on the migration and immigration classification, they tend to often be rendered invisible. How the nation state organizes its classification scheme of various entrants is important because it has structural, cultural, and policy implications for how the state interacts with and defines international students.

This research study focuses on the role of international students in U.S. political economy. The research attempts to move international students from the periphery to the center of understanding the changing U.S. political economy. I argue that international students play an important role in building a U.S. "national civilization" (Gramsci 1971) at home and abroad. As argued by Joseph Nye (2004), international education represents a form of "soft power" and international students are integral to promoting U.S. political, economic, social, and cultural power. 3

Study Background

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of international students to changing U.S. political economy. The main research focuses on how international students contribute to U.S. political economy in general, and examines the state's policy on international education in particular.

In the global competition for international students, the United States has been the dominant player for a long time. It has been argued that the sheer size, diversity, and quality of the U.S. higher educational establishment accounts for much of its ability to attract large numbers of international students, and therefore, command the lion share of international students. For over fifty years, the United States has earned the reputation of being the top destination of choice for hundreds of thousands of international students from around the world who arrive to earn higher educational credentials and in many cases, to remain in the U.S. and contribute to U.S. economic development, or return home to promote the U.S. model of economic, political, and cultural development.

Very little is discussed regarding the role of the state in facilitating the migration

of international students and the contributions of this population of migrants to U.S.

foreign political and economic goals. It might be perceived that the on the surface, the

U.S. government plays a minimal role in the mobility of students, given that international

students tend to be recruited directly by higher education institutions in what may be

characterized as a "laissez faire" and "academic capitalism" free-market policy.

However, as my analysis will demonstrate, the state is not and cannot be absent from

discussions of mobility of international students. 4

For many students, time in school represents an intermediary period between temporary and permanent migration given that many of the students are engaged in teaching, research, and internships and because U.S. higher education institutions and several sectors (particularly the science and information technology ones) depend heavily on foreign skills to meet research and labor demands at a cheaper cost. Therefore, international students can very well be defined as "semi-skilled" to "highly-skilled" migrants. Current U.S. immigration policies permit international students to transfer their status to H-1 B temporary work visas and subsequently permanent work visas while remaining in the United States, even though they enter on nonimmigrant visas with the implicit intent of returning home upon completion of stated purpose. To facilitate the migration of international students, the U.S. Congress passed legislation to permit students with advanced degrees (Masters and PhDs) earned in the United States to benefit each year from a number of temporary work visa slots in the private sector (20,000 is the number of advanced degree earners who explicitly can benefit from an H-lB visa).

A study carried out by the United States' Department of Homeland Security in

2000 found that of a sample of 4,200 temporary immigrants holding a temporary work permit or H-lB visa, 23 percent were previously studying in the U.S. on F-1 student visas

(U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 2000). This study and others that will be discussed in subsequent chapters are significant in understanding the effect of international student flow on labor migration, given that a temporary work permit is the first stage in a permanent residency. As the study will also demonstrate, international students who choose to return home constitute social, cultural, economic, and political 5

capital because those students, in fact, are a means for the U.S. to export its values, foreign policies, and economic models abroad.

The question of whether international students bring net benefits to the U.S. is discussed in higher education institutions, media, and policy circles. It is sometimes the subject of negative and polemical debates by some scholars (Borjas 1999; 2000; 2004;

Huntington 2004; Philip 2000). I argue that a comprehensive analysis of U.S. gains from contributions of international students must gauge the U.S. economy's capacity to innovate and raise productivity and/or the U.S. ability to shape its image abroad through social, cultural, and political exports of values and ideologies.

The role of international students in U.S. political economy has evolved over time. After World War II, the U.S. government deemed the education of the elite from various strategic international alliances to be in its national interest, and thus invested in the effort by providing scholarships and encouraging foreign governments to invest in the education of their elite by sending them to the United States. With the rise of the knowledge economy and changes in higher education funding and research agenda, international students have become instrumental in providing needed revenue and labor to higher education institutions in need of financing, research and teaching staffing resources.

The mobility of international students is facilitated by way of immigration

policies and procedures for entry/exit set by the State. The U.S. government defines the procedures for entry, exit and monitoring of various classes of immigrants wanting to

come to the U.S. for short- or medium-term temporary visits, but also for more

permanent stays. 6

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, international students became the center of national debates, policies, and procedures and as a result, moved from the periphery to the center of immigration procedures. Even though international students constitute only two percent of international visitors to the United States, as a group, it gained tremendous visibility because of the fact that two of the 9/11 terrorists were on student visas but failed to attend school. In response to the public perception that the international student

system is an unregulated system in need ofreform, the U.S. government ushered

protectionist measures including more arduous and often more intimidating visa

screening procedures, and implemented the Student and Exchange Visitor Information

System (SEVIS) to track international students and scholars. New background clearance

procedures were instituted and students and researchers studying or working in

"sensitive" scientific and technical fields were deemed to pose a potential threat to U.S.

national security and they were to be subjected to extra scrutiny.

In the name of political expediency, international students became an easy and

visible target for immigration reform. As 9/11 policies demonstrate, the unique status of

international students meant that the state could treat and did treat them differently from

other migrants. The U.S. government tightened controls, and international students were

constructed as "alien threats" from which the nation needed to be protected. The

international student issue became a politicized issue.

The state policies and procedures have been seen to be disastrous, and advocates

and proponents of international student exchanges have called for reforming the

immigration entry and control rules. The international education community argued that

the post 9/11 immigration and visa policies have resulted in the first decline in 7

international enrollment in 31 years as evidenced in enrollment trends reported by the

Institute of International Education (2004).

It is suggested that the United States may be losing its competitiveness or edge in attracting and enrolling international students to U.S. universities (NAFSA: Association of International Educators 2005; Institute for International Education 2004; National

Science Foundation 2005; Council of Graduate Schools 2005). The decline in new arrivals, particularly in critical areas such as the physical and life sciences and engineering, have led advocates of international education, industries, research foundations, and colleges and universities to argue that such trends have serious

implications for U.S. political interests, economic competitiveness, and global leadership

and that as a nation, it is time for action (Anderson 2003; Johnson 2003; 2009; Nye

2007). The fact is that many international students continue to look toward other

destinations-Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Singapore-because of the

real and/or perceived bureaucratic barriers to studying in the United States, and also due

to changing economic and employment conditions. At the same time, several states,

especially those in advanced and emerging economies, in an effort to build their human

capital and expand their international influence, are expanding their respective

international higher educational infrastructure in the hopes of attracting students from

abroad while keeping their nationals at home for advanced training.

While the number of students studying outside of their home country is growing

worldwide, increases in the number of international students studying in the U.S. stalled

temporarily in 2002-2004 at a time when competing nations were experiencing

unprecedented growth in enrollments. Enrollments of international students have since 8

rebounded to reach record enrollments. The U.S. government, under the pressure of special interests groups (the business community, international education advocates, and government research foundations), has retreated from its protectionist stance by reforming the visa issuance process, and reducing the time for background checks and clearance. International higher education advocates, however, fear that due to the slow pace of change in immigration regulations, changing economic conditions, and the changing immigration policies of other competing nations, the U.S. will no longer be able to retain its primacy as the global magnet for international students, and may therefore be losing its standing in the world.

I argue that the U.S. must recognize that in order to continue to attract the talents

from around the world and continue its "soft power" role, it must institute an effective

immigration system that keeps pace with the changing global economy.

Using a Gramscian framework, I argue that international students become a

conduit by which the United States builds and expands its "national civilization" at home

and abroad in the twenty-first century.

Statement of Problem and Subproblems

The research attempts to theorize on international student mobility and the

benefits to the receiving state. The central research question is how do international

students help to refashion a U.S. "national civilization" abroad and at home in a

globalizing era of the twenty-first century?

In order to answer this research question, I will explore the following

subquestions: 9

1. What factors have shaped the flow of international students to the United

States from World War II to present? What are U.S. interests in international

students?

2. How have international students contributed to advancing U.S. "national

civilization" abroad and home?

3. What roles have international students played in advancing knowledge and

innovation in the U.S. knowledge economy?

4. What are the state's policies and procedures for facilitating the entry and exit

of international students? What are the post 9/11 social constructions of

international students?

5. What are the implications and consequences of increased global competition

for the United States in the race for global talent and international students?

In response to the first subquestion, I will explicate on how international

education exchange became an instrument of U.S. foreign policy in the post World War

II era, particularly through government-sponsored initiatives such as the Fulbright

program, and also through foreign government endorsement of international student

mobility schemes to the U.S. The chapter focuses on the relationship of international

education exchange to U.S. political, cultural and social power.

In response to the second subquestion, I will provide a conceptual framework for the rise of "academic capitalism" and its concomitant paradigm of international students

as sources ofrevenue and labor to advance teaching and research in U.S. institutions of

higher education. The focus is on human and economic capital. 10

In response to the third subquestion, I will focus on international students as human capital for the U.S. labor market and their contributions to innovation and the knowledge economy, particularly those students with advanced degrees in the STEM

(science, technology, engineering, mathematics) field who hold a dominant position in advancing the demands of the knowledge economy.

In response to the fourth subquestion, I will focus on the role of government policies and procedures in facilitating the entry and enrollment of international students and the social construction of international students in the pre- and post-9111 era, and the resulting consequences.

In response to the fifth subquestion, I will discuss the implication of global student mobility trends and the consequences for U.S. hegemony as the race for talent intensifies.

I advance the following four propositions to frame my analysis of the issue:

1. International students fulfill several important roles in the U.S. political

economy including human, economic, cultural, and political capital.

2. International education as it relates to international students is mostly driven

by economic and political interests. Given global economic competitiveness

and the critical contribution of science and technology in economic

development, international students become a major source of human capital

because of the skills that are in high demand to advance the U.S. knowledge

economy.

3. U.S. institutions of higher education are academic marketplaces charged with

putting into practice public policy agendas. In the case of the United States, 11

higher education institutions not only produce and train domestic [ ],

but also international human and social capital to serve U.S. economic and

political interests at home and abroad.

4. Immigration and educational policies reflect and/or are influenced by U.S.

political economy.

Significance of Research

Throughout my study, I attempt to demonstrate how international students contribute to U.S. national and international interests and explore the ways in which international students as human, economic, political, and cultural capitals advance the hegemonic goals of the state. This is a unique, complex and cross-disciplinary study that draws on several bodies of literature-namely sociology of development (particularly world system/dependency theory), international relations, political sociology (among them, the state, power, ideology), migration, and sociology of international education.

The sociological contribution of the study is to further the discourse on the relationship between education, transnational migration, changing political economy of the nation state, and the promulgation of hegemonic power.

In spite of the growing importance of cross-border student migration, its dynamics, most particularly its relationship to political economy, are not well understood.

There is a dearth of research on the political economy of international students. Most of the studies on international student mobility focuses on cross-cultural, psychological and adjustment issues (Altbach 1991; Barber 1985; Barber, Altbach, and Myers 1984), higher education challenges (Altbach 2004; Barber 1985; Chen 1950), curriculum development 12

(Khafagi 1990), immigration issues, and brain drain (Altbach, Kelly, and Lulat 1985;

Aysit and Nil Demet 2003; Bourke 2000; Cordora J. and Lulat 1984; Lulat, Altbach, and

Kelly 1986; Martin 2002; Zweig, Chen, and Rosen 1995). Oftentimes, absent from the discourse on international student flows are a discussion of the relationship between power, hegemony, and transnational migration. The neglect of these dimensions leads to an unexplored paradigm on the role of the nation-state's quest to enhance its human capital by way of international student flows, and the far reach of the state in its export of economic, political, and cultural ideologies.

The goal of the study is to provide a timely and critical understanding of the role of international students in U.S. political economy. The approach to the research is three­ fold. First, it focuses on international students, a group often absent from the migration and political economy literatures. Second, it links that form of movement to the political economy of a nation-in this case, the United States. Third, it examines the economic, political, and cultural implications of this form of mobility for the nation state, and the future of immigration policies and procedures.

The study builds a conceptual framework that is cross-disciplinary in order to show the multifaceted and dynamic relationships between international students and political economy. It supports the framework with empirical materials illustrating the complexity and richness of this relationship.

The study hopes to contribute to several bodies of knowledge: sociology (most specifically to development and political sociology, and migration theorizing), international relations, international education, and the political economy literature. The objective of this project is to help scholars in these fields, as well as policymakers, 13

governments, and social institutions (higher education) expand their knowledge and understanding of the relationship of international student flows to the changing political economy of the United States. The research has applicability not only for the U.S., but also for other nations that are in global competition for international students (e.g., to expand the capacity of highly-skilled human capital) as a source of economic growth and innovation.

In sum, the significance of this project is: (1) intellectual because the analytical framework integrates migration, international education, and political economic; and (2) policy-oriented because the research suggests the need for rethinking the status quo approach toward international students and their educational implications.

Delimitation of Study

This research project does not dispute the fact that international education may be motivated by good and noble motives, such as promotion of goodwill, global citizenship,

and intercultural competence. Many studies have been done related to such benefits of

international education exchange. The purpose of this research project is to examine what

few researchers have attempted to document, and that is to say other important

dimensions of international education-mainly the economic, human, and political

capital motives and/or the role of international student exchange as a tool for maintaining

and expanding the hegemonic power of the nation state.

The study does not attempt to focus on individual actor's decisions to study

abroad and the role of social networks in facilitating mobility. Therefore, the study does

not conduct interviews of individual students to gauge their experiences and account for 14

their contributions, but rather looks to macro level studies on this population to account for aggregate contributions, and draws on data compiled by various sources to relay the story. The study focuses on the collective properties of international students including

such attributes as nationality, social class, age, and to a small extent, gender and race. The

study attempts to explore the intersectionalities of nationality, class, race, ethnicity, and

gender. However, due to difficulties in obtaining data related to gender, the study is

somewhat limited in its analysis of the relationship of gender to international student mobility.

The study does not focus on the implications of student mobility on sending

countries, some of which have already been explored by other scholars, particularly those

scholars focused on the effect of brain drain or brain gain. Instead, the study focuses on a

macro-analysis of the historical-structural conditions of student mobility and its

implication for the receiving country.

To conduct the research, I have had to rely on primary and secondary data from

various sources to describe and explain the phenomenon under study. I faced some

difficult challenges in collecting data, particularly data related to gender attributes of

international students coming to the United States. Ultimately, the study hopes to

contribute to theorizing about the role of the educative state and its expansion of human,

political, cultural, and economic capital in the competing knowledge economy.

Organization of the Dissertation

The research project's substantive findings are discussed in proceeding chapters

with the final chapter providing a policy outlook/recommendation. Chapter 2 reviews the 15

major theoretical construct/framework--Gramsci's theory of "national civilization"

combined with the global integration theory. The chapter provides a review of relevant

literature. It is followed by Chapter 3 which documents the method utilized as well as

highlights some of the challenges related to data collection.

Chapter 4, "International Education: A Tool for Advancing U.S. Foreign Policy,"

argues that international education as an extension of U.S. political economic power

facilitates the maintenance of hegemonic power. The chapter examines U.S.

modernization paradigm, followed by an analysis of the Fulbright program post World

War II and the flow of international students from strategic international alliances. The

chapter illustrates how international students help the state strategically advance and

facilitate directly and indirectly foreign policy objectives.

Chapter 5, "U.S. 'Academic Capitalism' and International Students," argues that

in order to shift from an industrial mode of production to a post-industrial one, the United

States has had to rely on international students in universities as sources of revenue and

also as producers of knowledge and human capital. Therefore, international students

contribute to refashioning a "national civilization" by sustaining and advancing the U.S.

knowledge-based economy in general and "academic capitalism" in particular.

Chapter 6, "International Students as Skilled Migrants in the U.S. Knowledge

Economy," makes the case that the quest to fashion a "national civilization" at home is

predicated on the demands for highly-skilled knowledge workers and that international

students, upon completion of degrees, constitute a ready supply of qualified workers. The

chapter illustrates the myriad of ways former international students who choose to remain

in the U.S. contribute to advancing innovation and entrepreneurship. It also describes the 16

ways in which U.S. immigration policies and procedures are constructed to facilitate the migration of students as temporary or permanent highly-skilled migrants.

Chapter 7, "International Students: Friends or Foes?," examines the state's conflicting policies and procedures regarding international students and explores the state ambivalent perceptions of and relationship to international students. The chapter focuses on the social construction of international students by American politicians and the media in the post 9/11 era, as well as the resulting immigration changes. The chapter discusses the consequences of various government controls instituted during post 9/11 and the potential implications for student mobility and U.S. competitiveness. Chapter 8, the conclusion chapter, provides some policy recommendations for reforming the employment based immigration system. CHAPTER2

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Framed by Gramsci' s theory of the educative state and how a state builds a

"national civilization" predicated on the modernization paradigm, this study places international students at an important nexus of how the United States exports its power and influence and advances its human capital and economic development needs. This framework aids in expanding knowledge and understanding of the role and dynamics of international education exchange and provides a lens from which to understand the historical-structural conditions for student mobility to the United States.

Using data from various sources, I demonstrate the myriad of ways international student mobility to the U.S. is shaped by macro forces (i.e., strategic alliances, structure of U.S. higher education system, conditions of the labor market, economic competitiveness, and immigration policies and procedures). I argue that Gramsci's theory of the educative state as building a "national civilization" offers an important framework for conceptualizing why and how international students are integral to U.S. political economy.

Major Terminology

Because my research draws from various disciplines and each discipline has its own set of concepts and terminology, I found it helpful to place the major terms used throughout this study ahead of the literature review to provide context and to lay out a

17 18

clear foundation for my use of terms. My hope is that by placing the "Major Terms" at this early juncture of the study, this will help provide analytical clarity on the cross­ disciplinary nature of the research while ensuring a common understanding for the reader from the beginning.

Academic capitalism: A term coined by Slaughter and Leslie (1997) refers to the

commodification of higher education. Slaughter and Leslie (1997:209) defines it

as "institutional and professorial market or marketlike efforts to secure external

funds."

Brain circulation: Describes the increasingly circular nature of migration. Brain

circulation is the process by which experiences and social contacts cultivated by

the expatriates become valuable resources for the country of origin, provided the

country of origin is able to tap into them.

Cross-border education: Defined as the global mobility of students for the purpose

of study, and subsequent practical training or work.

Globalization: I will use the definition of globalization articulated by Held,

McGrew Goldblatt, and Perraton (1999). According to these scholars,

globalization is defined as a:

process or (set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the

spatial organization of social relations and transactions--assessed in terms

of their extensity, intensity, velocity, and impact--generating

transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity,

interaction and the exercise of power. (P.15) 19

International education: In its broadest sense, it refers to education that transcends national borders through the exchange of people, as in study abroad and student exchange programs. The purpose of international education is to intentionally prepare students to be active and engaged participants in an interconnected world.

International students: Students who are born outside of the United States and enter the United States on F-1 (student) visas or J-1 (exchange visitor) visas for the purpose of pursuing degree programs at Universities and Colleges in the

United States. An international student in the U.S. is defined as a citizen of another country who is not a permanent resident of the United States, pursuing education in the United States. International students require temporary visas to enter the United States and within the immigration classification are considered to be nonimmigrants.

Knowledge economy or knowledge-based economy: Phrase popularized by Peter

Drucker (1969). The term knowledge economy refers to management or production of knowledge. For the purpose of the definition, knowledge and

education (often referred to as "human capital") can be treated as innovative,

intellectual products and services which can be exported or imported for a high

value return, or as a productive asset. The essential difference is that in a

"knowledge economy," knowledge is a product, while in a "knowledge-based

economy," knowledge is a tool. I use the term interchangeably throughout the

study to illustrate the inextricable linkages between tool and product.

Knowledge worker: I use Drucker's (2002) term. According to Drucker (2002:3),

a knowledge worker "works with his or her head not hands, and produces ideas, 20

knowledge, and information."

National civilization: Refers to Gramsci's (1971) notion of the hegemonic state

and its use of education to build a new geopolitically bounded "civilization" via

the use of active consent of the elite.

Soft power: A term coined by Joseph Nye (1990), soft power is defined as "the

ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.

It arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and

policies" (p.5).

Student mobility/movement/flow: Refers to flow or movement of students from

one nation to another, for the purpose of studying.

Quaternary sector: Quaternary sector of the economy consists of intellectual

activities including government, culture, libraries, scientific research, education,

and information technology.

Review of the Literature

The review of the literature includes a brief history of international students' mobility to the United States and an analysis of sociological theories most relevant to explicating the relationship between international students and the changing U.S. political

economy. Theories examined include: (1) the neo-classical approach of"push and pull;"

(2) human capital theory; (3) historical-structural theories of world system and global

integration theories; and (4) the Gramscian theory of the educative state. Gramscian theory of the educative state and its fashioning of "national civilization," combined with the modernization paradigm, constitutes the central theoretical framework for explicating 21

the role of the state and why and how international students are integral to U.S. political economy because it offers the most compelling, multidimensional framework, given its emphasis on education, power, and hegemony. To begin the review, I offer a brief historical analysis of the mobility of students to the United States. The historical analysis of student mobility and its implications will be explored in depth in Chapter 4.

International Education Exchange and Student Mobility to the United States

International education exchange as a scope of activity is not a new phenomenon.

Students and scholars leaving their homes in search of education and knowledge has existed since the founding of the modem university (Altbach and Teichler 2001; Guruz

2008; Wildavsky 2010). During the colonial era, the best and brightest students from developing nations were sent overseas with the view of returning home and contributing to the economic development of respective nation states, but also to promote cultural exchange and alternative political views. The trend to go abroad for education continued after the post-colonial era. However, the major differences then became whereas prior students were returning home, with the post-colonial era, the assumption of students returning home no longer proved to be an accurate assumption.

One can look back as far as the founding of universities in the United States and identify the presence of international students on U.S. campuses. However, a tradition of international education activities really emerged in the early first quarter of the 20th century. To address the level and scope of activities, various organizations were established. Key organizations founded in the first half of the previous century to coordinate international exchanges include the Institute of International Education (IIE), 22

which was created in 1919, and NAFSA: Association of International Education, created in 1948. Both major organizations have been engaged in various aspects of exchanges, including policy and the implementation of exchange programs, as well as training of university personnel engaged in international educational exchange activities.

The Fulbright Program established in 1946 by the U.S. Congress and now administered by several non-profit educational organizations underscored from the outset that academic mobility plays a significant role in U.S. government engagement with the world. Programs including the Fulbright program and other foreign government programs not only target the training of elites from around the world, but also speaks to the broader goals of achieving mutual understanding among people and cultures and thereby aspire to contribute to economic development and the lofty goal of achieving world peace and goodwill. Prior to the end of the Cold War, government-sponsored exchange agencies in the majority of countries were committed to securing national foreign and economic policy goals and the United States has played a pivotal role in this movement.

Since the end of World War II, the growth of cross-border student mobility has increased at a fast pace, most likely the result of globalization (Altbach and Teichler

2001; Wildavsky 2010). According to the UNESCO Institute of statistics (2009), approximately 1.6 million students studied outside of their home country in 1993-1995.

In 2007, over 2.8 million students were enrolled in higher educational institutions outside their country of origin, a 53 percent increase since 1999 (OECD 2006). The United States has received the majority of mobile students. The United States has been considered a model for mobility of students and scholar exchange during the immediate post World

War II period to the present. It has enjoyed a dominant position as the most attractive 23

host country for mobile students and the U.S. exchange programs have been emulated by other nations around the world.

In 1980, more than 35 percent of the internationally mobile students came to study in the United States because of its reputation for having a high quality higher education, a flexible immigration system, prestigious fellowship and research opportunities, and unparallel support services for international students at the university level. In 1999, one in four students chose to study in the United States and now this is true for one in five students or 20 percent of students (UNESCO 2009), although the total number of mobile students to the United States continue to increase (Bhandari and Chow

2010).

Much of the mobility of students to the United States may be attributed to the global influence of the United States as a superpower and the export of U.S. model of economic development and culture. The rise in the mobility of students may be best explained by the integration of world trade, science and technology, and the need to develop knowledge economies. The critical role of technology in promoting economic advancement and the pressures of nations to keep pace with technological advancements, especially in key economic sectors in order to become or remain competitive may best explain the multi-billion dollar industry. Trends in international students' enrollment in

U.S. universities provide a landscape for understanding the dynamics of the flow of students.

Trends in International Enrollment

The number of international students in the United States began to increase after

World War II. In 1954, 34,232 or 1.4 percent of higher education enrollments were 24

international students on temporary visas. Today, total enrollment of international students stands at a record high of 690,923 (Bhandari and Chow 2010) or 3 .5 percent of

U.S. higher education total enrollment. Annual data compiled on international academic mobility by the Institute of International Education (IIE) show that enrollments in the

United States peaked in 2002-03, and then in 2003-04 declined for the first time since

1971. The decline in enrollment continued for three consecutive years from 2003 to 2006.

Enrollments declined by 2.4 percent, 1.3 percent and .05 percent, respectively, for 2003-

04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 (Institute of International Education 2005). The fields receiving the largest number of international students, mainly the graduate science and engineering programs, experienced a drop of 4,605 students, or a decline of 13.5 percent, by 2003

(National Academy of Sciences 2005).

Two more recent, but less comprehensive surveys by several higher education and international education organizations suggest a more optimistic picture. Results from the

2010 survey of enrollment trends suggest slight increases in international student enrollments in U.S. colleges and universities. Forty-five percent of the 701 colleges, universities and professional schools reported an increase in new enrollments of international students, 29 percent reported a decline and 26 percent reported level enrollments compared to fall 2008 (Institute of International Education 2009).

Overall, new international enrollments at graduate institutions were reported to have increased slightly in 2010, however, overall total international graduate enrollment has slowed to the lowest rate since 2006 (Council of Graduate Schools 2010). These patterns may suggest large volatility in student mobility, particularly at the graduate level.

The United States dominance in cross-border education is more pronounced at the 25

graduate level. Close to two-thirds of international graduate students studying overseas, study in the United States (OECD 2006). In key fields such as the STEM (science, technology engineering, and Mathematics) fields, international graduate student enrollments constitute more than 50 percent of all enrollments (National Science

Foundation 2006; National Science Foundation 2008).

International Graduate Science and Engineering Enrollments

Since 1996, international graduate science and engineering enrollment has risen by about 50 percent, making up now almost a quarter of all international student enrollments in the United States (including undergraduate enrollments) and nearly half of all science and engineering graduate enrollments (National Academy of Sciences 2005;

National Science Foundation 2005). Most notably, about one-third of America's engineering professors are foreign-born (Freeman 2005). However, according to the

Council of Graduate Schools, trends started to shift in 2003-04 (Brown 2005; Brown and

Syverson 2004). Overall, international graduate student applications declined by nearly

30 percent from 2003-2004, and applications for Science and Engineering (S&E) international graduate students declined by over 35 percent from 2003-2004. The decline in graduate enrollments became of great concern to the U.S. (particularly industries, research laboratories, and higher education institutions) given that international graduate enrollments and postdoctoral scholars are an even larger and more integral part of the

U.S. research and development infrastructure (Anderson 2005; Bean and Brown 2005;

Chellaraj, Maskus, and Matoo 2005). Since 2006, enrollments have rebounded, however, at a slower rate. 26

U.S. Dependence on International Student Enrollments

Research institutions are dependent on international students to carry out application or research activities because these activities lead to the production of scientific work such as publications, important scientific findings or innovations, and significant research and development. Given their training, knowledge, and acquired skills, international students are relied upon to staff research labs, teach classes, and carry out scientific or technological innovations. The United States, given its position as a premier, if not the premier nation for scientific research and technological innovation, is at the center of this type of flow of international students. As a host nation, the United

States benefits from the knowledge produced, and therefore, facilitates the retention of international students by allowing access to the labor force through immigration regulations aimed at encouraging labor migration with the purpose of ensuring research and development in industrial laboratories and research universities, among others.

The United States is not alone in its quest to attract the highly-skilled human capital by way of student migration. Other advanced nations, including Australia,

Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada, are in the race for talent as well. These industrial countries have relaxed their immigration policies to attract a highly qualified international workforce (including students) to sectors where there are labor shortages, demands or expansions such as in engineering, sciences, and technological innovation because domestic students may opt not to enter these disciplines given what may be perceived as low returns on investment (low salaries in those fields, yet long and arduous years of study). 27

To understand the phenomenon of student flows to the U.S. and the economic, political, and social benefits of these flows, I will examine four sociological theories most relevant to explicating the relationship between international students and the changing

U.S. political economy. Theories examined include the theory of"push and pull"; human capital theory; historical-structural theories of world system and global integration theories; and Gramsci's theory of the educative state. Gramsci's theory of the educative state in its fashioning of a "national civilization," combined with the modernization paradigm, constitutes the central theoretical framework chosen for explicating the role of the state and why and how international students are integral to the U.S. political economy because it offers a multidimensional framework, given its emphasis on education, the state, power, economy and hegemony.

Sociological Theories and Conceptual Frameworks

"Push-Pull" Theory

The dominant economic theory of migration (Castles and Miller 1998; Massey,

Goldring, and Durand 1994; Ravenstein 1889; Zolberg 1989), also known as the

"push/pull" theory (Lee 1966), sees international migration or mobility as caused by

"push factors" and "pull factors." "Push-Pull" theory describes a process in which individuals or families reach a decision on whether and where to migrate based on an evaluation of factors (advantages and disadvantages associated with a particular destination), and "intervening obstacles" (Lee 1966) such as distance and immigration laws. A clear implication of the neo-classical "push-pull" theory is that through international migration, individual actors or families make choices to maximize utility 28

based on access to "complete information," such as employment opportunities, openness of society, access to quality education, etc.

If one is to accept the "push-pull" theory and apply it to the migration of international students, then student flows would logically be from least attractive

destinations (places with limited opportunities) to most attractive destinations (places

with greater opportunities). Therefore, given the economic, political and social conditions of nations, migration of students would be from less developed (South) to more

developed (North) nations until conditions in the South reach parity with the North. The

literature on student mobility does seem to support this. The reality is that student mobility remains largely a North-South phenomenon (Altbach and Teichler 2001; OECD

2006; OECD 2010; UNESCO Institute of Statistics 2009), with the countries in the

periphery or semi-periphery sending students out to the core, "Western" industrialized

countries, mainly the United States, to gain and acquire "Western" knowledge and ways

oflife. It is a fact that the majority of the world's international students from the

developing countries flock to the major industrialized nations in pursuit of an education

and a better life. As will be discussed later, the flow of international students from the

periphery to the core and the promulgation of "Western" values and ways of life is

consistent with the modernization paradigm.

The "push-pull" argument as it relates to international student mobility is

therefore supported by empirical evidence. International education as an industry has

experienced rapid growth in trade over a short period of time. Most notable is the cross­

border migration of international students. According to world statistics, international

student enrollments more than doubled between 2000 and 2007 to over 2 million (OECD 29

2010). The rapid increase in international students has led to significant economic benefits to a number of host countries. In the OECD countries, educational services consumed by international students was estimated at US$30 billion or three percent of the

OECD total trade in services in 2002 (Johnston 2002; Larsen, Martin, and Morris 2002).

Cross-border student exchange has become a major export sector in traditional host countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New

Zealand (Larsen and al. 2002).

Based on the data, it may be argued that 'push' factors leading to the mobility of students includes adverse conditions in students' countries of origin such as inadequate educational capacity, technology limitations, inadequate coordination between education and labor market leading to unemployment, and economic and/or political instability.

'Pull' factors are related to better educational and professional opportunities in the host country, such as acquisition of a high level of skills, knowledge, and innovation which may not be possible to obtain at home; access to resources; favorable immigration policies for better educated people; and higher wages.

It may be further argued that international students move to the United States due to the ease of access, perceived quality, and diversity of U.S. higher education, as demonstrated by the number and diversity of institutions and quality of research facilities.

In this instance, the dominance of the "pull" factors of the U.S. educational system

(instruction, scholarship, research focus) and immigration regulations may outweigh the

'push' factors.

The "push-pull" argument assumes that upon completing their education in the

United States, international students return home and that as countries of origin develop 30

adequate and quality educational infrastructures, the "pull" to come to the United States diminishes. Again, this is an assumption with merit given that in the past thirty years, large numbers of Asian students came to the United States for graduate study. Today, however, many more students are choosing to stay in Asia (Malaysia, China, Singapore) to pursue higher education. Furthermore, more Asian scientists schooled in the United

States are returning home. Governments in Asian countries (Singapore, Taiwan, South

Korea) in particular are investing heavily in university systems and hi-tech science infrastructures in their respective countries. In addition, American companies are opening up engineering facilities and laboratories in these countries, and/or outsourcing services because engineers and services can be more easily found, and more cheaply located in regions previously identified as "brain drain" regions (Saxenian 2005; Smith and Favell

2006).

Based on the "push/pull" paradigm, this neo-classical theory holds some merit in examining the mobility of international students and its relationship to U.S. political economy. However, the major theoretical limitations or criticisms of the "push-pull" theory are three-fold and it fails to explicate the variance in size and direction of student flow. Neo-classical theory does not explain why and how, even when students have access to quality educational systems in former colonial master nations such as those in

Europe, some students are still drawn to the United States. As a framework, 'push-pull'

does not offer an explanation for the cross-national differences in the size of student

mobility to developed countries in general and to the United States in particular. The neo- ·

classical theory fails to explain why and how the United States holds the lion share of

cross-border education even though other nations have advanced economies and a strong 31

educational infrastructure. Therefore, it fails to provide context and an explanation of the contradictions.

By focusing on economic motivations for migration such as wages, employment opportunity and rate, and labor demand, the neo-classical approach ends up being too economic-focused given its reductionist stance. It is individualistic because of its emphasis on individual choices and motivations; ahistorical because of its failure to account for historical-structural determinants; and apolitical because it provides little, if any, room for the role of the state (Boyd 1989; Castells 1996a; Portes and Rumbaut 1990;

Sassen 1988; Zolberg 1989; Zolberg 2006). The greatest critique of the neo-classical theory is that it cannot fully explain the flows of students, particularly given that in the past, the flows were from South to North but today, flows of students are multidirectional including North to North and South to South. As a theory, it neglects various contexts, including the political, cultural, and social dimensions of international student flows.

Human capital theory builds on neo-classical theory by providing a micro level economic analysis related to the value of education for individual actors and attributes, and also a macro level analysis related to production functions that benefit the state.

Human Capital Theory

Human capital theory views individual actors as capital and stresses the significance of education and training as the key to participation in the new global economy. Human capital theory argues that the benefits derived from education affect both the individual, and potentially, society. As a theory, it advances that education increases or improves the economic capability of people and by extension, society at 32

large (Becker 1993; Black and Lynch 1996; Blaug 1992; Denison 1974; Fitzsimons 1997;

Romer 1986; Schultz 1970).

Human capital theory rests on three basic assumptions: (1) education contributes to economic growth of a nation through production functions; (2) education helps develop skills for work-that is, improves the capacity of the worker to be productive;

(3) differentials in earned income are the product of differentials in the level of education, inferring that highly-educated and skilled people tend to earn more than those with little education or skills.

Human capital theory would view international students' decision to study overseas as costs and returns on investment in which costs (high tuition expenses, sacrifices made in leaving home country) are borne in some earlier period to obtain returns (very prestigious and highly compensated job, high standard of living) over a long term. So it deals with the social and cultural dimensions to some extent. An important

implication of this theory is that individual students tend to be future-oriented and thus may be motivated to move and to be more productive in the labor force and/or earn

higher wages in the country of origin or the host country.

Based on the human capital framework, international students' motivation to

study overseas is viewed from the perspective of individual choice rationality. Human

capital argues that international student flows are driven by the need of individual

students and their families to develop human capital through education abroad in order to

effectively compete in the labor market at home or in the host country. The theory would

suggest that students and/or their families are rational and calculating insofar that the

investment to move to another country to gain an education serves as a means to 33

maximize the return on educational investment. At the macro level, human capital theory would infer that the education of international students can contribute substantially to economic growth of the home or host country, thus recognizing the host state's role in someways.

If we accept the premise that overall economic performance and development of advanced nations is increasingly based on knowledge production, we would argue that under human capital theory, international students as a form of "semi-finished" human capital or highly-skilled human capital (Khadria 2001a; Legrain 2007; Lowell 2001) constitute a potentially important source of human capital to host countries such as the

United States. This framework is supported by various macro level research findings.

Research on the contribution of international students to the United States economy indicates that the sciences, technology and engineering fields in particular have greatly benefited from the labor supply provided by international students (Chellaraj, Maskus, and Matoo 2005).

Today, more than 50 percent of the engineers with doctorates working in the

United States are foreign-born. In addition, 45 percent of math and computer scientists with doctorates, as well as life scientist and physicists, are foreign-born. Among master's degree recipients working today, 29 .4 percent of engineers, 3 7 percent of math and computer scientists, and 25 percent of physicists are foreign-born (National Science

Foundation 2008). Many of these individuals came to the United States as international

students and on completion of studies remained in the U.S. to work (Alberts and Hazen

2005; Finn 2007). 34

The U.S. economy has a comparative advantage relative to other advanced nations because of innovations related to sciences and technologies. Richard B. Freeman

(2005), the distinguished Harvard economist, argued that:

Leadership in sciences and technology gives the U.S. its comparative advantage

in the global economy. U.S. exports are disproportionately from sectors that rely

extensively on scientific and engineering workers and sectors that embody the

newest technologies. In 2003, with a massive national trade deficit, the smallest

deficit relative to output was in high technology industries ... In a knowledge­

based economy, leadership in science and technology contributes substantially to

economic success. (P .1)

Furthermore, evidence indicates that productivity growth in the United States has been generated largely by advances in technology (Basu, Fernald, Oulton, and Srinivasan

2001; 2003; Gordon 2004a; 2004b). Technological improvements largely have been driven by the rate of innovation, which has been increasing in recent years as measured by the rapidly growing number of patents awarded to U.S. industries and universities

(Chellaraj, Maskus, and Matoo 2005; Hall 2004). Recent research shows that the notable increase in U.S. patent applications and grants over the past 15 years has been driven largely by knowledge transfers from academic science (Brantestter and Ogura 2005).

Scholars, research institutions, and international education experts have argued that international students and scholars in science and engineering are mainly responsible for these innovations and are thus critical to the U.S. technological leadership in the world

economy (Anderson 2005; Maskus 2005). According to a study by Keith Maskus (2005), 35

for every 100 international students who receive science and engineering PhDs from U.S.

Universities, the nation gains 62 out of 100 future patent applications.

Given the overall presence of international students in the sciences, one might safely conclude that international graduate students and scholars in the sciences as an important source of human capital have made major contributions to U.S. innovation.

International students have founded many of America's most innovative companies, including Sun Microsystems, Intel, and Google (Anderson 2005).

The implications from human capital theory for international student mobility and

its relationship to U.S. political economy are significant. Not only does human capital theory attempt to draw a relationship between education of international students and

economic growth of the nation state at the micro and macro level, but it also assigns to

education an economic purpose at the individual and societal level, and helps explain

why at the micro and macro levels, individuals, host and/or countries of origins may be

motivated to look overseas, and the possible benefit of education to the host and/or

country of origin. Thus, human capital theory offers an expansion ofneo-classical theory.

The major limitation and criticism of the human capital theory framework is that

first and foremost, human capital theory is predicated upon an individualistic viewpoint

and the idea that both individual worth and the value of education can be reduced to

economic terms. Individuals and societies are also seen as rational, insofar as they invest

in education only to the extent that education delivers a better economic rate of return

than other forms of investment. Human capital theory understands human activity and in

this instance, international student mobility as the exchange of commodities and labors 36

and their education. The notion of capital is explicitly an economic one, and it is implicitly social, given the increased status gained via education.

Similar to "push-pull" theory, human capital fails to explain why international students choose the U.S. specifically as opposed to other countries, and how and why students from the same country differ in their mobility patterns. As frameworks, "push­ pull" and human capital theories provide an economic analysis of international student mobility, with the former explicating mobility in terms of cost/benefit analysis and wage differentials, and the latter explicating in terms of return in investment in education.

However, the shortcomings of both theories are that neither of them deals with the role of the state. Both theories marginalize the role of the state in governing and structuring international student mobility and the changing political economy. Furthermore, both theories are ahistorical. The theories beg the question of "where is the state?" The "push­ pull" and human capital theories place much emphasis on individual actions and motivations, and when they do address structural forces fail to account for the state's role in political economy.

Given the nature and scope of this study, a macro level theory is needed and the political and economic role of the state must be brought in to explicate why and how

international students are integral to changing U.S. political economy. I argue that the historical-structural theory seems to provide a ready-made answer. Historical-structural theory focuses on the macro structural forces and the inter-relations between global

economic forces, trade, and the state's political economy. 37

Historical-Structural Perspectives

Theories based on historical-structural perspectives provide a relatively stronger framework for explaining international student mobility and its relationship to political economic change. Dependency theory assumes that countries are divided according to

"core" and "periphery," and "periphery" countries send students to the "core" (Braudel

1979). However, it fails to explain the fact that students move not only to core countries but also from one periphery to another. On the other hand, world system theory assumes that countries are divided according to "core," "periphery" and "semi-periphery," with an expansion of the market economy from "core" disrupting and transforming social and economic organizations of nations in the "periphery" (Wallerstein 1979; 1984; 2004), thus resulting in the mobility of the skilled and unskilled to industrialized nations to fill increasing labor demands (Castles and Miller 1998; Massey, Goldring, and Durand 1994;

Sassen 1988). As a historical-structural perspective, the world system theory did not deal with international students until its variant global integration theory (Cheng and Yang

1998) came into existence.

Global integration theory provides a strong explanatory framework for the mobility of students and the highly-skilled because it; (1) conceptualizes the mobility of students to advanced nations within a framework of global economic inequality and the global articulation of higher education; (2) focuses on structural determinants of mobility;

(3) analyzes mobility from both developing and developed nations; and (4) explains cross-national variations in migration of students and professionals, in general, and to the

United States, in particular, as a function of globalization. 38

Global Integration Theory

Global integration theory argues that mobility of students and professionals may be explained by two major phenomenon: (1) economic interdependence among nations resulting from global restructuring; and (2) "growing articulation of higher education" between developed and developing countries (Cheng and Yang 1998). According to

Daniel Bell (1973), followed by Cheng and Yang (1998), technological advancement has led to rapid economic growth and the emergence of what is considered to be a quaternary sector (e.g., scientific research, information and knowledge management, services) in advanced capitalist societies which require an ever growing supply of highly trained professionals. The demand for highly-skilled professionals often remains unmet by the workforce of advanced industrialized societies, even though it is a necessary condition for continuous growth. Economic growth has also spurred the need for research and development (funding, research facilities and equipment), requiring production of knowledge and thus, consequently favorable immigration policies for the admission of the highly-skilled and semi-skilled professional, including students.

In an increasingly interdependent world economy, where capitalist countries strongly influence the occupational structure of developing countries, the highly-skilled in developing countries are exposed to several aspects of capitalist development (high wages, favorable research environment and working conditions, employment opportunities, and so forth). The exposure to capitalist development results in greater

awareness of inequalities among nations, access to information, and increasing ambitions, and networking opportunities and thus, a higher probability for migration. 39

Global integration theory advances that the individual decisions of where to migrate, and the cross-national variations in migration of the students and the highly­ skilled (to the United States in particular) is not only a function of the economic macro level relationship (mainly trade relations) between sending and receiving countries at the macro level, but also how that relationship is understood at the micro level by individual actors (in this case, students and highly-skilled professionals). According to the theory, migration of students and the highly-skilled to the United States is quite probable based on the strength of the economic and political relationship between the sending country and the United States, once again reinforcing the mindset of the modernization paradigm

(see later discussion). In this aspect, the global integration theory offers an explanatory framework for international migration that factors in global processes, decision-making at the micro-level, and differential in wages and employment opportunities as opposed to simply focusing on the global economy and the displacement of individuals as a result of capitalist expansion.

A second feature of the global integration theory is the conceptualization of the global articulation of higher education (Cheng and Yang 1998). According to the global

integration theory, economic interdependence has also led to exchanges and influences in higher education between developing and developed nations. A clear outcome of the

global articulation of higher education is the migration of international students. Higher

educational systems in the most advanced nations, most particularly that of the United

States, have had a dominant influence on developing and other developed countries due to the supremacy of U.S. scientific knowledge, technological innovation, and social and

economic infrastructure. Thus, global integration does not only take place on the 40

economic level, but also on the educational level by virtue of the education of students from the periphery and semi-periphery to core countries, and the establishment of western schools and/or curricula in developing countries (Cheng and Yang 1998). As a result, global integration, in addition to an economic dimension, also accounts for a cultural dimension given the export of Western values, beliefs and mode of operations.

However, absent from the global integration theory is the explicit discussion of the political dimension-the role of the state-which is a dimension important to my analysis of U.S. political economy and its relation to international student mobility.

In the name of economic advancement, some industrial countries have relaxed their immigration policies to attract a highly qualified international workforce (including students) to sectors where there are labor shortages such as in engineering, sciences, and technological innovation. In addition, research institutions that are dependent on students to carry out research activities because these activities lead to the production of scientific work (such as publications, important scientific findings or innovations, and significant research and development) are relying heavily on the import of international students to fill research labs, teach classes, and carry out scientific or technological breakthroughs.

The United States, given its position as a premier, if not the premier, nation for scientific research and technological innovation, is at the center of this type of flow of international students. As a result of such policies, host states such as the U.S. may be benefiting more from the contributions of these international students than the countries of origins. This foregrounds the role of the state in shaping international student flows from South to

North, South to South, and North to South. 41

For students who choose to return to their countries of origin, the implications of global educational integration also applies because Western forms of education ensures that students from developing countries acquire Western values, thought patterns, beliefs, and technical knowledge, thus allowing for the cultural exportation of Western values.

For students, the cache of a "Western" education affords them important social and cultural capital. Thus, a possible intended consequence of global educational integration is "brain circulation," whereby international students trained in the West return home to influence educational, political and economic policies and practices, thus constituting what Joseph Nye (2004) terms "soft power."

For example, more Asian scientists schooled in the United States are returning home (Chacko 2007; Chang 1992; Lee and Kim 2010; Saxenian 2005; Saxenian,

Motoyoma, and Quan 2002; Song 1997; Zweig, Chung, and Vanhonacker 2006). In particular, the Chinese, Indian, Singaporean, South Korean, Taiwanese and Singaporean states are investing heavily in university systems and state of the art science research infrastructures in their respective countries. As U.S. companies open up engineering facilities and laboratories and/or outsource services, engineers and services can be more easily found, and more cheaply located in regions previously identified as "brain drain" regions (Smith and Favell 2006). The movements of ideas, knowledge, information, and skill-sets that are now a routine part of the transnational world of international education

(Cheng and Yang 1998; Johnson and Regets 1998; Szelenyi and Rhoads 2007) lead to continuing kinds of global circulation and incorporations, thus weakening the brain drain hypothesis and leaving the door open to the brain circulation or brain flow arguments. 42

Often, students who return after completing their studies may favor "Western" teaching methodologies, textbooks, and curricula, and use their social and institutional networks in the United States to facilitate the migration of other students and possibly

subsequent emigration as highly-skilled migrants, thus ensuring a perpetual cycle of the migration of highly-skilled professionals.

The phenomenon described by Cheng and Yang (1998) is consistent with what

has occurred over the past several decades in the United States. Prior to World War II,

international students primarily attended prestigious institutions in Europe such as

Oxford, Cambridge, and the Sorbonne, as well as the Ivy League institutions in the

United States (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT). After World War II, the United States

emerged as the dominant receiving country for international students because of its

economic and political power. In the past five decades, the number of international

students has increased substantially from 48,486 in 1960 to 134,959 in 1970, and from

286,343 in 1980 to 386, 851in1990, and to 547,867 in 2000 (Institute oflnternational

Education 2004). The United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia are also major

destination countries for international students, but none have come close to the dominant

share enjoyed by the United States.

In the case of the United States, many of the international students have become

highly-skilled professionals and have adjusted their immigration status to that of

temporary or permanent residents after securing employment. This very much supports

Zolberg's argument (1998) that the role of individual actors in the migration process and

the role of economic structures, albeit important, cannot alone explain contemporary

patterns of temporary or permanent migration. One must account for the role of 43

overarching political structure and the nation-state combined with international educational policies. The state's immigration policies determine whether any international mobility will take place at all (Zolberg 1989). Zolberg's (1989) insight on the role of the state is critical in understanding the political economy of international student mobility. As a framework, it emphasizes structure (the state and capitalist structures determining migration), albeit at the expense of human agency (i.e., individual and/or group motivations and actions in the migration process).

