Canada is a leading contender for hosting international students (IS). It ranks among the top destinations internationally due to the quality of education, welcoming immigration policies and tolerance of cultural diversity. More specifically, Canada is ranked the third leading destination in the world for attracting IS in 2023. The province of Ontario alone experienced a 57 per cent increase in enrolment of racially diverse IS over the past decade. Then, in early 2024, the Canadian immigration minister, Marc Miller, abruptly declared changes to the IS mobility policy in response to the alleged “corruption and mishandling” of the Canadian international education industry. According to the minister, urgent action is imperative to rectify the detrimental impact on the IS ecosystem. The changes involve a temporary two-year limit [since extended indefinitely] on study permit applications, revisions to post-graduate work permits, and a sharp increase in the minimum proof of funding requirement for entry into Canada.
A maximum of 20 hours for off-campus work has also been established, to be increased to 24 hours this fall. Such changes reflect a response to the escalating housing crisis and domestic students’ lack of employment opportunities. Regrettably, prevalent narratives endorsed in the mainstream media tend to vilify and place blame, particularly towards racialized IS. Consequently, such a precarity serves to perpetuate negative public perceptions further, placing undue hardship on racialized IS, often manifesting in the form of discrimination and exclusion.
With the plight of racialized IS amidst Canada’s semantic policy shift, the unwelcoming policies come across as ironic as Canadian provincial leaders formerly asserted, “We don’t just want you to study here, we want you to stay here.” Placing the onus on racialized IS has its ethical implications, as this sheds the moral responsibilities of Canadian federal, provincial and even institutional leaders in ensuring safe and affordable housing irrespective of race and place of origin. From a human rights standpoint, such drastic measures prevent IS from accessing public goods such as education and employment.
Though perceived as a public good, Canada’s commodification of international education reaps financial benefits for Canadian universities. However, limiting enrolment could jeopardize local and national labour markets. This can lead to a disadvantage in attracting the best and the brightest talent globally. This brain drain places Canadian universities in an unfortunate position.
Revenue generated from IS tuition fees is one way of keeping higher education institutions afloat and operational. The revenue dependency on racialized IS has significant financial repercussions. It may compromise universities’ current economic model, resulting in them reconsidering an alternative model, such as diversifying revenue streams and devising equitable tuition models without forfeiting educational quality and equity.
More comprehensive consideration would help IS well-being when immigration policy decisions are established, which ultimately govern and condition student experience and academic outcomes. Amid navigating the housing and employment crises, IS will continue to have difficulties integrating within the local and campus communities. Compounded by the already negative portrayal of racialized IS, these students may face biases when accessing institutional support services, leaving their intersectional needs unaddressed and diminishing their academic performance.
While it may be easy to point fingers at racialized IS who are unintended casualties and currently bear the brunt of misplaced blame, government and institutional actors must reconsider their role within the flawed systems. Blaming will not resolve the existing crises at hand. Perhaps we should address the more significant structural issues within the current international education ecosystem that fail our racialized IS and hold those who govern responsible. As we subvert the debasing mainstream narrative of racialized IS, we must pivot in debating whether the flawed housing market is a result of the influx of IS or is attributable to the mismanagement, lack of regulation, and governmental intervention in real estate and housing policies. Although one may argue that IS take away jobs from the domestic population, it is crucial not to overlook that they fill gaps within the labour market, especially in the low-wage part-time sector.
Government and institutional leaders must take a constructive approach to policies and actions. Exporting education and importing inequity should not be the future trajectory of the IS experience. Systemic challenges like ineffective urban planning and a lack of affordable housing policies are salient factors that should be revisited. It is difficult to understand or identify that causation due to the entanglement of immigration, employment, and housing crises, suggesting the need for a policy mapping study. Re-assessment of regulatory frameworks such as zoning laws and inadequate housing infrastructure can ensure policy success. By defying the blame game, we must reflect on how diversion and manipulative tactics oversimplify these very real social issues.