Sl Campaign Against the Cuts; Brighton an immediate and severe threat. The Labour Government and local education authorities are now trying to force throu gh dramaticalv increased fees. with the idea of a quota system limiting the num ber or overseas students in each course as a fall-back alternative.
For the last ten years, overseas students have faced increasing discrimination through higher fees and legal restrictions. In 1966, a discriminatory fee of 1250 was introduced for overseas students This year the fee went up to 1320 and will go up again next vear to 14l6 The Immigration Act of 1971 and subsequent haws mauc oolamme visa difficult, vacation work permits almost impossible, and introduced intensive "screening by the Home Office of poli tical activities. As a result the threat of achonaton occame a spectre nawns students uno nad to work l u holidays to finance their studies were increasingly forced to work illegally for low wages, all the time running the risk of being kicked out. The powers given to the Home Office enabled them to deport those considered "undesirable". in many cases back to their home coun tries where they faced repression.
But these restrictions pale into insignificance compared with the moves now Labour Government. The Labour Cabioverseas students fees should be increased to me unes near eve to L1,200 for non-advanced courses. and S2,100 for advanced courses.
These measures, if implemented. would amount to kicking out all the self-linanced overseas students (whe make up 75 per cent of the total. The effect would be that only students who were faithful servants of neo-colonialist regimes would receive grants and there fore be able to study in Britain.
An alternative and perhaps additional quota system for students from abroad. The Inner London Education Authority are the trail blazers with this vicious tactic. This Labour controlled authority is planning to introduce measures which will cut the proportion of overseas students in its colleges from 25 to 1O pe cent over the next five years. No doubt To justify these proposals the Government and LEAs have been peddling the lie that it is sons of rich oil sheiks" who are being educated at the British taxpayers expense. But the vast majority o overseas students come from underto take advantage of cheap education, but because no adequate educational facilities exist in their own country as a result of the systematic underdevelop ment of these cconomies by imperialist powers like Britain.
Overseas students do not reccive main through tremendous sacrifices by their Tamilies. As a result they bring well over I100m of foreign currency into Britain every year.
As for the sons of rich oil sheiks". the Government's present plans would ensure that only such people and other students smiled upon by neo-colonial regimes could enter this coutrv The attacks on overseas students are owensive wamse caucaron acmics as a whole. Many colleges and courses have a very high percentage of overseas student Radical restrictions on overseas students will make these colleges and courses unviable, both for students from abroad and IS SUCHS SWICid closures, reduction of student numbers. staff redundancies in fact, a cut-back of the education system as a whole.
Overseas students have been chosen as the target because they are weakly organised and can be used as a scapegoat for the general problems in education. That is why the fight for the rights of overseas students to study in Britain is not some moral question but fundamental in resisting the wholesale cuts being imposed in further and higher