To sum up, the global integration theory (Cheng and Yang 1998) treats economic interdependency and global articulation of educational systems as necessary conditions for the migration of international students, but attributes actual migration flows to unequal development and conditions between nations. The global integration theory

successfully explains the cross-national variations in direction and numerical flow of international students and it provides an explanation for the cultural and social capital

derived from such a flow. The framework of unequal development and infrastructure

argued by Cheng and Yang (1998) is important in explicating international students' decisions to study and remain in the U.S.

The major weaknesses of the global integration theory is two-fold. First, even

though it accounts for the state, it is too simplistic because it fails to account for the

complex relationship of the state to education, and the various ways by which the state

directly influences international student flows based on immigration policies. Second, in

its discussion of globalization and trade relations, it does not speak to the role of forces

including transnational corporations (TNC) and home government political and economic

motivations for sending students abroad. 44

There is little doubt that international mobility of students and its relationship to

U.S. political economy is a function of the individual need for better opportunities, and the "core" country's need for markets, trade, and economic growth. However, more importantly is a core country's need for advancing its political agenda. The fact is that ideas, institutions and ideologies play a crucial role in determining openness and closure"

(Hollifield 2004: 171). To argue that access rules adopted by governments are simply the manifestations of economic motivations or consideration, as would be the case with the global integration theory, provides an important but incomplete picture of the relationship of international students to U.S. political economic change.

The global integration theory, a historical-structural theory of migration, is insufficient to fully account for the relationship of international student flows to the changing U.S. political economy. Therefore, I must tum to Gramsci's framework of the educative state and the fashioning of a "national civilization," combined with the modernization paradigm, to understand the relationships. Gramsci's framework is useful because it engages the state and because it emphasizes crafting a new national civilization

for a new era and therefore involves the political, economic, social and cultural

dimensions. The global integration theory focuses on the economic, social and cultural,

but is not explicit about the role of the state, a dimension that is central to the Gramsci's

framework.

Gramsci's "National Civilization" Theory and the Modernization Paradigm

According to Gramsci ( 1971 ), a "national civilization" is built via a mixture of

coercion and consent. In Gramsci' s framework, hegemony is constructed and maintained: 45

if every State tends to create and maintain a certain type of civilization and of

citizen (hence of collective life and of individual relations), and to eliminate

certain customs and attitudes and to disseminate others, then the Law will be its

instrument for this purpose (together with the school system, and other institutions

and activities) .... In reality, the state must be conceived of as an 'educator,' in as

much as it tends precisely to create a new type and level of civilization.

(1971:246)

Strategies of coercion (such as the application of military force, or the enactment of repressive legislation) are applied with the intended purpose of ensuring compliance of the masses and/or silence dissent. Strategies of consent (such as the use of education or media) result in socializing the citizenry to engage in new and different conduct, thought and identities. An example of the state strategy of consent involves the state's relationship to civil society, whereby the state relies on institutions within civil society to educate citizenry (e.g., religious institutions, educational institutions, media, etc.). In this way, the state is indirectly involved, especially in liberal contexts.

When applied to U.S. expansive hegemonic power, Gramsci's notion of the educative state's role in building a new geopolitically bounded "civilization" via the use of active consent of the elite requires greater collaboration than the use of coercion as exemplified by military presence around the world. Therefore, to be successful in its development and modernization efforts, the United States actively encouraged and facilitated consent-that is to say the active participation and willingness of a class or strata of people to cooperate and internalize the worldviews, morals, and values of the ruling classes or dominant groups. Generating such consent necessarily involves the 46

sphere or dimension of 'education' and the promulgation of a set of ideologies and social relations aimed to ensure social unification and social control in civil society. Education therefore becomes a means to build a "national civilization" focusing on "modernization" and the export of American values and knowledge.

In post World War II world order, understanding that military and economic aids

alone were insufficient to accomplish the goals of modernizations and democratization,

the U.S. embarked on a larger mission-to educate, and in doing so, promulgate

American values, ways of life and models of "modernization." This marked the

beginning of education as a tool of and for U.S. conduct of its international relations.

International education exchange in the form of students, scholars, and teachers exchange

became an effective tool for ensuring that elites from other nations receive a U.S.-style

education and that they be exposed to central values, beliefs and through active consent,

embrace said values.

For example, during the early post-war era, "national civilization" was about

deepening industrialization at home while promoting modernization paradigm overseas

and international education became the vehicle for exporting the modernization

paradigm. Then in this globalization era, there is the need to rebuild/recraft a new

"national civilization" that is resilient in the midst of growing competition. Therefore,

much of the emphasis is on tertiary/quaternary services/knowledge economy at home

while promoting neoliberalism and the promotion of democracy from within civil

societies and free-market economy abroad. Again international education becomes a key

tool and vehicle for carrying out hegemonic values in that students who receive a U.S.

education often return home and/or establish transnational networks with the objective of 47

promulgating free-market economic principles and/or democratic ideals of societal change premised on U.S. modernization paradigm. The challenge in every instance is how to maintain U.S. hegemony in the world today and often the answer may be found in international education as a tool and ideology for crafting or recrafting a "national civilization."

In essence, Gramsci's concept of the educative state and its need to build a

"national civilization" serves as an important conceptual framework for explicating why and how the state is actively engaged in international student migration. Building of a

"national civilization" as the United States has attempted to do since World War II requires the promulgation of ideologies that expand and sustain a nation state's reach and influence in the World. International education and higher education institutions provide an effective platform for expanding political, economic and cultural reach because of the social capital and human capital investment derived from education. As a nation, the

United States has successfully expanded its role as a superpower by educating the world elites and by spreading its cultural and political powers overseas, while also building its economic power at home and abroad by way of attracting and retaining the highly­ skilled, including international students.

The fashioning of a "national civilization" is predicated on the modernization paradigm. The U.S. provided the model for modernization, Daniel Lerner's style, by

advancing a paradigm of modem society predicated on three major principles: (1)

Western historical trajectory of development; (2) empathy as the ability to place oneself

in another person's shoes; and (3) mass media as an agent of change (Lerner 1958).

Lerner's model of modem society identified four phases to development: urbanization, 48

followed by literacy and media exposure, and ultimately, modem participant society and its resulting consequence of political and economic development. Explicit in Lerner's model of modernization is the role of education and the importance of knowledge as a means of empowerment and social change.

Implicit in the U.S. modernization paradigm is the universality of the Western pattern of development as the only path to political, economic, and socio-cultural transformation to be emulated by developing nations. According to Lerner (1958):

The W estem model of modernization exhibits certain components and sequences

whose relevance is global. Everywhere, for example, increasing urbanization has

tended to raise literacy; rising literacy has tended to increase media exposure;

increasing media exposure has "gone with" wider economic participation (per

capita income) and political participation (voting). The model evolved in the West

is a historical fact. (P .46)

The central push for "development" is political ideologies premised on new and

different paradigms. "Development" in essence meant moving societies from old,

traditional "backward" structures to new "modem" economic and social organizations

premised on Western style industrialization and modernization paradigms (Black 1966;

Huntington and Nelson 1976; Lerner 1958; Mowlana and Wilson 1990). Central to

modernization is economic growth as a means for promoting political and social stability

and thereby protecting U.S. security and economic interests in strategic regions of the

world.

Economic growth can be conceived along the model advanced by Rostow (1990).

Rostow (1990) posits a linear and structuralist model of five stages of societal economic 49

development: (1) traditional society, (2) preconditions for take-off, (3) take-off, (4) drive to maturity, and (5) age of high mass consumption. Each stage is defined by conditions related to investment, consumption, and social trend. "Traditional societies" are marked by lack of understanding and use of technology. These are societies which have pre­ scientific understandings of technology and are therefore devoid of economic growth.

Productivity is limited due to the limitation of modern science and its application. Much of the productive resources are devoted to agriculture and a value system predicated on

fatalism.

"Preconditions to take-off' refer to societies that commit to secular education and a degree of capital mobilization in the form of banks and currency. These societies are characterized by an entrepreneurial class with limited production and output and a focus on the manufacturing sector. The "take-off' stage occurs when sector-led growth

becomes common and society is driven by established economic processes and a drive

for private profit. This is the passage from traditional to modern society and refers to the

industrial revolution.

"Conditions for take-off' stage are characterized by a rise in the rate of productive

investment and substantial development of the manufacturing sectors. During this stage,

new industries emerge and expand yielding profits that are reinvested to stimulate

economic growth. The new class of entrepreneurs expands, and it directs the enlarging

flows of investment in the private sector.

The "drive to maturity" stage calls for the economy to diversify and to participate

in the international economy with imports and exports evolving. At this stage of

development, reduced rates of poverty and rising standards of living begin to emerge. 50

This is the stage in which an economy demonstrates that it has the technological and entrepreneurial skills to produce not everything, but anything that it chooses to produce.

The highest stage of development termed the "high mass consumption" refers to the period of contemporary comfort afforded many western nations, wherein consumers focus on durable goods. During this stage, a society can choose between concentrating on military and security issues, on equality and welfare issues, or on developing great luxuries for its upper class. Each country in this position chooses its own balance between these goals. Rostow' s model of economic development provides a historical perspective and does engage in notions of class and the role of technological advancements and its relationship to modernization and economic development. These concepts are relevant to the discussion of crafting a "national civilization" and the role of the knowledge economy and education.

The major weaknesses ofRostow's model of modernization is that it is in fact a

"capitalist manifesto" in that it focuses on a capitalist model of development and clearly favors a western model of modernization. It attempts to place economic development solely along a linear trajectory and assumes that societies must aspire to this form of development in order to be considered an advanced modem nation. For all practical purposes, modernization is equivalent to Westernization.

In sum, I argue that the United States is in fact simply scouring the world for the intellectual and human capital as a means for maintaining or strengthening U.S. hegemony and superpower status, and that international education constitutes an important economic, political and cultural weapon of the hegemonic state. CHAPTER3

METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Design

Given the theoretical framework advanced in this project, the methodological approach best suited for this research will be based on Robert Alford's (1998) seminal work, The Craft ofInquiry: Theories, Methods, Evidence. As Alford points out, determining the appropriate methodology is a function of time and resources, but most importantly, a function of integrating multiple paradigms in a dialectical manner [that] produces the richest result of inquiry." (Alford 1998:2) According to Alford:

Paradigms are "the combination of theoretical assumptions, methodological

procedures, and standards of evidence that are taken for granted in particular

works ... Within sociology, there are three major paradigms of inquiry­

multivariate, interpretive, and historical ... Every good work combines elements

of all three paradigms in various ways, either as foreground arguments or as

background assumptions." (Alford 1998: 2)

The research design for this study is a historical case study. Thus, using Alford terms, the research tradition or "paradigm of inquiry" (Alford 1998) to be used for this work is historical. This study attempts to construct a historical narrative of the presence, dynamics, and forms of international students in the United States and its impact on U.S.

51 52

political economy. To construct such a narrative clearly presupposes interpretive relations among social phenomenon such as the historical flow of international students to the U.S. stages of U.S. economic developments, political and economic motives for creating and expanding international exchange programs, and the policy implications of September 11.

The study covers a specific historical period from World War II to the present, therefore, the foreground argument for this project is a historical analysis of the trends and patterns of the relationship of international students to U.S. political economy. The research focuses on a phenomenon (international student mobility integral to U.S. political economy) situated in a specific time period (World War II to the present) using a case

study (the Unites States) with specific actors (the nation state, international students, and

advocates of international education), based on a review of reports, government

documents, texts (newspaper articles, historical accounts, government documents), and

statistical data.

This research lends itself to a historical paradigm as a foreground argument and to

a multivariate analysis as a background assumption. The combination of these approaches

ensures that I capture the complexity of interrelationships between international student

mobility and U.S. political economy. The study does not have an interpretive lens

because I did not conduct interviews with hundreds of international students,

international education advocates, and government officials because although important

in providing depth, collecting such data would prove to be time consuming, costly, and

impractical. Furthermore, such data may yield little insight/explanation as to what is a

macro and structural phenomena. Additionally, individual actors cannot account for the

complex processes, patterns and outcomes of international student mobility. Questions 53

such as sample size, and how and who to select for interviews would prove to be very challenging. Therefore, a historical case study is appropriate to address the research question and sub-questions given that the research examines a phenomenon, the flows of international students from post World War II to post September 11, and it focuses on

one nation state, the United States. The research is qualitative in that it examines the relationship of international students to the changing U.S. political economy.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of the study is explanatory and descriptive. The objective is to

produce the richest tapestry in explicating the relationship of changing U.S. political

economy to international student flows. The background arguments to make the case for

international students' relationship to U.S. political economy involve the interpretation of

changes and trends in numerical data related to the flow of students. The study describes

the nature of the relationship between international student mobility and U.S. political

economy contextualized within a specific historical period of World War II to the

present. The background arguments are therefore multivariate and descriptive.

The research is explanatory in that it hopes to advance knowledge about an

underlying process-international student flows to the U.S. and its relationship to U.S.

political economy-and provides evidence through statistical data, and document

analysis to support an explanation for the nature of said relationship. Implicit in historical

analysis of this kind is critical interpretation. The research attempts to identify the

structures that have been established and that shape U.S. policies, and how this is 54

changing. The research relates the changes to the trends and patterns of international

student mobility.

The research calls for macro trends (U.S. political economy and its relationship to

international students) with a view toward a longitudinal study. The units of analysis for this research are people and the nation states, with a focus on the collective properties of

international students as a group and the nation state. The objective is to describe and

analyze international student mobility and its relationship to the nation state changing

political economy. It is therefore fitting to use a method that seeks to "explain outcomes

generated by the interplay among social structures, social processes, and contingent

unpredictable events" (Alford 1998: 47), as is the case with historical sociology. One can

argue that events or phenomenon such as U.S. political economy, international student

mobility, and 9/11 policies can each be examined separately and viewed as autonomous

processes that happened to converge at various historical periods. However, the aim here

is to integrate all of these processes into a complex narrative and draw a somewhat

complete picture. To do less than that would be to deny the "historicity" (Alford 1998) of

an important, and very little understood process.

Important sections of the work focus on international student flow and its

implications for human capital development, as well as political and cultural capital in

advancing U.S. national interests. In addition, immigration policies, including post 9/11

policies and the implications of said policies on international student mobility and U.S.

political economy are described in detail and explained. The chapter related to post 9/11

immigration policies and procedures describes various actors (government, international

education advocacy groups, the media) and the symbolic interactions resulting from this 55

defining watershed event. Furthermore, review of documents (newspaper, immigration and government documents) help to contextualize and explain the nature of relationships.

The arguments advanced in the study are supported by various sources of data.

Sources of Data and Method

Sources of data are varied and numerous. Data sources include statistics

(Immigration and Naturalization Services Statistical Yearbook; Department of State Visa

issuance reports; H-lB Temporary Worker Visa statistics compiled by the Department of

Homeland Security; UNESCO and OECD statistics related to cross-border education);

survey findings (the Institute for International Education, the Council of Graduate

Schools, the National Science Foundation, and the Oak Ridge Institute); reports

(NAFSA: Association of International Educators, National Research Council, Fulbright

Annual Reports); government documents (U.S. Federal Register, Congressional hearings

and records, U.S. Statutes), and newspaper articles (major newspaper coverage of post

9/11 discourse).

Data sources are divided into primary and secondary sources. Primary sources

constitute key sources of data providing context and patterns related to the collective

properties of international students including source countries related to flows of

students, field of studies, sources of funding, and level of education. Primary sources of

data include:

• the Institute of International Education (IIE) "Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchanges," multiple years;

• the National Science Foundation. "Survey of Earned Doctorates," multiple years; and 56

• the National Science Foundation. "Science and Engineering Indicators," multiple years

Secondary sources of data are used to support various arguments. Secondary sources include various reports, government documents, and newspaper articles. Below is a list of secondary sources:

• Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. "Fulbright Annual Report," multiple years;

• NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 2009. "The Economic Benefits of International Education to the United States: A Statistical Analysis";

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2002. "International Mobility of the Highly-Skilled";

• UNESCO, 2009. "UNESCO Global Education Digest";

• CASE: Council for Advancement and Support of Education, 2008. "Overseas Educational Background of Taiwan Cabinet Ministers";

• Nobel Foundation, 2009. "Nobel e-Museum-The Official Web Site of the Nobel Foundation";

• Oak Ridge report on "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities," for multiple years;

• Chronicle of Higher Education articles, multiple years;

• New York Times articles, multiple years;

• U.S. Department of Education, 2007. "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study";

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. "Data on the Foreign-Born Population";

• U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2006. "Annual Social and Economic Supplement";

• Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.2(0). Aliens of Extraordinary Ability or Achievement; 57

• Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.2(f)(IO)(ii);

• Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.2(f)(IO)(ii)(c);

• Code of Federal Regulations Section 214(c)(9);

• Code of Federal Regulations Section 214(c)(12);

• Code of Federal Regulations Section 214(g)(5)(c);

• The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-641;

• The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, of 2000, Pub. L. 106- 313 114;

• The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546;

• The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163;

• Homeland Security Act of2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135;

• Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2. October 29, 2001. "Combatting Terrorism through Immigration Policies";

• U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of2002. H.R. 3525. 107th Congress, 1st Session;

• U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, USA Patriot Act of2001. H.R. 3162. 107th Congress, 1st Session;

• U.S. Congressional Research Services, Library of Congress. February 11, 2004. "Visa Issuances: Policy Issues, and Legislation";

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2010. "Immigration Classification and Visa Categories: Nonimmigrant Visas";

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2005. "Temporary Admission of Nonimmigrants to the United States";

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-lB)," multiple years; 58

• U.S. Department of State, 2009. "Nonimmigrant Visa Statistics";

• U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 2004. "World Leaders Educated in the United States";

• Government Accountability Office, 1975. "Better Controls Needed to Prevent Foreign Students from Violating the Conditions of their Entry and Stay in the United States";

• Government Accountability Office, 1980. "Controls Over Nonimmigrant Aliens Remain Ineffective";

• Government Accountability Office, 1983. "Controls Over Foreign Students in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions are Still Ineffective; Proposed Legislation and Regulations";

• Government Accountability Office, 1993. "Exchange Programs: Inventory of International Educational, Cultural, and Training Programs";

• Government Accountability Office, 1998. "Information Technology: Assessment of the Department of Commerce's Report on Workforce Demand and Supply";

• Government Accountability Office, 2004. "Performance of Information System to Monitor Foreign Student and Exchange Visitors has Improved, but Issues Remain";

• Government Accountability Office, 2005. "Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed"; and

• United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2007. "U.S. Colleges and Universities - Utility Patent Grants, Calendar Years 1969-2005"

The research uses credible authoritative sources and relies on various approaches

(statistics, content analysis, analytical induction, comparison method) to describe and explain a rich and complex tapestry of interactions. The objective of the research is to move from detailed observations toward generalizations and ideas as to the nature of the relationship between international student mobility and changing U.S. political economy. 59

The method of data collection involved a complex web of personal communication, internet searches, and use of personal contacts. For several months, I culled through hundreds of reports and statistical data to determine reliability, consistency and validity of data sources. Much time was spent examining the method of data collection from primary sources. In addition, hundreds of hours were spent building tables and cross-referencing data to ensure accuracy and consistency.

To determine the most reliable sources of data, I contacted various experts and

professionals in various agencies, including the Department of State, Department of

Homeland Security, Department of Education and the National Science Foundation.

These various sources provided invaluable insights and guidance on various sources and

how best to select data most relevant to the research question.

The internet proved to be a rich platform to collect, review, sort and select various

reports and newspaper clippings. The data collected via Internet required follow-up calls

and discussions with relevant sources to verify accuracy of information and to prioritize,

given the multiple contradictions in information as it was being reported by various

sources. Countless hours were spent narrowing the data elements and making meanings

of the data. The greatest difficulty proved to be narrowing down the various sources and

selecting the most relevant data elements to make my case. When I encountered obstacles

in identifying data, I had to be creative by leveraging my professional contacts to gain

access to government agencies and experts who could provide the necessary context and

explain the particular nuances of statements and pronouncements by government

officials. My years of experience in international education and the extensive network 60

and contacts made over the years proved invaluable in accessing and verifying information and data.

The method of analysis is varied in that it involved four main approaches: (1) inductive, (2) comparative method, (3) content analysis, and (4) a chronological matrix of events. The inductive method is used because it allowed me to use my knowledge-base regarding international student flows to the United States to investigate, test, analyze and come to a conclusion regarding the relationship of student flows to the changing political economy of the U.S. I was able to draw generalized conclusions from a finite collection of data.

Using data sets from primary sources, I was able to use a comparative method to determine similarities and differences among groups, and a breakdown of international students by nations, groups and subgroups. Example of comparisons include flows of international students by source countries, funding sources, and level of education.

Content analysis was used to detect themes and patterns in discourse related to international students. By reading and identifying themes from various newspapers and reports, I was able to draw conclusions on perceptions and construction of international students during various periods. An example of the result of content analysis involved detecting the use of language related to securitization juxtaposed to the word

"international students" and the frequency of pattern in a post-9/11 coverage of the media.

I created a matrix of events chronologically to correlate the flows of international students under various political and economic times in order to generate themes, patterns and events and make meaning of those themes. An example of this approach involved 61

identifying the period of rise of the knowledge-based economy and correlating that time period to increases in international student flows in the science and engineering fields.

Challenges and Limitations of the Study

The research engages in "triangulation" by deploying various methods such as quantitative data, documents and reports, and newspaper articles to validate findings.

However, it could go a step further by including interviews. Given the constraints of time and cost, I chose not to do so. Some may argue that capturing the voices of students and international education advocates would be valuable. I argue that conducting interviews with hundreds of international students, international education advocates, and government officials, although important in providing data richness and depth, would prove to be time consuming, costly, and impractical, and may yield little insight/explanation for what is a macro, and structural phenomena. Furthermore, individual actors cannot account for the complex processes, patterns and outcomes of international student mobility over time, which this study attempts to do. Questions such as sample size, how and who to select for interviews would not only be methodologically challenging, but can at best only provide insight into the subjective nature of the international student experience.

The big challenge in the research has been collecting data. Empirical analysis of international student flows is challenging because of several data problems. Among the more serious is the quality of data on international students. Information on the number of international students in the United States is collected by three sources: The U.S.

Department of State's Visa Office, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs; the U.S. 62

Department of Homeland Security; and the Institute of International Education (IIE). The

Department of State publishes annual data on immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued by its foreign posts. While the Department reports the number of visas issued by type of visa, it does not report the number of visas issued to all who engage in studies (including, for example, children of diplomats and others who might be in the country on diplomatic or other status but engaged in full-time studies as dependents). Hence, a complete and exclusive count of international students is not possible. The Department of Homeland

Security publishes data on immigrant and nonimmigrant entrants to the United States.

These data are derived from exit documents and entrants are reported by visa type. Thus, like the Department of State data, one can determine the number of students entering on one class of visas but not the number of students entering on other visa types. The

Department of Homeland Security data on nonimmigrant entrants, however, does include the number of nonimmigrants adjusting their visas from overseas, but only those who do so from within the United States. Therefore, data on students changing their status from students to temporary or permanent visa is incomplete.

Since 1919, the Institute of International Education has periodically surveyed colleges and universities to determine the number of international students. The results have been reported annually since 1954. The survey and the nature of the data have changed over time, but consistent data are available for most years on country of origin, field of study, academic level, source of financial support, and visa status. The IIE survey permits, for most years, the tabulation of both the flow of new students and the stock of total international students. 63

As a measure of international students in U.S. higher education, each of the above data sources has its limitations. The IIE data is used as the primary source for this research to measure the enrollment of international students rather than the Department of

State or Department of Homeland Security because it is much more accurate and also because it has longitudinal data. The IIE data is supplemented with data from the

National Science Foundation on enrollment of international students at the Master's and

Doctoral levels in the science and engineering fields.

Another limitation of the study relates to the issue of intersectionality. The study implies intersectionalities of race, ethnicity, nationality, class, age, and gender based on the data presented. However, there is not an extensive discussion of the implications of international student flows and intersectionalities. This was intentional on my part given that data related to gender and race in particular were not consistently available to provide such in-depth analysis. However, recognizing the importance of intersectionalities, I attempt whenever appropriate, to make reference to the issues and draw relevant conclusions. CHAPTER4

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: A TOOL FOR

ADVANCING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

The United States became a superpower after World War II. Much of the analysis of its power has focused on military, political and economic dimensions (e.g., this can best be characterized in terms of military interventions in Europe and Asia, and foreign aid to developing nations and Europe during war reconstruction efforts), and currently in the Middle East (e.g., Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq). Largely absent in the discussion of expansion and maintenance of U.S. power and influence is the role of international education.

In this chapter, I argue that "international education" is an extension of U.S. political economic power. Even though the form, scope and processes of international education exchange has changed from the cold war period to the present, what has remained constant is U.S. leadership in cross-border education since World War II. This can be seen in the current market share of international students and the preeminence of

U.S. institutions as centers of excellence.

This chapter focuses on international education in U.S. foreign policy after World

War II. I will first examine modem paradigm followed by an analysis of the Fulbright program and the flow of international students from strategic alliances. The chapter illustrates how the state strategically advances and facilitates, directly and indirectly,

64 65

foreign policy objectives. To facilitate analytic clarity, I will focus specifically on U.S. foreign policy after World War II and its relation to international education. Central to my analysis and argument is the establishment of the Fulbright program as a hallmark of cold war policy and the power of the modernization paradigm as evidenced by other nations' investment in a U.S. education.

In the post World War II period, Europe's economic and military power weakened and the United States moved to become the sole dominant world hegemonic superpower. In its quest to build and maintain what Antonio Gramsci describes as

"national civilizations" overseas, America found itself engaged in reconstruction and nation-building missions in Europe and Japan, as well as development work in developing nations. The post-war period called for a new global order, one characterized by U.S. political and cultural influence in Latin America, Asia, and Africa; the reconstruction and integration of Japan and Europe under U.S. dominance; and the establishment of international institutions charged with stabilizing the world economy and political order. The United States took on a dominant international role militarily, politically, and economically by leading the "free world" and combating the expansion of communism in order to create and maintain its own global interest and power during the cold war era.

With the world divided into two camps, the "communist" bloc led by the Soviet

Union and the "liberal/free" bloc led by the United States, decades of military, economic, political, cultural and ideological wars ensued. Influenced by socialist tendencies and alternative models of economic and social changes, nations from the non-aligned 66

movement1 such as Indonesia, India, Ghana, and several South American nations, criticized the U.S. approach to nation-building. Criticisms were launched against the

United States for its capitalist tendencies and its materialism given the economic models advanced and the concentration of wealth and power and consumption patterns. The U.S. was criticized for adopting an imperialist stance (Burnham and Amery 1953; Hardt and

Negri 2000; Stephanson 1995) given its military intervention and support for colonial

powers in Europe (i.e., France with its involvement in Indochina and North Africa,

Netherlands in Indonesia and United Kingdom in India, Sri Lanka, and Burma).

McCarthyism and the passing of the McCarran International Security Act in the 1950s

barring foreign visitors from coming to the U.S. further exacerbated the United States'

negative image abroad given the promotion of anti-communist sentiments and

xenophobic tendencies.

To counter communist expansion and to secure its political and economic

interests overseas, the United States provided economic aid for reconstruction by creating

international institutions such as the United Nations, The World Bank and the

International Monetary Fund. The rationale for doing so would come from the

"modernization" paradigm.

U.S. Modernization Paradigm

In the post World War II era, "development" as a roadmap for individual,

institutional, national, and international transformation became the cornerstone of U.S.

1 The non-aligned movement is an international organization of nations in Asia and Africa wanting to form a third force through a policy of non-alignment with the United States or the Soviet bloc. The organization was founded in 1955 with the intended purpose of ensuring national sovereignty and to combat imperialism, colonialism, racism and hegemony of political blocs. 67

engagement in the world, and the trademark of U.S. foreign policy. The idea that economic growth is a necessary condition to stability and peace in regions of strategic interests has been and continues to be a core tenet of U.S. foreign policy. Since the post­ war era, the United States has viewed its mission in the world as one of transformation, democratization, industrialization, and nation building-all key elements of modernization-albeit in the name of assuring the stability of a given set of economic, political, social, and cultural arrangements in regions of strategic interests.

In the post-war era, newly independent nations in the pursuit of "modernization" were urged to develop according to the Western economic model because of the belief that the U.S. experience provided the best template for modernization, thus universalizing the U.S. experience and securing U.S. hegemony. The Western model of modernization,

particularly the U.S. model, in essence became the baseline standard against which all

other models of development were judged.

Central to modernization is economic growth as a means for promoting political

and social stability and thereby protecting U.S. security and economic interests in

strategic regions of the world. As argued by William Robinson (1996), the quest for

democratization has often resulted in authoritarian client regimes in Asia and Latin

America and/or in elite regimes maintaining power as proxies for the United States. Thus,

the call for a shift from an authoritarian to liberal form of governance, along with

institution-building long viewed as the necessary pre-conditions for economic, social and

political development (Huntington and Nelson 1976), has not always characterized U.S.

foreign policy approach to development and engagement with other nation states. The

primacy of instilling values of individual human rights, freedom of speech and media, 68

and development of political parties as a major consideration in wanting to promote

"democracies" are supported in theory but not always in practice. The necessity for

educating a class of society responsible for carrying the ideologies of "development" and

its concomitant variables of democratization, trade liberalization, economic growth, and

participatory citizenry becomes important. In sum, modernization American-style proved

important given its economic, socio-cultural, political and educational dimensions. Social

economic dimension is predicated on: I) a capitalist model; 2) a socio-cultural dimension

predicated on changing attitudes and beliefs of people; 3) a political dimension reflected

in notions ofliberal democracy, free speech, right to vote, and institutional-building; and

4) an educational dimension based on educational programs and lifestyles.

According to Gramsci (1971 ), crafting a "national civilization" requires the

consent and implicit coercion of the masses. However, consent is a more effective

strategy given that it focuses on education and the media to promulgate the ideologies,

construct identities, a conduct. Therefore, to be successful in its development and

modernization efforts, the United States actively encouraged and facilitated consent and

the complicity of foreign government-that is to say the active participation and

willingness of a class or strata of people to cooperate and internalize the worldviews,

morals, and values of the ruling classes or dominant groups by using education as a tool

for advancing its national interest.

International Education as a Modernization Paradigm

Within the larger framework of modernization, the United States began to

promote economic development by way of technical and economic assistance with the 69

creation of institutions such as the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID) in 1961. Various government agencies, including the Departments of State,

Justice, Labor, Defense, Health and Education, Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, began to promote a wide spectrum of economic, military, political, and educational activities. Economic aid and technical assistance came in the form of the Marshall Plan to

Western Europe and the Truman's Four Point program to less industrialized countries of the world (Stone 1973). The Marshall plan unleashed large scale economic aid and technical assistance in the reconstruction of economies and politics of Western nations

and promoted the establishment of market-oriented economies. The Truman's Four Point

program2 of economic and technical assistance focused on scientific and technological knowledge-sharing with third world nations in Asia, Africa, Central and South America

(Bu 1999; Mason 1964), and foreign aid to countries on the path of"modernization" such

as Japan, Thailand, South Korea and Pakistan, among others. Military activities took the

form of sending troops and/or setting up U.S. military bases in countries of strategic

interests, and training foreign military personnel from developing nations.

Understanding that military and economic aids alone were insufficient to

accomplish the goals of modernizations and democratization, the U.S. embarked on a

larger mission to educate. This marked the beginning of education as a tool of and for

U.S. conduct of its international relations (Arndt 2005; Bu 1995; 1999; 2003; Coombs

2 In his inaugural address in 1949, President Harry Truman spoke of four courses of action that the United States must take in international relations: (1) support of the United Nations; (2) creation of programs for world recovery; (3) curtailing communist expansion; and (4) "Point Four"-sharing scientific and industrial progress with third world nations in an effort to assist with development and growth of those nations. 70

1964; Fraser 1965; Johnson and Colligan 1965; Ninkovich 1981; Thomson and Laves

1963; Whitfield 1996; Wit 2002). During this period, thousands of foreign military and defense officers received education and training in U.S. institutions of higher education.

Universities were contracted not only to provide foreign aid and technical assistance to

developing nations, but also to teach students the U.S. modernization paradigm and its

application to the rest of the world. All government programs during the Cold War had

one common objective, promotion of the U.S. model of political economic development

and social institutions-in other words, the use of the U.S. modernization paradigm as a

counterforce to communist models of development.

On the international level, military and economic engagement was supplemented

by cultural and educational engagement (Butts 1963; Government Accountability Office

1993; Jenkins 1983; Vestal 1994)3 given America's need to promote its foreign policies,

protect its global interest and make a lasting impact. As "never before in American

history, it became vital to the national security to understand the minds of people in other

societies and to have American aspirations and problems understood by others" (Johnson

and Colligan 1965 :9).

Realizing that the ideological war required influencing hearts and minds, the

United States began to engage in people-to-people public diplomacy or "Soft Power"

(Nye 1990; 2002; 2007) as an important strategy in implementing its modernization

paradigm. The concept of "Soft Power" was first developed in 1990 by Joseph Nye. Nye

disputed the then-prevalent view that America was in decline and advanced that the

3 For a full inventory offederally-funded international training programs and information on coordination and oversight, refer to the Government Accountability Office (1993) report. The report identifies 16 agencies and 75 programs. 71

United States was the strongest nation in economic and military terms but also in its

capacity to influence other nations to identify U.S. interests as their own. Nye (1990:5)

defined soft power as "the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion." He also noted that soft power could be developed through strategic,

cultural, and economic alliances. He argued that such strategies would result in greater

political capital for the United States.

International education exchange in the form of students, scholars, and teachers

exchange became an effective tool for ensuring that elites from other nations receive an

American education and that they be exposed to central values and beliefs and through

active consent, embrace said values.4 One major hallmark of international education

exchange, particularly student exchange as a tool of modernization and international

relation, was and continues to be the Fulbright Program.

The Fulbright Program-A Hallmark of U.S. Foreign Policy during the Cold War

Background and Philosophy

J. William Fulbright, a native of Arkansas and the son of a prominent

businessman in the state, was born in 1905 and attended the University of Arkansas.

Selected to attend Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, he departed for England in

1925. It is believed that this experience, along with his travels throughout Europe, shaped

his interests in public service and the government's role in shaping foreign policy.

Challenged intellectually and culturally by an Oxford education, Fulbright gained an

4 It is important to note that prior to World War II, it was primarily religious organizations and private institutions such as Carnegie and Rockefeller that were engaged in international educational exchange activities. 72

appreciation and understanding of the complexity of culture and the value of an elite high standard education. Many of his classmates from Oxford later ascended to important positions within Parliament, academia, business, and the media. After graduating from

Oxford in 1928 with a degree in modem history, Fulbright returned to the United States and later pursued a law degree at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He subsequently became a law faculty member at George Washington University and at the

University of Arkansas. In 1939, he was appointed President at the University of

Arkansas and at the age of thirty-four became the youngest University president in the history of the United States. Fulbright's reading of history and his studies in constitutional law, along with his experience as a Rhodes Scholar and university president, led him to believe that the effectiveness and hallmark of governmental systems and social institutions resides in a nation's ability to attract the best and brightest men and women to a life of public service (Fulbright 1964; Glazer 1987; Johnson and Gwertzman

1968; Woods 1995). Fulbright's tenure as university president, along with his experience as a scholar at Oxford, led him to become a staunch advocate on the role of educational institutions in shaping and influencing the citizenry to reach its optimal potential and to aspire to build social institutions to promote democracy. Fulbright argued that:

"Man is not naturally a cooperative animal and only education can persuade him

that progress, in fact, a decent existence, is possible only by intelligent

organization and cooperation which is the essence of government ... A community

likewise has character, and I believe that the educational institutions, especially

the universities, have great influence on that character" (Johnson and Gwertzman

1968: 44-5). 73

In 1942, after being ousted as president of the University of Arkansas by a new governor, Fulbright was elected to represent the Third Congressional District of Arkansas for one term. He made his mark by introducing the famous "Fulbright Resolution" of

1943. The resolution called for the creation of an international cooperative organization designed to support peace-keeping initiatives encouraging the United States' participation in what became the United Nations. Fulbright also began to advance his own brand of

Woodrow Wilson's internationalism, one predicated on the notion of international collective security governed by democratic principles. He argued that in order for the

United States to preserve its "national civilization" and achieve lasting peace, it needed to guard itself from isolationism and take on a more active role in the post-war world. He urged America to share its economic and political institutions with other nations and assist other nations in developing their own brand of democracy and economic and political institutions. An astute cultural relativist, Fulbright recognized that capitalism was in no way "divine and inviolable," but rather simply the result of particular material conditions at a particular historical juncture (Senate March 28, 1945) which allowed the

U.S. and the West to flourish. He favored other nations finding their own paths to democracy. Implicit in his view was the assumption that given a choice, every person would choose democracy, freedom, and free enterprise.

Elected to the Senate in 1944, Fulbright successfully amended the Surplus

Property Act of 1944 in 1946 which later became the famous "Fulbright Act." Aware of the presence of surplus war equipment scattered around the world and recalling the difficulties of debt repayment after World War I, Fulbright came up with a simple yet ingenious solution to debt repayment. He proposed that funds generated overseas through 74

the sale of military surpluses would remain in the country of origin as a permanent

endowment to be used for the purpose of bilateral educational exchanges.

The Fulbright Program

Senator Fulbright's reputation as an internationalist and pacifist proved to be the

guiding force behind the first and largest continuous exchange program in the history of

the United States. The Fulbright program was established in 1946 by the U.S. Congress

with the mission of building mutual understanding, achieving peace, and promoting

international cooperation through exchange of person, knowledge and skills (Dudden and

Dynes 1987). The program funded the best and brightest international students, the elite

of societies, to study in the United States and marked the beginning of a steady rise in the

number of international students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees at U.S.

institutions of higher education. Two years later, the U.S. Information and Educational

Exchange Act (commonly referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948) extended the

scope of the Fulbright program to include scholars and teachers as well. The program was

expanded and clarified with the passage of the Fulbright-Hays Act in 1961.

As the 1961 Fulbright-Hays Act states, the purpose of the exchange program is to:

Increase mutual understanding between the peoples of the United States and the

people of other countries; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations

by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and

achievements of the people of the United States and other nations, and the

contributions being made toward a peaceful and fruitful life for people throughout

the world; to promote international cooperation for educational and cultural 75

advancement; and thus, to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic, and

peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world

(Johnson and Colligan 1965:5).

Explicit in the statement of purpose is the recognition that international exchange is in the national interest of the United States because it can and should engender mutual understanding for the benefit of the U.S. Implicit in the statement is the motive of mutual

understanding that enables America to extend its educational, cultural, and development model to the rest of the world for the "betterment" of nations and individuals. As a key

architect of the 1946 and 1961 legislation, Senator Fulbright articulated a quest for

international peace and stability in the wake of World War II. The Fulbright education exchange program is predicated on the fact that "America has much to teach in the world

but also much to learn, and that the greater our intellectual involvement with the world

beyond our frontiers, the greater the gain for both America and the world" (Johnson and

Colligan 1965:ix). Clearly stated is the United States' intent to be a role model. One goal

for doing so is to learn from others in order to help them become "modem" American­

style.

By sending American students abroad and hosting foreign students, teachers and

researchers here in the United States, the Fulbright Program distinguished itself because

of its clear emphasis on education of the global elite and a desire to transform nations and

people-in essence, transforming hearts and minds by way of education. Hence, the

program was built on the main premise that power, value, and influence of knowledge

production and exchange by way of the elite can and should benefit the masses.

Education thus became a critical tool for cultivating international relations and exchange, 76

and for exporting models of economic development. The program quickly gained support in the United States and internationally. Several U.S. presidents went on record to support and tout the merit and benefits of the program. President Dwight Eisenhower in his 1952 presidential campaign stated, "I firmly believe that educational exchange programs are an important step toward world peace ... It is my personal hope that this activity ....will continue to expand in the coming years" (as quoted in Bu 1999:15). Senator and future

President Lyndon B. Johnson (1961) also remarked that "arms can never make us invulnerable nor our enemies invincible, but support we give to education can make freedom irresistible" (Johnson and Colligan 1965:ix). Furthermore, President John F.

Kennedy, in commemoration of the Fulbright Program's fifteenth anniversary in 1961

stated, "This Program has been most important in bettering the relations of the United

States with other parts of the world. It has been a major constructive step on the road to peace" (Johnson and Colligan 1965:5).

The Fulbright program is unique in its scope of activity, funding scheme, cooperative arrangements, reciprocal nature and longevity. Unlike other exchange programs that may focus on a single activity such as teaching, research, or studies, the

Fulbright program involves all three dimensions. At its inception, the program was funded by war reparation and foreign loan repayments to the U.S. Today, the program is funded by congressional appropriation, foreign governments, U.S. and foreign

foundations, the private sector, and academic institutions. Participating governments and host institutions in foreign countries and in the United States make significant financial contributions through cost-sharing and indirect support (e.g., through salary supplements, tuition waivers and university housing). European nations became the first to enter into a 77

cost-sharing model. In 1963, Austria instituted a cost share arrangement, followed in

1964 by Australia, Germany, Norway and Sweden. By 1965, the program had cooperative agreements with 48 foreign governments. Today, the Fulbright program has cooperative funding arrangements with over 90 foreign governments and/or foreign private foundations or organizations and programs in over 140 countries.

In fiscal year 2007, the U.S. government contributed over $210 million to the program. Foreign governments contributed over $65 million to the student and scholar

Fulbright program. The top five foreign governments with the largest contributions to the program in FY 2007 included Pakistan with approximately $10 million in funding, Spain with $7 million, Germany with $6 million, Brazil with $4 million and South Korea with

$3 million. Overseas private contributions amounted to more than $16 million5 during fiscal year 2008 (Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board 2008). The scope of cooperative arrangements and the amount of foreign contributions attest to the extent of buy-ins from foreign countries and support for the vision of Fulbright as an important tool for diplomacy and foreign relations. In the case of the Fulbright program, the crafting of a

"national civilization" premised on the modernization paradigm intentionally were achieved through active education of overseas elites and through active support of the state to provide financial support to the program. Therefore, explicit in the program is advancing the interest of the elite class. The fact that other nations were willing

5 Total budget for the Fulbright program, including the U.S. government, foreign government, overseas private contributions and U.S. direct and in-kind contributions, amounted to approximately $340 million for fiscal year 2007. Foreign contributions to the Fulbright Student and Scholar programs amounted to approximately $78 million. For a detailed breakdown of foreign contributions by countries and dollar amount of contributions, please refer to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, Annual Report 2007- 2008, page 66. 78

participants to the extent that governments committed financial resources to the program reinforces Antonio Gramsci's argument that consent is a more effective approach for constructing and maintaining a "national civilization" than coercion.

Immigration Regulations and the Fulbright Program

To ensure the export of modernization American-style, U.S. immigration regulations were implemented to fulfill the mission of the Fulbright program.

Immigration regulations reveal a key intent of the program to train students, teachers and scholars so that they will return home to implement models and practices learned while in the United States as opposed to retaining and/or encouraging the stay of said students or scholars upon completion of program objectives. Students, scholars and teachers who participate in the Fulbright program come on a J-1 Exchange Visitor visa category.6

Authority for the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program derives from the Mutual Educational and

Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-256) as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2451, et. seq. (1988), also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The J-1 Exchange Visitor Program is administered by the Department of State, an indication once again of the foreign policy intent of the program. Through the Exchange Visitor Program, foreign nationals visit the

United States temporarily to teach, lecture, study, observe, conduct research, consult, train, or demonstrate special skills. Designated sponsoring organizations (i.e., universities, government agencies, private entities) facilitate the entry of foreign nationals

6 For a complete review of the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program Regulations, refer to the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Website at: http://exchanges.state.gov/education/jexchanges/academic/ucstudent.htm. 79

into the United States to complete the objectives of the program. At the conclusion of their program, participants are expected to return to their home countries to fulfill a mandatory two-year home-country physical presence requirement, as established by

Section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

In some rare instances, participants may waive the home physical presence requirement by applying for a waiver if they wish to remain in the United States beyond the end date of their programs or if they want to submit an application to the Department of Homeland Security for a change in visa status. A waiver may be made only in exceptional cases. Exceptions to the home residency requirements include: (1) exceptional hardship to a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, spouse, or child of an exchange visitor if the exchange visitor returns home; (2) possible persecution of participant due to race, religion, or political opinions if he/she returns home; (3) employment request from an interested federal agency on the participant's behalf; and (4) if the home government states that the participant is not needed at home and would be better served remaining in the United States.

There is no public information available on the number of waivers granted. Data are only available on waivers initiated by individual program participants. It is therefore hard to assess the number, nature and frequency of waivers approved. However, given that the Fulbright program is a sponsored government program, a waiver is generally not permitted by the statutes, except under exceptional cases such as risk of political persecution and/or in the U.S. national interest. Participants are expected and required to return to their home country for a minimum of two years after completion of program objectives. There are no public data available to indicate if exceptions have been made 80

for Fulbright students. Yet anecdotally, some Fulbright scholars have successfully waived their home residency requirement by choosing to work for U.S. government agencies, and in some cases by claiming political asylum based on claims of potential persecution in case of return to home country, such as in the recent cases of Fulbright participants from Iraq.

By targeting the educated and intellectual elites of various developing countries and requiring them to go home given the requirements of the J-1 Exchange Visitor visas, the United States has legitimized and extended its capitalist mode of development and institution building via the education of students in particular, and the export of knowledge, skills and practices in general. Students funded through the Fulbright grant are all classified as J-1 Exchange Visitors, and as visitors, the intent clearly is to "visit" the United States, but not to remain. The United States, in essence, by way of the

Fulbright program, has gained strategies for shaping the domestic and international policies of developing nations via the education of the elite. The program has created a global elite community connected by knowledge, skills and values. In over 60 years of the program's existence, over 250,000 individuals have participated in the program, including over 100,000 Americans and 150,000 nationals of other countries (Fulbright

Foreign Scholarship Board 2006; 2007). The Fulbright program points to the intersection of education, nationality, class and the perpetuation of the social classes. In addition, the program is focused on the importation of the elite and talents to the United States and the exportation of the hegemonic ideologies and cultures transmitted by way of a U.S. education. 81

Historical Flow of Foreign Fulbright Students to the U.S.-1949-2007

The assumption or belief that the United States has more to teach the world than it has to learn from the world was exemplified by the fact that the Fulbright program placed

greater emphasis on bringing more international students to the United States than in

sending American students to different comers of the world. The flow of international

students coming to the U.S. is almost three times that of American students going

overseas. From 1949 to 2007, over 120,000 international students participated in the

Fulbright program, whereas over that same period of time, roughly 47,000 American

students received Fulbright grants to study internationally (Fulbright Foreign Scholarship

Board 2008).

A cursory examination of data from 1949 to 2007 on foreign Fulbright students

studying in the United States readily shows that program participation has been driven in

large part by U.S. strategic interests and foreign policy objectives in the post World War

II era. The historical flow of foreign Fulbright students and scholars to the United States

reflects an emphasis of U.S. regional foreign policy objectives. Because of the Marshall

plan and America's close political and economic ties to Europe, European students have

constituted the largest number of foreign Fulbright students to the U.S., making up close

to 60 percent of all Fulbright students. As the data in Table 4.1 clearly shows, Europe has

the highest percentage of Fulbright students. Historically, Germany, France, the United

Kingdom, and Italy have lead in the number of Fulbright students coming to the United

States to study. 82

The data on international Fulbright student flows by region reflected in Table 4.1 reflects the racialized and implicit gendered dimensions of the program. There is data related to the geographical make-up of student flows, however, absent is data on the gender representation. Given that the program focuses mainly on the education of the elite of various societies, one can surmise that a greater number of men benefit from the program than women. This gender bias is particularly likely for developing nations given the prevalence of patriarchy and the social and educational barriers erected against women accessing higher educations.

