Economic Consequences of Immigration.

THE Immigration Act of 1965, which repudiated the national origins quotas that had governed immigration for most of this century (while claiming to ensure little or no disruption to America's ethnic composition), has lately come under close scrutiny. In the late Sixties, European professionals, scientists, and engineers, who had previously been able-with their families to enter the U.S. more or less at will, were pushed out of line by their counterparts from India, Korea, Taiwan, and elsewhere. Those first Asians used the family-preference system to its full potential in what is known as "chain immigration." Within a decade, a single skilled immigrant could easily generate 25 visas for brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, and in-laws-some skilled, some not. The earliest post1965 Asian (and Latin American) immigrants were very well educated among the best-educated groups ever -since most of their visas were obtained under occupational and skills preferences. The accomplishments of their children in American schools were extraordinary. But this flow of talent has now been so diluted that the average educational level of Asian immigrants has dropped by about two school years since 1970. Skilled immigrants are in short supply. And it has been predicted that by the year 2000 more than half of all new workers in the labor force will be from minorities; half of their numbers will be immigrants. It is against this background that America is debating the reform of chain immigration.

Into the controversy comes Julian Simon's book, which claims that America's front door should in fact be opened even wider. Mr. Simon's research indicates that immigrants always have constituted, and in all probability will continue to constitute, a positive economic force rather than the mass of job-usurpers and wallowers in the public trough often portrayed by advocates of strict immigration policy. He makes his argument with a bewildering array of graphs, charts, formulae, and anecdotes-many of them impressive, others of questionable pertinence.

In Mr. Simon's view, among the favorable economic consequences of immigration are the rise in tax revenue earned, and the contributions to Social Security made by younger immigrants to the benefit of an older native population. Moreover, he points out, immigrant income and tax contributions in the Seventies and Eighties would have been considerably higher had these new immigrants been as skilled as those who came earlier.

Mr. Simon often refers to the Canadian and Australian experiences. In those countries visas are allocated through a point system that grades applicants by educational achievement, age, and occupational experience. Family preference is a factor too, but it is only one factor. As for education, Mr. Simon suggests the U.S. give special preference to foreign students who have already completed their studies here, or are willing to come and pay their own way. And he believes we ought to give "weight to the amount of formal education"-subject to something he vaguely calls "an ethical veto." Most strikingly, Mr. Simon advances the admittedly beguiling idea of selling admission at auction, perhaps taking a cue from Canada's efforts to lure fleeing Hong Kong businessmen willing to bring in $250,000. He makes further suggestions concerning "guest workers," illegal aliens (whose ranks he estimates at between 1.5 and 3.5 million), refugees, access to welfare, specificity of skills, and financial assets.

Among the faults to be found in Economic Consequences, Mr. Simon claims that immigration in the Eighties was substantially lower than in the first decade of the century. In fact, when we add in those granted amnesty under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, and the illegals who remained so, we find that more people came to stay in America during the Eighties than in any other decade in American history. Mr. Simon treats immigrants as one homogeneous mass, largely young entrepreneurs who will be the salvation of an aging America. But in fact only 4 per cent of immigrants in 1987 were admitted on the basis of useful skills. We no longer get immigrant workers from the more advanced, industrialized nations; and, despite Immigration and Naturalization Service efforts to prevent the unskilled workers we do get from becoming a welfare burden, our newer immigrants are falling below the poverty line in ever greater numbers. Mr. Simon wants procedures to prevent immigrants from taking illegal advantage of welfare to be "tightened up," but he offers no specifics.

What will society look like if these immigration patterns persist? In 1988, according to Mr. Simon, fully 43 per cent of legal immigrants came from Latin America, 41 per cent from Asia, and only 10 per cent from Europeand 70 per cent of the intended residences of these immigrants were in just six states. Since 1980 America's Hispanic community has grown five times as fast as the rest of the population, and now numbers above 20.1 million (compared to more than 30.1 million blacks, and a rapidly growing 6.5 million Asians).

Mr. Simon appears to take comfort from the fact that just 6.2 per cent of America's population is foreign born, but he ignores immigration's regional impact. In 1985 it was estimated that 38 per cent of all Asian-Americans were living in California. As Peter Brimelow pointed out in the London Times, it may

be possible to be sanguine about projections that whites may soon be a minority in California, but it is not possible to believe that it will make no difference." The rise in ethnic heterogeneity has often been to the detriment of this melting pot.

It is worrisome that this book may fuel politically expedient policy revision. A compromiseminded Congress might, citing Mr. Simon, prefer quantity over quality if only to avoid accusations of discrimination. But as Professor George J. Borjas of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has observed: "Immigration policy is inherently discriminatory. It selectively picks and chooses from many applicants. Because there are only a limited number of visas, the policy has to restrict or prohibit the entry of many classes of persons. Inevitably, difficult choices must be made."