14 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 15 CSSHE SCÉES Canadian Journal of Higher Education Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur Volume 39, No. 1, 2009, pages 15 - 43 www.ingentaconnect.com/content/csshe/cjhe Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out?1 The Diversion of Foreign Students from the United States to Canada in the Post 9/11 Period Richard E. Mueller University of Lethbridge Abstract The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have resulted in the increased scrutiny of both immigrants and non-immigrants entering the United States. The latter group includes students who enter the country on temporary visas to complete programs of higher education. Depending on the source, the number of foreign students in the United States has remained constant or fallen since 2001, and there has been a large decline among students from predominantly Muslim countries. Canada, by contrast, has relaxed its entry requirements for some foreign students and there has been a concerted effort among Canadian universities to increase foreign student enrolment. We find that the number of foreign students in Canada did increase following 9/11, especially those from predominantly Muslim countries. We discuss some of the implications of this increase in foreign students for Canadian universities and the Canadian labour market. Although these results support the hypothesis that changes in U.S. immigration policy are responsible, causality cannot be inferred from our data. This underlines the need for better data to adequately address the post-secondary education choices of international students. Résumé Les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre 2001, ont entraîné une vérification plus minutieuse des immigrants et non-immigrants entrant 16 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 aux États-Unis. Le dernier groupe est composé des personnes qui entrent aux États-Unis, avec des visas provisoires, dans le but de suivre des études supérieures. Tout dépendamment de la source, le nombre de ces étudiants est demeuré constant ou a diminué. Le plus grand déclin est constaté parmi les étudiants en provenance des pays musulmans. Contrairement aux États-Unis, le Canada rend ses conditions d’admissibilité moins contraignantes pour certains étudiants étrangers. De plus, il y a eu un effort concerté parmi les universités canadiennes d’augmenter l’inscription des étudiants étrangers. Nous constatons que le nombre d’étudiants étrangers au Canada a augmenté suite aux événements du 9/11, particulièrement ceux des pays à prédominance musulmane. Nous discutons des implications de cette augmentation pour les universités canadiennes et le marché du travail canadien. Bien que l’hypothèse que les changements de la politique américaine en matière d’immigration en soient les responsables, la causalité n’est pas démontrée par nos données. Ceci souligne le besoin de meilleures données pour démontrer de manière plus adéquate le choix des étudiants internationaux en matière d’éducation post-secondaire. Introduction and Background Since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, there has been a concerted effort by the United States to restrict access to foreign nationals who are deemed to pose a threat to its security. Although foreign students who enter the United States are not restricted by numerical limits, they are subjected to increased scrutiny (Szelenyi, 2003) and may perceive the academic environment in the United States to be less hospitable (Altbach, 2004). Students from the Middle East, especially those from predominantly Muslim countries (hereafter PMCs) most closely identified with terrorism, may undergo even greater scrutiny when entering the country. This heightened scrutiny may well have an impact on permanent immigration to the United States, but it will certainly have a profound effect on those seeking admission using shortterm (or non-immigrant) visas, such as students (Camarota, 2002). The likely outcome is that fewer foreign students will seek access to and be admitted to the country. According to Lee and Rice (2007), “[students’] experiences move quickly among populations of prospective international students who weigh the time and resources spent in seeking entrance to the U.S. against the less onerous regulations of other countries, such as Canada and Australia” (p. 385). Indeed, universities in many other Western countries are actively involved in attracting foreign students, and these students are aware that a number of options are available to them. Increasing the cost of entry to the United States almost certainly diminished the number of foreign students wishing to study there, but R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 17 has this been a gain for Canada? In other words, have students who might have studied in the United States chosen instead to come to Canada to further their education and, if so, what are the potential gains to the Canadian economy? In general, foreign students are viewed as beneficial to the host country.2 Foreign students increase diversity on university campuses, graduate students conduct research and staff laboratories and classrooms, and upon graduation, talented students might elect to stay in and contribute their talents and education to the host country. For example, in the United States, Aslanbeigui and Montecinos (1998) found that 60% of their survey respondents planned to work in the country either temporarily (45%) or permanently (15%) following completion of their PhD programs in economics. Similarly, Finn (2000) found that over 50% of the individuals who completed their doctorates in the United States in the 1990s remained in that country.3 Furthermore, science doctorates who remained in the United States contributed a larger amount to the advancement of science than their native counterparts (Stephan & Levin, 2001). More recently, Dreher and Poutvaara (2005) have shown that student flows are a better predictor of permanent immigrant flows in a number of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries compared to more traditional determinants of migration, such as per-capita income differences between host and source countries. If foreign students do return to their countries of origin, they may become important contacts who facilitate trade and goodwill between countries. Foreign students also bring large amounts of foreign currency into the host country; the Institute of International Education (IIE, 2003) estimated that nearly 75% of all international students’ funding comes from sources outside the United States. Further, it noted that the U.S. Department of Commerce describes higher education as the country’s fifth-largest service export, as foreign students add over US $12 billion annually to the American economy. In Canada, the equivalent figure is roughly CDN $4 billion (Drolet, 2004).4 Not only do foreign students tend to benefit an economy, but some of the most productive students are likely to come from foreign countries. For example, research indicates that an increasing number of doctoral-degree recipients in the United States are from foreign countries (Aslanbeigui & Montecinos, 1998; Groen & Rizzo, 2004) and that many of them intended to stay in the country after obtaining their degrees (Finn, 2000; Johnson & Regets, 1998). Furthermore, it is well documented that U.S.-educated scholars and professionals often facilitate further migration to the United States through the networks that are created between foreign nationals and foreigners educated in the United States (Cheng & Yang, 1998). Finally, U.S. colleges and universities tend to hire a large proportion of U.S.