Government's Fake University Trap Results in 21 Visa Fraud Arrests 153
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. government set up a fake college called the University of Northern New Jersey as a trap to find and arrest 21 people on charges of visa fraud, reports Newsweek. The arrested 21 individuals were brokers, employers, and recruiters who conspired with more than 1,000 foreign nationals to fraudulently obtain student and foreign worker visas through a "pay to stay" New Jersey college, Department of Justice was quoted as saying. Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas, in an alleged immigration scam worth up to $1m. From the report, "During conversations with undercover agents, one of the recruiters, Alvin Yeun, said 'we've been doing this for years' and told an agent not to worry. The 21 people arrested are residents are New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois and Georgia; some were also involved in committing work visa fraud."
Should of also gone after loan abuse with schools (Score:5, Insightful)
Should of also gone after loan abuse with schools as well.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Like the one that taught you English?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Like the one that taught you English?
By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong. People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've". The only other thing is loan and schools being different number cases, which is indeed technically incorrect.
However, I couldn't help but notice the use of an indirect reference ("the one") in your sentence. I'm not exactly sure on the specifics of context, but you specifically said "the one" when he clearly used a plural form, which results in a disagreement of number. If you try to tell m
Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo (Score:5, Informative)
By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong.
Ahh, no. It's wrong.
It's like people who say, "For all intensive purposes" when they what they really mean is, "For all intents and purposes".
"Vernacular" is not a synonym for "wrong".
Re: (Score:1)
By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong.
Ahh, no. It's wrong.
It's like people who say, "For all intensive purposes" when they what they really mean is, "For all intents and purposes".
"Vernacular" is not a synonym for "wrong".
You're right, it's not. If you walked up to someone in the US and said, "Has I downs gones school walked", it's accepted as incorrect and undecipherable. If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it. If no one has trouble understanding it and people widely use that phrase, how can it be wrong? If you really want to press the point, sure, I'll concede that it's te
Re: (Score:3)
If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it.
True, but that's mostly because I don't relish the opportunity to tell someone to their face, that they are spewing gibberish , unless they're fully indecipherable and I can't avoid it.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but that's mostly because I don't relish the opportunity to tell someone to their face, that they are spewing gibberish , unless they're fully indecipherable and I can't avoid it.
Exactly. If I hear "for all intensive purposes", it immediately marks that person as a bit of a fool in my estimation. I probably won't say anything, but their image is forever tarnished in my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone says "all intensive purposes" you're just as likely to mishear it as the phrase that makes sense (as opposed to seeing it in writing).
Forget whether it's grammatically correct. It's not literately correct. What's an intensive purpose? And if you only include the intensive ones, that's a different meaning.
A contraction is vernacular, but not wrong. "Should of" is a misspelling of should've without being literate enough to know better.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, I'm going to tell you you're wrong.
I unfortunately very often have to say "fewer" out loud when someone misuses "less" and "fewer".
Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo (Score:5, Informative)
If you really want to press the point, sure, I'll concede that it's technically grammatically incorrect - but then I'll refuse to recognize you as any better in this manner, because you used a contraction. Contractions started out as vernacular as well, and we only write proper English around here, eh?
The difference is that contractions are taught in school and are recognized as proper English, but no teacher who has a clue about the language would ever teach that "should of" is correct. None, zero, zip, nada. In fact, contractions date back to Old English (450 AD – 1150 AD). They also appear in Early Modern English (1450 AD to 1750 AD). Nowhere, however, in the history of written language does "should of" appear as proper, but if it's considered acceptable in 500 years or so then I'll reconsider my position.
Or, maybe not. As someone else pointed out, "should of" is wrong because it's a mishearing of "should have", which is completely acceptable. Using "should of" means the person doesn't know what they're really supposed to be saying, just like saying "for all intensive purposes". It makes no sense in any literal or figurative form; instead it indicates that the person saying it doesn't really understand what's supposed to be coming out of their mouth.
