I would like to open with a podcast called The Decibel produced by the Globe and Mail to provide basic information about international students and the federal cap on international student visas in Canada. Use this as a primer for the rest of the article.
This podcast offers good information about how this process came about, and what we see in the future. What I plan to do is add more context to holding colleges and universities accountable. First, let’s start with a history lesson.
In August of 2012, the Government of Canada put out a report International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity, outlining the need to increase international students as a key economic driver in the areas of “innovation, trade, and human capital development”. In addition, the same platitudes of ensuring Canadians acquire a “global perspective” and contribute to the “diplomacy of knowledge” needed to live in a modern neoliberal world. Fast forward twelve years later, the international student/education house of cards has begun to tumble.
Surprisingly, this was implemented at a federal level during a Conservative Government under Stephen Harper and was expanded to exponential heights with a Liberal Government under Justin Trudeau. Even as a regular Conservative voter – I can admit both parties are to blame here. Fiscal conservatives liked the fact we were focusing on enhancing the economy for all Canadians, and liberal-minded individuals felt all their needs were met on the diversity and cosmopolitan checklist. We can think of 2012 as a much simpler time – colleges and universities now are simply companies that commodify education and vomit neo-racist ideas that hinder student growth. Want an example? Go check how much money was spent implementing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs on Canadian campuses (Hint: it’s to the tune of billions).
Now, in 2024, the Government of Canada has instituted a cap on international students; and of course, the ones who are most upset are the top administrators and leadership related to colleges and universities in Canada. How did this happen? Why is this happening? Why are the colleges and universities upset? What might the future hold? Is this a good or bad thing?
The first question we need to ask is how did this happen? First, it is important to point out that higher education is under the purview of the provinces, not the federal government. So, to put full blame on Harper, and it pains me to say this, Trudeau – would be unfair. One of the biggest culprits of this international student policy is the province of Ontario. With nearly 15 million people (comparable: above Pennsylvania, below New York), Ontario accounts for 38% of our entire country’s population. The provincial government since 2012 had the same bipartisan control as the federal government – only switched. From 2012-2018 the province was under the control of Kathleen Wynn’s Liberal Government, and from 2018-Present under Doug Ford’s Conservative Government. So, with this knowledge, we ask, how did international student acceptance “get out of control”? Using the words of federal minister Marc Miller.
To answer this question, we must look at overall immigration and funding of post-secondary education. To find any critical discussion on immigration is next to impossible because the misinformation presented today unites around one theme: critical of immigration = xenophobic. The cosmopolitan neoliberals have had a vice grip on this narrative for some time. In a search for the positives of immigration, nothing is lost with this narrative, the writers say that immigration is the best driver of economic growth that a nation can have: more immigrants = better economic output. As we see now, this is largely incorrect – at the very least – complicated. In 2016, Edwin Rubenstein wrote about the negative economic impact of immigrants into the United States concluding that more immigration leads to more poverty over time.
“Immigration increases poverty in two ways: a) by increasing labor market competition it lowers wages for native-born workers, forcing more of them into poverty; and b) the immigrants themselves are often poor. The U.S. is literally importing poverty. More than one-quarter – 28% – of recently arrived immigrants lived in poverty in 2013. In 1970 only 18% of newly arrived immigrants lived below the poverty line” (p. 9).
One, it hinders labor market competition; and two, poor immigrants often exacerbate and repeat impoverished conditions in the U.S. This is true when talking about the international student crisis in Canada, as perhaps, the number one issue plaguing international students is the inability to afford anything in Canada – including living. Have it been the inability to find housing, or living in squalor (i.e. 10 to a basement apartment) – the group of cosmopolitans and neoliberals who champion “equality”, or “fairness”, or “a globalized society accepting of cultures” are the ones creating – let’s call it – a humanitarian crisis with international students. So long as they meet their diversity quota – poor Indian students can live in squalor in Canada for the chance at a North American education. Now, in response to this, they say that the solution is more government funding to support immigration, to which I say fix the root cause and don’t put international students in this position in the first place, by bringing them over here to begin with (#YoureaXenophobicBigot).
“Have it been the inability to find housing, or living in squalor (i.e. 10 to a basement apartment) – the group of cosmopolitans and neoliberals who champion ‘equality’, or ‘fairness’, or ‘a globalized society accepting of cultures’ are the ones creating – let’s call it for what it is – a humanitarian crisis with international students.”
