5 ms·

"Perceived espionage" , there are plenty of convictions and proof of CCP using university "confucious centers" to recruit assets and entire police departments i

by _8j50 3y ago

"Perceived espionage" , there are plenty of convictions and proof of CCP using university "confucious centers" to recruit assets and entire police departments in US,Canada and EU to control chinese people who migrated to the US for these reasons. This reads like a highly biased hit piece. I don't think the US is better off with foreign nationals that seek education in the US but have no desire to get permanent residency. Especially at public uni's and NSF funded programmes at private colleges.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
daveed 3y ago
> I don't think the US is better off with foreign nationals that seek education in the US but have no desire to get permanent residency I don't think this comment draws the distinction between people who came here without long-term plans, and people who came here and left because they felt they would not be welcome long-term.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- _8j50 3y ago
  I have no problem with people that do not feel welcome and leave. I have a problem with those whose plan was to get US education and go back home. I believe much of the people that are going back for whatever reason never planned to stay. The article as well makes no attempt to prove that isn't the case. That's why I said it reads like propaganda, that and the "perceived espionage" phrase usage.
  - macintux 3y ago
    > I have a problem with those whose plan was to get US education and go back home. Why? If I (an American) studied in the UK, did I somehow betray the British by returning to the U.S. after? I paid tuition, I contributed to the economy while there, I helped bridge cultural gaps.
    - _8j50 3y ago
      I specifically pointed out public unis and NSF grants because they are tax payer funded investments. College isn't free in the US, foreigners would attend their own colleges but whatever benefit a US college created, if it is taxpayer funded should prioritize those who will stay to benefit the public. Your example is also peculiar because of the relationship between the US and UK, any advantages you gained in the UK might help the US instead of the UK but it will not harm the UK's security or industry because of friendly relations, legal cooperations and extradition treaties. China and countries not friendly to the US training people in the US who will go back and develop industry and technological advantage all on US taxpayer's dime isn't the same thing. Even when you pay tuition, a public uni or a gov sponsored grant is subsidizing much of the cost you would otherwise been expected to pay.
  - daveed 3y ago
    > I believe much of the people that are going back for whatever reason never planned to stay But why do you believe that? You're asking for the article to prove that isn't the case, and I'm asking in all earnestness, what is the argument that it would be the case?
    - _8j50 3y ago
      Because I know first hand plenty of immigrants that come to the US simply to get an education and go back. Nothing wrog with that, and it seems unreasonable to say all Chinese people who come to the US to attend school intended to stay in the US long term. I mean, student visas don't even allow most of them to stay if they wanted to, you can look up student visa stats for China to find proof for my point.
bell-cot 3y ago
> I don't think the US is better off with foreign nationals that seek education in the US... I know a guy whose wife was once a bank teller, near a major (public) US research university. By his telling, arriving Chinese (mainland) college students typically opened their bank accounts with mid-6-figure deposits. Perhaps you should talk to someone in the tourism or hospitality industry, about your great new idea of turning away pay-top-dollar customers en mass? (And maybe also talk to an average research staffer doing NSF-funded research, about just how wretched the pay, hours, and job security are. Sunk Cost fallacies and social status aside, many of those folks would really be better off mowing lawns and flipping burgers.)
- blululu 3y ago
  This isn’t tourism, this is education. It is about training for skills that are presumably valuable for the country to have. Since there are also a limited number of spots and the tax payers foot the bill we should be more concerned that the people who get the spots are going to be in it for the long haul. Mercenaries have always been a questionable investment. Of course the NSF should pay more, but saying “people don’t want these jobs” is more of a cheapskate slogan to justify exploitation.
  - Retric 3y ago
    These spots aren’t generally subsidized for foreign students. Higher education in the US has many types of price discrimination and subsidies so it’s a complex topic but foreign students will generally be charged a premium. Also rather than a fixed number of slots most schools grow and shrink based on demand. That’s why so many more people can get educated vs 40 or even 20 years ago. There’s generally a huge surplus of people willing to teach outside of a few niche areas.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    The "number of slots" at a university is limited in the exact same way as the number of tables at a fancy restaurant and the number of rooms at a nice hotel. The "limited" is a business model / marketing ploy - to maintain the air of exclusivity, and maximize revenue. And for your "taxpayers foot the bill"? I live near the University of Michigan. Total "public university" state funding, per student, is maybe $7,000 per year. Vs. out-of-state undergraduate students are charged a ~$40,000 per year premium, over in-state tuition rates. (BTW, U of M total enrollment has increased ~50% in the past 30 years. Building more classrooms and hiring more staff is easy stuff, from a U-M Executive Suite PoV.) My NSF point was not that NSF should pay more. It was that your "foreign nationals...NSF funded programs" argument is not logical. If we're paying crap wages to "best and brightest" foreign nationals, while American drop-outs do better flipping burgers...that sure doesn't sound like "them" taking advantage of "us". Quite the opposite.
chaostheory 3y ago
The problem is that these policies affect people even when they’re from allied countries which is ridiculous in light of the new tech war
Retric 3y ago
The world including U.S. citizens are better off with a well educated population. Research funded by foreign powers can still improve people’s lives with the added benefit that we don’t have to pay for it. Currently China has a terrible reputation when it comes to science, but there are also useful discoveries taking place. That’s not to say there are zero downsides, but the vast majority of information these people are receiving is already freely available. US universities are world class, but there’s already some quite competitive schools in many other countries including China.
- _8j50 3y ago
  The problem everyone in this thread is missing is that by fueling Chinese education at US tax payer cost, their educational institutions and research programs already rival the US. Competition is fine but paying your competitor to win is silly.
  - Retric 3y ago
    The premium paid by many foreign students is well above what the average American is paying. Price discrimination by US schools is designed to maximize what they can extract and they are very skilled at it. It’s a complicated topic with plenty of ambiguity, but on net the US is economically better off with these students. You can argue about past funding for these institutions, but at worst the net subsidy is minuscule compared to what foreign investors of US companies are receiving. You could point to research grants for graduate students, but these people are doing actual work at below market rates. It’s comparable to H1B’s except they are paid less and more of that money is funneled back into the US economy.

