Dear Bruno,

I think that there is still an important difference between internal (domestic) and international migration. With the free mobility inside EU Shengen zone it is less pronounced, since everybody from EU has a right to work and has no necessity to obtain visa and permission. This has reduced the cost of inside-EU migration comparing to what it was about 20 years ago. But note that the cost of going to other country also includes language barrier, and the incentive to migrate should be rather high (like escaping unemployment trap for young in Spain and Greece at the cost of learning new language). In this sense, migration inside EU still has a bit higher cost than migration across states in the USA (mobility cost is about the same as well as potential gains, but US-mobility have no language barrier). But if you compare migration let say from African state to EU with migration across villages in Africa, the difference is as pronounced as before.

P.S. I worked on migration theory in the past. If you are interested there are these papers. They are about different aspects of international migration: a) when there is an incentive to return (probably EU story), see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5112403_Migrants'_Savings_Purchasing_Power_Parity_and_the_Optimal_Duration_of_Migration

and b) chain migration (about network effect), see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222647408_The_dynamics_of_migration_in_the_presence_of_chains

Article Migrants' Savings, Purchasing Power Parity, and the Optimal ...

Article The Dynamics of Migration in the Presence of Chains

Thanks Yuri for your interesting points, and yes I do concurr with you that technical differences between the two forms of migration do remain. However, as you know, often the basic questions investigated are: 1) why people migrate and 2) what are the impact of migration on both the place of origin of the migrant and the destination area. Now it seems to me that both the reasons why people migrate and the effects of migration, do not differ too much if we look at them from an internall or international point of view. Of course one could rightly argue that in international migration we bring in the picture the state sovereignty, hence the consequence of migration on a state are some how different from the impact of migration inside a state. However international migration in its late forms of transnationalism, is also diminishing the role of the soverign state. Last but not least my suggestion, beside being probably controversial, was based more on the topic of my thesis and the country study. If you are still interested in migration studies it would be nice to stay in contact. 

Dear Bruno,

although I did not write anything on migration last 10 years, you may put your working paper online in RG and might have a look at it.

Dear Ivo,

you are looking at migration in historical perspective. Rural-urban migration is often dominant, since it is related to urbanization, and in the last 100 years the fraction of urban population has grown from probably 10-20% to above 50%. China is the country with the largest population, and it is not a surprise that the peak of its urbanization coincides with the maximum in global movement of people. But I think that in the terms of fraction of moving population the maximum was in the middle of 20th century in the former USSR, from European part to Asian (Siberia and Central Asia), partly forced, partly given economic incentives. Together with rural-urban migration it has touched probably half of the whole population, and the distances sometimes were huge, like thousands of kilometers. As for international migration, so far the maximum was probably a move to the USA over the last centuries. However, the scale of international migration is increasing substantially in the last decade.

Dear Bruno and those in conversation

I agree with much of what is said re. similarities in the "causes" (assuming one could identify them in any definitive way) and the relevance of "historical patterns" (assuming they provide an accurate representation of the migration process).

However, I want to spin the conversation in another direction, one closer to my own research and to contemporary debates of migration to the EU -namely, whether we should frame the study of migration through or moving beyond the cartography delineated by state borders. Framed from this perspective, your question foregrounds analytical and a political dimensions beyond those associated to causes, effects & history.

From this perspective,

a) analytically, I would agree with you in making the argument that the two "forms" of migration are just manifestations of the same process.However, it is important to maintain a distinction as patterns of (capitalist) development, which so much shape the process of migration, present frictions across different scales. It is important, in other words, to acknowledge the different development trajectories that exist at national level.

b) politically, and trying to locate this discussion in relation to contemporary episodes of migration to the EU, I think it is also important to maintain a difference as legal instruments are, in the short term at least, important tools to address the despicable conditions of migrants at and across EU borders. At the same time, I would definitely agree with you that we should focus on the common conditions across "categories" of migrants, and indeed between migrants and non-migrants

best

paolo

Dear Bruno,

IQ makes a distinction between internal and external migration.

Typically, short distance migration is between populations of similar intelligence, whereas, say, African-European migration spans an IQ differences of about 2 standard deviations. The latter makes succesful integration  more difficult - either way.

Just look at the data.

Best,

Helmuth

Thanks to all for the comments 

Paolo, I do agree with you; it would be nice if we could find some common groud for a collaboration since much of the work my collegues at the CNR are doing is in the line of the points you have indicated. 

There is a fundamental difference between internal and external migration; but before considering this question, we need to face up to the current context within which this question has to be approached, which is the massive external migration into European-created countries from non-European lands. Internal migration within the EU by Europeans can be problem if the historical diversity of particular European nations is thereby undermined, but what is really threatening to Europe is the external arrival of hordes of migrants from Africa, Near East, and Asian. 

Academics have uncritically accepted the notion that immigration is "cultural enriching" and our current establishment, both the corporate and leftist establishment, barely allow for any critical reflection on this central issue of our times. Also, it cannot be denied that academics are afraid to go against the grain, although they like to pretend they are edgy and rebellious, but basically they agree with mass immigration and diversity, even though most of the evidence is showing that Europe does not benefit from Islamic, African immigration. Just Google "systematic raping of white girls in Britain," or  in Sweden, or in Norway, or Google about the expensive welfare costs of maintaining an African-Muslim underclass in Europe.