BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An internationalized education is necessary to producing global problem solvers

The vast majority of graduates will find their work in their country of birth. In a survey of international students in U.S. universities “only 6 percent of Indian students, 10 percent of Chinese students and 15 percent of European students said they wanted to remain permanently” in the U.S.[i] To design the entire education system to the benefit of these people who will not end up benefiting the economy is perverse. Those who are most likely to go on to compete in ‘global’ professions are already more likely to attend the most internationalized of universities – those at the very top of the batch academically. In addition to which, it is not uncommon for universities to have an international community of some form and so the opportunity for cross-cultural dialogue exists for those who wish to seek it out. [i] Maclay, Kathleen, ‘U.S. economy spurs foreign students to return home, study says’, UC Berkeley News, 19 March 2009.
Governments have a responsibility to ensure that their own citizens have a competitive advantage in a global job market

Simply for reasons of family ties, finance and language, the majority of students would look to study domestically. In the light of this the bulk of students are likely to study at home allowing the government to fulfill their obligation to have a well-educated workforce. Moreover those who decide to study abroad are not damaging this workforce as they are still getting the education they retire. This responsibility of government should not therefore be seen as a responsibility to force domestic students to study at their own universities but rather to ensure that their students get the best education possible no matter where in the world that may be.
Governments have to be aware of the implications for national security and immigration of an increase in student visas

There are already laws in place to deal with both of these difficulties. If students are on a student visa they are, generally, not allowed to work. Equally there are security measures in place to prevent acts of terrorism. The problems with non-nationals illegally entering the workforce is more easily dealt with in the case of university students as the university itself has reliable methods of knowing whether someone is actually acting as a student on the basis of whether or not work is being completed. On this logic countries would also have to seriously reduce tourism – a far more common method of immigrating illegally than student visas.
Universities that can attract foreign universities with higher fees than those charged to domestic students should do so.

Charging lower fees for domestic students cannot be justified on the basis that they (or their parents) have already paid for much of the infrastructure that supports the university as if all universities were to follow a policy of charging the same to all students then then populations everywhere will be making some contributions in this way to the education of foreign students.  While we accept that there will need to be some scholarships this should not mean charging some students large amounts more than other students who are academically on the same level but just happen to be a domestic student. Both domestic and overseas students should be subsidising those who can’t afford university no matter their nationality.
Just as with applying for a job, a studentship should go to the best candidate based on academic ability

Once people leave compulsory education the relationship they have with the state changes dramatically. The state no longer has so great a duty of care. Their option, other than going to university, would normally be to get a job. In doing so they are in an open competition. It seems unreasonable that universities should not treat them in the same way as a company would. Universities, like companies, should therefore have to compete for the best academic talent and there should be a level playing field in this competition rather than setting quotas or giving a leg up for students whether it is for the poor or for those native to the country where the university is located. Universities work on an international basis already with different specialisms, costs and reputations in international marketplace. This is simply the logical conclusion of that.[i] [i] IIE Global Students Atlas.
Higher Education increasingly is a marketplace and if governments expect universities to compete in that it is unfair to restrict how they do so

If universities are expected to become increasingly self-funding (in the case of many nations they already are entirely self-funded) it is unfair to restrict whatever advantages they may have to succeed. Equally those universities in a country which simply aren’t up to scratch should not be guaranteed the luxury of an inbuilt base of domestic students. A free and open market would improve the education provided to student both domestic and foreign by refining the tertiary sector through competition. Those universities which are failing will have to improve standards if they are to retain their students. At the moment foreign students often pay more, for example for 2012/13 entry into Oxford to do biological sciences overseas students pay £18550 while home students pay £9000.[i] Therefore the real rate the university would charge if it was attempting to break even while making a level playing field for global talent would be somewhere between these two levels. As a result there will both be more competition to get into the best universities; so driving up educational standards among school leavers, and more among universities who will also be competition for the domestic market. [i] University of Oxford, ‘2012/13 University tuition fee rates’, 7 September 2011
An internationalized education is necessary to producing global problem solvers

The predominant role of tertiary education is skilling people for the workplace. This is done either through direct vocational training or the somewhat more pedagogical ‘shaping of the mind’. Universities also provide the setting for acquiring skills of socialization that allow people to function as independent citizens outside the family home. Increasingly both that workplace and that socializing takes place in an international, globalized setting. As a result the greater internationalisation both of education and the wider social setting of the university will result in all graduates being better prepared to compete in the global labour market. At the same time the nation will be benefiting in a similar way. If more international students are attracted to study in university then more are likely to stay in that country resulting in a larger, more knowledgeable workforce, something even countries that are usually against migrants want to encourage.[i][ii] [i] Toneguzzi, Mario, ‘University reaches out to keep foreign students Graduates seen as part of labour shortage solution’, Calgary Herald, 3 March 2012 [ii] BBC News, ‘Immigrants ‘have to earn £35,000’ to settle – from 2016’, 29 February 2012.
This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights

