example, the proportion of taxindrivers (often self-employed)nwho have foreign accents seemsnhigh from New York tonMelborne to Molmo, Sweden.nThere does not seem to exist anreliable study of immigrantnbusiness openings for the U.S.n(though it is badly needed).nSimon uses a similar method in “proving”nthat immigrants save more, worknharder, and are more innovative thannnatives:n. . .regrettably this research hasnnot yet been done. Therefore, Inwill be able to do no more thannpresent some scraps of unrefinednevidence from other countries’nexperience.nIn effect, Simon offers absolutely nonsystematic evidence for the majority ofnhis assertions. He is very criticalnthroughout his book of his detractorsnwho use anecdotal accounts and casualnempiricism as evidence. But what isnsauce for the goose is not sauce for thengander; for Simon himself freely usesnnewspaper accounts and anecdotes andnengages in casual empiricism from covernto cover.nSimon also shows his inconsistencynwhen he turns to the all-importantnquestion of whether immigrants displacennative workers. He concludes thatnimmigrants do not take jobs; they makenjobs. Along the way, however, he cites annumber of empirical studies that concludenthat immigrants do displace nativenworkers. For instance, he reliesnheavily on a study by Larry C. Morgannand Bruce L. Gardner (1982), whichnshows that the introduction of 210,000nMexican braceros led to a fall in migrantnfarm labor wages of 9 percent asnwell as a reduction of 51,000 jobsnpreviously held by natives. Accordingnto my simple math, this is a displacementnrate of 24.3 percent. Yet Simonnlater concludes that “empirical studiesnreviewed in this chapter suggest thatngeneral immigration causes little or nonunemployment.nThe Urban Institute’s study of Hispanicizednurban labor markets in LosnAngeles by Thomas Muller (1984) isnalso frequently cited by Simon as providingnproof positive that immigrantsnare a windfall benefit. Muller seems tonsay that the very abundance of cheapnMexican and Central American labornhelps retain low-standard, assemblylinenindustries in Los Angeles County,nwhereas otherwise, such industries (includingnclothing “sweat shops”) couldnmigrate abroad, presumably to Mexico’sncut-rate border zone, to Taiwan,nKorea, or Haiti. Thus, jobs are saved.nYet Simon overiooks Muller’s empiricalnfindings that make a strong casenagainst laissez-faire and open bordernimmigration. True, low cost labor doesnsubsidize the economy of L.A. County,nbut there are numerous adversensocial effects. As Muller himself emphasized,nMexican-Americans and unskillednimmigrants already in SouthernnCalifornia had to absorb much of thenadverse impact, such as depressed wagesnand housing shortages.nMuller labeled the almost one millionnimmigrants who settled in thenL.A. metro area in the 1970’s as ansuccess story. But how about the onenmillion other people who left thencounty in the meantime? Workers whonwere unwilling to accept lower wagesntended to leave the region. Other people,nwho could not adjust to thenspreading Third World immigrant subculturesnand the “Hispanization” ofnpublic schools (where currently overn50 percent of the students are now ofnMexican or Hispanic origin), left asnpart of the “white flight.” Muller him­nEdward H. Winter probably would havendied of a heart attack in May 1988,nwhen he was 82, if a nurse at St.nFrancis-St. George Hospital in Cincinnatinhad not revived him through electricnshock. Two days after he was revived hensuffered a debilitating stroke, which leftnhim partially paralyzed and confined to anbed in a nursing home. As of last Marchnhe could utter only a few faint words,nand his medical bills had mounted tonnearly $100,000.nA few months before his heart attack,nWinter’s wife had died from brain damagenresulting from the shock resuscitationnshe had received after a heart attacknLIBERAL ARTSnWRONGFUL LIFEnnnself was seriously concerned about thenfuture socioeconomic implications ofnthe high dropout rate of school-agenHispanics of rural peasant background.nSimon has also claimed that immigrantsnpay more in taxes than they usenin welfare services. He ignores refugees,neach of whom costs the Americanntaxpayer at least $7,000 per year.nHis rationale: refugees do not enter thenU.S. under normal immigration quotas.nHence they are not immigrants.nEven so, he is not able to empiricallynprove his case. The one extensivenstudy he does depend on, by GilbertonCardenas and Sidney Weintraub, isnonly for Texas data, and they ignorensuch large costs as food stamps, welfarenouflays, and unemployment of displacednlegal workers.nBorjas’ major findings deal a deathnblow not only to Simon’s claim thatnimmigrants benefit the public coffers,nbut to nearly every one of Simon’snmajor hypotheses. Borjas is able tonshow that the quality of recent immigrantnwaves to the United States hasngreatly deteriorated, with less schooling,nweaker labor market attachment,nhigher unemployment rates, lowernwage rates, higher poverty rates, andnhigher rates of welfare use than thenwaves that arrived in the 1950’s andn60’s. Nor have recent immigrants performednas well as natives in U.S. labornmarkets. Borjas finds that this declinenin quality costs American society atnof her own. Winter decided then that,nshould the situation arise, he did notnwant doctors to try to resuscitate him.nHe made his wish clear to both hisnchildren and his doctor.nLate last year Winter filed a lawsuitnaccusing the hospital of wrongfully savingnhis life. Lawsuits for “wrongfulndeath,” attributing a death to negligence,nare common, but Mr. Winter’s suit wasnreported to have been the first “wrongfulnlife” case ever to be filed by a patient.nDoctors gave Winter little chance fornphysical improvement, adding that hencould possibly live for years in his presentncondition.nJULY 1990/29n