Slashdot Mirror
Exporting Knowledge Via Students
brainhum writes "SF Weekly reports that proposed Department of Commerce regulations will require foreign students at US universities to apply for export licenses to use dual purpose technologies in the classroom. From the article: 'Inherent in the new rules is a discriminatory contradiction: Students from India, which has cordial relations with the U.S., will need licenses to study, but students from Saudi Arabia -- home country for most of the participants in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and much of the financing and ideology behind Islamist terrorism -- will not.' The proposed regulations point out that current export license requirements are based on the person's most recent citizenship, which they believe, could allow a person born in Iran to avoid licensing if they held Canadian citizenship. More information is available in the SF Weekly story "Student of Concern"."
Here is the real reason why we were attacked. It is because we were making military advancements on Muslim soil. Both "hating freedom" and "hating our society" were excuses that Bush came up with.
Somebody please explain why our government panders to a the terrorist capitol of the world.
The Saudi Arabian government panders to the terrorist capitol of the world because the US government is headed by their friends.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
No, but laser production and optics knowlege can be used for LIS (Laser Isotope Separation) in a variety of ways (AVLIS, where you charge only U235 in gasseous uranium and then ionically attract it to a target; MLIS where you disassociate fluorine from U235F6 to create different chemical properties; etc). Because of the difficulty of these processes, parts for these aren't regulated as well as parts for gas diffusion and gas centrifuge plants.
Of course, you want tunable dye lasers for LIS, and I'd imagine that DVD players use diode lasers, but if you're talking about a broad "optics" education, I imagine that you'd learn what you need to know.
I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
Students from Asia like to come to America (or Canada, UK, Australia, etc) for education not just because of the quality, but also to obtain internships, co-ops and perhaps jobs after graduation. Some come here just to experience the American life. Some of them also see this as a way of legally migrating to a Western country and establishing themselves by obtaining jobs after graduation and getting a green card in the process. Even if they don't want to stay here, the Western experience is considered a very good thing for them back home and helps them with their careers. Companies see them as someone with diverse ideas and good experience. Can China offer all that to it's foreign students?
No, Canadian citizenship and education visas are easier. I've read both, as one of the non-red citizens who gave serious thought to emmigration under the (re-?)elected red regime, and as someone involved (minion-level) in advising international students in the US. Under the new security requirements, the US is fairly vicious about giving the boot to those who finish or pause their educations.
I'll also note that having quality students around helps provide for a better education for their classmates. This current paranoia is a Bad Thing.
This is really happening:
Shaul Mofaz, Israel's Defense Minister, visited the US in 2002, shortly after 9/11. The border officials in JFK airport in NYC didn't let him in, becuase he was born in Iran in 1948. It took high-level diplomatic intervention to allow him to continue instead of being turned back to Israel. Apparently being a former Chief of Staff of the IDF (Israeli Army) doesn't mean you might not be an Iranian terrorist.
In March 2003, the Israeli singer Rita had to cancel a tour of the US. She applied for her visa too late, given the 3-month-long FBI security check required for Iranian-born visitors.
From the APS, sent on 22 April 2005
Dear Chairs of PhD-granting Physics Departments,
I am writing to alert you to a possible threat to research in your department
and to urge you and your faculty to write to the Department of Commerce (DOC)
in response to its "Advance notice of proposed rulemaking" published in the
Federal Register on March 28, 2005. The notice calls for comments that must be
received by May 27, 2005. As discussed below, the leadership of the American
Physical Society feels this issue is so important that you should seek to
provide thoughtful and accurate responses by your university administration,
your department and individual faculty who might be affected by the
recommended changes. We believe that your comments can make a difference.
The proposed rulemaking by the DOC is a response to recommendations presented
by the Department's Inspector General. Implementation of these
recommendations would cause two major changes:
1) The operation of export-controlled instrumentation by a foreign national
working in your department would be considered a "deemed export", even if that
person were engaged in fundamental research. As a consequence, a license
would be required for each affected foreign national (student, staff or
faculty member) and for each export controlled instrument. Typical export
controlled instruments are high-speed oscilloscopes, high-resolution
lithography systems, high-end computers and GPS systems. The situation is
complicated by the fact that the list of instruments is different for each
country.
2) U.S. organizations would be required to apply for a deemed export license
for students, employees or visitors who are foreign nationals (but not U. S.
naturalized citizens or permanent residents) and have access to controlled
technology if they were born in a country where the technology transfer in
question would require an export license, regardless of their most recent
citizenship or permanent residency. For example, transfer of technology to a
Chinese scientist who has established permanent residency or citizenship in
Canada would be treated, for export licensing purposes under the proposed
guidelines, as a deemed export to a Chinese foreign national. (The list of
export-controlled instruments for Chinese nationals is particularly
extensive.)
The Department of Commerce officials who have the responsibility for
developing new policies and practices in response to the Inspector General's
recommendations are anxious to determine what the impact of implementing those
recommendations would be. They must seek a balance between increases in
national security that might result from the implementation of the new rules
and the decrease in national security that would result from negative impacts
to US research and development.
