Probably even as we were publishing the original version of our recent post about Trump’s declaration that the U.S. would welcome 600,000 students from the People’s Republic of China, a White House spokesman was issuing this anti-clarifying clarification: “President Trump isn’t proposing an increase in student visas for Chinese students. The 600,000 references two years worth of visas. It’s simply a continuation of existing policy.”
The “clarification” comes after Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick defended the 600,000 number in an interview with a skeptical Laura Ingraham on Fox News.
Very important
So the U.S. will not be instantly doubling the number of visas granted annually to students from the PRC. The president was referring to a two-year period. We may infer, then, that if the president had said “It’s very important, 1,200,000 students,” he would have been referring to a four-year period. If he had said “It’s very important, 2,400,000 students,” he would have been referring to an eight-year period. And if he had said “It’s very important, 30,000,000 students,” he would have been referring to a hundred-year period, etc.
If an error must be corrected, e.g., to avert major globe-wide confusion, it’s often erroneous to lie about the nature of the error. The lie raises unnecessary further questions, like why the president would have felt the need to refer, and only silently, to a two-year period of visas for students from the PRC rather than to a one-year period.
In this case, in any case, America and the world can handle the truth. Here’s the correct, or more correct, correction: “The president misspoke. He mean to refer to 300,000 visas more or less for Chinese students annually, not to 600,000 visas annually. It’s simply a continuation of existing policy.”
But we’re not out of the woods yet now either, for the last sentence is also not quite correct if “existing policy” refers to policy is it was before recent changes or proposed changes that have yet to be enacted or play out.
New restrictions
For example, News 18 reports:
On Wednesday, just one day after the Cabinet meeting [at which the president miscommunicated about the 600,000], President Trump proposed new restrictions on visa durations for Chinese nationals. The administration has frequently labeled Chinese nationals as a potential national security concern, and this latest policy proposal reflects that stance.
Under the proposed changes, visa durations for several categories will be limited to fixed terms. This includes F visas for international students, J visas for cultural exchange visitors, and I visas for journalists. Currently, these visas are granted for the “duration of status,” allowing holders to remain in the US for the length of their academic program or professional assignment, along with any authorised training or time abroad.
If implemented, the proposed changes would limit F and J visas to a four-year period, while I visas would be valid for just 240 days. After these durations, visa holders would be required to apply for extensions. However, for Chinese nationals holding I visas, the restrictions are significantly tighter, with the proposed validity capped at just 90 days.
Somebody speaking for the White House—perhaps Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Trump in a joint press conference right after a prime-time address by President Trump to the nation—should explain exactly what is happening with respect to administration policy on all matters related to the People’s Republic of China.
Topics would include the administration’s views on university-level collaborations with the Chinese Communist Party, the receipt by many universities of funding from the Chinese Communist Party, the enabling of spying by some Chinese students holding visas, the collaboration of some pro-CCP Chinese students with the Chinese Communist Party in harassing pro-democracy Chinese students, considerations guiding trade negotiations with the PRC, etc. All these things are interrelated.
Just lay it out, clearly, the perspective, the policy, including what is definitely being done and what is going to be done and why and what has yet to be decided.
