Last week Obama announced that the United States would extend its visa policy to allow Chinese tourists and students apply for visas that last up to ten and five years, respectively. (The previous policy only allowed for one-year visas requiring the painful task of renewing them every twelve months). This change highlights the US commitment to keep its doors open for internationals. In the United Kingdom, the contrast could not be greater.

Attitudes in the UK towards immigration have been, and continue to be, largely negative. According to the Migration Observatory, in the 1970s nearly 90% of respondents stated that immigration in the UK had gone ‘too far’. This figure has decreased over time to the current average of 60%, but the decline does not change the fact that the UK’s attitudes relative to other countries are still significantly unfavourable. In a 2013 study published by Transatlantic Trends, opposition to immigration in the UK was the highest, at 70%, compared to countries like France (50%), Italy (45%) and the US (45%).

While UK attitudes to immigration have remained relatively stable, if clearly adverse, the political importance given to the topic has increased dramatically in recent years. The Ipsos-MORI Issue Index shows that from 1993 to 2000, when asked for the three most pressing issues in the UK, immigration came dead last. This changed with the advent of the EU enlargement rounds. Since 2001 immigration has consistently been among the three most pressing concerns for UK voters alongside the economy, unemployment, and – a classic – the NHS.

The financial crisis, the euro-crisis, and now the rise of UKIP, have further politicised immigration. Phrases such as ‘they’re stealing our jobs’, ‘they take over our benefits’, and Nigel Farage feeling ‘awkward’ when being in a train in London without anyone speaking in English, form the basis of the ugly discourse that plagues the UK. The negative sentiments were captured in the British Social Attitudes Survey (2013) where over 50% of respondents perceived that the costs of having EU migrants exceeded the benefits they brought to the UK. When asked if it the cost-benefit ratio was equal, or if the benefits offset the costs, only 20% agreed.

Perhaps more important than the public’s negative perceptions have been the reactions from the current government.

In 2010 the Conservative government led by David Cameron vowed to decrease immigration numbers to fewer than 100,000. The most recent figure for 2014 shows that the target is far from being met: net migration in August was 243,000, marking a 58% increase from the 154,000 figure registered in September 2012. Despite the government’s efforts, the trend is clearly not favourable. In what can be seen as a sign of the Conservative party’s reluctance to admit their failure, Home Secretary Theresa May recently attempted to downgrade Cameron’s earlier ‘pledge’ to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands by qualifying it merely as ‘a comment.’

But why is the UK Government set on combatting immigration? The official explanation is that the government is targeting immigrants who abuse the UK system by claiming benefits without contributing to the economy. The government is also determined to eliminate bogus colleges, which provide an illegal, easy entry to non-EU nationals that claim to be in the UK studying English.

But there are three main problems with the government’s policy: 1) a recent study reveals that immigrants in fact contribute more than what they claim in benefits; 2) the stance against immigration appears to be less about economics and more to do with a populist attempt to gain votes; 3) the policies are harming international students who come to study in the UK.

The recent study by Dustmann and Frattini, entitled, The Fiscal Effects of Immigration in the UK (2014), should put both public perceptions and governmental policies to rest. EU immigrants, the study found, “have contributed far more in taxes than they have received in benefits.” Since 2000, EU immigrants have contributed a net £20bn more to the UK economy than they received in benefits; residents from EU15 countries (the original 15 members of the EU) contributed £15bn; and A10 countries (those that acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007) provided a further £5bn more.

Immigration is clearly and definitely a positive economic contribution to the UK economy. As Professor Ian Goldin remarks, however, in communities that do face short-term costs due to immigration, such as local competition for jobs, the government should provide burden sharing support measures. The government should also avoid engaging in populist, anti-immigration politics.

But with immigration as the second most pressing concern in voters’ minds in the upcoming general election in May, it is unlikely that the study by Dustmann and Frattini will convince the Conservatives to change their stance against immigrants and the EU. In recent months, David Cameron has increased the government’s anti-immigration promises; including a cap on national insurance numbers for migrants, a cap that will prevent them from working in the UK. The policies and the promises comes as late efforts to prevent further losses to UKIP, who have recently had political gains buoyed by the country’s negative perception against immigrants. For students, meanwhile, the effects of government policies have been tangible.

As part of their policies the government included students in their measure of net migration. The government’s initial concerns were right given that there were roughly 50,000 students in ‘bogus colleges’ in 2009 that arrived not to study but to work illegally. These colleges have since then been, rightly, shut down. The tragedy is that the measure does not differentiate between students in recognised universities and bogus ones.

It is in recognised universities where the immigration reforms have been felt hardest. In April 2012 the Tier 1 (Post-Study) visa, which gave international students two years to look for a job following the completion of their studies, was eliminated. Two years later and the number of Indian students coming to the UK has declined by 15%. And in a recent survey of LSE students, presented in Times Higher Education, it was revealed that “77 per cent of the 1,336 respondents agreed that learners were less likely to come to the UK from overseas as a result of immigration reforms.”

Both, universities and big businesses have come together against immigration reforms. In addition to arguments praising the value of diversity that international students bring to the classrooms, the decline in the number of foreign students is also worrying in a financial sense. According to the Russell Group, which represents the country’s 24 leading universities, international students bring about £4bn to the economy, a sum that is under threat should the reforms discourage further students from coming to the UK. In addition, in a letter published in November 9th in the Financial Times, business leaders including the CEOs of easyJet, Siemens, and WPP, wrote that “Immigrants coming to this country from other parts of the EU tend to be young, hardworking and educated” and warned that further caps would “would be detrimental to Britain’s interests and could threaten our membership of the EU.”

Prospective students who do decide to come to the UK to get a job still need to face several obstacles that include securing company sponsorship and passing a complex application process.

In order to get a job in the UK international students need to be sponsored by a company. The minimum salary requirement is currently £20,500 for the Tier 2 (Skilled Worker) visa. There is a great irony here in that those who come to study politics or anthropology because they want to make a career in social work or policy research, will not find jobs that cover the minimum salary requirements. Pursuing high-paying jobs, such as investment banking and consulting, however, will.

Even so, not all large companies are willing to sponsor. Google and P&G are among those that do not give students the opportunity to interview if they are without the legal right to work in the UK. This is understandable, as companies do not see it worthwhile to go through the legal fees and the uncertainty that rise from recruiting international students amidst restrictive immigration laws.

For international students thinking about studying to then find a job in the UK, their decision to do so should be framed in a different way. For one, it is deceiving to say ‘I want to work in the UK’ when, in fact, what they mean is that they want to work in London. One cannot compare having the option to work, say, in Chicago, New York, Houston, Miami, or San Francisco, as opposed to one single city that attracts highly qualified applicants from all over the world.

Furthermore, the application process is more cumbersome in the UK than it is in the US, for example. In elite American schools job interviews can take place at career fairs with a following one at the company’s office. In the UK, after exchanging business cards in networking events and getting names in career presentations, the students will need to complete online applications and include CVs, tailored cover letters, and short answers to competency questions, a process that is then followed by numerical, verbal, and situational judgment tests. The next stage comprises the telephone interview and finally the one-day assessment centre where more tests, a group exercise, individual presentations, and final interviews, take place.

A degree from a leading British university can indeed serve as a stepping-stone to great future opportunities. In addition to living in a great country and meeting people from all over the world, one of these opportunities is getting a job. But given the government’s regressive reforms against immigration and the cumbersome job application process, international students should treat the chance of finding a job in the UK for what it is – a great but unnecessarily difficult opportunity – and not as the deciding factor when considering to study here, either for a year or three.