Table 4.1. International Fulbright Students by Regions from 1949-2007 Region7 #of Foreign Fulbright %ofTOTAL Students Africa 5,485 4

East Asia & Pacific 14,619 12

South Asia & Central Asia 5,208 4

Europe 74,997 60

Near East 4,634 4

America and Caribbean 20,010 16

TOTAL 124,953 100%

Source: Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board 2008. Fulbright Annual Report 2007-08

7 Regions are classified according to the Department of State classification. Africa includes all countries in Sub-Sahara Africa. Near East includes Middle East and North Africa. The Americas and the Caribbean are classified by the Fulbright Board and the Department of State as the "Western Hemisphere." For a complete list of countries by regions, refer to pages 70-79 of the Fulbright Annual Report 2007-2008. 83

According to data from the 2007-2008 academic year, students from Germany,

Russia and Turkey (a new trend for Turkey and Russia) dominated the Fulbright program. The large presence of European students, particularly students from the nations mentioned above, is best explained by America's historical strategic interests in the region in addition to the European nations' financial investment in the program. From the perspective of European countries, their nation's participation in the Fulbright program serves as an effective vehicle for strengthening alliances with the United States.

The flow of students from Central and South America can best be explained by the United States' interest in preventing the spread of communism, followed by promoting democracy8 in the region (Brands 2008; Robinson 1996). Students from

Central and South America and the Caribbean accounted for 16 percent of all foreign

Fulbright students from 1949-2007 (refer to Table 4.1 ). Since 1949, Mexico, Colombia,

Argentina, and Brazil continue to be the leading countries sending Fulbright students to the U.S. These are all countries with strong political and economic ties to the United

States.

East Asian students constitute the third largest flow of foreign Fulbright students to the U.S. or 12 percent of all Fulbright students. Much of the flow from East Asia is attributable to the United States' sustained presence and interest in the region during and after the Cold War (e.g., Vietnam, Burma, People's Republic of China, Indonesia,

Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea).

8 For a compelling and critical analysis of U.S. foreign policy in the third world in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in South and Central America, refer to Robinson ( 1996). Robinson argues that under the guise of "democracy promotion," the U.S. in fact created a new world order characterized by an elite-based undemocratic status quo. 84

Students from South and Central Asia constitute four percent of all Fulbright participants to the United States (Table 4.1). Since 2001, much of the student flow from

South and Central Asia is attributable to the U.S. response to the event of September 11 and the strategic decision to win hearts and minds while combating terrorism in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. India has historically had a strong participation rate in the Fulbright program.

Students from Africa and the Near East have each accounted for only four percent of the Fulbright student flow to the United States. The continent of Africa, given its poor economy, political instability and distant geographic location, has been of little strategic interest to the United States. U.S. interest in Africa has fluctuated depending on perceived threats from the Soviet Union and most recently from Al-Qaeda. Since the 1960s, the

United States has, for the most part, turned a blind eye to African policies that promoted corruption, repression and injustice (Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Zaire, South Africa). In addition, in spite of its rich natural resources, Africa has a very small elite class, therefore, this explains why so few students have accessed the Fulbright programs. The

Near East region overall has had a low participation rate in the program up until

September 11, 2001. Post 9/11 new nations such as Iraq experienced major increases in the number of Fulbright scholars as a result of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

The Fulbright program touts its success by the number of participants as well as by its alumni. The program boasts an impressive list of alumni who have contributed to democratization efforts, nation-building, capitalist economic development, and research and development. As the Department of State website highlights, Fulbright alumni have won more Nobel prizes than those of any other internationally funded academic program, 85

totaling 40 awards in 2008.9 The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a former international student and Fulbright alumnus Muhammad Yunus from Bangladesh. Yunus, a Fulbright PhD recipient in Economics from Vanderbilt University in 1965, is the founder and managing director of the famous Grameen Bank. Muhammed Yunus pioneered the practice of microcredit and microfinance to create opportunities for the poor. As a result of his work, millions of poor women have received small loans, started businesses in their villages and lifted themselves and their families out of poverty. In describing the benefits of the Fulbright program, Dr. Yunus states "Fulbright provided me the bridge to cross. I saw how things can be done differently in a different society .... I learned lessons which stood me in good stead when building up the Grameen Bank."

(U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs 2006). Other prominent international Nobel laureates include three physicists, Carlos Rubbia from

Italy, Riccardo Giaconni from Italy and Masatoshi Koshiba from Japan, all recipients of the Nobel awards in 2002.

The Fulbright program remains the longest and largest standing international education exchange program in the United States. It continues to be highly respected, both domestically and internationally, and continues to receive public and government support in the United States and overseas. As U.S. strategic objectives expand, so does the Fulbright Program. With the "War on Terrorism," as coined by the Bush administration, countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, and very soon Afghanistan, have become

9 For a list of Nobel Prize winners, including disciplines, refer to the U.S. Department of State website, available at http://fulbright.state.gov/fulbright/communitv/alumni and also http://www.iie.org/fulbrightweb/download/FulbrightAlumniNobleLaureates.pdf 86

the beneficiaries of major funding to support U.S. "soft power" diplomacy-Fulbright

Programs.

Indicators to support my theoretical argument that the United States advances its

"national civilization" via international education supported and facilitated by the state are numerous. Key among them are: (I) the number and regional representation of international students coming through the state-sponsored Fulbright program; (2) participation from countries of strategic and political interests aimed to advance U.S. foreign policy goals; (3) participation from former communist bloc countries; and (4) the contributions of alumni from the program to "development" and "democratization" efforts.

It is important to recognize and understand the political motives for funding and supporting the program. The Fulbright student and scholar exchange program is a product of the U.S. Cold War policies intended to facilitate exposure to and dissemination of U.S. values, embodied in political, economic, social and cultural life. The program aims to ensure U.S. security, political, and economic interests in strategic regions of the world.

While Europe and Asia were critical to containing the USSR and the People's Republic of China, America's geopolitical position meant that the United States had to be involved in containing leftist movements. By participating in the Fulbright program, members of the overseas elite community would then be exposed to the U.S. model of capitalist development (Gienow-Hecht 2000). Thus, the Fulbright program became an educational and cultural tool for combating communism in particular, while enhancing U.S. hegemonic power and influence in the world in general. Today, it is seen as a tool for combating "terrorism" and ensuring America's national security. 87

Studies conducted to evaluate the impact of the Fulbright program suggest that the program is successful in maximizing the U.S. experience and enhancing participants' professional, social and personal lives (Heppner 1988). Research findings suggest that such educational exchanges broaden worldview, contribute to social and economic development, and strengthen the bond between countries and enhance institutions (Arndt

1987; Demir, Aksu, and Paykoc 2000; Tokorozawa 1996).10

To assume that international educational exchanges like the Fulbright Program have an altruistic motive as the program architect Fulbright envisioned would prove too simplistic and inaccurate at best. Although the program recognized the value and emphasized the need to understand "the other" in funding the program, the U.S. understood that international students were central to its foreign policy objectives. Mutual understanding and goodwill translated into the export of American values and ways of life that were informed by the modernization paradigm and packaged accordingly.

The Fulbright Program attempts to export U.S. foreign policy and modernization paradigm to the world. However, as the mobility of students to the United States demonstrates, the Fulbright Program is not the sole means for exporting U.S. foreign policy and modernization paradigm by way of international education. By way of government funding and/or family funding, nation-states with strong ties to the United

10 Heppner's (1988) research found that former Fulbright scholars had a different methodological perspective, a different work style, and different philosophies about their professional specialty. Tokorozawa's (1996) research found that the Fulbright program had a significant impact on Japanese society by producing a considerable number of leaders in various fields who initiated innovations in Japanese society. Demir et al. (2000) study found that the Fulbright experience affected the role scholars played in changing the nature of human relations and work environment in their institutions. Most of the Turkish scholars in the Demir et al. study were working at universities as faculty members. Others were working in positions that entailed policymaking. The most cited effects of the Fulbright program for the participants were changes in strategies and institution building or change. 88

States have facilitated the mobility of students and the export of American-style modernization paradigms and foreign policy objectives. In fact, other nations have taken it upon themselves to contribute to the export of U.S. foreign policy by investing their own government resources in educating their elites by funding them to study in the U.S. in the hope of emulating the U.S. economic model of development.

The Fulbright program is not all positive. The negative effects include U.S.

"intellectual imperialism" and the fact that there have been countries that have rejected

U.S. values and ideologies, and have viewed the promotion of U.S. education as simply a manifestation of cultural and intellectual imperialism, as well as U.S. political and economic domination. Page 37 of this chapter provides illustrations of the rejection of

U.S. cultural and political hegemony.

Student Flow from Other Nations under State­ and Privately-Sponsored Initiatives

The scope and reach of international education is not restricted to state supported institutionalized programs such as the Fulbright program. As the flow of international students demonstrates, however, the power of the modernization paradigm and its reach can be ascertained from state encouragement and/or facilitation of their own nationals via publicly-funded scholarships and/or family funded efforts to obtain education in the

United States. This section explores the flow of international students to the U.S. under state- and privately-sponsored initiatives beyond the Fulbright program, and the relationship of that flow to U.S. foreign policy objectives and strategic alliances.

While many students from all around the world come to the United States to enhance their human capital, by the time they complete their studies, they also have been 89

partially or wholly socialized or acculturated into American values and worldviews. An

analysis of student flow from various regions points to the fact that the United States

receives most of its international students from nations with which it has close political

and economic alliances and/or from nations attracted to and wanting to modernize along the U.S. model as demonstrated by Table 4.2. Nations with strong political and/or

economic ties to the United States have historically dominated the flow of international

students (Cummings 1984; Kaplan 1983; Mashiko 1983; Oxenham 1981), reinforcing the

central argument that strategic U.S. political and economic alliances with other nations

are key determinants of student flows to the United States in the post World War II era.

Since the late 1950s, nations including Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong,

Thailand, India, Mexico, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada have consistently

dominated the flow of international students to the United States. The fact that Asian

students have dominated the flow of international students to the U.S., constituting

anywhere from 30 to over 50 percent of all students since the late 1950s (refer to Table

4.2), should come as no surprise given the historical ties of the United States to many

Asian nations, most notably key allies such as Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the

Philippines and Indonesia. Similarly, to have nations such as Mexico, Brazil and

Venezuela rise to the ranks of leading nations sending the largest number of international

students to the United States to study is consistent with these nations' economic and

political ties to the United States (Schoultz 1998). 11

11 For a sharp criticism of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, refer to Schoultz (1998). The book provides detailed accounts of how U.S. policy for more than 200 years has been determined by the need to protect U.S. security, the demands of domestic politics, and the drive to promote U.S. economic 90

Table 4.2 provides a list of nations that have dominated the flow of students to the

United States.

Table 4.2. Leading Countries of Origin of International Students and Percentage Share 1960-2010 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 Rank Country # % Rank Country # % Rank Countrv # % I Canada 6,058 1141 I Canada 12,595 10 68 I Iran 47,550 15 2 2 Chma 5,304 9 99 2 India 12,523 1061 2 Taiwan 19,460 62 3 India 4,835 9 IO 3 Chma 9,219 7 81 3 N1gena 17,350 56 4 Iran 2,880 5 42 4 Hong Kong 9,040 7 66 4 Canada 14,320 45 5 Japan 2,434 4 58 5 Cuba 7,435 6 30 5 Japan 13,500 43 6 Korea, 2,310 4 35 6 Iran 6,402 5 43 6 Venezuela 11,750 36 South 7 Pbthppmes 1,727 3 25 7 Thailand 5,627 4 77 7 Saudi 10,440 33 Arabia 8 Mexico 1,490 2 81 8 Japan 4,350 3 69 8 Hong 9,660 3 1 Kong 9 Venezuela 1,207 2 27 9 Korea, South 3,857 3 27 9 India 9,250 30 10 Greece 1,200 2 26 10 Chma 3,105 2 63 10 Lebanon 6,770 22 (unspecified) II Umted 1,069 2 01 11 Ph1hppmes 2,759 2 34 11 Mexico 6,730 22 Kmgdom 12 Thailand 966 I 82 12 Mexico 2,689 2 28 12 Thailand 6,550 2 I 13 Jamaica 930 I 75 13 Gennany 2,521 2 14 13 Vietnam 6,490 2 I 14 Israel 877 1 65 14 Israel 2,361 2 00 14 Korea, 6,150 20 South 15 Gennany 868 1 63 15 N1gena 2,333 1 98 15 Jordan 6,140 20 Total 34,155 64.31 Total 86,816 73.59 Total 192,110 61.4

1990-91 2000-01 2009-10 Rank Country # % Rank Countrv # % Rank Countrv # % 1 Ch ma 39,600 97 I Chma 59,939 109 I Chma 127,628 22 6 2 Japan 36,610 90 2 India 54,664 100 2 India 104,897 18 6 3 Taiwan 33,530 82 3 Japan 46,497 85 3 Korea, 72,153 12 8 South 4 India 28,860 7 I 4 Korea, 45,685 83 4 Canada 28,145 50 South 5 Korea, 23,360 57 5 Taiwan 28,566 52 5 Taiwan 26,685 47 South 6 Canada 18,350 45 6 Canada 25,279 46 6 Japan 24,842 44 7 Malaysia 13,610 3 3 7 Indonesia 11,625 2 1 7 Saudi 15,810 28 Arabia 8 Hong 12,630 3 1 8 Thailand 11,187 20 8 Mexico 13,450 24 Kong 9 Indonesia 9,520 23 9 Turkey 10,983 20 9 Vietnam 13,112 23 to Pakistan 7,730 19 10 Mexico 10,670 I 9 IO Turkey 12,397 22 11 Umted 7,300 18 11 Gennany 10,128 18 11 Nepal 11,233 20 Kmgdom 12 Thailand 7,090 I 7 12 Brazil 8,846 16 12 Gennany 9,548 I 7 13 Gennany 7,000 I 7 13 Umted 8,139 1 5 13 Umted 8,861 16 Kmgdom Kmgdom 14 Mexico 6,740 I 7 14 Malaysia 7,795 14 14 Brazil 8,786 16 15 Iran 6,260 1 5 15 Hong Kong 7,627 14 15 Thailand 8,531 1 5 Total 258,190 63.4 Total 347,630 63.5 Total 486,078 86.1 Source: Institute oflntemattonal Education, Open Doors from 1961- 2010 * Note: 1960-61 data for China consists of students whose country of citizenship was given as China such as Taiwan, Macao.

development. Schoultz argues that U.S. hegemony implemented in a variety of styles was ultimately shaped by the belief in Latin America's cultural inferiority. 91

Venezuela in particular became the top sending Latin American country in the early 1960s and again in the early 1980s (Table 4.2) only to experience a sharp decline in its student flow in the late 1980s due to the oil crisis. Much of the flow from Venezuela during the early 1980s can be best explained by its OPEC status as a major oil producing nation with educational and human capital needs.

Take for example the case of Mexico. Mexico's geographic proximity to the U.S. and history of economic and political relations with the U.S. accounts for much of the flow of students. Revenue from oil and the human capital requirements for economic development continue to foster the mobility of students, mostly the elites of Mexican society. Government scholarships and loan facilities from private banks encourage students to study in the United States and to return home to assist with development.

For a short period of time, Cuba also sent large numbers of students to the United

States. However, most of the Cuban students who were in the United Stated when Fidel

Castro ascended to power became refugees. The Institute for International Education stopped collecting data on Cuban students because those students no longer met the criteria of "international" students in that they were not on visas, but in fact had become immigrants with green cards or U.S. citizenships.

Similarly, the absence of African students relative to those from other regions points once again to U.S. foreign policy interests and investments around the world.

African nation's strong colonial ties to European nations, as well as U.S. weak interests, account for the low enrollment of African students in U.S. universities. The flows of students from Africa illustrate the issue of nationality, race, class, and intersectionality in student mobility. 92

OPEC Nations and the Urge to Modernize American-Style

As Fulbright and non-Fulbright flows indicate, U.S. foreign policy objectives and modernization programs have fueled the immigration of students to the United States.

The United States, in wanting to advance its "nationalization civilization" via education of the elite communities, benefited from its strategic alliances to major OPEC countries. 12

For many OPEC countries, increased revenue from oil production has led to rapid industrialization with an eye toward sending their students to the United States to gain the requisite skills and knowledge to advance economic development efforts in the sending nation. In a quest to modernize and advance economically by adopting the U.S. style of development and given their political ties to the United States, many of the OPEC countries with strategic political and economic ties to the United States invested in expanding their nations' human capital by sending the elites of their societies to study in the United States and gain insights into the American style of development. Between the mid-l 950s and the mid-1980s, the share of international student enrollment from OPEC countries increased from 10 to 30 percent. A case in point is Iran, a leading country of origin of international students from the 1960s to 1980s (refer to Table 4.2 and Table

4.3). Table 4.3 provides a list of select OPEC countries and student enrollment from those countries.

12 OPEC was founded in 1960 was founded to unify and coordinate members' petroleum policies. Original OPEC members include Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Between 1960 and 1975, the organization expanded to include Ecuador. Indonesia is reconsidering its membership having become a net importer. Bolivia, Mexico, Syria, and Sudan have been invited to join OPEC. Since 2006, Sudan has been seeking membership. In 2008, Ecuador requested to be reconsidered for membership. 93

Table 4.3. International Student Enrollment from Select OPEC Countries 1955-2005

%of %of %of Saudi %of %of c:J Iran Total Indonesia Total Ni2eria Total Arabia Total Venezuela Total 1955 1,011 2.8 209 0.6 226 0.6 35 0.1 941 2.6

1960 2,880 5.4 526 1.0 343 0.6 154 0.3 1,207 2.3

1965 3,628 4.4 458 0.6 1,570 1.9 740 0.9 1,265 1.5

1970 6,402 5.4 662 0.6 2,333 2.0 938 0.8 1,863 1.6

1975 19,900 11.l 1,090 0.6 11,440 6.4 3,030 1.7 4,680 2.6

1980 47,550 15.2 3,250 1.0 17,350 5.6 10,440 3.3 11,750 3.8

1985 14,210 4.1 8,210 2.4 13,710 4.0 6,900 2.0 7,040 2.0

1990 6,260 1.5 9,520 2.3 3,710 0.9 3,590 0.9 2,890 0.7

1995 2,628 0.6 12,820 2.8 2,093 0.5 4,191 0.9 4,456 1.0

2000 1,844 0.3 11,625 2.1 3,820 0.7 5,273 1.0 5,217 1.0

2005 2,420 0.4 7,575 1.3 6,192 1.1 3,448 0.6 4,792 0.8 Source: Institute oflnternational Education, Open Doors from 1956-2006.

In the early 1970s as oil revenues in OPEC countries increased, many governments embarked on ambitious development programs requiring skilled workers

(Agarwal and Winkler 1985). Governments in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar

Nigeria, Indonesia and Venezuela increased support for education abroad and directed their students to the United States as the destination of choice for learning and training.

Many OPEC countries in the 1970s and 1980s provided scholarships and loans to students wanting to study in the United States. Particularly notable are Venezuela with the Fundacion Ayacucho loan program, and Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Nigeria with major government scholarship programs. The U.S. became the model for modernization, once again reinforcing U.S. presence and sphere of influence in economic and world affairs. 94

The Case of Iran

The flow of Iranian students to the United States best illustrates the dimensions of

U.S. modernization paradigm and U.S. foreign policy objectives in international education. Nowhere is the relationship of strategic interests and the drive to modernize more compelling than in the case of Iran.

During World War II, Reza Shah, the first shah of Iran, aligned himself with Nazi

Germany. After the war, Soviet troops stationed in the northwestern region occupied a part of the country until the United Nations and the U.S. pressured the Soviets to withdraw in 1946 (Blake 1999; Lytle 1987; U.S. Department of State March 2008).

After the shah's abdication in 1941, his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi took power. In

1951, Pahlavi fled to Rome after being ousted by the popular government of Prime

Minister Mossadegh. Two years later, the United States and the United Kingdom engineered a coup against Mossadegh, and with the help of pro-Shah army forces re- established Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the Shah 13 (Blanchard 1996; Samii 1987).

In 1961, Iran underwent a series of economic and social reforms known as the

Shah's White Revolution that were promoted by the Kennedy administration. The White

Revolution focused on land reform. Traditionally an agricultural society, Iran made significant progress in industrialization by the 1970s. Economic progress occurred at an

13 For a comprehensive read on the role of the U.S. in the overthrow ofMossadegh and the ironies of imperialism, refer to Samii (1987). Samii argues that the U.S. and the Soviet Union are simply imperial powers with interests in expanding their power. He criticizes the U.S. for not forcing the Shah to make reforms. William H. Blanchard's (1996) book discusses the rise and fall of the Shah. The book provides a view of American foreign policy toward Iran over an extended period of time and provides extensive information related to the Shah's regime in Iran and U.S. involvement in supporting such a regime in its quest to protect its interest in oil reserves given its need for energy. 95

unprecedented rate because it was fueled by Iran's vast petroleum reserves (the third largest reserve in the world) and worldwide demand for oil. To advance its modernization plan, Iran sent large numbers of its elite to American universities to develop the technical knowledge and skills needed for industrialization. From the early-

1960s to the mid-1980s, Iran ranked among the top 10 countries sending students to the

United States (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). In 1955, there were a little over 1,000 Iranian students studying in the United States. By 1975, nearly 20,000 students or 11 percent of the total number of international students in the United States were Iranian. By 1980, the total number oflranian students had peaked to 47,550 or 15 percent of the total international student population in the U.S, making Iran the country sending the most students to the United States (Institute oflnternational Education 1981). The Shah's pro­

Western policies and autocratic rule of law alienated large sectors of the Iranian population, including the Islamic clergy, and created a class of elite enamored with U.S. and western lifestyle, education and values (Gasiorowski 1991).

In 1978, religious and political opposition to the Shah's rule led to a revolution.

The revolution was comprised of several groups, including nationalists, Islamists,

Marxists, and others who came together to oppose the Shah. In January 1979, the Shah was exiled from Iran and died in exile several years later. On February 1, 1979, exiled religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini returned from France to assume control of the revolution and established himself as Supreme Leader of a new, theocratic republic guided by Islamic principles. Since the fall of the Shah, economic growth has slowed dramatically as a result of several factors, especially the Islamic revolution, fluctuations and crisis in world oil prices and the 1985 war with Iraq. 96

Khomeini's revolutionary regime initiated sharp changes from the foreign policy pursued by the Shah, particularly in reversing the country's orientation toward the West.

U.S.-Iran relations have been strained since the 1979 U.S. Embassy incident. The seizure of the U.S. Embassy compound and the capture of 52 hostages by Iranian student militants for 441 days marked a sharp turning point in U.S.-Iran relations.

As the Iranian case illustrates, the flow of international students to the U.S. increased with strengthening of political, economic and cultural ties to the U.S. To adopt the U.S. modernization paradigm, the Iranian elite turned to U.S. higher education institutions to learn to acquire the skills and technical knowledge needed to build a modem society. The United States benefited from exporting its ways oflife, culture and values, and turned its influence with the Iranian elite into a competitive advantage.

However, as post-revolution Iran shifted its focus sharply away from the West, especially the United States, international education exchanges between the U.S. and

Iran reversed to an all-time low. U.S. immigration regulations made it very difficult, if not nearly impossible, for Iranian students to come study in the United States. With the closing of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, students living in Iran could no longer apply for visas to visit the United States. Most of the elite who came to study in the U.S. prior to the 1980s and who were affiliated and/or benefited from the Shah regime remained in the U.S. and were granted U.S. citizenship. Many of the Iranian elite became practicing doctors, engineers, academics, or entrepreneurs, further contributing to U.S. domestic labor and economy and benefiting the United States (Arasteh 1994). 97

Educating World Leaders-Strategy for Extending U.S. "National Civilization"

Antonio Gramsci's discussion of "national civilization" is appropriate here because education is essential to the United States building, strengthening, and extending its model of "national civilization" overseas. The Fulbright program for students to come to the U.S. and other foreign government-funded students also are attracted to the U.S. because of the perceived value and merit of modernization U.S.-style. In effect, the flow of students to the U.S. and back tells us a lot about the building of U.S. "national civilization" in sending countries.

International students contribute to U.S. "national civilization" and international relations and trade by way of international education. Many of the students coming from nations that are key allies of the United States return to their home country not only to implement economic programs and infrastructures similar to those in the United States, but also to establish and strengthen trade relations with the United States. Some students are required to return to their home countries because they receive government scholarships and employment opportunities (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Indonesia).

Other students are privately- or family-sponsored and must return home because of economic and employment conditions (e.g., Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea). In either case, these students contribute to the U.S. political economy because when they return home, they bring values, beliefs and worldviews that were conducive in modernizing the

U.S. economy.

Countries with emerging economies and strong ties to the United States such as

Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, in sending their 98

students to the United States, have ensured their human capital needs while securing political and economic relations with the U.S. Indonesian, Thai, Saudi, South Korean,

Chinese, Taiwanese, and other graduates of U.S. institutions have become influential leaders in government, academic, and the financial world and have profoundly influenced the course of national development and shaped present educational and economic systems in their respective countries. The fact that the Thai higher education system, for example, mirrors that of the U.S. and that the Indonesian higher education system is dominated by U.S.-trained advanced degree holders (Cummings, Gopinathan, and Shive

1988) are all reflective of international students contributions to furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives in general and the U.S. model of modernization specifically.

Similarly, market-driven economic reform around the world, along with the model of the U.S. economy, has been strengthened by U.S.-trained foreign economists

(Coats 1997). According to Coats (1997), countries such as Korea since 1945 have undergone an Americanization process by way of training of its economists in the United

States. Other nations such as Japan have also internationalized their economies by training their students in the U.S. The fact is that much of the current wave of market reforms in developing nations is being led by economists trained in the United States

(Aslanbeigui and Montecinos 1998; Rao 1995; Williamson 1994). These economists

have worked for major international economic organizations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. In many Latin American countries, U.S.-trained

economists have ascended to major positions of political and economic power. In the case

of Colombia, Bolivia, Mexico, and Brazil, U.S.-trained economists have ascended to

presidential positions. In Chile, U.S.-trained economists have occupied key ministerial 99

positions (Valdes 1995). Economists trained in the United States have not only influenced the teaching and practice of economics in their home countries, but also worked to ensure U.S. dominance in critical sectors of the global economy. International

education helps universalize American economic models, values and practices.

The extent of the United States' reach and influence by way of international

education is remarkable. According to The Council for the Advancement and Support of

Education or CASE (2008), twenty-three out of 48 government officials in the Taiwanese

cabinet hold at least one degree from an American institution (compared to three from

European institutions), and four have been teaching in the United States. The list includes

President Ma Yingjeou, a graduate of Harvard and New York universities.

Many of the world elites and leaders, particularly presidents and government

officials, are the recipients of U.S. education and degrees (refer to Appendix 1 for a

partial list). As former international students in the United States, these international

students obtained what Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) call "cultural capital." As members

of the elite community within their respective societies, their immersion in the language,

technologies, lifestyles and cultural norms of the United States equips and influences

their worldviews as they ascend to positions of power and influence. That many former

and current presidents, prime ministers, ministers of finance, economic affairs, foreign

affairs, defense, education, and high-ranking United Nations (UN) representatives have

been educated and trained in the United States not only bolsters U.S. presence, but shapes

global changing political, economic and business relations. Those who are the recipients

of an American higher education and assume elite positions at home or abroad become

brokers of U.S. foreign policy, and champions of U.S. economic theories and practices. 100

These individuals effectively advance what Joseph Nye (1990) has termed U.S. "soft" diplomacy or "soft power" missions given these student's ties and intimate knowledge of the culture, politics, and business practices of the regions and or nations they affect. Such students are perceived to be allies, friends or cultural "ambassadors" of the United States.

Conclusion

International education exchanges such as the Fulbright program, along with foreign government-supported and/or privately-sponsored programs have enabled the

United States to extend its hegemonic power overseas beyond military might and economic aid. These initiatives have afforded the U.S. important venues for promoting

U.S. worldviews and values, especially democratic principles and institutions, market economy, and the development and exchange of scientific information and knowledge.

Having most likely developed an affinity for the American lifestyle, these former students are likely to facilitate the export of U.S. products and culture to their home countries, while simultaneously promoting U.S. foreign policies. In essence, these students become actors in advancing U.S. "national civilization."

Implicit in international education exchange programs such as the Fulbright is the belief that the U.S. holds the mirror to the rest of the world's future. This mirror is encapsulated in what is known as the 'modernization' paradigm, i.e., the development of what is to be considered modem (democratic) polities, (capitalist) economies and

(individualism-oriented) societies. The modernization paradigm offered a ready-made template and criteria of evaluation for the development of non-western countries.

However, it failed to account for structural forces such as the conditions in which 101

countries became independent and began participating in international political economy.

Thus, U.S. promotion and support of the modernization paradigm masked the fact that knowledge creation and diffusion in this context is imbued not only with unequal distribution of power, but also with the universalization of the model and path of development.

International student flow tends to be from the periphery to the centers of knowledge and power in the West, particularly the United States. International student exchange operates on the tacit principle of Western superiority and the transformation of developing nations according to models and policies of advanced nations, most particularly that of the U.S. Given their potential as agents of change in their home countries, many international students also have been agents in furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives by being trained in U.S. economic models, promoting U.S.-style democracy and learning/disseminating U.S. culture.

Other nations with strong ties to the U.S. have explicitly and at times implicitly supported U.S. dominance by having the elite from their respective societies attend

American institutions of higher education. By way of state-supported scholarships and/or privately-sponsored funds, international students from Japan, South Korea, Iran, Mexico,

Venezuela and many other nations, have advanced U.S. modernization paradigm by acquiring degrees and training in law, economics, business, education, international relations, and engineering and upon returning home have implemented the U.S. model of education, business, and economic theory at home. CHAPTERS

U.S. "ACADEMIC CAPITALISM" AND

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

International students' contribution to the U.S. political economy goes beyond students who return to their home countries and advance U.S. modernization paradigm and foreign policy objectives. International students contribute to U.S. political economy by way of the knowledge-based economy, especially through their participation in universities and industry. To build a new "national civilization" (Gramsci 1971) based on knowledge in which there is little direct state intervention, institutions in civil societies, particularly universities, play a critical role. Given that the focus in the post-industrial era is on knowledge production as Daniel Bell (1973) indicates, universities become a critical engine to building a new "national civilization."

In this chapter, I argue that in order to shift from an industrial mode of production to a post-industrial mode of production, the United States has had to rely on international students in universities as sources of revenues and also as producers of knowledge and human capital. The new "national civilization" advanced by Gramsci has relied increasingly on international students, scholars and scientists to advance "academic capitalism" in universities.

Universities rely increasingly on international students as sources of both revenue

and labor. Thus, international students constitute an important source of human and

102 103

financial capital. International students in essence are contributing to building a new

"national civilization" by sustaining and advancing the knowledge-based economy in general and "academic capitalism" in particular.

Rise of the Knowledge-Based Economy in the United States

The U.S. economy has evolved dramatically since its founding. Economic development in the U.S. can be delineated by three phases-pre-industrial, industrial, and post-industrial, with each phase characterized by a dominant mode of production and input. The first, or pre-industrial phase, is referred to as an agrarian mode of production with land (slave) labor as the key input. The second, or industrial phase, emphasized manufacturing as a mode of production with capital and wage labor as inputs. The third, or post-industrial phase, concentrates on service as a mode of production with knowledge, information, and technology as the main inputs. With industrial production shifting from material and labor-intensive products and processes to knowledge-intensive products, a new structure for economic development emerged based on the creation and application of a new knowledge-base on science and technology.

1 Within the first half of the 20 h century, the state played an indispensable role in the expansion of the capitalist economy, especially by mediating demands of labor and management. The form of the welfare state buffered workers against the contradictions of capitalist expansion via legislation on work conditions (right to organize, base wages, 104

etc.) and benefits (e.g., vacations, health, social security) in a 'Fordist' economy. 14 By the

1960s, however, inflation, balance of payments deficits, growing labor costs, and off- shore production weakened the U.S. economy considerably. The Fordist pact among state, labor, and management could no longer be sustained given rising competition from

Japanese and German economies, as well as the total cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars. As a result, the state began to retreat from the economy by unpegging the U.S. dollar from gold, liberalizing certain sectors, and eliminating labor rights. Innovations in production technologies hastened the transformations as corporations began breaking up the production process and off-shoring production to different regions of the world that offered cheaper labor and material.

President Ronald Reagan's ascendance to the presidency signaled the beginning of what political economists call the 'neoliberal' era, which was characterized by the state's disengagement from the economy, deregulation, and increased privatization of services. In the 'neoliberal' era, free-markets are expected to determine costs of goods and services. On a larger scale, this era marked the beginning of post-Fordist/post- industrial modes of production, known by various terms such as the 'knowledge-based economy', 'knowledge industry', 'the information economy', 'post-industrial' (Bell

1973), and 'post-capitalist society' (Belussi and Garibaldo 1996; Drucker 1993). The knowledge-based economy is characterized by scientific and technological innovations

(Florida 1991; Machlup 1962; Noyelle 1990; Powell and Snellman 2004; 1979; Stanback

1981 ). Central to the concept of the knowledge-based economy is the rise of the

14 "Fordist" economy is characterized by mass production of standardized goods (automobiles, durable goods, etc.) and mass consumption. 105

knowledge worker and knowledge production (Bell 1973; Brint 2001; Kleinman and

Vallas 2001; Reich 1992; Rubin, Huber, and Taylor 1986; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004).

The knowledge-based economy relies on knowledge workers, the service sector, and new forms of technology and information to generate for profit (Basu, Fernald, Oulton, and

Srinivasan 2001; 2003; Castells 1996a; 1996b; Castles and Miller 1998; Gordon 2004a;

2004b; Landau, Mowery, and Rosenberg 1992; Reich 1992). Thus, the key strategic resource necessary for creating wealth and promoting economic advancement in the knowledge-based economy is 'knowledge' by way of education, research, ideas, and innovation (Bloch 1989; Block 1990; Duderstadt 2000).

Universities as Engines of the Knowledge Economy

Universities play a key role in producing knowledge and training the highly- skilled, human capital essential to advancing economic development. 15 Universities serve as engines for promoting economic activity and technological innovation and by extension, American competitiveness in the world economy. Universities are critical to building the human capital needed to advance research and innovation, and promote economic growth.

Given the important role of universities in producing knowledge for the post- industrial era, government and industries wanting to build human capital that addressed the need for the knowledge economy have increasingly invested in research at

15 The established literature grounded in human capital theory attests to the benefits of education. There is consensus among scholars that investing in education at the national level promotes economic growth. Key scholars who have argued this position include Becker (1994), Black and Lynch (1996), and Romer (1986). 106

universities. Public funding and investment in university-based research is not a new phenomenon. During World War II, universities emerged as strong centers for applied research. Vannevar Bush, the father of the modem research university, established the first social contract between government, industry, and higher education, setting the stage for strong government support for academic research. 16 Bush's (1945) seminal report,

Science, the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President, argues that the nation's economy and its military security required the use/application of new scientific knowledge (Duderstadt 2006; Duderstadt and Weber 2006). Scholars agree that the government's involvement in universities' research is mostly responsible for the major advances in the American economy over the past five decades (Gladieux and King 1999;

Greenough, McConnaughay, and Kesan 2007; Jones, McCamey, and Skolnik 2005).

Research universities have been positioned as the principal sources for the creation and dissemination of new knowledge and as such, have had significant impact on the economy. Universities serve as primary institutions for the knowledge-based economy and as milieu for incubation of ideas and centers of innovation. Investment in university research is known for having yielded impressive commercial results including the Global Position System or GPS, a radio navigation system that allows land, sea, and airborne users to determine their exact location 24 hours a day, anywhere in the world.

Advances in biotechnology such as the procedure of isolating a defined DNA sequence

16 Rather than call for separate institutes or academies, the Bush report recommended that the federal government provide funding to universities. The federal government provides grants to university faculty investigators through a competitive peer-reviewed system. Federal support gets channeled through multiple federal agencies including the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among others. 107

and obtaining multiple copies of it termed DNA clone has advanced science. The invention of the World Wide Web, which has resulted in the dotcom universe (Birgeneau

2005), has resulted in the explosion of global information. Universities are uniquely placed to produce new technologies on which economies are based because researchers are not under the pressure to produce results in a short time frame for purely commercial gains as is often the case in industry. University research operates on long-time horizons, allowing for discoveries to be made.

The Commercialization of Higher Education

The relationship of government and industry to universities, and the race for knowledge production has evolved into what can be characterized as a commercial endeavor in the post-industrial era. With knowledge viewed as a raw material to be converted to product, processes, or services, universities become key marketplaces of ideas, knowledge and skills contributing to the knowledge-based economy. With the state's retreat from the economy in a neoliberal era and the push for free-market enterprise, knowledge no longer considered a public good becomes a commodity with an exchange value. Thus, universities as traditional generators of new knowledge became more entrepreneurial (Altbach, Laufer, and Mc Vey 1971; Bollier 2002; Bowles and

Gintis 2002; Soley 1995) as government funding for higher education declined, and the potential of for-profit based on university research increased (Altbach, Berdahl, and

Gumport 2005; Bok 2005; Bowie 1994; Clark 1998; Laursen and Salter 2004; Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Stein 2004). Some scholars have appropriately coined the entrepreneurial development in higher education "academic capitalism" (Slaughter and 108

Leslie 1997)17 or the 'capitalization of knowledge' (Etzkowitz and Stevens 1998;

Etzkowitz, Webster, and Healey 1998). Slaughter and Leslie (1997:209) have defined

"academic capitalism" as "institutional and professorial market or marketlike efforts to secure external funds." Marketlike behaviors of higher education are defined as follows:

Marketlike behaviors refer to institutional and faculty competition for money,

whether these are from external grants and contracts, endowment funds,

university-industry partnerships, institutional investments in professors' spinoff

companies, or student tuition and fees ... Market behaviors refer to for-profit

activity on the part of institutions, activity such as patenting and subsequent

royalty and licensing agreements, spinoff companies, arm's-length corporations,

and university-industry partnerships when these have a profit component. Market

behavior also covers more mundane endeavors, such as the sale of products and

services from educational endeavors (e.g., logos and sports paraphernalia), profit

sharing with food services and bookstores, and the like. Slaughter and Leslie

(1997:11)

Several factors contribute to the development of "academic capitalism" in higher education. Key among them is the rise of the neoliberal state with its promotion of free- market enterprise, privatization, and minimal state intervention, including the university.

In the neoliberal model, higher education has an economic role in the system of production and accumulation in which knowledge is commodified (Morrow 2006;

Rhoades and Slaughter 2006). Higher education is actively engaged in free-market

17 For a more extensive discussion on the commercialization of higher education and its relationship to the state and industry, please see Slaughter and Leslie (1997). 109

principles and practices, particularly as universities face declining federal and state public support for higher education, along with raising the cost of education and the profit potential of scientific research and discoveries.

The centrality of universities in the knowledge-based economy has come to imply increased pressure to respond to market needs and market competition. Institutions in the pursuit of "academic capitalism" have become aggressive in commercializing the intellectual products created by their employees. The Bayh-Dole Act introduced in 1980, for example, marked the beginning of commercialization of federally-funded research.

The legislation facilitated university ownership of patents from federally-funded research.

In essence, educational non-profit institutions could own and commercialize inventions and transfer research results from universities to the commercial marketplace. By granting universities the right to own and profit from their intellectual property, the state helped create, facilitate and legitimize the commercialization of university research and the transfer of basic science and technology from the university to the private sector and the economy. 18 The Bayh-Dole Act19 has resulted in university patenting soaring

(Brantestter and Ogura 2005; Etzkowitz and Stevens 1998; Hall 2004; Langenberg 2007;

Mowery 2004; Mowery, Nelson, Sampat, and Ziedonis 2001; Mowery and Ziedonis

2002; Owen-Smith and Powell 2003; Sampat, Mowery, and Ziedonis 2003; Thursby and

Thursby 2003). Patenting of new inventions by universities jumped from 5,314 before

18 See Slaughter and Leslie (1997) page 45 for a list of U.S. federal legislations that have contributed to the growth in academic-industry relations.

19 The Bayh-Dole act allows for patenting inventions and retaining royalties. Hence, while before, the universities had little incentives to pursue patenting ofresearch results. With the Bayh-Dole Act, they can establish ownership rights and generate new sources of income. 110

1985 to 43,298 between 1985 and 200520 (United States Patent and Trademark Office

2007).

In addition to passing legislation promoting free-market enterprise in academia, the state reinforced "academic capitalism" by shifting state funds from institutions to

students (e.g., expanding student loan programs) and by reducing public funding of

universities' operating budgets. Reduction of state funding meant that universities needed

additional revenues to cover operational costs. Alternative sources of funding included

tuition revenue as well as government and industry funding of research and development.

Universities in need of tuition dollars began aggressively competing for students, creating

a situation in which students became consumers and education became a product to be

consumed. The profit potential of research and the perception of students as consumers

and customers resulted in two major developments in higher education: (1) increased

demand and competition for undergraduate students as sources of revenue needed to

cover operating expenditures; and (2) increased demand and competition for graduate

students to conduct academic research and produce new knowledge for profit gain to the

university and industry partners. Both of these developments have had resulting

consequences, especially for international students' relationship to U.S. universities.

International Students as Sources of Revenue and Human Capital

In the knowledge economy, international students become important sources of

revenue for higher education institutions and local communities. They also become

20 The most comprehensive data collected on patenting of new invention by universities dates to 2005. 111

important sources of imported human capital charged with carrying out the teaching and research functions on which universities have come to depend on so that faculty members can focus their time and effort on research. The baby boom period affected the expansion and contractions of universities in the 1980s. To make up for enrollment shortfalls, U.S. universities aggressively recruited international students in the hope of filling the void left by U.S. students. Graduate international students, particularly those in the sciences and engineering fields as teaching and research assistants, are often exploited for their

surplus value. International students participate in producing and advancing new knowledge and innovations that benefit research universities, U.S. industries, and by

extension the U.S. economy, while simultaneously reducing cost to universities.

International students who choose to study in the United States do not qualify for

U.S. federal financial aid programs21 and therefore must rely on family, government, or

other institutional sources of funding to finance their education in the United States.

Sources of funding include students' personal and family funds, home government or

home university scholarships, and private foreign sponsorships, as well as funds from

international organizations (see Table 5.1).

Ta bl e 5 ..1 Pnmarv . source o f Fun d. mg flor Internat1ona IS tu d ents, 1960 -2008 ISource of Funding 1960-61 * 1970-71* 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2007-08 I % O/o O/o O/o O/o % Personal and Family 29.9 44.9 67.4 64.3 66.9 62.3 U.S. College and Universities 19.9 8.6 18.8 19.8 25.9 U.S. Government 8.2 3.8 2.3 1.5 0.8 0.5 Home Government/Universitv 5.2 4.5 12.9 5.8 4.0 3.4

21 International students study on student visas and therefore cannot qualify for federal aid because they are not citizens or permanent residents. 112

Table 5.1 Continued Source of Funding 1960-61 * 1970-71* 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2007-08 % % % o/o % % U.S. Private Sponsor 1.8 1.7 3.4 2.5 1.0 Foreim Private Sponsor 36.6 6.9 2.8 2.3 2.4 1.0 International Organization 0.5 0.4 0.2 Current Employment 2.3 2.4 4.7 Other Sources 0.9 1.0 2.0 0.6 0.9 1.0 Source: Institute of International Education, Open Doors 1961-2008 *Sources of funding for individual students may come from more than one source.

According to the Institute of International Education, Open Doors reports (1981;

1991 a; 2001; 2008) since the 1980s, two-thirds of international students' funding comes from outside of the United States. As enrollments of international students increased, the share of personal and family funds has remained fairly constant since the early 1980s.

U.S. colleges and universities' share of funding has remained relatively small, peaking in

2008 to 26 percent or a quarter of overall funding.

International students constitute important financial capital for state and local economies. Given the competition for full-paying students, international students constitute an important source of revenue for U.S. higher education institutions and for the U.S. economy. Educational institutions, however, are not the sole beneficiaries of international students' tuition dollars. Communities and states also benefit greatly from the presence of international students in the form of rental income, taxes and consumption of services. International students are not alone in contributing to states and local economies. Students who are accompanied by spouses and children during their studies in the United States bring additional financial benefits to the states and local economies by purchasing goods and services for their dependents. During 2008-2009, 113

dependent spouses and children contributed $434 million to the economies of various states and local communities (NAFSA: Association of International Educators 2009).

According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators (2009),22 estimates of international students' contribution to the U.S. economy more than doubled from $7 billion in 1998 to over $17 billion in 2008-09.23 International students represent a profit- making business for the university and the state based on out-of-state tuition and fees. At the state level, international students' financial contributions ranged from $13 million to

$2. 7 billion. Table 4.2 provides figures on the top ten states with the largest contributions from international students and their dependents in 2008-09.

Table 5.2. International Students Contribution from Tuition/Fees and Living Expenses, 2008-09 Top 10 States State #of Tuition & Living Less U.S. Total Students Fees Expenses and Support Contribution Dependents (millions) (millions) (millions) California 85,009 $1,376.2 $1,846.5 $770.5 $2,452.3 Florida 26,780 $433.2 $482.5 $241.2 $674.5 Illinois 28,604 $563.8 $540.8 $394.4 $710.2 Massachusetts 31,683 $796.9 $704.8 $497.7 $1,004.0 Michigan 22,967 $428.4 $353.3 $256.3 $525.5 New Jersey 13,840 $251.6 $305.2 $159.1 $397.7

22 NAFSA: Association of International Educators is the largest international education organization in the U.S. and the world.

23 NAFSA: Association of International Educators, in partnership with the Institute for International Educators, the College Board, and Indiana University, calculates annually the economic impact of international students and their dependents on the U.S. economy. The analysis takes into account funding from U.S. colleges or universities, the U.S. Government and U.S. private sponsors and current employment and discounts for such support. The figures are based on tuition figures from the College Board, enrollment figures from IIE Open Doors report, and living expenses calculated from College Board figures and analysis of data by Indiana University-Bloomington's Office oflnternational Services. 114

Table 5.2 Continued State #of Tuition & Living Less U.S. Total Students Fees Expenses and Support Contribution Dependents (millions) (millions) (millions) New York 69,940 $1,305.0 $1,482.6 $835.0 $1,925.7 Ohio 19,346 $333.3 $331.9 $235.7 $429.5 Pennsylvania 25,994 $608.7 $492.1 $380.0 $720.8 Texas 51,823 $620.4 $815.7 $380.6 $1,055.4 Source: NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Economic Impact 2009

The state of California received close to $2.5 billion dollars from hosting international students and their dependents. The state of New York collected close to $2.0 billion. The states of Massachusetts and Texas each collected over $1.0 billion and the state of Illinois collected $710 million.

University revenue generated from international students' presence in the United

States is one indicator that international students constitute an important lucrative venture for institutions of higher education and for states and local economies. In addition, the education of international students constitutes an important U.S. export of education services. The education and training of international students ranked fifth in U.S. exports of services totaling $10.7 billion in 2000 (the latest year of available data) according to the Department of Commerce International Trade Administration (2005). International students constitute an ever increasing source ofrevenue for institutions of higher education given declining state funding support for higher education and increased operational cost. Because institutions rely increasingly on tuition revenue, the race for full-paying international students has intensified.

International enrollment has proven to be such a lucrative business for some institutions that a larger number of higher education institutions interested in attracting 115

international students are creating staffing positions charged with international recruitment activities and strategic market positioning. In addition, several institutions interested in attracting international students tum to 'Study U.S.A.,' a commercial service trade fair (housed in the Department of Commerce) targeted at U.S. education and training providers and/or recruitment agents for access to overseas markets and for increased visibility with potential international students and parents. Partnering with the

U.S. Commercial Service and/or agents or devising internal recruitment activities allows

institutions of higher education to receive a steady stream of full-paying international

students while also receiving information on potential overseas markets.

In the quest to aggressively promote their institutions overseas, states such as

Indiana, Washington and Oregon have instituted innovative international marketing

consortia with the assistance oflocal U.S. export assistance centers. These institutions have moved from viewing other higher education institutions as competitors to viewing

them as potential partners in attracting and recruiting international students. By joining

forces, educational institutions in Indiana, Washington and Oregon are leading a new

wave of marketing international education by raising the profile of their educational

institutions and their state. These states have chosen to market not only their institutions

but most importantly their states as attractive, desirable study destinations. The alliances

built among the commercial service, individual states, and institutions of higher

education attest to the role of government at the federal and state level in recruiting

international students.

