DO WELL WHILE DOING GOOD: LET THEM IN Julian L. Simon President Clinton, just like President Bush before him, has brutally barred the door to thousands of people who risk their lives to escape tyranny and enjoy free opportunity in the United States. The excuse for this policy - which Bill Clinton himself denounced during his election campaign - is that the Cuban and Haitian emigrants are not "true" refugees. Instead, they are "really" just seeking to improve themselves economically. Clinton's policy is not only heartless but it also is brain- less, because it makes us poorer rather than better off. The policy also constitutes an example that other countries will use as justification for their own anti-immigrant policies. The cause of the policy is a combination of economic igno- rance and nativism-racism-anti-foreigner sentiment. Suppose that the State Department could administer some super lie-detector test to the boat people, and ferret out those for whom naked fear of assassins accounts for less than (say) 20 percent of their motivation and economic incentive for more than (say) 80 percent. Would it help us natives to send back those persons who "fail" the test? Negative. The Haitians we send back diminish the future economic prospects of us American citizens. The basic economic facts are as follows: *Immigrants do not rip off natives by over-using welfare services. They contribute more to the public coffers in taxes than they draw out in welfare services. This is because they come when they are young and strong, and do not receive expensive Social Security. This general pattern, shown beyond doubt by Census Bureau data, is corroborated for the Haitians by [an informal survey of South Florida institutions by William Booth of the Washington Post: "The heads of schools and institutions said [the Haitians] are no more disruptive than any of the other refugee groups that have poured into [Miami]".] Alex Stepick, a Florida International University anthropolo- gist who has long worked with the Haitians, finds that "less than 50 percent of those eligible for benefits actually apply for them" because they harbor a distrust of government. *Even though they have less education and earn less on average than natives of the same ages, there is every reason to believe that the Haitians - like other poor immigrants - do not cause native unemployment, even among low-paid and minority groups. A large clutch of excellent recent studies have shown conclusively that the bogey of "displacement" does not exist. New entrants take jobs, but they also create as many new jobs with their purchasing power and new businesses as they take. Even blacks and women have not suffered displacement in California or Miami due to Mexican and Cuban immigration, according to studies by the Urban Institute and by Princeton economist David Card. There is no reason to believe that the Haitians will have a different effect on South Florida than the Cubans did. *The Haitians have desirable economic traits. Compared wityhnatives, immigrants save more, work harder, work more jobs, and are unusually self-reliant and innovative. Even their worst enemies - the labor unions - "accuse" the Haitians and other Caribbean immigrants of working harder than natives. *Immigration is not high now. The State Department and Immigration and Naturalization Service types say: But if we let the Haitians in, every poor person in the world will rush to come. But notice that immigration is at a low rate now relative to population size - only a third of the rate at the turn of the century, when we had far less absorption capacity. *Immigration does not breed crime. Opponents of immigration admit that immigrant groups in the past were law-abiding but claim that the Haitians are given to crime and violence. Yet Miami police officials, who are in the best position to know, deny that is so. And research studies for the past century have found that immigrants cause less serious crime than do natives. The opponents of immigration always argue that these general propositions are not relevant to whichever group is under discus- sion - today, the Haitians. For example, the anti-immigration organizations pooh-pooh as "outmoded" the 1970s data showing that immigrants pay more taxes and use less welfare services on aver- age than do natives. But a recent Canadian study by Ather Akbari of St. Mary's college finds exactly the same results for Canada now, even though the rate of immigration in Canada is about twice the rate in the U. S., relative to the population size. The lower education and labor-market "quality" of the Haitians is a red herring in the discussion. All the economic studies agree that though some skill groups contribute more than others, even the lowest skill groups have a positive rather than a negative effect on resident Americans. There is every reason to believe that the Haitians are not different from other immigrants in their economic and social effects. They will have - and are already are having - the same beneficial effects on natives that other groups have had. In short, the Haitians we let in will, on average, push up our future standard of living, boost our productivity growth, increase our international competitiveness, and reduce a problem that cannot otherwise be resolved without higher taxes or lower services - the budget deficit. By letting more in, we will do well economically for ourselves while we do good for the Hai- tians. Julian L. Simon, professor of business administration at the University of Maryland and adjunct scholar at Cato Institute, wrote The Economic Consequences of Immigration. phone 301-951-0922 fax 301-951-8468 address 110 Primrose St., Chevy Chase Md. 20815 page 1 /article2 immhaiti/December 21, 1994