AACRAO Home > Federal Relations > Federal Relations Archive > CIPRIS Repeal

CIPRIS Repeal

Pilot Program Participants Oppose CIPRIS Repeal

The following was submitted to AACRAO Government Relations staff by signatories of the position statement below, with a request that it be made available to AACRAO members. The statement opposes legislation offered by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) that was attached to H.R. 4690, the Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary fiscal year 2001 appropriations measure.

A DISSENTING POSITION BY THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN THERE

Dear fellow AACRAOans, NAFSAns and colleagues in international education:

You may have read in the NAFSA News EXTRAs on 18 and 20 September, that NAFSA is taking an official position to oppose CIPRIS and support a repeal effort. As members of NAFSA and participant schools in the CIPRIS pilot, we believe we need to respond to that decision in a public way so that it is clear where we stand:

WE SUPPORT KEEPING CIPRIS. WE OPPOSE THE REPEAL.
Our response is probably predictable, but we disagree with the idea of repealing CIPRIS. We whole-heartedly support the deletion of any requirements that we be part of the fee collection. And we support elimination of Congressionally mandated artificial and unreasonable deadlines. Conversion to CIPRIS should be done in an orderly, voluntary fashion that recognizes the needs of different kinds of schools and programs.

POLITICALLY CORRECT BIG BROTHER BASHING
We understand that some voice objections to CIPRIS on the theory of protecting international educational exchange from an oppressive federal government. No one has yet shown us how CIPRIS would have a negative effect on international exchange unless we, as international exchange professionals, make it do so. How is electronic reporting of this data evil, while posting F and J handouts and our annual statistics on our web sites is considered a blessing and a service? Why is reporting CIPRIS data more malevolent than electronic transfers of transcripts, or registering for classes on line? We would be reporting the same information that we have been required to report since the F-1 status was created in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.

The repeal of CIPRIS does not mean that INS will stop its progress toward electronic reporting. INS could continue CIPRIS under the same or another name. INS had already begun looking at electronic reporting well before the enactment of IIRAIRA that mandated tracking, and NAFSA had two good people, Harvey Stein (University of Chicago) and Greg Leonard (then of University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa), on the original pre-IIRAIRA task force.

If continued after a repeal of section 641 of IIRAIRA, CIPRIS would, of course, face the same budget and priority evaluations as all other INS projects, but the concept of CIPRIS would, by no means, be stopped in its tracks. INS can still follow through with electronic data collection.

That seems to be the general trend anyway. Note that a House version of the H-1B bill (which NAFSA has asked us to support) instructs INS and DOS to maximize on-line filing of H-1Bs, on-line status check options (instead of the telephone call to Service Centers), and recognition of web advertising/posting of positions. Much of immigration legislation is mandating use and recognition of electronic media to improve customer service. And INS in general has recognized the cost and customer service benefits of the Internet and on-line business processes.

WHO IS ENTITLED TO A FREE RIDE
Many voice objections to the idea of charging a fee of any kind to international students and scholars, and repealing CIPRIS would, in theory repeal the fee. While we know of no current plans by INS to charge fees, we all should understand that INS is not precluded from charging a fee if it is providing a service; it does so now for reinstatement and OPT. Our current feeless relationship with INS exists not by law, but by custom. INS can institute a form and charge a fee for any benefit, for example INS could attach a fee to every F action resulting in a benefit such as admission to the U.S., on-campus employment (assistantships), CPT, forms for family members, and so on. In order to assess whether students arrived and began school properly and are maintaining and continuing eligibility for benefits,INS could require that all students submit an INS registration fee after arrival or that they file annual extension fees to maintain status.

For the most part, the current procedures in 8 CFR are regulatory, not statutory. INS could pubish a proposed or final rule to collect fees and could move forward to put it into place. Yes, we did send 4,000 comments to INS on the last fee collection regulation and stopped it cold, but much of that response addressed the method of collection and the contorted legislative language that made us collection agencies. We would be hard pressed to make a reasonable and sustainable argument that students and scholars receive no INS benefits from their status and should not pay a fee to obtain and maintain status in the same way that almost all other visa classes do. INS still has to handle paperwork for them at ports of entry and for other benefits. Even if most of those benefits are notifications from us, someone has to be paid to key in that data and maintain the database. And how often have some at INS suggested that every student should have to get an EAD for any and all employment so as to make the I-9 rules and procedures easier and more consistent both for employers and for I-9 auditors?