The economic benefit of international students extends beyond tuition and fees

revenues and consumption of services and taxes to include alumni giving. Institutions of 116

higher education rely on funds collected through development activities (endowed gifts, corporate donations, etc.) to supplement tuition revenue. The fact that many of the international students studying in the U.S., especially those at the undergraduate level, come from the elite strata of their societies (often the children of wealthy and influential families), makes it possible for those alumni to make capital gifts to their alma mater.

International students have a proven track record of donating to universities. Even though foreign graduates made up only 5% of the Wharton School of Business at the

University of Pennsylvania in 1999, they had donated nearly $50 million to the university between 1996 and 1999, constituting 25% of total donations to the business school at the time (Basinger 1999). In 2005, $14 million of the $332 million raised by the University of Pennsylvania came from non-U.S. sources, mainly former international students

(College News 11115/2005). In 1998, UCLA received between $4 to $5 million in donations from nearly 500 alumni. From a single alumnus from Hong Kong, Princeton

University received $33 million dollars in donations according to the Chronicle ofHigher

Education (Basinger 1999). Given their wealth reservoirs, international alumni are becoming increasingly important to fundraising activities as institutions attempt to diversify their sources of revenue.

International Students: Human Capital for Academic Research and Teaching

The collection of tuition revenue from international students constitutes one approach to the entrepreneurial mission of U.S. universities in the knowledge economy and therefore by extension, the state's economy. Another compelling approach to

"academic capitalism" and the role of international students in the knowledge-based 117

economy and the university and marketplace relates to the role of graduate international

students in academic research and teaching, and graduate education in general.

Universities as centers of knowledge creation and diffusion play an important role

in advancing research. To finance research activities, universities often rely on

government and industry support. Historically, universities and colleges have been the

largest performers of basic research in the United States. In 2007, universities accounted

for more than half or 56 percent of the nation's basic research. Fifty-nine percent of the nation's basic research was federally funded in 2007 (National Science Foundation 2008).

Table 5.3 provides a snapshot of research and development (R&D) expenditures at

universities and colleges.

In 1980, academic institutions were receiving $4 billion or 67 percent of R&D

funding from the federal government. In one decade, the amount of funding from the

federal government for academic research more than doubled, reaching $9 .6 billion

dollars in 1990. By 2007, federal funding for research and development had reached

$30.4 billion. Over the past two decades, the federal government's share of academic

R&D continues to be important, averaging around 60 percent of total research and

development expenditures.

Table 5.3. Source of Academic R&D Funding for 1980-2007 (in Millions)

Source of Funds Fiscal All R&D Federal State and Industry Institutional All Year Expenditures Government Local Funds Other Government Sources 1980 6,063 4,098 491 236 835 403 1990 16,286 9,638 1,324 1,127 3,006 1,191 2000 30,073 17,538 2,200 2,156 5,924 2,254 118

Table 5.3 Continued

Source of Funds Fiscal AllR&D Federal State and Industry Institutional All Year Expenditures Government Local Funds Other Government Sources 2007 49,431 30,441 3,145 2,672 9,655 3,517 Source: Nation Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, 2007

The race to discover new knowledge, develop innovative applications of these

discoveries, and transfer them into the marketplace has resulted in greater partnership

between the federal government, industry and higher education. The federal

government's emphasis on supporting world-class excellence in graduate education and research has resulted in major changes in graduate education in the United States.

To strengthen the academic research infrastructure and ensure adequate human

capital capable of carrying out the teaching and research functions necessary to support

"academic capitalism," institutions of higher education had to conduct a major overhaul

of graduate student scientific research relative to the teaching and research functions of

the university. To carry out critical research functions, universities have had to rely

increasingly on graduate students to teach classes and work in research laboratories in

order to extract surplus value and profits, to increase scientific production, to maintain a

competitive advantage, and to attract high quality faculty and students, as well as federal

and industry dollars for the purpose of institutional advancement in research.

International students constitute cheap laborers and high ranked technicians.

The federal government support for academic research has been concentrated at

roughly one hundred research universities producing approximately 80 percent of all 119

doctorates and 50 percent of all master's degrees24 (Gumport 1999). Research universities needing to compete for research funds and wanting to profit from sale of patents, licenses and other intellectual property depend on the supply of talent from the U.S. and abroad to conduct cutting edge research and to keep instructional costs down. International graduate students in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields constitute an important supply for the teaching and research functions at research universities. Much has been written about the declining interest in science and engineering among domestic students. Reasons often cited for the decline in student interest include curriculum issues, career paths, and compensation issues (Bok 1993;

Johnson and Jones 2006; National Academy of Engineering 2004; National Academy of

Engineering 2005; National Science Foundation 2003a; National Science Foundation

2003b; National Science Foundation 2004a).

The United States is a magnet for international students seeking university and advanced master's and doctoral level training, particularly those seeking degrees in the science and engineering (S&E) fields. Given the state of the art facilities for research and teaching in the United States, funding opportunities, and the demand for scientific knowledge and training, international graduate students are willing to supply their knowledge and labor to secure a spot at prestigious research institutions 25 and in return

24 The hundred or so research universities constitute only 3 percent of American higher education institutions but receive the majority of government funding for research.

25 International student enrollment tends to be concentrated generally in large doctoral research institutions. Almost 60 percent of international students are enrolled in doctoral institutions. Leading prestigious institutions hosting international students include the University of Southern California, Columbia University, Purdue University, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, UCLA, Cornell University, the University of Maryland College Park, Stanford University, the University of Florida, Michigan State, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the 120

receive funding in the form of graduate fellowships, teaching, and research assistantships to pursue advance degrees in the United States.

According to the Open Doors report published by the Institute for International

Education (2007), 47 percent of graduate international students received funding in the form of teaching and research assistantships in 2006-07 (Bhandari and Chow 2007) and for 2007-08, the percentage of graduate international students receiving research and teaching assistantships was 46 percent (Institute of International Education 2008). The fact that close to 50 percent or one in two graduate international students receives some form of university funding, supports the argument that international graduate students constitute an important human capital to U.S. universities given institutional investment.

Funding of graduate international students by U.S. universities may be best explained by the structure of graduate education in the United States. Universities and the federal government tend, in general, to invest in fields deemed important to technological innovation, the knowledge economy, and U.S. competitiveness. Thus, fields likely to receive funding and in need of graduate students to conduct research in collaboration with faculty are primarily focused in science and engineering disciplines. Institutions with strong S&E programs aggressively seek and receive substantial funding from the

federal government and industry to conduct scientific research. Those institutions rely heavily on graduate students, many of whom are international students, to staff

laboratories and research centers on American campuses.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ohio State University, the University of Texas-Austin, and TexasA&M. 121

There is evidence suggesting that international students are often more likely than

U.S. citizens or permanent residents to receive university funding as graduate students

(U.S. Department of Education 2004). A study conducted by the Department of

Education in 2004 and presented in Table 5.4 indicates that 44 percent of international master's students received university funding, whereas only 19 percent of U.S. citizens received university funding in 2003.

Similar findings exist at the doctoral level. Eighty-four percent of doctoral international students received university funding in 2003 compared to 51 percent of U.S. citizens. Only in professional fields such as law, medicine, and business (professional fields which traditionally receive very little institutional and/or federal funding) are

international students receiving less university funding than U.S. citizens26 (18 percent versus 31 percent, respectively).

According to the National Science Foundation (2005) tabulations in 2003,

4 7 percent of international doctoral students were supported by research assistantships

versus 34 percent with fellowships and teaching assistantships combined. The primary

source of support therefore for international doctoral degree students is likely to be

research assistantships, given that most external funding (government and industry) is

earmarked for research.

26 Given the funding structure of graduate education in the U.S., professional fields are generally financed by ways of federal or private loans. It is expected that students will achieve a high-return on their investment in education and therefore, students are generally expected to find external sources to fund professional degrees. 122

Table 5.4. Percentage of Graduates and First Professional Degree Students who R ece1ve . d Support b1y S ource o f A"d1 ' T ypeofD egree and Stu d ent Charactenstlcs - 2003

Type of Degree and IAnyAfd I Federal Smte I University Employer Student Characteristic I

Master's students Citizenship U.S. Citizen 71.7 41.4 2.2 19.1 24.3 Permanent Resident 70.0 35.1 2.2 23.2 24.7 International Student 56.3 NIA NIA 44.1 18.2 Doctoral students Citizenship U.S. Citizen 81.0 38.4 3.1 50.9 15.6 Permanent Resident 80.2 29.l 2.2 54.6 10.7 International Student 89.2 1.0 0.1 84.2 9.7 First-professional students Citizenship U.S. Citizen 89.5 79.4 6.8 30.9 5.7 Permanent Resident 87.4 69.8 2.8 33.9 7.8 International Student 67.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 22.0

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics 2003- 04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

A major explanation for the disproportionate institutional support for international students has to do with the dominance of international students in science and engineering (Bhagwati and Rao 1999; Bowen and Rudenstine 1992; Clotfelter 1991;

Clotfelter, Ehrenberg, Getz, and Siegfried 1991; Ehrenberg 1991; Ehrenberg 1992;

Morris 1999; North 1999; Rao 1995; Ries and Thurgood 1993), fields critical to profitable research (a staple of "academic capitalism"), academic prestige, and to the advancement of the knowledge economy. 123

Some scholars have argued that international students are crowding out native students and in some cases taking away from domestic minority students (Borjas 2004;

DePalma 1992; Morris 1999; North 1999), pointing to the racial dimensions of the issue.

These authors have suggested that funding be shifted from international students and be redirected to U.S. students to remedy the inequities. I argue that these scholars fail to recognize two major factors contributing to the disparities: (1) the preferred field of study

of the two groups; and (2) the distribution of U.S. and international students in science

and engineering. The high rate of international students and the low rate of black students

in science and engineering are mostly explained by the fields of study of the two groups.

Most black graduate students choose the humanities and particularly education PhD

programs, whereas international students opt for the sciences and engineering. Therefore, to argue that international students are crowding out domestic minority students

misrepresents the facts. By importing talents and training international students,

universities are adopting a cost-effective strategy to meet a critical demand and supply.

Given the importance of building a "national civilization" predicated on

technological innovations, scientific discovery, and knowledge, one would expect the

United States to develop a sufficient supply of U.S. citizen STEM (science, technology,

engineering, mathematics) students. Such a strategy requires (1) early preparation and

exposure to science and math in K-12 education, (2) strong interest from students

wanting to pursue degrees in the STEM fields, and (3) high wages and attractive

employment options for STEM. An examination of the supply of U.S. students in the

pipeline for STEM disciplines reveals a complexity of the intersectionality of race, class,

and nationality in U.S. educational systems. 124

Several studies have shown U.S. students in K-12 education lagging behind a number of Asian and European nations in mathematics and science. According to the results of the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 27

American fourth-graders scored 11th among those of 36 countries in math,28 and eighth- graders ranked 9th on a list of 48 in math. 29 Data from the TIMSS point to the fact that

U.S. students are not as prepared in science and mathematics as are students in several

Asian and European nations.

For structural, cultural and economic reasons, U.S. domestic students are not as attracted to the sciences and mathematics as they are to the social sciences and professional fields such as Law, Business, and Medicine. The U.S. educational system is premised on the value of a liberal art education at the undergraduate level and on professional schools at the graduate level. Free-market neoliberal principles and structural shortcomings of the labor market account for the reduction in the number of

U.S. domestic students opting to pursue graduate studies in the S&E fields. Prior to the mid-1970s, U.S. science and engineering graduates were assured prestigious, lucrative careers and job security by moving into tenure track positions in universities, or as

27 TIMSS is used to compare over time the mathematics and science knowledge and skills of fourth- and eighth-graders. TIMSS is designed to align broadly with mathematics and science curricula in the participating countries. The results, therefore, suggest the degree to which students have learned mathematics and science concepts and skills likely to have been taught in school.

28 The U.S. ranked below Hong Kong, Singapore, England and Latvia. According to the study, seven countries (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Kazakhstan, England, and the Russian Federation) had higher percentages of fourth-grade students performing at or above the advanced international mathematics benchmark than the United States. The percentages in these countries ranged from 16 percent in the Russian Federation to 41 percent in Singapore.

29 Eight countries (Taiwan, Republic of South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Hungary, the Russian Federation, and England) had higher percentages of eighth-grade students performing at or above the advanced international mathematics benchmark than the United States. The percentages in these countries ranged from 8 percent in the Russian Federation to 45 percent in Taiwan. 125

researchers in large corporations or government agencies (Benderly 2010). However, given limited tenure track positions and increased competition for a limited number of faculty positions, fewer U.S. students view the science and engineering fields as viable fields. Thus:

Many young Americans bright enough to do the math therefore conclude that

instead of gambling 12 years on the small chance of becoming an assistant

professor, they can invest that time in becoming a neurosurgeon, or a quarter of it

in becoming a lawyer or a sixth in earning an MBA. And many who do earn

doctorates in math-based subjects opt to use their skills devising mathematical

models on Wall Street, rather than solving scientific puzzles in university labs

hoping a professorship opens up. (Benderly 2010)

The fact is that wages for professional fields are substantially higher than wages for science and mathematical fields, and that time to completion for some professional degrees (Law and Business) is shorter accounts for an increase in U.S. domestic students

"pull" toward those professions as opposed to the sciences. According to the Current

Population Survey (CPS) of the U.S. Census Bureau 2006, average earnings by educational attainment of the population 18 years or older ranged from $67 ,898 for workers with a Master's degree to $92,893 for workers with Doctoral degrees, and

$119,009 for workers with professional degrees. The average earnings described above reflects all fields of studies. Salaries vary substantially by disciplines and fields of specializations. 126

The Importance of International Students to Research and Teaching Functions of Universities

As important sources of human capital, international students are tapped heavily as teaching assistants, particularly in mathematical and physical sciences and as research assistants primarily in engineering and the natural sciences.30 Using international students for teaching and research has allowed universities to cut down on cost while maintaining productivity that help keep the United States at the forefront of industry and technology standards.

There are several explanations for the dominance of international students in

S&E. One suggestion is that the United States has a comparative advantage in promoting graduate education and is therefore able to attract international students. The cultural argument suggests that the majority of international students are in the technical and scientific field because they (mainly Asians) happen to be "good at" 'Mathematics' as opposed to the 'Humanities'(Krueger 1991). The economic arguments suggest that earnings in the professional fields (medical, legal, and business) have grown much more than that of professors or researchers, thus resulting in a shift of U.S. students away from the technical and scientific fields toward the professional fields (Bok 1993; Ehrenberg

1991; Rao 1995). Scholars such as Bhagwati and Rao (1999) and Rao (1995) have advanced that the dominance of international students in the S&E fields may best be explained by the structure of graduate education in the U.S. and the fact that admission to graduate programs is based on a "meritocracy." The meritocracy argument stipulates that

30 The National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System (WebCASPAR), http://webcaspar.nsf.gov provides a breakdown of sources of funding by fields which provides useful insight on trends related to teaching and/or research assistantship support. 127

graduate programs look for and admit the best students to ensure that the program's reputation is maintained and or strengthened by the contributions of enrolled students to research and development.

I argue that the dominance of international students in the S&E fields in fact reflects the free-market principles of neoliberalism in that demand for qualified students in the S&E field is matched by the supply of talented and well-trained graduate students from overseas. International students are attracted to U.S. universities because of the state of the art laboratories, research facilities and cutting edge instruction, and also because of the funding capacity of U.S. research institutions. Universities end up selecting international students because of the quality, preparation, and availability of international students. To ensure enrollments of talent, institutions offer attractive financial incentives in the form of graduate fellowships, research and/or teaching assistantships.

International students with strong backgrounds in S&E stem from the fact that global educational systems in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America and Europe privilege science and engineering, as well as mathematics and economics over the humanities and consequently have placed more emphasis on curriculum development and teaching in order to attract talented students to those disciplines. Parental expectations and students' aspirations in much of the world are to produce scientists, engineers and doctors. The investment from other nations in building the talent pool in the science and engineering fields has greatly benefited the United States.

Most of the Asian students in U.S. PhD programs are graduates of a very small group of schools that increasingly have come to be regarded as having exceptionally high and improved standards of instruction. This is certainly the case with the four Asian 128

countries, China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan, supplying currently more than 50 percent of the S&E PhD students at U.S. universities.

India, for example, graduates on average 25,000 bachelor's level engineers each year, 2,000 from the elite Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). Yet 78 percent oflndian

PhDs in the U.S. were IT graduates (Bhagwati and Rao 1999). Almost half or 48 percent of all Taiwanese PhDs in the United States are graduates of the elite institutions of the

National Taiwan University or Cheng Kung University; and 65 percent of the South

Korean PhDs in the U.S. in S&E are graduates of one university, Seoul National

University, the elite institution in South Korea. The figures are almost as high for the elite schools of China-Peking (Beijing) University and Tsinghua University (Ries and

Thurgood 1993; Thurgood and Weinman 1991).

Given the training, background, and preparation of international students in S&E fields and the nature of graduate education in the United States, international students are integral to the teaching and research mission of universities, particularly research universities. International students provide a critical tutorial function and constitute a needed supply of qualified research assistants. The presence of international teaching and research assistants is not without controversy and conflict. In the 1970s and early 1980s, domestic student's complaints about international teaching assistant's language and teaching skills emerged in the national press. Complaints were focused on poor communication, language and teaching pedagogy of international students. These complaints led parents to pressure universities and legislators to take action. States passed laws and/or implemented system-wide mandates to assess the language skills of international teaching assistants and to provide language and teacher training programs. 129

Much has been written about the use and challenges related to international teaching assistants (Smith, Byrd, Nelson, Barrett, and Constantinides 1992). The economics of teaching undergraduate students, particularly in large state institutions, and more specifically in research institutions, requires a large number of teaching assistants, a growing supply of which happen to be international students. Without graduate students as teaching assistants, the cost of higher education in those institutions would increase significantly and cost would need to be passed on to U.S. students as consumers.

Economists have developed a way to measure international students' contribution to the research enterprise. A study conducted by Chelleraj, Maskus and Mattoo (2005) provides evidence that international graduate students are important to innovation in the

United States. Using patent activity to measure three important aspects of innovation- output, new innovation, and economic value- the authors demonstrate that increases in the presence of foreign graduate students has a positive and significant impact on future

U.S. patent applications and grants awarded to both firms and universities. According to the study, estimates suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of foreign graduate students raises patent applications by 4.7 percent, university patent grants by 5.7 percent and non-university patent grants by 6.7 percent (Chellaraj, Maskus, and Matoo 2005).31

The results of the study clearly point to U.S. gains from open access to international graduate students, and the contributions of these students to U.S. "national civilization"

31 This is the first study to attempt to measure the rate of innovation and contribution of international graduate students to innovation in the U.S. It uses an econometric model of idea generation where dependent variables are total patent applications, patents awarded to U.S. universities, and patents awarded to other entities. Econometric model uses data from various sources including the U.S. Department of Education, Institute for International Education, National Science Foundation, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the U.S. Census Bureau. 130

given the demand and competitiveness of the knowledge-based economy and the race for global talent.

A criticism of using international students for teaching and research is the common held view that even though graduate students conduct valuable work, they are not considered employees of the institutions. The dominance of international students in engineering has been heavily criticized by some scholars (Borjas 2004; Morris 1999).

Those scholars have argued that the presence and dependence on international graduate students in science and engineering has resulted in displacement of U.S. domestic students and a compression of wages in those disciplines and as such have called for a comprehensive review of and an adjustment to wages. The issue of wage earnings in the science and engineering fields and its impact on domestic students and employment is outside the scope of this research project. The issue has gained much attention (Borjas

1989; Borjas 2005; Borjas and Freeman 1992).32 The issue of wage compression has potential merit given that international students often have higher wages in the United

States than they would in their respective countries, and therefore might be exploited in ways that domestic students would not accept or tolerate.

Internationalization of Science and Engineering Disciplines

The contributions of international graduate students to instructional and research processes within universities is hard to dispute. A trademark of major research universities in the United States has been the sustained presence of international graduate

32 For further reading on the issue, refer to Borjas (1989, 2005) and Borjas and Freeman (1992). 131

S&E students. A visit to a science laboratory in any major research university in the U.S. will confirm the presence of international students in research laboratories and

classrooms as science instructors. International students allow for an economy of scale that makes it financially and pedagogically possible for institutions to carry out the

teaching and research functions while controlling costs and contributing to the knowledge

economy. International students ensure that instructional and research costs are kept low

while maintaining the preeminence of U.S. university-based research (Chiswick 1999;

D'D'D'D'DThursday, September 1, 2011 and U.S. scientific and technological

The number of international graduate students studying in the sciences and

engineering fields relative to U.S. citizens and permanent residents has been on the rise

since the 1980s. During the period of 1985 to 2005, international graduate student

enrollment increased at an average annual rate above five percent. In 2000, at the peak of

their enrollment in U.S. graduate programs, they represented more than one-third of all

science and engineering students and an even larger percentage in critical subfields in

those disciplines. As Table 5.5a illustrates, in 2000, more than half of the students in

engineering and computer science, and a little less than half of the students in

mathematical and physical sciences were international students.

By 2005, the number of international students in graduate fields in science and

engineering had declined slightly, more likely the result of post 9/11 visa policies (this

will be discussed in Chapter 6). The growth of international students in engineering and

computer science exemplifies the increasing importance of graduate international

students to U.S. higher education and by extension, the knowledge economy as reported 132

in Table 5.5a. In 1980, 42 percent of engineering students in graduate programs were international students.

Table 5.5a. Graduate Student Enrollment in Sciences and Engineering P rograms (MA and PhD) b•Y P ercentages Field Status Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Sciences

Biological Sciences U.S.&PR 88.2% 83.3% 74.2% 77.2% 76.9% 73.5% Temporary 11.8% 16.7% 25.8% 22.8% 23.1% 26.5% Visa Computer Sciences U.S.&PR 68.6% 60.1% 52.4% 52.5% 46.3% 43.4% Temporary 31.4% 39.9% 47.6% 47.5% 63.7% 56.6% Visa Mathematical Sciences U.S.&PR 67.1% 59.2% 57.4% 61.8% 54.0% 56.2% Temporary 32.9% 40.8% 42.6% 38.2% 46.0% 43.8% Visa Physical Sciences U.S.&PR 75.0% 68.2% 60.5% 63.7% 58.9% 57.7% Temporary 25.0% 31.8% 39.5% 36.3% 41.1% 42.3% Visa

Total Sciences U.S.&PR 84.0% 79.4% 75.7% 78.4% 70.5% 70.9% Temporary 16.0% 20.6% 24.3% 21.6% 29.5% 29.1% Visa

Engineering

Electrical Engineering U.S.&PR 56.9% 55.0% 51.7% 51.6% 31.6% 34.1% Temporary 43.1% 45.0% 48.3% 48.4% 68.4% 65.9% Visa Mechanical Engineering U.S.&PR 55.0% 54.7% 53.2% 58.9% 42.7% 47.1% Temporary 45.0% 45.3% 46.8% 41.1% 57.3% 52.9% Visa Chemical Engineering U.S.&PR 55.6% 60.1% 49.0% 55.4% 47.6% 47.8% Temporary 44.4% 39.9% 51.0% 44.6% 52.4% 52.2% Visa Civil Engineering U.S.&PR NIA 54.2% 53.1% 62.6% 53.7% 57.0% Temporary NIA 45.8% 46.9% 37.4% 46.3% 43.0% Visa 133

Table 5.5a Continued Field Status Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Total Engineering U.S.&PR 58.0% 56.9% 52.2% 55.7% 43.1% 46.8% Temporary 42.0% 43.1% 47.8% 44.3% 56.9% 53.2% Visa Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators /980-2005 Note: U.S. =United States Citizen and PR= Permanent Residence

The presence of international students was quite pronounced in specific engineering fields. International students represented 45 percent of mechanical engineering students, 44 percent of chemical engineering students, and 43 percent of electrical engineering students in 1980. By 1990, the percentage of international students in those same disciplines had increased to 48 percent in electrical engineering, and 4 7% in mechanical engineering, with international students constituting over half ( 51 percent) of all chemical engineering majors. By 2000, their percentage in engineering programs surpassed that of U.S. and permanent resident students. In 2000, they constituted 57 percent of total enrollments in engineering programs. In specific sub-fields of engineering, international students constituted over two-thirds (68 percent) of electrical engineering, and more than half ( 5 7 percent) of mechanical engineering and of chemical engineering (52 percent) students.

Science disciplines experienced similar growth to that of engineering (see Table

5.5a). In 1980, international students constituted close to one-third of graduate students in computer science (31 percent) and mathematical science (33 percent). By 1990, the percentage of international students in those disciplines had increased by close to half for computer science (48 percent) and for mathematical sciences majors (43 percent). In

2000, the percentage of international students studying computer science exceeded that of 134

U.S. citizens and permanent residents combined (see Table 5.5a). In 2000, close to two­ thirds or 64 percent of computer science students were international students versus 46 percent for U.S. citizens and permanent residents. By 2005, the percentage of international students in computer sciences and mathematical sciences had declined slightly to 57 percent and 44 percent, respectively, likely the result of 9/11 policies (to be discussed later).

The growth of international students in graduate programs in the United States increased at a staggering rate during critical periods of growth of the knowledge-based economy. As illustrated in Table 5.5b, between 1980 and 1990, the number of international graduate students in computer science increased by an astounding 285 percent, and the growth continued during the following decade. Between 1990 and 2000, growth continued at 113 percent compared with a minimal growth of 10 percent for U.S. and permanent resident students.

In the field of engineering, impressive growth in enrollments of international students for the decade 1990-2000 were also observed (see Table 5.5b ). International graduate students majoring in engineering grew by 76 percent over the decade 1980-

1990, and the following decade, 1990-2000 continued to experience growth, albeit at a slower pace (31 percent). Although the number of international students in engineering grew rapidly, the number of domestic students grew at a much slower pace for the decade

1980-1990. The number of domestic students grew by 39 percent from 1980 to 1990 only to experience a major decline (10 percent) during the following decade.

After experiencing a period of substantial growth in international students enrollment from 1980 to 1990 (81 and 103 percent increase, respectively), mathematical 135

and physical sciences experienced sharp declines in enrollment for the period 1990-2000

(9 and 6 percent decline, respectively). The decline in enrollments of international students in the mathematical and physical sciences coincides with the Dot.Com boom of the 1990s and the demand for computer analyst and programmers. International students opted to major in computer sciences instead given the applied nature of the field, employment and earning potentials, and likely social mobility.

Table 5.5b. Percentage Change in Enrollment oflntemational and Domestic Graduate Students (MA and PhD) in S&E, Ten-Year Trends Field Status 10-year change 1980-1990 1990-2000 Sciences

Biological Sciences U.S.&PR -8.5% 18.3% Temporary Visa 136.8% 2.6%

Computer Sciences U.S.&PR 93.4% 10.2% Temporary Visa 284.7% 113.0%

Mathematical Sciences U.S.&PR 19.8% -20.3% Temporary Visa 81.4% -8.6%

Physical Sciences U.S.&PR 3.8% -12.5% Temporary Visa 103.3% -6.5%

Total Sciences U.S.&PR 9.7% -11.6% Temporary Visa 84.6% 15.1% Total Change 21.7% -5.1% Engineering

Electrical Engineering U.S.&PR 70.3% -24.9% Temporary Visa 110.0% 74.1%

Mechanical Engineering U.S.&PR 80.0% -20.2% Temporary Visa 93.4% 21.5%

Chemical Engineering U.S.&PR 6.7% -0.7% Temporary Visa 39.3% 20.4%

Civil Engineering U.S.&PR 15.1% 45.6% Temporary Visa 44.6% 2.9% 136

Table 5.5b Continued Field Status 10-year change 1980-1990 1990-2000 Total Engineering U.S.&PR 39.3% -9.7% Temporary Visa 76.1% 30.6% Total Change 54.8% 9.5%

Total Science and Engineering U.S.&PR 7.0% 4.4% Temporary Visa 81.5% 20.7% Total Change 23.7% 9.8% Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 1980-2000 I. For 1991 and earlier years, permanent residents were included under "non-U.S. Citizens." Beginning in 1992, permanent residents were included with U.S. Citizens. 2. Total Engineering numbers from 1980-1990 do not include PR under U.S. & PR due to data discrepancies.

As the data above clearly confirm, the growth in international student enrollment in the sciences and engineering fields relative to domestic students coincides with the growth of the knowledge economy. International students in the sciences and engineering fields constitute important human intellectual capital for U.S. institutions of higher education. This importance is further confirmed by the dominance of international students in the science and engineering fields at the doctoral level.

Internationalization of Doctoral Programs in Science and Engineering Fields

As illustrated in Tables 5.6a and 5.6b, growth in enrollment of international students in S&E doctoral programs relative to domestic students is staggering. An analysis of enrollment trends in S&E at the doctoral level provides a very compelling portrait of the dominance of international students in fields crucial to the knowledge- based economy. 137

Table 5 .6a provides an analysis of international student enrollment in PhD programs in S&E fields over two decades (1980-2005).

As Table 5.6a illustrates, international students enrollment in sciences and engineering is quite significant. International student enrollments in doctoral programs in computer sciences increased from 20 percent in 1980 to 40 percent in 1990, comprising more than half (56 percent) of all enrolled students by 2005. Similarly, enrollment of international doctoral students in mathematical sciences jumped from 19 percent to 50 percent of all enrollments by 1990, exceeding more than half of all enrollments or 53 percent by 2005.

Table 5.6a. International Student Enrollment in PhD P rograms m. S&E b y P ercent age Field I Status I Year I 1980 I 1985 I 1990 I 1995 I 2000 I 2005

Sciences

Biological Sciences I U.S.&PR I 92.1% I 88.5% I 79.8% I 81.7% I 75.4% I 72.4% I Temporarv Visa I 7.9% I 11.5% I 20.2% I 18.3% I 24.6% I 27.6%

Computer Sciences I U.S.&PR I 79.7% I 70.5% I 59.8% I 62.8% I 55.9% I 44.1% I Temporary Visa I 20.3% I 29.5% I 40.2% I 37.2% I 44.1% I 55.9%

Mathematical Sciences I U.S.&PR I 80.7% I 63.7% I 49.9% I 66.9% I 56.2% I 47.3% I Temporarv Visa I 19.3% I 36.3% I 50.1% I 33.1% I 43.8% I 52.7% Physical Sciences I U.S.&PR I 82.7% I 77.8% I 68.5% I 75.3% I 64.3% I 55.1% I Temporary Visa I 17.3% I 22.2% I 31.5% I 24.7% I 35.7% I 44.9% Total Sciences I U.S.&PR I 87.3% I 82.5% I 75.1% I 77.8% I 73.6% I 67.4% I Temporarv Visa I 12.7% I 17.5% I 24.9% I 22.2% I 26.4% I 32.6%

Engineering

Electrical Engineering I U.S.&PR I 66.1% I 53.2% I 50.5% I 57.7% I 45.3% I 32.3% I Temporary Visa I 33.9% I 46.8% I 49.5% I 42.3% I 54.7% I 67.7% 138

Table 5.6a Continued Field Status Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Mechanical En ineerin U.S.&PR 59.5% 47.2% 41.3% 56.3% 44.0% 34.8% Visa 40.5% 52.8% 58.7% 43.7% 56.0% 65.2%

59.2% 59.9% 63.8% 54.5% 55.2% 41.1% Visa 40.8% 40.1% 36.2% 45.5% 44.8% 58.9%

52.1% 44.2% 45.1% 47.8% 48.1% 34.7% Visa 47.9% 55.8% 54.9% 52.2% 51.9% 65.3%

64.6% 52.9% 50.7% 57.0% 51.1% 37.8% Tern or Visa 35.4% 47.1% 49.3% 43.0% 48.9% 62.2% Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 1980-2005

The field of engineering experienced the most substantial growth. In 1980, international students already constituted more than a third (34 percent) of all enrollments in engineering. By 1990, enrollments had reached nearly half of all total enrollments or

49 percent, only to continue to grow and reach nearly two-thirds of all enrolled students or 62 percent by 2005. In contrast, enrollments of U.S. and permanent resident students studying engineering had steadily declined over that same period of time. During the decade from 1980 to 1990, international graduate students studying biological sciences grew by 188 percent and continued to grow by 63 percent in the following decade (see

Table 5.6b). In contrast, the number of domestic U.S. and permanent resident students declined by 1.4 percent between 1980 and 1990 and during the following decade of 1990-

2000 grew by only 26 percent. International doctoral students in computer science grew by an astonishing 530 percent from 1980 to 1990 at the peak of the technology/Internet era and continued its growth for the period 1990-2000.

Growth in international doctoral student enrollment in engineering was not as large but is still quite significant. International enrollments in engineering increased by 139

167 percent for the period 1980-1990 and by 7 .5 percent for the period 1990-2000, compared to 50.6 percent and 9.2 percent over the same periods for domestic and permanent resident students.

Engineering fields with significant increases in international enrollments included electrical, mechanical, and civil engineering. With the exception of chemical engineering, all other fields experienced unprecedented growth in the number of international students during the period 1980-1990. Electrical engineering experienced a 272 percent increase for the period 1980-1990 and a 50 percent increase for the period 1990-2000. Growth in chemical engineering was 7 5 percent for 1980-1990 and 56 percent for the period 1990-

2000.

Growth in enrollment of international students in the science and engineering fields occurred mostly at a time when the U.S. was experiencing economic growth.

Table 5.6b. Percentage Change in Enrollment oflnternational and Domestic PhD Students, Ten-Year Trends Field Status 10-Year Percentage Change 1980-1990 1990-2000

Sciences

Biological Sciences U.S.&PR -1.4% 26.0% Temporary Visa 188.5% 62.8% Total Change 13.7% 33.4% Computer Sciences U.S.&PR 138.5% 13.6% Temporary Visa 530.2% 33.2% Total Change 217.9% 21.5% Mathematical Sciences U.S.&PR -27.5% 34.6% Temporary Visa 205.0% 4.2% Total Change 17.3% 19.4% Physical Sciences U.S.&PR 13.8% -10.0% Temporary Visa 150.0% 8.5% Total Change 37.4% -4.2% 140

Table 5.6b Continued Field Status 10-Year Percentage Change 1980-1990 1990-2000 Total Sciences U.S.&PR 0.4% 12.9% Temporary Visa 129.3% 22.1% Total Change 16.7% 15.2% Engineering

Electrical Engineering U.S.&PR 94.5% 22.0% Temporary Visa 271.9% 50.3% Total Change 154.6% 36.0% Mechanical Engineering U.S.&PR 70.7% 4.0% Temporary Visa 256.9% -7.1% Total Change 146.1% -2.5% Chemical Engineering U.S.&PR 112.8% 8.9% Temporary Visa 75.2% 55.6% Total Change 97.5% 25.8% Civil Engineering U.S. & PR 76.2% 20.9% Temporary Visa 133.9% 6.9% Total Change 103.8% 13.2% Total Engineering U.S.&PR 50.6% 9.2% Temporary Visa 167.1% 7.5% Total Change 91.8% 8.4%

Total Science and Engineering U.S.&PR 5.8% 12.3% Temporary Visa 141.1% 17.0% Total Change 27.3% 13.7% Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 1980-2000.

The United States economy benefits greatly from the supply of international students in the S&E fields, especially given that the majority of the international students in graduate programs came to the United States having received pre-graduate or sometimes graduate-level education and training outside of the U.S. The U.S. government and universities have therefore not invested in their undergraduate education and in some instances, part of their graduate education. That the U.S. has not had to incur some of the cost of educating or training these students, yet reaps a substantial benefit, 141

has been the subject of much controversy. That many of the Asian students in American doctoral programs are graduates of the top elite institutions abroad-Indian Institute of

Technology, National Taiwan University, Seoul National University, and Beijing

University to name a few, have had some scholars argue that other nations' "brain drain" has in fact become U.S. "brain gain"33 (Ananth, Babu, and Natarajan 1989; Bhagwati and

Rao l 994a; Bhagwati and Rao l 994b; Bhagwati and Rao 1996; Bhagwati and Rao 1999;

Kapur and McHale 2005; Smith and Favell 2006). The claim of"brain drain" and "brain gain" has been rejected by some scholars as simplistic a framework and inaccurate. Those scholars have argued that in an era of globalization, given the rapid speed of information, a more accurate term to describe the phenomenon is in fact "brain circulation." (Afolabi and Faiola 2007; Cornelius, Espenshade, and Salehyan 2001; Faiola and Afolabi 2008;

Kapur and McHale 2005; Kuznetsov 2006; Legrain 2007; Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development 2002; Patterson 2007; Smith and Favell 2006) The topic of "brain drain," or "brain circulation" is outside the scope of this dissertation.

Conclusion

In its quest to build a "national civilization" responsive to the knowledge economy, the Unites States must rely on universities to succeed. To compete for revenue and human capital, American universities are increasingly relying on the supply of

partial- and full-paying international students and graduate international students as teaching and research assistants. During the Cold War, the United States replicated its

33 For a comprehensive read of the issues and concepts related to brain drain and brain circulation, please refer to the works of Afolabi and Faiola Toyin (2007), Faiola and Afolabi (2008), Espenshade and Salehyan ( 200 I), Kapur and McHale (2005), Patterson (2007), and Yevgeny (2006). 142

"national civilization" in different parts of the world, viewing international students as a means for implementing its modernization paradigm overseas. In the late 20th century, the

United States focused on bringing international students into the U.S. higher education system for economic and labor purposes. With the rise of the neoliberal state and the promotion of free-market enterprise and commodification of higher education, international students have become the source of revenue and labor.

Institutions of higher education as engines of the knowledge economy have

increasingly relied upon tuition and fees generated from hosting international students,

and revenue generated extends to local and state communities that benefit from the economic contributions made by international students and their dependents. The

estimated $15 billion contribution that international students and their dependents make to the economy speaks volume about the revenue implications of hosting international

students by institutions, local communities and states.

Data suggest that the contributions of international students extend beyond

revenue generation to include research and teaching functions, functions critical to U.S.

higher education and the knowledge economy. International students constitute an

important human capital given their role as teaching and research assistants, and they are

valued because of the surplus value to institutions as teaching and research assistants.

Science-based research projects funded by federal government and private foundations at

major universities depend on research assistants and postdoctoral fellows, many of whom

are international students and researchers. A decline in the number of foreign graduate

students would raise the cost of research to the funding agencies and decrease the amount

of research funded and performed (Chiswick 1999), an impact likely to severely affect 143

America's position in the global economy given how university research is vital to maintaining its preeminent position in science and technology and its global competitiveness in a knowledge-driven economy.

Given the trends in enrollment in S&E at the graduate and the doctoral levels, the absence of international students in critical fields is likely to bring graduate education and research infrastructure in S&E to a standstill, therefore substantially affecting the United

States' ability to compete in the knowledge economy. Institutions of higher education and by extension, industry and government, would be hard pressed to conduct scientific research given that S&E faculty have come to rely heavily on graduate students as research assistants to staff labs and conduct experiments. In sum, international students contribute to building a "national civilization" by advancing U.S. "academic capitalism." CHAPTER6

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AS SKILLED MIGRANTS IN THE U.S.

KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

The quest to build a "national civilization" predicated on the knowledge economy requires recruiting, training, and leveraging to the fullest extent possible and the human

and intellectual capital available. Critical to advancing the knowledge-based economy is

the highly-skilled knowledge worker. Corporations and businesses require educated

workers in related areas such as science, engineering, medicine and law to create and

protect knowledge-based products, processes, and services. Major industries such as the

pharmaceuticals, electronics, or computer software development industries rely on

innovations and discoveries to make profit. For these industries, time takes on special

meaning as the first to discover a new product or technology often sets the standard for

other products or technologies developments and market advantage (e.g., patent or

copyright protections). Therefore, central to the knowledge-based economy are highly-

trained knowledge workers representing unique human capital.

Highly-skilled knowledge workers are those workers meeting a minimum tertiary

level education or better, and engaged in specific occupations including engineering,

technology, medical sciences, natural and social sciences and the humanities.34 This is

34 Generally, "skills" tend to be defined either according to economists' measurement of education or 'demographers' and 'sociologists' markers of occupation. The either/or classification is quite common. The definition in this research paper instead is broader in that it moves away from the either/or proposition.

144 145

consistent with the OECD definition of"highly-skilled" (OECD 1995) and reflects the combination of educational level and occupational threshold as baseline competencies needed for the knowledge economy.

In this chapter, I argue that nation states engaged in what Wildasky (2010) has coined the "brain race" compete to attract highly-skilled human capital. This chapter

describes how oftentimes, many of the highly-skilled that are prepared for the knowledge

economy come in the form of international students who enter the United States as skilled

or semi-skilled migrants and while in the U.S. acquire training and knowledge critical to

advancing the knowledge economy. In the case of the United States, as discussed in the

previous chapter, the contribution of international students to the knowledge economy

extends beyond that of simply being students who bring revenue to U.S. institutions and

local communities, such as those students who staff laboratories and classrooms as

research or teaching assistants. In a competitive and fast growing knowledge economy,

employers and businesses rely on highly-skilled knowledge workers to meet the demands

of a global economy. A highly-skilled workforce is a prerequisite for ensuring economic

growth in the knowledge-based economy where research and innovation become drivers

for economic competitiveness and expansion. International students who had received

training prior to arriving to the United States and were trained at U.S. universities often

constitute an important source of highly-skilled knowledge workers for the U.S. labor

market, particularly those with advanced degrees in the sciences and engineering

disciplines. This chapter discusses how, as a receiving country, the United States stands

to benefit from the human and intellectual capital from international students who are

temporary and/or permanent migrants. The chapter further provides context to the ways 146

in which the state facilitates the migration from student to temporary or permanent skilled workers with its worker visa program and immigration procedures.

Highly-Skilled Migrants in the U.S. Labor Force

Since the 1990s, the presence of foreign-born scientists and engineers in the knowledge economy constitute an increasingly growing segment of the U.S. labor force, particularly in the biomedical, telecommunications, computer and software industries.

Foreign-born scientists and engineers play a prominent role in U.S. technological and scientific advancement and are highly represented in the science and engineering labor force in corporations, universities, and research centers. According to the U.S. Census

Bureau (2000), the foreign-born comprised 11.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole in 2000, but accounted for 16.6 percent (or 1.2 million) of the 7 million S&E labor

force in the United States. The foreign-born were more disproportionately represented in the physical and life sciences (24.7 percent and 23.3 percent, respectively), as well as in the medical and computer programmer/engineering fields (26.8 percent and 28 percent respectively). One in four physicians and surgeons, as well as computer

programmers/engineers, happens to be foreign-born (Batalova and Lowell 2007).

Foreign-born scientists and engineers contributions to the S&E labor force is

amplified by the fact that they are highly represented among the most educated

professionals in their fields. In 2000, the foreign-born comprised 38 percent of all

scientist and engineers in the United States with a doctorate and 29 percent of those with

a master's degree, compared to 17 percent of those with only a bachelor's degree

(National Science Foundation 2004a). In 2000, the foreign-born share of all doctorate 147

holders35 amounted to 51 percent among engineers and 45 percent among life scientists, physical scientists, and mathematical and computer scientists (Burton and Wang 1999;

Paral and Johnson 2004).

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the vast majority of PhDs graduating in science and engineering from U.S. universities were U.S.-born white men who had become a distinct minority of graduates by 2000. In the late 1960s, over 70% of PhD graduates were U.S.-

born men; 6% were U.S.-born women; and 22.5% were foreign-born men and women

students. Four decades later, 36% of PhD graduates were U.S.-born men in 2000; 25%

were U.S. born women; and 39% were foreign-born men and women (Freeman, Jin, and

Shen 2004; National Science Foundation 2004a; National Science Foundation 2004b).

The foreign proportion ofU.S.-trained PhDs rose until 1980 and then increased sharply

by the mid-1990s, leveling off at about 40%. Data from the Earned Doctorate Survey

(EDS) (National Science Foundation 1995b) indicates that the vast majority of foreign-

born PhDs obtained their foreign bachelor's degrees from overseas. The late 1980s and

early 1990s jump in the foreign-born share of PhDs, in particular, came primarily from

students educated overseas. The fact that many highly-skilled workers enter the United

States having acquired the requisite human capital abroad is of great benefit to the United

States given that the nation has made little investment in their prior education but now

reaps the benefit of their knowledge and skills. This is also an indication of how the U.S.

imports doctoral students with bachelors or advanced degrees from other countries. Still,

there was a substantial increase in the proportion of U.S. science and engineering PhDs

35 The share of international students earning doctorate degrees is even higher. For figures on the share of international student earners of doctorates in science and engineering, refer to Chapter 5, Tables 5.6a and 5.6b. 148

granted to foreign-born students with a U.S. bachelor's education. From 1991to2001,

41% of U.S. science and engineering PhDs went to foreign-born graduates of U.S. colleges and universities (Freeman, Jin, and Shen 2004).

Many of these foreign professionals joined the labor force after receiving at least some of their advanced education in U.S. universities. That a high number of foreign- born scientists and engineers in fact were international students in the U.S. who received advanced degrees in the U.S. is an added advantage from the employer's perspective, given employers' preference and familiarity with U.S. credentials, and also foreign students' exposure and familiarity to American culture. International students with advanced degrees from the United States constitute valued added human capital for global corporations given their youth, cultural capital, multi-lingual competencies, and relevant and recognizable professional training.

International Students: Studies Become a Precursor to Highly-Skilled Migration

The international mobility of scientists and engineers and their significant presence in the U.S. labor force often begins with their graduate education in the United

States. By hosting international students, the United States in essence sustains and advances its "national civilization" by providing international students with advanced degrees suitable for the knowledge economy and then capitalizes on the human capital of former international students within its borders.

International students who pursue advanced degrees in the United States often chose to remain in the United States (Alberts and Hazen 2005; Bratsburg 1995; Cervantes and Guellec 2002; Finn 2000; 2003; 2005; Johnson and Regets 1998; National Academy 149

of Sciences 2005; Stephan and Levin 2001; Zweig, Chen, and Rosen 1995) to gain employment upon completion of studies and therefore end up integrating into the tertiary labor market.36 Governments and corporations increasingly seek international students as skilled migrants to address work force demand. Although there is a paucity of research on the stay rate of international students with advanced degrees from the United States, the

data that have been collected, however, paints a compelling picture of the scope and nature of the contribution of highly-skilled former international students. Two major

studies on the stay rate of international students document trends in international

students' participation in the U.S. labor force. The National Science Foundation (NSF)

'Survey of Earned Doctorate' collects data on international doctorate earners with

employment in the United States,37 and the Oak Ridge report on 'Stay Rate' tracks

doctorate earners' stay rate in the United States for five years after graduation.

A tabulation of post-graduate plans of international students with earned

doctorates from 1980 to 2005 as collected by the NSF points to the fact that a high

percentage of international students who complete doctorates in the United States choose

to remain and work in the United States. In the last two decades, the number of students

from countries in Asia, Europe and North America, earning doctorates in the United

36 The topic of individual student motivation to study abroad and the decision to remain abroad is beyond the scope this study. Tremblay (2005) reviewed the links that exist between student mobility and immigration and argued that the decision to study overseas can and often is part of a migration strategy for international students who choose to study abroad.

37 Respondents complete the survey at the time of graduation and are asked about plans for work or postdoctoral study after graduation. Those who report that they plan to work or study in the U.S. and further, that they have secured employment, are described as having "definite plans" to stay in the U.S. 150

States has increased at a rapid rate. Table 6.1 provides data on the number of international doctoral recipients.

Table 6.1. Number of International Doctoral Recipients by Field Select Years, 1980-2005 Field Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Sciences Biological Sciences 296 424 854 971 1390 1677 Computer Sciences 43 89 271 365 361 599 Mathematical Sciences 139 238 424 382 442 602 Physical Sciences 426 620 1065 930 1156 1550 Total Sciences 1859 2609 4262 4469 5204 6650

Eneineerine Electrical Engineering 139 274 517 712 777 1189 Mechanical Engineering 130 239 464 437 431 606 Chemical Engineering 113 172 198 318 308 474 Civil Engineering 112 192 262 337 280 475 Other 0 0 0 127 299 450 Total Engineering 851 1419 2273 2523 2444 3754 Total Science and 2710 4028 6535 6992 7648 10404 Eneineerine Source: National Science Foundation. Division of Science Resource Statistics. Survey ofEarned Doctorates, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005

Between 1985 and 2005, students from Asia, Europe and North America earned more than 100,000 S&E doctoral degrees at U.S. institutions. Students from China, India,

Taiwan, and South Korea earned over four times the number of S&E doctoral degrees awarded to students from Europe (National Science Foundation 2005). As Table 6.1 indicates, the number of S&E doctoral degrees earned in the United States by students from those regions increased from 4,028 in 1985 to close to 7 ,000 by 1995, to reach a record number of 10,404 by 2005, constituting over a 100 percent increase over two decades. Paralleling the increase in the number of doctoral degree recipients from Asia, 151

Europe, and North America is the increase in the number of those students with firm plans to remain in the United States to work after completing their degrees.38

As Table 6.2 demonstrates, 25 percent or one in four international students with a

PhD in the sciences remained in the United States to engage in employment in 1980. The percentage of international students with science PhDs who engaged in employment in the United States increased to 51 percent or one in two students by 2005.