Asking why this is happening is quite simple. Governments wanted to increase their standing by bringing in immigrants for a catch-all solution to the economy, social diversity, and political appeasement. This has backfired spectacularly in all instances. Big corporations – in tandem with the government – thought they could get a ‘win-win’ by obtaining cheap labor with international students and gaining subsidies from the government for hiring more cheap labor. Simple economics of more money coming in and less money going out. The deregulation and commodification of the university also helped with this, as international students pay almost 5 times more tuition than domestic students and are not subject to government subsidies by the province. This means less money going out for provincial funding and a boatload coming into colleges and universities to enhance their needs (to the tune of $21 billion in overall international student spending). I spoke with one of my old colleagues in academia and he all but said it honestly and straight up: “Domestic students are not good customers for the university brand”. So, when reading the news, it’s no surprise that representatives of colleges and universities in Canada – especially Ontario – are appalled at the decision of the government to cap international students.
Of course, the head of Ontario’s Universities clearly outlines the economic impacts, and yes, institutions will expect to expand their economic deficits upwards to $300 million, but they have been earning billions over the years. Which makes one wonder – if universities have been having deficits during the international spike – how are they managing their money? It is no shock to many of my readers that colleges and universities in Canada and the United States waste money on a variety of pet projects including property attainment for capital gains, enhancement of poorly organized programs with no accountability, and general administrative bloat with salaries. Yes, colleges and universities will have to be better stewards of funding and eliminate programs that are worthless against the overall goal of an educational institution. Cutting DEI programs, and international student support is a tough pill to swallow, but a necessary one nonetheless. They need to cut many administrators who are just not necessary in the areas of student life, inclusivity, academic affairs, enrollment management, marketing, and communications.
One might say cutting these programs is terrible and many will struggle because of it. Sure, many will struggle, but not the students, educators, or community stakeholders that are key to the operation of the school. Administrators will disagree, I will say to show your data that this does affect key stakeholders, and they will not show the data. I mean, take academic affairs as an example; academic incidents and plagiarism have risen year after year since the increased funding and no plans to curb the incidents. All that means is that either the spending is not helping the issue, or it’s administrative bloat with individuals earning a paycheck and getting no results. That is why I say, don’t fall for the “cutting of services” song and dance colleges and universities try to sell. This decision hurts their bottom line and they are mad about it, especially the upper administration who justify a $400,000 salary with no clear marketable skills. This is a well-deserved comeuppance for colleges and universities that have been printing money for the past decade off the backs of international students.
It is also true that domestic students have been seen as a second priority to international students in the eyes of institutions. Some institutions even reject domestic students in favor of international students, which is flat-out wrong. Multiple studies have shown a positive relationship between enrollment priority and a “crowding-out effect” in favor of international students. Significant change was found after 2019 which showed a direct correlation between a decrease in domestic students and an increase in international students. Other factors can apply to this, such as enrollment trends overall dropped – especially in 2020 with covid. However, it is no surprise that colleges and universities found pay dirt by enhancing profits through international students. What the hope is, and the positive outcome of this international student cap, is for institutions to put priority on Canadian-born students entering post-secondary education. Have Canadian-born students be the future of our, and their, economic growth.
In summation, what are the implications that we may see out of this? Well, the cap is only for two years, which means it will extend beyond the 2025 Election. One would be smart to predict that a Liberal Government will certainly lift the cap in 2026, but it would not be out of the realm a Conservative Government will lift the cap either. After all, provincial governments manage education, Ontario is one of the worst culprits, and Conservatives have been in power since 2018. Perhaps, the most rational prediction is that not much will happen at all given the motivations of the decision-makers involved.
Objectives of the government
- To enhance the economy and fill gaps in the workforce.
- To enhance their political power.
- To meet the cosmopolitan objective of a globalized world.
Objectives of the schools
- To increase their revenue from student tuition.
- To increase their salaries.
- To increase their power through commodity acquisition.
Who does this hurt?
- International students who are exploited for personal and political reasons by both parties – but mostly Liberals.
- Canadian students who are missing out on an educational experience and enhance their standing in the Canadian economy – such as millennials and younger generations.
- Canadian taxpayers who are paying for the government and scholastic mismanagement.
This is all very new, and we need to wait to see the outcomes, but for now, at least change is happening, and colleges and universities need to adjust. They need to meet the moral and ethical duty to be a steward to their key community stakeholders and their province. In addition, meeting the needs of Canadians is part of that duty.
carsonbabich.com 