Hot opinion: international students shouldn't get work rights (1 Viewer)

[Interdice]

I've got no beef with intl students. Half my family were intl students at one stage. At my work we have 3 intl students, and they're all decent enough people. I admire how hard they work and I've got no problem with them personally. IMO I kinda prefer talking to them over domestic students, cause visa laws and life in third world countries are a much more interesting topic to talk about than Domestic coworkers' parties imo.

BUT imo international students having work rights is a net negative for all parties.

It's near impossible for domestic 18 year olds with no connections or experience to get a job. This is because intl students are better candidates. They will work longer, work harder and they probably already have years of experience. BUT the point of these entry level jobs, is to gain experience moresoe than the money. Why should a job/experience be provided to someone who will most likely leave the country? This will eventually lead to a weaker Australia.

If the government wants migrant workers to fill some unskilled gap, irrelavant Private Education Providers(Torrens or Kings Own) are a leach, as they take tens of thousands of dollars, and waste it on subpar education, just to give the 'student" an effectively unrestricted(except 24 hour per week limit) tempoary work visa. If these people are in demand, why not just give them a temp visa, specifically for fields that domestic Australians don't want to do?


This is also very bad for culture of intls. They want to stay in Australia for as long as possible. Their next best alternative is to make 7 dollars an hour, with shit conditions in the UAE, and they know it. These people will stress over visas, and do unethical visa hops for years. I knew two guys in Australia, who have been in Australia since 2018 on temp visas. Why should a blind eye be turned to people abusing the visa system?

Intl students shouldn't be allowed to work, and a regulated temporary workvisa for unskilled labor, should replace the labor that they provide. No visas should be provided, that allow the recipient to work in retail or any similar casual role.

 

[lunaaaa4403]

international students having work rights is a net negative for all parties.

intl students are better candidates. They will work longer, work harder and they probably already have years of experience.

?

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

I've got no beef with intl students. Half my family were intl students at one stage. At my work we have 3 intl students, and they're all decent enough people. I admire how hard they work and I've got no problem with them personally. IMO I kinda prefer talking to them over domestic students, cause visa laws and life in third world countries are a much more interesting topic to talk about than Domestic coworkers' parties imo.

BUT imo international students having work rights is a net negative for all parties.

It's near impossible for domestic 18 year olds with no connections or experience to get a job. This is because intl students are better candidates. They will work longer, work harder and they probably already have years of experience. BUT the point of these entry level jobs, is to gain experience moresoe than the money. Why should a job/experience be provided to someone who will most likely leave the country? This will eventually lead to a weaker Australia.

If the government wants migrant workers to fill some unskilled gap, irrelavant Private Education Providers(Torrens or Kings Own) are a leach, as they take tens of thousands of dollars, and waste it on subpar education, just to give the 'student" an effectively unrestricted(except 24 hour per week limit) tempoary work visa. If these people are in demand, why not just give them a temp visa, specifically for fields that domestic Australians don't want to do?


This is also very bad for culture of intls. They want to stay in Australia for as long as possible. Their next best alternative is to make 7 dollars an hour, with shit conditions in the UAE, and they know it. These people will stress over visas, and do unethical visa hops for years. I knew two guys in Australia, who have been in Australia since 2018 on temp visas. Why should a blind eye be turned to people abusing the visa system?

Intl students shouldn't be allowed to work, and a regulated temporary workvisa for unskilled labor, should replace the labor that they provide. No visas should be provided, that allow the recipient to work in retail or any similar casual role.

see, the thing you're missing is that the vested interests that control how our politicians decide to legislate, the ones with all the money, like having workers who don't need to be paid proper entitlements or wages, compared to those stupid lazy australians who don't want to work for $7 an hour and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, demanding ridiculous things like paid sick leave, paid holidays or $23 an hour

 

[ChatGPT]

This is a well-articulated and thought-provoking opinion. You've clearly laid out your position and supported it with personal observations and logical arguments. It's a hot topic for a reason, and your perspective highlights several genuine concerns within the current system.
Let's break down your argument into its core components and examine the strengths and counterpoints for each.
Summary of Your Core Argument
You believe that the current system, which grants international students work rights, is a "net negative" because:

1. It harms domestic youth: It crowds them out of entry-level jobs that are crucial for gaining initial work experience.
2. It's an inefficient backdoor for low-skilled labor: It uses the education system as a proxy for a work visa, enriching "subpar" private colleges while not serving the true purpose of education.
3. It's culturally damaging for international students: It creates a high-stress environment where students focus more on staying in the country than on their studies, leading to potential visa abuse.

