Connect with us

Politics

Several UK universities restrict recruitment of Pakistani, Bangladeshi students

Published

on

Several UK universities restrict recruitment of Pakistani, Bangladeshi students


Students walk beside one of the colleges at the University of Oxford. — AFP/File
Students walk beside one of the colleges at the University of Oxford. — AFP/File

LONDON: UK universities are shutting out applicants from Pakistan and Bangladesh because of concerns over visa abuse and tougher Home Office rules, according to reports.

At least nine higher education institutions have restricted recruitment from “high risk” countries as they face increased pressure to ensure they are enrolling genuine students and not those who abuse the system.

It follows a surge of asylum claims from international students, prompting the border security minister Dame Angela Eagle to warn that the visa system “must not be used as a backdoor” to settling in Britain.

It was reported last month that Pakistan has topped the list of asylum-seeking countries, for the last year.

Among those that have made changes is the University of Chester, which suspended recruitment from Pakistan until autumn 2026, citing a “recent and unexpected rise in visa refusals.”

The University of Wolverhampton is not accepting undergraduate applicants from Pakistan and Bangladesh, while the University of East London is suspending recruitment from Pakistan, the Financial Times reported.

Other universities that have made changes include Sunderland and Coventry, which have both suspended recruitment from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The University of Sunderland said it made “no apologies” for taking a firm approach “to protect the integrity” of the student visa system.

Earlier this year, the Home Office made changes to the three Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) thresholds that UK institutions must meet to keep their student sponsor licence.

The overhaul is part of a wider reform of UK immigration rules intended to tackle abuse of the system and reduce net migration, which is at the lowest level in four years.

Under the changes, which came into effect in September, UK universities must ensure that no more than 5 per cent of their visa applications are rejected, reduced from 10 per cent.

The average refusal rate for Pakistan and Bangladesh student visa applications, excluding dependents, in the year to September 2025 was 18 and 22 per cent respectively — well above the new limit.

The two countries account for half of the 23,036 cases that were turned down by the Home Office in the same period.

Asylum claims from Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals have also risen, most of whom entered Britain on a work or study visa.

Vincenzo Raimo, an international higher education consultant said the crackdown posed a “real dilemma” for lower-fee universities that rely heavily on international recruitment.

“Even small numbers of problematic cases can threaten universities’ compliance with Home Office thresholds,” he added.

Several other universities have made changes to their recruitment practices.

The University of Hertfordshire, which the Home Office has placed under an action plan that enforces stronger compliance checks, has suspended recruitment from Pakistan and Bangladesh until September 2026, blaming “long visa processing times”.

In a memo seen by the Financial Times, Glasgow Caledonian University, also subject to an action plan, told staff in July that it needed to make “temporary changes to international student intake”, warning that the “stringent” new metrics meant “doing nothing is not an option”.

It paused recruitment to a number of programmes for the September intake, but it has been reinstated for courses starting in January, a Glasgow Caledonian spokesperson said.

Oxford Brookes has paused recruitment from Pakistan and Bangladesh for undergraduate courses beginning in January 2026, citing “visa processing times”. It said it would resume application processing for September that year.

BPP University, a private institution, has temporarily paused student recruitment from Pakistan as part of a “risk mitigation” strategy, it said.

Over the summer, London Metropolitan University confirmed it had stopped recruiting from Bangladesh, adding that the country accounted for 60 per cent of its visa refusals.

Maryem Abbas, founder of Edvance Advisors, a Lahore-based education agency that helps Pakistanis study abroad, said these decisions were “heartbreaking” for genuine students left stranded when their applications were withdrawn at the final stage.

She accused UK universities of helping to create the very incentives that produce spurious applications and urged them to better scrutinise the overseas agencies they use to source enrolments.

“Hundreds of agencies in Pakistan honestly don’t really care about where the student goes,” she added, saying that her sector has become a “moneymaking business”.

According to official estimates published in May, 22 higher education institutions would fail at least one of the tightened BCA criteria.

While 17 of the institutions at risk could improve their compliance enough to keep sponsoring students, five would lose sponsorship rights for at least a year — cutting an estimated 12,000 international students.

Jamie Arrowsmith, director at Universities UK International, said some institutions would need to diversify their intakes and enhance their application processes and deposit policies to comply with the new rules.

While stricter rules “may be challenging” for many universities, they are necessary to maintain public confidence in the system, he added.

The Home Office said it “strongly values” international students.

“That’s why we’re tightening the rules to ensure those coming here are genuine students and education providers take their responsibilities seriously,” it added.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Netanyahu says he was successfully treated for prostate cancer

Published

on

Netanyahu says he was successfully treated for prostate cancer


Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a ceremony commemorating Israel’s Yom HaZikaron at the Military Cemetery on Mount Herzl in occupied Jerusalem, April 21, 2026. — Reuters
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a ceremony commemorating Israel’s Yom HaZikaron at the Military Cemetery on Mount Herzl in occupied Jerusalem, April 21, 2026. — Reuters
  • Netanyahu does not disclose when treatment occurred.
  • Delayed release of medical report by two months: Israeli PM.
  • Move aimed at preventing Iran from spreading “propaganda”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday said that he had received successful treatment for early-stage prostate cancer, without specifying when the treatment took place.

In a statement on social media, as his annual medical report was released, Netanyahu, 76, said an early stage malignant tumor had been discovered during a routine checkup. He said “targeted treatment” had removed “the problem” and left no trace of it.

According to the medical report, which otherwise said the prime minister was in good health, Netanyahu was treated with radiation therapy for early-stage prostate cancer.

