Students at Fake University Say They Were Collateral Damage in Sting Operation
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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."
“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
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.
US has 300 million people. 1,000 students make little difference. Whether legal or not.
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.
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.
So just like most Ivy League schools?
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?
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.
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.
or just frustrated with that shitty visa system.
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?
So in this case they probably would have to have been offering the illegal jobs too, not just the fraudulent Visa status.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-en...
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?
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
"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..."
The Internet Archive has a copy of the now defunct unnj.edu: https://web.archive.org/web/20160327093120/http://www.unnj.e...
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 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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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).
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"
I don't really see the point of trying to have a conversation if my words are subject solely to your interpretation.
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?
Not everyone can get a job here. Using a student visa to get a job is screwing over an actual student somewhere else.
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.
yeah, they need to go back in their countries.
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.
What a joke. If you think there's any sense to stings like this you're deluded.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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?
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 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.
Sounds like the ones committing fraud here were the US government. But, would you really expect anything different?
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).
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'm liberal as can be , but you can't agree to the rules of a student visa and then say their so unfair.
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.
I don't want to set foot on American soil because I cannot trust the law of USA.
www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/winston-university/n9203