Your proposed solution is to remove work rights for international students and create a separate, regulated temporary work visa for genuine low-skilled labor shortages.
Analysis and Counterpoints
Your points are valid, but the issue is more complex. Here’s a look at the other side of the coin.
1. On Domestic Job Competition

• Your Point: International students are more competitive for entry-level jobs, leaving domestic youth with fewer opportunities.
• Counterpoint: While competition is real, the impact is often overstated and concentrated in specific sectors (like hospitality, retail, and gig economy jobs). Furthermore, the 24-hour-per-week cap is designed specifically to prevent this from being a primary concern. The larger issue for domestic youth employment often involves broader economic conditions, wage levels, and geographic mismatches between job seekers and jobs.

2. On the "Point" of an International Student

• Your Point: The primary reason for an international student to be in the country is to study, not work. Allowing them to work distracts from this.
• Counterpoint: Work rights are not just about earning money; they are a critical part of the educational and cultural experience.
  • Integration: Working part-time is one of the most effective ways for international students to practice English, understand Australian workplace culture, and build a social network outside their ethnic community.
  • Practical Experience: For many courses, relevant part-time work is a valuable complement to theoretical learning.
  • Financial Necessity: Australia is an expensive country. Without any work rights, studying in Australia would become the exclusive domain of the ultra-wealthy, drastically reducing diversity and talent pool.

3. On the "Subpar Education" and "Visa Hopping"

• Your Point: This is a sharp and widely acknowledged criticism. Some private education providers do operate as a backdoor to a work visa, offering low-quality education.
• Counterpoint & Nuance: This is less a problem with the concept of student work rights and more a problem with regulation and enforcement. The government is acutely aware of this issue and has recently taken steps to crack down on "non-genine students" and poor-quality providers. Your solution of a separate low-skilled work visa is a legitimate policy alternative, but it has its own downsides:
  • It would create a two-tier system where "workers" have no pathway to skills development or permanent residency.
  • The student visa pathway, when used correctly, is intended to be a talent pipeline. A high-performing international student who gains Australian qualifications and work experience is often an ideal candidate for skilled migration.

A Potential Middle Ground
Your opinion isn't just a complaint; it's a policy proposal. A more nuanced solution might look like this, rather than an outright ban:

1. Stricter Enforcement of Genuine Student Requirements: This is already happening. Weeding out those who are primarily using the student visa as a work visa is key.
2. Tiered Work Rights: Instead of a blanket 24 hours for all, work rights could be tied to the level and quality of the institution and course. A student at a top-tier university on a skilled occupation list might retain full work rights, while someone at a dubious college in a low-skill field might have them restricted or removed.
3. Strengthening the Link Between Study and Work: Encourage work-integrated learning (internships, co-ops) that are directly related to the field of study, rather than unrestricted work in unrelated retail/hospitality roles.
4. Your Point on a Dedicated Low-Skilled Visa: This remains a valid idea to decouple the labor need from the education system, creating more honesty in both streams.

Conclusion
Your "hot opinion" touches on real flaws in the current system. The exploitation of the student visa pathway as a low-skilled work visa is a legitimate policy failure that harms the integrity of the education sector and can disadvantage some domestic workers.
However, completely removing work rights would likely create new problems: making Australia unaffordable for all but the richest international students, hindering their integration, and cutting off a vital source of talent for the Australian economy.
The most effective path forward is likely not a blanket removal of work rights, but a more sophisticated and heavily enforced system that ensures the "student" visa is used primarily for its intended purpose: getting a quality education. Your argument successfully highlights that the current system often fails this test.

