Students at Fake University Say They Were Collateral Damage in Sting Operation(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Students at Fake University Say They Were Collateral Damage in Sting Operation
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/nyregion/students-at-fake-university-say-they-were-collateral-damage-in-sting-operation.html
112 comments
Absolutely. It was downright sinister of the DHS to implicate the students in this when they themselves legitimized the school in no less than three different places. To quote the article, "if you can't trust the government, who can you trust?"
I understand what the government says by "you have to know the law", but it's idiocy to expect everyone to be a lawyer, and instead we all use our best judgement.
Maybe the signs were clear that UNNJ were fake, maybe they weren't, but fraud implies a knowing and willful attempt to break the law, and almost all of these cases seem far from it. It's shameful to make most of these students appear in immigration court.
I understand what the government says by "you have to know the law", but it's idiocy to expect everyone to be a lawyer, and instead we all use our best judgement.
Maybe the signs were clear that UNNJ were fake, maybe they weren't, but fraud implies a knowing and willful attempt to break the law, and almost all of these cases seem far from it. It's shameful to make most of these students appear in immigration court.
Not sure it's just me or if I have misread this, but the article says the university claimed it has classes before DHS announced it was fake and provides no classes at all. Quote: "...and Twitter messages about classes canceled because of bad weather".
In that sense, even though it is doubtable on whether this sting operation is an entrapment for students in a legal term, it is an "entrapment" for the students in the fact. Presumably, We can see that before government shut down the university, students were only been told "you don't HAVE TO go to class" for some period of time when they were in CPT (or internship), but NOT been told the university NEVER had and won't going to have any classes. Being in the lie that the university may hold class somewhere, or in the future, and it was relatively new and totally legitimate, students could buy it and participate into this later known "scheme".
Yeah, it's hard to think of an analogous scheme. It'd be as if in "To Catch a Predator", the state legislature's website was altered temporarily to lower the age of consent.
It'd be like if you go to another country and the government there tells you the age of consent is 16 and you meet a girl who claims to be 24. You've seen her government issued ID and it says she is 24. Then it turns out she is actually 17 and the age of consent is actually 18 and it was all an elaborate ruse to catch you-- you sexual deviant!
It's more like if you go to a service that promises to provide 13 year old girls, but with legitimate ID that says that they're 18. This was a school that guaranteed that you wouldn't have to attend a school.
Or if there was online verification of your date's driver's license that was faked to show she was of legal age, solely to entrap you.
Some of these students need to sue the government over this. But I doubt they will have the resources or the standing to do so. At the end of the day who wins from doing this? The US government? No. The students. No. America? No. No one wins. It's just big bureaucracy justifying its budget and its existence.
US has 300 million people. 1,000 students make little difference. Whether legal or not.
US has 300 million people. 1,000 students make little difference. Whether legal or not.
It looked legitimate except for the part where you didn't have to go any classes or learn anything. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that goes against the spirit of the law - and if your intent is to walk that line not getting a lawyer is irresponsible.
I feel like basically everything about immigration law seems to go against the spirit of the law in that sense.
E.g., one of the most common ways to get a work permit in the US is to do a university degree, then you get to work for one year ("OPT"), during which your employer can apply for an H1B visa for you.
But the literal meaning of OPT is "optional practical training", and your job is referred to as "practical training" in all documents. Of course it's nothing of the sort, it's just a job. For me, coming from a foreign country, this seems super dodgy and against the spirit of the law. But it's completely standard and above-the-board.
E.g., one of the most common ways to get a work permit in the US is to do a university degree, then you get to work for one year ("OPT"), during which your employer can apply for an H1B visa for you.
But the literal meaning of OPT is "optional practical training", and your job is referred to as "practical training" in all documents. Of course it's nothing of the sort, it's just a job. For me, coming from a foreign country, this seems super dodgy and against the spirit of the law. But it's completely standard and above-the-board.
Laws that are self-defeating to their ostensible purpose are almost the norm at this point, though. I don't expect anyone, as a matter of law, to say "wait, that's ridiculous, that incentivizes me to do X, when obviously the law exists to promote not-X, so obviously this scheme to ramp up our X is shady."
If you want an example, here's one off the cuff: the law that says you can only bring free water out at restaurants if the patron asks. If anything, the automatic water displaces the consumption of other drinks, which generally require other ag products that are far more rainwater intense per liter consumed. So if I'm a waiter, am I undermining or supporting "the spirit of that law" if I remind people to ask?
