<p>I understand what you are saying, and I realize that I might be making myself look like a hypocrite. I did post in another section about honesty, but I stand by that post. I am doing nothing dishonest here. I am doing something that you might not agree it, but it is not the same thing as lying. A liar would remain quiet about this. </p>
<p>You are correct that since UN is based in New York, lots of permanent missions to the UN are based in New York. Embassies and consulates are also spread around DC, Boston, NYC, and Hartford. I am not sure whether the state pays for the education of diplomats. I do know that having an A1/G1 visa (the diplomatic visa) allows students to qualify for state residency at the state from which their parents are based (for the purposes of eligiblity for financial aid at state schools), but I do not know whether these funds are reimbursed by the federal govt.</p>
<p>It’s true that even poor countries have some rich people since the Lorenz curve is generally the same in all countries. But most rich people from any country are from the business sector, and the ministry of foreign affairs in almost any country is a bureaucratic office, not a business one. Civil servants in general only make a middle-class income by the standards of the country in which they come from. This would apply even (though to a lesser extent) to diplomats. Remember that the US GDP per capita is over 100x than in the poorest countries of the world. </p>
<p>The fact that we can pay 15k a year for college is quite irrelevant. As I mentioned earlier, this amount reflects savings and not necessarily income. There are some extremely disadvantaged people from India and China who sell their land to save enough to apply for US universities. Would you say that means they are a priveleged group, since they can pay 20k a year for college? 20k that came from selling the land and gold that their ancestors saved over the centuries? They simply expected that they would need to save money for their children, and understanding the circumstances, they forewent some of their belongings to accommodate for this. Would you think they should be eligible for some kind of reduced lunch? It’s true they’re not US citizens, but what if they were? </p>
<p>Diplomats, as I mentioned earlier, are entitled to basic courtesy. The only time, in political theory, that these rights could be revoked is if the diplomat’s country is at war with the host country, but if the host country does insist to maintain the good relations, why should it be prevented from doing so? Throughout much of history, governments have always willing received diplomats and provided for them, since good diplomacy is the icon of good relations between nations. And again, the fraction of diplomats is so small that their expenses are negligible compared to that of the entire country’s.</p>
<p>But I want to understand something. Who are actually blaming in your posts? Me? My parents? My country’s government? The US government? I don’t know what to you expect me to do… do you expect me to stop providing my lunch forms, when my school clearly insists that I should do so? Do you expect me to leave the country, when the US clearly insists that it wants delegates from all countries in its UN conferences?</p>