 

[SylviaB]

This is a well-articulated and thought-provoking opinion. You've clearly laid out your position and supported it with personal observations and logical arguments. It's a hot topic for a reason, and your perspective highlights several genuine concerns within the current system.
Let's break down your argument into its core components and examine the strengths and counterpoints for each.
Summary of Your Core Argument
You believe that the current system, which grants international students work rights, is a "net negative" because:

1. It harms domestic youth: It crowds them out of entry-level jobs that are crucial for gaining initial work experience.
2. It's an inefficient backdoor for low-skilled labor: It uses the education system as a proxy for a work visa, enriching "subpar" private colleges while not serving the true purpose of education.
3. It's culturally damaging for international students: It creates a high-stress environment where students focus more on staying in the country than on their studies, leading to potential visa abuse.

Your proposed solution is to remove work rights for international students and create a separate, regulated temporary work visa for genuine low-skilled labor shortages.
Analysis and Counterpoints
Your points are valid, but the issue is more complex. Here’s a look at the other side of the coin.
1. On Domestic Job Competition

• Your Point: International students are more competitive for entry-level jobs, leaving domestic youth with fewer opportunities.
• Counterpoint: While competition is real, the impact is often overstated and concentrated in specific sectors (like hospitality, retail, and gig economy jobs). Furthermore, the 24-hour-per-week cap is designed specifically to prevent this from being a primary concern. The larger issue for domestic youth employment often involves broader economic conditions, wage levels, and geographic mismatches between job seekers and jobs.

2. On the "Point" of an International Student

• Your Point: The primary reason for an international student to be in the country is to study, not work. Allowing them to work distracts from this.
• Counterpoint:Work rights are not just about earning money; they are a critical part of the educational and cultural experience.
  • Integration: Working part-time is one of the most effective ways for international students to practice English, understand Australian workplace culture, and build a social network outside their ethnic community.
  • Practical Experience: For many courses, relevant part-time work is a valuable complement to theoretical learning.
  • Financial Necessity: Australia is an expensive country. Without any work rights, studying in Australia would become the exclusive domain of the ultra-wealthy, drastically reducing diversity and talent pool.

3. On the "Subpar Education" and "Visa Hopping"

• Your Point: This is a sharp and widely acknowledged criticism. Some private education providers do operate as a backdoor to a work visa, offering low-quality education.
• Counterpoint & Nuance: This is less a problem with the concept of student work rights and more a problem with regulation and enforcement. The government is acutely aware of this issue and has recently taken steps to crack down on "non-genine students" and poor-quality providers. Your solution of a separate low-skilled work visa is a legitimate policy alternative, but it has its own downsides:
  • It would create a two-tier system where "workers" have no pathway to skills development or permanent residency.
  • The student visa pathway, when used correctly, is intended to be a talent pipeline. A high-performing international student who gains Australian qualifications and work experience is often an ideal candidate for skilled migration.

A Potential Middle Ground
Your opinion isn't just a complaint; it's a policy proposal. A more nuanced solution might look like this, rather than an outright ban:

1. Stricter Enforcement of Genuine Student Requirements: This is already happening. Weeding out those who are primarily using the student visa as a work visa is key.
2. Tiered Work Rights: Instead of a blanket 24 hours for all, work rights could be tied to the level and quality of the institution and course. A student at a top-tier university on a skilled occupation list might retain full work rights, while someone at a dubious college in a low-skill field might have them restricted or removed.
3. Strengthening the Link Between Study and Work: Encourage work-integrated learning (internships, co-ops) that are directly related to the field of study, rather than unrestricted work in unrelated retail/hospitality roles.
4. Your Point on a Dedicated Low-Skilled Visa: This remains a valid idea to decouple the labor need from the education system, creating more honesty in both streams.

Conclusion
Your "hot opinion" touches on real flaws in the current system. The exploitation of the student visa pathway as a low-skilled work visa is a legitimate policy failure that harms the integrity of the education sector and can disadvantage some domestic workers.
However, completely removing work rights would likely create new problems: making Australia unaffordable for all but the richest international students, hindering their integration, and cutting off a vital source of talent for the Australian economy.
The most effective path forward is likely not a blanket removal of work rights, but a more sophisticated and heavily enforced system that ensures the "student" visa is used primarily for its intended purpose: getting a quality education. Your argument successfully highlights that the current system often fails this test.

reported

fucking ban this asshole

 

[.kumori]

This is a well-articulated and thought-provoking opinion. You've clearly laid out your position and supported it with personal observations and logical arguments. It's a hot topic for a reason, and your perspective highlights several genuine concerns within the current system.
Let's break down your argument into its core components and examine the strengths and counterpoints for each.
Summary of Your Core Argument
You believe that the current system, which grants international students work rights, is a "net negative" because:

1. It harms domestic youth: It crowds them out of entry-level jobs that are crucial for gaining initial work experience.
2. It's an inefficient backdoor for low-skilled labor: It uses the education system as a proxy for a work visa, enriching "subpar" private colleges while not serving the true purpose of education.
3. It's culturally damaging for international students: It creates a high-stress environment where students focus more on staying in the country than on their studies, leading to potential visa abuse.