In initial discussions by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) it was
thought likely that consequences would be:
a) research would slow down significantly due to the need to obtain licenses
for each foreign national and, particularly, Chinese student, staff member,
postdoc, or faculty member using export controlled instrumentation. We
believe that a separate license would have to be obtained for each
instrument. In this regard, it should be noted that the relevant DOC office
has the staff to handle about 800-1000 license requests per year. Present
times to process a license request are typically 2-3 months.
b) instruments would have to be secured to ensure that those who do not have
the required license could not use them.
c) the number of Chinese and other foreign national students would decrease
markedly as their "second-class" status on campus became apparent, thus
ultimately weakening the nation's science and technology workforce.
d) the administrative costs of research would rise markedly.
e) national security would ultimately be weakened as a consequence of a
Thesis: World War II (WWII) was fought by the UK, France, USSR, China, and USA (Allies) against Germany, Italy, and Japan (Axis)[1] in order to prove to their citizens, or to whoever, that they were against Anti-Semitism and Eugenics, especially because the governments and leaders of said Allies engaged in Anti-Semitism and Eugenics and they did not want their own bigotry to come to light. By fighting against a greater injustice than their own they could redeem themselves in the eyes of others.
[1]I am purposely leaving out many other combatants due to space limitations.
I am going to write the first part of this post assuming that I have your thesis correct (which I probably don't) and will address what I think about said thesis.
Eugenics and Anti-Semitism are not the same thing. They are related in that they both rely on what we enlightened people would now consider bigotry. Certainly at the time they were probably not considered evil or inhumane. Fortunately by out standards they are. I won't disagree with you that Americans, Britons, and Russians where just as Anti-Semitic as Germans or any other nationality. I also won't disagree with you how Eugenics was used in the US. There are numerous shameful examples that even make headlines today as when the Governor of Virginia apologized for his state's Eugenics programs.
I don't believe that humanitarian reasons had much to do with the reasons why WWII occured. The idea that human rights somehow trump all other international issues began after WWII with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1948. Of course it was drafted and the ideals developed during the Second World War, but the reasons that caused WWII were a result of state of international affairs in the 1930s.
Finally I'd like to disagree with you about your final point:
Of course the worst thing of all is that the US didn't work up much of a sweat about things even AFTER Poland was invaded. London was being firebombed and we were still discussing "if we get pulled into this war, whose side would we be on?"
The United States of before WWII was a different country than the one that emerged afterwards. In fact US foreign policy was always been defined as a mix of two poles, idealism (Woodrow Wilson) and realism (Theodore Roosevelt). Before WWII idealism coupled with isolationism reigned. The idea that the US should be the "city on the hill," acting as a beacon for all to copy our own shining example of democracy, dominated US foreign policy and the minds of ordinary citizens. By working to make a better democratic republic at home the US could be an example to countries abroad.
But there was a current of realism in American foriegn relations and that was not directed toward Europe but toward the East to China. Trade relations with China was the reason for the friction between the US and Japan in the 1920s and 30s. The US may not have "cared" about Germany annexing Central Europe, but when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 the US cared.[2] The embargo against oil which the US imposed against Japan after its invasion of China in 1937 was one of the primary reasons Japan wanted to extend its empire to the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia today), a major source of petroleum. Japan could only do so if the US Navy in the Pacific was neutered. This directly lead to the surprise attack of the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. The Japenese were aiming for one decisive blow in order to knock out the US. And with Britian fighting against Germany the British colonies were vulnerable. Japan stood to gain everything with one roll of the dice.
[[2]The real "start" of WWII as far as I am concerned. Of course real fighting didn't begin until 1937 when Japan invaded the rest of China and it didn't become worldwide until 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Europeans/
Absolutely - I'm a contract lecturer at an Australian university and this decision makes it more likely that I will get a permanant position! A significant percentage of my department's income is from overseas students. The US is one of the largest competitors in the market of Chinese/Singapore/India/Malaysian students. As the US gradually withdraws from the higher education market, it can only benefit those institutions that are in direct competition. Thank you USA!
There's a big difference though. The old testamant part you are talking about refers more to the laws governing Israel. And according to the Bible the land of Israel is limited to a particular area.
There was no call of expansion to other territories. Sure the chosen people were called to wipe everyone out in the promised land, but once the land was taken, that was it. This is unlike the practice of many other nations and peoples of around that time.
So whilst Israel was deadly to the Canaanites (that said Israel disobeyed and intermarried), it was no threat to most other nations.
Christianity is expansionist, but if you look at what the religion actually says, it encourages _love_ and _service_ as part of the expansion process. Spreading Good News, and making disciples of men. Not spreading violence and making corpses of men.
The "architecture" of Islam as a religion is more prone to violence than the other major religions. And in Islam, the killing isn't restricted to any particular area as far as I know.
If any muslim objects to me saying that, he should start objecting to the action of his brothers first. Muslims like to loudly object and claim that Islam is a peaceful religion, but their voices are rather too muted when their brothers interpret/practice Islam in violent ways. Their brothers can quote Islamic verses justifying their actions, can the pacifists/moderates manage to counter those verses with other verses?
Contrast the Jewish laws - the death penalties etc are for people living within Israel or Israelites who break the various laws.
Buddhism is pretty much a pacifist religion. Hinduism is a bit harder to pin down, but I sure don't see that many calls to violence from their holy scrolls/books.
With Capitalism (with the big C) - it seems killing people is OK if it is more profitable to do so, than to not do so.