-trained PhDs, including foreign nationals (Groen & Rizzo, 2004). Given the importance of these highly trained and skilled foreign nationals in the new knowledge-based economy, increased U.S. border restrictions since 9/11—coupled with the fact that Canada has not imposed the same restrictions— 18 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 means that Canada may be the beneficiary of the increased migration of foreign students. Insofar as these students find that a Canadian university education is a reasonable substitute for one obtained in the United States, and that they have the same probability of staying in Canada as they would have in the United States, this could represent a significant net human-capital gain for Canada. Recently, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC, 2007) noted the dramatic increase in foreign students, especially at the graduate level, over the past decade, attributing this to “universities’ successful campaigns to recruit international students; rising worldwide demand for international education experiences; and changes in immigration policies and provincial agreements with other countries to attract international students” (p. 16). By contrast, recent Institute of International Education data (IIE, 2006) showed a decline in the number of students originating from PMCs who enter the United States. As well as the increasing competition for foreign students from other countries, including Canada, the perception that the new U.S. visa procedures make it difficult to enter the country may account for this decline. For example, Altbach (2004) noted that students from developing countries—especially Islamic countries—reported being treated with disrespect by U.S. officials in their home countries. Combined with increased delays, new visa fees, and the implementation of a computer tracking system, the United States seems to be both less hospitable and a more costly destination for a number of foreign students. Indeed, Canadian universities appear to have been beneficiaries of the new U.S. visa requirements; foreign applications have increased at most Canadian universities since 2001, although the aggressive marketing of Canadian universities and their lower cost are also credited with this increase (Drolet, 2004). Since September 11, 2001, the United States has tightened its procedures to reduce the probability of admitting suspected terrorists.5 In May 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (EBSVERA) was enacted. Under this act, the U.S. State department has increased its scrutiny of visa applicants from certain countries, including checks with FBI and CIA databases of suspected and known terrorists, before visas are issued. Previously, consular officials simply checked visa applicants against a “look-out list” containing some 6 million names. In the post-September 11 world, nationals from countries deemed to be “state sponsors of terrorism” are required to demonstrate that they are not a national security threat to the United States (Yale-Loehr, Papademetriou, & Cooper, 2005).6 Furthermore, men in the 16 to 45 age group—the age group that also tends to enrol in U.S. post-secondary institutions—seem to be the most scrutinized. The result of these tightened procedures has been increases in the backlog of applications being processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and a commensurate increase in the length of time necessary to approve visas. Other security measures were also introduced. In 2002, the implementation of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) required all male visitors from “politically sensitive areas” to register with the then-Immi- R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 19 gration and Naturalization Service (INS).7 The NSEERS has since been phased out and replaced by the US-VISIT program, which requires a number of nonimmigrant visitors to be photographed and submit digital fingerprints—both before and upon entry to the United States—and to register their departures. This regulation also applies to foreign students. In addition, in 2003 a new Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was implemented, whereby accredited schools must supply the State department with electronic files on all foreign students currently enrolled or risk losing their accreditation to host foreign students.8 At the same time as the United States has been increasing its entry requirements for foreign students, Canada has been attempting to attract students by easing employment restrictions for working off-campus while studying, as well as after graduation, with its Post-Graduation Employment Permit Program. In addition, new scholarships were designed to attract foreign graduate students.9 Although the American response to foreign students is undoubtedly due to the increased emphasis on border security, Canadian immigration policy continues to stress the economic benefits of immigration and the provision of a safe destination for refugees, and, to this end, the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) was implemented in June 2002. The new act, inter alia, stipulated that foreign students registered for courses of six months or less do not require a study permit, which has likely increased the number of foreign students in Canada. However, because Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has stopped gathering statistics on these student flows, there is no way to confirm this.10 As of 2001, there were more than 130,000 foreign students in Canada (about 44% at the university level), more than double the number only 11 years earlier (Iturralde & Calvert, 2003). This increase was undoubtedly helped by the establishment of Canadian Education Centres in 17 countries to promote study in Canada, although Turkey is the only PMC to have one of these centres. For the purposes of this article, then, two main questions need to be answered: 1) Has there been a decrease in the number of foreign students in the United States since the events of September 11, 2001? And, if so, have these declines been more pronounced among students from PMCs? 2)To what extent have these students been diverted to Canada? The following section describes the U.S. and Canadian data sources that were used to answer these questions, followed by an analysis of these data. The final section offers some conclusions and discusses some of their implications for Canadian education and immigration policy, as well as the need for better data to further examine the motivations of international students studying in Canada. Although the results of the current analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. policy has resulted in the diversion of students to Canada, existing data sources are simply not up to the task of ascertaining the precise motives for the decrease in the number of foreign students—especially those from Muslim countries—studying in the United States, along with the commensurate increase in Canada. 20 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 Data U.S. Data Since no single data source is available that can adequately address the questions posed above, a variety of data sources was utilized. First, data on foreign students admitted to the United States come from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Each year, this department compiles a lengthy document of the various types of legal permanent and temporary admissions (or immigrant and non-immigrant admissions).11 These statistics, however, only represent the gross flows of students into the United States, since entries are counted and not persons. The second source of data is the Institute of International Education (IIE). The IIE surveys U.S. universities on the number of foreign students enrolled in their programs each year, which is a superior source of information since changes in students enrolled in those programs can be tracked, not simply the number of entries into the country. The IIE survey has a response rate of about 90%, so is considered the most authoritative data source on foreign students in the United States. Canadian Data The Canadian data were obtained from two sources: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and individual universities.12 CIC tracks the number of foreign students in Canada each year, and these data contain both stocks (i.e., the number of foreign students in Canada) and flows (i.e., the number of foreign students entering Canada). However, these data are potentially biased (although likely only to a small extent) for two reasons. First, how foreign students are classified can change over time; for example, a student on a study permit may change to a work permit and yet still be a student, which results in an undercounting of the true number of students.13 Second, students are classified by country of last permanent residence, and although this count is likely to be highly and positively correlated with students by country of citizenship and country of birth, these data could potentially provide misleading results, especially if a significant number of students were internationally mobile before studying in Canada. Perhaps the best sources of data are from individual universities. Each year, most Canadian universities compile a “fact book,” which normally contains a plethora of statistical measures including the number of students enrolled by visa status, country of citizenship, level of study, etc., and they often make these data publicly available on their websites. Since obtaining data from all Canadian universities over a period of time is rather impractical, this study’s search was confined to public institutions from British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. These are the three largest English-speaking provinces and their universities are likely the most well known to foreign students. In other words, their institutions are reasonable substitutes for American institutions. Furthermore, R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 21 the search was limited to only those universities listed as medical/doctoral or comprehensive by the annual Maclean’s magazine rankings because they are Canada’s largest and best-known universities and are likely to contain significant numbers of both undergraduate and graduate students.14 The final data sample consists of six universities: British Columbia, Simon Fraser, Alberta, Calgary, Carleton, and Waterloo. (The other institutions either did not have data over the appropriate time period or the data were too aggregated to be of use for the purposes of this study.) The sample is of sufficient size to be representative of what is happening throughout Canada; for example, this study’s results for 2003/04 are generally similar to those compiled with preliminary data by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) (Drolet, 2004). Although the study’s somewhat higher numbers are expected given that they are from some of Canada’s better-known universities, there is no reason to believe they distort the trends in international students in Canada, which is the measure of interest in this article. Finally, in order to address the extent of foreign student flows from countries that have a predominantly Muslim population and how this compares to the inflow of all students, detailed analysis is limited to those countries. The Islamic states chosen are essentially the same as those chosen by Camarota (2002).15 As noted earlier, there is no single source of adequate data to address the questions asked in this article, and this becomes even more problematic when cross-country comparisons are performed. For example, the American Council on Education (2006) explained that even the definition of foreign or international students differs across countries. In the United States, these students are defined as those who are not American citizens, immigrants, or refugees, which excludes permanent residents in the foreign student count even though it may decrease that count. Likewise, in Canada, the official tally of student permits likely underestimates the true number of foreign students since some of them may also have work permits and thus not be counted as students. Furthermore, data collected are based on an individual’s country of last permanent residence, not country of birth or citizenship. The university-level data utilized here employ various definitions of student origin, all of which are highly and positively correlated. The definitions used within each data source are consistent over time and so comparisons of the trends between Canada and the United States are still valid. Finally, although the results presented below show the changing numerical patterns in both countries, they do not explain why international students choose to study in either country. Results Are fewer foreign students entering the United States since the events of September 11, 2001? Table 1 lists the number of non-immigrant students admitted to the United States in each of the fiscal years from 1999 through 2004.16 The total number of students admitted from PMCs increased by 29.6% between 1999 and 2001, compared to an increase of 22.6% for all other countries. These 22 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 numbers decreased between 2001 and 2004 by 8.1% for all other countries and by 44.5% for PMCs. Because these numbers are only for admittances and do not count actual students,17 they may simply reflect the fact that some students are not leaving and then re-entering the United States due to the increased costs of re-entering (e.g., longer waiting times at airports, increased scrutiny, possible refusal of re-entry). Regardless, it is interesting to observe the large decline in the number of students admitted to the United States.18 The decline among individuals from the subgroup of nations labelled “state-sponsored terrorist states” by the U.S. Department of State has been the most dramatic, with a decrease of 65% between 2001 and 2004, following an increase of 61% in the two-year period preceding 9/11. Table 2 uses data from the Institute of International Education (IIE), which counts the number of foreign students on non-immigrant visas at U.S. institutions of higher education. These data are much more detailed than the USCIS data and much more reliable for our purposes, since numbers of individuals in educational programs are counted rather than the number of entries into the United States. Although the Table 2 data show a less-dramatic decline in student numbers compared to Table 1, following four years of steady increases, the number of students from PMCs slid by almost 10% in both 2002/03 and 2003/04 and by a further 5.4% and 3.7% in 2004/05 and 2005/06, respectively. This compares to a decrease of 1.7% in 2003/04 and about 1% in 2004/05, followed by a marginal increase in 2005/06, for all other countries. Numerically, there was a large increase in students from Saudi Arabia in 2005/06 due to a new Saudi government scholarship that is tenable in the United States (Bollag, 2006b). Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the data from Table 2, with enrolments in 2001/02 indexed to 100 so that trends can be more easily compared. Enrolment increases were very similar for each of the three groups in the fouryear period preceding 9/11, but in the four-year period after 9/11, enrolments trended down, especially among those from PMCs. Finally, Figure 1 supports our scepticism about using USCIS data: a number of students who might have left prior to September 11, 2001, appear to have either not left after this date or left the country without returning. The evidence from these two data sources show that the number of students from PMCs in the United States has declined. Furthermore, students from other countries are not pursuing post-secondary education in the United States, at least not at the same rate of growth as in the period before 9/11. Unfortunately, these two sources cannot tell us if U.S. policy is influencing the decision of these students or if post-secondary learning institutions are simply admitting fewer of these applicants. Still, it is unlikely that the universities, which rely so heavily on foreign students as a source of revenue and talent, are responsible for this decline.19 In fact, evidence suggests that there is growing frustration among many U.S. universities regarding restrictive U.S. immigration policy for foreign stu- R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 23 dents. According to a survey conducted by the Council of Graduate Students (Bollag, 2006a), graduate student applications from international sources fell by 32% for Fall 2004 admissions, compared to Fall 2003 (itself a poor year), a finding that is mirrored by five other agencies concerned with higher education in the United States (Canadian Education Centre [CEC], 2004). Indeed, some 35% of institutions responding to an October 2005 survey by these same agencies cited visa application processes and concerns about delays and denials as the major causes of the decline in foreign student enrolment (Association of American Universities [AAU] et al., 2005). So, has the number of foreign students entering the United States decreased since 9/11? The answer appears to be yes. And, as expected, there has been a steeper decline among students originating in PMCs. However, whether or not these students are then coming to Canada still needs to be determined. The global market for higher education is highly competitive, and foreign students have a number of options. We now turn to Canadian data sources to help answer our second question: To what extent have these students been diverted to Canada? Tables 3 and 4 contain Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) data on the flows and stocks of foreign students to Canada by country of last permanent residence. Table 3 shows a general upward trend in the number of international students before 2001, especially for students from PMCs. Following 2001, the growth rates (and in some cases decreases) in foreign students in terms of both flows and stocks appear to have dropped. However, the figures for the period from 2002 to 2005 are certainly an underestimate of the true number of students admitted to Canada because the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), enacted in June 2002, includes the provision that foreign students studying in Canada for a period of six months or less do not require student authorizations. Table 4 shows the stock of foreign students in Canada for each year since 1997. In these data, the total number of foreign students in Canada, which includes those from both PMCs and all other countries, exhibits positive growth rates in each of the years between 1997 and 2005. The fact that the patterns in Tables 3 and 4 are somewhat different can be attributed to the enactment of the IRPA. Prior to its implementation, short-term students would be accounted for in the flow data (since they would need a visa) but would not necessarily be counted in the stock data (since they may not have been in Canada on December 1, the date on which the numbers are tallied). Figures 2 and 3 chart the data in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. These numbers are again indexed with 2001 (the base year) set to 100. In Figure 2, the flow of students from other countries increases until 2001 and then declines, due to the introduction of new student visa procedures in 2002. This trend is reflected in Figure 3, where the stock of students from these areas continues to increase throughout the 1997–2005 period. What is striking is that the growth pattern of students from PMCs is almost identical to that of students from all other countries. Following 2001, however, the trends diverge dramatically: flows of Country Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bangladesh Egypt Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco Oman Pakistan Qatar Saudi Arabia Sudan 1999 20 214 755 2,213 1,646 401 36 1,968 4,374 1,443 16 224 1,913 702 4,588 686 7,356 246 2000 17 159 852 2,451 1,926 624 35 2,253 4,445 2,015 10 325 2,455 824 5,761 761 8,286 290 2001 31 224 808 2,517 1,796 852 36 2,522 4,146 2,709 9 253 2,668 906 7,496 844 8,765 310 Fiscal Year 2002 16 144 589 1,490 1,137 295 10 1,670 3,110 1,741 1 127 1,982 685 5,274 515 5,080 82 2003 28 74 477 1,382 979 255 13 1,492 2,434 1,437 3 92 1,826 466 5,433 363 2,869 57 2004 35 75 431 1,346 911 329 28 1,421 2,202 1,391 8 65 1,449 424 4,343 258 2,340 64 % change 1999-2001 2001-2004 55.00 12.90 4.67 -66.52 7.02 -46.66 13.74 -46.52 9.11 -49.28 112.47 -61.38 0.00 -22.22 28.15 -43.66 -5.21 -46.89 87.73 -48.65 -43.75 -11.11 12.95 -74.31 39.47 -45.69 29.06 -53.20 63.38 -42.06 23.03 -69.43 19.15 -73.30 26.02 -79.35 Table 1. Non-immigrant Students Admitted to the United States by Country of Citizenship, Fiscal Years 1999-2004 24 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 46,401 Predominantly Muslim Countries % change over previous year State-sponsored Terrorist States % change over previous year All Other Countries % change over previous year Total % change over previous year 55,611 19.85 1,469 28.52 603,470 15.89 659,081 16.21 510 487 16,165 4,528 -432 60,133 8.13 1,837 25.05 638,462 5.80 698,595 6.00 630 594 17,624 3,957 -436 42,615 -29.13 716 -61.02 603,401 -5.49 646,016 -7.53 328 326 15,434 2,408 3 168 37,086 -12.97 559 -21.93 587,831 -2.58 624,917 -3.27 231 315 15,178 1,578 -104 33,398 -9.94 641 14.67 586,812 -0.17 620,210 -0.75 212 264 14,518 1,171 -113 23.18 22.61 60.72 -11.22 -8.09 -65.11 -44.46 -74.08 1.87 29.59 -66.35 -55.56 -17.62 -70.41 41.89 41.43 43.37 -1.44 From Institute of International Education, Open Doors, various years. Note. Includes both F1 and M1 visa holders admitted during the relevant fiscal year, but does not include spouses and children of visa holders. Over this time period, there are seven state-sponsors of terrorism, so declared by the U.S. Department of State. In addition to the five listed above, Cuba and North Korea are also included. Data for 2005 are available, but they aggregrate all students along with their spouses and children. This makes these data incomparable with the data presented here and so are excluded. 567,146 520,745 1,143 444 420 12,293 4,015 -428 Syria Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates Western Sahara Yemen R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 25 Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bangladesh Egypt Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco Oman Pakistan Qatar Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates Western Sahara Yemen Place of Origin 90 210 399 3,458 1,831 1,863 155 2,027 2,810 1,321 41 41 1,168 595 5,821 339 4,571 328 534 277 9,081 2,225 5 341 1997/98 77 219 421 3,650 1,834 1,660 159 2,039 3,013 1,315 47 58 1,419 649 5,905 409 4,931 326 570 300 9,377 2,524 6 329 1998/99 110 214 542 3,845 1,964 1,885 112 2,074 3,298 1,582 38 62 1,607 661 6,107 416 5,156 354 641 344 10,100 2,539 5 372 1999/00 Table 2. Foreign Student Totals by Place of Origin, 1997/98 to 2005/06 75 220 562 4,114 2,255 1,844 155 2,187 3,045 2,005 39 73 1,917 702 6,948 463 5,273 366 713 385 10,983 2,659 2 411 2000/01 Year 92 196 601 3,935 2,409 2,216 147 2,417 2,966 2,435 42 79 2,102 623 8,644 461 5,579 378 735 458 12,091 2,121 8 436 2001/02 102 177 451 3,596 2,155 2,258 127 2,173 2,212 2,364 33 87 2,034 540 8,123 441 4,175 431 642 381 11,601 1,792 4 375 2002/03 109 148 444 3,198 1,822 2,321 120 1,853 1,846 2,179 39 68 1,835 445 7,325 354 3,521 279 556 341 11,398 1,248 23 284 2003/04 155 143 377 2,758 1,574 2,251 142 1,754 1,720 2,040 39 58 1,571 354 6,296 290 3,035 290 498 268 12,474 1,158 13 238 2004/05 175 132 373 2,581 1,509 2,420 190 1,733 1,703 1,950 38 63 1,502 337 5,759 254 3,448 309 446 277 11,622 978 3 246 2005/06 26 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 207,510 223,276 50,494 481,280 441,749 2,921 39,531 43,705 -13.45 235,802 5.61 211,426 1.89 41,237 4.32 2,762 -5.44 449,696 1.80 490,933 2.01 59,293 35.67 237,211 0.60 218,219 3.21 44,028 6.77 3,030 9.70 470,695 4.67 514,723 4.85 42,621 -28.12 260,848 9.96 244,398 12.00 47,396 7.65 3,117 2.87 500,471 6.33 547,867 6.44 42,368 -0.59 269,446 3.30 271,182 10.96 51,171 7.96 3,518 12.86 531,825 6.26 582,996 6.41 36,829 -13.07 268,864 -0.22 280,630 3.48 46,274 -9.57 3,491 -0.77 540,049 1.55 586,323 0.57 35,068 -4.78 255,859 -4.84 279,076 -0.55 41,756 -9.76 3,315 -5.04 530,753 -1.72 572,509 -2.36 47,851 36.45 247,255 -3.36 269,933 -3.28 39,496 -5.41 3,220 -2.87 525,543 -0.98 565,039 -1.30 59,844 25.06 239,218 -3.25 265,704 -1.57 38,048 -3.67 3,403 5.68 526,718 0.22 564,766 -0.05 Note. Includes all foreign individuals on non-immigrant visas enrolled in programs leading to associate degrees, bachelor’s degrees, and graduate or first professional degrees, and others that include language schools, vocational training, etc. The total numbers for 2003/04 include 2,506 cases of unknown level of education. From Institute of International Education, Open Doors, various years. Other % change over previous year Undergraduate degrees % change over previous year Graduate degrees % change over previous year Predominantly Muslim Countries % change over previous year State-sponsored Terrorist States % change over previous year All Other Countries % change over previous year Total % change over previous year R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 27 Country   Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bangladesh Egypt Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco Oman Pakistan Qatar Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates Yemen 1998 0 15 8 169 71 164 101 48 60 210 4 350 30 358 7 164 16 224 125 156 15 1997 0 24 9 85 63 151 76 45 32 165 10 336 16 279 4 136 7 173 73 88 98 78 95 199 8 449 38 525 17 191 4 22 280 280 243 12 1999 0 23 45 249 93 201 2000 0 38 43 176 147 226 4 136 65 149 273 7 485 24 382 21 226 6 30 357 388 330 16 45 548 410 362 13 Year 2001 0 30 32 316 141 301 5 81 58 243 146 11 509 36 327 24 266 Table 3. Flows of Foreign Students to Canada, Selected Countries and Total, 1997-2005 23 422 412 398 17 2002 0 37 30 366 122 425 0 91 75 200 49 8 418 33 236 87 321 26 366 333 395 42 75 65 178 204 13 417 51 280 35 528 2003 0 36 42 362 150 598 2005 27 333 415 423 47 53 44 317 196 796 0 76 95 166 162 19 394 63 291 36 586 47 327 525 464 49 107 110 149 150 8 520 70 307 28 743 55 53 314 192 792 2004 28 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 42,546 40,767 323 1,779 2,307 29.68 390 20.74 38,689 -5.10 40,996 -3.64 3,153 36.67 426 9.23 47,882 23.76 51,035 24.49 3,529 11.93 539 26.53 58,487 22.15 62,016 21.52 3,904 10.63 497 -7.79 65,516 12.02 69,420 11.94 3,770 -3.43 497 0.00 61,259 -6.50 65,029 -6.33 4,196 11.30 828 66.60 54,527 -10.99 58,723 -9.70 4,539 8.17 985 18.96 51,040 -6.39 55,579 -5.35 5,010 10.38 989 0.41 52,471 2.80 57,481 3.42 From Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Facts and Figures, various issues, and special tabulations. Note. No data for Western Sahara. Blank cells are the result of data suppression due to too few student permits issued. As a result, column totals may not add. Data are for total student authorizations by year. Although individuals may hold other immigrant authorizations, they are categorized by their main activity in the country. Individuals are classified by country of last permanent residence. Note also that these numbers can change over time as individuals who change visa status have their status updated retroactively in the database. A similar analysis using an earlier set of numbers did not substantially change the results. Thanks to Eden Thompson at Citizenship and Immigration Canada for pointing this out. Predominantly Muslim Countries % change over previous year State-sponsored Terrorist States % change over previous year All Other Countries % change over previous year Total % change over previous year