It's similar to people who say, "It's a doggy-dog world", when the term they mean to use is, "it's a dog-eat-dog world." One makes sense, the other does not. "Should of" makes no sense and I wish people would stop trying to pretend that it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Don wori it wil al be in da NewSpeek dicshonry ov 2052.
Re: (Score:2)
If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it. If no one has trouble understanding it and people widely use that phrase, how can it be wrong?
In speech, we rely primarily on context and the sounds of words to infer their meaning. You can get away with "should of" and "for all intensive purposes" in speech because you're substituting them for sound-alike phrases in the exact same context where the phrases they resemble would normally be used. In speech, the resemblance is so strong that a listener will generally infer the intended meaning without suffering any confusion. Communication would have succeeded, despite the fact that the words you used
Re: (Score:2)
The example you've used is more of a homophonic mistake than a matter of vernacular, unless someone is meaning t
Re: (Score:3)
"Should of" is just people who don't know how "should've" is spelled. Illiteracy is not the same thing as a dialect. The spoken word is technically the same in that case.
Re: (Score:3)
"Should of" is just people who don't know how "should've" is spelled. Illiteracy is not the same thing as a dialect.
Exactly Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
Re: (Score:3)
Please, don't confuse illiteracy with 'vernacular'.
"Should of" is NOT 'vernacular', it's making random meat noises to approximate language and failing to grasp something they taught you fairly early in school.
It is hearing sloppy speaking, turning that into a sloppy understanding of the words you're using, and then using that in a written form which demonstrates you think the incoherent mumbli
Re: (Score:1)
Please, don't confuse illiteracy with 'vernacular'.
"Should of" is NOT 'vernacular', it's making random meat noises to approximate language and failing to grasp something they taught you fairly early in school.
It is hearing sloppy speaking, turning that into a sloppy understanding of the words you're using, and then using that in a written form which demonstrates you think the incoherent mumbling you do in the real world corresponds to speaking the language.
"Should of" is so wrong it defies belief.
Between the dangling definition of "they", the godawful run on sentence in the second portion of your comment, and the horrendous collision of your tenses, I'm going to interpret this as either an intentional troll or a sarcastic remark. I apologize if I seem hesitant to recognize that, but my sarcasm detector is temporarily out of order after pulling an all-nighter.
Amount of comment slots spent on this topic: three, and apparently counting.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could point out the run-on sentence he used, because I don't see anything that's even close.
I don't see a dangling definition of "they" either. He uses it in an impersonal form, similar to French on.
You aren't very good, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
1) I see no run-on sentence in what he wrote, the sentence seems properly formed to me. Enlighten me, where is the run-on portion?
2) Also, his use of "they" seems quite clear to me, in that he's referring to the teacher or teachers who taught him grammar. What is supposedly wrong about his usage?
3) And finally, I don't see anything wrong with his use of tenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, don't confuse illiteracy with 'vernacular'.
Although illiteracy is not the same as vernacular or dialect, it is often a starting point...
Re: The subjunctive trap is subtly sprung (Score:1)
Wrong. You can only have a disagreement of number when they refer to the same thing, like if you wrote "he are" or "they is".
A member of a set or group is totally not, logically or grammatically, the same thing as the set or group itself.
For example, if we're talking about women (plural), and I go on to ask about you mother (singular, pretty much by definition[1]) are you saying it should be "
Re: (Score:2)
People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've".
People also frequently say things like "for all intensive purposes" and "this code has been depreciated." That these mistakes are oft repeated doesn't make them any less wrong. "Should of," "could of," "would of," are fundamentally erroneous, and people who type these phrases out should be corrected for their own benefit.
Re: (Score:1)
That these mistakes are oft repeated doesn't make them any less wrong.
Absolutely it does make them less wrong. Are you going to tell me that using phrases such as "to curry favor" and "moot point" are incorrect because a long time ago someone misheard someone else say "to curry Favel" and "mute point"? (see: http://blog.oxforddictionaries... [oxforddictionaries.com])
Everyone should agree that languages evolve over time. For some reason, however, some people get really indignant when they observe the actual mechanisms by which languages evolve up-close.