If you want an example, here's one off the cuff: the law that says you can only bring free water out at restaurants if the patron asks. If anything, the automatic water displaces the consumption of other drinks, which generally require other ag products that are far more rainwater intense per liter consumed. So if I'm a waiter, am I undermining or supporting "the spirit of that law" if I remind people to ask?
Where is that law? I know tons of restaurants that offer free water without being asked.
Recent California thing: http://sf.eater.com/2015/3/17/8237891/serving-water-californ...
However, the university always had a reason to postpone the courses, just like scammers.
In that story, the university was the scammer, always asking for a few more days to "get their money back" and giving them a good faith gift as soon as students started asking questions.
Then, the government punished them for biting to the government run scam.
In that story, the university was the scammer, always asking for a few more days to "get their money back" and giving them a good faith gift as soon as students started asking questions.
Then, the government punished them for biting to the government run scam.
Isn't this made a bit murkier by the fact that practical training through work experience can be a legitimate part of such a course of study? It's not like they were working at maccas or something.
There are other visas for that. I did an internship on a J-1 for example. I would find it hard to believe these students didn't know what they were doing was questionable.
> It looked legitimate except for the part where you didn't have to go any classes or learn anything.
So just like most Ivy League schools?
So just like most Ivy League schools?
> According to some students, brokers assured them that they could immediately earn credit hours for their work experience in a program called Curricular Practical Training, without taking classes.
Now, this crosses the line, IMHO. You see, getting credit for work experiences at universities is not unheard of, where I come from. At least for undergraduate level.
It is very easy to convince someone that it's the same deal.
> Most of the students were from China and India, where working with brokers is a familiar way of doing business. But in retrospect, they seem to have ignored what should have been red flags, whether because they were overly trusting, willfully ignorant or willing participants in visa fraud.
Well, isn't this the definition of scam?
It is likely that some of them caught on and decided to go through anyway. But I'd guess that a higher percentage were just preyed on on their naiveté.
Now, this crosses the line, IMHO. You see, getting credit for work experiences at universities is not unheard of, where I come from. At least for undergraduate level.
It is very easy to convince someone that it's the same deal.
> Most of the students were from China and India, where working with brokers is a familiar way of doing business. But in retrospect, they seem to have ignored what should have been red flags, whether because they were overly trusting, willfully ignorant or willing participants in visa fraud.
Well, isn't this the definition of scam?
It is likely that some of them caught on and decided to go through anyway. But I'd guess that a higher percentage were just preyed on on their naiveté.
> whether because they were overly trusting, willfully ignorant or willing participants in visa fraud
or just frustrated with that shitty visa system.
or just frustrated with that shitty visa system.
The flip side of this is:
“All purported students are recorded at some point or another fully going along with the pay-to-stay scheme.”
There are both audio and video recordings from the president’s office in New Jersey, when students called or visited, Mr. Phillips said. He personally witnessed some of these exchanges, and heard students admit they knew the university would not have classes.
If that's true, then it's going to be hard to convince a judge that the student thought it wasn't a scam. Clear evidence of the student agreeing to attend the university even though it would never host a class is hard to refute.
“All purported students are recorded at some point or another fully going along with the pay-to-stay scheme.”
There are both audio and video recordings from the president’s office in New Jersey, when students called or visited, Mr. Phillips said. He personally witnessed some of these exchanges, and heard students admit they knew the university would not have classes.
If that's true, then it's going to be hard to convince a judge that the student thought it wasn't a scam. Clear evidence of the student agreeing to attend the university even though it would never host a class is hard to refute.
According to some students, brokers assured them that they could
immediately earn credit hours for their work experience in a program
called Curricular Practical Training, without taking classes
If I were in their shoes, I would find the university very suspect, and possibly unethical. But if I saw that they were an accredited university and certified by DHS, I'd assume that they were exploiting a legal loophole.
Not to mention as above did, that they were promised credits for work experience, which is common at colleges, and removes the idea of "no classes" as a red flag if your workplace is considered a classroom.
But if this "university" was a government-run thing, isn't that entrapment?
Entrapment is only a defense when the cops induce you to do something that you wouldn't have done anyway. They're going to have a hard time using the entrapment defense if they deliberately searched out a university that clearly wasn't in the business of teaching students.
If it wasn't government run, and they would have still 'enrolled' anyway, no.
Though arguably, if it wasn't 'accredited', many of the students probably wouldn't have enrolled, and it was only accredited 'to cooperate with the government's investigation'...
This is a claim by the prosecution and doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the situation.
If it was so obvious that it wasn't legitimate, then how come the NJED was fooled?
From the article:
So did the website of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, a national body. Its director, Michale S. McComis, later said he had certified the university in order to cooperate with the government’s investigation.
