A cura di @corvoninety.

È quanto afferma questo articolo dell’Economist riprendendo un’analisi del Centre for Global Development, think-tank americano.

Se gli abitanti dei paesi poveri del mondo potessero muoversi liberamente nei paesi sviluppati guadagnerebbero molto di più che stando nei loro paesi d’origine.

“Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.

Si stima che in caso di frontiere aperte circa 630 milioni di persone potrebbero decidere di spostarsi dal loro paese – anche se questi numeri potrebbero essere sovra o sottostimati a seconda delle circostanze.

Le preoccupazioni dei nativi riguardano principalmente la possibilità che gli stranieri minino le basi dello stato – sia a livello di diritti che a livello di stato sociale – portino più crimine, più terrorismo ed abbassino gli stipendi dei lavoratori locali.

I dati però sono discordanti, e spesso smentiscono tali tesi:

in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth. Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

Ciò non vuol dire che non potrebbero esserci risvolti negativi, poiché gli immigrati di alcune aree del mondo potrebbero portare con loro il loro background culturale più retrivo verso i diritti dei gay e delle donne.

Come fare ad evitare rischi?

Se ci si preoccupa di scenari in cui gli immigrati vincano le elezioni e impongano la Sharia, si potrebbe non concedergli il diritto di voto per un periodo di tempo relativamente appropriato;

If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation.