The power of data and narrative in building public support for international students

ICEF Monitor has reported frequently in 2025 on a major trend in international education: students in emerging markets are aware of weaker public support for and tighter restrictions on immigration in a number of major study destinations. Some are turning to alternative destinations that feel more welcoming and that offer easier visa processes and affordability.

But immigration settings are never permanent, and research shows that significant voting blocs in key destination countries are both concerned about immigration levels and supportive of maintaining or increasing international student numbers. In other words, they do not lump international students into general misgivings about immigration. This is important for educators to consider amidst increasingly strict visa settings that are impacting their ability to recruit overseas. If the voting public distinguishes between international students and other categories of migrants, it makes sense that policies should as well.

Today, we are reporting on research showing that:

• Young Americans have notably different attitudes about their president and his approach to immigration than their older counterparts;
• Britons and Australians draw a distinct line between “immigrants” and “international students,” with support for the latter category much stronger than for the former;
• More than half of Australians polled in 2025 are in favour of maintaining or increasing international student numbers;
• People are more influenced by widely circulating narratives about immigration than by quantitative information.

Young Americans see things differently than their older counterparts

In April 2025, the Yale Youth Poll surveyed 4,100 registered voters and featured an oversample of more than 2,000 respondents aged 18 to 29 (i.e., this age range was intentionally overrepresented in the poll).

While the research covered a wide range of topics, it featured a particular focus on education and immigration. Yale Youth Poll Director Milan Singh said:

“The poll is focused on what topics are relevant to right now. Questions on whether international students should be deported, or have their visa revoked. We wanted to gauge what people feel about federal funding cuts to universities, whether they should issue political statements or positions on social issues, whether people feel positively or negatively towards the Ivy League or other elite private universities.”

The highlights of differences between younger and older cohorts in the sample include:

• The youth segment (under age 30) gave a “net favourability” score to President Trump of -18% (i.e., an “unfavourable” opinion) compared to the full-sample score for President Trump of +6%.

• Among youth, 79% said the level of legal immigration should be increased (40%) or remain the same (39%). This is considerably higher than the average across the sample: 50% (30% “should be increased” and 20% “remain the same”).

• More than three-quarters (79%) of youth opposed deporting international students who participated in campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, compared with a sample-wide average of 62.5%.

Of the finding that 8 in 10 young voters opposed the deportation of international student protesters, Yale’s Mr Singh commented: “We wanted to measure just how unpopular this idea is, and it turns out, among young voters, it’s extremely unpopular.”

Voters in the UK and Australia differentiate between international students and immigrants

Research conducted earlier this year by the immigration think tank British Future based on focus groups in six UK cities and a nationally representative survey of over 2,000 people found that:

“The public perceive international students positively. The survey found almost six in ten (59%) agree that universities would have less funding to invest in top quality facilities and teaching without the higher fees paid by international students, with only 10% disagreeing. And 54%) agreed that international students enhance the reputation of UK universities overseas, with only 11% disagreeing.”

In addition, the research revealed that “only 28% of respondents categorise international students as immigrants, compared to 38% for migrant workers. The top two groups perceived as immigrants are asylum seekers (62%) and recipients of humanitarian visas (46%).”

In Australia, an early-2025 survey of 5,000 respondents undertaken by the Australian National University (ANU) found that more than half of Australians (53%) consider immigration levels in their country to be too high. However, an even larger percentage (58%) said there should either be no change or an increase in the number of international students enrolled in Australia, again illustrating the distinction people make between immigrants and international students.

The role of narrative

A study called “Narratives, information and immigration policy preferences” by Alyssa Leng, Ryan Edwards and Terence Wood for ANU’s Development Policy Centre reveals the significant way in which narratives broadcast by governments and the media influence public perception of international students and immigrants. The study was conducted in 2024 and funded by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The study explored the extent to which opinions about immigrants shifts according to:

• “A one-shot narrative information treatment on the costs or benefits of immigration for the receiving country population;
• A bundle of factual quantitative information about immigrants’ characteristics.”

The way the study was set up was that three groups of respondents were provided with one of three narratives (i.e., stories) about immigration before being asked about what they felt about the number of migrants of various profiles that should be allowed into Australia. One of the narratives was positive, one was balanced, and one was negative. Then another group, the fourth group, was provided a bundle of quantitative facts about immigration – that is, objective information rather than narratives.

Not surprisingly, what the study found was:

“While narratively informing respondents of the perceived ‘negative’ impacts of immigration on house prices does not substantially change the likelihood that respondents prefer more immigration, it decreases the probability that respondents express support for immigration levels remaining the same or increasing by around five percentage points. Showing respondents a narrative vignette emphasising immigrants’ positive contributions generates larger increases in the likelihood of supporting more immigration than providing quantitative information (between 4–7 and around 2percentage points, respectively).”

Why is the study relevant for educators in Big Four countries?

The study sheds light on the power of narrative on public sentiment and government policies. For example, if the media turns its focus on a handful of economists’ assertions that international students are to blame for housing or healthcare problems, that assertion takes on a snowball effect where it:

• Gathers steam (e.g., becomes picked up by more media outlets and thus is seen by more viewers/readers);
• Pressures the government to react to an associated public (aka voter) sentiment that something must be done about international students.

By extension, this phenomenon suggests that efforts by international education stakeholders to shift the narrative are worthwhile, provided those efforts are backed by solid research and accompanied by a strong media strategy and coordinated lobbying.

For example, in Australia in 2024, research commissioned by the Student Accommodation Council, a peak body for the country’s purpose-built student accommodation sector (PBSA), found no alignment between the return of international students to Australia – after borders reopened post-pandemic – and rents increasing. This finding was in direct contradiction with the media and governmental narrative circulating at the time.

One highlight of the research was that international students make up only 4% of all renters in Australia. Domestic students compose 6.2%, and the remainder are non-students. What’s more, the study found that the vast majority of international students do not live in the housing most in demand in Australia: only 3% of international students live in detached houses suitable for couples or families, while 74% live in PBSA close to universities.

Taking accountability

None of this is to say that the international education sector in places such as Canada and Australia have not played a role in the ebb of public support for recruiting international students. Before the tightening of immigration settings in those countries, international student enrolments were growing at an unsustainable pace and the lines between education and “edugration” (the pursuit of education abroad as a pathway to permanent residency) were certainly blurred.

But responsible recruiting of international students is another matter altogether, and it is to the benefit of educators, domestic students, international students, governments, and economies that this be not only allowed, but fully supported. When international students are vetted carefully for their suitability for institutions and programs, encouraged to consider programmes linked to labour force needs, and supported in career pathways that contribute to productivity and innovation, they are crucial elements of a country’s future competitiveness, development, and place in the global economy.

And so going into 2026, the importance of schools, colleges, universities, and peak bodies collecting data and presenting compelling narratives about the value of international education has never been higher. The research we profiled today shows that voters in the US, Australia, and UK are open to the benefits of certain immigration pathways, including international students and highly skilled workers. That research is often supported by peak international bodies in those countries.

Meanwhile in Canada, linking responsible international recruitment to the sustainability of crucial programmes and research initiatives – and to the larger social and economic goals of the country – is a narrative well worth developing and advancing.