Since I didn't say anything about "stealing someone", I haven't the foggiest idea how your "response" relates to my question.
I asked you if you felt that the government of the United States of America should reimburse other countries for the amounts that those other countries spend educating the people with post-secondary educations who immigrate to the United States of America so that the US had the benefit of that education and the country that paid for it does not?
I refuse to believe, that you believe, your mind is so fog shrouded as to not comprehend your implicit meaning. You stated:
"if you don't, doesn't that mean that you approve of the US (effectively)
"stealing" that education from the other countries?".
You can't "steal" human capital (enhanced skills, knowledges, and abilities), in theory you can only steal the person who holds those SKA... i.e. through enslavement or involuntary indebted servitude. Obviously unless the US is forcing people to immigrate to the US in servatude, no human capital is "stolen".
The ONLY theft operative is that of the person who acquired education for free, after agreeing to service or compensation and then reneges on it. Unless the US co-signed for a loan or debt on some foreign citizens education in their country of origin, the US is not a party to the contract and is NOT stealing anything.
To put it in perspective, if someone takes a car without paying for it and then gives it to you, would you feel that you had any obligation to reimburse the person who actually paid for the car if you wanted to keep it?
Of course, I'd return the free car to the actual owner. But your analogy is poor:
First, "the SKA car" (human capital improvement) was not given to me, it is still possessed by the person who has it and uses it (as far as I know). He may use the car to his (or my benefit) but I don't have it - he does.
Second, you can return a car but you can't return SKA - not without someone unknown method of brain surgery and neurological data transference. He has these SKA, he will always have it.
As human capital HE IS THE (education improved) CAR.
Third, I would never return a person as if he were "a car" to a country without proof that he was not entitled to the free education, and that he committed more than a civil offense. Nor would I pay for his improved car. However I would, like any internationally recognized debt obligation, permit the financial debt claim to be adjudicated against the person in a court of law in the US. Its a dispute of debt between two parties of which I am not a member.
So no, I wouldn't pay Russia for their education of an immigrant anymore than I would expect Mexico to pay for American ex pats.
Got it?
In short, you do NOT think that the US has any obligation to reimburse those countries which have paid for the education of people who then move to the United States of America.
OK, now, would you feel that the US courts should enforce foreign judgments obtained by governments against the people whose education the governments had paid for who had subsequently immigrated to the United States of America without repaying the actual cost of their education? (When answering that question, the assumption is that the government in question HAD passed legislation requiring emigres to repay the cost of their education.)
AND would you feel that the US courts should enforce foreign judgments (where their was a mandatory period of service required in order to obtain an education) obtained by governments against the people whose education the governments had paid for who had subsequently immigrated to the United States of America without completing the mandatory period of service)? (When answering that question, the assumption is that the government in question HAD passed legislation requiring persons to complete a mandatory period of service as a condition of the cost of their education being paid for by the government.)
I believe US courts should enforce foreign judgements through court hearings the way they do for any alleged financial debt. I do not believe the individual can or should be returned for mandatory service (indebted servitude) as "compensation".
Slavery and servitude as compensation for a debt should be an anathema to any moral human being. You don't get that?