If you don't believe that INS is thinking about the services it provides and what it costs them to do so, note that all of INS is currently at a near standstill while they count their applications on hand in every office to help them determine what applications they are receiving, what fees they are charging, who is benefiting, whether the fees are appropriate and sufficient, and what changes they may need to make. The repeal of CIPRIS would put us in a worse position if INS began to charge F and J fees. Without the specific earmarking of funds in CIPRIS,all the money collected would go into the general INS fund to be used across the range of INS services. The current CIPRIS statute directs that those funds be used for the express purpose of maintaining the CIPRIS system and thus providing direct services to students, scholars, and schools. CIPRIS is our best hope for insisting that money collected from students and scholars be used for their benefit.

"INVASION OF THE DATA SNATCERS"
Many voice objections to the use of an electronic system, believing that it will fail, malfunction, or otherwise create havoc, or that INS will somehow hack its way into our school databases. CIPRIS does not pluck data from our systems; we retrieve data from our systems and place it in CIPRIS. INS will only have access to the data we provide. Certainly systems can fail, but we are rushing to use the newest technology in all other areas of education, entertainment, business, and personal pursuits. How many of our schools, in just the last two decades, have gone from carbon paper copies of I-20s, to photocopies, to forms produced on memory typewriters, to software packages that prepare the forms, to commercial data base software that prepares the forms and keeps an electronic record? How many of us get daily e-mail messages from students asking if we have typed and mailed that I-20 yet, and wanting the FEDEX airbill number so that they can monitor the progress of the package via the Internet? Fear that the typewriter keys might get stuck seems a shortsighted excuse for continuing to use the quill pen.

We realize that the current political leadership of NAFSA supports the repeal of CIPRIS, though not, we believe, for reasons that are necessarily good for international education or helpful to those of us in the trenches every day. Repealing CIPRIS will not help advisers do their jobs better or easier or help students or scholars achieve their goals. Instead it could have the opposite long-term effect. Will all of us be inconvenienced at times with an electronic system? Of course, but are we not currently suffering similarly under an inefficient paper system with no relief in sight except what CIPRIS might offer?

WHAT'S IN IT FOR US?
In real, measurable, tangible terms, what will NAFSA members gain from the repeal of CIPRIS? And what will we lose by supporting the repeal? Ultimately the repeal position seems like a lot of NAFSA and campus resources used in support of a piece of repeal legislation that has little positive effect on the membership and the work we do. In broader terms, taking an official position on anything means we are stuck with it. We are talking about politics, after all, and if we go "on the record" on CIPRIS, then our position is recorded.

We believe such an official stance on anything seriously imperils our ability to negotiate in the future or to be seen as acting in good faith in delicate or complex discussions. If NAFSA has stridently declared opposition to CIPRIS and INS goes forward with the major elements of CIPRIS anyway, then NAFSA will have to work with INS, as has always been our practice, to make procedures and regulations fit the realities of international education. Wouldn't INS be reasonably suspicious of any suggestions or recommendations from NAFSA? Might they not wonder if they are being set-up for failure instead of assisted for success? Wouldn't our "record" on CIPRIS indicate that NAFSA is not to be trusted?

SO, AS LONG AS WE ARE GOING ON THE RECORD, WE DISAGREE WITH NAFSA'S REPEAL EFFORT.
For the record, we continue our strong support for the removal of schools as collection agents, and for the removal of artificial deadlines in the law. Also for the record, we continue our strong support for our reporting electronically, and list below some of the benefits of implementing CIPRIS or a similar electronic reporting format.