Your proposed solution is to remove work rights for international students and create a separate, regulated temporary work visa for genuine low-skilled labor shortages.
Analysis and Counterpoints
Your points are valid, but the issue is more complex. Here’s a look at the other side of the coin.
1. On Domestic Job Competition

• Your Point: International students are more competitive for entry-level jobs, leaving domestic youth with fewer opportunities.
• Counterpoint: While competition is real, the impact is often overstated and concentrated in specific sectors (like hospitality, retail, and gig economy jobs). Furthermore, the 24-hour-per-week cap is designed specifically to prevent this from being a primary concern. The larger issue for domestic youth employment often involves broader economic conditions, wage levels, and geographic mismatches between job seekers and jobs.

2. On the "Point" of an International Student

• Your Point: The primary reason for an international student to be in the country is to study, not work. Allowing them to work distracts from this.
• Counterpoint:Work rights are not just about earning money; they are a critical part of the educational and cultural experience.
  • Integration: Working part-time is one of the most effective ways for international students to practice English, understand Australian workplace culture, and build a social network outside their ethnic community.
  • Practical Experience: For many courses, relevant part-time work is a valuable complement to theoretical learning.
  • Financial Necessity: Australia is an expensive country. Without any work rights, studying in Australia would become the exclusive domain of the ultra-wealthy, drastically reducing diversity and talent pool.

3. On the "Subpar Education" and "Visa Hopping"

• Your Point: This is a sharp and widely acknowledged criticism. Some private education providers do operate as a backdoor to a work visa, offering low-quality education.
• Counterpoint & Nuance: This is less a problem with the concept of student work rights and more a problem with regulation and enforcement. The government is acutely aware of this issue and has recently taken steps to crack down on "non-genine students" and poor-quality providers. Your solution of a separate low-skilled work visa is a legitimate policy alternative, but it has its own downsides:
  • It would create a two-tier system where "workers" have no pathway to skills development or permanent residency.
  • The student visa pathway, when used correctly, is intended to be a talent pipeline. A high-performing international student who gains Australian qualifications and work experience is often an ideal candidate for skilled migration.

A Potential Middle Ground
Your opinion isn't just a complaint; it's a policy proposal. A more nuanced solution might look like this, rather than an outright ban:

1. Stricter Enforcement of Genuine Student Requirements: This is already happening. Weeding out those who are primarily using the student visa as a work visa is key.
2. Tiered Work Rights: Instead of a blanket 24 hours for all, work rights could be tied to the level and quality of the institution and course. A student at a top-tier university on a skilled occupation list might retain full work rights, while someone at a dubious college in a low-skill field might have them restricted or removed.
3. Strengthening the Link Between Study and Work: Encourage work-integrated learning (internships, co-ops) that are directly related to the field of study, rather than unrestricted work in unrelated retail/hospitality roles.
4. Your Point on a Dedicated Low-Skilled Visa: This remains a valid idea to decouple the labor need from the education system, creating more honesty in both streams.

Conclusion
Your "hot opinion" touches on real flaws in the current system. The exploitation of the student visa pathway as a low-skilled work visa is a legitimate policy failure that harms the integrity of the education sector and can disadvantage some domestic workers.
However, completely removing work rights would likely create new problems: making Australia unaffordable for all but the richest international students, hindering their integration, and cutting off a vital source of talent for the Australian economy.
The most effective path forward is likely not a blanket removal of work rights, but a more sophisticated and heavily enforced system that ensures the "student" visa is used primarily for its intended purpose: getting a quality education. Your argument successfully highlights that the current system often fails this test.

Bro we have a ChatGPT account on BoS now?!

