Further to my post the other day noting some Blacks are beginning to realize mass immigration is bad for their community: the editor of The Impact of Immigration on African Americans - such a fashionable book that in almost two years it has attracted zero reviews on Amazon - has published an elegant and incisive discussion of the economic effect of immigration. In Illegal immigration economic boost a myth - The Coloradoan April 18 2006, Steven Shulman, a Economics Professor at Colorado State University, observes:

The American economy displays an amazing capacity to adapt. Pump in lots of cheap, immigrant labor and employers will utilize it. Restrict the flow of immigrant labor and employers will adapt by hiring natives or by reorganizing work and introducing new technologies…The evidence is clear that mass immigration has reduced the wages of native workers, particularly those with low levels of education. That can only occur if immigrants are competing with natives for jobs…George Borjas of Harvard University calculates that immigration lowers the annual earnings of workers by $280 billion, making it the largest-single factor driving down wages.

Another study of the Harlem labor market showed that 26 percent of job seekers who were hired were immigrants even though immigrants comprised only 11 percent of all job applicants. The authors of the study concluded that employers discriminated against African American job applicants in favor of immigrants, who they perceived to be cheaper and more compliant. Yet another study shows that the number of employed natives actually fell between 2000 and 2004. All of the 2.3 million increase in total employment during this period went to immigrants.

If we want a high-wage economy, we must enforce sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants and in other ways reduce the incentives for illegal immigrants to come here. Immigration reform should mean, first and foremost, immigration reduction. Reducing immigration would require a period of adjustment, but in the end we would adapt to it and, in all likelihood, benefit from it.

Hat tip, Modern Tribalist. Applaud Steven Shulman.

Of course, it speaks volumes that such an astute and reasonable essay is published in a newspaper in Fort Collins CO, while MSM flagships are laden down with stuff like David Brooks’ recent NY Times piece, satirized by the Dow Blog last week as Messianic Immigrationism:

…if Brooks is to be believed, mass immigration from Mexico will produce the following:

1) Less violent crime
2) Increased chastity
3) Fewer teen suicides
4) Patriarchal families
5) Less divorce
6) Higher fertility rates
7) More gift giving
More family dinners
9) Healthier children
10) The end of rapacious individualism.

I’m sure I’ve missed something, but doesn’t that sound great? I had no idea that there was a causation between immigration and all those social benefits.

Shortly after former Illinois Gov. George Ryan was convicted on all 18 counts of “living large,” Gov. Rod (“Now where did I put my oath of office?“) Blagojevich said:

“The verdict proves that “no one is above the law.” Shazam!

Memo to Blago: Excuse me? What about the 400,000 illegals living in your state? You know, the folks you think deserve driver’s licenses so they “can get to and from work? “ Yes, the very same ones who, thanks to you, now roam the Land of Lincoln flashing Mexico’s bogus matricula consular ID card. Oh, and did I mention the instate tuition bennies you made possible for them a few years back?

Lucky for you, Blago, that talking out of both sides of one’s mouth still falls under the heading of free speech. You could end up with Ryan in some posh minimum security prison watching TV in the game room.

Apparently we need to redefine the status of the blogger Fjordman to merely “semi-retired,” since he continues to write important commentary about Europe under the effects multiculturalism and Muslim immigration. On Monday, he posted a critique of Sam Huntington’s work for not recognizing the uniqueness of the Islamic threat (The Retreat of the Western World Order).

The latest, The Fall of France and the Multicultural World War, is pretty grim in its subject matter.

If Muslim immigration continues, the impending fall of France could mark the starting point of the Balkanization of much of Europe, perhaps later even North America. I fear this is a world war. Maybe future historians will dub it the Multicultural World War. Just as WW1 was caused by Imperialism, WW2 by Fascism and the Cold War by Communism, this one will be caused by Multiculturalism. The term “the Multicultural World War” has been coined by Fjordman. I find this to be more accurate than “The Islamic World War” because what will cause this world war is Western cultural weakness, through Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, rather than Islamic strength

Fjordman notes the rapid growth of Islam and its institutions in France, where many immigrant ghettoes have de facto sharia law and one in three babies born on French soil is now Islamic. Adult Muslims say things like, “We must burn France, as Hamas will burn Israel.” The symptoms of social crisis are there to see, from the employment riots to the horrific kidnapping and torture-murder of French Jew Ilan Halimi by a Koran-reading Muslim gang.

With his usual fearlessness, Fjordman sketches out scenarios of how Europe’s future might go, from inevitable Islamification following the entrance of Turkey into the EU, to a glimmer of hope.

Remember that Fjordman recently defined Mexico’s relationship with the United States as “war … using massive immigration to conquer your territory,” so he grasps the big picture of culturally inappropriate immigration.

Ruben Aguilar, the spokesman for President Vicente Fox, had a few interesting things to say at a press conference on an April 17th.

He discussed the ongoing pro-illegal protest marches in the U.S.:

“

As for the marches, as you know, our consulates…have been instructed not to participate in them, they cannot do it, it would be an interference in the affairs of another country…by no means are they participating in the promotion of these marches.”

That’s quite interesting. Why would the Fox administration have to tell consulates not to interfere if they hadn’t been doing so already?

This could also indicate that the Mexican government is beginning to realize that ordinary Americans are beginning to realize that Mexico meddles in U.S. immigration policy.

Anyway, Aguilar made it clear that regular consulate activity would continue, which means regular meddling will continue.

As will the distribution of the matricula consular cards
But the real problem with the matricula consular is not that Mexico issues them. The real problem is that so many American municipal governments accept them.

Back at the press conference, Aguilar pointed out that the SRE (Mexican foreign ministry) is following immigration legislation in the United States. No doubt about that. The SRE is better informed about our immigration system than most Americans.

A reporter from the AP asked if President Fox would purchase American products on May 1st (the day of the planned boycott). Aguilar answered that the president would be working and “certainly will not enter into any store.”

Does he usually go to stores anyway?