&w=3840&q=100)
Harvard & Toronto Universities join hands to host international students amid Trump's visa blockade
Harvard University and the University of Toronto came out with a plan that would see some of the Harvard students complete their studies in Canada if visa restrictions prevent them from entering the United States read more
A Harvard sign is seen at the Harvard University campus in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 27. Image used for representation. (Source: AFP)
Harvard University and the University of Toronto are collaborating to host international students who are facing visa restrictions imposed by US President Donald Trump. Both institutions came out with a plan that would see some of the Harvard students complete their studies in Canada if visa restrictions prevent them from entering the United States.
The pact between the two institutions reflects how schools are willing to collaborate to ensure that students are not affected by the tumultuous policies introduced by the current Trump administration. The deal was struck between the Harvard John F Kennedy School of Government and the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In a letter to the students, Jeremy Weinstein, the Harvard Kennedy School Dean, noted that the plans were meant to ease concerns. He maintained that a formal program would only be unveiled if there is 'sufficient demand' from students who are unable to come to the United States.
'We are deeply grateful for the support of the Munk School and other partners, who are helping to ensure that we can continue to provide all HKS students with the excellent education they deserve,' he said in his letter.
Harvard's struggle with the Trump administration
The American university is locked in an acrimonious legal battle with the Trump administration after it claims the Department of Homeland Security improperly revoked its ability to enrol international students. It is pertinent to note that nearly a quarter of Harvard's students come from outside the US, and their students are a key source of funding for the school.
So far, Harvard has won two preliminary injunctions against the DHS, probably clearing a path for international students to obtain entry visas. 'These are exceptional times,' Janice Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, said in a statement.
'If Harvard Kennedy School international students are not able to complete their studies in Cambridge, Mass., the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy looks forward to providing shared academic and co-curricular experiences for students from both our schools.'
In addition to the HKS at Munk School program, institutes are also announcing HKS Global, which will have both an online and in-person component. The University of Toronto made it clear that Harvard students attending their college will still have to apply for Canadian study permits and will be enrolled as full-time, non-degree students at the Munk School.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The program is only open to students who have already completed a year of study in the United States. Interestingly, Canada has put its cap on international students and curtailed the number of visas it will allow. The University of Toronto said the plan with Harvard 'would not reduce the number of spaces available for U of T students in any academic programs or university housing'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump has struck trade deals with 2 countries ahead of July 9; what about the others? What is India's position?
As the July 9 deadline set by the Donald Trump administration approaches soon, officials have struggled to strike trade deals with a lot of countries. In almost three months, the US has been able to sign trade agreements with just two countries, with Trump and his officials hinting that a long pipeline is in place. Countries failing to strike deals with the US within the July 9 deadline will face tariffs as was announced by Trump in April. The President however on Friday indicated that the deadline could be moved forward. 'We can do whatever we want. We could extend it. We could make it shorter. I'd like to make it shorter. I'd like to just send letters out to everybody: Congratulations, you're paying 25 per cent,' he told reporters at the White House. Here's what you need to know about Donald Trump's trade deals. As of now, only two countries — China and UK — have signed trade deals with the US. 'The [Trump] administration and China agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement,' a White House official said on Thursday. That followed the talks in Geneva in May, where the US and China had agreed to reduce mutual tariffs. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg TV on Thursday that 'they [China] are going to deliver rare earths to us', and once Beijing does that 'we'll take down our countermeasures'. Trump signed an agreement on June 16, formally lowering some tariffs on imports from Britain as the countries continue working toward a formal trade deal. The deal, announced by Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada, reaffirmed quotas and tariff rates on British automobiles and eliminated tariffs on the U.K. aerospace sector, but the issue of steel and aluminum remains unresolved. While UK and China are the only countries that have signed trade deals with the US, Trump on Friday called off discussions with China, calling it a 'difficult country'. Trump abruptly ended the negotiations over its tax targeting US technology firms, saying that it was a "blatant attack" and that he would set a new tariff rate on Canadian goods within the next week. Majority of the trade partners of US, including South Korea, Vietnam and EU countries, are struggling to sign deals with America. Countries like France have rejected the notion of striking a deal that favours the US, and have proposed removal of tariffs altogether. Some EU member states have also rejected the idea of a tit-for-tat tarif, and are preferring a quick deal to a perfect one. India and Japan are considered to be the next countries that could strike trade deals with the US. 'But some of the bigger countries, India, I think we're going to reach a deal where we have the right to go in and trade. Right now, it's restricted. You can't walk in there. You can't even think about it,' Trump told reporters on Friday.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
* Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling Supreme Court ruling causes confusion over birthright citizenship * Lawyers and advocates field calls from anxious clients * Uncertainty remains on policy across different states By Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke WASHINGTON, - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
From proxy war to direct conflict: New strategic era in West Asia