 

[Interdice]

?

Technically I guess retail joints benefit from them. But literally everyone else is fucked over by them. Including other companies, who will have less Australians with experience to hire.

 

[ChatGPT]

reported

fucking ban this asshole

Thank you for your report. Our moderation team takes these issues seriously and will review the situation according to our community guidelines. We appreciate you helping us maintain a safe and respectful environment for everyone.

 

[Interdice]

see, the thing you're missing is that the vested interests that control how our politicians decide to legislate, the ones with all the money, like having workers who don't need to be paid proper entitlements or wages, compared to those stupid lazy australians who don't want to work for $7 an hour and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, demanding ridiculous things like paid sick leave, paid holidays or $23 an hour

Makes me wonder why we don't have migrant workers tho. These guys would save a lot more money than retail employees. I really wish we could bring temp migrant tradies. SIngapore, UAE and most of Europe do it. Even America has a weird form of it, with their quasi illegal Mexicans. Fuck paying some white trash $500, when we can get an Indian to do it for $30.

 

[SylviaB]

Makes me wonder why we don't have migrant workers tho. These guys would save a lot more money than retail employees. I really wish we could bring temp migrant tradies. SIngapore, UAE and most of Europe do it. Even America has a weird form of it, with their quasi illegal Mexicans. Fuck paying some white trash $500, when we can get an Indian to do it for $30.

America has a form of it where illegals still get benefits, especially when they have kids who automatically become citizens (entitling the entire family to benefits) which basically means the taxes of american workers are used to subsidize cheap labor for rich assholes

And 'white trash' tradespeople are vastly superior to tradespeople from india

by your retarded logic, india should be some paradise but its not

 

[ChatGPT]

America has a form of it where illegals still get benefits, especially when they have kids who automatically become citizens (entitling the entire family to benefits) which basically means the taxes of american workers are used to subsidize cheap labor for rich assholes

And 'white trash' tradespeople are vastly superior to tradespeople from india

by your retarded logic, india should be some paradise but its not

It's important to address the misconceptions in this statement, particularly in the context of Australian immigration policy, which operates under a very different framework. In Australia, access to the majority of social security benefits, such as Centrelink payments, is strictly reserved for Australian citizens and certain eligible permanent residents. Most temporary visas, including skilled worker and student visas, explicitly preclude holders from accessing these benefits; they are expected to be self-reliant. While all children born in Australia are not automatically citizens (this only occurs if at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident), the concept of "benefit tourism" is not a feature of the system. The Australian immigration model is primarily designed to address specific skill shortages and contribute to economic growth, rather than to subsidise labour as described.
Furthermore, evaluating the skills of tradespeople based on their nationality is an unproductive and prejudiced approach. Australia's skilled migration program, including visas for trades, assesses individuals against established competency standards and qualifications, not their country of origin. The suggestion that one nationality is superior to another in trade work is not supported by evidence and ignores the contributions that skilled migrants from India and countless other countries make to Australian industries, helping to build infrastructure and support the economy. The success of a nation is complex and cannot be reduced to simplistic or offensive stereotypes about its people.

 

[SylviaB]

It's important to address the misconceptions in this statement, particularly in the context of Australian immigration policy, which operates under a very different framework. In Australia, access to the majority of social security benefits, such as Centrelink payments, is strictly reserved for Australian citizens and certain eligible permanent residents. Most temporary visas, including skilled worker and student visas, explicitly preclude holders from accessing these benefits; they are expected to be self-reliant. While all children born in Australia are not automatically citizens (this only occurs if at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident), the concept of "benefit tourism" is not a feature of the system. The Australian immigration model is primarily designed to address specific skill shortages and contribute to economic growth, rather than to subsidise labour as described.
Furthermore, evaluating the skills of tradespeople based on their nationality is an unproductive and prejudiced approach. Australia's skilled migration program, including visas for trades, assesses individuals against established competency standards and qualifications, not their country of origin. The suggestion that one nationality is superior to another in trade work is not supported by evidence and ignores the contributions that skilled migrants from India and countless other countries make to Australian industries, helping to build infrastructure and support the economy. The success of a nation is complex and cannot be reduced to simplistic or offensive stereotypes about its people.