The data for 1990 and 1995 points to a sharp decline in the employment rate of international doctoral recipients, particularly those in the engineering fields. This decline is in fact not the result of declining employment, but rather a change in the classification of groups of international students, specifically Chinese students. Following the

Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the U.S. government adopted a new policy toward

Chinese nationals present in the U.S. at the time of the massacre. George H. W. Bush's administration granted temporary protection to over 80,000 Chinese nationals, therefore temporarily banning the deportation of any Chinese national. In 1992, the Chinese

Protection Act was passed granting permanent residency (in other words, amnesty) to all

Chinese nationals arriving in the U.S. on or before April 1, 1990. Therefore, Chinese nationals who may have entered the United States in the late 1980s as international students changed their status to temporary protective status (TPS) and then permanent residency.

38 At the micro-individual level, high stay rates in the United States are largely attributable to more favorable opportunities for employment, better pay, and further study/research in the U.S. than in the countries of origin. Given that my study focuses on the macro-structural level, in this chapter I will demonstrate that the increase in stay rates is mainly due to changes in immigration regulations related to employment visas combined with changing economic conditions in the United States, including rising employment after 1993 due to strong U.S. economy. 152

Table 6.2. Percentage of International Doctoral Recipients with Employment in the U.S., 1980-2005 Field Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Sciences Biological Sciences 32.4% 35.6% 41.1% 42.5% 58.1% 58.7% Computer Sciences 51.2% 52.8% 36.9% 41.6% 57.9% 54.6% Mathematical Sciences 30.9% 41.2% 36.1% 30.4% 52.7% 55.5% Physical Sciences 42.3% 41.9% 38.3% 38.8% 55.2% 56.4% Total Sciences 25.1% 29.2% 31.4% 31.8% 48.4% 50.6%

En2ineerin2 Electrical Engineering 51.8% 41.6% 31.3% 19.1% 58.4% 52.2% Mechanical Engineering 40.0% 34.3% 25.9% 13.5% 46.6% 41.4% Chemical Engineering 48.7% 37.2% 38.9% 34.3% 48.1% 48.3% Civil Engineering 25.0% 18.2% 23.7% 19.3% 33.9% 40.0% Other NIA NIA NIA 46.5% 40.1% 45.1% Total Engineering 40.8% 32.9% 28.6% 15.1% 48.3% 46.2% Total Science and Engineering 30.0% 30.5% 30.4% 22.5% 48.4% 49.0% Source: National Science Foundation. Division of Science Resource Statistics. Survey ofEarned Doctorates, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005

A closer examination of stay rates by fields of study (see Table 6.2) reveal that in

2005, more than half of international students with PhDs in biological, physical, mathematical or computer sciences remained in the United States. Similar patterns are observed for those with engineering degrees. In 1980, 41 percent of international students earning PhDs in engineering were employed in the United States and the percentage remained steady at 46 percent for 2005. Over half of electrical engineering PhD earners and close to half of chemical engineering students remained in the United States in 2005 to work upon completing their degree.

The number and percentage of international students with science and engineering

PhDs point to the demand for international students in specific labor markets as well as 153

international students' desire and ability to remain in the United States. International students with PhDs in the science and engineering fields are highly-skilled and often engage in a range of employment activities involving research and development in universities and private-public sector firms, and academic teaching and research. Based on findings from the National Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), highly­ skilled international students engage in employment in various sectors. Table 6.3 provides a breakdown of the types of employment activities by fields of study.

As Table 6.3 indicates, on average more than half of students with employment offers in the biological and physical sciences fields were planning to take postdoctoral appointments. Scientists with backgrounds in biological and physical sciences were more likely to be employed as postdoctorate fellows, whereas computer scientists, mechanical and electrical engineers were often more likely to be employed in industry.

In 2005, close to 89 percent or nearly 9 out 10 international doctoral recipients in biological sciences had postdoctorate appointments. Similarly, in 2005, 80 percent or 8 out 10 doctoral recipients in the physical sciences had postdoctorate appointments.

Postdoctorates carry out critical research in laboratories at various institutions and research institutes, including the National Institute of Health (NIH). 154

0 T a bl e 6 ..3 P ercentage o f Fore1gn PhDRec1p1ents .. m. S&E W1 thEmp oyment Offiers Type of Employment Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Biological Sciences

Post Doctorate 89.6% 94.7% 93.4% 93.0% 88.5% 88.7% Academic 8.3% 2.0% 3.1% 2.4% 3.2% 6.1% Employment Industrial 0.0% 1.3% 2.3% 3.1% 6.4% 4.1% Employment Other 0.0% 1.3% 1.1% 1.5% 1.9% 1.1% Physical Sciences Post Doctorate 81.7% 83.8% 82.4% 82.8% 66.5% 80.0% Academic 6.1% 7.3% 5.1% 4.7% 2.2% 3.3% Employment Industrial 10.0% 7.7% 10.8% 11.9% 28.1% 15.4% Employment Other 1.7% 1.2% 1.2% 0.6% 3.3% 1.3% Computer Sciences Post Doctorate 18.2% 25.5% 19.0% 28.3% 11.0% 23.9% Academic 40.9% 48.9% 45.0% 23.0% 24.9% 29.4% Employment Industrial 27.3% 21.3% 35.0% 48.0% 61.7% 45.3% Employment Other 0.0% 4.3% 1.0% 0.7% 2.4% 1.5% Engineering Post Doctorate 26.4% 16.7% 16.0% 8.1% 12.8% 24.8% Academic 15.3% 32.5% 21.6% 8.1% 7.5% 11.8% Employment Industrial 55.6% 49.1% 58.0% 77.2% 78.4% 60.9% Employment Other 1.4% 0.9% 3.7% 3.7% 1.3% 2.6% Source: National Science Foundation. Division of Science Resource Statistics. Survey ofEarned Doctorates, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005.

Postdoctoral appointments in biological and physical sciences are emblematic of the apprenticeship nature of those disciplines (e.g., the need for further study and research beyond the PhD to acquire the requisite knowledge and skills for securing relevant permanent employment). Much of the postdoctoral activities take place in academia and a few take place in industry and national laboratories. However, often unacknowledged is 155

the active contribution of postdoctoral scholars to creating/innovating knowledge for these institutions. Very often, postdoctoral appointment wages are low and generally constitute stipend support. Given the large number of international graduates who engage in postdoctoral appointments, it may be argued that postdoctoral appointments are key ways in which universities and research institutions exploit international students' intellectual labor for super value. Many institutions justify the low wages by claiming that postdoctoral appointments are solely meant to be apprenticeships and not permanent employment (Singer 2000). In 2000, the average postdoctorate in his/her early 30s working in S&E related fields earned between $45,000 and $55,000--the same as the median household income in the U.S. which stands currently at close to $53,000. This workforce constitutes an army of highly-skilled, well-educated young professionals, often with more than 10 years of rigorous training at top universities worldwide. These underpaid, over-exploited laborers often represent the most creative members of the academic research community,39 and possibly the most valuable intellectual capital of today's knowledge-based societies.

It can be argued that the current wage structure for postdoctoral programs combined with the dominance of international students and other foreign-skilled workers as postdoctorates exemplify the "cheap labor" exploitative aspects of postdoctoral programs in the United States. This may explain in large part the disincentive for U.S. citizens in wanting to major in the sciences. In essence, postdoctoral students, most of whom are highly-skilled foreign workers, constitute the intellectual "Braceros" program

39 For a comprehensive assessment on the experience of postdoctoral scientists and engineers, see Singer (2000). 156

of the knowledge economy, similar to the Mexican nationals who, from 1942-1964, participated in the "Bracero" program by taking on temporary agricultural work in the

United States as contract workers and in doing so, significantly transformed the business of the farming culture in the U.S. The intellectual "Braceros" of the knowledge economy working as postdoctorates similarly are significantly impacting the U.S. position in the

global economy as far as scientific discoveries are concerned. These laborers are willing

to take jobs requiring extensive educational training and long hours at low wages scorned

by most Americans. Whereas, biological and physical science disciplines often result in

postdoctorate employments, employment opportunities for computer scientists have

shifted quite a bit over the decades. From 1980 to 1990, international student PhD

recipients in computer science were more likely to engage in academic research and

teaching at U.S. universities. However, with the technology boom of the 1990s and the

increased demand for computer scientists in industry, employment trends for foreign

computer scientists shifted in the 1990s from academia to industry, driven in large part by

better pay and greater demand (see Table 6.3). In 1995, 48 percent or close to half of

international student PhD computer scientists were employed in industry. The numbers

had jumped to 62 percent or close to two in three by 2000. By 2005, the percentage of

international students working in industry had dropped to 45.3 percent or close to one in

two, the result of major volatility in the technology industry. Industry therefore provided

the largest number ofjobs to international graduate students majoring in computer

science. This was also the case for students majoring in engineering as well. In 1990, 58

percent of engineers with PhDs from the United States worked in industry. By 2000, the

percentage of engineers in industry rose dramatically to 78 percent. The fact that 157

computer scientists and engineers are more likely to work in industry points to the market demand for those skills in building and maintaining the knowledge economy.

The stay rate of international students upon completion of doctoral degrees is not simply for one or two years, but tends in fact to be for longer periods of stay (Finn 1995;

1997; 1999; 2000; 2001; 2003; 2005; 2007). Table 6.4 illustrates stay rates for key nations with large numbers of international students.

Table 6.4. Percentage of Temporary Residents Receiving S&E Doctorates who were in the U.S. Five Years after Graduation by Country Country Year 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Doctorates Doctorates Doctorates Doctorates Doctorates Doctorates in U.S. in U.S. in U.S. in U.S. in U.S. in U.S. in 1995 in 1997 in 1999 in 2001 in 2003 in 2005

China 88% 92% 91% 96% 90% 92% Taiwan 42% 36% 42% 40% 47% 50% India 79% 83% 87% 86% 86% 85% Korea 11% 9% 15% 21% 34% 42% Canada 46% 48% 55% 62% 58% 56% United 59% 56% 60% 53% 60% 58% Kingdom Greece 41% 46% 49% 53% 60% 54% Germany 35% 38% 53% 48% 51% 49% Average 47% 53% 51 % 56% 61% 60% Source: Finn, Michael, G. Stay Rates ofForeign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

As demonstrated in Table 6.4, the majority of 1990-91 doctoral recipients from

China (88 percent) and India (79 percent) were still working in the United States in 1995.

For subsequent years, the stay rates increased for both groups, reaching a peak of 96 percent for Chinese nationals in 1996 and 87 percent for Indian nationals in 1994. 158

Strong patterns of stay rates among Chinese and Indian nationals persist. Ninety­ two percent of Chinese students with doctorates earned in 2000 and 85 percent of Indian students with doctorates in S&E were still employed in the United States in 2005. Since the mid-1990s, students from countries such as Canada, Greece and the United Kingdom have also maintained stay rates above 50 percent (Finn 1995; 2001). Germany as well, has also maintained stay rates close to 50 percent since the mid-1990s (Finn 1997; 2005).

In contrast, the stay rate for Korean PhD earners remained relatively low at nine percent for 1992 doctorate earners and 21 percent for 1996 doctorate earners. Yet, trends

seem to indicate growth in the stay rate of Korean PhD earners. For the latest year in

which data is available, 42 percent of Korean students who earned PhDs in 2000 are still

in the United States working five years later. Similarly for Taiwanese students, 50

percent or half of PhD students who earned their degree in 2000 are still working in the

United States. The five-year stay rates clearly demonstrate that trends in stay rates are not

static and in fact reflect differences in economic conditions between the host and the

sending country. As sending nations experience economic boom, the stay rate of their

citizens in the United States drops and as economic conditions worsen, the stay rates

begin to increase. This is certainly the case for South Korea and Taiwan that were

successful in having their students return home in the 1980s given the economic growth

in those nations and the lucrative employment opportunities for those with high talent and

skills. However, with the economic downturn since the late 1990s, these nations

experienced a reversal of trends. 159

Intellectual Property Contributions of Immigrants to the United States

International students who tum into highly-skilled immigrants contribute significantly to the intellectual property of the United States. After completing doctoral programs in chemistry and physics, many former international students remain in the

United States to engage in research and make significant contributions to important scientific discoveries. Several such students have received Nobel prizes for their discoveries including Nobel laureates Yuan T. Lee from Taiwan and Mario Molina from

Mexico, graduates of the University of California, Berkeley; Ahmed Zewail from Egypt, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania; Alan McDarmian from New Zealand, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin; and Daniel Tsui from Hong Kong, China, a graduate of the University of Chicago (Nobel Foundation 2009).

An analysis of the intellectual property contributions40 of non-U.S. citizen immigrants41 from 1998 to 2006 was conducted by a team of researchers from Duke

University and the University of California, Berkeley (2007). According to their findings, in 2006, an estimated 24 percent (or 81,600 patents based on a total of 340,000 patents) of international patent applications filed from the United States were filed by foreign national inventors or co-inventors of patents residing in the United States. These patents were deemed to have a high global utility and contributed to U.S. global competitiveness given that patents related to (1) electricity (24 percent); (2) chemistry (23 percent); (3)

40 Data from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Patent Cooperation Treaty was analyzed. The Treaty includes a subset of patents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but patents that are likely to have a high global utility.

41 Non-U.S.-citizen immigrant is defined in this study as foreign national applicants who were residing in the United States at the time of filing the applications. 160

physics (20 percent); and (4) the broad category of human necessities such as food,

agriculture, and medicine (24 percent).

Findings indicate that there has been a dramatic increase in the contribution of

temporary and permanent resident immigrants to patent applications. In 1998, temporary

and permanent resident immigrants contributed to 7.3 percent of patent applications. By

2006, their contributions had increased to 24 percent, once again confirming the growing

nature of the contributions of this group to-the knowledge economy and U.S.

competitiveness. Given that the findings are based solely on foreign nationals and

therefore exclude foreign-born citizens who were granted U.S. citizenship, the figures

cited likely underestimate the contributions of immigrants.

International Students Become Immigrant Entrepreneurs

As former international students in the United States, skilled immigrants fuel the

creation of high-technology related businesses and often create a wealth of intellectual

property. The findings of a major study highlight the contributions of former international

students as highly-skilled immigrants to the knowledge economy. 42

In an effort to quantify the economic contribution of immigrant entrepreneurs to

the U.S. knowledge economy, a group ofresearchers from Duke University's School of

Engineering and the University of California at Berkeley, School of Information

(Wadhwa, Rissing, Saxenian, and Gereffi 2007) measured the direct involvement of

42 The study from Duke University and the University of California, Berkeley is being used because it is the only study of its kind with ensuring validity and reliability of the study. The study involves 144 interviews with immigrants-founded companies that responded to a 2007 survey. The interviews were conducted directly with the company's key founder or an executive assistant. For a full discussion of the methodology including the validity and reliability study, see Wadhwa et al. (2007). 161

immigrants in founding technology and engineering companies. Using corporate records tracked in Dun and Bradstreet's (D&B) Million Dollar Database 43 to obtain a listing of engineering and technology companies,44 the team ofresearchers conducted interviews to learn more about the role of U.S. immigrant entrepreneurs in engineering and technology companies established from 1995 to 2005.45 The study found that 25 percent or one in four technology and engineering companies started in the United States from 1995 to

2005 had at least one key founder46 who was foreign-born. A significant number of these companies (80 percent) were heavily concentrated in two industry fields;

innovation/manufacturing-related services ( 46 percent); and software (33 percent).

An analysis of the immigrant founders' role in key industries critical to the knowledge economy indicates that immigrant founders constitute a sizable percentage in the following industries: semiconductors (35 percent), computers/communications (32 percent), software (28 percent), innovation and manufacturing related services (26

percent), and bio-science (20 percent). According to the study, companies founded by

immigrants produced significant capital, trade and sales. It is estimated that the 7 ,283

companies produced $52 billion in sales and employed approximately 450,000 workers in

2005 (Wadhwa, Jasso, Rissing, Gereffi, and Freeman 2007).

43 Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Million Dollar Database contains U.S. companies with more than $1 million in sales and 20 or more employees, and company branches with more than 50 employees. This database is considered a source ofreliable data.

44 The definition of"engineering and technology" included the following industry groups: semiconductors, computers/communication, bioscience, defense/aerospace, environmental, software, and innovation/manufacturing related services.

45 The search produced a listing of28,766 companies.

46 Key founders in the study are defined as president/chief executive officer or head of development/chief technology officer. 162

As would be expected, companies founded by immigrants are highly concentrated in a few key states with California as the dominant location. The top five states with the largest number of immigrant founded companies include California (39 percent), New

Jersey (38 percent), Michigan (33 percent), Georgia (30 percent), and Massachusetts (29

percent) (Wadhwa et al. 2007).

A closer examination of the education background of these immigrants revealed that more than half or 53 percent of the immigrant founders ofU.S.-based technology and engineering companies completed their highest degrees in U.S. universities. The majority

of immigrant founders came to the United States as students and ended up staying after

graduation, and founded companies an average of thirteen years after arriving to the

United States. Approximately 52 percent of immigrant founders initially came to the

United States primarily for higher education. The vast majority entered the United States

after 1980, at the take-off point of technological innovation.

Immigrant founders of companies come from diverse geographic regions and

countries including India, China, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, Japan, Israel, South

Korea, Canada and Iran, among others. Based on the findings, however, Indian

immigrants dominate as immigrant entrepreneurs. According to the study, Indian

immigrants founded more engineering and technology companies in the United States

from 1995 to 2005 than immigrants from China, Taiwan, Japan and the United Kingdom

combined. Indian immigrant founders constituted 26 percent of all immigrant founded

companies.

Indian immigrants dominating engineering and technology companies come as no

surprise given the language skills, exposure to Western culture and pattern of skilled 163

migration from India. India has long been a main supplier of skilled professional and student migrants to the U.S. since the late 1960s (Khadria 1991; Khadria 2001b). Many

Indian immigrants who fueled the Silicon Valley technology boom were educated in the

United States at the post-graduate level having emigrated as students with the purpose of pursuing higher education and then entering the U.S. labor market. According to scholar

AnnaLee Saxenian (2005), over half of Silicon Valleys' scientists and engineers were foreign-born in 2000 and had initially come to the United States to pursue graduate degrees in engineering. Indian and Chinese (including Taiwanese) immigrant engineers accounted for one-quarter or close to 40,000 of all engineers in Silicon Valley in 2000.

Highly-skilled Indian and Chinese professionals who migrated as professionals or who were international students have contributed to advancing innovation, entrepreneurship and U.S. technological and scientific competiveness (Saxenian 1999; Saxenian,

Motoyoma, and Quan 2002).

International students who remain in the United States after completing their education are absorbed into the labor market, and in some cases remain permanently in the United States, as studies conducted by various scholars demonstrate (Finn 2000;

Saxenian 1999). The ability to remain in the United States as temporary or permanent highly-skilled migrants is aided directly and indirectly by the state. The state's growing dependence on international students and foreign-born professionals to help build a

"national civilization" at home responsive to the demand of the knowledge-based economy can be ascertained from immigration policies. 164

Immigration Policies as Feeder System for Migration of the Highly-Skilled

As studies on the stay rates of international students and entrepreneurship reveal, much of their eventual contributions as skilled migrants takes place over an extended period of time. International students often remain in the United States after completing their education because U.S. immigration policies are designed to facilitate the migration from these students to temporary or permanent highly-skilled migrants.

The United States has long been a magnet for intellectual human capital. In its quest to recruit and retain the best and brightest from around the world, it has had to create immigration programs to attract highly-skilled migrants including international students. Immigration policies aimed at attracting intellectual capital therefore serve as a tool to gain advantage in the global economy (Shachar 2006).

H-lB Visa-Feeder for the Migration of International Students

Upon completion of studies, international students who entered the United States on F-1 student visas must change their immigration status in order to remain and work in the United States. Currently, F-1 students are allowed to remain an additional year after completing their degree to engage in what is termed "optional practical training."47

Optional practical training constitutes authorized temporary employment directly related to a student's field of study. Prior to April of 2008, students were not eligible to extend this period of temporary employment beyond one year. Regulations were changed in

47 For complete regulations related to F-1 Optional Practical Training, refer to the Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.2(f)(lO)(ii). 165

April 2008 to allow graduates of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) to request an additional 17 months of temporary employment beyond the one-year original authorization period.48 For an international graduate of a U.S. institution to remain in the United States beyond the optional practical training period, he/she must change their immigration status from that of an F-1 student to that of an H- lB temporary worker through sponsorship of an employer.

Immigration regulations in the United States facilitate the migration of students and other skilled migrants by way of the H-lB temporary visa. The H-lB nonimmigrant classification is a vehicle through which qualified students and migrants may seek employment in the United States for up to six years. The fact that the employment visa can only be requested by the employer or company is a strong indicator of the demand for highly-skilled migrant workers. The H-lB and other such employment-based visas are explicitly seen and treated in terms of national competitiveness (Burdette 1999; Judy

1999; Judy and D'Amico 1997; Kapur and McHale 2005; Papademetrious and Yale-

Loehr 1996), particularly as it relates to the knowledge economy and the need of industries. This clearly indicates why and how the state increasingly views immigration policies as a significant way to compete for global talent.

The H-1 visa program dates back to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of

1952.49 It was initially established to bring workers with "distinguished merit and ability"

48 The extension of optional practical training for STEM-related discipline is in response to special interest groups' lobbying. For changes in regulations related to extension of optional practical training for STEM fields, refer to the Code ofFederal Regulations 8 Section 214.2(t)(lO)(ii)(c). 49 Note that in 1952, the visa classification was H-1. Subsequently, in 1990, various classes of H-1 were created. 166

to the United States on a temporary basis to fill positions of limited durations (Lowell

2000). Workers on H-1 visas were expected at the time to only take jobs of limited durations and to have the intent to return home50 upon completion of the designated work. This began to change in response to the needs of the U.S. national economy. In

1970, Congress relaxed these restrictions, allowing H-1 workers to accept permanent positions, a recognition that temporary migration often results in permanent migration.

The Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMAC90) created a new class ofH-lB visas for workers in "occupational specialty." This was in response to complaints that H-1 workers were filling entry-level positions without a test to determine the negative impact on the domestic market (Usdansky and Espenshade 2000). The Act of 1990 also introduced new classes of employment visas including the "O" visa51 for workers of extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics, and it placed for the first time a limit of

65,000 on the number ofH-lBs that could be granted in a fiscal year. 52 The limit commonly called a "cap on H-lB" does not apply to H-lB foreign workers who change jobs or extend their H-lB visas, but only to first-time hires. Furthermore, the 1990 regulations allowed for "dual intent," therefore recognizing that workers come initially to

50 The issue of how "ties" to home country is to be determined has always been unclear. Determination of"ties" to home country is to be assessed by the consular officer in issuing a visa, a process considered quite arbitrary.

51 The 0-1 Visa is initially granted for a period of3 years and can be renewed annually. There is no limit to the number of times an 0-1 visa may be extended. Only individuals who can demonstrate a sustained national or international acclaim in their disciplines or field ofresearch qualify for an 0 category. Proof of qualification for an 0 include such documentation as authorship of scholarly articles in well­ known journals, evidence of original scientific or scholarly contribution of major significance, and employment in a critical capacity in a prestigious organization or institution. For a list ofrequirements related to the 0-1 visa, refer to the Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214 .2(0) Aliens of Extraordinary Ability or Achievement.

52 Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990). 167

work temporarily but subsequently may pursue avenues to gain permanent residence status through sponsorship of an employer. The recognition and allowance for "dual intent" constitute a major turning point in policy toward temporary skilled migrants in that the state recognized and allowed for temporary migration to become permanent in nature. Put simply, this was a way to "capture" talent in the midst of growing global

competitiveness.

To qualify for an H-lB temporary worker visa, the employee must meet several requirements. An H-lB only applies to jobs defined as "specialty occupations." Specialty

occupations may include, but are not limited to, computer systems analysts and

programmers, physicians, professors, engineers, and accountants. To qualify as a

specialty occupation, the position must meet the following requirements: (1) a bachelor's

or higher degree or its equivalent as a minimum requirement for the position; and (2) the

foreign employee must hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree from an

accredited college or university or possess a foreign degree determined to be equivalent

to a U.S. degree or have, as determined by Immigration Services, the equivalent of the

degree through a combination of education, training, and/or experience.

A critical element of the H-lB visa is that the employer is required to file an H­

lB request with the United States Department of Homeland Security before hiring a

foreign national. Prior to requesting an H-lB status with the United States Citizenship

and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. employer must submit a Labor Condition

Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor (DOL) certifying that the wages

proposed are comparable to those being paid for similar work; that the prospective

foreign worker will not adversely affect the working conditions of domestic U.S. 168

workers; and the employer has notified existing workers of the job opening. The

employer is expected to pay the foreign employee the greater of the actual or prevailing

wage for the position. Once the Department of Labor approves the LCA,53 the U.S.

employer can proceed with submitting the H-lB application to the U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services.

A foreign worker is granted an H-lB status for a period of three years and can be

renewed for an additional three years.54 Thus, the H-lB process may be used to sponsor a

foreign worker for an initial period of H-1 B employment or to extend or change the

authorized stay of a worker previously admitted to the United States in H-lB status or

another nonimmigrant status.

The H-lB regulations underwent numerous changes over the years as a result of

intense lobbying from industry and universities for more foreign workers and Congress'

desire to limit abuse of the program. The American Competitiveness and Workforce

Improvement Act (ACWIA) of 1998 and the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-

First Century Act of 2000 made significant changes to policies and procedures governing

the H-lB category. Changes in regulations included temporary increases in the number of

yearly H-lB visas and exemptions to the numerical limits in response to increased

pressure from industry giants55 lobbying for more temporary highly-skilled foreign

53 In reality, the Department of Labor generally does not substantially review the Labor Condition Application, except for inaccuracies and incompleteness. The approval process is generally fast if the application is complete.

54 See Immigration and Nationality Act, INA§ 214(g)(4).

55 Firms at the forefront oflobbying for increases in H-lB temporary workers included the major IT firms such as Cisco Systems, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, and Texas Instruments. 169

workers to address the information technology (IT) labor need of the expanding knowledge economy (Friedman April 14, 1998; Newberger June 17, 1998; Pear February

23, 1998). Under ACWIA, the annual number ofH-lB visas valid for new employment was nearly doubled when the numerical limit increased from 65,000 to 115,000 in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and to 107,500 in 2001.56 The IT industry argued that the shortage of computer programmers57 and other highly-skilled workers were impeding the United

States' ability to compete effectively in the global knowledge economy. Critics charged that claims of shortage of qualified domestic workers were fabricated and were simply attempts by U.S. firms to avoid paying prevailing wages and a desire to replace U.S. workers with cheaper foreign workers (Anderson 2003; Borjas 1990; Borjas and Freeman

1992; Matlof2003).

In an attempt to balance competing economic and political interests, and given increased opposition to the H-lB program by labor unions and others, Congress instituted a $500 visa fee per applicant to be paid by the employer with the proceeds designated to

support education and training of the American workforce. The fee was in response to claims that in order to limit employer dependency on foreign workers in the future, the

U.S. needed to invest more in the training and education of domestic workers who can take on IT jobs. Based on the fees levied, the new bill would provide millions of dollars

for each of the next four years. The fees would be earmarked for college and university

scholarships for low-income American students to enable them to complete

56 The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-641 (1998).

57 Claims of"indenture servitude" have been disputed by Anderson (2003). 170

undergraduate and graduate degrees in mathematics, computer science and engineering.

In addition, the bill would allocate millions annually for training U.S. workers wishing to seek employment in the information technology industry.

The approved increases in H-lB workers proved insufficient in 2000 (Branigin

1998; Eilperin 2000; Levy 1998; Valburn 2000). Again under increased pressure from industry, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) of2000 was passed, increasing the number ofH-lB visas in fiscal year 2001 from 107,500 to

195,000 for fiscal year 2002 and 2003.58 The numbers were increased due to the high demand from industry for IT workers that coincided with the IT bubble (a time during which stock markets saw their equity value increase rapidly from growth in the internet and other related fields).

During fiscal year 2000, 58 percent or 148,426 of all approved H-lB workers were in computer-related occupations (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service April

2002). Similar patterns were recorded for fiscal year 2001 (U.S. Immigration and

Naturalization Service July 2002). While computer-related jobs remained the dominant occupational group in 2002, the total number ofH-lB visas related to computer-related jobs decreased sharply from 58 percent to 38 percent (U.S. Department of Homeland

Security September 2003) and similar trends were recorded for 2003 (U.S. Department of

Homeland Security November 2004). Much of the decline in computer-related H-lB work is attributable to the aftermath of the IT bubble burst.

58 Refer to The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. 106-313 114 Stat. 1251 (2000). Also note that neither AC21 nor prior legislation established a limit on H-IB approvals for continuing employment. Prior and current legislations have only focused on first-timer employees. Therefore, the total number of employees allowed under the H- IB category is much greater than the annual allotment described. 171

According to the Immigration and Naturalization Services (June 2000), leading employers ofH-lB specialty workers59 were overwhelmingly from the information technology sectors. The IT industry, with its needs for technical skills in programming and given its prominence in the age of information, has relied heavily on the skills and talents of an international labor force, with much of the labor force being supplied by

India.

In spite of major pushback and objections from labor unions and the domestic workforce, IT companies and other major industries with powerful lobbyists charged with representing the interest of their client have traditionally been successful in influencing policies with Congress. The structure of the U.S. political landscape points to the role, power and influence of interest groups in shaping policies. But the H-lB program points to the tensions between the domestic and global workforce politics and the prevailing business practice of U.S. industries in meeting business interests.

Changing policies reflect the prevailing mindset of importing labor and talent as needed to meet immediate business needs while containing cost. The practice of labor import is certainly not without conflict given the implication and potential for exploitation of foreign labor and perceived potential displacement of the domestic workforce.

Various industries hire foreign workers through the H-1 B program. Key employers include the technology sector. To illustrate the sphere of influence of various industries engaged in the H-1 B program, refer to Table 6.5 which lists the top 25

59 The year 2000 was the only year for which data regarding leading employers ofH-IB specialty workers were collected. 172

companies with the largest number ofH-lB petitioners in 2000 at the height of the IT industry.

Table 6.5. Top 25 Leading Companies with Approved H-lB Petitions October 1999 to February 2000 Rank Company Number of Approved I I I H-lBs I 1 Motorola Inc 618 2 Oracle Corp 455 3 Cisco Systems Inc 3 398 4 Mastech 389 5 Intel Corp 367 6 Microsoft Corp 362 7 Rapidigm 357 8 Syntel Inc 337 9 Wipro LTD 327 10 Tata Consultancy Serv 320 11 Price WaterhouseCoopers LLP 272 12 People Com Consultants Inc 261 13 Lucent Technologies 255 14 Infosys Technologies LTD 239 15 Nortel Networks Inc 234 16 Tekedge Corp 219 17 Data Conversion 195 18 Tata Infotech 185 19 Contelligent USA Inc 183 20 Sun Microsystems Inc 182 21 Compuware Corp 179 22 KPMGLLP 177 23 Intelligroup 161 24 Hi Tech Consultants Inc 157 25 Group Ipex Inc 151 Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. June 2000

Starting in fiscal year 2004, the H-lB cap reverted back to 65,000 per fiscal year

and presently remains at that level. Another significant change in policy included

permanently excluding institutions of higher education or related or affiliated non-profit

entities, or non-profit research organizations, or governmental research organizations and 173

government research laboratories from the numerical limit. As a result, beginning in

2000, universities and government or non-profit research organizations no longer subject to a limit in H-lB temporary workers were free to hire as many temporary foreign workers for postdoctorate researcher, faculty and staff positions.

The H-lB Visa Reform Act of200460 went a step further by making available

each year 20,000 new H-lB visas for foreign workers with a Master's or higher level

degree from a U.S. academic institution (Code of Federal Regulations Section

214(g)(5)(c)). The fact that regulations were written to permit 20,000 international

students with U.S. degrees to qualify for H-lB visas, i.e., above and beyond the statutory

limit, affirms the value placed on international students with U.S. credentials, and the

recognition that students with such credentials are very desirable and valued human

capital that the U.S. has a direct interest in retaining. Attempting to respond to the

political pressure from labor unions opposed to the H-IB program and concerned about

employer abuse of the program, Congress enacted additional protection measures to

protect the domestic labor market. The 2004 Act increased the education and training fees

for all H-1 B petitions per employee change of employer; first extensions; from $500 to

$1,500,61 and instituted a new "fraud fee" of $500 to assist with investigations of

60 The Act was part ofa larger law called the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L.108447, 118 Stat. 2809 (2004).

61 The "Education and Training Fees" was modified to be distributed in the following manner: Job training accounts for 55 percent offees, scholarship programs for 30 percent, National Science Foundation grant for K-12 Math, Science and Technology education IO percent, Department of Homeland Security 5 percent, and Department of Labor processing 5 percent. Refer to the Code of Federal Regulations Section 214(c )(9). 174

employer abuses. 62 Therefore, since fiscal year 2006, employers are required to pay

$2,000 in additional fees. 63 Money generated from the "Fraud Prevention and Detection

Fee" is deposited in the "H-lB and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account" and divided equally among the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security and

Department of Labor. Domestic workers who suspect employer abuse of the H-lB program can contact the Department of Labor to file a report of abuse and this will trigger an investigation of a suspected employer.

According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), of the estimated

53,300 individuals who were already in the United States in a nonimmigrant status in

1999, approximately 58% or 30,000 ofH-lB temporary work requests were for international students on F-1 student visas (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

February 2000). The year 1999 was the only year for which data were collected regarding

the percentage ofH-lB requests made within the United States for students previously on

F-1 visas. Given that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (formerly known as

INS) does not report or keep track of the number of changes from F-1 student visas to

temporary H-lB visas, it is difficult to accurately measure the rate of change from student

F-1 visas to H-lB visas.

Data collected by INS in 1999 provides good benchmark data for estimating the

rate of change to H-1 B for F-1 visa holders in subsequent years. Given the limit placed

62 For more detailed information regarding the "Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee," refer to the Code of Federal Regulations Section 214(c)(l2).

63 Employers with 25 or fewer U.S. employees are only required to pay half the fee or $750 for the "Education and Training Fee" as opposed to $1500. The $2,000 in additional fees does not include regular filing fees to be paid by the employer and/or the worker, nor the premium processing fee of$1,000 for expedited processing. 175

on F-1 visa holders' employment, it is logical to assume that students on F-1 optional training are likely to remain in the United States beyond the period of optional practical training to continue employment. The only way for this group of workers to engage in employment beyond a year (or in the case of those in the STEM field, beyond 29 months) is to change to an H-lB visa. More than any other group of nonimmigrants, international

students are more likely to change their status to H-lB given that employers are (1) more likely to look favorably upon a U.S. degree, and that (2) employers have the ability to test the knowledge of skill sets of students on optional practical training for close to a year

when these students are on practical training.

Based on the INS data for 1999, it can be conservatively estimated that the

majority of new H-lB visas issued to employees within the United States were issued to

temporary workers changing from F-1 visas. Using the same estimates for 2001 as for

1999, then roughly 49,000 of the 85,000 approved H-lB visas for individuals living in the U.S. at the time of change of status were for individuals previously in F-1 status.64

This estimate is further supported by the fact that in 2004, H-lB regulations were

amended to provide 20,000 additional H-lB visas to graduates of U.S. universities with

advanced degrees (Master's and PhD), a strong indicator of demand and preference for

international students with U.S. credentials. Former F-1 students wishing to remain in the

United States on a permanent basis generally move from H-lB (before reaching the six

year limit of their H-lB status) to permanent residency status based on employer

64 This computation is based on estimating that 58 percent of all approved H-IB visas approved for applicants residing in the U.S. were for change of status from H-IB. Data are based on data from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. July 2002. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (R­ IB): Fiscal Year 2001." U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC. 176

sponsorship.

Permanent Residence Based on Employment: Gateway to Permanent Migration

In addition to creating a new H-lB classification, The Immigration Act of 1990 substantially increased employment-based visas to highly-skilled workers.65 The total number of permanent employment-based visas reserved for the highly-skilled and their dependents grew from 27,000 in 1991 to close to 110,000 in 1992 (Usdansky and

Espenshade 2000).

Furthermore, the categories of permanent employment-based preferences also grew from two to five categories. The 1990 Act set aside approximately 40,000 visas for a first category or "priority workers," including persons of "extraordinary abilities" in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, as well as outstanding professors and researchers, and certain executives and managers of multinational corporations. These individuals face minimal regulatory requirements to qualify for the visa. For

"professionals with advanced degrees" or "exceptional abilities"66 in the arts, sciences or business, 40,000 visas were set aside. Applicants in this category must have extensive documentation showing sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in the field of expertise. Such applicants do not have to have a specific job offer so long as they are in the U.S. to continue work in the field in which they have extraordinary ability.67

65 Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990).

66 In this instance, "exceptional ability" means having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered within the field.

67 The first category of employment-based permanent visa is quite similar to the 0 visa. The main difference is that the 0 visa is considered "temporary" even though there is no numerical limit to the 177

The implication is that such individuals are essential to U.S. national interests and therefore must not be subject to bureaucratic hurdles in order to attract and retain such

"extraordinary" talent ifthe U.S. is to be competitive in the global economy.

To obtain visas, individuals in the second category must have a job offer and receive an approved labor certification from the Department of Labor. The certification is needed to ensure that these workers are indeed needed and that they would not adversely affect the wages and conditions of U.S. workers performing similar jobs (Papademetrious and Yale-Loehr 1996). The employer is required to file an application for permanent residence on behalf of the worker. The worker may qualify for an exemption of the labor

certification if it is in the national interest.

Of the total number of visas that are reserved, 40,000 are set aside for skilled

workers, professionals, and "other workers" in the third category. Another 10,000 are set aside for the fourth category of"special immigrants," including ministers and former

employees of U.S. government abroad (U.S. Department of State).68 The remaining

10,000 employment-based visas are reserved for business migrants willing to invest

between $500,000 and $1,000,000 (depending on the employment rate in the

geographical area) and that creates at least 10 new full-time jobs.

number of 0 visas that may be issued each year and there is no limit to the number of times an individual may renew their 0 visa. The major drawback of the 0 visa is that after the initial three-year period, the visa must be renewed each year and an application fee must be submitted when filing for an 0.

68 For a complete list of workers who qualify under the fourth category, refer to the U.S. Department of State website at: http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/tvoes 1323.html#first. 178

International students generally move from temporary H-lB visas to permanent residence "green cards"69 based on employment by using the first or second category of employment-based visas. The possibility of adjusting directly from F-1 to permanent residence status is very difficult given the requirements to be met by the employer and the cumbersome process and time it takes for approval of permanent residence status. The process of filing for permanent residence takes place over several years and involves multiple steps and government agencies. Therefore, international students wishing to remain permanently in the United State mostly opt to take the H-lB route, the most common route to transitioning to permanent residence.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not collect data on the number or percentage ofF-1 students who move from H-lB to permanent residence status based on employment. 70 Data only exist on the number of approved employment-based "green cards" by category of employment without specifying the previous status of applicants and without differentiating applicants already working in the United States from those recruited from overseas. Scholars, including North (1999) and Lowell (1999), have attempted to estimate the adjustment rate of visas ofF-1 students moving both directly and indirectly through H-lB. They concluded that a conservative estimate places the rate of adjustment of international students to permanent residence status at 20 percent. 71

69 Permanent residence cards are commonly called "green cards" because during the initial phases of the program, issued cards used to have a green shade.

70 My repeated requests for data from DHS yielded no response.

71 As a former international student who did travel the route of H-lB to permanent residence status based on employment, and as one who for the past 20 years is keenly aware of a number of international students who have changed from F-1 to H-lB to permanent residence status, I would agree that the estimate of20 percent is very conservative. 179

The process of changing status from that of a student to a permanent resident status is an intended outcome of the U.S. immigration program. The various regulatory changes support the argument that the state facilitates the migration of the highly-skilled by way of the H-lB visa and subsequently the employment-based "green card."

International students who upon completion of their degree remain in the United States to be employed are an integral part of the migration of the highly-skilled professionals.

Conclusion

International students provide a unique perspective to the international migration process given their initial status as nonimmigrants on student visas but often use education institutions as a precursor for temporary or permanent skilled migration.

Given the global race for the highly-skilled, international students constitute an important supply of highly-skilled temporary and permanent migrants for the U.S. economy in the knowledge-based economy. Those with training and background in the sciences and engineering contribute to the intellectual and entrepreneurial human capital of the United States and in doing so help to advance U.S. economic competitiveness.

Former international students who subsequently become skilled immigrants in the United

States fuel the creation of high-technology related businesses and often create a wealth of critical intellectual property and industries. The fact that 25 percent of engineering and technology companies established from 1995 to 2005 were founded by immigrant entrepreneurs, more than half of whom had studied in the United States, is indicative of the contributions of international students as skilled migrants to the new knowledge economy. 180

The human capital of these former students is leveraged by the state via immigration policy regulations that facilitate migration. Immigration regulations specifically targeting graduates of U.S. institutions come in the form of designated employment quota for international students holding U.S. degrees; regulations exempting universities and government laboratories (who hire foreign postdoctorates and researchers) from numerical limits in H-lB visas; and increases in H-lB numbers to allow industries to hire foreign workers. The move from H-1 B to permanent residence status is facilitated by employment-based visa categories specifically targeting the skills and talents of those with knowledge and skills meeting U.S. economic interests in the sciences, engineering, technologies and business. In this way, changes in H-lB and employment-based permanent residence policies are reflective of the interests and politics of skilled labor migration programs in the United States. Immigration programs related to skilled workers were changed in the 1990s to address the growing demand of the knowledge economy and as such targets specific skill sets and sectors of the economy including information technology, engineering, scientific, and medical research and

university (Freeman and Hill 2006). Put simply, international students are a key

component to the United States' ability to build and maintain a "national civilization" at

home that is competitive in the global arena. The United States has enjoyed a competitive

edge over Japan, Europe, and other advanced knowledge-based economies because it has

attracted and retained intellectual human capital from around the world.

As this chapter has illustrated, migration of the highly-skilled requires

immigration policies that facilitate the mobility of students and highly-skilled workers.

The following chapter will examine more closely the role of client politics in advancing 181

immigration policies and the impact of such policies in facilitating and constructing an image of international students as a security and economic risk for the United States in a post 9/11 era. CHAPTER 7

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS: FRIENDS OR FOES?

As argued in previous chapters, the education of international students is an

important aspect of U.S. foreign policy and America's quest to build a "national civilization" abroad and at home. As a nation, the United States strategically advances

and facilitates its national interest by educating students from around the world who,

upon gaining political, cultural, economic and human capital, return home as purveyors

of American culture and values. International students who remain in the United States to

work contribute to the entrepreneurial culture and the knowledge economy as highly­

skilled migrants, therefore constituting important human capital vital for U.S. economic

competitiveness and growth.

Students from around the world have flocked to the United States in search of a

better education, to build their human capital in the hope of contributing to economic

development efforts at home, and in some instances to migrate as skilled workers in the

knowledge economy. The United States is able to build a "national civilization" because

of its educational, scientific, and immigration policies. The state therefore plays an

important role in facilitating the entry and migration of international students.

Immigration policies play an integral part in the mobility of international students. This

chapter examines the state's conflicting policies regarding the role and status of

international students and explores the state's contradictory discourse on international

182 183

students as potential national security risks and assets based on the notion of the

"foreigners" and "foreign other." In a post 9/11 era, international students have been depicted as foes or friends by various political and media constituencies. This chapter focuses on the social construction of international students by American politicians and educational interest groups post 9/11 and the resulting immigration policies and regulations. Of particular salience is the social construction of international students in a post 9/11 world conflated with the changing landscape of nation states' policies to attract students from various parts of the world in the name of education and economic competitiveness. The chapter will discuss the consequences of government controls instituted in the post 9/11 world and the potential implications of student mobility for the future of U.S. economic competitiveness. Whereas, previous chapters focused on the crafting of a "national civilization" and the role of the "educative state," this chapter illustrates another dimension of how the project of"national civilization" by the hegemonic state gets conceived by way of a strategy of coercion.

Immigration Landscape and International Students

Macro level structural conditions including political, economic and legal, shape to a great extent migration flows, and the influence of various structural forces are no different when it comes to the mobility of students. The politics of the state determines and ensures that immigration policies dictate who comes in, in what status, and for what purpose. In the case of the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 184

1952 72 is the central law governing immigration and visa policies and procedures. There are over 20 major nonimmigrant categories that have been created by the Immigration and Nationality Act and subsequent treaties (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services). 73 Each nonimmigrant category provides for entry to the United States for a specific, limited activity. Numerous categories of nonimmigrant visa classes permit foreign nationals to study while in the United States. The vast majority of students wishing to pursue full-time tertiary education and receive a U.S. degree enter the United

States under two main classes of temporary nonimmigrant visas, the F-1 student and J-1 exchange visitor visas (hereafter referred to as F and J status or visa). These classes define a specific population engaged in a specific activity-education for a temporary period of time.

International students are defined as nonimmigrant74 visa holders by virtue of the fact that they are admitted on a temporary basis for the purpose of pursuing educational activities. According to the immigration regulations, a nonimmigrant is defined as a foreign national who wishes to be admitted to the United States for a limited, temporary purpose, and who plans to depart the United States after completing that purpose (INA §

101(a)(15)). Explicit in the nonimmigrant classification is the expectation that international students will be temporary visitors who upon completion of study will

72 For more detailed information, refer to The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952).

73 For a list ofnonimmigrant visa classifications and categories, see U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Nonimmigrant Visa Categories at: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis.

74 In the 1952 INA, nonimmigrants (including international students) are referred to as "aliens." For the purpose of this study, I will not use the term "aliens" or "foreign student," but instead whenever appropriate prefer to use the term "international students." 185

return home. However, as discussed in the previous chapter, the immigration regulations are structured in such a way that the student status becomes a pathway to temporary or permanent migration. International students upon completion of studies can become and do apply to be immigrant workers by switching their status to permanent resident status after a period in the H-lB temporary specialty workers category. The fact that the nonimmigrant classification can and often does facilitate migration of students provides a window into the policies of the state. Furthermore, the politics of the state as it relates to

immigration policies can be surmised from the structure of government agencies responsible for facilitating, monitoring and ensuring compliance of entry/exit processes.

The structure of U.S. immigration and visa policies governing nonimmigrant

international students involves three principal key stakeholders: (1) institutions of higher

education; (2) the U.S. Department of State (DOS); and (3) the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS). Each of these entities plays a critical role in the process of entry and exit

of international students and illustrates the linkages made between educational mobility,

foreign/public diplomacy mandate, and national security. U.S. institutions of higher

education are responsible for issuance of immigration documents and maintenance of

institutional record-keeping and reporting requirements mandated by the Department of

Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of State (in the case of nonimmigrant

students studying in the United States on Exchange Visitors Program). The U.S.

Department of State is responsible for the issuance of visas and administration of the J-1 186

75 Exchange Visitor program. • The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for approving and monitoring institutions cleared to admit F-1 students 76 to ensure institutional compliance with immigration regulations. Each entity is integral to the process of facilitating the entry/exit of international students. The fact that the

Department of Education is minimally involved at all in the mobility of international

students to the United States 77 points to the politics of the state and how it conceptualizes international student and scholar mobility. The United States views international student mobility as a foreign policy/public diplomacy and national security/regulatory compliance function, rather than an educational function/mandate. That the two

government entities critical to the flow of international students are the Department of

75 For regulations governing the J-1 Exchange Visitor categories including the Student category, refer to the Code of Federal Regulations 22 Section 62. Issuance of J-1 is often left to the discretion of the educational institution or sponsoring government. The general rule is that to be issued a form DS2019 for the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program, a student must be receiving government, university, or organization funding, and in the case of a privately-sponsored student, he/she must be participating in an approved exchange program. However, not all government-sponsored students are issued a J status. Only U.S. government-sponsored students are required to be on Js. Foreign government-sponsored students are issued J visas only if the home government makes it a requirement of participation in a program. Home governments who are keen on having the student return home upon completion of a program will require that the institution or organization administering the program issue a DS2019 for a J-1 visa status.

