Political ideas that are heard in tea-time conversations or in party platforms are often based on myths about the economy. This article is the last in a series designed to dispel such myths. Today's topic is immigration.

In most developed countries, migration policy is based on hypocrisy and double standards. The Russian state is quickly learning from its European neighbors. While the president declares support for labor migration, laws and regulations increasingly restrict immigration. In addition, the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to enforce the Constitution regarding the free movement of labor within the country; the term "non-citizens" still appears in official documents.

It would seem that free movement of labor increases the efficiency of the economy and is the most effective way to combat poverty and inequality. In addition, migration from the CIS countries allows Russia to cope with its demographic problems without threatening the integrity of its national culture. Who is bothered by immigrant workers and why? How sincere are the authorities' statements about their fight against the disenfranchised position of illegal immigrants?

Brotherly ring of hostility.

Negative attitudes towards immigrants are not unique to the Russian government. In most developed countries, restrictions on the entry of labor have increased sharply in recent decades. The current wave of globalization, which has already surpassed the previous one (1870-1913) in terms of the degree of integration of product and capital markets, is significantly lagging behind in terms of creating a global labor market. A hundred years ago, the free movement of labor was limited only by transportation costs. Now, when the costs of moving from any point in the world are significantly less than the annual salary in the new place, administrative barriers have begun to play the main role, while the international mobility of labor has decreased by an order of magnitude. A ring of visa barriers has been built around rich countries, much more impenetrable than the "iron curtain".

There are two explanations for this. First, the rise of democracy in rich countries has meant that the decisive voice in political processes has shifted from employers to low-skilled workers in the 20th century. Typically, the average immigrant starts his or her career in low-skilled jobs. So, while the economy as a whole benefits from migration, low-skilled workers may lose from increased competition in the labor market.

Second, the role of the state in providing public goods has increased dramatically. Therefore, citizens of rich countries consider it unfair that immigrants get free access to the infrastructure created by previous generations.

How justified are these concerns? In the United States, cities where migrants arrive are no different from others in terms of unemployment and wage dynamics. This is true even during periods of intense migration. For example, when Fidel Castro allowed Cubans to leave freely through the port of Mariel in 1980, 125,000 immigrants (7% of Miami's economically active population) immediately arrived in Miami. Despite this, the dynamics of the labor market in Miami did not change compared to other cities. Cubans did not take jobs from Americans, but created new ones.

The same is true in Moscow. Despite all the efforts of the Moscow authorities, Moscow accepts a huge number of out-of-town and foreign workers. Nevertheless, unemployment is virtually non-existent. The newcomers do the work that Muscovites do not know how to do or do not want to do (at least at market wage rates). Muscovites benefit not only from the fact that low wage rates lead to rapid business development, but also from the fact that prices for construction, household and other services remain at an acceptable level.

The second standard argument against immigration is also unlikely to have a right to exist: in Soviet times, the development of the capital was largely financed at the expense of the rest of the USSR, so not only out-of-town Russians, but also residents of the CIS have a full moral right to access Moscow's infrastructure.

The return of serfdom.

The most hypocritical area of migration policy is the fight against illegal migration. Like their European colleagues, Moscow authorities claim that they are concerned about the disenfranchised and exploited illegal immigrants, which is why they want to limit migration. Unfortunately, it is precisely excessive administrative regulation that leads to the enslavement of newcomers.

As hard as it is for Europeans and Americans to come to terms with it, in the 21st century their democratic countries have sweatshops where debt slavery has been revived. It is a multi-billion dollar business: every year hundreds of thousands of people move to developed countries using forged documents. For example, the cost of illegal immigration from China to the United States is $35,000 - 40,000. Poor Chinese peasants and workers cannot afford to pay such a sum at once, so immigrants are forced to sell themselves into slavery for 2 - 3 years after moving to pay off the intermediary. In this sense, modern Chinese immigrants are similar to European settlers in America in the 17th - 18th centuries, who were also forced to finance their move by selling themselves into slavery for several years under the so-called servitude contract. Now any form of forced labor is prohibited. What is the basis for the implementation of modern serf contracts? Last but not least, the immigrant has no choice: if he runs away from his illegal employer, then at best the matter will end in deportation.

An illegal worker without registration or a work permit in Moscow is in the same situation - endless fines and extortions, and even detentions await him on the streets of Moscow. That is why he has no rights or arguments in negotiations with the employer, he is forced to agree to low wages and sweatshop working conditions. Numerous studies of the lives of illegal immigrants in the United States show that the illegal status of the worker not only reduces his current standard of living, but also negatively affects his health and education, which, in turn, significantly worsens his long-term career prospects. Apparently, the situation of Russian migrant workers is no better.

The illegal status of migrants is the reason for the growth of organized crime around them. Well aware of this, many Western countries from time to time conduct one-time amnesties and legalization campaigns. However, since this does not expand the opportunities for legal migration, after each amnesty the number of illegal migrants continues to grow. As soon as it reaches a critical level, the authorities are forced to conduct the next amnesty.

Political economy of xenophobia.

As a rule, complex words are based on the interests of specific groups. Officials are unlikely to want to give up status rent. It is very easy for politicians to blame newcomers for the growth of poverty, inequality and crime. This is probably why the Russian government is erecting barriers in the path of ordinary citizens of Russia and the CIS who simply want to have the right to choose a job regardless of their place of birth.

The author is the Vice-Rector of the Russian School of Economics

MYTHS OF ECONOMY: No entry for outsiders