Re: (Score:2)
Until it's right, it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading a post with bad grammar is like chatting with someone who has bad breath. Maybe it really shouldn't matter, but ew...
Now go brush your teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
If that bothers you, come to New Orleans and see how many times someone will try to "AX" you a question....
Re: (Score:2)
Or whatever school you graduated from which didn't teach you proper grammar.
Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't blame the schools for trying to make every buck they can. If such large loans weren't so readily available, the schools couldn't charge as much.
Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't blame the schools for trying to make every buck they can.
Yes, you can. While raking in the moo-la has become the primary purpose of institutes of higher learning, it didn't use to be that way.
Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo (Score:5, Interesting)
If schools were about education, then half the people going to college wouldn't be eligible. BUT we have to be "inclusive" to the point of ridiculousness because somewhere along the line, we became elitist snobs who view people with a degree as being "better" than people without one.
It is a form of classism of the worst kind. On the otherhand, it is much easier to take someone with a piece of paper than it is to find someone who knows what he is doing, but without one.
Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo (Score:5, Interesting)
That is not exactly what happened. People with degrees shows that they know how to learn something. It is proof, evidence. It does not mean the person without the degree wont do better, but they dont have proof that they can succeed. If you owned a business who would you hire, the kid off the street, or the kid with a degree for the position, pay and everything else being the same. If you said the kid off the street then I dont think you are being honest.
And to be clear I did not get my degree until 34, for the field I was succeeding in since the age of 22.
Re: (Score:2)
You really believe that horse shit!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. All the paper proves is that the person knows how to get a piece of paper. They may or may not actually know anything.
Re: (Score:2)
It proves that the person can commit to doing a task that will take several years to complete and following through with it. I've always thought that's one of the reasons a lot businesses are more willing to hire college graduates even if they don't really care what the degree is.
Re: (Score:2)
That can be argued at least.
Of course, if someone without a degree knows their stuff, it shows they can get the job done without needing to be ridden.
Re: (Score:2)
So somehow having a Liberal Arts degree in socio politics would be a bad thing for the typical voter. You know, or perhaps you don't, having a greater degree of understanding in the complexities of socio-economics and politics so that they can more effectively engage in democracy, is a good thing, you do understand that, don't you. Consider the idea, that your society considers that knowledge a luxury and those who seek assistance in gaining that knowledge, of being better more knowledgeable citizens, shou
Re: (Score:2)
Higher education should be considered a right,
I would disagree, on the grounds that the 13th Amendment forbids slavery. You cannot force others to secure an economic benefit for yourself.
Now, if you want to call it a privilege of our society, then by all means, go ahead. You can say you have a right to access education (which I would agree). But it is not a right, intrinsic to your own self.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a right by appropriate necessity to properly participate in democracy. In order to ensure a proper democracy it is a requirement to fully educate the electorate in the understanding of the socio-economics and politics of that society so that they can make sound decisions. Your claim is just empty nothing and is no different to claiming public roads should not be paid for by taxpayers dollars. In essence any claim to private property is theft, so once that theft is made all other claims become reasonab
Re: (Score:1)
It's _always_ been like that; that's why the poor are denied higher
education for economic reasons - watch any olde movie from the
30's-40's etc.
Some places in the world consider the education of their people
beyond being grunts for some factory job an major part of their
country's infrastructure.
Indian's are killing the U.S.; they can _always_ return home.
CAP === 'brindle'
Re: (Score:1)
Perverted Market (Score:3)
The Free Market relies on the fact that is a product is overpriced, consumers will pass it up.
Federal Loans (which are CRAZY easy to get) takes away that mechanism.
It isn't until later, when they have to start paying back the loans do people realize the product was way over priced.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No, the free market relies on suckers who don't know any better getting hoodwinked.
And then makes the absurd claim that a sufficiently large number of suckers will fix the problem of lying bastards hoodwinking suckers.
There is not, never has been, and never will be a free market -- informed consumers making intelligent choices based on good information will simply never happen ... and hoping that industry players a
Re: (Score:2)
It also depends on people being able to realistically withdraw from the market if prices are unfavorable.
