It is often said by proponents of immigration, that accepting immigrants has the benefit of the state getting additional tax payers without having to pay for their education. This is true, but it raises the question of wheter it makes sense for a emigrant emitting country to invest in their workforce's education, if their workforce can just leave their country anyways. For example I live in Sweden and I study at university at the moment, and it is paid for by the state, but I am free to emigrate to another country when my education is done. If Sweden pays for my education, but I leave, and work and pay taxes in another country, was it really a good investment by Sweden? doesn't seem very worthwhile.
It seems to me that in an increasingly globalised world, where it is becomming easier for people to move around, it also makes less sense for countries to generously invest in their citizens education with no strings attached. A situation in which some countries are effectively paying for the education of another country's workforce is not sustainable. Atleast not from the perspective of the emgirant emitting country.
A simple solution to this problem seems to be to tie the cost of the education to the individual. In other words: loans. If instead of paying for my education outright, sweden lended me money, it would not matter if I moved to another country since i would still have to repay the loan. This way, countries could make sure that their investments into citizens education would always pay off, or atleast not be completely thrown away.
What do you think about this? is free education compatible with globalisation and liberal immigration policies? Will countries be moving in a direction of individualising the cost of education?