There is a controversial dispute that should the professionals be restricted to work in the country where they gained their professional knowledge and training. Every side of a coin has its reasons, so do this quirrel.
Some are in favour of the opinion that professionals should be appointed to work in the place where they got training, which stands by two main rational reasons. On the one hand, it is the country that provides them with conditions in which they could be trained professionally with high expectations. Oceans of money spent on them, they are expected to respond to what they gained and make contributions to the country when condition admitting. On the other hand, it is likely that many professional knowledge gets association with the secrets of a country and is linked with its advantages in national competitions. For instance, a technic in physics which can be deploied sheerly in defense is exposed to a person who serves for aother country, engendering a stern plague for its own developments. Then the job limitation seems sensible.
There are also another people who disagree with the job limitation and yearning for job-choosing freely. Firstly, it is a personal freedom to choose the place to work. With the development of market, the labour should be distributed by the needs and the personal aspiration, instead of the policy exerted by government, which means architrary. More than 80% of countries, especially the developed countries tend to respect their own ego. What’s more, it is a definite truth that the one who gained training for the country has paid for his attain. They did’t get the training for free.
Generally speaking, it is a conflict between the value of society and the one of person. In my opinion, with the emergence and development of global economy and cooperation, we should render affluent freedom to the employees themselve and contribute to the cooperation with other countries, instead of closing and rejecting.