76 To host students in F-1 immigration classification and issue Form 1-20 (Certificate of Eligibility of Academic Program for an F student), an institution must file a petition with the Department of Homeland Security's district director. To be eligible for designation as an F-1 institution, the institution must be accredited or certified and must designate school officials responsible for ensuring institutional compliance with immigration regulations. Once a school is approved, it can continue to admit international students. However, the approval may be withdrawn ifthe Department of Homeland Security discovers that the institution has failed to comply with the laws or regulations. For specific guidelines related to institutional compliance in issuing Form 1-20, refer to the Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.3(k). F-1 regulations require authorized school officials to follow certain guidelines in issuing immigration forms, reporting student enrollment status, and in maintaining immigration records. It is important to note that even though schools issue immigration documents and monitor student status, the Department of Homeland Security (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service housed in the Department of Justice) is ultimately the agency responsible for enforcing the immigration laws.

77 The U.S. Department of Education has minimal involvement in postsecondary international student mobility. The Department of Education's international program activities focuses primarily on foreign language and international studies education. 187

State and the Department of Homeland Security illustrates the ideological and structural dimensions of how the international student program is conceptualized by the state.

Essentially, international students are a means for advancing the foreign policy/public diplomacy agenda while ensuring national security. The Department of State is responsible for advancing first and foremost U.S. foreign policy goals and the

Department of Homeland Security is charged with domestic national security, while higher education, a highly decentralized institution, is responsible for attracting, hosting and educating students. The flowchart in Appendix 2 describes the process of admission of international students.

Landscape Prior to 9111

The politics of social construction of international students by the state has evolved over time. Prior to 9/11, international students were for the most part viewed positively in spite of periodic heightened concerns expressed by the government regarding students' legitimate purpose or intent based on defined incidents and/or reports.

International students rarely were depicted as national security risks prior to September,

11, 2001. The social construction of international students as potential status violators and the call for government controls periodically came up dating back to the mid-l 970s.

Over the years, congress and government agencies periodically expressed concerns about the need to strengthen controls and better regulate the international student program.

Much of the concerns focused on limiting status violations of select international students

(Government Accountability Office 1975; 1983; Haddal 2006). However, very little government action took place in spite of concerns raised, illustrating that the state did not 188

view the monitoring and tracking of international students as a political priority or as a matter of a national security threat.

The suggestion for greater government control emerged in the General

Accountability Office (GA0)78 (1975) report titled "Better Control Needed to Prevent

Foreign Students.from Violating the Condition and Entry oftheir Stay while in the U.S."

The report suggested that a number of international students violated their status while in the United States by failing to maintain enrollment, working without authorization, or failing to depart from the United States after completion of studies. 79 The report acknowledged that the mechanism for closely monitoring student status and apprehending those who overstayed beyond the authorized period of stay was non­ existent due to (1) the low priority given to student violations,80 (2) lack of human resources, and (3) inter-agency coordination.81 In addition, the GAO report discussed the existence of a program for monitoring nonimmigrant students from Arab countries and from Communist bloc countries. The report acknowledges the existence of investigations and tracking of Arab students and students from communist bloc countries (Government

78 Prior to July 7, 2004, the GAO was called the General Accounting Office. I will use its legal name, General Accountability Office, throughout the dissertation in an effort to be consistent and given that the change in name better reflects its professional mission.

79 According to the GAO report, of the 220,000 international students in the United States in December 1974, approximately 42 percent were out of status because of overstaying their period of admission. According to the GAO report, the Department of Justice has long recognized that abuses of the foreign student status were more prevalent among students intending to enroll in vocational, business and language schools than among students intending to enroll in academic institutions.

80 Investigation of international students is generally given a low priority because other types of cases (e.g., criminal, gang-related, illegal migrants) are considered a greater threat to national security.

81 Institutions are required to report status violators, however, it is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security to investigate and apprehend violators. Given the limited manpower, rarely are violators pursued while in the United States. Most times, violators are caught when they depart and attempt to re-enter the country, at which time they are prevented from re-entering the United States. 189

Accountability Office 197 5), constituting the first formal admission by the state of nationality/racial/ethnic profiling of a select group of international students. 82

A series of recommendations were made to tighten the student program.

Recommendations included: (1) mandatory systematic onsite school compliance reviews;

(2) more selective screening of student visa applicants; and (3) development of an information system to collect and share student status information across government agencies. The recommended measures pointed to the need for greater government controls. However, lack of action by government agencies responsible for compliance suggests that the vulnerabilities in the international student program were not viewed as urgently needing reform. There simply was not much political or financial will to reform what was perceived as a weak but not a broken student system. Therefore, even though regulations required the former Immigration and Naturalization (INS) district offices to periodically review approved schools to determine school compliance, seldom were reviews done because of personnel shortages. Furthermore, the government watchdog for immigration compliance at the time, the Department of Justice, readily argued that systematic onsite school reviews would be highly desirable but impractical until additional investigative personnel become available and unless priorities shifted

(Government Accountability Office 1975).83 Therefore, violation of status by

82 The report does not make specific mention of the rationale and premise for a special program to monitor Arab students. However, given that this was early 1974, right after the oil crisis in 1973, one can surmise that U.S.-Arab relations might have been tense then and that politics very much had something to do with perception and policies toward this group of nonimmigrants.

83 Subsequent GAO reports (1980 and 1983) continued to document that the former INS failed to consistently review schools periodically for compliance. 190

international students at the time was not perceived as an urgent investigative issue or security threat deserving of government attention and resources.

The construction of select international students as potential threats and therefore calling for greater immigration controls garnered greater interest when the Iranian crisis

of 1979 focused attention on the purpose and intent of Iranian students and diplomats in the United States. The nationality/racial profiling of select international students points to the contradictions and conflicting position of the state. At the time, the former INS was

unable to provide information on the number, location and status oflranians present or on the number of schools approved to accept international students.84 It had cost the

government close to $3.3 million to collect that information (Government Accountability

Office 1980), pointing to the inefficiency of the student system and the government's

inability to effectively coordinate the student program.

The construction of international students as potential threats to watch for has

continuously been juxtaposed against the construction of international students as

important to U.S. national interest and security, illustrating a schizophrenic approach to

the international student program. The discourse of international students as foes and

friends has been an ongoing state strategy, pointing to the state's complex relationship

and perception of international students. The President's Management Improvement

84 Per the 1983 GAO report, much of the information on file with the former INS was found to be invalid and a systematic search of INS records to obtain information on individual students would have been very difficult. The former INS resorted to a survey of schools to obtain the necessary information on Iranian students. The survey eventually led to a commitment of enormous resources just to develop current information on Iranian students, who composed about 20 percent of the international student population in the United States at that time. 191

Council (PMIC)85 issued a report on international students in 1981 in which it articulated the government's position on the international student program. The report pointed out the dilemma and contradictions related to the international student program by calling for government control with a centralized, automated system (U.S. Government

Accountability Office March 10, 1983), while at the same time touting the benefits of the international student program. The PMIC summarized U.S. national policy on international students in the following manner:

The student program has been deemed to serve U.S. foreign policy objectives by

exposing citizens of other countries to the institutions and culture of the United

States, by helping to cement alliances with other countries, and by transferring

knowledge and skills to other countries, particularly those of the Third World.

The student program also benefits the American economy and those academic and

vocational schools with revenue. This source becomes increasingly important to

those institutions as the domestic student population shrinks. (Government

Accountability Office 1983:13)

As various actions and statements by the government point out, the U.S. has had and continues to have ambivalent and conflicting policies toward international students, much of it driven by political motivations.

In spite of repeated calls for greater government control of the international student program, as pointed out by various government reports, not until the 1990s

85 The PMIC was established in September of 1979 to advise the President and agency heads on ways to improve management practices and program performance in the federal government. The council was co-chaired by the directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. Council membership included 18 executives from federal, state, and local government and the private sector. 192

however, did the government attempt to address the nonimmigrant student program after a very public and political act-The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993. The incident

shed some light on the vulnerabilities of the international students when it was learned that the driver of the truck carrying bombs used in the World Trade Center bombing had

entered the United States on a student visa and had failed to comply with the F-1 student

regulations by dropping out of school and overstaying in the United States. Policymakers

under public pressure to act and wanting to politically assuage the public decided to bring

more attention to the international student immigration program as a potential national

security threat. Politicians chose to insert in a major legislation-The Illegal Immigration

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, a provision to institute a

student tracking system.

The IIRIRA of 1996

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (Public Law

104-208) profoundly changed immigration laws in the United States. Although IIRIRA

was promoted as an illegal immigration bill, it's far reaching provisions have had a

serious impact on legal immigration as well. The Act instituted the concept of "unlawful

presence" (i.e., overstayed a visa or entered without inspection and were therefore not

admitted) and established the three-year, ten-year and permanent bars for individuals

found to have violated their status in the United States. 86 Of great concern to the

86 The Act states that if a person has remained in the U.S. beyond the authorized stay period for 180 days (six months) but less than 365 days (one year) and departs voluntarily from the United States, he/she is forbidden from re-entering for at least three years unless they obtain a pardon. If an individual has overstayed for 365 days (one year) or more and departs voluntarily, they are barred from re-entering the United States for at least ten years unless they obtain a pardon. If the person is deported from the United 193

international education community was the provision of the act that mandated that a national database be created to track international students studying in the United States.

The explicit mention of a student tracking system in the legislation moved the state's discourse from rhetoric to action and became the first explicit act by the state in wanting to expand government control over international students and educational institutions.

CIPRIS

The mandated tracking system was popularly known by the international

education community by the acronym CIPRIS which stands for the Coordinated

Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (Krouse and Perl 2001; Orbach

1999; Reeves 2005). The international student tracking system was conceived in response

to political concerns that one of the terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center

bombing had entered the U.S. on a student visa,87 and had subsequently fallen out of

status and remained in the U.S. illegally without being detected by the former INS

(Farnam 2005; McKinley 1995). The CIPRIS system project was developed in

partnership with the Department of State, the Department of Education, and experts from

authorized schools and exchange visitor programs. It began as a pilot project in June

1997, involving the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport and District Office, the Texas Service

Center, and 21 institutions of higher learning in the states of Georgia, Alabama, North

States, there is the potential for a permanent bar. The law applies regardless of whether the person has a United States citizen spouse and/or children. Refer to the Immigration and Nationality Act sections INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), and INA §212(a)(9)(C).

87 Involved in the World Trade Center bombing was Eyad Ismoil, a Palestinian national who came to the United States in 1989 to earn a doctorate in Engineering at Wichita State University in Kansas. He dropped out of the school in 1990 because he was unable to pay the tuition. Instead of departing the country as required by the F-1 student regulations, he briefly moved to New York and then to Texas. 194

Carolina, and South Carolina. The CIPRIS pilot program was designed to test the feasibility of electronic reporting and monitoring (including issues related to security and data accuracy), as well as to support the visa screening at consular posts and the inspection process for international students and exchange visitors at ports of entry.

The higher education community, alarmed by the fact that international students were being linked to counterterrorism strategies (Report of the National Commission on

Terrorism 2000)88 and concerned about government intrusion in the academy, lobbied to keep the law-enforcement aspects of counterterrorism out of the academy. The higher education community argued that the tracking system was very enforcement-driven and was an intrusion on students and schools. 89 International education advocates formed a strong coalition and successfully lobbied to have full implementation of the system delayed (Althen 1997; Althen, La Berge, and Paver 1998; Confessores 2002; Kephart

October 2, 2003; Malken 2002; Zolberg 2006). The CIPRIS pilot project officially ended

in October 1999, the result of effective lobbying by the international education community. Design of a new internet-based system called the Student Exchange Visitor

Information System (SEVIS) began in July of2001 amidst opposition from the

international education community. Outcomes from the CIPRIS project and the role of

88 On June 5, 2000, the National Commission on Terrorism (NCT), a congressionally mandated bi­ partisan body, issued a report providing a blueprint for U.S. counterterrorism policy. The reports recommended expanding the CIPRIS pilot program to allow monitoring of students from terrorist-list countries. For detailed information on the findings and recommendations of the Commission, see the Report of the National Commission on Terrorism (2000).

89 One of the most controversial aspects of the CIPRIS program involved the collection of fees to fund the tracking system. It was recommended that schools be charged with collecting the fee. According to an interview with Morrie Berez, architect of the tracking system, when the rule was published in the Code of Federal Register in February of 1999, INS received over 5,000 comments from universities decrying the proposed rule (Kephart October 2, 2003). 195

the international education interest group involvement points to the importance of a culture of interest politics in advocacy. The fact that the international education community position was heard illustrates the influence of advocacy work in U.S. politics.

Therefore, the mid- to late-1990s tracking and monitoring of international students' presence emerged as a new focus for the government. The paradigm shift to screening, monitoring surveillance and enforcement of international students by the state illustrates a shift to a "national civilization" predicated on keeping the "foreign other" under control. At the heart of the issue were questions about the appropriate role and place of international students in the United States in light of the World Trade Center incidents.

The international higher education community, fearing discriminatory practices, attempted to shift the discourse away from international threats by emphasizing the need for an immigration policy that facilitates the legitimate entry of international students and argued that such a policy would in fact be in the U.S. national interest (Johnson 2000a;

Johnson 2000b). The international education policy community went a step further by calling for a national international education policy with an explicit strategy of increasing the flow of international students to the United States (Johnson 2001).

State actors persuaded by the value of an international education policy for international students took action by introducing legislation in the Senate and making public pronouncements calling for the establishment of an international education policy to further national security and economic competitiveness (H.R. Congressional

Resolution 201 2001; Powell 2001; S. Congressional Resolution 7 2001). The most compelling call for government support of international students and a national policy came in the form of a presidential memorandum issued by then President of the United 196

States, Bill Clinton (April 19, 2000), in which he directed the Secretaries of State and

Education to take concrete steps to ensure greater support and coordination for international educational exchange and stated:

We are fortunate to count among our staunchest friends abroad those who have

experienced our country and our values through in-depth exposure as students and

scholars. The nearly 500,000 international students now studying in the United

States at the postsecondary level not only contribute some $9 billion annually to

our economy, but also enrich our communities with their cultures, while

developing a lifelong appreciation for ours. The goodwill these students bear for

our country will in the future constitute one of our greatest foreign policy assets.

(Bill Clinton 2000)

As the policy position of educational interest groups suggests, prior to 9/11, the

dominant discourse on international students as objects of policy was primarily focused

on linking international students' presence in the United States to the values of education,

national interest (specifically political, economic and human capital interests), and public

diplomacy. However, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 shifted temporarily what

was for the most part a support for international students and their presence in the U.S. to

a dominant discourse on international students as a security risk and the need for

government control and surveillance. The theoretical shift from international students as

friends to international students as potential foes demonstrates the contradictions of the

state-sponsored project of"national civilization." Whereas, the states' position as

described in previous chapters was mainly focused on the value added to the export and 197

import of international students in crafting a "national civilization," this chapter points to the states' newfound contradictions and conflict in the project of"national civilization."

Post 9/11 Policy Discourses and International Students

September 11, 2001 became a watershed year for international students and U.S. government relations. Issues of government control and mechanisms deployed to counter terrorism took on a whole new meaning. In the aftermath of the devastating terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 on two major icons (the World Trade Center and the

Pentagon) of American political, economic and military powers, the state and the public turned its attention to immigration entry and exit policies once again. Central to the post

9/11 discourse were national security and counterterrorism measures, and the existential threat posed by the "foreign other." International students quickly became the focus of government actions. Alerted to the fact that three of the terrorists90 involved in the attacks had entered the United States and subsequently applied for student visas but failed to attend schools, a myriad of questions were raised by policymakers and the public regarding the activities of international students (National Commission on Terrorist

Attacks 2004; Potter and Phillips 2002; Urias 2003). The social construction of international students as foes, security risks and threats to U.S. national security garnered much attention and media play. Within a few weeks of the terrorist attacks, the landscape for international students and the U.S. higher education community changed. Political

90 Hani Hassan Hanjour, a terrorist on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, had received a student visa to study English but had never attended a single class. Two other terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center in the attacks of September 11, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, at the time of the attacks, were waiting for their student visa requests to be approved in order to attend flight school and the former INS mailed the approval of the student visa six months to the day after the attacks. 198

discourse as picked up in the press and in Congress, primarily focused on international students and called for instituting more stringent permanent government controls.

Within weeks of September 11, some lawmakers, government leaders and the media began to make references to international students as national security risks and lawmakers proposed legislations to mitigate risks by specifically targeting international students (Curry 2001a; Hebel 2001a; Schemo 2001a; Schemo 200lb). Government actors seized the student visa issue as a major political agenda and proceeded to take action.

International students quickly became poster children for how government intends to

"crack down on terrorism." International students became an easy target for scrutiny by politicians and legislators due to expediency and convenient scapegoating. The powerful lobby from the business industry made the tourist and skilled worker visas moratorium politically unfeasible. The international education community as a lobby group was less influential than the business lobby, therefore making student visas an easy symbolic target for action. The fact that as nonimmigrant visa holders, students who were affiliated with universities and colleges provided the state with an opening to delegate to educational institutions or sponsoring organizations responsibility for tracking international students, while at the same time being perceived as taking action to address security risks. In spite of the fact that international students represented less than two percent of all nonimmigrant visitors to the United States, they became the focus of much attention and debate because of political rhetoric and the fact that as a group, students were perceived to have little voice and power and therefore were seen as politically dispensable. The perception of international students as powerless raises much doubt about the prospect of international student agency. 199

Within weeks, a whirlwind of legislations was introduced to address the

"international student issues." The first draconian legislation was introduced two weeks after 9/11 when Senator Diane Feinstein from California introduced legislation calling for a six-month moratorium on international student visa issuance. Feinstein (2001) argued:

Today, there is little scrutiny given to those who claim to be foreign students seeking to study in the United States ... In fact, the foreign student visa program is one of the most unregulated and exploited visa categories. I believe that we need a temporary

6-month moratorium on the student visa program to give the INS time to remedy the many problems in the system ... This may be controversial, but there has to be recognition that this is an unprecedented time in the country and our national security depends on our system functioning to ensure that terrorists do not take advantage of the vulnerabilities in the student visa program. (P .1)

By equating international students to "foreign other" and therefore "terrorists," politicians began to play into the complex relationship between nativity on one hand, nationality and racial intersectionalities on the other hand, and the implicit tensions and conflicts. Influential politicians such as Feinstein argued that draconian measures were necessary and justifiable. The state used heightened xenophobic tendencies and the construction of the "foreign other" threat to call for the development of a nationwide international student tracking system and to ensure that mechanisms were in place for detecting student status violators. The higher education community alarmed by the 200

proposed moratorium successfully formed a coalition91 to oppose the move, once again reaffirming the power and influence of their political interest. The higher education community, however, recognizing that the time for debate regarding a student tracking

system was no longer politically astute, agreed to cooperate with congress to push for

appropriations to adequately fund the tracking system and vowed to work with Congress

to identify workable solutions to tracking and reporting on international students (Curry

2001b; Hebel 2001b; Hebel and Curry 2001).

Public outcry heightened by xenophobic concerns about terrorism and political

pressures called for stringent regulations to restrict U.S. access to international students

and to monitor and track international students enrolled at U.S. universities and colleges.

The state politicized the existential threat by having Congress pass sweeping legislations,

including three major legislations-including the USA PATRI OT (Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and

Obstruct Terrorism) Act of2001, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry and

Reform Act of2002 (Border Security Act), and the Homeland Security Act of2002,

legislations which reveal the government's position on international students in a new

world order--a post 9/11 world. These legislations were met with fierce opposition from

the international educational community and have had significant implications for the

entry, exit, and enrollment of international students at U.S. institutions. The various acts

and legislations described below had implications for the construction of international

91 On October 2, 2001 representatives of the University of California, among other institutions of higher education, met with Feinstein to discuss her proposal. The State of California is among the top 3 states hosting the largest number of international students. The Higher Education coalition included 27 associations and organizations, and an official statement by the coalition was issued by then president of the American Council on Education, David Ward. 201

students as friends or foes in a post 9/11 world and illustrate the contradictory stance of the state in relation to international student mobility.

The proliferation of various acts illustrates another important dimension of

Gramsci' s framework of the hegemonic state. As Gramsci ( 1971) argued, hegemony can

be constructed and maintained by creating a "national civilization" using strategies of

coercion (in this instance, through repressive legislation). Post 9/11 policies constitute

another dimension of the hegemonic state with its contradictions and conflicts.

The USA PATRIOT Act of2001

The passage of the USA PATRIOT Act of2001 (Public Law 107-56) constituted

the first major overt measure by the state to alleviate the threat of terrorism through

expanding the government's power to control and monitor international students. 92

Driven by nativist fears (Cole 2003) of the "foreign other" and the government's need for

control and surveillance, the USA PA TRI OT Act furthered the connection among

international students, migrants, terrorism, and national security. The Act intentionally

blurred the line between civil liberties and security and drew a sharp line between citizens

and "foreign other." The Act included several provisions constructing international

students as major security risks and therefore as subjects to be monitored at all cost given

the high risk they posed to the nation. Section 416 of the Act included a provision to

mandate and expand the international student tracking system that had formerly been

mandated under IIRIRA and had been piloted as CIPRIS and subsequently was renamed

92 The USA PATRIOT Act has resulted in heated debate by scholars, commentators and politicians. For a comprehensive critique of the USA PATRIOT Act, refer to the work of Cole (2003), a scholar and advocate with respect to the civil liberties and immigration law issues. Cole has emerged as one of the foremost critics of the legal front in the war on terrorism. 202

SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System). The USA PATRIOT Act required that SEVIS be fully implemented by January 1, 2003. Congress authorized $36 million in appropriations for the required database tracking system. The USA PATRI OT

Act therefore accelerated the deployment of the SEVIS program. In doing so, it placed international students in a unique category of "security threats" who must be screened, monitored, and accounted for at all times.

Student and Exchange Visitor Information System CSEVIS)

As an electronic database reporting system, SEVIS relies on institutions using the system to transmit electronic information and event notifications to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service and the Department of State, including, but not limited to, address changes, extension of program, changes in program of study, and employment notifications. A year after implementation of the federally mandated student tracking system, institutions of higher education reported having usability and functionality issues with the system. Complaints included inadequate training regarding functionalities of the systems, and long delays in resolving data errors (Government Accountability Office

2004). Functionality of the system has since improved, however, minor glitches remain

(Government Accountability Office 2005).

In addition to calling for a mandated student tracking system, the USA PATRI OT

Act also referenced in Section 414 calls for full implementation of a visa entry/exit system as quickly as feasible. The purpose of the visa entry/exit system was to record the entry and departure of every nonimmigrant visitor and to notify Immigration of non-compliance of nonimmigrant visitors who fail to depart the U.S. within the terms of their visa status. The 203

Act mandates the use of technology and cites a preference for using biometric data. The Act further required that the entry/exit system interface with intelligence agencies including the

FBI and CIA, and law enforcement databases, in order to provide an effective screening system. The Act illustrates the coercive surveillance practice of the state.

National Security Entry-Exit Registration (NSEER)

In an effort to deter terrorism, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration

System (NSEERS) program was implemented beginning in November of2002 (Federal

Register November 6, 2002). The program was designated a counterterrorism tool.

Groups of nonimmigrant males, mostly from the Middle East ages 16 or older, were fingerprinted and photographed either at the port of entry or at designated immigration offices and the fingerprints were matched against a database of known criminals and terrorists. The special registration also included departure notification requiring all individuals registered in NSEERS to complete an exit interview at the port exit before departing the United States.93 Twenty-five countries were initially identified for special registration,94 and subsequently the list was reduced to the five countries (Iran, Iraq,

Libya, Sudan, Syria) deemed to be supporters of terrorism according to the U.S. government (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2008). At inception, the regulations for NSEERS were written broadly enough to allow immigration officials at ports of entry discretion to require any person to register beyond designated listed

93 Individuals who failed to complete exit interviews as NSEER registrants are in danger of being denied re-issuance of visas and re-entry into the United States.

94 For a list of the initial 25 countries designated for NSEER registration, refer to the Federal Register. December 12, 2002. "Registration of Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens from Designated Countries; Notice." The authority for NSEER registration comes under the Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 264.l(t)(4). "National Security Entry and Exit Registration System." 204

countries. Post 9/11, NSEERS became the first visible act by the state to discriminate against a specific category of nonimmigrant visitors (primarily young Middle Eastern men), including international students as potential criminals or terrorists.

The USA PATRIOT Act and NSEER provide another dimension to the complex relationship of the state to international students. In a post 9/11 world order, the social construction of international students includes the intersectionality of various dimensions such as gender, nationality, race/ethnicity and age. Programs such as NSEERjustified repressive practices in the name of national security and interest.

The NSEERS program was disconcerting because it discriminated on the basis of national origins and as such failed to make the case that the nation would be any safer given that terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda are known to have operatives from countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada, yet citizens of those countries were not required to register under NSEERS.

Civil liberty and international educational groups including the American Civil

Liberties Union, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and NAFSA contended that the program was harmful to U.S. interest and national security and vehemently opposed the NSEER program (Golub, Miller, and VandenBerg January 9, 2003; Oaks

January 3, 2003). The clear intent of the USA PATRIOT Act as a tool for surveillance and immigration enforcement of international students was supported and reinforced at the highest level of government. Following the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act,

President Bush (October 29, 2001) issued a presidential directive in which he made specific reference to international students by stating that "the United States benefits greatly from international students who study in our country. The United States 205

Government shall continue to foster and support international students" (p. l ). President

Bush (October 29, 2001) then goes on to specify that:

The Government shall implement measures to end the abuse of student visas and

prohibit certain international students from receiving education and training in

sensitive areas, including areas of study with direct application to the

development and use of weapons of mass destruction. The Government shall also

prohibit the education and training of foreign nationals who would use such

training to harm the United States or its Allies. (P.l)

President Bush (October 29, 2001) called for specific fields of study to be identified and

monitored:

The Secretary of State and the Attorney General, working in conjunction with the

Secretary of Education, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology

Policy, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and any other

departments or entities they deem necessary, shall develop a program to

accomplish this goal. The program shall identify sensitive courses of study, and

shall include measures whereby the Department of State, the Department of

Justice, and United States academic institutions, working together, can identify

problematic applicants for student visas and deny their applications. The program

shall provide for tracking the status of a foreign student who receives a visa (to

include the proposed major course of study, the status of the individual as a full­

time student, the classes in which the student enrolls, and the source of the funds

supporting the student's education). (P.l) 206

The presidential directive illustrates the paradoxical relations of the state

to international students. The directives attempt to balance enforcement and

government control with a call for collaboration and openness by stipulating that

"in developing this new program of control, the Secretary of State, the Attorney

General, and the Secretary of Education shall consult with the academic

community and other interested parties." (Homeland Security Presidential

Directive 2 October 29, 2001:1)

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law

107-173) included several provisions aimed at reforming the visa issuance process and closing perceived loopholes in the admission of international students. The law enforced previously existing protocols such as the Visa Mantis process, a security review procedure involving multiple U.S. government agencies, which aims to identify those visa applicants who are perceived to pose a potential threat to U.S. national security by illegally transferring sensitive technology. In a post 9/11 world, U.S. policymakers fearing the potential transfer of knowledge of controlled defense-related technologies to international students' home countries and the threat to U.S. national interests and competitiveness implemented stringent screening of international science applicants during the visa process. U.S. Consulates were required to input the names of suspects of 207

terrorism into the appropriate databases (Visa Mantis, Visa Condor, CLASS)95 and to share that information with other agencies.

Antiterrorism Screening Process: Visa Mantis and Visa Condor

The Visa Mantis program was in place before the Enhanced Border Security Act.

The Visa Mantis program was established by the Department of State in 1998 to prevent the entry of persons who might attempt to illegally export sensitive technology from the

United States. All nonimmigrants seeking entry into the U.S. temporarily to study or work in a scientific or engineering field are required to undergo this security check. The

Visa Mantis process was designed to address several important national security objectives: (1) prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their missile delivery systems; (2) restrain the development of destabilizing conventional military capabilities in certain regions of the world; (3) prevent the transfer of arms and sensitive dual-use items to terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism; and (4) maintain U.S. advantages in certain militarily critical technologies. However, enhancements and enforcement of the program were expanded in response to post 9/11.

The Visa Condor program was established in 2002 as a new antiterrorist screening process for nationals of designated state sponsors of terrorism. The specific criteria for

Visa Condor checks are classified. However, these checks are likely based on several factors such as: (1) nature of activity (unexplained travel to Muslim countries); (2) type

95 There are numerous databases, including Visa Mantis, Visa Condor, the Technology Alert List, and CLASS (Consular Lookout and Support System). CLASS is a Department of State name-check database that posts use to access critical information for visa adjudication. The system contains records provided by numerous agencies and includes information on persons with visa refusals, immigration violations, and terrorism concerns. 208

of employment or skills (sensitive areas with military or security implications); and (3) country of birth, residence or citizenship. Nationals of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North

Korea, Sudan and Syria are automatically subject to the Visa Condor check, and citizens from the following countries, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea,

Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi

Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen are likely to be subject to a Visa Condor security check as well.

The Visa Mantis and the Visa Condor programs were intended to provide additional scrutiny of nonimmigrant visitors by ensuring that the system would flag students or exchange visitor applicants intending to study subjects deemed sensitive to

U.S. national security. Subjects deemed sensitive were identified in the Technology Alert

List (TAL). The Technology Alert List is intended to prevent the export of sensitive information or technology through such activities as studies, research, employment, or teaching.

Enforcement of the Visa Mantis program combined in some instances with the

Visa Condor program had drastic impact on the mobility of students and scholars

engaged in sensitive fields. The number of security clearance checks increased

dramatically from 1,000 in the year 2000 to 20,000 in 2003 (U.S. Government

Accountability Office February 2005). Given the large volume of clearance needed and the challenges of inner-agency coordination between the Department of State and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Visa Mantis program resulted in major delays

in visa issuance. The General Accountability Office determined that in the spring of

2003, it took an average of 67 days for Visas Mantis checks to be processed and for the 209

Department of State to notify consular posts of the results (U.S. Government

Accountability Office February 25, 2004). The delays raised serious concerns regarding the government's ability to carry out its control functions without paralyzing the mobility of students and scholars.

By summer 2004, visa processing time had improved significantly at the urging of the educational community and legislators who called for an overhaul to the security clearance process. The higher education community urged the federal government to address what it deemed a visa crisis that had hindered the flow of international students coming into the United States. In response to directives from Congress, the Department of State and other agencies undertook efforts to address difficulties faced by students and scholars in obtaining visas. Actions taken by the Department of State and others included adequately staffing the Visa Mantis program; providing clearer guidance to consular officers; creating an electronic tracking system for Visa Mantis cases; clarifying the roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in the Visa Mantis process; reiterating a policy to give students and scholars priority interviews; and extending the validity period for

Visa Mantis clearances. These actions contributed to a decline in overall Visa Mantis processing time from 67 days on average to 15 days on average (Government

Accountability Office 2005). Furthermore, international students who had received a

Visas Mantis clearance and been issued a visa were no longer subject to a yearly review and instead would benefit from having the clearance be valid for up to the length of the approved academic program or to a maximum of four years (Government Accountability

Office 2005). However, if a student changes academic programs, the clearance would no 210

longer be valid and a Visa Mantis review would be required should the applicant reapply for a new visa.

US-VISIT Program

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act introduced new laws calling for a more robust entry/exit system. To comply with the Act, a more comprehensive entry/exit system was implemented with the United States Visitor and

Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT). The US-VISIT system involves the collection and analysis of biometric data including digital fingerprints and photographs, which are then checked against a database to track nonimmigrant citizens deemed to be a

security risk. The US-VISIT program, unlike the NSEERS program, does not target a

specific group but applies to all nonimmigrant visa holders entering the United States.

Homeland Security Act of 2002

In addition to implementing a new tracking system and increasing screening of

international students for visas, the state restructured immigration services. The

Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296) dismantled the Immigration and

Naturalization Service which was housed in the Department of Justice and shifted

primary responsibility for immigration policy and services to a newly created Executive

Branch agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS subsumed the

activities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and of several other entities.

Furthermore, the act gave the Department of State (DOS) sole responsibility for vetting

and issuing documents for travel into the United States and made DHS responsible for 211

setting visa policy and for overseeing the activities of persons once they arrive in the

United States.

Immigration functions became divided between three Bureaus of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): (1) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), responsible for most application and petition adjudications, including employment authorization and change of status; (2) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(ICE), responsible for immigration investigations, detention, removal, intelligence, and

SEVIS; and (3) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), responsible for immigration inspections at U.S. ports of entry for the Border Patrol and for the Customs Service.

Given the organizational changes at DHS, international students and institutions of higher education immigration services must interface with all three divisions within the

Department of Homeland Security. The fact that the SEVIS program falls under U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the law enforcement division of DHS responsible for detention, removal, intelligence, and investigations is confirmation of a shifting paradigm regarding international students and their status while in the United

States. The theoretical explanation of this shift can be found in Gramsci' s project of a

"national civilization" by a hegemonic state that under the perception of a "foreign" threat that is socially constructed deploys mechanisms for control, monitoring, enforcement and surveillance.

Politics of Fear and Control

The state relied on the politics of fear of the "foreigner" and nativist tendencies in the aftermath of 9/11 to institute the USA PATRIOT Act, and to construct international 212

students as objects of national security risks warranting control and surveillance. In instituting the SEVIS tracking system, erecting barriers to entry with ever more stringent security clearance checks at the time of visa application, and by passing public laws targeting nationals of specific countries, the state responded to and fed into public opinion and fear. Mechanisms and processes of control and national profiling have become normative in the state's relation to international students.

Whereas, pre 9/11 immigration policy discourse had focused mainly on illegal migration, specific state sponsors of terrorism, and technology leakage in a post 9/11 environment, the focus has shifted to the highly-educated and to a discourse of allegiance and threat by the foreign "other" and by extension, foreign governments and its citizens.

As argued by Ewers and Lewis (2008), the events of 9/11 resulted in a new evaluation of migration risk, and international students were incorporated into policy dialogues as national security threats requiring immediate and strict controls. The political construction of fear and control (institutionalized) for compliance and non-compliance has resulted in much chaos and confusion. Competing policy discourse about international students as threats or assets to national security emerged in a post 9/11 political environment and the impact of state policies had several consequences. The first clear impact of the new regulations came in the form of a perceived chilly climate which resulted in declining requests for F-1 student visa applications. From 2002 to 2005, total applications for F-1 visas declined slightly only to rebound above 2002 levels starting in

2006. The fact that F-1 student visas declined only to rebound above 2002 levels illustrates the fact that the decline in visa applications was temporary in nature and did not constitute a major deterrent for students and institutions hosting international 213

students. In 2002, one out of 3 applicants for student visas or 34 percent of applicants were denied a visa. Denial rates for student visas have remained constant, averaging 30 percent (U.S. Department of State 2009).

The slight decline in visa applications, coupled with processing delays and more stringent security measures, including the expanded use of personal interviews, have contributed to the perception that major visa processing impedes, rather than facilitates, legitimate travel of students to the United States, even though the data does not support such a claim. The perception of the United States as an unwelcoming destination to international students and scholars has been reinforced by media reports portraying the

United States as closing its border to international students. Highly publicized cases of international students stranded at home waiting for visas to be issued or remaining in the

U.S. for fear of traveling abroad and unable to return to resume studies created a climate of fear and the perception of an unwelcoming environment. Needless to say, the politics of fear launched by the state did have its intended effect for a short period of time.

9/11 and International Student Enrollment

It was predicted that 9/11 policies would have a devastating impact on international student enrollment in U.S. universities. However, trends indicate that in the years following government controls, enrollment took a hit. In spite of this , overall enrollment trends did rebound five years later, once again affirming the attractiveness of the United States as a study destination. In 2004, the Council of Graduate Schools 214

(CGS)96 launched a study of international graduate applications and admissions trends.

The study indicated a 28 percent decline in international graduate applications from 2003 to 2004 (Brown and Syverson 2004). The fields of business, the life sciences/agriculture and engineering, experienced the largest declines in first-time enrollments of international students. International graduation applications for Fall 2005 were down by 5 percent relative to Fall 2004 (Brown 2005). By 2006, findings from the CGS pointed to a reversal in trends in graduate international applications. Graduate international applications increased for the first time in three years with a 12 percent increase in applications (Brown 2006). The increase in graduate applications is best explained by the

United States' strategic effort to redeem its image in the world based on public relations campaigns launched by the Department of State, the international education community and students. The U.S. government campaign of"Open Doors, Secure Borders" had finally had some impact internationally. The CGS findings points to continued growth in graduate applications for subsequent years, however, at a slower rate. Applications from fields critical to U.S. economic competitiveness, including engineering and the physical sciences, experienced growth at a slower rate (Bell 2009; Redd 2008).

International academic mobility data reported by the Institute of International

Education (IIE) points to enrollments peaking in 2002-03, and declining for the first time in over 30 years in 2003-04. According to data collected by IIE, post 9/11 international enrollment dropped for three consecutive years. Decline in enrollment of 2.4 percent was recorded for 2002-03 and 2003-04, and a decline of 1.3 percent was recorded for 2004-05

96 The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) is an organization of over 500 institutions of higher education in the United States and Canada engaged in graduate education, research, and the preparation of candidates for advanced degrees. 215

respectively (Institute of International Education 2003; Institute of International

Education 2004; Institute of International Education 2005). The declines in enrollments recorded by IIE would not be considered dramatic by any measure. Furthermore, according to the latest Open Doors report, the total number of international students in the United States reached an all-time record high of 690,923 in 2009-10 (Bhandari and

Chow 2010), an indication of reversal in mobility trends. Reversal in international enrollment is the result of several forces converging, including (1) the expansion in the number of mobile students worldwide, (2) improvements to the processing of visas and the Department of State's public diplomacy efforts motivated by active advocacy work on the part of the international educational community, and (3) institutions of higher education accelerating international recruitment efforts in order to remain competitive and attract international students.

The fact that overall enrollment of international students is on the rebound is a testament to the fact that government controls and anti-terrorism measures have not had

significant impact on student mobility to the United States and that much bigger forces are at play. Much of the containment in government policies and procedures may be attributed to the effective leveraging initiated by the higher education community.

A closer examination of enrollment trends by region of origin point, however, to

striking differences in regional mobility to the United States. Post 9/11 policies have not

had the adverse effect that was predicted. However, in the aftermath of September 11,

2001, along with global political and economic forces, post 9/11 policies have created a

new world order in international education. In the period since 9/11, international student

enrollment increased from Africa, Latin America, and Asia (Bhandari and Chow 2009). 216

The year 2001 appears to be a turning point for two regions, Europe and the Middle East

(Bhandari and Chow 2009). The Middle East experienced the sharpest decline in enrollment following 9/11. In the period from 2000-01 and 2004-05, enrollment of

Middle Eastern students declined by 15 percent and enrollment of European Students declined by 11 percent (Alberts 2007). Much of the decline from the Middle East is attributable to perceptions and protocols from a post 9/11 visa policy and the fact that many of the policies specifically affected students from the Middle East disproportionally. The Middle East is experiencing a recurrent surge in the number of students coming to the United States to study due mainly to the Saudi government scholarship program introduced in 2005 for students selecting to study in the United

States (Bhandari and Chow 2009). Currently, 15,810 Saudi students are enrolled in U.S. universities, representing an increase of 25 percent over the prior year enrollment

(Bhandari and Chow 2010). The Saudi government instituting a major scholarship program post 9/11 confirms once again the importance of economic and political ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and the fact that international students constitute important political and social capitals.

In addition, 9/11 has accelerated the proliferation of U.S.-style branch campuses in the Middle East (Green 2007). Colleges in the United States are increasingly exporting

U.S. programs and degrees to students in different parts of the world and more specifically to the Middle East. This newer form of educational export has resulted in more students from those regions opting to remain home to experience a "U.S.-style education" without having to travel to the United States and/or having to interact much 217

with Americans.97 The branch campus phenomenon is an extension of the modernization paradigm and an illustration of enhanced U.S. "national civilization" projects responsive to globalization. The United States' influence in the world is such that it has successfully exported its model of higher education to nations who want a U.S. education but without having to travel to the United States to receive such an education.

Decline in enrollments of European students are less likely to be the result of tighter visa regulations post 9/11 and more likely to be the result of other factors.

European students have many options available to them given the major restructuring in

education mobility initiated by the European Union. Decline in enrollments of European

students are more likely to be attributed to strategic educational reforms within the

European Union and the European Commission's investments in mobility programs such

as the Erasmus (European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University

Students) program and the Erasmus Mundus 98 Program (European Commission 2009).

These programs aim to globalize European education and make Europe more competitive

in the knowledge-based economy by offering attractive financial incentives to students

and facilitating the transfer of credits between European institutions and institutions

around the world.

It can be said that 9/11 constituted a perfect storm given that it coincided with

many external forces which were already unfolding. Immigration policies instituted post

97 For an overview and critique of the branch campus phenomenon, see Green (2007).

98 The objective of the Erasmus Mundus program is to enhance the quality of European higher education and contribute to global development of human capital by way of student mobility. The program offers scholarships and funding to individuals and institutions. For more detailed information regarding the program, funding scheme, and data regarding mobility, refer to the European Commission website at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus mundus/index en.php. 218

9/11 certainly had a chilling effect in portraying the United States as an unwelcoming place for international students, however, the policies were not sufficient to deter or curb the mobility of students to the United States. Post 9/11 federal policies undoubtedly made it difficult and burdensome for some international students to study in the United States.

It is indisputable that students from the Middle East in particular and students from other

Muslim countries were disproportionally affected by the various regulations instituted

post 9/11. From 2002 to 2005, institutions experiencing a decline in enrollments of new

students cited visa application processes and concerns of delays/denials as the leading

cause of decline in new enrollment of international students (Institute of International

Education 2005). By 2009, for institutions experiencing a decline in international

enrollments, the leading causes cited for the decline were the world financial crisis and

the rising cost of tuition at U.S. universities. The visa application processes were not

cited at all (Institute of International Education 2009), an indication that steps taken to

remedy the visa process had taken time to have an impact, but that it had finally taken

hold. As the international mobility data point out, the impact of 9/11 visa policies have

for the most part been relatively short-lived given steps taken by various government

agencies at the urging of the international educational community to improve the student

admission and tracking process.

Immigration and visa changes instituted post 9/11 by the United States alone do

not account for the trends in international student enrollments. The fact that enrollments

from countries such as Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and Indonesia, countries with strong

economic and political ties to the United States, have declined due to no visible impact

from changing immigration procedures, implies that there are clearly other external 219

forces at play. Likely forces include regional and/or national strategies or policies to expand student mobility and the global economic crisis. Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia and

Thailand have all experienced economic crisis and therefore students from those regions are selecting to remain home to pursue higher education or are opting to study in non­ traditional destinations including Malaysia, China, and Singapore.

International student enrollment in the United States has continued to grow, albeit at a smaller rate in recent years in comparison to that of other countries. In addition, when the United States tightened government controls over visa policies and procedures in the name of national security, some students may have been discouraged from coming to study and governments in other nations have seized the opportunity to open their borders by instituting more lax policies. Moreover, it is indisputable that the global landscape of higher education is changing and that new players have emerged and old players have renewed their energies by providing viable alternatives for students and their families.

Global Competition for International Students

U.S. 9/11 government control policies emerged at a time when the global competition for international students has been accelerating, and the global economy has been experiencing enormous downturn, constituting a perfect storm. Nation states recognizing the economic, political and education value of international student mobility have been on an accelerated trajectory to recruit the best and brightest from around the world. The number of countries deemed attractive destinations for studies is on the rise.

Many nations have intentionally branded themselves as educational destinations of choice by instituting selective immigration programs designed to facilitate migration of the 220

highly-skilled (Shachar 2006), but also as a means to generate significant export revenue given the economic downturn and the devastating effect of the economy on national and state budgets. Major competitors for international students include the United Kingdom,

Canada, Australia and the United States. However, more recently, traditional sending countries such as Japan, Malaysia, China and Singapore have also stepped into the race by instituting coordinated national and international education strategies to increase

international student enrollments.

As worldwide demand for cross-border education expands, more nations are

aggressively positioning themselves to recruit students regionally and from around the

world. Students and their families are more sensitive to returns on investment from

education and aware of government immigration policies are making strategic decisions

and choices. Increased opportunities for education at home and in other regions of the

world are forcing students and their families to look to other source countries of

education beyond the traditional destinations of the United States, United Kingdom,

Australia, and Canada. The international landscape has fundamentally changed and the

state plays a crucial role in determining the terms of the competition for talent. The fact is

that immigration laws do not operate in isolation or as purely domestic policies, but in

fact are an essential tool for nation states to globally compete and maintain their

competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. As Shachar (2006) argues:

National immigration policymakers engaged in the global talent hunt are

increasingly operating under the assumption that unless the government

proactively "matches" the efforts of admission and settlement extended to the

"best and the brightest" by other nations, their countries will lose out in the global 221

race for talent. Under such conditions, rational immigration policymakers must

take into account the selective migration initiatives adopted by their competitors

in designing their own initiatives to attract world-class talent. (P. 153)

To remain competitive, countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand introduced and expanded on the skilled migration "point system" as admission criterion to attract and keep highly-skilled talent. These nations have instituted an accelerated path to immigration and citizenship of the highly-skilled by assigning points based on age, level of educational qualifications, language abilities, work experience, and employment offers. Other nations are following suit, including Germany. Others have introduced return migration incentives for citizens from abroad to return to countries of origin.

Countries that have been quite successful in their "return" strategies include Taiwan,

Singapore, India and South Korea. These countries have intentionally developed generous compensation packages for highly-skilled emigrants and have invested in state of the art infrastructure such as laboratories and research centers. In doing so, these nations have successfully engaged in "reverse brain drain or brain circulation"99

(Saxenian 2005).

Scholars have argued that the United States immigration policies are relatively competitive (Lowell, Bump, and Martin 2007) and that advances in educational infrastructure are unlikely to dramatically reduce the U.S. market share of international students (Wildavsky 2010).

99 The term 'brain circulation' is used to describe the increasingly circular nature of migration. A growing proportion of migratory movement is temporary, with many migrants maintaining financial, cultural and sometimes political links with their home country. 222

Conclusion

The United States remains a destination of choice for international students given the continued growth in enrollment after a few years of decline in the aftermath of

September 11. International students hold an ambivalent position in U.S. political economy, the result of the U.S. government's schizophrenic approach to the student program. Over time, international students have been depicted as foes and/or friends to suit the political climate. However, at no time in U.S. history has the relationship of international students to the state been so precarious than post 9/11 when the government, in its quest to scapegoat international students, enacted a series of draconian measures aimed to counter terrorism and in doing so, conflated international students with national security and domestic threat. The various procedures aimed at international students and reflective of government controls certainly had the unintended consequences of depicting the United States as an unwelcoming place for a few years. The state, in its attempt to appease the existential threat of terrorism, conveniently focused its attention on international students because it deemed them to be expendable and having little to no voice and power. To the state's surprise, however, the international education community rallied and successfully shifted the social construction of international students as national security threats to international students as a national and economic security asset (NAFSA: Association oflnternational Educators 2002; Wildavsky 2010). Much of the discourse today centers on the economic, political, educational, and cultural benefits the U.S. derives from hosting international students.

Given the global race for talent and the changing immigration policies of nations wanting to attract their fair share of highly-skilled human capital, many of whom 223

transition from being international students to highly-skilled migrants, the United States faces increased competition for international students. As a nation, the United States no longer enjoys sole primacy in the flow of cross-border education given the globalization of student mobility, competing immigration policies, the global economy and the competition for highly-skilled migrants. The state, as a central actor, plays an important role in the mobility of international students as the relationship of immigration policies to student mobility suggests. However, the state is not the sole force. Other forces at play in student mobility include labor market and economic forces.

