Brain Drain in a Political State
Brain drain, also known as human capital flight, refers to the migration of skilled citizens (brains) from a country to another. Since professional qualifications can transform every citizen to a skilled citizen, every migration is a potential loss of skilled citizen and therefore, brain drain.
Every citizen owes an economic debt towards the nation, for either they or their previous generation have been beneficiaries of various public welfare schemes that were funnelled expecting dividends from that generation and their posterity. In Bhārata's case, this investment has been going on since her independence.
Brain drain starts with a government realising that they have a population crisis and they need additional human resource for their own sustenance and existence. They advertise their requirements and foreign brains respond to it.
Of them, most respond due to lack of opportunities in their home country; in other words, for economic reasons. Well, opportunities don't fall out of the sky and they must be created by enterprises. And who will become entrepreneurs and run enterprises, or vote in a government who support enterprises and wealth creation, if not for the skilled citizens themselves? Migrating for economic reasons is justifiable only if they have made some contribution to change the conditions of the nation, and have failed.
Some other professionals move abroad for fatter pay checks. A deluge of such migrations will handicap the home country of skilled professionals for a period of time, and therefore, such migrations are counter productive to the home country's interests too. However, if the net outcome is a benefit to the home country in the form of cash remittances and acquired skills that can be brought back and implemented, they can be justified. Otherwise, they owe the nation a debt.
Many are dis-satisfied with the system in the country. The system that is supposed to provide protection, maintain law and order, issue swift justice, build and maintain infrastructure, be incorrupt, provide equal treatment to all, make citizen's interactions with government entities simple and satisfying, etc., have now grown to be the opposite. The solution isn't as easy as voting in a new government or changing some officials in the system. The momentum of the existing system is so large that it seems better to build a new system altogether. For these reasons, I have no arguments against anyone wishing to leave the country for a better system.
Others migrate for a better standard of living and "culture". The standard of living is a farce, for a best standard of living is that lifestyle that renders you most healthy. This standard of living is more an individual choice than a trait of a particular society. The sense of superior and inferior culture is a mirage, and those who are possessed with such sense requires re-education. That said, both such citizens who wish to leave may leave, but after repaying the investments made on them and their previous generations by the state.
Very few flee to avoid legal prosecution for their crimes. While it is in the interest of the victims of the crime to bring back these criminals for trial, some of them are not worth pursuing because of the costs involved. In a way, the country is safer that such criminals are off the land.
Whatever may be the reason for migration, I do not see a good future for the progeny of the migrants. The first generation of migrants is welcome due to the population or skill crisis of the nation. In about 30 to 40 years, the population and skill crisis of the nation will see significant improvements. In 50 to 60 years, it will be better. And because resources and jobs are scarce in a country, they will realise, even if they are not racists, that the indigenous people must be given preference and priority. This tendency to tribalise is human nature. Add to this the elements of racism and xenophobia, and the situation is worse for the progeny of migrants.
If they consider returning, the first generation can blend in with their ethnic culture. But their progeny will face a major cultural conflict having been brought up in the culture of the migrated land. The progeny of those parents who considered foreign culture as superior and civilised, and made sure of the absence of even a single ethnic element in their children, will face an even bigger cultural conflict upon return. To sum it up, the decision to migrate permanently and for a better life, can end up in a big mess for their progeny.
The association that migrants have with their new land, despite how much they love it and want to mutate, is an association built purely on benefit, and therefore weak. The moment they become useless or redundant, they become a liability in that land with no sense of belongingness any more. Had they been so in their mother land, their cultural coherence, ethnic heritage, ancestral heritage, extended family and other such notions would instil a sense of belongingness.