by _8j50 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

daveed 3y ago

> I don't think the US is better off with foreign nationals that seek education in the US but have no desire to get permanent residency I don't think this comment draws the distinction between people who came here without long-term plans, and people who came here and left because they felt they would not be welcome long-term.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
_8j50 3y ago
I have no problem with people that do not feel welcome and leave. I have a problem with those whose plan was to get US education and go back home. I believe much of the people that are going back for whatever reason never planned to stay. The article as well makes no attempt to prove that isn't the case. That's why I said it reads like propaganda, that and the "perceived espionage" phrase usage.
- macintux 3y ago
  > I have a problem with those whose plan was to get US education and go back home. Why? If I (an American) studied in the UK, did I somehow betray the British by returning to the U.S. after? I paid tuition, I contributed to the economy while there, I helped bridge cultural gaps.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    I specifically pointed out public unis and NSF grants because they are tax payer funded investments. College isn't free in the US, foreigners would attend their own colleges but whatever benefit a US college created, if it is taxpayer funded should prioritize those who will stay to benefit the public. Your example is also peculiar because of the relationship between the US and UK, any advantages you gained in the UK might help the US instead of the UK but it will not harm the UK's security or industry because of friendly relations, legal cooperations and extradition treaties. China and countries not friendly to the US training people in the US who will go back and develop industry and technological advantage all on US taxpayer's dime isn't the same thing. Even when you pay tuition, a public uni or a gov sponsored grant is subsidizing much of the cost you would otherwise been expected to pay.
- daveed 3y ago
  > I believe much of the people that are going back for whatever reason never planned to stay But why do you believe that? You're asking for the article to prove that isn't the case, and I'm asking in all earnestness, what is the argument that it would be the case?
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Because I know first hand plenty of immigrants that come to the US simply to get an education and go back. Nothing wrog with that, and it seems unreasonable to say all Chinese people who come to the US to attend school intended to stay in the US long term. I mean, student visas don't even allow most of them to stay if they wanted to, you can look up student visa stats for China to find proof for my point.

