Slashdot Mirror
Government's Fake University Trap Results in 21 Visa Fraud Arrests
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 as well.
>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?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Damn, I was thinking of applying to the University of Northern New Jersey. I heard it's a good party school.
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.
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
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 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.
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".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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. Only after we stop importing poverty, 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 must exercise prosecutorial discretion, wouldn't you start with those, who cause the most damage? The current Administration's priorities are exactly the opposite, for some reason...
Which is quite surprising, because prosecuting these immigrants — who had the advantage of geography in coming over here — would not require the elaborate entrapment schemes like setting up fake universities — the Administration already knows many of them, and even argues in court, it ought to be allowed to let them partake in Social Security and other "earned benefits" programs!
It is almost as if the plan is to allow them all to stay — despite going through the glacially slow motions of "deferred actions" — and, while staying, vote for the party in power, huh?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
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.
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.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
"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.
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.)
Laissez-faire capitalists were not anarchists nor anarcho-capitalists. Conservatism, as you describe it, is fairly close to laissez-faire and I doubt there would be great disagreement between the different factions (again using an 18th C term).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"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.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...