In at the Conservative Party Conference, Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced a framework for new restrictions on entry for overseas students, including ‘two-tier visa rules’, a move that has been greeted with concern by the Oxford University Students’ Union.
Rudd also launched a process to consult experts in businesses and universities on the new plans, which has since been welcomed by the Russell Group. Students on visas from outside Europe currently account for 167,000 of the 600,000 new migrants each year.
Addressing the conference on Tuesday Rudd emphasised, “The current system allows all students, irrespective of their talents and the university’s quality, favourable employment prospects when they stop studying. While an international student is studying here, their family members can do any form of work.
“Foreign students, even those studying English Language degrees, don’t even have to be proficient in speaking English. We need to look at whether this one size fits all approach really is right for the hundreds of different universities, providing thousands of different courses across the country. And we need to look at whether this generous offer for all universities is really adding value to our economy.”
Rudd also criticised British businesses for hiring foreign workers to do “jobs that British people should do”. The Government’s consultation paper will also include an option to require companies to publish the proportion of international staff they employ.
OUSU have expressed concern at Rudd’s new policies. Eden Bailey, Access and Academic Affairs Representative on the OUSU Sabbatical Team told Cherwell, “We are very concerned by these proposals. Many international students already have an exceptionally difficult time studying in the UK, and just last year we saw Theresa May attempt to wrongly deport 48,000 students before the end of their course.
“OUSU has and will be opposed to restricting visas for international students, who we believe are an intrinsically valuable part of our university. “It is vital that universities are communities not just of interested, enthusiastic students and academics, but that these bodies of people are diverse – a major part of coming to university is to learn from each other. At this time it is also important to note that we remain committed to tackling racism in all its forms. “As always, at OUSU we will be keeping up to date with all policy matters, both within the university and on a national level, to ensure changes affecting our students are properly communicated. Additionally, we will be doing all we can to provide the support that students need. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you are worried or have any concerns.”
Responding to the statement, the University of Oxford have promised to try to maintain a meritocratic visa regime. A University spokesperson told Cherwell, “The University is continuing to make the case for a visa regime which maintains Oxford’s access to the best and brightest staff and students from around the world. We are making representations on this through the Russell Group and other Higher Education bodies.”
However, the Chancellor of Birmingham University, Lord Karan Bilimoria, was a more vocal critic about the Home Secretary’s plans. He claimed that international students bring £14 billion to the UK economy and create over 130,000 jobs.
Bilimoria told the Radio 4 Today Programme on Wednesday, “the government is completely out of tune with the public. The public don’t feel that international students are immigrants. The public actually don’t mind international students staying on and working after they graduate.”
Mostafa Rajaai, the international students’ officer for the National Union of Students voiced concerns about discrimination, telling the Huffington Post UK, “The government’s hostile attitude towards international students has already caused irreversible damage to the reputation of the UK higher and further education sectors overseas. The new proposals assume the vast majority of international students studying across the country are immigration threats and will lead to further discrimination.”
Think tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) issued a report in September deeming a government response to EU migration concerns by targeting international students as a “costly mistake”. Marley Morris, IPPR Research Fellow in Migration, said that responding to pressure to cut immigration through toughening student visa rules would “harm our economy, fail to meet public concerns, and, based on our new analysis, rely on a dubious interpretation of the official statistics.”
Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burham said, “The tone of the Conservative conference has become increasingly xenophobic. Theresa May has presided over the return of the Nasty Party. Whether it’s doctors, migrants or Europe, the Tories are blaming anyone but themselves for their failure.”
The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman for universities Lorely Burt said, “Cutting down on international student numbers would rob our economy of millions of pounds and do untold damage to Britain’s world-leading Universities.”
Analysis – Colin Donnelly
As a “New York Republican” in both the literal and metaphorical senses, I find myself increasingly estranged from the right-wing parties with which I normally align. Amber Rudd’s coming crackdown on student visas, and immigration generally, exemplifies the recent movement away from core conservative principles. Rudd made her case in terms that exalted the state above private enterprise, and communal benefit over individual rights and achievement – precisely the reverse of what the Conservative party ought to stand for. She argued for tightening the test British businesses must pass to hire foreign workers by saying that the current system is, “not fair on companies doing the right thing.” Presumably, “the right thing” is supposed to mean hiring British workers over foreigners. Perhaps the Home Secretary needs a refresher course on capitalism – companies are not meant to benefit society, and certainly not one nationality over another. They have an obligation to benefit shareholders. They exist for the sole and exclusive purpose of making a profit, which is why they have been such incredibly effective engines of economic growth and prosperity the world over. Criticizing a corporation for not hiring British workers is like criticizing a football club for neglecting to build houses. Would building houses be a good thing? Sure, but that’s not what football clubs are for. Rudd’s suggestion that the Home Office should start penalizing companies for not being sufficiently concerned about the public good smacks of the kind of anti-growth, regressive socialism the Conservative Party claims to hate. Moreover, Rudd plainly suggested in setting up this contrast that British workers couldn’t compete on an even playing field with foreigners – that they needed special government measures to protect them. Since when does the Conservative Party believe in government intervention to protect people from healthy competition?
When it came time to specify what foreign workers in particular are pernicious, Rudd bizarrely singled out foreign students who come to Britain, with the ultimate aim of -shock!- working after graduation! Even Donald Trump has yet to reach the height of absurdity that is criticizing immigrants for wanting to work. Not long ago Conservatives were complaining about immigrants coming to the country and not working. The tremendous benefit of having extraordinary universities, is that students come from all around the world to attend these universities, subsidize the cost of higher education for Brits by paying fees which are more than twice as high, and then stay and contribute to the economy. Just last year, the Treasury estimated that increasing numbers of foreign students coming into the U.K. would add a billion pounds to the economy. Foreign students are, by definition, university educated, English speaking, and willing to take risks, work hard, and cross continents to achieve their goals. Are these not precisely the sort of immigrants Britain wants? I supported Brexit, in part, because I thought it would allow the U.K. to adopt a more fair policy towards immigration, evaluating immigrants on their merits rather than blindly giving preference to those from Europe. Instead it seems that the new government is determined to indiscriminately restrict immigration and tear up the tapestry of national diversity which makes Britain such a dynamic and interesting place. In so doing, they abandon the Conservative principles of freedom, fairness, and competition on which their party claims to stand.