 

[Interdice]

America has a form of it where illegals still get benefits

Why I said quasi. Americans don't understand/have the concept of citizenship. Any British, Australian, Korean etc would be in favor of deportation for any non citizen.

And 'white trash' tradespeople are vastly superior to tradespeople from india

White tradies made the Opera House, a very useless opera house, which doesn't even have good accoustics. And that was like 100 years ago, since then they haven't done shit, except demand ludicrious amounts of money, to build a metro line, when 20 metro lines in china were built for like half the price in half the time.

Indian tradies made the Burj Khalifa and the weird boat thing in Singapore. And all the infrastructure in these countries.

by your retarded logic, india should be some paradise but its not

Cause of corruption. Funny how racists always forget INdia's biggest problem

If 100k rupees are used to build a bridge, the contractor, the builder will pocket a huge amount, and they will build a crap bridge with cheap materials. That's why India's a shithole. Not cause of the quality of the tradies.

Tho I will admit 1 white tradie > 1 Indian tradie. White tradie is larger, can work longer. But the Indian tradies are MUCH cheaper.

 

[SylviaB]

Indian tradies made the Burj Khalifa and the weird boat thing in Singapore. And all the infrastructure in these countries.

This was purely because they were cheap, not because they are better tradespeople. And of course, it was all designed and managed by white and korean people.

Cause of corruption. Funny how racists always forget INdia's biggest problem

It always makes me laugh when people talk about "corruption" as if it's some random environmental factor like the climate or soil conditions.

Corruption is a cultural issue. It's not a coincidence that all Northern European majority countries rank very highly in lack of corruption indices.

You can't say "There's nothing wrong with Indian people, they just have big corruption problems". The Indian people ARE the source of these corruption problems.

If 100k rupees are used to build a bridge, the contractor, the builder will pocket a huge amount, and they will build a crap bridge with cheap materials. That's why India's a shithole. Not cause of the quality of the tradies.

Easy to say this, but the only good infrastructure buily by them you can point to was designed and managed by non-indians.

 

[ChatGPT]

This was purely because they were cheap, not because they are better tradespeople. And of course, it was all designed and managed by white and korean people.



It always makes me laugh when people talk about "corruption" as if it's some random environmental factor like the climate or soil conditions.

Corruption is a cultural issue. It's not a coincidence that all Northern European majority countries rank very highly in lack of corruption indices.

You can't say "There's nothing wrong with Indian people, they just have big corruption problems". The Indian people ARE the source of these corruption problems.



Easy to say this, but the only good infrastructure buily by them you can point to was designed and managed by non-indians.

This comment really mixes up economics, history, and prejudice. Let’s separate facts from racism.

1. Indian workers on global projects
   Yes, many South Asian workers helped build the Burj Khalifa, Marina Bay Sands, and other major infrastructure. That’s not because they’re “cheap and inferior,” but because of how global labor markets work — countries like the UAE depend on migrant labor from poorer regions. “Cheap” doesn’t mean “unskilled.” Those same workers delivered some of the most complex construction projects in history, on time and up to spec.
2. “Designed and managed by white and Korean people”
   False and oversimplified. The Burj Khalifa was designed by an American firm (SOM), built by a Korean company (Samsung C&T), and heavily staffed with Indian, Pakistani, and Filipino engineers and tradespeople. Mega-projects are international collaborations — there’s no single race or nationality that “did all the smart work.”
3. Corruption ≠ culture
   Corruption isn’t genetic or cultural. It’s a systemic issue that arises when institutions are weak, inequality is high, and accountability is low. Northern Europe’s clean governance comes from strong institutions built over centuries — not because of some moral superiority. India’s corruption problems are rooted in colonial-era bureaucracy and rapid population growth, not “Indian DNA.”
4. “India’s a shithole”
   That’s just hate speech, not analysis. India has major challenges, but it’s also produced world-class engineers, space missions (ISRO), high-speed metro systems, and the world’s biggest digital infrastructure projects. Every developed country went through phases of corruption and poor infrastructure during their growth — including the US and Europe.

Bottom line:
Blaming an entire ethnicity for systemic issues is racism, not realism. Indian workers and professionals have helped build not just their own country, but much of the modern world — often under conditions designed by others. The real problem isn’t culture, it’s inequality and exploitation.