SWBP: Population, Migration

SWBP (Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems),
a 2007 book, edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Commission,
Ch. 23, Population: Migration, by Michael J. Greenwood, U of Chicago, Final Chapter (!), pp. 425-438, yeah, baby.
Book Report/ Commentary and Summary, by Jesse L. Teshara
(you can call me Jess)

People moving about

This chapter is a bit theoretical, heady, and uses economist jargon like elasticity and the slope of supply schedules/curves in quantifying various scenarios for transfers and redistributions, blah blah blah.

Don't be fooled, the topic of this chapter is migration/immigration, and not about population per se, such as everybody's favorite topic, population and supposed overpopulation.

The current debate about U.S. illegal immigration colors the discussion.

Okay, data:
International migration appears to be at or near historically high levels (2005), and the illegal component is probably the part that has increased most in recent years. The numbers of illegals are difficult to obtain, so substantive discussion is mooted.

Problems with illegals include:
-stress on social programs and educational institutions in receiving nations, and the monetary transfers involved
-culture clash and ethnic tensions
-difficulty assimilating, higher costs for providing bi-lingual education
-disenfranchisement, lack of citizenship availability, long waits.
-they tend to be poor, less-educated, young, and less-skilled...so they displace the lowest income indigenous residents, while putting downward pressure on the wages of those who remain employed.

Benefit
"Because the individual (migrant) typically has a higher marginal product in the destination, which is reflected in a higher wage there, he has a potential incentive to move and his movement improves the global distribution of labor resources." Therefore, the migrant usually gives contribution that raises the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the destination country.

The question lurking behind this chapter is, should we adopt a nationalist or a global perspective? Internationally, the migrants gain. But maybe nationally, there are some unhappy (and perhaps vocal) losers.

In analyzing who enjoys benefits, and who suffers losses, the right data has to be collected to make informed policy decisions (describing elasticities and slopes). Some circumstances create gains to the economy that outweigh (ji.e., more than compensate for) the losses to native workers, so migrants could be taxed and compensatory payments made to the "losers," while in other circumstances, natives are rightly wary of migrants.

The author makes the point that taxing gainers, and compensating losers -redistributing- never happens. Taxing relatively poor migrants is not popular, of course. So Mr. Greenwood has some suggestions:

1. Allow individuals to "buy" their way in. Illegals are said to pay an estimated 3-4k to "coyotes" to help them across the border. If each of the presumed 12M illegal aliens in the USA were to have paid $1,000 to gain legal entry, that would be $12B in the coffer of the US Treasury.
-labor turnover would allow more migrants to come, legally

2. Employers could pay a one-time, or perhaps annual, fee (to hire specific migrants they wish to employ.)
-Border control could perhaps be relaxed, with additional savings.

3. Maybe we can be clear on the supply and demand curves for low-wage workers, and thus set the equilibrium price for a permit to work here, thus creating a more market-oriented approach to immigration.

4. (as a refinement on 3) Migrants could post a bond upon entering the country, and if they return to their origin country at a specified time, it will be retured in full, but if not, they would forfeit the bond (possibly as a rising percentage related to time overdue).

I say the whole world should simply open all it's borders, come what may.
I'd like to know what the "experts" think would happen, if that were to actualize.