bell-cot 3y ago

> I don't think the US is better off with foreign nationals that seek education in the US... I know a guy whose wife was once a bank teller, near a major (public) US research university. By his telling, arriving Chinese (mainland) college students typically opened their bank accounts with mid-6-figure deposits. Perhaps you should talk to someone in the tourism or hospitality industry, about your great new idea of turning away pay-top-dollar customers en mass? (And maybe also talk to an average research staffer doing NSF-funded research, about just how wretched the pay, hours, and job security are. Sunk Cost fallacies and social status aside, many of those folks would really be better off mowing lawns and flipping burgers.)

blululu 3y ago
This isn’t tourism, this is education. It is about training for skills that are presumably valuable for the country to have. Since there are also a limited number of spots and the tax payers foot the bill we should be more concerned that the people who get the spots are going to be in it for the long haul. Mercenaries have always been a questionable investment. Of course the NSF should pay more, but saying “people don’t want these jobs” is more of a cheapskate slogan to justify exploitation.
- Retric 3y ago
  These spots aren’t generally subsidized for foreign students. Higher education in the US has many types of price discrimination and subsidies so it’s a complex topic but foreign students will generally be charged a premium. Also rather than a fixed number of slots most schools grow and shrink based on demand. That’s why so many more people can get educated vs 40 or even 20 years ago. There’s generally a huge surplus of people willing to teach outside of a few niche areas.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  The "number of slots" at a university is limited in the exact same way as the number of tables at a fancy restaurant and the number of rooms at a nice hotel. The "limited" is a business model / marketing ploy - to maintain the air of exclusivity, and maximize revenue. And for your "taxpayers foot the bill"? I live near the University of Michigan. Total "public university" state funding, per student, is maybe $7,000 per year. Vs. out-of-state undergraduate students are charged a ~$40,000 per year premium, over in-state tuition rates. (BTW, U of M total enrollment has increased ~50% in the past 30 years. Building more classrooms and hiring more staff is easy stuff, from a U-M Executive Suite PoV.) My NSF point was not that NSF should pay more. It was that your "foreign nationals...NSF funded programs" argument is not logical. If we're paying crap wages to "best and brightest" foreign nationals, while American drop-outs do better flipping burgers...that sure doesn't sound like "them" taking advantage of "us". Quite the opposite.

chaostheory 3y ago

The problem is that these policies affect people even when they’re from allied countries which is ridiculous in light of the new tech war

Retric 3y ago

The world including U.S. citizens are better off with a well educated population. Research funded by foreign powers can still improve people’s lives with the added benefit that we don’t have to pay for it. Currently China has a terrible reputation when it comes to science, but there are also useful discoveries taking place. That’s not to say there are zero downsides, but the vast majority of information these people are receiving is already freely available. US universities are world class, but there’s already some quite competitive schools in many other countries including China.

_8j50 3y ago
The problem everyone in this thread is missing is that by fueling Chinese education at US tax payer cost, their educational institutions and research programs already rival the US. Competition is fine but paying your competitor to win is silly.
- Retric 3y ago
  The premium paid by many foreign students is well above what the average American is paying. Price discrimination by US schools is designed to maximize what they can extract and they are very skilled at it. It’s a complicated topic with plenty of ambiguity, but on net the US is economically better off with these students. You can argue about past funding for these institutions, but at worst the net subsidy is minuscule compared to what foreign investors of US companies are receiving. You could point to research grants for graduate students, but these people are doing actual work at below market rates. It’s comparable to H1B’s except they are paid less and more of that money is funneled back into the US economy.