R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 29 Country   Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bangladesh Egypt Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco Oman Pakistan Qatar Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates Yemen 0 67 28 140 131 831 8 124 63 100 383 25 810 34 441 6 348 10 23 476 138 134 5   1997 0 61 37 143 159 677 2 161 104 134 308 20 923 54 659 11 368 8 29 521 181 239 12   1998 0 68 62 287 176 571 5 190 151 186 326 21 1,090 80 1,053 24 428 7 34 605 328 415 25 1999 Year 2000 2001 0 87 90 102 108 412 585 262 334 575 600 4 236 258 157 177 253 408 369 282 22 28 1,286 1,378 92 105 1,154 1,140 40 51 493 577 11 7 52 86 771 929 461 572 621 766 39 42 Table 4. Stocks of Foreign Students in Canada, Selected Countries and Total, 1997-2005 95 111 885 369 804 0 274 219 530 202 23 1,387 124 1,016 121 670 9 93 1,080 711 955 55 2002 5 124 130 1,290 523 1,594 280 238 589 356 50 1,324 154 1,037 123 1,093 9 88 1,009 881 1,214 107 272 215 549 304 25 1,344 138 1,025 124 871 10 93 1,098 763 1,092 76   2004 106 119 1,108 431 1,143   2003 134 148 1,342 570 2,117 6 310 296 586 405 43 1,421 187 1,085 129 1,403 11 104 924 1,031 1,333 141   2005 30 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 76,512 72,187 1,255 4,325 4,811 11.24 1,024 -18.41 72,875 0.95 77,686 1.53 6,132 27.46 943 -7.91 82,007 12.53 88,139 13.46 7,499 22.29 1,011 7.21 96,594 17.79 104,093 18.10 8,523 13.66 975 -3.56 112,088 16.04 120,611 15.87 9,733 14.20 1,108 13.64 121,108 8.05 130,841 8.48 10,906 12.05 1,550 39.89 128,246 5.89 139,152 6.35 12,218 12.03 2,047 32.06 134,143 4.60 146,361 5.18 From Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Facts and Figures, various issues, and special tabulations. Note. Data are for number of individuals by country of last permanent residence as of December 1st each year. See also note for Table 3. Predominantly Muslim Countries % change over previous year State-sponsored Terrorist States % change over previous year All Other Countries % change over previous year Total % change over previous year 13,726 12.34 2,637 28.82 140,270 4.57 153,996 5.22 R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 31 32 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 105 P re d o m in a n tly M u slim Predominantly Muslim S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro r Countries P re d o m in a n tly M u slim 100 2001/02 = 100 A ll O th e r C o u n trie s ational Students to the United States from Different Source Regions, S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro r 95 1997/98-2005/06 (2001/02=100) P re d o m in a n tly M u slim State-sponsored A llStates O th e r C o u n trie s Terrorist ational Students to the United States from Different Source Regions, S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro r 90 1997/98-2005/06 (2001/02=100) A ll O th e r C o u n trie s ational Students to the United States from Different Source Regions, All Other 85 1997/98-2005/06 (2001/02=100) Countries 80 75 70 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 1. Growth in International Students to2004/05 the United States from Different Source 2000/01 Figure 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2005/06 Regions, 1997/98-2005/06 (2001/02=100) Academic Year 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2000/01 /01 Academic 200 2001/02Year2002/03 2003/04 P re d o m in a n tly M u slim C o u n tri 2004/05 2005/06Predominantly Muslim S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro rist S ta t Countries P re d o m in a n tly M u slim C o u n tri Academic Year 180 A ll O th e r C o u n trie s S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro rist S ta t P re d o m in a n tly M u slim C o u n tri State-sponsored A llStates O th e r C o u n trie s Terrorist S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro rist S ta t 2001 = 100 160 140 A ll O th e r C o u n trie s 120 All Other Countries 100 80 60 40 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 2. Flows of Foreign Students to Canada by Source Region, 1997-2005 (2001=100) 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 /01 Academic Year students from PMCs increase by about 28% between 2001 and 2005, compared 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 /01 Academic Year stock of students from PMCs increases by almost 60%, compared with a rise of 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 to a decline of about 20% for all other countries. Over this same period, the only 25% for all other countries. More dramatic, still, is the growth in students Academic Year from state-sponsored terrorist states: the flows of these students almost doubled in this period while the stocks nearly tripled. Of particular interest is the fact that the Canadian numbers are almost mirror images of those for the United States. The largest increase in Canada over the period from 2001 to 2005 is among students from PMCs, followed by those R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 33 P re d o m in a n tly M u slim Predominantly Muslim S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro r Universities, Countries P re d o m in a n tly M u slim re 4. Growth in International Student Numbers, Selected by Student Type and Region, 1998/99-2005/06 (2001/02=100) A ll O th e r C o u n trie s re 4. Growth in International Student Numbers, Selected Universities, S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro P re d o m in a n tly M u slim State-sponsored by Student Type and Region, 1998/99-2005/06 (2001/02=100) A llStates O th e r C o u n trie s Terrorist S ta te -sp o n so re d Te rro r ure 4. Growth in International Student Numbers, Selected Universities, by Student Type and Region, 1998/99-2005/06 (2001/02=100) A ll O th e r C o u n trie s All Other ure 4. Growth in International Student Numbers, Selected Universities, Countries by Student Type and Region, 1998/99-2005/06 (2001/02=100) 1997 2000/01 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 3. Stocks of Foreign Students in Canada by Source Region, 1997-2005 (2001=100) 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2000/01 Academic Year 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2000/01 Academic Year 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Academic Year G ra d u a te s f ro m Graduates U n d e rg ra d u a t from PMCs G ra d u a te s f ro G ra d u a te s f ro m U n d e rg ra d u a t Gn ra ara ted suf a ro Undergrads U dd eu rg t G ra d u a te s f ro from PMCs U n d e rg ra d u a U n d e rg ra d u a t G ra d u a te s f ro Graduates U n d e rg ra d u a t from nonPMCs G ra d u a te s f ro U n d e rg ra d u a t Undergrads from nonPMCs 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 Figure 4. Growth in International Student Numbers, Selected Universities, by Student 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Type and Region, 1998/99-2005/06 (2001/02=100 Academic Year 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 from all other Year countries. For the United States, the pattern is the opposite: the Academic 2001/02decreases 2002/03 2004/05 2005/06 largest are among2003/04 those from PMCs, followed by all other countries Academic Year (compare Figure 1 with Figures 2 and 3). To further2002/03 investigate and corroborate this trend, data from the sample of 2001/02 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 six Canadian universities were compiled in Figure 4.20 This figure shows that Academic Year there was an increase in the number of students coming from PMCs, as well as from all other countries, and that there was an especially pronounced increase in graduate students originating in Muslim countries. More specifically, while the number of undergraduates more than doubled and the number of gradu- 34 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 ate students from other countries increased by about 50% from 2001/02 to 2005/06, the number of graduate students from PMCs almost quadrupled in that same period. Furthermore, this pattern has generally occurred at each of the six universities considered here. The data used to generate this chart are available from the author upon request. Conclusions and Discussion Following the events of 9/11, the number of foreign students studying at the university level in Canada increased, a pattern that coincided with a decrease in international students studying in the United States. Both of these phenomena are documented in the preceding sections of this article. In terms of students coming to Canada, the growth began earlier than 2001 but has since continued to increase, especially among students from PMCs. It has been argued that U.S. immigration policy is now less hospitable to foreign students, particularly those from Muslim countries. Although other factors such as the U.S. recession in the early 2000s and increased competition internationally for students are also important (Lowell, 2005), the