Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they did their training. Others believe they should be free to work in another country if they wish. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

In a time of global competition, brain drain is a worrying threat. On the flip side, some take a more globalised stance, focusing on international success. Governments are looking toward policy to determine how best to retain expertise — should the law restrict workers to the country of their training? Whether professionals must stay in the country of their training or not is

thus

Linking Words

a widely contentious issue. I strongly argue that job restrictions create substantial disadvantages that are outweighed by the benefits of allowing professionals the choice of where to work. The right to choose a workplace helps international exchange between and within countries, and promotes workers' autonomous rights and growth,

whereas

Linking Words

limitation circumscribes advancement. We will analyse here our first contingency: if vocations were location-bound, on one hand, major economic and scientific detriments to both the country and the individual would arise.

First,

Linking Words

there would be major economic consequences if professionals were required to stay in one location. If

this

Linking Words

were the case, all training systems would need to be proficient to avoid excessive dependence on a single industry. A notable example includes developing African and Latin American countries that are still working on broadening their sectors, where restricting aid to

such

Linking Words

countries has resulted in crippling fiscal effects. Second of all,

as a consequence

Linking Words

, scientific information exchange and interdisciplinary cooperation would halt, thereby slowing down research; without

this

Linking Words

right, major research, including the ISS or Antarctica’s research stations, wouldn’t exist.

Furthermore

Linking Words

, many ethical issues arise, particularly regarding curbing a citizen’s right to movement.

This

Linking Words

breach of trust between a nation and its citizens is unconstitutional and even against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here, we will analyse our second possibility.

Conversely

Linking Words

, if we allowed individuals the freedom to choose their workplace, there would be vocational, economic, and scientific benefits to all parties.

While

Linking Words

some might argue that fostering a country’s home industry should be prioritised,

on the contrary

Linking Words

, students can attain more applicable field knowledge by studying abroad, and

then

Linking Words

improve their native country’s economy post-graduation.

Moreover

Linking Words

, for workers, there may be more industry and growth opportunities in a foreign land, which would be beneficial for personal networking and innovation. In the case of Taiwan’s migration in the 70’s,

this

Linking Words

has been illustrated through the creation of businesses

such

Linking Words

as Nvidia or TSMC

as a result

Linking Words

of

this

Linking Words

cultural trade;

this

Linking Words

further

Linking Words

supports the idea that training abroad actually encourages positive economic and scientific growth. In conclusion, when we consider economic, scientific, and vocational impacts, the pros greatly overshadow any cons. If we bound people to their place of education, innovation would be stifled, the economy hindered, and basic human rights violated. If we allowed citizens to travel, technology would be adopted more fluently, the economy would flourish, and citizens would establish themselves in a worldly community.

Therefore

Linking Words

, for the sake of having balanced individual and national global development, it is obvious that we should allow experts to have the freedom of choice. As you can see, freedom of migration is essential to our individual, national, and global progress.