Following an election campaign in which immigration remained a consistently prominent and divisive issue, the US president, Donald Trump, promptly implemented Executive Order 13769, banning people from six mainly Muslim nations from entering the US and placing 120-day ban on refugees.

Although the order encountered a series of challenges and restraining orders refuting its legality, the Supreme Court recently ruled to partially implement Mr Trump’s travel ban – limiting application to those who cannot prove a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the US.

Under these new guidelines, existing visas that have been approved will not be revoked, but new applicants from the six countries must prove a relationship with a parent, spouse, child, son, daughter or other close relation already residing in the US. This definition of a “bona fide” relationship also includes organisations such as employers or educational institutions, and specifically calls out student visas.

Calling all talent

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities had spoken out against the original ban, saying it would undermine the ability of public institutions to attract the best minds to teach and study at state colleges and universities. And, after a period of uncertainty and concern among international students enrolled in programs in the US, this revised executive order is a welcome development as it evidences the value of the US education system to the country’s soft power and economic advancement, and similarly, the value of international students and temporary immigrants in supporting this.

The US education system continues to rank highly worldwide, and the focus on attracting top talent has enriched the quality of these programs, and the nation as a whole, over the last 30 years. International students add diversity to the classroom, broaden the academic experience, provide insights into and teach tolerance between different cultures and perspectives. Furthermore, international students continue to shape soft power for the US in a globalised world, as the ties formed at school between future international leaders have facilitated innumerable diplomatic relationships.

A draw for many looking to study at a Master’s program in the US is the cultural mix of students. The Council of Graduate School’s most recent annual report indicated that in late 2015, 22% of first-time graduate students were temporary residents including 58.5% of engineering students and over 63.2% of mathematics and computer science students. Leading institutions recognise the merit of opening their programs to international students; alongside American graduates of the Harvard Business School’s Class of 2017 were 64 other nationalities.

What they offer

Research shows that world economies gain from internationally-minded business leaders - senior education specialist in the Education Global Practice of the World Bank,  Xiaonan Cao, connects ‘brain circulation’ links to business innovation, with the circular movement of skilled labour and economic growth. Some of the largest US tech companies, like Apple, Google and Facebook, were also the first to defend the importance of attracting international students as 25% of the top US tech firms established between 1995-2005 were started by immigrants, and many of them rely on these foreign minds to strive forward. The latest analysis by NAFSA: Association of International Educators, found that international students contributed US$32.8bn to the US economy and supported more than 400,000 jobs during the 2015-16 academic year alone. At a time when countries everywhere are seeing a shift in the make-up of their economies, the US has embraced the idea of education as a key export.

Although the travel ban does put a spotlight on the US’ attitude towards some countries, it also furthers the attention to the importance of education as a solution to the world’s challenges

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.