So did the website of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, a national body. Its director, Michale S. McComis, later said he had certified the university in order to cooperate with the government’s investigation.
They may have been part of the scheme, such as when the 5-star hotel agrees to host cops running a prostitution sting.
That seems a little different.
Out of all of the schools in the United States, they paid a premium to go to one that didn't have any classes. Whether or not they knew that wasn't the intent of a student visa, I 1) believe they should have known, and 2) believe at the least that they've made it clear that they aren't interested in studying in the US. They can find a equivalent curriculum which offers no classes and no instruction anywhere in the world; I offer one for free.
This sounds like entrapment.
I don't know US laws at all, but I thought the "leave the car doors open and wait for someone to steal it" method of catching bad guys was against the law?
I don't know US laws at all, but I thought the "leave the car doors open and wait for someone to steal it" method of catching bad guys was against the law?
There are only two conditions for entrapment - government inducement of the crime, and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. [1] And I think this qualifies on both counts. The students were looking to get into the US, but the government pushed this visa mill on them indirectly, via the brokers (who wouldn't have had a dual-accredited fake university to pitch without the government's aid). Had these brokers not reached out to these students, it's unlikely that they would have sought out the same illegal method to enter the country. (This is assuming the brokers reached out the students, and not the other way round).
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-en...
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-en...
> There are only two conditions for entrapment - government inducement of the crime, and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. And I think this qualifies on both counts.
Since the students are not charged with a crime, I'm not sure how either prong of the entrapment test could be met. There's literally no crime at issue in the students cases, which are non-criminal immigration cases.
> the government pushed this visa mill on them indirectly, via the brokers
The brokers are the only ones charged with crimes, though.
> Had these brokers not reached out to these students, it's unlikely that they would have sought out the same illegal method to enter the country.
Which, insofar as its true, may be a good argument against a lifetime ban (which is a possible penalty in the students' cases, so not completely irrelevant), but not so much against revoking the visas.
Since the students are not charged with a crime, I'm not sure how either prong of the entrapment test could be met. There's literally no crime at issue in the students cases, which are non-criminal immigration cases.
> the government pushed this visa mill on them indirectly, via the brokers
The brokers are the only ones charged with crimes, though.
> Had these brokers not reached out to these students, it's unlikely that they would have sought out the same illegal method to enter the country.
Which, insofar as its true, may be a good argument against a lifetime ban (which is a possible penalty in the students' cases, so not completely irrelevant), but not so much against revoking the visas.
The brokers reaching out to the students doesn't mean entrapment, even if we took the case where the brokers actually were government agents. To be entrapment, someone working on the government's behalf would have to do something that would even convince a lawful-minded person to commit the crime.
> The brokers reaching out to the students doesn't mean entrapment
Especially since the brokers are the ones being charged with the crime.
The students aren't be charged with a crime (they are, however, being subject to non-criminal immigration proceedings, but "entrapment" is a criminal defense.)
Especially since the brokers are the ones being charged with the crime.
The students aren't be charged with a crime (they are, however, being subject to non-criminal immigration proceedings, but "entrapment" is a criminal defense.)
> To be entrapment, someone working on the government's behalf would have to do something that would even convince a lawful-minded person to commit the crime.
As a lawful-minded individual, if multiple government websites tell me the institution is accredited, and the head of the institution tells me that work-for-credit is sufficient for student status, I am reasonably convinced that it is legal for me to enroll and apply for a visa.
Just how deep into the letter of the law do I have to dig to discover this isn't legal?
As a lawful-minded individual, if multiple government websites tell me the institution is accredited, and the head of the institution tells me that work-for-credit is sufficient for student status, I am reasonably convinced that it is legal for me to enroll and apply for a visa.
Just how deep into the letter of the law do I have to dig to discover this isn't legal?
I think the difference here is not that it was entrapment, but that it wasn't a crime at all. Unless the law says this crime is strict liability, then the prosecutor would need to show that these individuals intended to commit the crime they were committing.
For example, say you have a bucket in your yard, I go and stick a sign up saying 'Free bucket to good home.' and someone else comes by and grabs the bucket. Focusing only on the third person's actions for a moment, even though they took a bucket that they had no right to take, and they would likely have to give back, they never committed a crime because they never intended to steal the bucket. They only intended to take a bucket being given away freely. (This is different from 'ignorance of the law isn't an excuse'; that would apply if they did intend to steal a bucket but thought stealing wasn't illegal.)
(Now there is still an issue with the government doing something similar with strict liability laws and I'm not sure how that one works out.)