movement of students from PMCs away from the United States, coupled with other evidence, suggests that U.S. immigration policy plays a critical role here. Clearly, Canadian universities have been trying to increase their foreign enrolments, but this alone is unlikely to be responsible for the large increase in foreign students from PMCs. Of the 17 countries with Canadian Education Centres, Turkey is the only country in our sample of PMCs that has a centre and the growth in the number of students from Turkey has been about the same as that for all PMCs. Furthemore, the growth in students from PMCs has far outpaced the growth in students from all other countries, a phenomenon that would be unexpected if there was a secular rise in international students. Although we cannot say definitively that stricter U.S. entrance requirements have resulted in some students choosing Canada, the data presented here do support this hypothesis. An alternative explanation for the decline in students entering the United States, especially those from PMCs, is the increase in the number of Westernbased universities that have recently opened in Muslim countries. Universities from Australia, Great Britain, the United States, India, Russia, and even Canada have entered the global higher-education market in a number of places, including the Persian Gulf region. According to the American Council on Education (2006), the Middle East is home to two new educational hubs—Knowledge Village in Dubai (United Arab Emirates) and Education City in Doha (Qatar)—both of which were established as centres for foreign educational institutions to provide education and training to students in the region. Although the existence of these institutions might explain some of the decrease in students entering the United States, it does not explain the corresponding increase in numbers at Canadian institutions. It may be that students from these areas who desire to study abroad view Canada as a better option than simply studying at a foreign institution in their home region.21 R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 35 The increased flow of foreign students to Canada is continuing and may do so for some time (Alphonso, 2005; Dillon, 2004). There is a general increase in demand for university education worldwide, especially for students from developing countries that do not presently have the capacity to provide spots to qualified students. Furthermore, the scrutiny of foreign students attempting to study in the United States is not likely to decrease in the foreseeable future, and there may be even more internal pressure in the United States to limit immigration (both temporary and permanent) in the future. In particular, the heightened inspection of Muslims seems likely to continue—the 9/11 Commission report, released in July 2004, noted that the threat to the United States is not simply a few rogue Islamic extremists but rather an ideology that is widespread in the Islamic world and supported by young, disaffected Muslims, and with which other Muslims sympathize (Pipes, 2004). In the past few years, the U.S. State department has undertaken a number of initiatives to expedite the issuance of student visas (Bollag & Field, 2006; Warwick, 2005) and U.S.-based university international offices have reported having fewer students with visa problems (McCormack, 2005). In fact, recent data (see Table 2) show that the decline in foreign students studying in the United States has been halted (though not reversed), although student numbers from PMCs continue to fall. Part of this trend has likely been due to the increased efforts of universities to put more resources into the recruitment of foreign students. Their efforts seemed to have paid off, as preliminary data from the Council of Graduate Students showed a slight increase in foreign graduate student enrolments for Fall 2006, the result of large increases in students from India and China (Bollag, 2006a). This is part of a broader global trend whereby countries such as Great Britain and Canada are following the “Australian model” of aggressively attracting foreign students through coordinated marketing campaigns and generous financial incentives. This trend is in response to traditional host countries’ anxiety that the numbers of Indian and Chinese students will begin to decline as India and China expand their existing institutions and establish new ones (often with foreign partners), thus capturing students before they consider studying abroad. Still, Yale-Loehr et al. (2004) �������������������������������������������������� have argued that the United States has not succeeded in reversing the exaggerated perception that it is inhospitable to foreign students and that other countries, including Canada, are ready to take advantage of this negative perception. As a result, students from PMCs who still desire to study abroad continue to choose countries other than the United States (Woo, 2006). In the end, the United States may be successful in keeping out undesirable students originating from specific regions, but its net may be cast too wide and desirable students may also be excluded. Canada appears to be benefiting from this situation and has implemented a number of policies to continue to increase the number of students choosing Canada as their place of study. As mentioned earlier, Canada has waived the visa requirement for students studying in Canada for six months or less, and 36 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 since 2006 qualifying foreign students have been eligible to work off-campus on a part-time basis during the school year and on a full-time basis during school breaks (CIC, 2006). These students are also able to extend their stays in Canada, under certain conditions, following graduation to work in areas related to their field of study. In addition, the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Diane Finley, recently introduced the new Canadian Experience Class. This program expands previous programs by expediting the permanent-residence process (under certain conditions) for those educated in Canada and/or with Canadian work experience (CIC, 2008). However, is this possible diversion of international students in fact a loss to the United States and a commensurate gain for Canada? The answer to this question is not simple. In the short term, the logic is straightforward: foreign students pay tuition—usually more than domestic students—and increase diversity on campus. Graduate students contribute to the research and teaching missions of the institution in a cost-effective way since they are paid relatively little. In the longer term, foreign students have a high propensity to remain in the country where they received their education and will be paid higher salaries—and hence pay more taxes—than those who are not as well educated; furthermore, because they are educated in the host country, they do not suffer the problem of foreign-credential recognition. With domestic birth rates declining in Western countries, coupled with an aging workforce, foreigners will become increasingly necessary to ensure that economies continue to grow and that citizens of these economies have the health-care resources and public-pension benefits they require, without being a larger burden on successive generations. Generally, the importance of foreign students is connected to increasing economic globalization, the related importance of the knowledge economy, and the decline of the industrialization model of economic development that was popular throughout the 19th century and most of the 20th century. Today, labour-intensive industries based in Western economies are not competitive internationally. The U.S. model of innovation-led productivity growth is the most recent in a long line of economic-development strategies (Laidler, 2002), and governments around the world are striving to create new ideas that can ultimately be transformed into marketable goods and services. Obviously, the key to the knowledge economy is knowledge, and it is mainly universities that are in the business of creating and disseminating (and increasingly commercializing) this knowledge. This, in turn, leads us to the importance of a fresh crop of students and, in the absence of domestic sources, the increased emphasis on and competition for foreign students. Although there is a dearth of evidence on the linkages between universities and economic growth (Beach, 2005), this model of innovation shows no sign of losing momentum. If the benefits of foreign students to a host economy do indeed accrue to that nation’s citizens, then any diversion of appropriately qualified foreign students from the United States, or elsewhere, should be beneficial to Canada. R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 37 There has been talk of increasing integration between Canada and the United States to include