The anti-apartheid activist, Nelson Mandela recognised education as a “powerful weapon” to change the world and it is, indeed, a political weapon in 2025 to fight the illegal immigrant issue suffered by developed countries, deciding to close their university gates for “immigrants.” As these countries struggle to accommodate an unauthorised foreign population, they have turned to international students to put a break to their misery.
Last year, in November, Australia slashed a cap on the number of international students with a requirement for higher English language proficiency and a non-refundable double visa application fee. Almost three months later, the Canadian government announced a further reduction in the number of study permits for 2025 by 10%, allowing a total of 437,000 new study permits. Similar anxiety has shadowed the US since the welcoming of the Laken Riley Act, taken as an “immigration crackdown.”
The White House signed a series of new policies concerning the illegal immigrant issue since the establishment of the Trump government in November 2024. While the illegal immigrant problem is presented as important, the suggestion to restrain students from getting admission to world-class institutes is seen as a solution.
Student’s migration to a different country has a long history. However, in the last two decades, there has been a growing rate of student mobility globally according to the World Migration Report. The popular choice has been, “the US (more than 833,000), followed by the United Kingdom (nearly 601,000), Australia (around 378,000), Germany (over 376,000) and Canada (nearly 318,000).”
Studies reflect that this mobility proved to play a crucial role in US Foreign Policy in the Cold War era. By providing higher education to students from nonaligned countries, the only goal was to maintain “American supremacy as a producer of knowledge, create a generation of educated elites with favorable ties to the United States, and produce a skilled labor force.” It’s not a hidden fact that education is yet another commercial institution and so has a scope of political leaning.
The privately funded universities promise to provide exposure, knowledge, and an image to one’s CV like a cup of Starbucks coffee, which has drew more and more students. And what’s easier than holding the neck of believers who go through a months-long tiring admission process to get into the right place?
If there was a demand, there was a supply, provided by universities.
The idea of “world-class” education is mostly bought by students from China and India, making up the biggest proportion of the international student population. These students packed their whole lives in two suitcases and agreed to pay a three times higher price for everything, from house rent to a glass of water. Yet, again they pay the price for the government’s failure to protect their national borders.
Globalisation is an old term
A part of the 1990s globalisation deal was the exchange of people along with technology, communication, goods, and culture. It was the same deal where the US and UK rubbed the idea of an interconnected world on every country’s face and mocked China for having closed doors in the 1970s. Two decades later, “winners” refuse to play the game, and exit from the back door while making sure it is closed well.
At the moment, the crown of the global market contributors is significantly shared with Asian countries like China and India whether the Western countries like it or not. Prof. Michael Breen, an Associate Professor in International Political Economy of DCU, worried that the US “nationalist, protectionist” economy strategy is “inward-looking nationalism” and opposes the idea of an open society that the country has preached over the years.
Education mobility is no less a transaction. Students leave behind their country, family, friends, and familiarity in the confidence of global exposure and better living standards, giving back monetary benefits to the new economy that will make billions of dollars out of this hope. Bloomberg reports that in Australia, 55% of international students’ fees contribute to the country’s goods and services.
Prof. Breen believes that the new policies in Australia originated due to the housing crisis, but restrictions on international students might not eliminate the cause. “Limiting international students is a short-sighted policy that will damage them in long-term.” He adds, “They are undermining a lot of progress and opportunities that come out of the exchange of people.”
Overall, the international education sector is a “roughly $200 billion global business,” with the UK, Canada, and Australia being three of its biggest players. Professor Breen likes to call this transaction a “win-win” situation for both receiving and sending countries.
An opportunity for Ireland
The international education sector is a boon to any economy, attracting more new players to the industry like Ireland. This Western European English-speaking country has garlanded 40,400 foreign students in 2023-24, accounting for a total spike of 15% than last year.
Breen said, “It’s an opportunity for Ireland to attract a greater share of international students, but growth in students has to be managed sustainably.” Despite the heightened issue of homelessness in the country he strongly believes that “Ireland is ready” and sees it as two separate subjects, “It’s not an either-or; it’s both. We need to solve our housing crisis and continue to attract international students because our economic model depends on it.”
