Michael Rubin, writing at the Corner this week, took half a second to criticize NIAC’s work on expanding opportunities for Iranian students who want to come study in the US. I say half a second because Rubin doesn’t seem to have actually read the article we wrote, having missed the point of it entirely.
According to Rubin, the US should not expand the number or types of visas offered to Iranian students without demanding parity from Iran. “It would be more productive if the White House, Senate, and State Department” would make US visa policy for Iran mirror Iran’s visa policy for Americans, he says.
I, for one, was surprised Michael Rubin — one of the most vehemently anti-Iran people in all of Washington — would actually suggest that American visa policy should be dictated by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.
Working at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, Rubin shouldn’t take lightly the idea of handing over American immigration policy to Iran.
I don’t think he’s going to win many friends that way — at least not outside of Ahmadinejad’s inner-circle.
What’s more, Rubin clearly doesn’t understand what NIAC and thousands of other Iranian-Americans have called for. Providing multi-entry visas does not affect the control of the visa interviews, as Rubin suggested (although it was a nice touch when he implied that Iranians coming to the US might be terrorists). Really, he’s just opposed to the US doing anything that he views as a concession to Iran or its people.
But that’s precisely the problem: in Rubin’s view, helping the Iranian people is the same as helping the Iranian government. Forget that millions of Iranians stood up to protest against the government last year — Rubin simply can’t distinguish the Iranian people from the regime he so despises.
Sure, he shed some crocodile tears during the post-election crackdown last year, but now that protesters aren’t being killed in the streets he’s fallen back into his old habits again. And one of those habits is opposing any measure that could help ease the life of ordinary Iranians.
The fact is, Rubin’s criticism of our student visas policy doesn’t have anything to do with the substance of our plan. That’s obvious because there’s no “there” there.
Iranian students who want to come to the US have to come to grips with the reality that, once they arrive here, they can’t leave until graduation. The single-entry policy for Iranians means they have no choice but to miss out on academic conferences or other opportunities abroad; it means they’ll be unable to visit their homes for two, four, six years or more; and it means that they will be unable to return home in the event of some tragic family emergency. We at NIAC have spoken directly with a student in Virginia who couldn’t attend his father’s funeral because he couldn’t obtain a return visa.
These are good kids we’re talking about here — many are destined for successful careers as engineers, doctors, or lawyers — and many of them are more than willing to jump through as many hoops and security checks as it takes just to be able to have the option of going home once or twice during their six-year PhD programs. So, despite what Mr. Rubin says, no one is talking about undercutting control mechanisms in our immigration process.
What we’re talking about is making a small but significant overture to the youth of Iran — the future of Iran — to give them an opportunity to live and study here in the United States without forcing them to choose between an education and their family. We’re talking about distinguishing between Iranians and the Iranian government. We’re talking about doing something decent for the Iranian people.
In fact, President Obama called for more Iranian students to come to the US just a few months ago. The multi-entry visa will help make the President’s promise a reality.
No wonder Michael Rubin didn’t get it.
June 11, 2010