the freer movement of labour between the two countries (Hart, 2004). In the wake of September 11, 2001, this would undoubtedly require some sort of joint border policy, which would have implications for the two countries’ current disparate immigration policies.22 Politically, this may be a prudent policy, but its economic implications—including the effect on the movement of foreign students and the benefits they bring to a nation—should be fully explored beforehand. Of course, in order to fully investigate the issues related to international students in Canada, appropriate data are necessary. The student visa data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada generally do not provide an accurate accounting of foreign students, and data from individual universities can be difficult to collect, if they are available at all. The development of a national database similar to that compiled by the Institute of International Education would be a welcome addition for researchers in this area. Clearly, the collection of such data in Canada would provide an accurate accounting of student numbers, yet the exercise would continue to be silent on the reasons for students’ destination choices. Detailed surveys of foreign students would allow researchers to garner vital information about the complex decision-making process undertaken by foreign students regarding their studies. The market for post-secondary education is increasingly global, with a number of countries, including Canada, labouring to attract an increasing share of the pool of international students. For example, in Canada, the Council of Ministers of Education (consisting of ministers of education from all 13 provinces and territories) has launched the “Imagine: Education au/in Canada” campaign, which offers a “brand” of Canadian higher education in order to compete for international students. The success of this type of campaign—either alone or in combination with other factors that influence a student’s choice of location—depends heavily on the availability of appropriate data for researchers to analyze. Although longitudinal data such as the Youth in Transition Survey (YITS) are useful in ascertaining the post-secondary education choices, the completion rates, and (ultimately) the labour-market experiences of both Canadian- and foreign-born youth, the sample sizes are far too small to appropriately address the higher-education paths of foreign students. Nor do these data contain detailed information on the reasons for favouring Canada over other destinations. Thus, in order to move the research program in this area forward, development of survey data that assess the motivations of foreign students is vital, especially since Canadian post-secondary educational institutions and their industry groups have stated their desire to increase international student representation on campus in the face of increasing global competition for students. 38 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 Notes 1. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education (January 5, 2007), Karen Hughes, the U.S. Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, is quoted as saying: “When I came to the State Department, on my very first trip overseas, a young man at a low-income neighborhood housing project, who had a young daughter there, asked me a very haunting question: “Does the Statue of Liberty still face out?’ He meant, Is [sic] America still a welcoming country?” 2. The minority opinion is offered by Borjas (2002), who argues that the benefits to the United States tend to be grossly overestimated and it is mainly foreign students and host universities that benefit because of subsidized tuition and cheap labour, respectively. He writes: “Once one stops mindlessly humming the Ode to Diversity that plays such a central role in the modern secular liturgy—and particularly so in higher education—it is far from clear that the program generates a net benefit to the United States” (p. 13). 3. A more recent survey by Trice and Yoo (2007) found that only 32% of graduate student survey respondents in the United States planned on returning home immediately after completing their degrees. 4. In 2001, about 44% (or some 57,000) of the 130,000 foreign students in Canada were studying at the university level (CIC, 2003). In the United States, the comparable number of university-level students was about 445,000 out of 586,000 in 2002, or approximately 78% (IIE, 2003). 5. See Yale-Loehr et al. (2004) for a recent and comprehensive treatment of the changes in U.S. visa procedures that have been implemented since September 11, 2001; the Appendix exclusively addresses changes to student visas. Warwick (2005) provides a similar review of U.S. policy changes since 9/11. 6. These state sponsors of terror were Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria; Iraq and Libya have since been removed from this list. 7. The duties of the INS were taken over by the USCIS on March 1, 2003. The USCIS is part of the new Department of Homeland Security. 8. Details can be found in Martin (2004), Rudolph (2004), and Yale-Loehr et al. (2004). 9. The federal government announced in its February 2008 budget that foreign students would be eligible for the new Canada Graduate Scholarships, which are intended not only to increase the pool of talented graduate students from Canada and abroad studying at Canadian universities but also to encourage Canadian graduate students to study at home. 10. In its brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC, 2002) lauded these changes but suggested they did not go far enough in facilitating the entry of students into Canada. The document notes that the lack of a coherent and coordinated national policy is harming Canada’s position in the global competition for students. R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 39 11. Prior to fiscal year 2002, these were titled the Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a branch of the Department of Justice. Since then, the name has been changed to the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, a move that coincides with the renaming of the INS to the USCIS. 12. Another source of Canadian data comes from the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). Each year, the COU compiles data on applications and registrations for each of the province’s public universities. These data are useful because they give researchers an idea about intention to attend university (as reflected in the application numbers) and actual attendance (as reflected in the registration numbers). The coverage is limited to new undergraduate students and does not disaggregate by country of origin, only region of citizenship, which limits the use of these data for our purposes. However, calculations based on these data do show trends similar to those reported throughout this article. Although the Canadian Association for Graduate Students publishes numbers of graduate school enrolments, these data are not disaggregated by student country of origin. 13. Similarly, students may be entering Canada as permanent residents, which could potentially bias the results. Citizenship and Immigration Canada publishes data on source countries of permanent residents (which include all classes of immigrants—refugee, family class, independent, and others), but these data do not show any definitive trend among those from individual PMCs over the period 2000 to 2006, implying that these immigrants are unlikely to bias the student number trends. 14. The third category in the Maclean’s ranking is primarily undergraduate institutions, which are generally smaller and focus on providing education to local or regional students. 15. The exception is Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which are not included in our analysis: the former because it is not a predominantly Muslim nation and the latter because it is not always appropriately disaggregated in the data. The CIA World Factbook confirms that each of the countries included in the analysis has an overwhelmingly Muslim population. 16. The U.S. fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. For example, FY 2002 would be from October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. 17. See Borjas (2002) for details. 18. A similar table was produced for J1 exchange visitors (individuals coming to the United States on academic exchanges but including a number of foreign students), and a similar, albeit less-pronounced, pattern was found among this group of non-immigrant visa holders. According to the IIE (2003), in 2002/03, 86% of undergraduates held F visas, 2.9% had J visas, 0.1% had M visas, and the remaining 11% held other visas. For graduate students, these numbers were 87%, 5.9%, 0.1%, and 7%, respectively. 19. Numerous media reports have discussed the efforts of American universities to maintain their international student enrolments. The Chronicle of Higher Education routinely reports on these and related issues. 