Re: (Score:2)
sure we can. It's called "profiteering". It may have become SOP but we can still blame them for engaging in it.
Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo (Score:5, Interesting)
Profit isn't a dirty word. People want more money, or else the CSU Professors wouldn't be going on strike next week. Nobody is immune from wanting more money (profit), quit acting like they are.
Trump university is out of business, because it didn't offer anything of value. Sucks if you bought that line of shit, same as if you went to a regular university and got your "Gender Studies*" masters and can't find a job. Except one is applauded, and the other isn't (and still offers such a degree)
I would MUCH prefer a system that had "Employment data" for each program they offer, and a "return on investment" timetabled based on actual salaries earned by people.
You see, how you view "Profiteering" is all based on your own biases. "Gender Studies" at a regular university is just as much "profiteering" as Trump University was, you just don't recognize it as such.
* "Gender Studies" is a fake degree, but represents real ones of little or no actual real world opportunities outside of government schools and grants. It represents degrees that nobody is really hiring outside of very specialized and limited areas.
Re: (Score:3)
First of all profit != profiteering. The latter means to make an excessive or unfair amount of profit. No one is attacking profit that I see.
As for CSU, it is not about profit there, it is about only getting a 1.4% raise and a 1.6% raise out of the last 9 years.
As for gender studies, while probably not a good degree, it is still vastly better than Trump U, it is an ok degree to go into social services work.
Re: (Score:2)
latter means to make an excessive or unfair amount of profit.
Define "excessive" and "unfair" please. I want very hard values not squishy feelings based jealousy.
And please let me know, how you came up with those numbers, who decided them and why. Anything less is just subjective rants of liberals and socialists.
As for CSU, it is not about profit there, it is about only getting a 1.4% raise and a 1.6% raise out of the last 9 years.
I said "more" not how much more. The teacher wants more money. everyone wants more money. 1.4% here, 6% there, 10% over there. See my first point in this post.
As for gender studies, while probably not a good degree, it is still vastly better than Trump U, it is an ok degree to go into social services work.
Your biases are showing they are equally worthless. And you made my point "no actual real world oppor
Re: (Score:2)
Is a Degree valuable "only" for work? No. If you want a masters in "Gender Studies" because it is your passion, by all means go for it.
But if you get your degree, in a subject that has no economic value (like Gender Studies) and you're taking government backed loans out to get it, you better be able to pay the damn loan back without complaining by working your $15 / hr Min wage jobs. Get your degree, pay back the loan. If you can't then the degree is worthless economically, and shouldn't be supported by gov
Re: (Score:1)
And who are the guys who encouraged the Federal Government to guarantee the student loans. It was the PAC's made up of college administrators and banks.
School official: "we need to make more money by raising tuition. " But if we do that less students will be able to afford school so we have to keep prices reasonable"
School Secretary: "But if we do that less students will be able to afford school, and they will leave so we will end up making less money"
School Official: " I know we can pressure the governm
I saw this happen in real-time (Score:4, Informative)
In the late 90's I was working my way through college. I worked full time over the summer, part-time during school, paying cash for my credit-hours. My mom went to the same school I went to, and in the intervening two decades, she noticed, maybe, three or four new buildings on campus.
In the middle of my undergrad years, they opened up the federal loan program to anyone. It used to only be open to those pursuing six year degrees, usually doctors or lawyers. Now just about anyone could get a student loan.
Fast forward a decade and a half. Tuition at that school has increased 100-150% over inflation. Parking alone went from $1/day to $8/day. It has bought two entire city blocks, razed them, and built a dozen or so new buildings, apartments, athletics centers, libraries, a "welcome center," and doubled the size of it's hospital.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you actually think you're clever?
