Why is 'unborn' not the self?

the unborn , is described by Buddha: > The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, fabricated > of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come-into-being > through nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for > delight. **The escape from that is calm, permanent, a sphere beyond > conjecture, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the > cessation of stressful qualities, stilling-of-fabrications bliss.** Doesn't this describe nirvna? Can the description infer us to a true-self (*atta*), not-self (*anatta*), or anything else other than what is listed? Can you infer emptiness? As I was saying to other, losing with a self is so bad, I couldn't justify calling this so-called unborn a self, and it wouldn't be me or mine unfortunately. Regardless, this text says permanent, and what is the harm in selfing this permanence? What is the harm? What was permanent is no longer mine? It doesn't say 'end of defilements', 'end of existence', but perhaps you can infer that. How do you infer it?