As has been suggested by scholars and international education advocates (Burton

2006; Lowell, Bump, and Martin 2007; NAFSA: Association oflnternational Educators

2002), the United States must clearly define its stance on international students and the federal government must put in place a comprehensive strategy involving stronger inter­ agency coordination, active marketing of U.S. education, and cooperation between the federal government and higher education institutions. Politicians should cease to use fear as a political weapon to construct international students as foes when the United States has benefited and continues to benefit from the presence of international students to advance its "national civilization" at home and abroad. The overall number of internationally mobile students is on the rise and the U.S. remains the leading destination for international students, attracting close to 20 percent of the world share (Bhandari and

Chow 2009). However, its market share has declined from 28 percent in 2001to19 percent in 2009 (Bhandari and Chow 2010). Mobility patterns suggest that the United

States is facing increased global competition for international students and that it might well benefit from a strategy that will strike the proper balance between national security 224

and long-term economic competitiveness--0ne that strongly favors migration of the highly-skilled. CHAPTERS

CONCLUSION

As a superpower, the United States has enjoyed a dominant military, political and economic position in the global political economy. As argued in this study, U.S. cultural, economic and cultural dominance has been promoted by way of international students who have received a U.S. education, promoted U.S. values and modernization paradigm across the globe, and fueled innovation and entrepreneurship in the United States. As argued in the study, international students who study in the United States provide important human, cultural, social, and political capital by advancing U.S. public diplomacy, modernization, and economic development models around the world.

International students play an important role in crafting U.S. "national civilization" at home and abroad. As this study documents, the United States has had a long and complex relationship with international students. As a nation intent on fashioning a "national civilization" predicated on cultural, economic, political and educational power, it has benefited from international student flows in multiple ways as discussed in the preceding chapters.

International education exchanges such as the Fulbright program, along with foreign government-supported and/or privately-sponsored programs, have enabled the

United States to extend its power overseas beyond military might and economic aid.

These initiatives have afforded the U.S. important venues for promoting its hegemonic

225 226

worldview and values, notably so-called "democratic" principles and institutions, market economy, and the development and exchange of scientific information and knowledge.

Having most likely developed an affinity for the American lifestyle, former students are likely to facilitate the export of U.S. products and culture to their home countries, while simultaneously promoting U.S. foreign policies. In essence, these students become actors in advancing U.S. "national civilization."

Given their potential as agents of change in their home countries, many international students who are members of the elite communities become agents in furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives by being trained in U.S. economic models, promoting U.S.-style democracy and learning/absorbing U.S. culture.

Nations with strong ties to the U.S. have explicitly, and at times implicitly, supported U.S. dominance by having the elite from their respective societies attend

American institutions of higher education. By way of state-supported scholarships and/or privately-sponsored funds, international students from Japan, South Korea, Iran, Mexico,

Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and many other nations have explicitly or implicitly collaborated to advance U.S. modernization paradigm by acquiring degrees and training in law, economics, business, education, international relations, and engineering, and upon returning home, have implemented the U.S. model of education, business, and economic theory at home.

Implicit in international education exchange programs such as the Fulbright and foreign government-supported and/or privately-sponsored programs is the belief-to paraphrase Karl Marx in Das Kapital (1967)-that America holds the mirror to the rest of the world's future. This mirror is encapsulated in what is known as the 'modernization' 227

paradigm, i.e., the development of what are to be considered modem (democratic) polities, (capitalist) economies and (individualism-oriented) societies. The modernization paradigm offered a ready-made template and criteria of evaluation for the development of non-western countries. However, it failed to account for structural forces, for example, the conditions in which countries became independent and their insertion into the international political economy. Thus, U.S. promotion and support of the modernization paradigm masked the fact that knowledge creation and diffusion in this context is imbued not only with unequal distribution of power, but the universalization of specific experiences as "truth."

International education takes place in the context of global economic, technological, and political inequalities. These inequities are quite pronounced given that the largest flows of students occur between the so called "developing" world/South and the "developed" world/North. Discussions of inequalities and power relations are rarely mentioned in scholarly work related to international education. However, to understand the political economy of the U.S. and its relationship to international education, it is essential to analyze and understand these global power relations.

Student flows tend to be from the periphery to the centers of knowledge and power in the West, particularly the United States. Even though American students traveled overseas, they were going to learn about and help transform countries in the

Global South. As such, many developing countries were expected to, and did look toward the West in general and to the U.S. in particular as successful models of modem polities, economies and societies. Values and norms learned during overseas study, along with technological knowledge, were brought back to home countries with the aim of 228

application. The appropriateness of such knowledge was irrelevant. International student exchange operates on the tacit principle of Western superiority and the transformation of developing nations according to models and policies of advanced nations, most particularly that of the United States.

The purpose of this study is not to argue that international student exchange is good or bad, but rather to illustrate that international education engenders contradictions.

International education historically supports and emphasizes uneven relationships between the Global North and the Global South. Relations in the political sphere continue to be shaped by the Global North dictating its agenda through major bodies such as the

United Nations Security Council where its holds the most permanent voting seats. The same holds true in the economic sphere where the Global North once again dominates by selecting executive officers for the major international organizations such as the

International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, who then pursue economic development agendas that often are not appropriate given the different historical contexts in the Global South. In essence, developing nations' participation in international student exchange means internalizing and replicating the institutions and practices learned in developed nations (Altbach, Kelly, and Lulat 1985), and ensuring that the Global North, led by the United States, maintains its strategic initiatives in the Global South.

U.S. hegemony and engagement with nations in Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin

America and its ability to generate active consent came through efforts to "modernize" societies and nations via international education. International education became a powerful weapon for fashioning a "national civilization" because of its promulgation of ideologies. 229

The rise of the knowledge economy has furthered U.S. hegemony through innovation and research. In its quest to build a "national civilization" predicated on the knowledge economy, the United States must rely on universities to succeed. To compete for revenue and human capital, American universities are increasingly relying on the supply of full-paying international students and graduate international students as teaching and research assistants. During the Cold War, the United States replicated its

"national civilization" in different parts of the world, viewing international students as a means for implementing its modernization paradigm overseas. In the late 20th century, the

United States focused on bringing international students into the U.S. higher education system for economic and labor purposes. With the rise of the neoliberal state and the promotion of free-market enterprise and commodification of higher education, international students have become the source of revenue and labor.

Institutions of higher education have increasingly relied upon tuition and fees generated from hosting international students, and revenue generated extends to local and state communities that benefit from the economic contributions made by international students and their dependents. International students contributed nearly $20 billion to the

U.S. economy through their expenditures on tuition and living expenses, according to the

U.S. Department of Commerce. Higher education is among the United States' top service sector exports, as international students provide revenue to the U.S. economy and individual host states. The contributions of international students extend beyond revenue generation to include research, teaching, innovation and entrepreneurship. The economic and human capital functions attributed to international student flows are critical to U.S. higher education and the U.S. knowledge economy. International students constitute an 230

important human capital. They are valued because of the surplus value to institutions as teaching and research assistants. Science-based research projects funded by the federal government and private foundations at major universities depend on research assistants and postdoctoral fellows, many of whom are international students and researchers. A decline in the number of foreign graduate students would raise the cost of research to the funding agencies and decrease the amount of research funded and performed (Chiswick

1999). Such an impact is likely to severely affect America's position in the global economy given how university research is vital to maintaining its preeminent position in science and technology and its global competitiveness in a knowledge-driven economy.

Given the trends in enrollment in the science and engineering (S&E) fields at the graduate and the doctoral level, the absence of international students in critical fields is likely to bring graduate education and research infrastructure in S&E to a standstill, therefore substantially affecting the United States' ability to compete in the knowledge economy. Institutions of higher education and by extension, industry and government, would be hard pressed to conduct scientific research given that S&E faculty have come to rely heavily on graduate students as research assistants to staff labs and conduct experiments.

Given the global race for the highly-skilled, international students constitute an important supply of highly-skilled temporary and permanent migrants for the U.S. economy in the knowledge-based economy. Those with training and background in the sciences and engineering fields contribute to the intellectual and entrepreneurial human capital of the United States and in doing so, help to advance U.S. economic competitiveness. Former international students who subsequently become skilled 231

immigrants in the United States fuel the creation of high-technology related businesses and often create a wealth of critical intellectual property and industries. The fact that 25 percent of engineering and technology companies established from 1995 to 2005 were founded by immigrant entrepreneurs, more than half of whom had studied in the United

States, is indicative of the contributions of international students as skilled migrants to the new knowledge economy.

The human capital of these former students is leveraged by the state via immigration policy regulations that facilitate migration. Immigration regulations specifically targeting graduates of U.S. institutions come in the form of designated employment quota for international students holding U.S. degrees, which include regulations exempting universities and government laboratories (who hire foreign postdoctorates and researchers) from numerical limits in H-lB visas, and increases in H­ lB numbers to allow industries to hire foreign workers. The move from H-lB to permanent residence status is facilitated by employment-based visa categories specifically targeting the skills and talents of those with knowledge and skills meeting

U.S. economic interests in the science, engineering, technology and business fields. In this way, changes in H-lB and employment-based permanent residence policies are reflective of the interests and politics of skilled labor migration programs in the United

States. Immigration programs related to skilled workers were changed in the 1990s to address the growing demand of the knowledge economy and as such, target specific skill sets and sectors of the economy including information technology, engineering, scientific, medical research, and ·university (Freeman and Hill 2006). Simply put, international students are a key component to the United States' ability to build and 232

maintain a "national civilization" at home that is competitive in the global arena. The

United States has enjoyed a competitive edge over Japan, Europe, and other advanced knowledge-based economies because it has attracted and retained intellectual human capital from around the world.

International students provide a unique perspective to the international migration process given their initial status as nonimmigrant students on visas, but often use education institutions as a precursor for temporary or permanent skilled migration.

Migration of the highly-skilled requires immigration policies that facilitate the mobility of students and highly-skilled workers. Politicians and international education advocates have touted the unique benefits derived from international student flows, be they economic, political, cultural or educational. However, immigration procedures put in place have not always been welcoming. This contradiction became pronounced in the aftermath of the September 11 events.

International students hold an ambivalent position in U.S. political economy, the result of the U.S. government's schizophrenic approach to the student program. Over time, international students have been depicted as foes and/or friends to suit the political climate. However, at no time in U.S. history has the relationship of international students to the state been so precarious than post 9/11 when the government in its quest to scapegoat international students enacted a series of draconian measures aimed to counter terrorism and in doing so, conflated international students with national security and domestic threat. The various procedures aimed at international students and reflective of government controls certainly had the unintended consequences of depicting the United

States as an unwelcoming place for a few years. The state, in its attempt to appease the 233

existential threat of terrorism, conveniently focused its attention on international students because it deemed them to be expendable and having little to no voice. To the state's surprise, however, the international education community rallied and successfully shifted the social construction of international students as national security threats to international students as a national and economic security asset (NAFSA: Association of

International Educators 2002; Wildavsky 2010). Much of the discourse today centers around the economic, political, educational, and cultural benefits the U.S. derives from hosting international students.

Given the global race for talent and the changing immigration policies of nations wanting to attract their fair share of highly-skilled human capital, many of whom transition from being international students to highly-skilled migrants, the United States faces increased competition for international students. As a nation, the United States may no longer enjoy sole primacy in the flow of cross-border education given the globalization of student mobility, competing immigration policies, the global economy and the competition for highly-skilled migrants. The state as a central actor plays an important role in the mobility of international students as the relationship of immigration policies to student mobility suggests. However, the state is not the sole force. Other forces at play in student mobility include labor market and economic forces.

As has been suggested by scholars and international education advocates (Burton

2006; Lowell, Bump, and Martin 2007; NAFSA: Association oflnternational Educators

2002), the United States must clearly define its stance on international students and the federal government must put in place a comprehensive strategy, including increased cooperation between the federal government and higher education institutions. Politicians 234

should cease to use fear as a political weapon to construct international students as foes when the United States has benefited and continues to benefit from the presence of international students to advance its "national civilization" at home and abroad. The overall number of internationally mobile students is on the rise and the U.S. remains the leading destination for international students, attracting close to 20 percent of the world share (Bhandari and Chow 2009). However, its market share has declined from 28 percent in 200 I to 19 percent in 2009 (Bhandari and Chow 20 I 0). Mobility patterns suggest that the United States is facing increased global competition for international students and that it might well benefit from a strategy that will strike the proper balance between national security and long-term economic competitiveness-one that strongly favors migration of the highly-skilled.

This study argues that the notion that the state may not be an important actor in international education needs to be contested. The role of the state in the mobility of international students is being reconfigured. In the past, the state had a direct role through its sponsorship of programs such as the Fulbright program. Today, its role is mediated by institutions of higher education.

Cross-border in the twenty-first century is being redefined based on increased competition for talent and economic conditions calling for increased revenues from fees, as well as human capital, to support the knowledge-based economy. For the U.S. to sustain a "national civilization" for the twenty-first century changing political economy, it must endeavor to examine its stance on student mobility and needs to reform its current immigration system. The state would benefit from an immigration system that recognizes and values the multiple benefits from hosting international students (human, cultural, 235

social, political, and economic).

In order to continue to attract the talents from around the world and continue its

"soft" power role, the state must institute an effective immigration system that keeps pace with the changing global economy. An effective immigration system calls for recognizing and facilitating the mobility of the highly-skilled. In the case of the United States, this means reforming employment based visas and deploying appropriate resources to address the bureaucratic backlog that is all too often associated with employment-based visas.

The state must make employment-based visas a priority and needs to revisit the quota assigned to occupational categories.

The H-lB visa program includes fees that have been designated to support education and training of the American workforce and to limit dependency on foreign workers. The idea of using fees from the H-lB program to train and expand the domestic labor force has yet to materialize. Instead of addressing what can conceivably be characterized as myopic, knee-jerk political posturing, the state would benefit from systemic strategic long-term goals, including a serious reform of the K-12 education and incentivizing science and mathematics programs at the K-12 level. It is my suggestion that fees collected from the H-lB program be reinvested in K-12 education ifthe U.S. is to seriously compete with other nations.

This study has attempted to shed light on the role of the state in facilitating (and as September 11 illustrates) and/or hindering the migration of international students and the contribution of this population of highly-skilled migrants to U.S. foreign political and economic goals and position in the world. Using Gramsci's theory of the educative state and the crafting of a "national civilization," the study places international students at an 236

important nexus. The study has drawn on several bodies of literature (sociology of development, international relations, political sociology, migration theory, and international education). The objective of this project has been to contribute to expanding discourse in these various fields by having scholars, policymakers, government officials and higher education engage in substantive discussions on how we theorize migration and the intersection of international education to state migration policies and higher education.

Future areas of further research include: (1) a comparative analysis of state policies related to international student mobility and the implications for economic competitiveness; (2) the impact of the economic slowdown on international student mobility and implications for future U.S. competitiveness; and (3) interviews of policymakers and students to determine effective state immigration policies for sustaining international student mobility. APPENDIX 1

List of World Leaders with U.S. Higher Education Credentials

UNIVERSITYI COUNTRY NAME TITLE I II II I COLLEGE Southern Illinois AFGHANISTAN Hedayat Amin-Arsala Vice-President (former) I I University Minister of Higher Colorado State AFGHANISTAN II Amir Shah Hasanyar I I Education University Mohummad Sharif Minister of Higher AFGHANISTAN University of Arizona I Faez Education (former) I AFGHANISTAN Enayatullah Qasemi II Minister of Transport II Baltimore University I I AFGHANISTAN Amin Fatemi II Minister of Health II Boston University I University of Ambassador to the United AFGHANISTAN H. E. Ishaq Shahryar California at Santa States (Former) Barbara I AFGHANISTAN II Abdul Zahir II Prime Minister (former) II Columbia University I ANTIGUA& University of II Lester Bird II Prime Minister I BARBUDA I Michigan University of New ARGENTINA I Raul Ricardo Alfonsin I President (former) I I Mexico Minister of Foreign Affairs ARGENTINA Guido Di Tella MIT I I (former) I Jorge Alberto University of ARGENTINA Minister (former) I Rodriguez Nebraska Harvard University; ARMENIA Vartan Oskanian Foreign Minister I Tufts University Federal Minister for AUSTRALIA David Kemp Yale University Environment (former) AUSTRALIA Zelman Cowen Governor General (former) Harvard University Premier ofNew South Wales AUSTRALIA Nick Greiner Harvard University (former) AZERBAIJAN Elmar Mammadyarov Foreign Minister Brown University

BAHAMAS II Dame Ivy Dumont Governor General University of Miami

237 238

UNIVERSITY I COUNTRY NAME TITLE II COLLEGE Crown Prince and Shaikh Salman bin BAHRAIN Commander in Chief of the American University Hamad Al Khalifa Bahrain Defense Force University of BANGLADESH Iajuddin Ahmed President . Wisconsin II I :======~~======:=::: BELIZE II John Briceno II Minister ofFinance II University of Texas I 1:======::::::~======:;:::======: BELIZE Vildo Marin I Minister of Health, Labor, University of South I . and Defense Western Louisiana 1:======:~======: Attorney General and University of South BELIZE Francis Fonseca Minister of Education and Western Louisiana Culture, Youth, and Sports

BELIZE Godfrey Smith Minister of Foreign Affairs, I Tufts University I .I Foreign Trade, and Tourism . . 1 ~B=E=L=I=Z=E======~~======:1 Minister of Human ~I======:II Sylvia Flores Development and Housing Hunter College Minister for Trade and University of BHUTAN Lyonpo Yeshey Zimba Industry Wisconsin Madison ::=:======~~======: Minister of Home and Pennsylvania State BHUTAN Lyonpo Jigmi Thinley Cultural Affairs University Eduardo Rodriguez I I BOLIVIA Veltze President Harvard University :======~~======; BOLIVIA Jorge Quiroga Ramirezll President (former) Texas A&M I

BOLIVIA Gonzalo Sanchez de I President (former) University of Chicago Lozada Bustamante . Lyonpo (Minister) Pennsylvania State BHUTAN Foreign Minister (former) Jigmi Thinley University Fernando Henrique BRAZIL President of Brazil (former) Columbia University Cardoso Minister ofForeign Affairs I BRAZIL Celso Lafer . (former) . Cornell University I Pengiran Anak Dato Ambassador to the United Fletcher School of BRUNEI Haji Puteh States Law and Diplomacy Minister of Foreign Affairs Pr. t U . 'ty CANADA Lloyd Axworthy . (former) mce on mvers1 1:======~~======:I Ambassador to the United I CHILE IAndres Bianchi I States Yale University 1:======:~======~~======: CHILE II Ricardo Lagos Escobar President (former) II Duke University Grand Justice, Vice CHINA II Wan Exiang President of Supreme Yale University I People's Court (former) I COLOMBIA II Alvaro Uribe Velez President II Harvard University I 239

UNIVERSITY I COUNTRY NAME TITLE I II II I COLLEGE Florida Atlantic Ambassador to the United University, COLOMBIA Luis Alberto Moreno States Thunderbird I I University George Washington COLOMBIA Carolina Barco Isakson Minister of Defense I I University Jorge Alberto Uribe George Washington COLOMBIA President (former) I Echavarria University I COLOMBIA Virgilio Barco Vargas President (former) MIT I I COLOMBIA Ernesto Samper Pizano ii President (former) Columbia University I Fletcher School/Tufts COSTA RICA Jaime Darenblum Ambassador to the USA I II I University Texas Technical Alejandro Guzman Minister of Agriculture COSTA RICA University; Harvard Stein (former) I I University Louisiana State COSTA RICA I Abel Pacheco II President (former) I University US Military Academy, Jose Maria Figueres COSTA RICA President (former) West Point; Harvard Olsen University COSTA RICA Rene Castro II Minister of Energy (former) II Harvard University I Minister ofNatural COSTA RICA I Alvara Umana Stanford University I Resources (former) I I Ambassador to the USA Georgetown COTE D'IVOIRE II Pascal Kokora I (former) University Indiana University; CROATIA II Ivan Grdesic II Ambassador to the USA I Virginia Tech Minister of Communications, Public NY Institute of CYPRUS A verof Neophytou Works, and Transport Technology

I (former) CYPRUS George Iacovou Foreign Minister Boston University I DOMINICAN University of Roosevelt Sherrit Prime Minister REPUBLIC Mississippi ECUADOR Jamil Mahuad Witt President (former) Harvard University AtefMuhammad EGYPT Prime Minister Illinois University Muhammad Ebid I EGYPT Ali Dessouki Minister of Youth II Princeton University Kamal Ahmed al- EGYPT Prime Minister (former) Michigan University Ganzuri I UN Secretary General EGYPT Boutros Boutros Ghali Columbia University (former) I 240

UNIVERSITY I COUNTRY NAME TITLE I COLLEGE Georgetown EL SALVADOR Alfredo Felix Cristiani President (former) University FRANCE Jacques Chirac President (former) Harvard University Ernst Carl Julius GERMANY II Prime Minister (former) Cornell University Albrecht I GEORGIA Mikheil Saakashvili President Columbia University GEORGIA George Papuashvili Minister of Justice American University GEORGIA Aleksi Aleksishvili Minister of Economy Duke University Ernst Carl Julius GERMANY Prime Minister (former) Cornell University Albrecht I UN Secretary General GHANA Kofi Annan II Macalester College, (former) MIT GHANA Kwame Nkrumah President (former) II Lincoln University I Andreas George GREECE Prime Minister (former) Harvard University Papandreou II I University of Detroit; Wayne University; GUYANA Janet Jagan President (former) Michigan State I College HONDURAS Ricardo Maduro II President (former) Stanford University I Louisiana State HONDURAS Carlos Roberto Flores President (former) I University Rodolfo Pastor Minister of Culture and HONDURAS Tulane University Fasquelle Tourism (former) I HONGKONG Ambrose Lee II Secretary for Security Harvard University I Secretary for Education and Harvard Medical HONGKONG Arthur Li I Manpower School Secretary of Security, HONGKONG Regina Suk Lee Ip Lau Director of Immigration Stanford University (former) University of Ambassador to the USA HUNGARY Geza Jeszensky California at Santa (former) Barbara University of INDONESIA Ali Wadhana Finance Minister (former) I California - Berkeley Susilo Bambang INDONESIA President Webster University I Yudhoyono I INDONESIA Hasan Wirayudha Minister ofForeign Affairs Harvard University I University of INDONESIA Juwono Sudarsono Minister of Defense I California - Berkeley Minister of Justice and American University INDONESIA Hamid Awaludin Human Rights (former) I I 241

UNIVERSITYI COUNTRY NAME TITLE I II II I COLLEGE I Ambassador to Russia I University of Pennsylvania, INDONESIA Dr. Boediono Finance Minister Wharton School of I I Business Minister of State INDONESIA II Taufik Effendy International I I Administrative Reform I I University of Minister of Energy and Purnomo Yusgiantoro Colorado School of Mineral Resources I INDONESIA Mines Minister of National I INDONESIA Sri Mulyani University of Illinois I Development Planning INDONESIA Marie Pangestu Minister of Trade I University of I . California - Davis INDONESIA Andung Nitimihardja Minister of Industry II University of I 1 Pittsburgh Minister of Foreign Affairs INDONESIA I Alwi Shihab Temple University I (former) I I Minister of National University of North INDONESIA Bambang Sudibyo Education (formerly Minister Carolina; University I I ofFinance) of Kentucky University of Minister of Agriculture Tennessee; University INDONESIA Mohamad S. Prakosa (former) of California - I I Berkeley Director General for INDONESIA II Makmm Widodo Multilateral Affairs, Ministry Ohio University I I of Foreign Affairs President (former) IRELAND Mary Robinson Harvard University UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (former) I I University of ISRAEL Moshe Katsav President Nebraska (honorary I I doctorate) MIT; California ISRAEL II Mome Arens Minister of Defense (former) Institute of Technology ISRAEL II Ehud Barak Prime Minister (former) Stanford University I ISRAEL II Benjamin Netanyahu I Prime Minister (former) MIT I New York University; ISRAEL Shimon Peres II Prime Minister (former) II Harvard University Under Secretary General of University of ITALY Giandomenico Picco I the United Nations California at Santa 242

COUNTRY NAME TITLE UNIVERSITY I I II II COLLEGE Barbara I I ITALY II Antonio Martino II Minister of Defense University of Chicago I Johns Hopkins ITALY I Domenico Siniscalco I Minister of Economics I I University University of ITALY II Lamberto Dini I Foreign Minister (former) I Minnesota I ITALY II Giuliano Amato II Prime Minister (former) II Columbia University I ITALY Romano Prodi II Prime Minister (former) II Harvard University I JAMAICA Hon. John Junior II Minister of Health II Howard University I Hon. Dr. Paul University of JAMAICA Minister of Development Robertson Michigan Minister of Foreign Affairs University of JAMAICA I Hon. Keith D. Knight I and Foreign Trade Pittsburgh Northeastern Percival James Prime Minister and Minister JAMAICA University; Brown Patterson of Defense I University Minister of Local Union Institute in JAMAICA Portia Simpson Miller Government, Community Miami I Development and Sport Minister of Education, JAMAICA II Maxine Henry-Wilson I Rutgers University Youth, and Culture I I Ambassador to the United JAMAICA II Gordon Shirley Harvard University I I States and the OAS I I Minister of Finance & Northwestern JAMAICA II Hon. Dr. Omar Davies I Planning University Princeton University; JAMAICA Hon. Dr. Peter Phillips Minister of National Security I SUNY Minister of State, Ministry o Morgan State JAMAICA Hon. Anthony Hylton I Foreign Trade (former) University Princeton University, JAMAICA Hon. Dr. Peter Phillips Minister of National Security SUNY JAPAN Nobutaka Machimura II Minister of Foreign Affairs II Wesleyan University I Minister of Foreign Affairs, JAPAN Y oriko Kawaguchi Minister of the Environment Yale University I (former) I JAPAN I H.E. Yohei Kono II Foreign Minister (former) II Stanford University I Minister of State for JAPAN II Nobuteru Ishihara Elmira College (NY) I I Administrative Reform I I Minister of Foreign Affairs Germantown Friends JAPAN II Makiko Tanaka I I (former) School (PA) University of United Nations High JAPAN Sadako Ogata California - Berkeley; Commissioner for Refugees I II I Georgetown 243

1:=1===C=O=UN==T=R=Y==~ll:=====N=A=M=E=====:ll~=====T=I=T=LE====~l~=UN=c=~=c=t=iG=I~=Y=/~I I University I :======~ JAPAN II Masako Owada II Crown Princess I Belmont College; I...... Harvard University :======~ ~APAN II Jun Saito I Member of Parliament, l'I Yale University I I. .. . Yamagata Prefecture . . :======~:======: Yale University; I JAPAN II Kotaru Tamura I Member of Parliament ~;b~~niversity of :======~:======:! JORDAN I AHbdul!ah Bin Al- I King of Jordan I Georgetown I. . ussem . University !:======~ University of JORDAN M Q Minister of Foreign Affairs Michigan,· Columbia arwan assem (former) I II I University :======~ JORDAN I Adnan Badran II Minister of Defense I Michigan State I. .. . University :======~:======~~======~ Prime Minister University of I JORDAN Ali Abul Ragheb I Defense Minister Tennessee ~~~ Minister of State for Political University in San JORDAN Mohammad Adwan Affairs & Environment Jose; University of I Colorado Harvard University I JORDAN I Salah Al-Bashir Minister of Trade & Industry Law School Georgetown I JORDAN II Bassem Awadallah Minister of Planning I University I JORDAN II Nader Dahabi Minister of Transport II Auburn University

::===:::!======!1 University of I JORDAN I Mahmoud Dweiri ~inister of Agriculture . Wisconsin !~======:::: University of JORDAN Haidar Mahmoud Minister of Culture II I California :======~ University of Southern JORDAN ~ichel Marto Minister of Finance California; Stanford I. I. University i:==J=O=RD==A=N======~ll Marwan Muasher II Minister of Foreign Affairs II Purdue University I :======~~======~:======~I Illinois Institute of JORDAN Taleb Rifai Minister of Tourism & Technology; Antiquities University of Pennsylvania !:======~I Minister of State for University of JORDAN Mohammad Thneibat California; University I. I. Administrative Development of Southern California !::======~ ~ORDAN II Khaled Toukan I Minister of Education University of I. .. . Michigan; MIT !::======~ I JORDAN II Karim Kawar I Ambassador to the United Boston College 244

COUNTRY NAME TITLE UNIVERSITY I I II II I COLLEGE States I Sharif Zeid Ben US Staff & Command JORDAN Prime Minister (former) I I Shaker I College I JORDAN Fawwaz Zu'bi Minister ofICT II Duke University I University of KAZAKHSTAN Nurlan Balgimbayev Prime Minister (former) I Massachusetts University of KENYA II Wangari Maathai I Nobel Peace Prize Winner I I Pittsburgh University of KENYA Chirau Ali Mwakwere Minister of Foreign Affairs I Connecticut Greenville College; Minister of Public Works KENYA Jonathan K.N. Ng'eno Southern Illinois and Housing (former) I University Minister of Education KENYA Joseph Kamotho Syracuse University I (former) I I Ambassador to the USA LATVIA II Aivis Ronis Columbia University I (former) University of LATVIA II Aigars Kalvitis Prime Minister I I Wisconsin New School LATVIA Artis Pabriks Minister ofForeign Affairs I I University Luthem School of LATVIA Eriks Jekabsons Minister of the Interior I Theology Minister of Science and University of LATVIA I Ina Druviete I Education Pittsburgh Minister for Social University of LATVIA II Ainars Latkovskis I Integration Washington University of LATVIA II Krisjanis Karins II Minister of Economics I Pennsylvania Naval Command LEBANON Emile Lahoud II President I College University of Ambassador to the United Farid Abboud California - Los I LEBANON States Angeles Minister of Education and University of LESOTHO Mohlabi Tsekoa I Training Massachusetts Minister of Natural University of LESOTHO I Mamphono Khaketla I Resources Wisconsin Ambassador to the United University of Southern LESOTHO I Molelekeng Ernestina Rapolaki States California Minister of Information Kent University; LIBERIA II Milton Teahjay I (former) Howard University Fletcher School of LIBYA Shukri Ghanem II Prime Minister II I Law and Diplomacy 245

UNIVERSITYI I COUNTRY II NAME TITLE I COLLEGE New York University LIECHTENSTEIN Ernst Walch Minister of Foreign Affairs School of Law LITHUANIA Valdas Adamkus President II University of Illinois I Minister of Justice, Treasury LUXEMBOURG Luc Frieden I Harvard Law School and Budget, and Defense I Ambassador to the United Fletcher School of LUXEMBOURG Arlette Conzemius States Law and Diplomacy Vice Prime Minister of MADAGASCAR Pierrot Rajaonarivelo Columbia University I Budget Ambassador to the United Fletcher School of MADAGASCAR Narisoa Rajaonarivony I States Law and Diplomacy President and Minister of Alexander Hamilton MALAWI Bingu wa Mutharika I I Defense Institute Meharry Medical Ngwazi Kamuzu College; University of MALAWI President (former) Banda Indiana; University of I Chicago Mahathir bin MALAYSIA II Prime Minister (former) Harvard University I Mohammed II I Minister of Energy, Datuk Leo Moggie Pennsylvania State MALAYSIA Communications & Anakirok University I Multimedia Minister of Land and Northern Illinois MALAYSIA Datuk Rais Yatim Regional Development University I (former) Prime Minister and Minister Ousmane Issoufi MALI of Industry and Commerce American University Maiga (former) MEXICO Vicente Fox Quesada II President (former) Harvard University I Luis Ernesto Derbez University of Oregon; MEXICO Foreign Secretary Bautista I Iowa State University Secretary of Energy, Mines MEXICO Jesus Reyes-Heroles MIT (former) I Secretary of Northwestern MEXICO Carlos Ruiz Sacristan Communications and University Transport (former) University of Southern Jose Angel Gurria Secretary of Foreign Affairs MEXICO California; Harvard Trevino (former) I University Herminio Blanco Secretary of MEXICO University of Chicago I I Mendoza Commerce/Industrial Dev. Juan Ramon de la University of MEXICO Secretary of Health (former) I I Fuente Minnesota 246

COUNTRY NAME TITLE UNIVERSITY I II I COLLEGE Guillermo Ortiz Secretary of Finance and MEXICO Stanford University Martinez Public Credit (former) I I Permanent Representative to MEXICO Adolfo Zinser I Harvard University I the United Nations I MICRONESIA Joseph J. Urusemal II President II Rockhurst College I Eastern Oregon State University; Oregon College of Education; MICRONESIA Sebastian L. Anefal Secretary of Foreign Affairs Oregon State University; University of Hawaii Ambassador to the United MICRONESIA Jesse Marehalau Chaminade University I I States I MICRONESIA Bailey Olter II President (former) University of Hawaii I I MONGOLIA Tsakhia Elbegdorj II Prime Minister Harvard University I Ambassador to the European MOROCCO Aicha Belarbi Harvard University I I Union I Minister of Foreign Affairs University of MOROCCO Mohamed Benaissa I I and Cooperation Minnesota Washington Ambassador to the United NAMIBIA Hopelong Ipinge International States I I University Hage Gottfried Fordham University; NAMIBIA I Prime Minister (former) I I Geingob I Columbia College Deputy Executive Director NEPAL II Kul Chandra Gautam Princeton University I I UNICEF Honorable Member of Oregon State NEPAL II Ram Hari Joshy I I Parliament University Minister of Finance, Agriculture and Prakash Chandre NEPAL Cooperatives, Labor and Indiana University Lohani Transportation Management (former) I NETHERLANDS II Ben Bot II Foreign Minister II Harvard Law School I Deputy Prime Minister and NETHERLANDS Laurens Jan Brinkhorst Minister of Economic Columbia University I I Affairs General Manager of NEW ZEALAND Peter John Benjes Harvard University I I Treasury (former) I I I NEW ZEALAND Geoffrey Palmer Prime Minister (former) II University of Chicago I Ambassador to the United Catholic University of NICARAGUA Nora Astorga I Nations (former) Washington Godwin Olu Patrick Secretary General, World NIGERIA I MIT Obasi Meteorological Organization : I 247

UNIVERSITY I COUNTRY NAME TITLE I I COLLEGE Johns Hopkins NORWAY Gudmund Hermes Minister of Health (former) University University of NORWAY Haakon Magnus Crown Prince I California - Berkeley Gro Harlem NORWAY Prime Minister (former) I Harvard University Brundtland I Minister of Foreign Affairs (former) NORWAY Columbia University I Johan Joergen Holst Key figure in Oslo Peace Accord President of Pakistan PAKISTAN II Benazir Bhutto Harvard University I (former) I I Minister for Commerce, Columbia University; PAKISTAN Industries, and Production I Abdul Raz.ak Dawood Harvard University I (former) Federal Minister for Food, Shafqat Ali Shah PAKISTAN Agriculture, and Livestock University of Virginia Jamot I (former) UN Secretary General's Johns Hopkins PAKISTAN Nafis Sadik Special Envoy for University I HIV I AIDS in Asia Ambassador to the United PAKISTAN Jehangir Karamat Stanford University States Grand Valley State PALAU Tommy Remengesau President I University PALESTINE Hanan Ashrawi Political Activist II University of Virginia I PANAMA I Martin Torrijos President II TexasA&M I University of Pennsylvania, PANAMA Ernesto Balladares President (former) Wharton School of

I Business Eric Arturo Delvalle Louisiana State PANAMA I President (former) I Henriquez I University University of James Spalding Ambassador to the United PARAGUAY Massachusetts; Hellmers States I Rutgers University Harvard University; Stanford University; PERU Alejandro Toledo I President University of San Francisco I I I University of Ambassador to the United Wisconsin; University PERU Eduardo Ferrero Costa States of California San I I Diego I PERU II Beatriz Merino II Prime Minister (former) II Harvard University I 248

UNIVERSITY I COUNTRY NAME TITLE I II II I COLLEGE Gloria Macapagal Georgetown PHILIPPINES I President I I Arroyo I University College of Mt. St. Corazon Cojuangco Vincent; Boston PHILIPPINES President (former) Aquino University; Fordham University US Military Academy, PHILIPPINES Fidel V. Ramos President (former) West Point; University I of Illinois PHILIPPINES Domingo Siazon, Jr. II Foreign Secretary (former) II Harvard University I Rodolfo Certeza ASEAN Secretary-General John Hopkins PHILIPPINES Severino, Jr. (former) University Columbia University; POLAND Marek Belka II Prime Minister I University of Chicago Ambassador to the USA POLAND Przemyslaw Grudinski Princeton University (former) Wlodzimierz Minister of Foreign Affairs POLAND Columbia University Cimoszewicz (former) Constantin Dudu Jackson State ROMANIA Minister of Interior (former) Ionescu University Jackson State ROMANIA Alexandro Popescu II Secretary of State I University ROMANIA Monica Macovei II Minister of Justice II New York University I Minister of Finance (former) University of Kansas ROMANIA Florin Georgescu Deputy of Lower Chamber City of Parliament Counselor of State (former) University of Arizona; Alexandro Luminita University of ROMANIA Petrescu President of the Foundation Minnesota; Saint for Pluralism Thomas University RUSSIA Alexander Zhukov Deputy Prime Minister II Harvard University I ST. VINCENT & THE Ambassador to the United Baruch College, Ellsworth I.A. John GRENADINES States Strayer University SAUDI ARABIA Prince Saud Faisal Minister ofForeign Affairs II Princeton University I Minister of Labor and Social Arizona State SAUDI ARABIA Susa'ad Al Sinani Affairs, Riyadh (former) University Minister of Commerce, Arizona State SAUDI ARABIA Osamah Faqeeh Riyadh University University of Southern Soliman Abdul-Aziz Minister of Commerce SAUDI ARABIA California; Johns Al Solaim (former) Hopkins University Minister of State, Royal Arizona State SAUDI ARABIA Madany Alaqi I Court, Riyadh University 249

UNIVERSITYI COUNTRY NAME TITLE I COLLEGE Minister of Arizona State SAUDI ARABIA Nasir Al Sallum Communications, Riyadh University SENEGAL Cheikh Tidiane Gadio Minister of Foreign Affairs Ohio State University SERBIA& Ambassador to the United Ivan Vujacic Harvard University MONTENEGRO States I Shunmugam SINGAPORE Minister of Law Yale University Jayakamur SINGAPORE Lee Hsien Loong Deputy Prime Minister Harvard University Deputy Prime SINGAPORE Tony Tan MIT I Minister/Defense Minister SINGAPORE Chan Heng Chee Ambassador to the USA Cornell University SINGAPORE Goh Chok Tong Prime Minister Williams College M.E. Tshabalala- SOUTH AFRICA Minister of Health University of Hawaii Msimang Minister of Sport and SOUTH AFRICA M. Stofile Princeton University Recreation Minister of Public Service SOUTH AFRICA G.J. Fraser-Moleketi Harvard University I and Administration I I University of SOUTH KOREA II Sa Kong Minister of Finance (former) California - Los Angeles Michigan State Minister of Science and SOUTH KOREA Se Yung Chung University, Princeton Technology (former) University University of Southern SOUTH KOREA Kang Young Hoon II Prime Minister (former) I California President of the United SOUTH KOREA Han Seung-Soo Nations General Assembly Harvard University I for the 56th Session European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and SPAIN Javier Solana Security Policy University of Virginia

Secretary General of NATO (former) Second Vice President University of SPAIN Rodrigo Rato Minister of Economy California (former) Minister of Education, SPAIN II Pilar del Castillo Ohio University I I Culture, and Sport I I Minister of Science and University of SPAIN II Ana Birules I I Technology (former) Minnesota 250

UNIVERSITYI COUNTRY NAME TITLE I II II I COLLEGE Warnasena Ambassador to the USA University of SRI LANKA I Rasaputram I (former) Wisconsin Ambassador to the United University of SWEDEN Gunnar Lund I States Wisconsin M th fU II Minister ofForeign Affairs SWEDEN argare a a gg1 as (former) Harvard University I TAIWAN Hsiu-lien Annette Lu Vice-President University of Illinois I John Chang (Chang Georgetown TAIWAN Vice-Premier (former) Hsiao Yen) University Iowa State University; TAIWAN Lee Teng Hui President (former) Cornell University Minister of National Defense MIT; New York TAIWAN Chen Li-An (former) University TAIWAN Lien Chan Vice-President (former) II University of Chicago I TAIWAN Wang Chien-Shien Minister of Finance (former) II Harvard University I TANZANIA Benjamin W. Mkapa President II Columbia University I Eastern Kentucky University; Sam THAILAND Thaksin Shinawatra-a Prime Minister Houston State University Chavalit Deputy Prime Minister Army Cornman & THAILAND Y ongchaiyudh (former) General Staff College Deputy Prime Minister & THAILAND Amnuay Viravan II University of I Minister of Finance Michigan Minister of Foreign Affairs THAILAND Surin Pitsuwan I Harvard University (former) I Northwestern THAILAND Somkid Jatusripitak Finance Minister I I University Eastern Kentucky Deputy Prime Minister, THAILAND Chidchai Vanasatidya University; University Minister of Interior of Louisville University of THAILAND Chaturon Chaisang Deputy Prime Minister I California - Berkeley Harvard University; THAILAND Surakiart Sathirathai Foreign Minister I Tufts University University of THAILAND Wissanu Krea-Ngam Deputy Prime Minister I California - Berkeley Minister attached to the Williams College; THAILAND Suranand Vejjajiva Prime Minister's Office Columbia University THAILAND Varathep Ratanakorn Deputy Minister of Finance II Tampa College I THAILAND Chaiyos Sasomsub Deputy Minister of Finance I St. Louis University 251

UNIVERSITY I COUNTRY NAME TITLE I II II I COLLEGE University of Southern California; American Kantathi THAILAND Foreign Minister University; University Suphamongkhon of California - Los Angeles Minister of Social National Defense THAILAND Pracha Maleenont Development/Human College; Elmhurst I Security College Suriya University of THAILAND I Minister of Transport I Jungrungreangkit I California - Berkeley Information/Communication University of THAILAND Suwit Khunkitti I s Technology Minister Kentucky Northwestern THAILAND Thanong Bidaya Commerce Minister University; Harvard University THAILAND Somchai Soonthomvat Deputy Interior Minister Harvard University I THAILAND Sermsak Pongpanit Deputy Interior Minister Louisiana University I THAILAND Suwat Liptapanlop Minister of Justice Purdue University I Iowa State University; THAILAND Sora-at Klinpratoom Minister of Labour Louisiana University Science and Technology Wilbraham Academy; THAILAND Korn Thapparansi Minister Clark University University of Hawaii; THAILAND Adisai Bodharamik Education Minister University of Maryland THAILAND I Rung Kaewdaeng II Deputy Education Minister II SUNY Buffalo I Deputy Minister of Public THAILAND Anutin Charnvirakul Hofstra University I Health I I Minister of Agriculture and California State THAILAND Shucheep Hansaward Coops (former) University George Washington TOGO Faure Gnassingbe President I University United States Naval TONGA Ulukalala Lavaka Ata Prime Minister I War College Minister of Education TRINIDAD/TOBAGO Adesh Nanan Howard University (former) I I School of Anti- Zine El Abidine Ben Aircraft Field TUNISIA Ali IPresident Artillery; Senior I Intelligence School Minister of Culture, Youth, University of TUNISIA Abdelbaki Hermassi I and Leisure California - Berkeley TURKEY 0. Faruk Logoglu 11 Ambassador to the USA II Princeton University I 252

UNIVERSITY I COUNTRY NAME TITLE II I COLLEGE University of TURKEY Tansu Ciller Prime Minister (former) Connecticut; Yale I University United Nations Undersecretary-General and Harvard University UGANDA IOlara Otunnu Special Representative for Law School

I Children and Armed Conflict UNITED KINGDOM John Rankin Rathbone Member Of Parliament II Harvard University I President, European UNITED KINGDOM Brian Unwin Yale University Investment Bank (former) I I Minister of Education URUGUAY Antonio Mercader University ofFlorida (former) Georgetown URUGUAY Pablo Mieres Member of Parliament I University Ambassador to the US VENEZUELA Alfredo Toro Hardy Princeton University (former) Minister of Education and VIETNAM Nguyen Thien Nhan University of Oregon Training Abdulwahab Abdulla Ambassador to the United YEMEN American University Al-Hajjri States Colorado College; Abdul-Aziz Abdul- YEMEN Prime Minister (former) University of Ghani I I Colorado Deputy Prime Minister YUGOSLAVIA Miroljub Labus Cornell University Minister for Foreign Affairs (former) Fwanyanga Matale Speaker of the National Stanford University; ZAMBIA I I Mulikita Assembly (former) Columbia University Mwelwa Permanent Representative to Miami University of ZAMBIA I I Musambachime the United Nations Ohio Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs. 2004 APPENDIX2

F-1 or J-1 Student Admission Process Post 9/11

Apply to US Institution

Accepted into Program

Interview

Certification

Security Screening

Port of Entry into U.S.

Adapted from the National Academy of Sciences. 2005. "Policy Implications oflntemational Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States." National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 253 REFERENCES

Afolabi, Niyi and Toyin Faiola. 2007. The Human Cost ofAfrican Migrations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Agarwal, Vinod B. and Donald R. Winkler. 1985. "Migration of Foreign Students to the United States." The Journal ofHigher Education 56:509-522.

Alberts, Heike C. 2007. "Beyond the Headlines: Changing Patterns in International Student Enrollment in the United States." GeoJournal 68:141-153.

Alberts, Heike C. and Helen D. Hazen. 2005. "There are Always Two Voices .. .lnternational Students' Intentions to Stay in the United States or Return to their Home Countries." International Migration Review 43(3):131-152. (Retrieved on November 25, 2009 from JSTOR).

Alford, Robert R. 1998. The Craft ofInquiry: Theories, Methods, Evidence. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Altbach, Philip G. 2004. "Higher Education Crosses."Change 36 18-24.

Altbach, Philip G., Robert Oliver Berdahl, and Patricia J. Gumport. 2005. "American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges." Pp. vii, 558 p. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Altbach, Philip G., David H. Kelly, and Y. G. M. Lulat. 1985. Research on Foreign Students and International Study: An Overview and Bibliography. New York, NY: Praeger.

Altbach, Philip G., Robert S. Laufer, and Sheila McVey. 1971. Academic Super Markets. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Altbach, Philip G. and Ulrich Teichler. 2001. "Internationalization and Exchanges in a Globalized University." Journal ofStudies in International Education 5:5-25.

Altbach, Philip.G. 1991. "Impact and Adjustment: Foreign Students in Comparative Perspective." Higher Education 21:305-23.

Althen, Gary. 1997. "CIPRIS: Poor Policy from Faulty Assumptions." International Educator 6(4):38-45.

254 255

Althen, Gary, Bernard La Berge, and William Paver. 1998. "Intimidation, Convenience, or Necessity? Views on CIPRIS." International Educator 7(1):2-26.

Ananth, M.S., K.G. Babu, and R. Natarajan. 1989. "Data Base for Brain Drain: Institution Based Study." Madras: Indian Institute of Technology.

Anderson, Stuart. 2003. "The Global Battle for Talent." Washington, DC: American Immigration Law Foundation. Retrieved December 10, 2009 (http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/Guild/h 1b/librarv/reports/IPC/The-Global­ Battle-for-Talent.pdf).

-. 2005. "International Students and U.S. Policy Choices." Washington, DC: National Foundation for American Policy.

Arasteh, Hamid. 1994. "Evaluation of Iranian Students in the United States and their Retumability to the Islamic Republic of Iran." Dissertation Thesis, PhD Dissertation, Department of Education, University of Houston. Houston, Texas.

Arndt, Richard T. 1987. "Questionning the Fulbright Experience." Pp. 30-45 in The Fulbright Experience, 1946-1986: Encounters and Transformations, edited by A. P. Dudden and R.R. Dynes. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

-. 2005. The First Resort ofKings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.

Aslanbeigui, Nahid and Veronica Montecinos. 1998. "Foreign Students in U.S. Doctoral Programs." The Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 12(3):171-182.

Aysit, Tansel and Gungor Nil Demet. 2003. "Brain Drain from Turkey: Survey Evidence of Student Non-Return." Career Development International 8:52-68.