Nobody who is for free enterprise is for this nonsense. You don't have to want to live in a free society but it would help if you would educate yourself. At the very least watch some Milton Friedman videos and, after watching a few, ask yourself if he would condone such nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it BS? As an antedote the conservatives of my state just hired an university president who is fairly unqualified other than being a board member of university of Phoenix after talking about all the great things the school did with her. She was also the Bush appointee that pushed the terrible no child left behind on everyone, and helped start the destruction of the education system.
Re: (Score:2)
My thought train: "At least that isn't my - aw damn- you're talking about NC"
Sucky time to live here. NCs government is beyond horrible right now. Hopefully something will shake the country church-folk awake come November to flush em out. Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
But killing the Republicans won't fix it all, the Democrats are responsible for so much too, we must kill them all too, then we will be left with only the people who want what is best for everyone.
Re: Should of also gone after loan abuse with scho (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you really want to get into it, it's BS because a conservative backed government *in theory* wouldn't support government backed loans to go to school and would let the free market take care of it. And in a free market, ain't no way any bank is going to loan somebody 100K for a major in "*studies" if the student has the ability to file bankruptcy and get out of paying it back. But once it's government backed, and the person can't wipe it with bankruptcy then the schools are able to jack their prices up, up, up because the whole world is telling these kids you need to get a degree and it doesn't matter what in, just that you need one and those kids are naive enough to believe them. Remove the easy access to the money, and kids can't afford to go to school, and the schools lose demand and have to adjust their prices downward. Seriously, if you think universities need to charge as much as they do, go to a modern campus, they're architectural wonders and buildings are constantly being replaced. God forbid if a building hits 30 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking your statement at face value it shows one more group of political elites who game the system. It's called patronage. The only political philosophy which opposes patronage as a matter of principal is laissez-faire capitalism. In fact laissez-faire rose up in opposition to mercantilism which was the 18th C word for corporatist.
Re: Should of also gone after loan abuse with sch (Score:3)
The only political philosophy which opposes patronage as a matter of principal is laissez-faire capitalism.
The reason that conservatism, as a philosophy, favors smaller government, is because a large government has more opportunity to hand out patronage. (Unlike laissez-faire, conservatism recognizes the need for some regulation and a government to implement the regulation.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Where conservatives and Laissez-faire capitalists part ways is that conservatives believe that there should be some small amount of regulation of commercial produ
Re: (Score:1)
You might want to stop poking at the Republican bete noir and consider that it's not specifically the Republicans. What has Obama done in his *eight* years as president to put an end to the college racket? The non-dischargeable loans, the skyrocketing tuitions, the continued outsourcing and offshoring of jobs that reinforce the meme that a college degree is necessary for a middle class lifestyle, the ever-increasing number of obscenely-compensated administrative staff at colleges that do not seem to serve a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While that may be a noble goal you need to understand that, from the political POV, it would have given the Republicans ammunition to accuse him of being a muslim, a communist, and perhaps even a darkie from Bongo Bongo Land.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to?
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what you think of illegal aliens, the kids should be fed. It's not their fault.
Tip of a very, very big iceburg (Score:1)
This is why America needs President Trump. (Score:5, Funny)
America desperately needs President Trump. He's the only candidate we've seen so far who has taken anything resembling a pro-American stance with respect to this issue. He has taken a strong stance against illegal immigration. He has taken a strong stance against unjust "free" trade with the third world. He has made it clear that he would put America and Americans first.
It's no wonder he's seeing such strong support from the legal immigration communities. They had to ensure a very arduous process in order to get into America legally. It's extremely harmful and disrespectful to these legal immigrants when illegals are allowed into the country, and it's even worse when these illegals are then given amnesty.
America needs President Trump more than ever. America needs President Trump's policies more than ever. America needs a defender like President Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
America desperately needs President Trump. He's the only candidate we've seen so far who has taken anything resembling a pro-American stance with respect to this issue. He has taken a strong stance against illegal immigration. He has taken a strong stance against unjust "free" trade with the third world. He has made it clear that he would put America and Americans first.
It's no wonder he's seeing such strong support from the legal immigration communities. They had to ensure a very arduous process in order to get into America legally. It's extremely harmful and disrespectful to these legal immigrants when illegals are allowed into the country, and it's even worse when these illegals are then given amnesty.