For example, say you have a bucket in your yard, I go and stick a sign up saying 'Free bucket to good home.' and someone else comes by and grabs the bucket. Focusing only on the third person's actions for a moment, even though they took a bucket that they had no right to take, and they would likely have to give back, they never committed a crime because they never intended to steal the bucket. They only intended to take a bucket being given away freely. (This is different from 'ignorance of the law isn't an excuse'; that would apply if they did intend to steal a bucket but thought stealing wasn't illegal.)
(Now there is still an issue with the government doing something similar with strict liability laws and I'm not sure how that one works out.)
That is a very different line of reasoning from that to which I was responding. IANAL so I'm not comfortable speculating too far but "it's entrapment if the government asks you to do it" is something I know to be a common misconception.
If I were to speculate further, though, I'd say that if someone justifiably believed it was legit because of the government sites, that somebody hadn't committed a crime in the first place and thus couldn't be entrapped.
If I were to speculate further, though, I'd say that if someone justifiably believed it was legit because of the government sites, that somebody hadn't committed a crime in the first place and thus couldn't be entrapped.
No. In the US, entrapment has a higher bar than that. A sting operation like a bait car is permissible.
Entrapment means that law enforcement did something that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. Just leaving a car unlocked is not enough; I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but it would need something additional like a police officer convincing you to do it.
Entrapment means that law enforcement did something that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. Just leaving a car unlocked is not enough; I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but it would need something additional like a police officer convincing you to do it.
No, seems like it's not entrapment [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_car
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_car
Providing opportunities isn't entrapment. Pressuring or convincing someone to commit a crime they wouldn't is. I admit it can be a fine line at times...
Using your example, it would cross the line in the US if you then offered someone money to steal the car.
So in this case they probably would have to have been offering the illegal jobs too, not just the fraudulent Visa status.
So in this case they probably would have to have been offering the illegal jobs too, not just the fraudulent Visa status.
Doesn't quite work like that. See here [1] for a easy-to-understand explanation.
[1] http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
[1] http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
I think the bait car is only entrapment if you have a disguised cop trying to convince people to steal it.
"Oh, I need to move this car to my garage but I'm too busy. I'll give you $20 if you drive it to this address. Sorry I lost the key, just touch the two dangling wires together to start it..."
"Oh, I need to move this car to my garage but I'm too busy. I'll give you $20 if you drive it to this address. Sorry I lost the key, just touch the two dangling wires together to start it..."
Is entrapment even a valid defense in immigration court? Defendants in immigration court don't have the same rights as criminal defendants (e.g. they don't have the right to a lawyer).
Except that as far as the article describes, the students aren't being charged with a crime, the brokers are (and are pretty unambiguously guilty of it). The students are just losing their visas.
FWIW, a Chronicle article that focuses on how the Feds maintained their fake web presence: http://chronicle.com/article/Inside-the-Elaborate-Web/235982
The Internet Archive has a copy of the now defunct unnj.edu: https://web.archive.org/web/20160327093120/http://www.unnj.e...
The Internet Archive has a copy of the now defunct unnj.edu: https://web.archive.org/web/20160327093120/http://www.unnj.e...
Given that you need to meet these eligibility criteria to even register a .edu domain name I think this shows a pretty concerted effort to make this look like a legitimate institution and dupe the students in the first place.
http://net.educause.edu/edudomain/eligibility.asp
http://net.educause.edu/edudomain/eligibility.asp
I just browsed the website archive for a couple of minutes. I wouldn't have noticed that this wasn't a legitimate university.
Astonishing excerpt:
The official confirmed that one person did enlist, and that only one person
was employed by Facebook, one person by Apple, two at Morgan Stanley and
several at other prominent financial institutions.
I had a background check once. They asked for my dates of attendance at my alma mater, which I provided. Then they called for clarification, because the dates they got from the university didn't match - I took 4 years to do a 4 year degree, graduating in 2009, but somehow the information they got suggested that I started in August 2007 and "left" in October 2008 - although they did agree that I had a degree.
I tried to explain to them that the dates they had managed to get from the university were for a job I had on campus, and that I hadn't done a bachelor's in a year. "Yes, sir, but if I can just confirm that you were there August 2007 through October 2008, then this will clear things up." So I did the expedient thing.
I tried to explain to them that the dates they had managed to get from the university were for a job I had on campus, and that I hadn't done a bachelor's in a year. "Yes, sir, but if I can just confirm that you were there August 2007 through October 2008, then this will clear things up." So I did the expedient thing.