Neither the medical report nor Netanyahu said when the treatment occurred.

Israel’s longest-serving prime minister said that he had delayed the release of the medical report by two months to prevent Iran from spreading “false propaganda against Israel”.

In March, during the fighting with Iran, rumors that circulated on social media and aired on Iranian state media claimed that Netanyahu had died.

The Israeli leader recorded a video of himself visiting a Jerusalem cafe in March to refute the claims.

Netanyahu underwent surgery on his prostate in 2024 after he was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection resulting from a benign prostate enlargement. In 2023, he was fitted with a pacemaker. Elections are due to be held in Israel by October.





Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Strategic Assertion or Legal Breach? Deconstructing India’s Indus Waters Doctrine

Published

on

Strategic Assertion or Legal Breach? Deconstructing India’s Indus Waters Doctrine



India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty under the pretext of security concerns constitutes a flagrant violation of international law , devoid of any legal basis within the Treaty framework. By invoking unsubstantiated claims surrounding the Pahalgam incident , India advances a dangerous doctrine that legitimizes treaty erosion and the coercive weaponisation of shared resources.

The Indus Waters Treaty is a binding bilateral instrument that contains no provision permitting unilateral suspension , reinterpretation, or conditional compliance, thereby rendering India’s decision to hold it in abeyance legally untenable and inconsistent with the principle of pacta sunt servanda. The attempt to justify this breach through allegations linked to the Pahalgam incident remains entirely unsubstantiated in international fora, exposing the claim as a politically motivated pretext rather than a lawful justification. By conflating disputed security narratives with treaty obligations, India not only undermines the integrity of a long-standing water-sharing regime but also sets a pernicious precedent that threatens the stability of transboundary agreements and the broader rules-based international order.

India’s unilateral move to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance is not a policy shift, it is a shameless act of legal defiance , openly violating the most basic rule of international law; pacta sunt servanda.

The weaponization of a water-sharing treaty exposes the dangerous ideological imprint of the RSS mindset , where majoritarian extremism overrides legal commitments India’s attempt to justify its conduct through the Pahalgam incident collapses under scrutiny even after a year; no evidence, no accountability, no credibility, only a politically convenient narrative weaponized to rationalize treaty violations.

Dragging terrorism allegations into a binding water treaty is not strategy, it is blatant and reckless escalation , dismantling decades of carefully insulated cooperation and replacing it with instability and mistrust.

By sidestepping proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, India has revealed a pattern of selective legality , embracing international law when convenient and abandoning it when constrained. Moreover, India yet remains silent to the UN Special Rapporteurs queries even after 130 days.

The weaponisation of water by an upper riparian state is nothing short of hydro-political terrorism , targeting the economic and agricultural lifeline of millions and crossing the line from governance into coercion.

This conduct represents a shameful erosion of treaty sanctity , sending a chilling message to the world that binding agreements can be hollowed out by power politics and ideological rigidity.

Pakistan’s position remains unequivocal; treaties are not conditional favors but binding obligations, and no state has the authority to unilaterally rewrite or suspend them under the guise of security narratives.

The growing international concern surrounding India’s actions underscores a simple reality: Unilateralism is isolating, destabilizing, and fundamentally incompatible with a rules-based order.

At its core, this doctrine of “blood and water cannot flow together” is not a principle of justice, it is a dangerous precedent, legitimizing collective punishment and transforming a historic instrument of peace into a tool of strategic pressure.



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

India rebukes Trump for sharing ‘hellhole’ remarks on birthright citizenship

Published

on

India rebukes Trump for sharing ‘hellhole’ remarks on birthright citizenship


US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump tour the historic Taj Mahal, in Agra, India, February 24, 2020. — Reuters
US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump tour the historic Taj Mahal, in Agra, India, February 24, 2020. — Reuters
  • Trump shares commentary on birthright citizenship on his social media.
  • Conservative talk show host called China, India ‘hellhole’ places.
  • India says inappropriate comments do not reflect reality of India-US ties.

India has dismissed as “uninformed” comments shared by US President Donald Trump that described the country as a “hellhole”, saying they were inappropriate and inconsistent with the strong relationship between the two countries.

The comments were made by conservative commentator Michael Savage in an episode of The Savage Nation talk radio show. Trump posted a transcript of the show on his Truth Social account on Thursday without any comments.

“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” Savage said, according to the transcript.

“That there’s almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, which was not always the case. No, they’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors.”

Reuters could not immediately contact Savage.

Trump has issued a directive seeking to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, a move that has been challenged in the US Supreme Court. Earlier this month, he attended a hearing on the issue in a historic visit to the court.

India’s foreign ministry late on Thursday reacted strongly to the comments.

“The remarks are obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste,” Indian foreign ministry spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, said in a statement.

“They certainly do not reflect the reality of the India-US relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests.”

The US embassy in New Delhi said: “The president has said ‘India is a great country with a very good friend of mine at the top’.”

China’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

India’s main opposition Congress party called the “hellhole” remark “extremely insulting and anti-India. It hurts every Indian”.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi should take up this matter with the US President and register a strong objection,” the party said on X.

Indian government data shows nearly 5.5 million people of Indian origin live in the United States. Indian Americans and Chinese Americans are the two biggest groups of Asian origin in the US.

Trump and Modi enjoyed warm ties during Trump’s first term, but relations cooled after India was hit last year with some of the highest US tariffs, many of which were rolled back this year. India and the US are now working on a trade deal aimed at preventing any renewed increase in tariffs and boosting sales to each other.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending