Presidential election rhetoric poses ongoing concern for HE

A few months ago I wrote about the political rhetoric of the primary party candidates in the United States related to immigration and the potential impacts on US higher education.

Since July there has been a monumental change to the Democratic party ticket in that the now-Democratic National Convention-approved candidate is not President Joseph Biden but Vice-President Kamala Harris.

Such a change precipitated another debate between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee, who remains former president Donald Trump.

This rapid change points to some potential instability at the federal level within the United States.

Following the Trump versus Biden debate in June 2024, my takeaways noted that their rhetoric surrounding immigration and education was nationalistic, exclusionary, isolationist and unwelcoming to prospective international students, especially those from China. My fear was that, if this rhetoric became policy, it would be detrimental to the US higher education sector.

With a change in Democratic nominee, it is still worth seeking to understand the rhetoric surrounding immigration in the United States and how the Harris policy platform could affect the US higher education sector or international student decision-making.

What is the Trump platform?

The online policy platform for the Trump campaign has expanded since July despite his contention during the debate that his plans are but “concepts”. And, it should be noted that this official Trump platform is not the Project 2025 agenda linked repeatedly on the Harris site.

Chapter two of the GOP platform is titled “Seal the Border, and Stop the Migrant Invasion”. The fourth point to this chapter will ring alarm bells for international students considering an education in the United States. It states: “Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists and Socialists out of America.”

Obviously, this language is inflammatory. But the policy itself focuses on targeting immigration policy related to governments, economies and religions. To select but one micro-aspect of this proposed policy, this would bring immediate negative impacts to US higher education, given that China and Vietnam could be defined as communist states.

According to the Open Doors report, during the 2022-23 school year, there were over 289,000 students from China in addition to nearly 22,000 students from Vietnam enrolled in US higher education institutions.

One could certainly contend that there are successful aspects of socialism – democratic and-or economic – from Scandinavia and Bolivia to New Zealand as well, suggesting that students from these states could be targets of future policy. The non-specific nature of the GOP platform gives room to broadly apply this proposed policy.

While Trump’s platform continues to be unwelcoming to migrants and explicitly nationalistic, it is not as obviously anti-China in its proposed immigration policies today. As a matter of fact, the Trump platform mentions China less than Harris’s.

What is the Harris platform?

In advance of the debate, the Harris team published her policy positions. The immigration section is similar to the Trump platform, with the focus predominantly on the US-Mexico border.

The Harris team does include a line on an “earned pathway to citizenship”. But it is unknown if this could be available to student visa holders in the future.

And while not much else is said about immigration specifically or higher education on her platform, there are three provocative calls related to China. First, in her goal to support American innovation and workers, China’s trade practices are called “unfair”. And these trade practices could be related to “any competitor that undermines American workers”, but only China is specifically called out.

Second, as the platform seeks to describe how she will lead on a world stage, China is described as a threat. To what is not clarified.

And, finally, when it comes to investing in America’s sources of strength, China is mentioned twice as both a competitor and as a state with “unfair economic practices”.

As with Biden, there is nothing related to internationalisation, globalisation or international partnerships on Harris’s official platform, which continues to ignore the opportunity to promote goodwill and soft power through tertiary education.

What was said at the debate?

When the candidates were discussing immigration, it was painted as almost wholly negative. For example, Trump used the word “crime” or “criminal” 17 times related to immigration. This is 15 more times than during the June debate.

An additional aspect to the debate was Trump’s characterisation of Haitian migrants in the US. His running mate, JD Vance, had falsely suggested that Haitian immigrants were consuming household pets upon arrival in the United States.

Trump subsequently repeated these claims despite moderator David Muir affirming that there had been no credible reports of such an event.

Additionally, at the debate, the word “education” was never stated.

Furthermore, the word “international” was only uttered three times: twice by Harris when she was explicitly discussing international rules and norms as well as once by moderator Linsey Davis when she asked about international law. None of these instances were related to international education, internationalisation or globalisation.

While disparaging and dismissive rhetoric related to immigrants in the United States is not necessarily new, it points to a continued concern for US higher education officials. If there continues to be no welcoming rhetoric from the federal government, students and their families may conclude that there is a physical safety risk to attending college or university in the United States.

Safety and security concerns

Ultimately, both candidates’ policies focus on physical border policies rather than the bureaucratic aspects of immigration policy. This is despite recent record rates of visa overstays.

Additionally, following the unfounded remarks related to Haitian immigrants, there have been real security concerns for communities with immigrant populations due to backlash.

The safety and security concerns for migrants, immigrants and international students feel more real at this moment than they did in June. These concerns, at this time, do not feel specifically sinophobic.

In September, both candidates relied on nationalist, isolationist and criminalising rhetoric related to immigration in the United States. As mentioned at the top of this article, there is also the fact that the Democratic nominee is relatively new on the scene and that there have now reportedly been two assassination attempts against Trump.

It is not only unwelcoming rhetoric that international students will be considering but also their perceptions of the security and safety provided by the democratic process.

Holly Buttrey (she/her) is a PhD student in organisational leadership, policy and development at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (Minnesota, United States) and the director of international admissions at the University of Miami (Florida, US). E-mail: buttr017@umn.edu

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.