"Well one of the requisites is to be working towards residency, so its highly likely that they would be able to work."
I agree, that is desirable and sounds good in theory, but I wonder how the actual application and enforcement of this will take place. I think this condition is the weakest one in the set listed for HB2939.
It appears to be another case of 'let's pass a law to get what ["we" - provide your group du jour here] want today, and put off on the actual implementation of the details until [some vague or uknown time or condition in the future]. I have posed the following questions to your side previously (different time/place) and STILL have yet to receive a complete and adequate response:
1. What happens if the person does not follow through on the residency process requirement?
2. Which steps in the process will be deemed sufficient to be considered compliant? (The statement 'working toward residency' is overly vague. I fear that, legally, it is probably meaningless, and hence unenforceable). The specific steps and USCIS form numbers need to be specified in order to easily determine compliance or non-compliance).
3. Will failure to comply be enforced with a withholding of a degree, reversion back to out-of-state tuition, or similar?
4. If, for whatever reason, USCIS issues a 'denial' and for an individual (included under this law) to leave the country (yes, it does happen...) what guarantee do we have that the person will comply with the order? What provisions exist to reward good behavior and punish or discourage bad behavior?
Look, I sympathize with these people somewhat at a personal level. Having attended 3 public universities and achieved 2-2.5 degrees (last officially an MSc), I know what the system 'is' and how it 'works' (or fails to work). At the same time, we are faced with this very problem because other laws were passed some time ago, that also promised 'the goods' up-front, but managed to obfuscate or put off the important details that ensured compliant behavior.
Had earlier immigration laws been honored and respected, this twisted scenario where people's lives hang in the balance would never have presented itself. Creating vague and nebulous laws which lack detail and leave large loopholes only guarantee that someone, somewhere, will be sitting down having a similar discussion in the future.
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context