This policy damages international discourse and progress in LGBT rights. This policy makes it very unlikely that governments will be willing or receptive to discussions on liberalization of their LGBT laws and policies. Discourse and compromise only happens when both sides of the debate accept the validity of the other person holding the view that they do. If the West outright rejects the views of other nations as “immoral” or “unacceptable” these nations are unlikely to want to engage with the West on these issues as they feel that their opinions will not be respected or be treated fairly or equally. You effectively remove these countries from the negotiating table when you do this. This can be illustrated by countries deemed “backwards” or “immoral” such as Iran and North Korea, who become more isolationist the more they are categorized as and rejected for being “evil” or “unacceptable.” Construction engagement does not begin with the rejection of the other viewpoint’s right to be on the negotiating table. Moreover, you create an antagonistic relationship between the West and those nations with anti-homosexual laws that hinders further discussion on the issue. By dealing with LGBT treatment in this manner, you effectively brand all acceptance of homosexuality as “Western”. This makes the concept of acceptance for the LGBT community nearly mutually-exclusive with religiously conservative nations or nations who have a historical and national narrative that dislikes the West and the concept of imperialism.
This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community

Lasting change to anti-homosexual attitudes will only happen from the ground-up. This hinders the ability of governments to engineer more accepting attitudes toward the LGBT community. Even if you could get countries to discuss their policies and liberalize them through this policy, this will not actually change the reality for the LGBT on the ground. Nations where anti-homosexuality laws are in place have large swathes of support for these laws as they represent and enforce the morality of the vast majority of their populace. Simply removing anti-homosexuality laws does not protect homosexuals in their home countries. Simply not being pursued by the government does not mean the government is willing or able to protect individuals from society. Moreover, it makes it nearly impossible for the government of that country to try to liberalize and engineer a more LGBT-friendly attitude in their country if they have submitted to Western pressures. Populations feel abandoned by their governments when they no longer reflect or uphold their wishes and what they view as their moral obligations. The government loses its credibility on LGBT issues if it abandons its anti-homosexual platform and thus cannot moderate or attempt to liberalize such views in the future. This simply leads to people taking “justice” against homosexuals into their own hands, making danger to homosexuals less centralized, more unpredictable and much less targeted. A perfect example of this is in Uganda where the government’s “failure” to implement a death penalty for homosexuality led to tabloid papers producing “Gay Lists” that included people suspected of homosexuality[1]. The importance of this is two-fold. First, it shows that vigilante justice will replace the state justice and thus bring no net benefit to the LGBT community. Second, and more importantly, it means that the violence against LGBT individuals is no longer done by a centralized, controlled state authority, which removes all pretence of due-process and most importantly, makes violence against homosexuality become violence against suspicion of homosexuality. Thus, making it an even more dangerous place for everyone who could associate or in any way identify with what are viewed as “common traits” of the LGBT community. [1] "Gay Rights in Developing Countries: A Well-Locked Closet." The Economist. 27 May 2010.
The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum

There has yet to be an international consensus forged around LGBT rights and state treatment of sexual orientation. Many countries around the world are not secular Western Liberal Democracies and operate on a completely different moral standard than the West does. Many religions, and in fact state religions, do not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and specifically see it as a sin and a crime against the religious authority they uphold. It is not the West’s role to tell the rest of the world what their morality should be. There is not even consensus amongst Western Liberal Democracies on this issue. The United States of America still does not recognize homosexuals as deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals and many states do not allow gay marriage or gay adoption as a result[1]. The west cannot circumvent the laws of other countries when they themselves do not even hold themselves to the legal and moral standard they would like to impose on others. [1] Law, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness." American Political Science Review. 103.3 (2009): Print.
This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws

Western nations are not as powerful as they would like to think. Their “soft power” cannot propagate norms as effectively as they would like to think. The dominance of Western countries in institutions does not put them in a place of great influence, but rather puts them in a place to be accused of imperialism and exploitation. The West’s preaching to the rest of the world is not seen as constructive or admirable advice by the rest of the world, but rather is viewed as “moral arrogance” and cultural imperialism. It is highly unlikely that most places will change their laws because someone tells them that they do not agree with them, especially when those laws are rooted in a deeper moral or religious obligation. Moreover, with the hypocritical nature of this particular policy due to countries like the USA not respected homosexual rights either, it is very easy to dismiss this policy as the West simply being hypocritical and telling the developing world to “do as I say, not as I do” and thus is easy to dismiss it as unimportant.
This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community

As explained in counterargument two, it is highly unlikely that countries will craft policy based on the preaching of the West. Moreover, it becomes increasingly unlikely that countries will be receptive to discussions on liberalization of their policies on sexual orientation when the West outright condemns their views as immoral and abhorrent and takes active steps to stop them from enforcing what they see as their moral laws on their populations.
This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so. The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination. This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.
This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights

