Detained Indian students were aware of their crime: State Dept
Washington, Feb 5: All 130 foreign students, including 129 Indians who were detained for enrolling in a fake university, were aware that they were committing a crime to fraudulently remain in the US, the State Department has said, days after India issued a demarche to the American Embassy in New Delhi.
The foreign students were arrested last week by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for enrolling at the University of Farmington allegedly to remain in America.
The fake university was set up by the DHS's investigating unit in Greater Detroit area to bust the "pay-and-stay" racket.
"All participants in this scheme knew that the University of Farmington had no instructors or classes (neither on-line nor in-person) and were aware they were committing a crime in an attempt to fraudulently remain in the United States," a State Department spokesperson said in a statement on Monday.
The State Department's response came after India issued a demarche to the American Embassy in New Delhi on Saturday, expressing its concern over the detention of Indian students and sought immediate consular access to them.
The External Affairs Ministry said India continued to closely monitor the situation arising out of the mass detention.
Eight of the individuals who ran this racket have been arrested and are either Indian citizen or Indian American.
The fake university which had no classes, a low tuition fee and gave work permits on the very first of the enrolments of the students had some 600 students, an overwhelming majority of whom are Indians.
The actual number of those detained is much higher. Some of the students who were released and many of those who escaped detention have left the country.
An unknown number of Indian students have been radio tagged and authorities have put restrictions on their movement.
The Indian Embassy here has made an aggressive effort to reach out to these students and, with the help of the community leaders, is providing them with legal help.
Eminent Indian-Americans and some media outlets have also questioned the modus operandi of the US government in the detention of Indians in the "pay-and-stay" university visa scam, saying "trapping of innocent students" is a "crime, illegal and immoral".
In the first reaction, days after the story broke out, the State Department had described it an unfortunate aberration in the proud history of India-US educational exchanges.
"More than a million international students' study at US institutions each year, including approximately 196,000 Indian students last year. Instances of fraud schemes are rare, unfortunate aberrations in the proud history of educational exchange between the United States and India," the State Department said.
The US government fully supports international education and is committed to facilitating legitimate student travel, it said in an apparent reference to the panic that the latest US move has created and reports coming out from India that students are now considering option to study in other countries and not the US.
"International students are a valuable asset to our universities and our economy and enrich our communities through sharing their diverse perspectives, skills, and experiences," it said, acknowledging that Indian students not only bring in about USD 6 billion per annum but also become instrumental in creation of thousands of jobs in the US.
"It is unfortunate that some student recruiters and individuals seek to use the international student programme to foster illegal immigration status in the United States," the State Department said.
Overseas Friends of BJP USA, in a statement, said that it was shocked to learn that 129 students of Indian-origin were arrested by the ICE, with about 600 students' fate in jeopardy.
"It is very unfortunate that several students are affected by this University and majority are Telugu students. Most of these students have joined to get their work permits without knowing that this college is not accredited and became victims of this. Their dreams are shattered now," North America Telugu Association said.
The association has advised other students not to fall into the trap and instead work hard and get OPT/CPT from reputed universities as per the normal guide lines.
"If some university is offering a CPT without any course, it is not true at all," it said.
The Indian embassy in the US has also opened a 24/7 hotline to assist 129 Indian students. It has appointed a nodal officer to help the students in distress.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Resolution for his removal: Speaker Birla to be present in House but not chair proceedings
New Delhi (PTI): The Lok Sabha will witness a rare moment most likely on Monday next when Om Birla will not chair proceedings but will be seated amongst the members as the House takes up a notice seeking his removal from office.
As Parliament meets for the second phase of the Budget session on March 9, the Lok Sabha is likely to take up the resolution moved by the opposition against Birla's for allegedly acting in a "blatantly partisan" manner.
According to the rules and laid down procedure, Birla will get a right to defend himself when the resolution is discussed by the lower house. He will also have the right to vote against the resolution, Constitution expert P D T Achary explained.
The expert said while Birla will not chair the proceedings when the resolution comes up before the House, he will be seated in the prominent rows in the Treasury benches.
At least 118 opposition members had submitted a notice for moving the resolution to remove Birla from office for not allowing Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders to speak in the House on the Motion of Thanks to the President's address, as well as for suspending eight MPs.
Congress member and chief whip K Suresh submitted the notice to the Lok Sabha secretariat on behalf of several opposition parties, including his party, Samajwadi Party and DMK.
TMC MPs, however, did not sign the notice.
ALSO READ: Curbs on movement, assembly remain in force in Kashmir after protests against Khamenei's killing
Achary, a former Lok Sabha secretary general, told PTI, that the "allocation of the seat, which the Speaker occupies under such circumstances is not mentioned in the Rules".
He said Birla will also not be able to vote on the resolution using the automated vote system, but will have to fill a slip to register his vote.
He presumes that a seat belonging to a Union minister, who is from the Rajya Sabha, could be given to him as only Lok Sabha members will be able to cast their votes for or against the resolution.
Deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha and deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha have their earmarked seats in their respective Houses when they are not presiding over.
Front seats in the opposition benches are allocated to them.
Article 96 of the Constitution bars a speaker or a deputy speaker from presiding over the House sitting while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration.
The speaker has a constitutional right to defend himself in the House if the resolution is discussed in the Lok Sabha.
At least two Lok Sabha members have to sign the notice to move a resolution for the speaker's removal. Any number of members can sign the notice but a minimum of two is mandatory.
The speaker can be removed from office by a resolution passed by the House through a simple majority.
Article 94C of the Constitution has provisions for such a move.
"All the members of the House are counted to compute the majority, not the members present and voting, which is the normal practice. It means the effective membership of the House, except for the vacancies, is used to calculate the majority," Achary said.
The notice has to be submitted to the Lok Sabha secretary general, and not the deputy speaker or anyone else, he said.
The document is then examined at the preliminary stage to see whether it contains "very specific charges", he said.
"At the threshold itself, there is a process of admissibility. At that stage, it is seen whether it contains specific charges. Specific charges are required as only then the speaker will be able to respond," Achary explained.
The resolution must not contain defamatory language or content.
Article 96 gives the speaker the opportunity to defend himself or herself in the House.
The language of the proposed resolution is usually examined by the deputy speaker, but since the present Lok Sabha does not have a deputy speaker, it may be examined perhaps by the senior-most member of the panel of chairpersons.
The panel helps the speaker run the House in his or her absence.
"The speaker examining a resolution that seeks his removal looks absurd," Achary said, adding that the rule is silent on the subject.
Once the processing part is over, the resolution reaches the House. But it can go to the House after 14 days, Achary said.
The chair then places it in the House for consideration. It is actually the House which admits it, or as the rule says, "grants permission".
Achary further said, "The chair then asks members in favour of the resolution to stand up. If 50 members stand up in support of it and if the criteria is fulfilled, the Chair announces that the House has granted permission. Once the House grants permission, it has to be taken up for discussion and disposed of within 10 days."
Lok Sabha sources said it will be taken up for discussion on Monday itself.
ALSO READ: SSLC exam begins in Kerala; Education Minister wishes students success
There are precedents of resolutions being moved. However, none has been adopted so far.
"The reason -- governments have a majority," Achary said.
The resolution alleges that Speaker Birla had acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner in conducting the business of the House and "abused" the constitutional office he occupies.
The Opposition also accused the speaker of making certain false allegations against members of the Congress.
Three Lok Sabha speakers -- G V Mavlankar (1954), Hukam Singh (1966) and Balram Jakhar (1987)-- had faced no-confidence motions in the past, which were negatived.