America needs President Trump more than ever. America needs President Trump's policies more than ever. America needs a defender like President Trump.
He also has a strong stance against legal immigration (unless they are like his wife). He also associates with supremacists so it feels more like immigration is the code word for race.
His whole stance is all against rapist Mexicans, cheating Chinese, terrorist Middle Eastern Muslims and H1B Indians. Americans first just is code word for hating those groups and doing something to institutionalize some sort of persecution.
I wish Americans first meant Americans first and not let's do something about "thos
Bernie isn't pro-Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the only candidate. Bernie Sanders has spoken out against free trade AND has a proven track record of voting against disastrous trade bills.
Bernie voted to increase [senate.gov] H1B immigration at the last go-around, as did Rubio.
Cruz voted against, and (of course) Trump and Clinton weren't legislators.
I don't know how the GP post got modded as "funny", Trump's position has been "pro-Americans" from the beginning, and is the source of his popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bernie isn't pro-Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Except there is no such thing as H1B immigration. H1B visas are temporary work visas. They are not immigrating here. It doesn't let them stay unless they're working and has a company sponsor them. There's hoops the company has to perform to justify importing workers, which apparently can be abused for profit.
AND, everyone with a (legit) H1B visa would here LEGALLY.
Finally, that bill did a LOT of stuff to reform immigration. [congress.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. H1B holders in America effectively is a form of immigration, at least in the present.
It doesn't matter if the H1B holder is staying long term.
What matters is that the H1B holder is a non-American in America now, taking up a job that should be held by an American instead.
That's where the harm arises.
Re:Bernie isn't pro-Americans (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Cruz did want to increase the H1B cap at some point.
The whole visa/immigration fiasco has turned me from a (sort-of) economic libertarian to a right-wing interventionists/regulator. It it's unethical to fire your workers when they get too old (seen recently with a plumbing company), isn't also unethical to replace people with foreigners that you can cycle in-out every five years? And if companies are doing bad things with regards to immigration, maybe they are doing bad things with regard to Internet pric
Buying Visas? (Score:3, Informative)
>Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas,
And yet when I was in the green card process, it was made clear that one of the eligibility criteria was having $1,000,000 invested in the US companies (the others being marriage, work and things I may have forgotten). $1,000,000 buys you a visa and you can get your megabuck back afterwards. How 1% privilege is that?
Re:Buying Visas? (Score:5, Insightful)
What? It's US policy to encourage rich people and educated people to move here. Investing a million dollars in US provides benefits to our economy. This is a wonderful policy. There's no guarantee or even motivation of egalitarianism towards immigrants.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing it's wrong. I'm pointing out the step function change in rules once you have $1,000,000 to spend. If you only have a few thousand the rules that apply are very different.
Re: (Score:3)
$1M and a few thousands are entirely different things.
With an median income of maybe $30k/year per capita, a million is enough to pay someone for most of his work life. Essentially, the millionaire earned his status by creating a job for an American.
OTOH, selling green cards for, say, $10k would be ridiculous. This is barely enough to survive for the few months it may take to find a decent job. Getting into a country with this kind of money only to come back home broke less than a year later is all too comm
Terrorists/Espionage (Score:1)
While I hate to pull this angle, another consideration is the possibility of foreign nationals with interests other than pure immigration coming in on an educational visa. Now granted you could theoretically have them coming in to a legitimate institution with similar results, but at least a real University could track "hey, we have student X who came in and hasn't attended a single class" (resulting in the Visa being close and the student deported)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a reasonable policy, because, frankly speaking, living in the US with less than $1,000,000 really just sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
How 1% privilege is that?
Entirely. This is essentially the big dog chasing away someone attempting to undercut him and cheapening the product that is US citizenry.
And it's a little more nefarious as this pay-to-stay program is more like rent/extortion rather than fostering investment.
Question, if you could get someone to loan you $1,000,000 which you then invested in the USA, does that work towards getting you a visa? Is there some sort of no-cash-out clause?