I had an incredibly similar experience. My employer's third party background check company was able to confirm my degree, but claimed I'd gotten it in a year, and so my entire school section was listed on the report as (large, red): "UNCONFIRMED" (they never contacted me). I was somewhat worried, since there's some strong language about how if this background check doesn't go well the offer is voided or something, but my recruiter just laughed and said it happens all the time.
These people had degrees from real schools, they just enrolled in the fake school afterward so they could renew their visas.
And yes, companies do background checks. I received a copy of mine, as everyone is legally entitled to do, and it included information such as what school I graduated from.
And yes, companies do background checks. I received a copy of mine, as everyone is legally entitled to do, and it included information such as what school I graduated from.
>they just enrolled in the fake school afterward so they could renew their visas
So Facebook, who from what I hear around these parts, hires only the best and brightest, wasn't curious about how or why these incredibly smart foreigners were working and attending "UNNJ"?
So Facebook, who from what I hear around these parts, hires only the best and brightest, wasn't curious about how or why these incredibly smart foreigners were working and attending "UNNJ"?
How would they have found out? In my (limited) experience, background checks verify the information you provide, and maybe do a credit check and look through court records. It's not like they send investigators to follow you around. How would they have known someone was enrolled in a random scam school, if they didn't volunteer the information?
The only way to get a job here for some people is to get a student Visa. This sting is just morbid. All of that to arrest a thousand workers. Wrong priorities?
I'm pretty okay with enforcement action against this sort of fraud. What about people that actually want to come here to study?
I'd also be okay with radically simplifying and opening the Visa system, but I don't want the existing concessions to go to people that are intending to abuse them.
I'd also be okay with radically simplifying and opening the Visa system, but I don't want the existing concessions to go to people that are intending to abuse them.
> What about people that actually want to come here to study?
There are no quota on student visas
> that are intending to abuse them
I wouldn't call that an abuse. Rather, the only solution for many people if they don't want to stay/work illegally.
There are no quota on student visas
> that are intending to abuse them
I wouldn't call that an abuse. Rather, the only solution for many people if they don't want to stay/work illegally.
If they aren't studying it is clearly an abuse of the intent of the Visa.
It is confusing that the Visas are supposed to be issued in relation to an institution approved by the US government. Given that rule, it probably doesn't need to be up to the applicant to verify that their course of study is approved (I'd be fine charging a fee to cover that verification, but it should be done as part of issuing the Visa).
It is confusing that the Visas are supposed to be issued in relation to an institution approved by the US government. Given that rule, it probably doesn't need to be up to the applicant to verify that their course of study is approved (I'd be fine charging a fee to cover that verification, but it should be done as part of issuing the Visa).
>If they aren't studying it is clearly an abuse of the intent of the Visa
It's a fairly victimless crime... the visas' feelings aren't being hurt, that's for sure.
In this particular case especially, the Department of Homeland Security "verified" the school. How can you expect immigrants to do any more research than getting the approval of the DHS?
It's a fairly victimless crime... the visas' feelings aren't being hurt, that's for sure.
In this particular case especially, the Department of Homeland Security "verified" the school. How can you expect immigrants to do any more research than getting the approval of the DHS?
I edited in my second paragraph shortly before you posted, I agree that it's a bit much to require a verified school and then setup a fake school that appears to be verified.
> abuse: use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse. "the judge abused his power by imposing the fines"
No they are not. They are forced by the government to lie. A good way of using that word: "the government is abusing immigrants' state of mind"
No they are not. They are forced by the government to lie. A good way of using that word: "the government is abusing immigrants' state of mind"
abuse: the improper use of something.
I don't really see the point of trying to have a conversation if my words are subject solely to your interpretation.
I don't really see the point of trying to have a conversation if my words are subject solely to your interpretation.
> The only way to get a job here for some people is to get a student Visa.
Not everyone can get a job here. Using a student visa to get a job is screwing over an actual student somewhere else.
Not everyone can get a job here. Using a student visa to get a job is screwing over an actual student somewhere else.
There's no student visa quota, so they're not screwing over any students. They're screwing over an actual legal worker, I guess, assuming someone else would have taken their job.
> There's no student visa quota, so they're not screwing over any students.
This is a good way to encourage introducing a quota.
> They're screwing over an actual legal worker, I guess, assuming someone else would have taken their job.
Also true.
This is a good way to encourage introducing a quota.
> They're screwing over an actual legal worker, I guess, assuming someone else would have taken their job.
Also true.
They're not really screwing anyone over. They had already come here legally, graduated from American universities, and gotten jobs appropriately. At this point, they have their jobs and there's no 'screwing anyone over' - if anyone has been disadvantaged, it was them for not winning the H1-B lottery.
