Robert J. Samuelson has a big piece in Newsweek about the economics of immigration. (See Peter Brimelow on Samuelson last year.)

Useful point:

But some things we do know—or can infer. For today’s Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal), the closest competitors are tomorrow’s Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal). The more who arrive, the harder it will be for existing low-skilled workers to advance. Despite the recession, immigration did not much slow after 2000, says Camarota. Not surprisingly, a study by the Pew Hispanic Center found that inflation-adjusted weekly earnings for all Hispanics (foreign and American-born) dropped by 2.2 percent in 2003 and 2.6 percent in 2004. “Latinos are the only major group of workers whose wages have fallen for two consecutive years,” said the study. Similarly, the more poor immigrants, the harder it will be for schools to improve the skills of their children. The schools will be overwhelmed; the same goes for social services.

The Hard Truth of Immigration - Newsweek Business - MSNBC.com

Samuelson is familiar with the work of George Borjas, quoting a recent studyby Borjas on Mexican immigrants and education. Of course, most of what Samuelson is discussing is familiar to VDARE.com readers, but Newsweek has bigger circulation, for some reason.

[Update: I had written "Paul Samuelson" above, thanks to the reader who pointed it out.]

Human Events has a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries, and of course, you can criticize their selection, and make fun of the fact that Human Events has live Amazon links to all of them, but the fun part of this game is figuring out what books to add.

I think I’ll nominate, in the top hundred, anyhow, A Nation Of Immigrants, By John F. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy, the precursor to the 1965 Immigration Act.

Steve Sailer’s essay on the Los Angeles election caused quite a stir in the blogosphere, and even some ripples in orthodox media (they’re so slow!) Enough that our old friend Roger Hernandez has been motivated to parcel together a few insults in a column that has surfaced in a few newspapers around the country.

Hernandez’ column advances no discernable arguments against Steve’s contention that the Hispanic vote remains decisively Democratic.
It tries to imply the recent slight rise in the Republican share of the Hispanic vote is important, while simply not meeting Steve’s point that, set against the better Presidential election performance of the Republicans since Clinton timed out, the change is not out of the range of GOP Hispanic share performances, which run the gamut from awful to catastrophic.

What strikes me about Hernandez’ column, though, is the implicit assumption that being arrogant constitutes argument. For instance the much- published Roger D. McGrath is sneered at because he is

described as ‘a retired history professor,’

and a powerful article he published in The New American

is dismissed as follows:

I did not read McGrath’s entire piece. Halfway into the third paragraph I came across, ‘To continue reading the complete article, place an online order for a PDF version of the June 13th issue of The New American.’

I clicked. The price, $1.95. Did not order. Awfully expensive for intellectual garbage.

How does Hernandez know that without having read it?

When I was being educated in England, admittedly long ago but even then deeply leftist, dealing with an argument by refusing to read it would have been treated with derision.

Perhaps, at some fundamental level, the harvest of this intellectual integrity is why we see huge volumes of non-native English speakers wanting to spend their working lives in the Anglosphere, and not the reverse.

[Comment to Roger Hernandez.]