40 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 20. The complete data used to generate this chart can be found in the Appendix. 21. The ACE report also shows that the United States had the lowest growth in enrolments of international students over the 1999 to 2004 period among the six countries studied—a growth of 16.6% over the 5-year period compared to the United Kingdom (29%), Germany (46.1%), France (81.4%), Australia (42.1%), and Japan (108.5%). 22. See Green (2004) for a discussion of this issue and how harmonization of immigration policies (likely toward the U.S. model) would result in costs to the Canadian economy. References Alphonso, C. (2005, February 22). Facing US security hurdles, top students flock to Canada. Globe and Mail, p. A1. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders. Change, 36(2), 18–24. American Council on Education (ACE). (2006, October). Students on the move: The future of international students in the United States. ACE Issue Brief. Aslanbeigui, N., & Montecinos, V. (1998). Foreign students in US doctoral programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 171–182. Association of American Universities (AAU), et al. (2005). Fall 2005 international student enrollment survey. Washington, DC: Author. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). (2002, February 5). Making Canada more attractive to international students. A brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Canada regarding the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations. Ottawa: Author. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). (2007). Trends in higher education, vol. 1: Enrolment. Ottawa: Author. Beach, C. M. (2005). [Review of the book by G. A. Jones, P. L. McCarney, & M. L. Skolnik (Eds.), Creating knowledge, strengthening nations: The changing role of higher education.] Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(3), 129–133. Bollag, B. (2006a, November 10). Foreign enrollment at graduate schools increases, reversing a 3-year decline. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A45. Bollag, B. (2006b, November 17). Enrollment of foreign students holds steady. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A44-45. Bollag, B., & Field, K. (2006, January 20). Foreign students: Uncle Sam wants you. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A45. R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 41 Borjas, G. J. (2002). An evaluation of the foreign student program (Faculty Research Working Paper RWP02-026). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Camarota, S. A. (2002, August). Immigrants from the Middle East: A profile of the foreign-born population from Pakistan to Morocco (Backgrounder). Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies. Canadian Education Centre (CEC). (2004, April 15). International graduate students shifting away from US. CEC Network News. Cheng, L., & Yang, P. A. (1998). Global interaction, global inequality, and migration of the highly trained to the United States. International Migration Review, 32(3), 626–653. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2003, Spring). The Monitor. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2006, April 27). Off-campus work permit program launched. Press release. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2008, September 5). Canadian Experience Class now open for business. Press release. Dillon, S. (2004, December 21). US slips in status as hub of higher education. New York Times, p. A1. Dreher, A., & Poutvaara, P. (2005). Student flows and migration: An empirical analysis (Discussion Paper No. 1612). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Drolet, D. (2004, January). Many universities report big jumps in foreign enrolment. University Affairs. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/many-universities-report-big-jumps-in-foreign-enrolment.aspx. Finn, M. (2000). Stay rates of foreign doctoral recipients from US universities. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Engineering. Green, A. G. (2004). Beyond harmonization: How US immigration rules would have worked in Canada. Policy Matters, 5(4). Groen, J. A., & Rizzo, M. J. (2004). The changing composition of Americancitizen PhDs. Paper presented at The Science and the University Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/19/ Hart, M. (2004). Is there scope for enhancing the mobility of labour between Canada and the United States? (Skills Research Initiative Working Paper D-04). Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada, Industry Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Institute of International Education (IIE). (2003). Open doors 2003: International students in the US. Washington, DC: Author. 42 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 1, 2009 Institute of International Education (IIE). (2006). Open doors 2006: International students in the US. Washington, DC: Author. Iturralde C., & Calvert, D. (2003). Foreign students in Canada 1980-2001. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Strategic Research and Statistics. Johnson, J. M., & Regets, M. C. (1998). International mobility of scientists and engineers to the United States – Brain drain or brain circulation? Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Laidler, D. (2002). Renovating the ivory tower: An introductory essay. In D. Laidler (Ed.), Renovating the ivory tower: Canadian universities in the knowledge economy (pp. 1–28). Toronto: CD Howe Institute. Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409. Lowell, L. B. (2005). Declining numbers of foreign students and America’s science and engineering enterprise. International Migration, 43(3), 155–160. Martin, P. (2004). International migration and terrorism: Prevention and protection. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rs/more. php?id=148_0_1_0 McCormack, E. (2005, November 18). Enrollment of foreign students falls for a 2nd year. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A1. Pipes, D. (2004, July 27). It’s not just any terrorism, it’s Islamist terrorism. Globe and Mail, p. A15. Rudolph, C. (2004). Homeland security and international migration: Towards a North American security perimeter. Paper presented at North American Integration: Migration, Trade, and Security conference, Ottawa, Ontario, April 1–2. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (2001). Exceptional contributions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population Research and Policy Review, 20(1/2), 59–79. Szelenyi, K. (2003). Explaining the migration and settlement of foreign graduate students: Global integration theory and the theory of cumulative causation. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Comparative and Global Research. Trice, A. G., & Yoo, J. E. (2007). International graduate students’ perceptions of their academic experience. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(1), 41–66. Warwick, S. (2005). Will the academy survive 9/11? Scholarship, security, and the United States’ government policy. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 573–593. R. E. Mueller / Does the Statue of Liberty Still Face Out 43 Woo, S. (2006, October 27). Competition increases for foreign students. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A43. Yale-Loehr, S., Papademetriou, D. G., & Cooper, B. (2004). Secure borders, open doors: Visa procedures in the post-September 11 era. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Acknowledgement A preliminary draft of this paper was presented at colloquium sponsored by the Centre for Canadian Studies at Simon Fraser University and the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States on October 29–30, 2004, in Vancouver, B.C., and at the 11th International Metropolis Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, on October 2–6, 2006. A number of conference participants provided useful comments, as did Duane Rockerbie and two anonymous referees. Contact information Richard E. Mueller Department of Economics University of Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4 [email protected] Richard E. Mueller is associate professor of Economics at the University of Lethbridge and currently on loan to Statistics Canada in Ottawa. Dr. Mueller’s current research interests include the various determinants of entry into postsecondary education and other related education issues. His other major research focus is on the determinants of international migration. He also dabbles in issues related to the labour market outcomes of individuals in same-sex couples, gender-wage differentials, and the labour market effects of Aboriginal residential school attendance. His work has appeared in a number of economics and Canadian studies journals and edited volumes.