I don't follow. A student visa shouldn't imply they get a US job at all, and it's somewhat concerning it works like that.
> They're screwing over an actual legal worker
yeah, they need to go back in their countries.
yeah, they need to go back in their countries.
Wait, hold on - let me break this down a little more simplistically:
Communities of foreign-born peoples, possibly already living in the US (undocumented / falsified records) exist. There are "brokers" who cater to these communities, engaging in a fraudulent enterprise of getting Student Visas for these foreign nationals, usually under the umbrella of a made-up university. With this made-up university, these people can claim to be students yet spend their time working - for whom, over or under the table, I'm not clear from the article.
What is quite clear:
>Most of the students were from China and India, where working with brokers is a familiar way of doing business.
This model of using brokers is not to be envied, and if 25 (or more) "students" were led into submitting their documentation in order to commit fraud in the US...well, I've got no sympathy. Make a point. In the US, the concept of "brokers" often includes licenses and duties to perform in earnest (insurance, securities, health plans, etc), not assisting with committing fraud.
I understand the strong desire to come to the US, legally or illegally, and stay however possible. That's what's being preyed upon as well. There are certain cultural practices in the US though, while not perfect, I still think have meaning and importance.
This article does a good job putting humanity to those affected, but seems, um, a bit tone-deaf as to the bigger picture...in that to find people willing to commit fraud, the setup had to be 'believable' enough. Methinks it was. Caveat Emptor.
Communities of foreign-born peoples, possibly already living in the US (undocumented / falsified records) exist. There are "brokers" who cater to these communities, engaging in a fraudulent enterprise of getting Student Visas for these foreign nationals, usually under the umbrella of a made-up university. With this made-up university, these people can claim to be students yet spend their time working - for whom, over or under the table, I'm not clear from the article.
What is quite clear:
>Most of the students were from China and India, where working with brokers is a familiar way of doing business.
This model of using brokers is not to be envied, and if 25 (or more) "students" were led into submitting their documentation in order to commit fraud in the US...well, I've got no sympathy. Make a point. In the US, the concept of "brokers" often includes licenses and duties to perform in earnest (insurance, securities, health plans, etc), not assisting with committing fraud.
I understand the strong desire to come to the US, legally or illegally, and stay however possible. That's what's being preyed upon as well. There are certain cultural practices in the US though, while not perfect, I still think have meaning and importance.
This article does a good job putting humanity to those affected, but seems, um, a bit tone-deaf as to the bigger picture...in that to find people willing to commit fraud, the setup had to be 'believable' enough. Methinks it was. Caveat Emptor.
Caveat Emptor indeed, but 3 separate official sites listed the college as being legitimate.
Which appeals to the greed of thos applying. After all, what good is a No-show degree if it's not accredited? By nature accredited institutions shouldn't be engaged in the activity that was requested (credit for not showing up).
Bigger picture? The bigger picture is Americans think going to school and working should be illegal for anyone else but themselves, and that it's okay to hurt young students trying to get ahead in the name of protecting their xenophobic and hypocritical immigration laws. Your presidential candidate's biggest idea is a fucking giant wall to keep the mexicans you love to employ out.
What a joke. If you think there's any sense to stings like this you're deluded.
What a joke. If you think there's any sense to stings like this you're deluded.
Oh really? I went to graduate school alongside 20+ Tawainese, South Korean, and other SE Asian nationals who did things right, who were attending classes, and who are the ones who would be hurt by this scam. Honest people pay the price.
If you think for a hot minute that a student "going to a University" and not going to classes but instead "working full-time" isn't an abuse of the Student Visa system, then I'm not the deluded one. It's you, projecting xenophobia on top of plain as day crime and punishment.
Take your whole garbage assertion that the US should change its culture to better match bribery and graft as the only indicators of accomplishment and use it somewhere else. I'm not buying it. Not a bit.
If you think for a hot minute that a student "going to a University" and not going to classes but instead "working full-time" isn't an abuse of the Student Visa system, then I'm not the deluded one. It's you, projecting xenophobia on top of plain as day crime and punishment.
Take your whole garbage assertion that the US should change its culture to better match bribery and graft as the only indicators of accomplishment and use it somewhere else. I'm not buying it. Not a bit.
How were American students hurt by this? Immigrating illegally is a victimless crime.
These students were not going to school. They knew they wouldn't be taking classes. Are you arguing this wasn't a scam?
Most universities will let you do an internship or something instead of a class. And, this university was accredited by a reputable organization, so they held this out as something that a great number of reputable people and organizations had supposedly said was OK. And these were foreigners in particular, so they might not have the same warning signals that US natives might have.