Barber, Elinor G. 1985. "Foreign Student Flows: Their Significance for American Higher Education. Proceedings of a Conference of the Institute for International Education." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

Barber, Elinor G., Philip G. Altbach, and Robert G. Myers. 1984. Bridges to Knowledge: Foreign Students in Comparative Perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Basinger, Julianne. 1999. "More U.S. Colleges Court their Foreign Alumni." The Chronicle ofHigher Education 45:A49. 256

Basu, Susanto, John G. Fernald, Nicholas Oulton, and Sylaja Srinivasan. 2001. "Productivity Growth in the 1990s: Technology, Utilization, or Adjustment." Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on August 3, 2009 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8359).

-. 2003. "The Case of Missing Productivity Growth: or Does Information Technology Explain Why Productivity Accelerated in the US but not in the UK." Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on August 3, 2009 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w 10010).

Batalova, Jeanne and B. Lindsay Lowell. 2007. "Immigrant Professionals in the United States." Society 44:26-40.

Bean, Frank D. and Susan K. Brown. 2005. "A Canary in the Mineshaft? International Graduate Enrollments in Science and Engineering in the United States." in Forum on the Impact ofForeign Graduate Student Enrollment on the Economy, Universities and Security. University of California, Irvine: Merage Foundations, October 16, 2005. Retrieved March 15, 2006 (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/european studies/ files/pdf/immigration­ policy-conference/bean.pdf).

Becker, Gary S. 1993. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming ofPost-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bell, Nathan E. 2009. "Findings from the 2006 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey, Phase I: Applications." Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved March 10, 2010 (http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/O/pdf/R Int1Apps09 1.pdf).

Belussi, Fiorenza and Francesco Garibaldo. 1996. "Variety of Pattern of the Post-Fordist Economy: Why Are the 'Old Times' Still With Us and the 'New Times' Yet to Come?" Futures 28(2):153-171.

Benderly, Beryl L. 2010. "The Real Science Gap." Miller-McCune, June 14. Retrieved July 4, 2010 (http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap- 16191 ).

Bhagwati, Jadish and M. Rao. 1994b. "Immigration, Education and U.S. Brain Gain" in Economic Times [India}. 257

Bhagwati, Jagdish and Milind Rao. 1999. "Foreign Students in Science and Engineering Ph.D. Programs: An Alien Invasion or Brain Gain?" Pp. 239-258 in Foreign Temporary Workers in America: Policies that Benefit the U.S. Economy, edited by B. L. Lowell. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Bhagwati, Jagdish and Milind. Rao. 1996. "U.S. Brain Gain: Consequences for Efficiency and Distribution" in Challenge.

Bhagwati, Jagdish. and Malind. Rao. 1994a. "Foreign Students Spur U.S. Brain Gain" in Wall Street Journal.

Bhandari, Rajika and Patricia Chow. 2007. "Open Doors 2007: Report on International Educational Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2009. "Open Doors 2009: Report on International Educational Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2010. "Open Doors 2010: Report on International Educational Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

Birgeneau, Robert J. 2005. "Foreword: The Role of the University and Basic Research in the New Economy." Pp. ix-xv in Creating Knowledge, Strengthening Nations: The Changing Role ofHigher Education, edited by G. A. Jones, P. L. McCamey, and M. L. Skolnik. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Black, Cyril Edwin. 1966. The Dynamics ofModernization: a Study in Comparative History. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Black, S. E. and L. M Lynch. 1996. "Human Capital Investment and Productivity." American Economic Review 263-267.

Blake, Roxanna Kristen. 1999. "The Cold War Along the Inner Asian Frontier: Iran, 1945-1963." Dissertation Thesis, PhD Dissertation, Department of Inner Asian and Altaic Studies, Harvard University, Boston, MA.

Blanchard, William H. 1996. Neocolonialism American Style, 1960-2000. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Blaug, Mark. 1992. The Economic Value ofEducation: Studies in the Economics of Education. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bloch, Erich. 1989. Science and Technology in the Academic Enterprise: Status, Trends, and Issues - a discussion paper, edited by National Science Foundation (U.S). Division of Policy and Analysis. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 258

Block, Fred L. 1990. Postindustrial Possibilities: A Critique ofEconomic Discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bok, Derek Curtis. 1993. The Cost of Talent: How Executives and Professionals are Paid and How it Affects America. New York, NY: New York Free Press.

-. 2005. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization ofHigher Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bollier, David. 2002. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder ofOur Common Wealth. New York, NY. Routledge.

Borjas, George J. 1989. "Economic Theory and International Migration." International Migration Review 23(3) 457-485. Retrieved from JSTOR on December 29,2010).

-. 1990. Friends or Strangers: The Impact ofImmigrants on the US. Economy. New York, NY. Basic Books.

-. 1999. Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

-. 2000. Issues in the Economics ofImmigration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

-. 2004. "Do Foreign Students Crowd Out Native Students from Graduate Programs?" Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

-. 2005. "The Labor Market Impact of High-Skill Immigration." Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Borjas, George J. and Richard B. Freeman. 1992. Immigration and the Work Force: Economic Consequences for the United States and Source Areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London Sage Publications.

Bourke, A. 2000. "A Model of the Determinants oflnternational Trade in Higher Educaton." The Services Industries Journal 20:110-38.

Bowen, William G. and Neil L. Rudenstine. 1992. In Pursuit ofthe PhD. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bowie, N.E. 1994. University-Business Patnerships: An Assessment. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 259

Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 2002. "Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited." Sociology ofEducation 75:1-18.

Boyd, Monica. 1989. "Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent Developments and New Agendas." International Migration Review 18:217-236. (Retrieved from JSTOR on November 20, 2010).

Brands, Hal. 2008. "Economic Development and the Contours of U.S. Foreign Policy: The Nixon Administration's Approach to Latin America, 1969-1974." Peace and Change 33(2):243-273.

Branigin, William. 1998. "Visas Cut Off for High-Tech Workers" in Washington Post. May 12, pp. A7.

Brantestter, Lee and Yoshiaki Ogura. 2005. "Is Academic Science Driving a Surge in Industrial Innovation? Evidence from Patent Citations." Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on August 24, 2009 (http:www.nber.org/papers/wl 1561).

Bratsburg, Bernt. 1995. "The Incidence of Non-Return among Foreign Students in the United States." Economics ofEducation Review 14:373-84.

Braudel, Fernand. 1979. Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brint, Steven. 2001. "Professionals and the 'Knowledge Economy': Rethinking the Theory of Post-Industrial Society." Current Sociology 49:101-132.

Brown, Heath A. 2005. "Findings from 2005 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey I." Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved February 25, 2010 (http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/O/pdf/R intlapps05 1.pdf).

-. 2006. "Findings from the 2006 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey, Phase II: Final Applications and Offers of Admissions." Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved February 25, 2010 (http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/O/pdf/R intladm06 II.pdf).

Brown, Heath A. and Peter D. Syverson. 2004. "Findings from U.S. Graduate Schools on International Graduate Student Admissions Trends." Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved February 25, 2010 (http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/O/pdf/R intladmit04 II.pdf). 260

Bu, Liping. 1995. "Foreign Students and the Emergence of Modern International Education in the United States, 1910-1970." PhD Thesis, PhD Dissertation, Department of Education, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.

-. 1999. "Educational Exchange and Cultural Diplomacy in the Cold War." Journal of American Studies 33(3):393-415.

-. 2003. Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American Century. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Burdette, Rebecca. 1999. "Testimony of Rebecca Burdette. Testimony to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Sub-Committee on Immigration and Claims, Oversight Hearing on Benefit to the American Economy of a More Educated Workforce." Washington, DC: March 25.

Burnham, James and Julian Amery. 1953. What Europe Thinks ofAmerica. New York, NY. J. Day Co.

Burton, Bollag. 2006. "Education Group Calls for National Foreign-Student Recruitment Strategy." The Chronicle ofHigher Education 52:A.44.

Burton, Lawrence and Jack Wang. 1999. "How Much does the U.S. Rely on Immigrant Engineers." Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Bush, Vannevar. 1945. "Science, the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President." U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC.

Butts, R. Freeman. 1963. American Education in International Development. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

CASE: Council for Advancement and Support of Education. 2008. "Overseas Educational Background of Taiwan Cabinet Ministers."

Castells, Manuel. 1996a. "The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture." Oxford: Blackwell.

-. 1996b. The Rise ofthe Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Castles, Stephen and Mark J. Miller. 1998. The Age ofMigration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cervantes, Mario and Dominique. Guellec. 2002. "International Mobility of Highly­ skilled Workers: From Statistical Analysis to Policy Formation." in International Mobility ofthe Highly-skilled. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co­ Operation and Development. 261

Chacko, Elizabeth. 2007. "From Brain Drain to Brain Gain: Reverse Migration to Bangalore and Hyderabad, India's Globalizing High Tech Cities." GeoJournal 68(3):131-140. (Retrieved on JSTOR on January 1, 2011).

Chang, Shirley L. 1992. "Causes of Brain Drain and Solutions: The Taiwan Experience." Studies in Comparative International Development 27(1):27-43. (Retrieved from JS TOR on December 10, 2008).

Chellaraj, Gnararaj, Keith Maskus, and Aaditya Matoo. 2005. "The Contribution of Skilled Immigration and International Graduate Students to U.S. Innovation." Boulder, CO: Department of Economics, University of Colorado.

Chen, Theodore Hsi-En. 1950. "The Guidance of Foreign Students." The Journal of Higher Education 21:126-166.

Cheng, Lucie and Philip Q. Yang. 1998. "Global Interaction, Global Inequality, and Migration of the Highly Trained to the United States." The International Migration Review 32(3):626-653. (Retrieved from JSTOR on July 7, 2007).

Chiswick, Barry R. 1999. "Policy Analysis of Foreign Student Visas." Pp. 211-222 in Foreign Temporary Workers in America: Policies that Benefit the U.S. Economy, edited by B. L. Lowell. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Clark, Burton R. 1998. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Clinton, William J. April 19, 2000. "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: International Education Policy." Washington, DC: White House Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved January 20, 2010 (http://www2.ed.gov/PressReleases/04-2000/wh-000419 .html).

Clotfelter, Charles T. 1991. Economic Challenges in Higher Education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Clotfelter, Charles T., Ronald Ehrenberg, G., Malcom. Getz, and John J. Siegfried. 1991. Economic Challenges in Higher Education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Coats, A. W. 1997. The Post-1945 Internationalization ofEconomics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.3(k). 262

Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.2(0) Aliens of Extraordinary Ability or Achievement.

Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.2(f)(IO)(ii).

Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 214.2(f)(IO)(ii)(c).

Code of Federal Regulations 8 Section 264.l(f)(4). "National Security Entry and Exit Registration System."

Code of Federal Regulations 22 Section 62.

Code of Federal Regulations Section 214(c)(9).

Code of Federal Regulations Section 214(c)(12).

Code of Federal Regulations Section 214(g)(5)(c).

Cole, David. 2003. Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism. New York, NY: The New Press.

College News. 11115/2005. "Essay Advantage, Big Money: It's Academic," edited by C. News.

Confessores, Richard. 2002. "Borderline Insanity: President Bush Wants the INS to Stop Granting Visas to Terrorists. The Biggest Obstacle? His Own Administration." Washington Monthly. May 23, pp A14.

Coombs, Philip H. 1964. The Fourth Dimension ofForeign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Cordora J. and Y.G.M. Lulat. 1984. "International Students and Study Abroad Programs: A Select Bibliography." Comparative Education Review 28:300-39.

Cornelius, Wayne A., Thomas J. Espenshade, and Idean Salehyan. 2001. The International Migration ofthe Highly-skilled: Demand, Supply, and Development Consequences in Sending and Receiving Countries. La Jolla, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California-San Diego. San Diego, CA.

Council of Graduate Schools. 2010. "Findings from the 2010 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey." Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved December 25, 2010 (http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/o/pdf/R IntlEnrllO 111.pdf). 263

Cummings, William K. 1984. "Going Overseas for Higher Education: The Asian Experience." Comparative Education Review 28(2):241-257. (Retrieved from JSTOR on April 27, 2009).

Cummings, William K., Saravanan Gopinathan, and Glenn Landes Shive. 1988. North­ South Scholarly Exchange: Access, Equity, and Collaboration. London: Mansell Pub.

Curry, Dan. 2001a. "INS Officials Tell Congress They Have Little Information on Foreign Students." The Chronicle ofHigher Education, November 1, pp.Al5.

-. 2001b. "Senator Backs Away From Plan for Moratorium on Student Visas." The Chronicle ofHigher Education, October 19, pp. A20.

Demir, Cennet Engin, Meral Aksu, and Fersun Paykoc. 2000. "Does Fulbright Make a Difference? The Turkish Perspective." Journal ofStudies in International Education 4 (1):103-111.

Denison, Edward F. 1974. Accounting/or United States Economic Growth, 1929-1969. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

DePalma, Anthony. 1992. "As Black Ph.D.s Taper Off, Aid for Foreigners is Assailed" in New York Times. April 2, pp. Bl.

Department of Commerce International Trade Administration. 2005.

Drucker, Peter F. 1969. The Age ofDiscontinuity: Guidelines to our Changing Society. London: Heinemann.

-. 1993. Post-Capitalist Society. New York, NY: Harper Business.

-. 2002. The Effective Executive. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Dudden, Arthur P. and Russell R. Dynes. 1987. "The Fulbright Experience, 1946-1986: Encounters and Transformations." New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Duderstadt, James J. 2000. A University for the 21st Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

-. 2006. "University-Industry-Government Partnerships for a 21st Century Global Knowledge-Driven Economy: An American Perspective." Pp. 19-29 in Universities and Business:Ppartneringfor the Knowledge Society, edited by J. J. Duderstadt and L. E. Weber. London, England: Economica. 264

Duderstadt, James J. and Luc E. Weber. 2006. Universities and business: partneringfor the knowledge society. London: Economica.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G. 1992. "The Flow of New Doctorates." Journal ofEconomic Literature 30:830-875.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G. 1991. "Decisions to Undertake and Complete Doctoral Study and Choices of Sector of Employment." Pp. 17 4-210 in Economic Challenges in Higher Education, edited by C. T. Clotfelter, R. Ehrenberg, G., M. Getz, and J. J. Siegfried. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Eilperin, Juliet. 2000. "More Visas for Techies?; Lawmakers Want to Ease Curbs on Foreign Workers." Washington Post. June 30, pp. El.

Etzkowitz, Henry and A.J. Stevens. 1998. "Inching Toward Industrial Policy: The University's Role in Government Initiatives to Assist Small, Innovative Companies in the United States." Pp. 215-238 in Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections ofIndustry and Aacademia, edited by H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, and P. Healey. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Etzkowitz, Henry, Andrew Webster, and Peter Healey. 1998. "Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia." in SUNY series, Frontiers in Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

European Commission. 2009. "Erasmus Mundus-Scholarships and Academic Cooperation." Retrieved on April 17, 2010 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/extemal-relation-programmes/doc72 en.htm).

Ewers, Michael C. and Joseph M. Lewis. 2008. "Risk and the Securitisation of Student Migration to the United States." Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geograjie 99:470-82.

Faiola, Toyin and Niyi Afolabi. 2008. Trans-Atlantic Migration: The Paradoxes ofExile. New York, NY: Routledge.

Farnam, Julie. 2005. U.S. Immigration Laws Under the Threat of Terrorism. New York, NY: Algora Publications.

Federal Register. December 12, 2002. "Registration of Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens from Designated Countries; Notice."

-. November 6, 2002. "Registration of Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens from Designated Countries; Notice." 265

Feinstein, Diane. 2001. "Senator Feinstein Urges Major Changes in U.S. Student Visa Program." (9/27/2001) Retrieved January 30, 2010 (http://feinstein.senate.gov/releasesOl/stvisasl .htm).

Finn, M.G. 1995. "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities." Oak Ridge, TN: Institute for Science Education. Retrieved August 8, 2010 (http://orise.orau.gov/sep/files/stavrate95.pdf).

-. 1997. "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities." Oak Ridge, TN: Institute for Science Education. Retrieved August 8, 2010 (http://orise.orau.gov/sep/files/stayrate97 .pdf).

-. 1999. "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities." Oak Ridge, TN: Institute for Science Education. Retrieved August 8, 2010 (http://orise.orau.gov/sep/files/stayrate99 .pdf).

-. 2000. "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities." Oak Ridge, TN: Institute for Science Education. Retrieved August 8, 2010 (http://orise.orau.gov/sep/files/stayrateOO.pdf).

-. 2001. "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities." Institute for Science Education, Oak Ridge, TN: Institute for Science Education. Retrieved August 8, 2010 (http://orise.orau.gov/sep/files/stayrateOl .pdf).

-. 2003. "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities." Oak Ridge, TN: Institute for Science Education. Retrieved August 8, 2010 (http://orise.orau.gov/sep/files/stayrate03.pdf).

-. 2005. "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities." Oak Ridge, TN: Institute for Science Education. Retrieved August 8, 2010 (http://orise.orau.gov/sep/files/stayrate05.pdf).

-. 2007. "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities in 2005." Oak Ridge, TN: Institute for Science Education. Retrieved August 8, 2010 (http://orise.orau.gov/sep/files/stayrate07 .pdf).

Finn, Michael.G. Various Years "Stay Rate of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities." Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Institute for Science Education.

Fitzsimons, Patrick. 1997. "Human Capital Theory and Participation in tertiary Education." Pp. 107-129 in Education Policy in New Zealand: The 1990s and Beyond, edited by M. K. Mathews and M. Olssen. Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Dunmore Press.

Florida, Richard L. 1991. "The New Industrial Revolution." Futures 23:559-576. 266

Fraser, Stewart E. 1965. "Governmental Policy and International Education." Pp. xix, 373 p. 24 cm. New York, NY: J. Wiley.

Freeman, Gary P. and David K. Hill. 2006. "Dissegregating Immigration Policy: The Politics of Skilled Labor Recruitment in the U.S." Pp. 103-129 in The Human Face ofGlobal Mobility: International Highly-skilled Migration in Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific, edited by M. P. Smith and A. Favell. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Freeman, Richard B, Emily Jin, and Chia-Yu Shen. 2004. "Where Do New US-trained Science-Engineering PhDs Come From?", vol. 10544. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on December 6, 2009 (http://www.nber.org/papers/wl 0544).

Freeman, Richard B. 2005. "Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?" Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved June 22, 2006 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w 10544).

Friedman, Thomas. Apr 14, 1998. "Help Wanted." Pp. A19 in New York Times.

Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. 2006. "Fulbright Annual Report 2005-2006." Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, Washington, DC.

-. 2007. "Fulbright Annual Report 2006-2007." Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, Washington, DC.

-. 2008. "Fulbright Annual Report 2007-2008." Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, Washington, DC.

Fulbright, J. William. 1964. Old Myths and New Realities, and Other Commentaries. New York, NY: Random House.

Gasiorowski, Mark J. 1991. U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah: Building a Client State in Iran. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Gienow-Hecht, Jessica C. E. 2000. "Academics, Cultural Transfer, and the Cold War- A Critical Review." Diplomatic History 24(3):465-494.

Gladieux, Lawrence E. and Jacqueline E. King. 1999. "The Federal Government and Higher Education." Pp. 151-182 in American Higher Education in the Twenty­ First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, edited by P. G. Altbach, R. 0. Berdahl, and P. J. Gumport. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 267

Glazer, Nathan. 1987. The Fulbright Experience and Academic Exchanges. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Golub, Judith, Charlie Miller, and Dane VandenBerg. January 9, 2003. "AILA Urges Repeal of Special Registration." Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Gordon, Robert J. 2004a. "Why Was Europe Left at the Station When America's Productivity Locomotive Departed?" National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on August 3, 2009 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w 10661 ).

-. 2004b. "Two Centuries of Economic Growth: Europe Chasing the American Frontier." Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on August 3, 2009 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w10662).

Government Accountability Office. 1993. "Exchange Programs: Inventory of International Educational, Cultural, and Training Programs." NSIAD-93-157BR. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.

Government Accountability Office. 1975. "Better Controls Needed to Prevent Foreign Students from Violating the Conditions of their Entry and Stay in the United States." GGD-75-9. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.

-. 1980. "Controls Over Nonimmigrant Aliens Remain Ineffective." GGD-80-87. Washington DC: Government Accountability Office.

-. 1983. "Controls Over Foreign Students in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions are Still Ineffective; Proposed Legislation and Regulations May Correct Problems." GGD/HRD-83-27. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.

-. 2004. "Performance oflnformation System to Monitor Foreign Student and Exchange Visitors has Improved, but Issues Remain." GA0-04-690. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.

-. 2005. "Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed." GA0- 05-198. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections.from the Prison Notebooks ofAntonio Gramsci. New York, NY: International Publishers. 268

Green, Madeleine. 2007. "Venturing Abroad: Delivering U.S. Degrees Through Overseas Branch Campuses and Programs." Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Greenough, William T., Philip J. McConnaughay, and Jay P. Kesan. 2007. "Defining Values for Research and Technology: the University's Changing Role." Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gumport, Patricia J. 1999. "Graduate Education and Research: Interdependence and Strain." Pp. 396-426 in American Higher Education in the Ttwenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges edited by P. G. Altbach, R. 0. Berdahl, and P. J. Gumport. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Guruz, Kemal. 2008. Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy. Albany, NY: State University ofNew York Press.

H.R. Congressional Resolution 201. 2001. 107th Congress, 1st Session. I 07th Congressional Record xx.

Haddal, Christian C. 2006. "Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation." CRS Report for Congress, No. RL 31146.Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

Hall, Bronwyn H. 2004. "Exploring the Patent Explosion." National Bureau of Research, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved August 24, 2009 (http:www.nber.org/papers/w 10605).

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hebel, Sara. 2001a. "Compromise Bill Would Tighten Rules on Foreign-Student Visas." The Chronicle ofHigher Education, December 14, pp.A23.

-. 2001b. "Proposed Rules on Foreign Students Leave Many Colleges Worried." The Chronicle ofHigher Education, October 26, pp. A29.

Hebel, Sara and Dan Curry. 2001. "Bush Urges Tighter Controls on Student Visas as Part of Crackdown on Terrorism." The Chronicle ofHigher Education, November 9, pp. A26.

Held, David, AnthonyG. McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. 1999. Global Transformation: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 269

Heppner, Paul P. 1988. "Cross-Cultural Outcomes of a Research Fulbright in Sweden." The Counseling Psychologist 16(2):297-302.

Hollifield, James F. 2004. "The Emerging Migration State." The International Migration Review 38(3):885-912. (Retrieved from JSTOR on March 1, 2009).

Homeland Security Act of2002, Pub.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2. October 29, 2001. "Combatting Terrorism through Immigration Policies." Retrieved February 1, 2010 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/hspd-2.htm).

Huntington, Samuel P. 2004. Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Huntington, Samuel P. and Joan M. Nelson. 1976. No Easy Choice: Political Participation in Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990).

INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I).

INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).

INA §212(a)(9)(C).

Institute of International Education. 2005. "Fall 2005 International Student Enrollment Survey." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2009. "Fall 2009 International Student Enrollment Survey." Institute oflnternational Education, New York.

Institute of International Education. 1956. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 1961. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 1966. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 1971. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education. 270

-. 1976. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 1981. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 1986. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 199la. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 199lb. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 1996. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2001. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2003. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2004. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2005. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2006. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

-. 2008. "Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange." New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

Jenkins, Hugh M. 1983. "Educating Students from Other Nations." San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Johnson, Haynes Bonner and Bernard M. Gwertzman. 1968. Fulbright: The Dissenter. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Johnson, Jean M. and Mark C. Regets. 1998. "International Mobility of Scientists and Engineers to the United States--Brain Drain or Brain Circulation?" National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA. 271

Johnson, Marlene. 2000a. "NAFSA Responds to Terrorism Report." NAFSA: Association ofInternational Educators Newsletter 51 ( 5):6.

-. 2000b. "Testimony of Marlene M. Johnson, Chair, Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange before the Subcommittee on International Operations, United States Senate, September 14, 2000. In The Senate Hearing on Exchange Programs and the National Interest." NAFSA: Association of International Educators Newsletter 51 (1 ):3-5.

Johnson, Victor. 2001. "Advocacy during 2001: An Update." NAFSA: Association of International Educators Newsletter 51 ( 6): 15.

-. 2003. "Unintended Consequences: Unilateral Disarmament in the Battle ofldeas, Values, and Beliefs." International Educator 12:2-5.

-. 2009. "A Visa and Immigration Policy for the Brain-Circulation Era: Adjusting To What Happened in the World While We Were Making Other Plans." Washington, DC: NAFSA Association of International Educators. Retrieved December 26, 2009 (http://www.nafsa.org/resourcelibrary/Default.aspx?id= 1744 3).

Johnson, Walter and Francis J. Colligan. 1965. The Fulbright Program: A History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, Wayne C. and Russell C. Jones. 2006. "Declining Interest in Engineering Studies at a Time of Increased Business Need." Pp. 243-251 in Universities and Business: Partnering for the Knowledge Society, edited by J.J. Duderstadt and L. E. Weber. London: Economica.

Johnston, Donald. J. 2002. "Opening Remarks by Honorable Donald Johnston, Secretary­ General OECD."Forum on Trade in Educational Services. Washington DC. May 23.

Jones, Glen A., Patricia L. McCamey, and Michael L. Skolnik. 2005. "Creating Knowledge, Strengthening Nations: The Changing Role of Higher Education." Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Judy, R.W. 1999. "Immigration Policy and America Workforce Needs: Re-Establishing the Connection. Testimony to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Sub­ committee on Immigration and Claims, Oversight Hearing on Benefit to the American Economy of a More Educated Workforce." Washington, DC. March 25.

Judy, R.W and C D'Amico. 1997. Worliforce 2020: Workers and Workers in the 21st Century: Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. 272

Kaplan, Robert B. 1983. "Meeting the Educational Needs of Other Nations." Pp. 253-276 in Educating Students from Other Nations, edited by H. M. Jenkins. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kapur, Devesh and John McHale. 2005. Give Us your Best and Brightest: The Global Hunt for Talent and its Impact on the Developing World. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Kephart, Janice R. October 2, 2003. "Interview of Morrie Berez, Senior DHS Officer in the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Interviewed in his Former Capacity as Architect of the Original Student Tracking System." U.S. General Services Administration. Washington DC.

Khadria, Binod. 1991. "Contemporary Indian Immigration to the United States - Is the Brain Drain Over? "Revenue Europeene des Migrations Internationales 7:65-96.

-. 2001a. "Shifting Paradigms of Globalization: The Twenty-First Century Transition towards Generics in Skilled Migration from India " International Migration Review 35 (5):51-62. (Retrieved on March 15, 2008 from JSTOR).

-. 2001b. "Shifting Paradigms of Globalization: The Twenty-First Century Transition towards Generics in Skilled Migration from India " International Migration Review 35:51-62.

Khafagi, Bassem. 1990. "Influence oflntemational Students on the U.S. Education." Civil Engineering 60:67-75.

Kleinman, Daniel Lee and Steven P. Vallas. 2001. "Science, Capitalism, and the Rise of the "Knowledge Worker": The Changing Structure of Knowledge Production in the United States." Theory and Society 30:451-492.

Krouse, William J. and Raphael. Perl. 2001. "Terrorism: Automated Lookout Systems and Border Security Options and Issues." CRS Report for Congress, No RL 31019. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

Krueger, Anne 0. 1991. "Report of the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics." Pp. 1035-1053 in Journal ofEconomic Literature, vol. 29: American Economic Association.

Kuznetsov, Yevgeny. 2006. Diaspora Networks and the International Migration of Skills: How Countries can Draw on their Talent Abroad. Washington, DC: World Bank. 273

Landau, Ralph, David C. Mowery, and Nathan Rosenberg. 1992. Technology and the Wealth ofNations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langenberg, Donald N. 2007. "Research Universities in the Third Millennium: Genius with Character." Pp. 3-10 in Defining Values/or Research and Technology: The University's Changing Role, edited by W. T. Greenough, P. J. McConnaughay, and J.P. Kesan. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Larsen, Kurt, John Martin, and Rosemary Morris. 2002. "Trade in Eduational Services: Trends and Emerging Issues." Paris, France: OECD.

Laursen, Keld and Ammon Salter. 2004. "Searching High and Low: What Types of Firms Use Universities as a Source oflnnovation?" Research Policy 33:1201-1215.

Lee, Everett S. 1966. "A Theory of Migration." Demography 3(1):47-57. (Retrieved from JSTOR on December 29, 2010).

Lee, Jenny J. and Dongbin Kim. 2010. "Brain Gain or Brain Circulation? U.S. Doctoral Recipients Returning to South Korea." Higher Education 59:627-643.

Legrain, Philippe. 2007. Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lerner, Daniel. 1958. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York, NY: Free Press.

Levy, Doug. 1998. "High-Tech Firms Hope for Higher Cap on Workers Visas" in USA TODAY. September 21, pp. 6B.

Lowell, B. Lindsay. 1999. Foreign Temporary Workers in America: Policies that Benefit the U.S. Economy. Westport, CT: Quorum.

-. 2000. "H-lB Temporary Workers: Estimating the Population." Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Institute for the Study oflnternational Migration.

-. 2001. "Skilled Temporary and Permanent Immigrants to the United States." Population Research and Policy Review 20(2) 33-58. (Retrieved on December 12, 2009 from JSTOR).

Lowell, B. Lindsay, Micah Bump, and Susan Martin. 2007. Washington, DC: "Foreign Students Coming to America: The Impact of Policy, Procedures, and Economic Competition." Georgetown University, Institute for the Study of International Migration. 274

Lulat, Y. G. M., Philip G. Altbach, and David H. Kelly. 1986. Governmental and Institutional Policies on Foreign Students: An Overview and Bibliography. Buffalo, NY: Comparative Education Center, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Lytle, Mark H. 1987. The Origins ofthe Iranian-American Alliance, 1941-1953. New York, NY: Holmes & Meier.

Machlup, Fritz. 1962. The Production and Distribution ofKnowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Malken, Michelle. 2002. Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Washington, DC: Regnery Publications.

Martin, N. Marger. 2002. "The International Migration of the Highly-skilled: Demand, Supply, and Development Consequences in Sending and Receiving Countries." The International Migration Review 36:941-960.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1967. Das Kapita: A Critique ofPolitical Economy, edited by S. L. Levitzky. Chicago, IL: H. Regnery.

Mashiko, Ellen. 1983. "Preparing Students for Studies Outside their Home Countries." Pp. 31-64 in Educating Students from Other Nations, edited by H. M. Jenkins. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Maskus, Keith. 2005. "Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy." Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

Mason, Edward Sagendorph. 1964. Foreign Aid and Foreign Policy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Massey, Douglas S, Luin Goldring, and Jorge Durand. 1994. "Continuities in Transnational Migration: An Analysis of Nineteen Mexican Communities." American Journal ofSociology 96(6):1492-1533. (Retrieved from JSTOR on December 29, 1010).

Matlof, Norman. 2003. "On the Need for Reform of the H-lB Nonimmigrant Work Visa in Computer Related Occupations." University ofMichigan Journal ofLaw Reform 36:815-914.

McKinley, James C. 1995. "Suspect is said to Be Long-Time Friend of Bombing Mastermind" in New York Times: August 4, pp Bl. 275

Morris, Frank L. 1999. "Denial of Doctoral Opportunities for African-Americans." Pp. 223-238 in Foreign Temporary Workers in America: Policies that Benefit the U.S. Economy, edited by B. L. Lowell. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Morrow, Raymond A .. 2006. "Critical theory, globalization, and higher education: political economy and the cul-de-sac of the postmodernist cultural turn." Pp. xvii­ xxxxiii in The University, State, and Market: the Political Economy of Globalization in the Americas, edited by R. A. Rhoads and C. A. Torres. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mowery, David C. 2004. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Mowery, David C., Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat, and Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2001. "The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980." Research Policy 30:99- 119.

Mowery, David C. and Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2002. "Academic Patent Quality and Quantity Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States." Research Policy 31:399-418.

Mowlana, Hamid and Laurie J. Wilson. 1990. The Passing ofModernity: Communication and the Transformation ofSociety. White Plains, NY: Longman.

NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 2002. "In America's Interest: Welcoming International Students," Washington, DC: NAFSA.

-. 2009. "The Economic Benefits of International Education to the United States: A Statistical Analysis." Washington, DC: NAFSA. Retrieved April 10, 2010 (http://www.nafsa.org/ /File/ /eis09/usa.pdf).

National Academy of Engineering. 2004. "The Engineering of2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century." Washington, DC. National Academy of Engineering.

-. 2005. "Educating the Engineer of2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century." Washington, DC. National Academy of Engineering.

National Academy of Sciences. 2005. "Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States." Washington, DC. National Academies Press. 276

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. 2004. "The 9/11 Commission Report."New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

National Science Foundation. 1980a. "Science and Engineering Indicators-1980." Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 1980b. "Survey of Earned Doctorates." Division of Science Resource Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 1985a. "Science and Engineering Indicators-1985." Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 1985b. "Survey of Earned Doctorates." Division of Science Resource Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 1990a. "Science and Engineering Indicators-1990." Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 1990b. "Survey of Earned Doctorates." Division of Science Resource Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 1995a. "Science and Engineering Indicators-1995." Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 1995b. "Survey of Earned Doctorates." Division of Science Resource Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 2000a. "Science and Engineering Indicators-2000." Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 2000b. "Survey of Earned Doctorates." Division of Science Resource Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 2003a. "Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century." National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA.

-. 2003b. "Broadening Participation in Science and Engineering Research and Education." National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA.

-. 2004a. "Science and Engineering Indicators-2004." Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 2004b. "Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering." Division of Science Resources Statistics, Arlington VA. 277

-. 2005a. "Science and Engineering Indicators-2005." Division of Science Resource Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 2005b. "Survey of Earned Doctorates." Division of Science Resource Statistics. Arlington, VA.

-. 2006. "Science and Engineering Indicators-2006." Division of Science Resources Statistics Arlington VA.

-. 2008. "Science and Engineering Indicators 2008." Division of Science Resources Statistics Arlington, VA.

-. Various Years. Division of Science Resource Statistics. Arlington, VA.

Newberger, Katherine. June 17, 1998. "Private Sector Presses for More Worker Visas - Skilled Foreigners Needed, Firms Say." Pp. 3 in Chicago Tribune.

Ninkovich, Frank A. 1981. The Diplomacy ofIdeas: U.S. Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations, 1938-1950. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Nobel Foundation. 2009. "Nobel e-Museum-The Official Web Site of the Nobel Foundation" in http://www.nobel.se/index.html. Retrieved December 6, 2009.

North, David S. 1999. "Some Thoughts on Nonimmigrant Student and Worker Programs." Pp. 57-94 in Foreign Temporary Workers in America: Policies that Benefit the U.S. Economy, edited by B. L. Lowell. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Noyelle, Thierry J. 1990. Skills, Wages, and Productivity in the Service Sector. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Nye, Joseph S. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature ofAmerican Power. New York, NY: Basic Books.

-. 2002. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

-. 2007. "Squandering the U.S. 'Soft Power' Edge." International Educator 16(1):4.

Oaks, Ursula. January 3, 2003. "Statement ofNAFSA: Association oflntemational Educators on Special Registration Program for Certain Nonimmigrant Visitors." Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association oflntemational Educators. 278

OECD. 1995. "The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities Manual on the Measurement of Human Resources Devoted to S&T: Canberra Manual." Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved November 22, 2009 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/0/2096025.pdt). Paris, France.

-. 2006. "Education at a Glance: Student Mobility and Foreign Students in Tertiary Education." Paris, France: Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved January 10, 2008 (http:www.oecd.org/edu/eag2006).

-. 2010. "International Migration Outlook: SOPEMI 2010." Paris, France: Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved December 28, 2010 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/9/45612617.pdt).

Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub.L.108447, 118 Stat. 2809 (2004).

Orbach, Benjamin. 1999. "Tracking Students from Terrorism-Supporting Middle Eastern Countries: An Update." Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002. International Mobility ofthe Highly-skilled. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Owen-Smith, Jason and Walter W. Powell. 2003. "The Expanding Role of University Patenting in The Life Sciences: Assessing the Importance of Experience and Connectivity." Research Policy 32:1695-1711.

Oxenham, John. 1981. "Study Abroad and Development Policy - An Inquiry." Pp. 150- 164 in The Overseas Student Question: Studies for a Policy, edited by P. Williams. London, England: Heinemann for the Overseas Student Trust.

Papademetrious, Dimitros G and Stephen W. Yale-Loehr. 1996. "Balancing Interests: Rethinking US Selection of Skilled Immigrants." International Migration Policy Program, No 4. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Paral, Rob and Benjamin Johnson. 2004. "Maintaining a Competitive Edge: The Role of the Foreign-Born and U.S. Immigration Policies in Science and Engineering." Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center.

Patterson, Rubin. 2007. African Brain Circulation: Beyond the Drain-Gain Debate. Leiden, UK: Brill.

Pear, Robert. Feb 23, 1998. "Higher Quota Urged for Immigrant Technology Workers." Pp. Al3 in New York Times. 279

Philip, Martin. 2000. "Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy." The International Migration Review 34:1291.

Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1990. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley, CA: Berkely University of California Press.

Potter, Mark and Rich Phillips. 2002. "Six Months after Sept. 11, Hijackers' Visa Approval Letters Received." CNN.Com. March 13. Retrieved January 25, 2010 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/12/inv .flight.school. visasD.

Powell, Colin. 2001. "Statement on International Education Week 2001."U.S. Department of State. Washington DC. Retrieved January 10, 2010 (http://www.state.gov/secretar .. ./index.cfm).

Powell, Walter W. and Kaisa Snellman. 2004. "The Knowledge Economy." Annual Review ofSociology 30:199-220.

Rao, Milind. 1995. "Foreign Students and Graduate Economic Education in the United States." The Journal ofEconomic Education 26(3):274-281.

Ravenstein, Ernest George. 1889. "The Laws of Migration." Journal ofthe Royal Statistical Society 52(2):241-305. (Retrieved from JSTOR on December 29, 2010).

Redd, Kenneth, E. 2008. "Findings from the 2008 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey, Phase I: Applications." Washington, DC. Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved March 8, 2010 (http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/O/pdf/R Int1Apps08 I.pdt)

Reeves, Mary H. 2005. "A Descriptive Case Study of the Impact of 9/11 on International Student Visa Policy in the 20 Months Following the Attacks." PhD Dissertation, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Oklahama. Norman, OK.

Reich, Robert B. 1992. The Work ofNations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Report of the National Commission on Terrorism. 2000. "Countering the Changing Threat oflnternational Terrorism." Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 280

Rhoades, Gary and Sheila Slaughter. 2006. "Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Privatization as Shifting the Target of Public Subsidy in Higher Education." Pp. 103-140 in The University, State, and Market: the Political Economy ofGlobalization in the Americas, edited by R. A. Rhoads and C. A. Torres. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ries, P. and DH. Thurgood. 1993. "Summary Report 1991: Doctorate Recipients from United States." Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Robinson, William I. 1996. Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Romer, P.M. 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth." Journal ofPolitical Economy, 1002-1037.

Rostow, Walt W. 1990. The Stages ofEconomic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, Michael Rogers, Mary Taylor Huber, and Elizabeth Lloyd Taylor. 1986. The Knowledge Industry in the United States, 1960-1980. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

S. Congressional Resolution 7. 2001. 107th Congress, 1st Session. 107th Congressional Record 30.

Samii, Kuross A. 1987. Involvement by Invitation: American Strategies of Containment in Iran. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sampat, Bhaven N., David C. Mowery, and Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2003. "Changes in University Patent Quality After the Bayh-Dole Act: A Re-Examination." International Journal ofIndustrial Organization 21:1371-1390.

Sassen, Saskia. 1988. The Mobility ofLabor and Capital: A Study in International Investment and Labor Flow. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Saxenian, AnnaLee. 1999. Silicon Valley's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

-. 2005. "From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation: Transnational Communities and Regional Upgrading in India and China." Studies in Comparative International Development 40:35-61.

Saxenian, AnnaLee, Y asuyuki Motoyoma, and Xiaohong Quan. 2002. Local and Global Networks ofImmigrant Professionals in Silicon Valley. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. 281

Schemo, Diana Jean. 200la. "College Officials Are Wary on Visa Enforcement." New York Times. December 15, pp. B6.

-. 200lb. "Senate Bill Would Stiffen Some Controls Over Visas." New York Times. December 6, pp. B7.

Schoultz, Lars. 1998. Beneath the United States: A History of US. Policy Toward Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1970. Investment in Human Capital: The Role ofEducation and of Research. New York, NY: Free Press.

Senate. March 28, 1945. "Congressional Record," vol. 2899.

Shachar, Ayelet. 2006. "The Race for Talent: Highly-skilled Migrants and Competitive Immigration Regimes." New York University Law Review 81:148.

Singer, Maxine. 2000. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations and Disciplinary Societies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Slaughter, Sheila and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Slaughter, Sheila and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smith, Michael P. and Adrian Favell. 2006. The Human Face ofGlobal Mobility: International Highly-skilled Migration in Europe, North America and the Asia­ Pacific. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Smith, Rosslyn M., Patricia Byrd, Gayle L. Nelson, Ralph Pat Barrett, and Janet C. Constantinides. 1992. Crossing Pedagogical Oceans: International Teaching Assistants in US. Undergraduate Education, edited by J. Fife. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Soley, Lawrence C. 1995. Leasing the Ivory Tower: The Corporate Takeover of Academia. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Song, Hahzoong. 1997. "From Brain Drain to Reverse Brain Drain: Three Decades of the Korean Experience." Science, Technology and Society 2(2):317-345. (Retrieved from JSTOR on January 1, 2010). 282

Stanback, Thomas M. 1979. Understanding the Service Economy: Employment, Productivity, Location. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

-. 1981. Services: The New Economy. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld Osmun.

Stein, Donald G. 2004. Buying In or Selling Out?: The Commericalization ofthe American Research University. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Stephan, Paula and Sharon Levin. 2001. "Exceptional Contributions to U.S. Science by the Foreign-Born and Foreign-Educated." Population Research and Policy Review 20:59-81.

Stephanson, Anders. 1995. Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

Stone, I. F. 1973. The Truman Era. New York, NY: Random House.

Szelenyi, Katalin and Robert A. Rhoads. 2007. "Citizenship in a Global Context: The Perspectives oflnternational Graduate Students in the United States." Comparative Education Review 51(1):25-47.

The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub.L. 105- 277, 112 Stat. 2681-641 (1998).

The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, Pub.L. 106-313 114 Stat. 1251 (2000).

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibiliy Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104- 208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996).

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub.L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952).

Thomson, Charles A. and Walter H.C. Laves. 1963. Cultural Relations and US. Foreign Policy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Thurgood, DH. and J.M. Weinman. 1991. "Summary Report 1990: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities." Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Thursby, Jerry G. and Marie C. Thursby. 2003. "University Licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act." Science 301: 1052-1052.

Tokorozawa, Yasutaka. 1996. "The Effects of the Fulbright Graduate Study Program: Its Personal and Social Meanings in Post-War Japan." Dissertation Thesis, University of California. 283

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics. 2007. "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study." U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 27, 2010 (http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07 math07 .asp).

U.S. Department of State. March 2008. "U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near East Affairs." Washington, DC.

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. 2006. "2006 Annual Social and Economic Supplement." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved July 4, 2010. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2006.html).

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. "Immigration Classification and Visa Categories: Nonimmigrant Visas." Retrieved January 10, 2010 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis).

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of2002. "H.R. 3525. 107th Congress, 1st Session, 2002. Retrieved January 25, 2010 (http ://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ query/z?c 107 :H.R.3 525)."

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, USA Patriot Act of2001. "H.R. 3162. 107th Congress, 1st Session, 2001. Retrieved January 25, 2010 (http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011025 hr3162 usa patriot bill.php)."

U.S. Department of Education. 2004. "National Center for Educational Statistics 2003-04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics. 2007. "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study." U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Retrieved June 27, 2010 (http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07 math07 .asp).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office oflmmigration Statistics. November 2004. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2003." U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Washington, DC.

-. September 2003. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2002." U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington DC. 284

U.S. Department of State. "Travel.State.Gov: Bureau of Consular Affairs." vol. __ Retrieved on January 1, 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types 1323 .html#first).

-. 2009. "Nonimmigrant Visa Statistics." U.S. Department of State. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. 2004. "World Leaders Educated in the United States." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. Retrieved on July 26, 2005 (http://exchanges.state.gov/education/educationusa/leaders.htm).

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. 2006. "Community Impact at Home and Abroad." Retrieved July 26, 2007 (http://fulbright.state.gov/fulbright/about/whatdo/community-impact-at-home­ and-abroad).

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 1975, February 4. "Better Controls Needed to Prevent Foreign Students from Violating the Conditions of their Entry and Stay in the United States," edited by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC.

-. February 25, 2004. "Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars." GA0-04-371. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

-. February 2005. "Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed." GA0-05-198. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

-. March 10,1983. "Controls Over Foreign Students in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions are still Ineffective; Proposed Legislation and Regulations May Correct Problems." GGD/HRD-83-27. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2008. "Special Registration." Retrieved February 1, 2010 ( http://www.ice.gov/pi/specialregistration/index.htm).

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2000. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-lB). Washington, DC.

May 1998 to July 1999. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-lB)." Washington, DC. 285

-. February 2000. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-lB). U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington, DC.

-. April 2002. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-lB): Fiscal Year 2000." U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington, DC.

-. July 2002. "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-lB): Fiscal Year 2001." U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington DC.

-. June 2000. "Leading Employers of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-lB): October 1999 to February 2000." U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington, DC.

UNESCO. 2009. "UNESCO Global Education Digest." Paris, France: UNESCO Publication. Retrieved January 10, 2009 (http:www.uis.unesco.org/publications/GED2009).

UNESCO Institute of Statistics. 2009. Paris, France: UNESCO Publication. Retrieved January 10, 2009 (http:www.uis.unesco.org/publications/GED2009).

United States Census Bureau Population Division. 2000. "United States Foreign-Born Population. United States Census 2000."

United States Patent and Trademark Office. 2007. "U.S. Colleges and Universities­ Utility Patent Grants, Calendar Years 1969-2005."

Urias, David Alexander. 2003. "Federal Policy Regulations and their Impact on Foreign Student Enrollment in Selected United States Higher Education Institutions." PhD Dissertation, Department of Leadership, Foundations and Policy, University of Virginia. Charlottesville, VA.

Usdansky, Margaret Land Thomas J Espenshade. 2000. "The H-lB Visa Debate in Historical Perspective: The Evolution of U.S. Policy Toward Foreign-Born Workers." San Diego, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.

Valbum, Marjorie. 2000. "Immigration Foe's Reversal Bodes Well for Silicon Valley" in Wall Street Journal. May 2, pp. A21. Retrieved on December 11, 2009 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB957220536330965956.html?mod=googlewsj).

Valdes, Juan Gabriel. 1995. Pinochet's Economists: the Chicago School in Chile. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Vestal, Theodore M. 1994. International Education: Its History and Promise for Today. Westport, CT: Praeger. 286

Wadhwa, Vivek, Guillermina Jasso, Ben Rissing, Gary Gereffi, and Richard B. Freeman. 2007. "Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain Drain: America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part III." Rochester, New York: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved March 1, 2009 (http://www.ssrn.com/paper=1008366).

Wadhwa, Vivek, Ben Rissing, AnnaLee Saxenian, and Gary Gereffi. 2007. "Education, Entrepreneurship and Immigration: America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part II." Rochester, New York: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved March 1, 2009 (http://www.ssrn.com/paper=991327).

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1979. The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

-. 1984. The Politics ofthe World-Economy. The States, the Movements and the Civilizations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

-. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Whitfield, Stephen J. 1996. The Culture ofthe Cold War. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wildavsky, Ben. 2010. The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities Are Reshaping the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Williamson, John. 1994. The Political Economy ofPolicy Reform. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

Wit, Hans de. 2002. Internationalization ofHigher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Woods, Randall Bennett. 1995. Fulbright: A Biography. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Zolberg, Aristide R. 1989. "The Next Waves: Migration Theory for a Changing World." International Migration Review 23(3):403-430. (Retrieved from JSTOR on December 29, 2010).

-. 2006. A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning ofAmerica. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. 287

Zweig, David, Changgui Chen, and Stanley Rosen. 1995. China's Brain Drain to the United States: Views of Overseas Chinese Students and Scholars in the 1990s. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.

Zweig, David, Siu Fung Chung, and Wilfried V anhonacker. 2006. "Rewards of Technology: Explaining China's Reverse Migration." Journal ofInternational Migration and Integration 7 :449-4 71. (Retrieved from JS TOR on January 1, 2011).