FWIW, it is helpful to understand that this isn't ICE making policy randomly but in fact just enforcing the regulations surrounding student visas. The existing regulations were relaxed in March but the underlying regulatory idea is that you don't need a visa for online education and online education is not sufficient for a visa to be issued.
I tend to think that it was premature to rescind the temporary waiving of the oversight regulations, but that isn't the same thing as saying the underlying regulations don't have a rationale basis.
(AINAL) No I don't think you're correct, which is what I (and others) were trying to explain. Which is also why MIT and Harvard (and many other universities) sued ICE. Here, copy paste from another comment:
> 19. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this case. Defendants’ actions will cause an imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk to Plaintiffs’ ability to achieve their educational missions unless halted by this Court.
> 20.Plaintiffs also have standing to assert claims on behalf of their F-1 visa-holding students, who face the imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk of harm to themselves, their families, their educations, their short-term and long-term health, and their future education and employment prospects if Defendants’ actions are not halted by this Court.
What you're missing is universities are making their classes online not because they're offering online education, but because they're forced to do so in order to protect students and faculty (including F1 students) from a pandemic. F1 visa specifically gives students right to protect themselves from such risks.
If universities switched to remote education e.g. to cut cost or to experiment with online education methods, then you'd be right. But the argument here is that universities do this because students and faculty face irreparable damage or death, and therefore there is no basis to deport to F1 students.
I tend to agree with you but I don't think your argument contradicts my statement. You are basically arguing that the health emergency still exists and the exemption should remain. I think that is a defensible argument, but that doesn't mean that the underlying logic (you don't need a visa to take an online course load) is invalid. If the health argument went away you would still be left with that underlying logic.
I tend to think that it was premature to rescind the temporary waiving of the oversight regulations, but that isn't the same thing as saying the underlying regulations don't have a rationale basis.