At the end of the day the US higher-ed system is largely pay-to-win anyway. If you just want to check the boxes so you can make it through the HR filters and move onto a decent-paying job, most schools will happily oblige. All they care about is if the check clears, there's plenty of students who surf the internet through their gen-eds and easily pass. College is what you make of it, and it's simply not that weird to see an accredited university offering a super-easy course load.
If the difference you're seeing here is that they don't hold a lecture for the kids to skip, who cares? Sounds like cost optimization to me - eliminate the tutoring and you can get your name on a piece of piece of paper and check that box even more cheaply.
At the end of the day the US higher-ed system is largely pay-to-win anyway. If you just want to check the boxes so you can make it through the HR filters and move onto a decent-paying job, most schools will happily oblige. All they care about is if the check clears, there's plenty of students who surf the internet through their gen-eds and easily pass. College is what you make of it, and it's simply not that weird to see an accredited university offering a super-easy course load.
If the difference you're seeing here is that they don't hold a lecture for the kids to skip, who cares? Sounds like cost optimization to me - eliminate the tutoring and you can get your name on a piece of piece of paper and check that box even more cheaply.
I'm not arguing anything. Students who pay thousands of dollars to try and get citizenship so they can work and make a life for themselves aren't the problem, should not be seen as "the enemy", and aren't fraudsters. Someone who intends to trick others for financial gain is a fraudster. Get some perspective.
If a kid uses my credit card to sign up for a porn subscription... she has technically committed fraud. But she's not a fraudster, and throwing the book at her would be seen as ridiculous.
If a kid uses my credit card to sign up for a porn subscription... she has technically committed fraud. But she's not a fraudster, and throwing the book at her would be seen as ridiculous.
People commuting fraud? Yeah, real fucking hard working. My grandparents came here, legally, worked their ass off to provide and integrated. If you don't want to play fair, too fucking bad. We don't owe you shit. We never have, and never will.
And why bring Trump into this? I'd prefer it that my blue collar father didn't get out-competed by illegal immigrants. Unfortunately cheap, unscrupulous businessman often don't care. Nor do the illegals who purchase stolen credentials.
And why bring Trump into this? I'd prefer it that my blue collar father didn't get out-competed by illegal immigrants. Unfortunately cheap, unscrupulous businessman often don't care. Nor do the illegals who purchase stolen credentials.
> My grandparents came here, legally, worked their ass off to provide and integrated.
That doesn't mean people who come here illegally don't work their ass off. But typical American attitude "I got mine so screw you!"
That doesn't mean people who come here illegally don't work their ass off. But typical American attitude "I got mine so screw you!"
These fuckers clearly didn't. And yet you're arguing we're somehow doing something wrong by going after them?
This is a clear-cut case of fraud. I'll have you know I grew up in the southern US, I have many "illegal" friends I grew up with. You know what they did? Worked hard and found their own path. Hell, my "child of immigrants" mother actively denigrates Hispanics and I call her out when she does. Somehow I have a "fuck you, got mine" attitude?
This is a clear-cut case of fraud. I'll have you know I grew up in the southern US, I have many "illegal" friends I grew up with. You know what they did? Worked hard and found their own path. Hell, my "child of immigrants" mother actively denigrates Hispanics and I call her out when she does. Somehow I have a "fuck you, got mine" attitude?
The only fucker here is you, defending the idea that people who pay money to try and get into the US should be punished. Working hard and immigrating illegally are not mutually exclusive - nor does these students illegally coming here harm anyone whose already here.
They paid money to commit a crime. I don't see why we should allow those exhibiting moral turpitude inside our country. They could have found a legal, if not more arduous channel to enter legally. Instead, they are criminals.
If I am a fucker, you are a traitor to the country. Or, you're a foreign agent who needs to stow his opinions on our domestic policies.
If I am a fucker, you are a traitor to the country. Or, you're a foreign agent who needs to stow his opinions on our domestic policies.
“Typically in any fraud investigation, it is our policy that we do not refund any money,” Mr. Phillips, the Homeland Security spokesman, said.
Sounds like the ones committing fraud here were the US government. But, would you really expect anything different?
Sounds like the ones committing fraud here were the US government. But, would you really expect anything different?
>Twenty-five students were listed as anonymous co-conspirators, but officials say all of them knew they were committing fraud by not going to class.
In my country there's no obligation whatsoever to go to class.
You can skip as long as you like (except some special lab courses) and s long as you are able to pass the final exams, you are OK.