International discourse on this issue has not been working. When society is the one persecuting the LGBT community, the governments have plausible deniability in the matter and thus can skirt their responsibility in negotiations. This means that all talk and “dialogue” is meaningless as the government’s can claim a lack of responsibility or agree to protection for the LGBT community, but then not offer it because they are “unable” to. Many times discrimination against sexual orientation is a religious one, and when it is not, it is a moral one. These views are not reconcilable with alternative moral claims as they are absolutist forms of thought. They are not negotiable or a matters of opinion; they are simply right. This will never lead to consensus-building through friendly dialogue. Even if the leaders of these countries have made laws against certain forms of sexual orientation on a calculated political level, it will be because of the religious/moral views of the citizens within their country. This is important because, given the option of disagreeing with an international community that has no power over them or angering their domestic constituents that either keeps them in power through democratic support or the avoidance of violent unrest, leaders will pick the former. Thus, international consensus-building is bound to fail These people need protection now. Regardless of any international dialogue about the future, real people are in real danger now. The reason asylum was created was to protect individuals in immediate danger when no immediate solution to the persecution is in sight. This is a perfect fit for the criteria of asylum.
This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community

As explained in counterargument two, the rationale behind this form of discrimination is nonnegotiable and absolutist due to its religious/moral nature. Consensus-building will not happen in the near future on this issue and even if the potentiality of social acceptance of the LGBT community was in the not-so-distant future, this does not offer any protection to those in danger now, nor remove our obligation to their protection from discrimination and unjust punishment.
Asylum is not the best way of dealing with discrimination against LGBT people.

The vast majority of LGBT people who are discriminated or harassed on the grounds of their sexual orientation will never have a chance to claim asylum. Poor people from Africa or India may never be able to afford transport to countries that are more accepting of their lifestyle, and even if they could afford it they may not have the knowledge that they could go elsewhere. As such any policy of asylum for LGBT people who are being discriminated against is never going to be a good solution. And indeed could even be considered to itself be discriminating against those who will never have the opportunity. Instead countries who would want to consider sexual orientation grounds for asylum should be putting their energies into preventing the discrimination in the first place. As in the UN Declaration of Human Rights “All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination”,[1] all should mean all.   Pressure could be put on countries where the asylum seekers would be coming from in many ways. Diplomatic pressure could be applied and countries denied access to some international organisation. In the case of countries where aid is given the aid could be stopped unless laws are changed, for example in 2009 the UK gave Uganda £70 million in aid,[2] this money should translate into some leverage. Alternatively if the country does not receive aid it could have some form of sanctions against it or trade ties reduced. [1] United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, 1948. [2] Annie Kelly and Liz Ford, ‘Aid to Uganda: How the UK government is supporting the country’, guardian.co.uk, 30 January 2009.
This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws

This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world. One of the most effective ways to engage the international community on swift action to protect certain rights is to make a clear, bold statement against a particular type of behaviour. By acting to not just condemn a certain behaviour, but actively circumvent states’ ability to carry out such a behaviour, the international community sends a message of the unacceptability of such practices. Moreover, and more importantly, regardless of if the countries are persuaded into agreeing with the international community on the issues of LGBT rights, this action will still change state behaviour. This will happen for two reasons: Fear of sanction and condemnation. Most countries in the world are heavily interdependent and specifically dependent on the West. Falling out of popularity with Western countries and their populations is a particularly risky situation for most countries.  An action such as this signals seriousness of the international community on the issue of sexual orientation equality and can be used as an influential tool to convince leaders to liberalize sexual orientation laws. Loss of internal support. One of the biggest losses a leader can have in terms of democratic support and the avoidance of violent unrest is being seen as impotent and weak. When the international community effectively sets up a system of immunity to your country’s laws and is more powerful is protecting people and helping people avoid the laws of your country than you are in implementing them, you lose face and integrity in the eyes of your constituents. This can make leaders look weak and incapable of administering justice and fulfilling the needs of society. Furthermore, it makes leaders seem weak and subservient to the rest of the world, removing perceived legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy and support is a major consideration for state leaders. As such, a declaration of an asylum policy for sexual orientation can persuade leaders into changing their anti-homosexuality laws to avoid asylum being granted to people from their country to save face and continue to look strong and decisive as a leader and avoid the damage such a policy would do to their rhetoric of strong leadership. The best example of this is that due to strong and vocal condemnation of the Bahati Bill in Uganda which would have imposed the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality, the Cabinet Committee rejected the bill[1]. Therefore, this policy is instrumental in changing state behaviour towards sexual orientation and making the first steps towards acceptance and ending discrimination. [1] Muhumuza, Rodney. "Uganda: Cabinet Committee Rejects Bahati Bill." allAfrica.com 08 May 2010.