Main Article Content
Self-organization using simple dynamic laws has been applied to migration across a common border between two entities, states or countries. The motion of the migrants and their final positions are presented. In the system there were two sets of objects. One set is on a side of the boundary. One side, the right side, is considered to be the better entity. That is it has a good government and the economy is strong. On the left side the entity is decidedly different with respect to the governance and the economy. Each side's objects are further divided into two groups. The two groups are referred to as strong and weak. The strong represent the governance, rich or elite and weak refers to the general population. Initially the objects are randomly distributed in this two dimensional square bounded region, and then allowed to dynamically interact for a number of iterations. The forces among all of the particles as groups can be defined to be attractive or repulsive and can be adjusted to study the resulting configuration from the dynamics. Four experiments were conducted to see how self-organization applies for these scenarios. In Experiment 1 the migration takes place with only the object-to-object forces active. In Experiment 2 the concept of employment was introduced. An unemployed object was allowed to move faster than an employed object thus giving the unemployed greater mobility. The employment rate on right side is considerably higher than on the left side. Experiment 3 explores changing one of the forces from repelling to attract. Experiment 3 is the same as Experiment 2 except for this and it went for twice as many iterations. Experiment 4 created employment centers on the right side. These centers provided jobs to left side migrants that came close enough to a center. If the left side object got a center job then that migrant did not move for the remainder of the simulation. In Experiments 1 and 2 there was no incentive for a migrant to remain so the migrant traveled back and forth across the border. In Experiment 4 it was assumed that the job provided incentive for the migrant to remain at a fixed location. Thus clusters of migrants formed around the job centers.
Herman Haken. Scholarpedia. 2008;3(8): 1401.
Examples of self-organization. John Spacey; 2017. Available:simplicable.com
Natures self organizing patterns William Graham. Blog Post Natures Connections; 2014.
Ming-Chi Lee, William JB. Font Recognition by a Neural Network Oldham Int. J. Man-Machine Studies. 1990;33:41-61.
Fuchs, Christian Structural Theory of Self-Organization Michigan State University; 1997. Available:www.selforg.org/results/papers/pdf/hsicpaper13/pdf
Garcia V. Mexican enclaves in the U. S. (Northeast): Immigrant and migrant mushroom workers in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania. JSRI Repoet number=No.27. East Lansing, Mi. Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University; 1997.
Astrid, Gavin by the numbers: Migration to the U.S.-Mexico border 688000 fam and cd pg106 Garcia, V. Mexican Enclaves in the U. S. (Northeast): Immigrant and migrant mushroom workers in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania. JSRI Report number=No.27. East Lansing, Mi. Julian Samora Research Institute; 2020. Available:https://AP News.com
King, Russell theories and topologies of migration: An overview and a primer. Semantic Scholar; 2012.
Massey, Douglas S, Zenteno M. The dynamics of mass migration. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America. 1999:5328-5335. Available:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas 96.9.5328
Pisarenskaya, Asya, Levy, Nathan, Schatten, Peter, Jansen Joost, Mapping immigration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field. Migration Studies. 2020;8(3):455-481. Available:https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnz031
Massey DS, Hugo G, Koucouak A, Pelligrino A, Taylor JE. Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millenium. Oxford University Press (Oxford); 1998.