Prioritising Local Students: A Case for Curbing Foreign Student Admissions in the U.S. and Australia, By James Reed and Chris Knight (Florida)

In both the United States and Australia, the influx of foreign students into universities has sparked heated debate. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey reveals that 73% of likely U.S. voters believe qualified American high school students should be prioritised over foreign students for college admissions, with only 15% opposing this view. This sentiment, while rooted in the U.S., resonates strongly in Australia, where similar concerns about access to higher education, economic pressures, and national priorities are growing. The flood of foreign students, particularly from China, must be curtailed to ensure local students in both nations have fair access to university places, preserve educational resources for citizens, and address broader societal and economic challenges.

The Case for Prioritising Local Students 1. Limited Educational Resources

Universities in the U.S. and Australia have finite seats, funding, and infrastructure. In the U.S., elite institutions like Harvard and MIT admit thousands of international students annually, often choosing those who can pay full tuition. In 2022, international students made up 5.6% of U.S. college enrolment, with over 1 million students, many from China. In Australia, the situation is even more pronounced: international students, particularly from China, accounted for 27% of university enrolments in 2023, generating $9 billion in revenue. While this influx boosts university coffers, it squeezes local students out of competitive programs, especially in fields like medicine, engineering, and computer science, where spots are limited. Prioritising locals ensures that taxpayers, who fund public universities, see their children benefit from these investments.

2. Economic and Social Equity

In both nations, local students face rising tuition costs and economic uncertainty. In Australia, HECS-HELP debt burdens many graduates, with the average debt exceeding $24,000 in 2024. Meanwhile, international students, often paying higher fees, are perceived as "buying" spots that could have gone to qualified locals. This fuels resentment, particularly among working-class families who see universities as a pathway to upward mobility. In the U.S., the Rasmussen survey underscores this frustration, with 73% of voters demanding priority for American students. Denying locals access to education in favour of foreign students risks deepening inequality and eroding trust in institutions.

3. National Security and Cultural Cohesion

The U.S. has raised concerns about national security, particularly regarding Chinese students in sensitive fields like technology and engineering. President Trump's proposal to allow 600,000 Chinese student visas sparked backlash, with fears of intellectual property theft and espionage. Australia faces similar anxieties, with reports of foreign influence on campuses prompting scrutiny from ASIO. Beyond security, the cultural integration of large numbers of international students can strain campus dynamics. In Australia, some universities have become heavily reliant on Chinese students, creating enclaves that can feel disconnected from local culture. Prioritising local students fosters a more cohesive academic environment aligned with national values.

4. Brain Drain and Local Workforce Needs

Both nations invest heavily in educating their youth to meet workforce demands. Yet, when local students are sidelined, they may seek opportunities abroad, contributing to brain drain. Australia, with its aging population, needs skilled graduates in healthcare, engineering, and trades to sustain its economy. Similarly, the U.S. faces shortages in STEM fields. Admitting fewer foreign students ensures that local talent is nurtured to fill these gaps, reducing reliance on foreign labour and strengthening national self-sufficiency.

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Critics argue that international students bring diversity, global perspectives, and economic benefits. Universities in both countries rely on their tuition fees to fund research and facilities. However, this financial dependency is a flawed model that adopts profit over public good. Diversity can still be achieved through controlled international admissions, ensuring a balance that doesn't disadvantage locals. But surely now we are drowning in "diversity," which is not a value in itself, unless one follows anti-white racism. Moreover, the economic argument ignores the long-term cost of denying local students opportunities, which can lead to lower workforce participation and social discontent.

Others claim that restricting foreign students could harm diplomatic ties, particularly with China. Yet, education should not be a geopolitical bargaining chip. Both nations can maintain international relationships through other channels, like trade or cultural exchanges, without sacrificing local students' access to education. This argument makes nations cultural slaves of communist China.

To address this issue, the U.S. and Australia should:

Cap International Student Admissions: Set quotas to ensure local students have priority, particularly in high-demand fields.

Increase Public Funding: Reduce universities' reliance on international tuition by boosting government investment in higher education.

Transparent Admissions Policies: Require universities to publish data on local versus international admissions to ensure fairness.

Focus on Workforce Alignment: Align international student admissions with labour market needs, prioritising fields where local shortages are minimal.

Conclusion

The overwhelming support among U.S. voters for prioritising American students, as shown in the Rasmussen survey, reflects a broader sentiment that applies equally to Australia. The flood of foreign students, while economically lucrative for our corrupt universities, undermines local access to education, exacerbates inequality, and raises security concerns. By curbing international admissions and prioritising local students, both nations can ensure their universities serve their citizens first, fostering equity, resilience, and national pride. The time to act is now, before resentment festers and opportunities for the next generation are lost.

Pack a lunch and visit the universities in your capital cities and be shocked at the future they are creating for us. The universities are migration centres for Asia now.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration_second_term/american_students_first_voters_reject_trump_s_chinese_student_idea

"Voters overwhelmingly think American students should get priority over foreigners at U.S. colleges, after President Donald Trump floated the idea of allowing student visas for 600,000 Chinese.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 73% of Likely U.S. Voters believe qualified American high school students should get a priority for admission over foreign students at American colleges and universities. Just 15% disagree and 13% are not sure."