Academic migrants, in some nationalists’ point of view, should not be allowed to stay back in the country (where they get higher education from).

Argue for and against this view.

Stay back facility, as a matter of fact, is the force behind many overseas education attempts. This attitude is opposed by some people, but there are arguments favouring it as well.

The primary argument in favour of stay back may be that in a global world order it is unfair and illogical to put a ban on prospective human resource getting their due slots in any part of the world. For example, great numbers of skilled and professional manpower working in developed nations are overseas brains culled out of academic institutions.

Second argument might be this that education service providers in rich nations will have to feel the pinch if stay back is lifted, for there would not be many takers for higher education in the long run. For example, overseas students are the cash cows of these institutions and the latter cannot afford to lose their market and revenue thereof.

However strong the arguments for stay back may sound, the opponents have equally powerful ones to defend their stance. They may claim that stay back is putting huge holes in the employment basket of the nationals who are more privileged to get employed than other nationals.

Besides this, stay back option is quite often misused by service takes and providers alike, and their vile efforts to flout rules lead to many crimes and social disorders. For example, in developed nations, poorly placed students (placed by run by night operators) are found to be doing asocial activities by ignoring or disregarding laws. This may cause discrimination, animosity and disharmony.

In short, both the quarters may have many other arguments too, but, looking at academic migration from a global perspective, banning the deserving from staying back will be a lose-lose proposition in more ways than one. I feel so. 

285 words 2.8.012

Ajaypeesdoc.