When Akbar Naqvi applied from Pakistan to study at Northwestern, he filled out a straightforward student visa application, went to an interview, and received his visa in four weeks. That was August 2001.

Just one month later, the events of Sept. 11 would cast a shadow of doubt over numerous government agencies, including the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The United States faced an alarming reality: How had the INS allowed 19 terrorists into the United States without raising a red flag?

News stories following the attacks exposed the visa application program as a porous agency, incapable of monitoring even the most suspicious immigrants.

With the USA PATRIOT Act, the government introduced an array of new procedures and protocols to clamp down on the INS, its monitoring program and visa applications. When the government moved the INS from the Justice Department to the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003, it was clear immigration law changed forever in a post-9/11 United States.

‘SENSITIVE’ CASES SINGLED OUT

Naqvi felt the effects of those changes firsthand. Speaking about being singled out in immigration lines, his calm tone belies a deeper frustration with the government’s program.

“In the normal immigration line, I’m asked to step aside, sent to another room, asked questions regarding my college, my majors, my license, bank accounts, IDs. This list goes on,” said Naqvi, whose Pakistani citizenship makes him a “sensitive” case deserving “special registration.”

“Before, it took about 20 minutes,” he said. “With this program, it can take up to three hours.”

To counter terrorist immigration, the government implemented a sweeping policy of stricter security screenings, longer waiting periods, tougher visa application requirements and increased scrutiny at ports of entry. The government’s reform was extensive and its reasoning clear: Tightening international visa applications would identify potential terrorists or deter them altogether from coming into the United States.

Sotirios A. Tsaftaris, a doctoral student in electrical engineering from Greece, said attempts to streamline the immigration process have instead made the system more prone to human error.

“It all depends on the mood of the INS officer the day you meet him,” Tsaftaris says. “He may say, ‘This document is fake,’ or ‘I don’t believe you.’ No matter how much documentation you have, it all depends on what the INS officer wants to do with you. It’s not systematic; it’s arbitrary.”

SECURITY AT WHAT COST?

Stricter visa requirements may be keeping out foreign terrorists, but they come at the expense of international student enrollment.

The increase in international applicants at NU this year does not reflect the national trend. More than three years after the terrorist attacks, the number of international students applying to study in the United States is declining for the first time in 30 years, falling 20 percent in the last two years alone.

Shu-You Li, a doctoral student from China, said the security measures can sometimes be so overwhelming that they discourage even visiting family overseas. A recent trip home for her became a nightmare when delay after delay caused her to rethink future travel plans.

“Due to a long security clearance procedure, my trip was delayed for one and half months,” Li said. “My work was significantly delayed and my colleagues here were forced to take care of my responsibilities because of my absence.

“I was so terrified that I won’t even think of taking another trip overseas if this policy remains.”

The greatest loss, perhaps, is not to foreign students, but to American capacity in science and technology.

In 1975 the United States ranked third in the world in the percentage of undergraduate students majoring in science and engineering according to the National Science Board. Thirty years later, it ranks 17th among developed nations.

The NSB reported last year that international students comprise more than half of those majoring in science and engineering programs in the United States. The study concluded that U.S. leadership in science and technology depends on the contribution of foreign students and scientists. Fewer international students, it warned, could blunt the United States’ edge in those fields.

Nearly 57 percent of foreign students hail from Asian countries, where the application drop is especially drastic. Graduate school applicants from China have plunged 45 percent nationally; undergraduate enrollment is down 20 percent.

“That’s a loss for the universities,” Tsaftaris said. “That’s a loss of resources, a huge brain drain.”

‘They’ll come in another way’

For many students, the issue boils down to effectiveness. Two years ago, NU adopted SEVIS, an Internet-based tracking system that allows the university to share information about foreign students with the U.S. government. While many students understand the need for new programs to monitor foreign students, they doubt the efficiency of the current system.

“SEVIS is a good system to track international scholars, but I don’t think security check is,” Li said. “It won’t help catch criminals but sets barrier to the innocents.”

Tsaftaris agrees that a stricter visa system alone is not enough to keep terrorists out.

“I understand the system’s importance, but I don’t think it’s effective,” Tsaftaris said. “Terrorists are dedicated. So what if they’re blocked entering as a student? They’ll come in another way, through ports or across the river from Canada. Why make the visa system complicated and leave ports throughout the East coast vulnerable? What’s the difference?”

Reach Derek Thompson at [email protected].