The resilience of the Iranian regime, despite internal opposition and relentless external pressures, suggests that sudden or externally driven regime change is unlikely. Instead, such pressures could strengthen hardliners or provoke a more radical response read more The twelve-day war between Iran and Israel and the direct bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the US dramatically ended in a fragile ceasefire – as usual announced by President Trump. In West Asia a direct war between Tel Aviv and Tehran has mostly been seen with the deepest concern, and everyone hoped the inevitable would not happen as the two rivals continued to suffer from Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) syndrome. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, the worst has been averted, and all sides have claimed victory in the bargain as the existential threat matrix remains robust. It is perhaps a matter of time that the two will try to decimate the other in a clandestine or a direct confrontation. This time round, even though not a very major destruction of Iran's nuclear programme may not have taken place, surely it may have set back its enrichment capability to some extent. Hopefully, Tehran and Washington will resume talks on the 'Trumpian Deal' in lieu of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had been interrupted by Israeli strikes and the decapitation of Iranian military and nuclear leadership. Iran retaliated strongly and even avenged the US strikes by hitting, even if symbolically, at their Al-Udaid base in Qatar. Doha played a remarkable role in the ensuing ceasefire. The escalating conflict between Iran and Israel ignited a deeply concerning regional crisis with far-reaching multidimensional geopolitical and economic ramifications. What commenced as a prolonged, simmering rivalry violently erupted into direct military confrontations. This has inevitably drawn in external powers and cast an ominous shadow over the stability of the Middle East. It is useful to examine the current instances of ceasefire violations, discuss the significant role of US involvement in shaping its direction, and assess the impact on Iran's nuclear programme and strategic capabilities. Break down the effects on global oil prices and the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, and highlight the actions and motivations of various external players. Also explore the repercussions for neighbouring Gulf states, and finally, consider the uncertain possibility of regime change in Iran. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The situation developed quickly, marked by a dangerous cycle of direct military escalation. It is apparent that there is an increase in hostilities, with the United States openly joining Israel's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear program. This unprecedented military effort, known as 'Operation Midnight Hammer' by the US, involved a major air assault that commenced on June 13, 2025, followed by coordinated strikes on June 21, 2025. These actions represent a significant shift from earlier, secretive operations to open, large-scale military intervention. They involved advanced B-2 bombers and powerful 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators targeting Iran's underground nuclear sites. In response, Iran quickly launched its retaliatory actions, resulting in escalating violence. This ongoing cycle demonstrated a deeply rooted pattern of hostility, pushing the region closer to the brink of a large-scale war. The airstrikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure in June 2025 are not isolated. They reflect a profound intervention with serious implications for regional stability and global security. The current situation suggests intensification of the conflict rather than a clear path to de-escalation, as both sides remain committed to asserting their strength through military means. 'Peace through Strength' appears to be the dictum. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Amid rising tensions, attempts to reduce conflict through diplomacy and ceasefires have proven fragile and largely ineffective. On June 24, 2025, it was revealed that, despite a ceasefire agreement slated to start, both Israel and Iran continued to fight with no decrease in intensity. Global figures, like US President Donald Trump, expressed strong disapproval, accusing both parties of violating the ceasefire and calling for immediate tension reduction. This consistent disregard for peace efforts highlights deep mistrust, conflicting strategic goals, and a lack of reconciliation that fuels this ongoing conflict. The military and political goals of both sides currently seem to overshadow any genuine interest in lasting peace, favouring confrontation over a temporary truce. US involvement is shaping the conflict significantly, turning what began as a regional issue into a potential international crisis. The US military's direct strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites as part of 'Operation Midnight Hammer' mark a critical shift from previous, often indirect actions. This aggressive stance aims to weaken Iran's nuclear capabilities permanently and possibly alter the regime's long-term strategy. While these strikes could pressure Iran to negotiate, they also pose the risk of sparking a broader, more destructive conflict with widespread consequences. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The United States is navigating a delicate balance, trying to deter Iran's aggressive actions while avoiding a full-blown war. This balance becomes riskier with each military action taken. The partnership between the US and Israel affects the conflict's intensity, geographic scope, and ultimate resolution. Every decision made carries significant weight for both regional and global stability. Ironically, everyone, including Iran, doesn't want a nuclear bomb. Iran's nuclear program has consistently been a primary target of intensified military operations. Early assessments after the US and Israeli strikes indicate serious damage to three key nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Natanz, recognised as Iran's largest uranium enrichment centre, reportedly suffered major damage to its above-ground electrical substation and its pilot fuel enrichment facility. Fordow, designed to be heavily fortified and buried, was bombed, causing extensive destruction and visible smoke. Isfahan, suspected of possibly holding near weapons-grade nuclear fuel, also faced direct US missile strikes, leading to the destruction of buildings at the site. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These orchestrated attacks aimed to significantly hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions. If successful, 'Operation Midnight Hammer' could stop Iran from increasing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium or enriching existing stockpiles to weapons-grade levels. However, it has been observed that Iran already has enough uranium to make up to nine nuclear bombs, which means it still has the materials to create nuclear weapons. The longer the location of this highly enriched uranium stockpile remains unknown, the greater the risk of proliferation and global anxiety. Concerns persist about potential nuclear fallout and the risk of strikes igniting explosions that spread nuclear materials, raising health and environmental worries. Iran has vowed to continue its nuclear program despite these strikes, signalling that destroying facilities may not be enough to disrupt its strategic goals. