Overseas students are a valued part of the Cambridge community. Most international students will have arrived last week in time to sample the delights of iCUSU’s International Fresher’s Week; from a welcome at the train station to punting, a Fresher’s squash to a town tour, and icebreaker activities leading nicely into a pub crawl. Enjoying the Blues beat Loughborough the week before, the terraces were graced by a group of American students – in the safe hands of some Irish – who had headed to Grange Road for an introduction to rugby and real ale.

Just over 10 per cent of undergraduates – that’s 1,200 students – come from over 120 countries overseas, and the proportion rises to over 50 per cent for postgraduates. As far as statistics – and therefore the government – are concerned, however, such people are immigrants. 

On coming to power, David Cameron promised to fulfil his manifesto pledge to reduce net immigration from 252,000 in 2010 to tens of thousands by the next general election. Attempts to meet this target have potentially devastating consequences for universities and the UK as a whole, without even having the desired effect of extending its populist appeal. 

Foreign students are supposedly not being targeted. Indeed, the government hopes that UK universities will teach 50,000 more international students within ten years. 

But the government’s tone has put many off; even if a university promises to make them welcome, they could face the boot as soon as they receive their degree certificate. The government’s stance undermines efforts by universities, such as those by Cambridge Vice-Chancellor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz in India in September, to foster worldwide relationships.

This could prove disastrous academically. Needless to say, global competition
for places helps define and maintain Cambridge’s status as one of the best universities in the world. But it is also necessary to sustain the reputation
of UK universities, which are outclassed only by the United States. Economically, Universities UK reported that the decline in foreign student numbers in 2011-12 cost meant UK universities lost out directly on £80m in tuition fees. 

It is easy to see how from a glance at Cambridge’s international fee rates. Students from outside the EU are charged £13,662 for most Arts courses, rising through five fee bands to £33,069 for Medicine – plus a college fee of £5,000 to £6,500. The wider economy also benefits from an approximately £17bn a year boost from international student spending.

Culturally, the country suffers too. International students often make university
towns like Cambridge the most cosmopolitan and diverse cities outside
of London. Not only this, but the UK’s future international relationships are at
risk. 

UK degrees hold sway the world over, and foreigners who come to study
here are likely to lead successful lives. The goodwill towards the UK of influential people across the world in the future has a potential that should not be underestimated.

Despite all these cons, the Conservatives are going at it harder than ever. Theresa May has recently urged the introduction of a £3,000 immigration bond for all visitors from an ill-defined category of “high-risk” countries. 

Junior coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, have retreated from their proposal of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile immigration is one of the only issues Labour has a policy on, after proposing a scheme forcing large reforms who recruit from outside the EU to train local apprentices. Cameron must see some significant pros to his immigration policy. So must Ed Miliband, if he too would continue the crackdown on immigration.

Yet I can’t see how the government’s cynical populism will pay off . First, the
figures are based on the International Passenger Survey, which was designed
in the 1960s to ascertain tourism trends. This survey identified only 5,000
migrants a year, leading the Public Administration Committee of MPs to describe the extrapolation as “little better than a best guess”. Moreover, because net immigration is the benchmark, the number of immigrants could collapse, but Cameron will still lose if emigration collapses too.

Second, even if Cameron comes good by his own flawed measure, he will not
please his target audience. His policy is designed to chime with the populist
view that immigrants are benefit scroungers who steal British jobs.

The effect is to throw out qualified graduates in order to mollify the xenophobia
of potential UKIP voters who hate there being Poles in their town – but who are, incidentally, grateful for the easy availability of a £5 car wash service.

But I don’t think people are stupid enough not to notice this. Especially as Mr. Farage will be all too quick to point out that everything the government says does not apply to EU immigration. Cameron’s immigration policy is damaging to the country’s current prosperity and future international relations – a very high price for no popular gain.