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't do the loads-o-cash route, so I don't remember the specifics, but I strongly suspect they mirror the marriage rules - stay married for at least two years, then you can 'remove the restriction' (that you be married to a US citizen). So I assume you need to stay invested for a period then you can remove the restriction.
You also have to stay in the US. Go away for more than 6 months and they'll revoke it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you did not pick the employment base sponsorship, huh? Because if you did, you wouldn't need to look for a way to get a green card. Normally, you would know about employment base green card when you enter into an agreement with your employer (being hired). If you are working and have a good relationship with your employer, either you would ask them to sponsor or they would offer to sponsor you. I am guessing you choose the married route which might have come from your attorney suggestion because
Re: (Score:2)
Vote for Ted Cruz!
Not with a green card. Ted Cruz isn't standing for election in the UK.
If I were a voting citizen, I would not be taking your advice.
Should offer a deal (Score:2)
To the brokers that say they did it before. Squeal and testify against the people (and schools) that they did it with for half time off.
Re: (Score:2)
The time for deals with the FBI was before the FBI went public. Once they go public you have almost no chance of getting a deal.
It's fake? (Score:2, Funny)
Damn, I was thinking of applying to the University of Northern New Jersey. I heard it's a good party school.
Imagine all the terrorist that got in (Score:2)
:popcorn:
I have thought of an excellent joke (Score:3)
I have thought of an excellent joke about DeVry[1] which this post is too small to contain.
[1] Substitute University of Phoenix or Texas A&M if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoopee (Score:2)
Big deal, 21 brokers and recruiter or student....compared to the overall H1-B abuse, that's nothing. It's not even a rounding error.
Triple Lindy (Score:2)
I know it is fashionable not to RTFA, but the Justice Department named this operation "Triple Lindy", the infamous dive Rodney Dangerfield's character performed in "Back to School". :)
synchronomocity (Score:2)
Deport the rich, invite the poor (Score:2)
One would think, the government's priorities would be to block the poor foreigners entering the country illegally and most immediately becoming a public burden [judicialwatch.org]. Only after we stop importing poverty [heritage.org], would the borders-enforcers turn on to people, who express their love for the United States without asking taxpayers for financial assistance.
Surely, both groups are breaking the law and ought to be prosecuted, but, if you mu
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the US is importing poverty, except as a minor part of immigration that cannot reasonably be filtered out. I think it is importing its future. Stopping to do that may not be a smart move.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "statistics" are rather obvious bullshit. I am not playing the game of "my statistic lies better than yours".
Re: (Score:2)
I would advise you to apply the definition of "delusion" to your self-image. Your grandstanding and general stance is a dead giveaway for a narcissistic personality disorder.
I see they are preparing for President Trump (Score:2)
He has expertise in setting up fake universities after all.
Honeypot (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the University was essentially a honeypot.
They couldn't really do that with a "real" university lest the people they catch claim that they were in fact just trying to go the said real university. This way they set up a new university, sent out some brochures about how they 'love to work with our foreign friends' and let the people come to them. The fact that the university didn't exist before helps their case in that the people involved really weren't about helping people get an education.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read the PDF link in the summary. It tells you everything about how it works. It also describes that both broker and the visa seeker know exactly what they are doing (intend to come here illegally). Below is a portion of the content.
To catch these recruiters, HIS developed an undercover investigative strategy that involved the creation of a school called the University of Northern New Jersey or UNNJ. ... agents posing as corrupt administrators. The school had no instructors or educators; it had no curriculum; and no actual classes or educational activities ever occurred there.
As the complaints allege, once word got out, brokers descended on the school, clamoring to enroll their foreign student clients. But as the complaints also allege, the defendants did so while fully aware that those clients wouldn’t be attending any classes at the university, wouldn’t be furthering their educational goals, and wouldn’t be getting a degree. Instead, UNNJ was just another stop on the “pay to stay” tour.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sane state, they would not only lose their jobs and pensions for something like this, but also be punished in addition. In a police-state, this gets them a promotion.