And even if you don't show up for the exams, you can try again next year (kids working while studying often take like 10 years to complete a 3 year course, but you could still be considered a student after 15 or 20 years, as long as you registered every year -- of course some privileges, like student discounts and being able to live in the dorm etc were not available to you anymore after the 4th year or so).
In my country there's no obligation whatsoever to go to class.
You can skip as long as you like (except some special lab courses) and s long as you are able to pass the final exams, you are OK.
And even if you don't show up for the exams, you can try again next year (kids working while studying often take like 10 years to complete a 3 year course, but you could still be considered a student after 15 or 20 years, as long as you registered every year -- of course some privileges, like student discounts and being able to live in the dorm etc were not available to you anymore after the 4th year or so).
From the related coverages linked on the bottom of this article, there is this surprising info.
The official confirmed that one person did enlist, and that only one person was employed by Facebook, one person by Apple, two at Morgan Stanley and several at other prominent financial institutions.
They graduated first from other schools, then got these jobs. When the students lost the H1-B lottery, they then enrolled in the UNNJ. There's probably questions for HR to ask ('you lost the H1-B lottery, how are you still here?') but it's not related to applying to these schools with a fake university on the transcript (again, one that had multiple accreditations).
Duping and hurting innocent people who want to study or work in the US so they can collect their paycheck and pat themselves on the back for, what? Nothing. The brokers only exist because of the US's absurd anti-immigration policies! When I studied in America, ALL the foreigners including myself worked illegally to earn money to pay for school. Meanwhile, the American students were rude, lazy, and constantly complained about having to go to class 30 hours a week. Try having to wash dishes for $3/hr on top of that under the threat of deportation! America's rhetoric about "free markets" is completely bullshit. They're a heartless nation when it comes to education and healthcare.
I agree that the money should probably be refunded, but can you really say someone "wants to study" when they enroll in a university they know will hold no classes?
You can go somewhere else.
I'm liberal as can be , but you can't agree to the rules of a student visa and then say their so unfair.
I'm liberal as can be , but you can't agree to the rules of a student visa and then say their so unfair.
[deleted]
I have known many people of similar background quite closely and also talked to recruiters who help them get jobs. One thing I have invariably noticed none of them was tricked into shady visa related things. They absolutely wanted shortcuts legal or not.
There are many more universities still working on same model. They are legal in very strict and narrow sense but intention is to have students who just want visa to land in US. This model proliferated during stricter H1 scrutiny as student visa proved another way to enter US and work.
There are many more universities still working on same model. They are legal in very strict and narrow sense but intention is to have students who just want visa to land in US. This model proliferated during stricter H1 scrutiny as student visa proved another way to enter US and work.
Sting Operation is illegal in Japan.
A proof of crime acquired in an illegal way is not proof in japan.
I don't want to set foot on American soil because I cannot trust the law of USA.
I don't want to set foot on American soil because I cannot trust the law of USA.
Am I the ink one who wants one of those UNNJ t-shirt?
Imagine you started a new Department of Internal Security, got a .gov domain, built up a large website with forms to have people apply for some kind of visa, and took money from random people who thought it was a federal agency. Would you be guilty of something?
At least the UNNJ t-shirt should be some kind of collector's item.
Here's how it worked:
www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/winston-university/n9203
www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/winston-university/n9203
If I was told that all I needed to pay was $4500, and don't have to attend classes, for a course that the every student in other universities attend classes for, would I not have second thoughts about the university ? Every student who joined UNNJ knew it was a scam, and they were an accomplice
That's messed up
Sounds like the Billy Crystal SNL routine.
Eh, it was clear to all involved that this was a fake university with no real classes, even if it appeared that the university had fooled the DHS.
I think we can all agree that DHS was in the wrong for having a sting university accredited, but I think it's fair to say that if a foreign national is too thick to see the scam in being enrolled in a university that doesn't make them take classss to get a student visa, then we don't need them, and if they are so unscrupulous to see the scam for what it is and they break the law regardless, then we don't want them.
Ultimately, the students said that because the Department of Homeland Security’s website certified the University of Northern New Jersey, they believed the institution was legitimate. In addition, the website of the New Jersey Education Department listed it as approved. So did the website of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, a national body.
It's easy to think "Oh, those students knew they were being duped, they knew what they were getting into"- but if you're coming from another country with a completely different way of doing things, and this university which appears to be accredited AND have the blessing of the US Government pops up going "Apply here and we'll give you a visa, you don't have to go to class and we promise it's above-board"... I don't think that's going to immediately register as a scam. Odd, maybe, but then you see they're accredited and you think "well if it was a scam they wouldn't have accreditation."