| > It's quite explicit, in the sense that Germans vote for a government which funds university education with taxes. I'm not sure you saw my related example, German education may be subsidised/free but I don't think it comes with any strings attached. If being restricted to work in Germany after studying there is expected that should be made explicit. I have never heard something similar mentioned in any discussion on subsidised education, to me this is quite insidious. > No, it's the American firms deskilling American workers (by lobbying for and winning lower public American investment in education and training in order to get lower taxes). > That's my point: the Germans voted responsibly to invest in their countrymen and have their investment consumed by Americans who are staunchly refusing to produce what they need themselves. If America can spend less on education and still end up with better skilled people (and better products) this still feels like a net win. Why is this bad? > Not issuing work visas to America puts a gun to nobody. I'm quite sure i'm missing the moral point. I'll try to summarise what I've got so far. In general, I feel valuing a person differently depending on which state they're born in is immoral, similar to judging them by race. You're argument (?)is that this immigration of skilled workers is negative for both countries, the country that subsidised their education and the country that receives the new workers. I don't see how this is the case, it seems like a net positive for the country receiving the immigrants and the subsidised education responsibility should be an explicit part of the contract otherwise its a hidden, unadvertised cost. |