A Study in Stupidity

We’ve just finished knocking together a quick response to UK Border Agency Consultation The Student Immigration System.

Basically the UK Border Agency has been looking for ways to significantly reduce the number of  non-EEA students and graduates in the UK in order to reach its overall objective of reducing immigration to the UK to the level of the 1990s.

The wisdom of cutting student numbers – 8 facts worth knowing

With ONS figures showing that the economy contracted by 5% in the last quarter of 2010, and  job losses on the horizon for those in the public sector include those in the  further and higher education sector (East Durham College has already announced 73 job losses and Cambridge University is inviting calls for voluntary redundancy- budgets for further and higher education have been cut by 25% and 40%) we argued that the Government might just wish to reconsider the wisdom of its strategy in the light of these 8 facts:

1. Education and training exports represent the second biggest contributor to the UK’s net balance of payments. They are, according to the Financial Times, worth £40 billion.

2. According to the independent Migration Advisory Committee, for every one pound students generate for universities, a further fifty pence is generated for other industries.

3. The independent Migration Advisory Committee found that non-EEA national students subsidise the educational system in the UK. In fact they account for 37% of total university fee income.

4. Research shows that students bring knowledge of different countries, languages and cultures which are beneficial to UK businesses that wish to develop new markets overseas.

5. Non-EEA national student graduates who remain in the UK contribute £1 billion per year to GDP.

6. Non-EEA national students who remain in the UK after graduation contribute at least £100 million per year in fiscal benefits.

7. The independent Migration Advisory Committee concluded following its recent examination of the Post Study Work route that there was no evidence that non-EEA nationals using the Post Study Work route displaced nationals in the labour market.

8. Research from the US has shown that for every 1% increase in the share of immigrant university graduates in the US population, patents per capita are increased by 6%. It is reasonable to assume similar trends to be prevalent in the UK.

International obligations

We’ve also highlighted how some of the proposals e.g. further limiting the ability to work of students and their partners are inconsistent with our international obligations under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and possibly Article 2 of Protocol 1 in conjunction with Article14 ECHR, and Article 10 ECHR.

Additionally we’ve expressed grave concerns about the application of  more stringent administrative procedures for foreign students from so called ‘high risk countries.’ We’ve also touched upon the somewhat dodgy use of statistics to justify some of the proposals.

You can read our response, and about our sources of information in our paper. An outline of the proposals can also be found in our earlier post.

About jcwi

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants is a key campaigning voice in the field of immigration, asylum and nationality law and policy. It is completely independent from government funding, remaining entirely free from government influence. View all posts by jcwi

3 responses to “A Study in Stupidity

  • Tweets that mention A Study in Stupidity « Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants -- Topsy.com

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by NCADC, Rupert Griffin, Alex Burrett, Guido Tallman, Habib Rahman and others. Habib Rahman said: The Government's nutty proposals for for foreign students here: http://bit.ly/eObtWB […]

  • Alan Haywood

    All well and good, providing the applicants are bona fide. Far too many are bogus and the back street colleges MUST be stamped out. The authorities must be far more stringent in the granting of student visa’s.

    • jcwi

      Thanks, nobody would wish to encourage or justify the exeistence of ‘bogus’ colleges, and clearly they exist – the numbers are of course unclear (there are differing estimates)

      However, there were a number of reforms that were very recently made when tier 4 was fully launched in 2010 i.e. the sponsorship system, and the need for independent accreditation of institutions coupled with an inspection regime. In short, there is already an adequate framework in existence that needs time to bed in. The case for the introduction of yet more legal measures is simply not at all made out on the evidence in the consultation paper.

      Inspections of colleges, and state regulation of private educational establishments are the way to deal with bogus colleges. Discriminating against those from developing countries through subjecting them to more demanding requirements, preventing dependants from accompanying students, and limiting the ability of both applicant and dependant to work in a way that is inconsistent with internmational human rights norms is not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: