The headlines over recent days have been filled with hints about the UK¡¯s imminent Immigration White Paper and what it means for students. In first The Financial Times, and then The Guardian and The Times, came hints and then anonymous briefings about efforts to clamp down on asylum claims by those in the country on a student visa.

Named as a particular focus for risk-based restrictions were Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nigeria ¨C the last only a few years ago named a priority for growth in the UK International Education Strategy.

But potentially far more worrying to universities was a proposal buried within these articles to force foreign graduates to leave the UK unless they secure a ¡°graduate-level job¡±, based on skill levels rather than salary.?This is despite the fact that every international student working at any level on the Graduate Route is, in effect, subsidising the UK taxpayer because while they pay the same level of income tax and National Insurance as domestic workers, they have access to less than half the services paid for by those taxes.?

We that one of Labour¡¯s favourite thinktanks, the Institute for Public Policy Research, will ¡°urge ministers to reform the graduate visa route to ensure it can only be used for graduate-level work, and to consider closing the visa route for social care workers¡±.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Although the ÍøÆØÃÅ Office is quick to claim it has been developing these plans for months, and arguably much longer, the context is viscerally political. The anti-immigration Reform UK made major gains in last week¡¯s English local elections, cementing it as a prime challenger to the government and official opposition. Confronted with public disquiet in the first major electoral test since Labour¡¯s landslide general election victory last year, the prime minister promised to ¡°go further and faster¡± in delivering promised changes, including on immigration.

So now the one lever the UK government knows can reliably be used to reduce migration numbers is once again in play. All other priorities look set to take a back seat as the ÍøÆØÃÅ Office doubles down on a crackdown on international students that everyone knows will damage inward investment, increase job losses and harm the UK¡¯s soft power ¨C quite apart from the direct consequences to the UK¡¯s globally admired education sector.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Everyone wants to remove abuse of the system and to effectively manage migration of all kinds in the national interest. But making the UK less attractive for the world¡¯s most talented young people ¨C and imperilling UK universities in the process ¨C is not the way to go about it.

If a sharp reduction in demand from international students is triggered when the White Paper is published next week, it will immediately hit the key September intake to degree courses. The chair of the Indian Students and Alumni Union, Sanam Arora, has estimated, for instance, that applications from India could drop by as much as 60 per cent, or 66,000 students. That would see UK GDP drop by about ?6.6 billion and cost the Treasury?roughly ?2.3 billion in tax receipts. It would also cost the NHS more than ?200 million, assuming the students took advantage of the Graduate Route. And it would imperil 40,000 jobs ¨C half in academia and half in local economies, many of which rely on universities as the single biggest economic engine and employer. ?

Universities are already under extreme financial pressure and this further income loss will result in fewer places and course choices for domestic students, as well as a reduction in the research so critical to economic growth and well-being. It could even result in university closures or mergers. ?

Moreover, despite a steady steam of negative media coverage, only a quarter of the public actually thinks of international students as migrants, according to research by the British Future thinktank. On this the public is correct. Our methods of counting urgently need to be updated before they contribute to further harm; it is bizarre that, on the basis of a UN definition from over half a century ago, a student studying in the UK for 11 months is not classed as contributing to net migration, yet one studying for 13 months counts as an immigrant. Both have similar positive impacts on the UK and any rational assessment would want more of both.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Many in the sector had hoped that the positive rhetoric about international students from the current government and education secretary would result in a relaxing of restrictions. But it seems that fear of Nigel Farage will instead see the ÍøÆØÃÅ Office defy most other government departments and drive through policy change that will cause real damage to a UK export industry already reeling from the previous government¡¯s similarly damaging dependants ban.

That the UK is treading a road already paved by the US, Canada and Australia will be of cold comfort to the students and universities that will be most affected. Worse still, at a time the world needs to build understanding and cooperation, domestic politics is putting at risk global benefit.

The UK may be an island but education and knowledge is not. If we harm the prospects of a new generation, we will not need to ask for whom the bell tolls. It will be for us all.

James Pitman is chair of Independent Higher Education, an advisor to the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Students and managing director (UK and Europe) for Study Group.

ÍøÆØÃÅ