# data[].attributes.body
The migration of skilled workers from developing countries to developed countries has heated the debate about its long term impact on immigrants' home country. As Arnold (2012, p.5) says, “Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills.” Remittances may provide short term financial support. However, they are not likely to replace the skilled workers' contribution for sustainable development in the immigrants' home countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Migration brings economic benefits through remittances, and these are often viewed as a major source of income for developing countries. However, some experts argue that these economic gains also have some vital effects on states. Arnold (2012) emphasizes this by stating, “Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills” (p.5). This shows that the departure of educated and skilled individuals undermines national development in a way that cannot be fixed by the money. Thus, remittances may ease financial strain, but they cannot replace lost human capital.

# data[].attributes.body
Lots of people think that money sent home by immigrants in other countries helps their home countries a lot. However, Arnold (2012) explains that “remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills” (p.5). This shows that losing skilled workers can have negative effects in long period, even if there is some financial support by the government.

# data[].attributes.body
Remittances might be seen as a subsidy for the human capital in the home countries of the migrants. However, in the long run the effects of the remittance will cause a shrinkage in the utilization of the human capital with the loss of skills. Arnold(2012) explains that “remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills” (p.5). This is true because remittance only provides monetary support and it does not directly increase the production in the home country. Furthermore, loss of skills may cause structural unemployment for the home countries and the effects of skill loss overweighs the remittances.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the negative sides of immigration is the exit of skilled workers from developing countries. This situation widens the gap of talents. As Arnold (2012) argues, “Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills”(p.5). This is true because although remittances offer financial support in the short run, replacement of the services provided by skilled workers is almost impossible.

# data[].attributes.body
... Immigration can be beneficial for the immigrant, the host country and some might think that it is also beneficial to the home country because of remittances but it is not the case since remittances usually do not compensate the brain drain (Arnold, 2012, p.5). Because the economical benefits caused by the human capital surpass the short-term aid of remittances.

# data[].attributes.body
Losing trained professionals has long-term consequences that cannot be solved through financial transfers. “Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills” (Arnold, 2012, p.5).This suggests that while financial contributions from migrants are beneficial, they cannot compansate the expertise and knowledge lost through immigration.

# data[].attributes.body
For instance, when a people send their wage to yheir home country although it is a profit for their home coutry it is also a disadvantage.

"Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills"(Arnold, 2012, p.5).

This is true because even though the home country benefits from the money sent, there might be a huge gap in terms of qualified people. This might force the country to take migration of skilled people and this cretes an unbreakable cycle.

# data[].attributes.body
Skilled individuals who immigrated abroad might be misleading since they remotely support their family. However, in the long run, it may lead to negative consequences for native county. Arnold (2012) argues that even though remittances enrich the home country, they cannot replace brain drain. The emigration might result in a huge shortage of the skilled workers which may exacerbate the economy of the home country.