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) inability to effectively monitor Iran's uranium stockpile, combined with its confirmation of serious structural damage but no immediate release of radiation, adds to global concerns about nuclear proliferation and complicates the oversight of nuclear materials. The Iranian Parliament had passed a bill to suspend funding and cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of a partisan attitude. It even threatened to reconsider Iran's membership of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The escalating conflict has had immediate and significant effects on global oil prices, creating volatility in international markets. The targeting of Iranian assets and heightened geopolitical tensions have pushed Brent crude prices above $80 per barrel after the US strikes. These prices have remained elevated, fluctuating in the $70-$78 range, significantly above pre-escalation levels. The potential for the conflict to expand or for Iranian oil exports to stop entirely due to blockades could drive Brent crude prices to $90 per barrel and higher throughout 2026. The worst-case scenario would be the total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint. If that happened, Brent crude prices could soar to $130 per barrel. This illustrates the fragile nature of global energy markets amid Middle Eastern instability. Any significant disruption in supply from a major producer like Iran has immediate and severe economic consequences that spread worldwide, affecting transportation to manufacturing costs. The Strait of Hormuz is a crucial passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, playing a vital role in global oil and LNG markets. The ongoing conflict poses a serious risk to exports moving through this crucial route. Although commercial traffic continues, the threat to global energy and maritime interests remains high if the conflict escalates. Iran's ability to export around 2.2 million barrels of oil per day through Hormuz underscores its strategic importance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Any major obstruction or a complete closure of the Strait, even temporarily, would have catastrophic effects on global energy security and economic health, prompting widespread contingency planning and panic across major oil-consuming nations. The impact on the global economy if this lifeline were cut could lead to an energy crisis and a severe economic downturn. External players are navigating this unpredictable landscape with varying degrees of involvement and concern. Russia, for example, aims to maintain good relations with all parties, seeing the conflict as fluid and likely to change. Its partnership with Iran does not require military intervention in Tehran's defence, but Russia is genuinely worried about a pro-Western shift or regime collapse in Iran, given its broader geopolitical interests. Russia wants to benefit from fluctuating oil prices and arms sales but is reluctant to commit militarily. China, another major external actor, consistently calls for de-escalation through diplomatic means but has largely remained non-committal. It prioritises its significant economic ties with all parties, including vital energy imports from the region. Gulf countries, Iran's immediate neighbours who feel the brunt of regional instability, have publicly avoided condemning US actions while not explicitly supporting them. Instead, they are trying to navigate a delicate path to minimise the conflict's impact on their territories and economies. Their actions reflect a deep concern for regional stability and a desire to avoid deeper involvement in a potentially devastating conflict. The conflict's effects on the Gulf states are substantial, threatening both their economic stability and security. Many of these countries are major oil and gas producers facing direct threats to energy exports and increased maritime insecurity. The potential for regional instability to deter foreign investment and harm their tourism sectors is also significant. Furthermore, rising tensions between Iran and the US-Israel alliance force these nations to reassess their defence strategies, strengthen security, and rethink long-standing diplomatic ties. Although they publicly seek to stay neutral, immense pressure on their security and economic interests compels them to recalibrate their complex relationships with Western powers and an unpredictable Iran. The fear of being caught in the crossfire of a larger conflict is a constant anxiety that shapes their strategic choices, pushing them to respond quickly to a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. Finally, the possibility of regime change in Iran remains a complex and uncertain issue. The recent US strikes, aimed at undermining Iran's nuclear capabilities, also intend to put pressure on the Iranian regime from within. Economic challenges in Iran are adding to existing domestic unrest, reflected in projected GDP decline, high unemployment, and rising inflation. The hints of Iranian regime change and reduced missile stockpiles further weakened the regime's military standing. While the US may wish to alter Iran's path, history shows that external interventions rarely lead to desired political changes and often result in unexpected consequences. The resilience of the Iranian regime, despite internal opposition and relentless external pressures, suggests that sudden or externally driven regime change is unlikely. Instead, such pressures could strengthen hardliners or provoke a more radical response. Israel needed to be reined in from indulging in the assassination of the supreme leader by President Trump, who in any case passed on the military authority to the Revolutionary Guards and identified his successor. This would have led to a major challenge. For the time being, the fragile peace and ceasefire are holding on as the Gazans once again face the wrath of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). With various external powers pursuing their interests, the Gulf states must deal with the direct fallout of increased regional instability and uncertainty. A constant united international response is essential to ease tensions and stop the region from falling into a catastrophic war, which would have unimaginable global effects. Even if it was a fixed match, Tehran will have to reassure its Gulf partners of its true intent, as sovereignty violations are taken very seriously. Qatar said that these attacks on US bases there have left a 'scar' in their relations with Tehran. Anil Trigunayat is a distinguished Fellow at Vivekananda International Foundation and Vedika Znwar is a researcher in international relations and geo-politics. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