Elimination of a paper document and replacement with an electronically readable visa stamp or similar durable document that is less prone to damage, alteration, and loss and more likely to provide an admission document that is recognizable, legible, and acceptable to consular and INS officers.
No more confusion as to whether a student or scholar needs a new or pink copy of the IAP-66 or a new or recently endorsed I-20 for a visa stamp. There would be no IAP-66 or I-20.
Electronic reporting of extensions (remember those Js), transfers, CPT, OPT, AT and other events. Why would we want to print a document and mail it if all we had to do was create it on the screen and punch a key to update information in a database or give a benefit to a student? How many of us would rather print out and send faxes or, heaven forbid, mail letters instead of sending e-mail. All of us corresponding on INTER-L have personal experience on that issue. Same principle.
Possible vesting of OPT authority back to the DSOs totally. CIPRIS represents our best chance of getting INS to give us complete OPT authority as a matter of reporting rather than as an application to INS. That gives us a quick turn-around time if a great job comes up for a student, and it gives us flexibility in the amount of time we authorize. Students who need intermittent OPT are less likely to lose great chunks of it to "processing rules" and the inability to stop or retract an EAD in a timely manner.
No more forms to maintain. We don't have to order, stockpile, and reorder I-20s or IAP-66s.
No more annual reports for the J. All of our annual report information is already in the database.
No more IIE reports to prepare, or at minimum we might need to report the unusual folks like H-4 students and G-4 scholars. Todd Davis at IIE has been working directly with the CIRPIS task force to design the system to collect current, accurate data for Open Doors and similar reports directly from the CIPRIS database. "Open Doors" will be far more accurate that it is now because all schools will be included, not just those who return their forms.
Reasonably reliable statistical data that could enhance the quality of planning for a range of purposes on our campus.
Recognition at consular posts and ports of entry that the students or scholars we have admitted or invited are bona fide and are not carrying fraudulent documents. Is computer fraud possible? Sure. But isn't paper fraud a thousand times more possible? Haven't we all seen it? If INS has reviewed a school and added it to the CIPRIS system, and if that school has entered a student into the system as having been accepted and as having met all the F-1 or J-1 requirements, then a consular officer is in a much better position to assume that the student before him is a bona fide student going to an appropriate bona fide school.
Possible expedited admission at ports of entry. Frequent business travels can register with INS for the B-1 INPASS system and do a quick hand-scan admission to the U.S. at major ports of entry. No waiting in line. No delays. Why shouldn't our students and scholars get the same level of respect, recognition, and immediate admission to the U.S. that corporate business travelers receive? They are equally valued visitors to our country. CIPRIS could work in much the same way to allow students and scholars to bypass the long lines and to receive appropriate recognition and expeditious admission.
Possible amelioration of the effects of the "nonimmigrant intent" law, unless, of course, we plan to change that part of the law while we are repealing CIPRIS. If we give INS and DOS ongoing, real-time reports that confirm that students and scholars are pursuing their appropriate activities, then everyone is more comfortable with the idea of those students and scholars traveling. And if these folks are carrying the durable identity document, the validity of which is computer linked to their status, it becomes easier to apply a concept similar to "automatic revalidation" to F and J generally for all travel. Overworked consular officers could turn their attention to more worthy scrutiny more likely to protect the U.S. from those who might intend to enter our country for purposes contrary to our interests.

SLEEPING (OR AT LEAST HANGING OUT) WITH THE ENEMY
By supporting CIPRIS and opposing the repeal, have we abandoned the high mindedness of NAFSA for the low morals of INS? Some may think so, but our first duty is to our institutions and our second is to our students and scholars. As a CIPRIS school, we know what the system, even in its pilot version, has done and can do to expedite processing and reduce useless paperwork. We can imagine what a national CIPRIS system could do for us all if it gets INS out of the review and adjudication business, with respect to students and scholars, and lets us manage F and J issues from admission to OPT and AT with a simple notification. Why wouldn't we want authority to facilitate international exchange in a manner that best suits our schools and our students and scholars, while notifying INS that all is well, rather than hoping and begging for a benefit to come through on time? Why would we want our professional association to oppose that possibility?

Please support the effort to retain CIPRIS. Unlike the NAFSA leadership, we the CIPRIS schools have lived it and seen the wonderful benefits of CIPRIS for our students and for our institutions.

Respectfully,

Bob Hanley
Anderson College, SC

Jim Ellis & Mary Jo Wear
Auburn University, Auburn, AL

Wayne Bley
Bob Jones University, SC

Diane Miller
Brenau University, GA

Frankie Felder & Jim Findley
Clemson University

Catheryn Cotten
Duke University, Medical Center, & Health System, NC

Veronique Barnes
Nancy Grattan
Katheryn Quin
Georgia Perimeter College, GA

Malinda Carmon
Guilford Technical Community College, NC

Joanna Scholl & Kelley Broome
Mercer University, Macon GA

George Blanc
Methodist College, NC

Richard Tinneny & Karlann Brenner
Midlands Technical College, SC