International Students Need Not Apply – Education Next

Report on the Impact of Shifting Immigration Policies on International Students and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Barriers to SDG 4 (Quality Education)

International students aspiring to study in major host nations face significant obstacles that challenge the principles of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education). The pursuit of inclusive and equitable quality education is undermined by a complex landscape of administrative and political hurdles. This environment creates uncertainty and instability, directly impacting the ability of students to access global educational opportunities.

• Navigating complex admission applications, financial requirements, and visa interviews.
• Confronting frequently changing and often contradictory policies in host countries.
• Facing inhospitable and unwelcoming environments upon arrival.

Implications for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The current policy climate and social attitudes in key destination countries have a demonstrable negative effect on the well-being of international students, contravening SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). Furthermore, experiences of discrimination and hostility highlight a failure to advance SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by ensuring the inclusion and equal treatment of all individuals regardless of origin.

1. Mental Health Impact: A survey in the United Kingdom revealed that 55% of international students reported that anti-immigration rhetoric, coupled with visa and financial anxieties, negatively affected their mental health.
2. Discrimination and Hostility: Approximately 30% of international students in Australia reported experiencing discrimination. Incidents of xenophobia, including verbal threats and physical assaults, have been documented, contributing to a sense of being “othered” and dehumanized.
3. Erosion of Success: The cumulative pressure from these challenges directly impacts students’ academic focus and potential for success, creating significant inequalities of outcome.

Challenges to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The unpredictable and inconsistent nature of government policies regarding international students undermines the objective of SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The “capriciousness of policy change” erodes trust and stability, which are foundational to just societies.

• Policy Instability: Frequent and jarring changes to immigration and visa rules create significant risk and confusion for prospective students. Experts with decades of experience in immigration policy report difficulty in keeping pace with the changes.
• Contradictory Messaging: Governments often issue mixed messages, publicly stating a desire to attract international talent while simultaneously implementing more restrictive and hostile policies. A notable example involved the United States administration, which threatened to revoke visas for Chinese students before reversing its stance due to economic concerns.
• Institutional Exhaustion: The unstable policy environment creates significant challenges for international enrollment professionals and recruitment agencies, who report that the restrictive mode in the “Big Four” countries is causing student demand to shift elsewhere.

Socio-Economic Dimensions and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

International student mobility is a critical component of global partnership for sustainable development (SDG 17). The contributions of these students are both economic and social; however, current trends threaten these partnerships. While there is recognition among domestic student populations of the benefits of a diverse campus, political rhetoric often overlooks these positive impacts.

• Economic Contributions: It is acknowledged within host countries that tuition fees from international students often subsidize the educational costs for domestic students, highlighting their importance for the financial sustainability of higher education institutions.
• Fostering Global Citizenship: Interaction between domestic and international students helps reduce xenophobia and stereotypes, fostering the cross-cultural understanding necessary to achieve global goals.
• Future Outlook: Despite political pressures, structural factors, including the economic necessity of international student enrollment, may compel host countries to reconsider restrictive policies to maintain these vital global partnerships.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article’s central theme is the challenges international students face in accessing tertiary education in developed countries. It discusses barriers such as complex admission processes, financial requirements, and restrictive visa policies, which directly impact the accessibility and equity of higher education.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article highlights significant inequalities faced by international students based on their country of origin. It details experiences of discrimination, hostility, and xenophobia, citing that students are treated as “‘other'” and have “had coffee thrown at them.” This points to a failure to ensure equal opportunity and inclusion for migrants.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article explicitly connects the hostile environment and policy uncertainty to the mental health of students. It cites a survey where “Fifty-five percent of international students in the UK said anti-immigration rhetoric and visa and financial anxieties affect their mental health.”

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

  The article critiques the “unstable policy environment” and the “capriciousness of policy change” in host countries. The description of confusing, rapidly changing, and contradictory policies (“messages are mixed”) points to a lack of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions governing student migration.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

   The article discusses the numerous obstacles international students face, including “a minefield of admission applications, financial requirements, English-language tests, and visa interviews,” which impede equal access to university education.

2. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… origin… or other status.

   The article describes how international students are socially excluded and targeted. The quote, “It’s very coded now, that ‘international students’ equals ‘other,’” and reports of physical threats and discrimination directly contradict the goal of social inclusion.

3. Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.

   The article illustrates a failure to meet this target by describing the policy environment as chaotic and unpredictable. An immigration consultant notes, “There are too many changes. There’s too much risk,” and a former policy writer finds it “jarring to keep up with all the changes,” indicating that migration policies for students are not well-managed.

4. Target 3.4: …promote mental health and well-being.

   The article directly links the political and policy environment to student well-being, stating that “anti-immigration rhetoric and visa and financial anxieties affect their mental health.” This shows a direct negative impact on the mental health of a specific population group.

5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article’s focus on “frequent reversals of, policies,” “mixed messages,” and the “capriciousness of policy change” demonstrates a lack of institutional effectiveness and transparency. Students and enrollment professionals find the system “exhausting and really challenging” to navigate, highlighting institutional failure.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Proportion of individuals who have experienced discrimination or harassment.

  The article provides a direct indicator by citing a survey finding that “About 3 in 10 international students in Australia said they had experienced discrimination.” This can be used to measure progress towards Target 10.2.

• Data on mental health status.

  The article mentions a survey where “Fifty-five percent of international students in the UK said anti-immigration rhetoric and visa and financial anxieties affect their mental health.” This percentage serves as a direct indicator for measuring well-being under Target 3.4.

• International student enrollment and application numbers.

  The article implies this as an indicator by noting that “so many international students continue to apply” but also that “student interest [is] shift[ing] to other countries.” Tracking these numbers would measure the impact of policies on access to education (Target 4.3).

• Frequency and nature of policy changes affecting migrants.

  While not a formal statistic, the article’s repeated emphasis on the “unstable policy environment” and “frequent reversals” implies that tracking the number and predictability of policy changes could serve as an indicator of institutional stability and effectiveness (Target 16.6 and 10.7).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: educationnext.org