“International students are actively pursued by several countries as “ideal” immigrants”

Could you first briefly explain what prompted your study and why you chose the three countries Canada, Australia and Germany as objects of comparison for this?

What prompted our study was the dramatic shift in policy on international students. Earlier, they were required to prove to host country authorities that their intended stay was strictly academic and to assure them of their return home once their studies were completed. Today, international students are actively pursued by several countries as “ideal” immigrants, with dual intent to study and stay as an accepted rationale. We were interested in understanding what caused this dramatic policy shift in how host countries relate to international students and what makes this policy attractive despite counter imaginaries of international students as “risky” outsiders, in light of 9/11, Brexit, and the Trump administration anti-immigration policies. We were also interested in knowing how this policy travels across countries, who promotes it, if it faces resistance and if it is adapted differently across countries.

We choose Australia, Canada and Germany as our three-comparator countries because each of the countries actively pursues this policy, albeit they are at different stages of this discourse, where Australia, one might argue, is trying to weaken this policy. Perhaps most importantly, all three countries are federations, with higher educational institutions -universities in particular – operating as autonomous institutions. This was important given our interest in understanding policy governance and its implications for higher education. As well, while each of the countries share similarities, they also exhibit distinct differences, which make them interesting cases for a comparative study.

In your view, what are the central findings of your analyses so far? Were there any results that surprised you?

We are still in the final process of data collection and analysis by way of interviews in each of the three countries. However, our broader findings to date reveal three important results. The first relates to the power of policy discourse: The power of language and associated imagery that policy statements create is such that counter discourses are silenced in order to build what is referred to as a ‘regime of truth’. This is perhaps one of the most surprising findings. It is very interesting how despite the unique contexts of each country that the policy discourse has great resonance, with states emulating policies and practices from each other. Starting in Australia, Canada went on to emulate Australia’s policies, and now Germany is emulating Canada, despite challenges with this policy coming to light, particularly in Australia and now in Canada. It is fascinating how policy makers promote it almost as a ‘policy magic’ solution to what is viewed as a major policy problem in all three countries, global competition for skilled labor, given declining and aging demographics.

Second, we found several contradictions within the political discourse: International students are perceived as ideal (presumably as opposed to non-ideal immigrants) because they are assumed to have local credentials, know the culture, the people and the language, and are therefore better equipped to join the workforce. However, a closer analysis suggests that the ‘ideal’ imagery is applied selectively. Ironically, while international students are wooed on the basis of liberal work and immigration policies, those international students openly seeking education with the intent of migrating are labeled ‘non-genuine’, ‘suspect’ and ‘high-risk’.  As well, policy language speaks to ‘picking winners’ and the ‘best and brightest’, differentiating international students who meet specific national or regional labour market gaps and needs, have minimum accent, and represent more ‘acceptable’ characteristics in terms of race or country of origin.

The third important result relates to the framing and promotion of the discourse: The Australian and Canadian higher education systems have built a financial dependence on international student fees to offset their operational costs. This is why perhaps we find a greater representation and investment of higher educational institutions in this discourse. The German context is of course very different. Perhaps this is why we find relatively little engagement of the higher educational sector, as opposed to federal and state governments who are the more active champions of this policy.

What conclusions do you think can be drawn from the findings for higher education policy makers and higher education practitioners?

What we argue is that a neglected aspect of this discourse is how it increasingly positions higher education institutions as immigration actors, in effect shifting their roles and compromising their autonomy from the state. Now they serve in three different roles: First, as magnets, attracting and retaining immigrants to and in the state. Second, as gatekeepers, sorting and selecting ‘ideal’ immigrants on behalf of the state. And third, as refiners, preparing and integrating immigrants for and into the local labour market for the state. These new roles and responsibilities fundamentally challenge the traditional functions of higher education, especially universities and put them in conflictual or compromising positions.

Just to give two examples: This discourse values international students in highly instrumental ways and contradicts broader objectives of hosting international students as an aspect of internationalization. Also, by requiring more monitoring and reporting of international students –as we see in Canada –, staff are put in direct conflict with their roles of student advocacy and protecting student interests.