Sometimes it happens that a news story personifying of a social problem, while not directly advancing analysis, can valuably crystallize the issues. Such is the case with Lawn-Care Entrepreneur Faces A Changing Racial Landscape By Krissah Williams The Washington Post February 5, 2007.(Access requires free registration)

The story is simple:

1) Enterprising black man, Nikita Floyd, starts landscaping business - Green Forever - in Prince George’s County MD in 1989, employing blacks.

2) In 2005 he is grossing at a $2.5 million annual rate and employing …essentially no blacks.

Floyd’s 20 wintertime workers are all men from El Salvador, except for two black women who manage the office. In the summer, he employs twice as many men, all immigrants

One can see the other blacks’ point of view.

He …pays about $10 an hour, with no work and no pay in inclement weather. It’s grueling labor in the winter; a man can spend the day stabbing a spade into frozen dirt or be asked to shimmy up a tree with a chainsaw in one hand and no netting below.

(Of course, it must be remembered that many other businesses of this type pay their immigrants in cash “off the books” which means the value of such a job is far higher than to an American who has to reckon with the IRS.)

The process by which this occurred is standard in a multicultural society, and will increasingly be seen in white collar office environments:

He hires from a network developed by early immigrants referring relatives and friends. As black workers cycled out, immigrants cycled in. The cycle churned until black workers were effectively locked out. Now, Floyd says, they rarely apply for jobs at Green Forever. A study by the Rand Corp., a think tank, shows that workforce replacement such as Floyd’s full shift from black to Latino is rare. But when the change occurs, it is not often reversed.

Perhaps 100% replacement is rare – slightly lower rates are definitely not.

Vernon Briggs, one of VDARE.com’s favorite professors, is quoted

Vernon Briggs, a professor of industrial and labor relations at Cornell University who favors low immigration rates, said no group has “been harmed more by immigration than black Americans,” as immigrants often accept lower wages.

Some observations come to mind:

• The uselessness of the Black political leadership, who in a time of unprecedented political access, have allowed this to be done to their people.
• The damage done to America by selfish, greedy business men of whatever race. The title of the piece should be “Lawn-Care Entrepreneur Precipitates A Changing Racial Landscape”.
• The extent to which mass immigration is an upper class welfare program. Unquestionably there are many more elegant yards in Prince George’s County than if Mr. Floyd did not have his Salvadoreans. There are also many more damaged African American households (and others – summer yard work was once done by College students).

Amanda Paulson writes in the Christian Science Monitor:

US workers may be significantly less literate in 2030 than they are today.

The reason: Most baby boomers will be retiring and a large wave of less-educated immigrants will be moving into the workforce. This downward shift in reading and math skills suggests a huge challenge for educators and policymakers in the future, according to a new report from the Educational Testing Service (ETS).
[Coming US challenge: a less literate workforce February 06, 2007 ]

Now, it is clear that if the US were more carefully selective, out of the 10 million plus applicants, we could find folks that were not only literate in English, but law abiding and highly unlikely to ever wind up on public assistance. There simply is no careful selection going on. The companies profiting from immigrant labor can easily pass costs onto the American taxpayer–and they are doing so.

I expect this will come to a head when the creditors of the US government realize they aren’t investing in the same country as they were 25 years ago.

The headline says Texas deputy to pay price for defending self.[By Jerry Seper , Washington Times, February 2, 2007] and that’s about the size of it.

The issue, according to the Bush Justice Department, is that police are not supposed to shoot people just for running away when they say “Stop, police!”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Baumann, who prosecuted the case, told reporters that the law does not give law-enforcement officers the right to use “deadly force to stop a car unless it poses an imminent threat to the officer or another person. If the car is going away from you, it’s not even a close call.”

The exceptions to this rule are when the “fleeing felon” is dangerous, so letting them run means potentially letting them run and kill someone, and (obviously) when there’s reasonable belief that they aren’t really running away, but just trying to get to a position of advantage where they can attack again.

Either one might have applied here, but the Bush Justice Department insisted on prosecuting the deputy involved.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, appointed in October 2001 by President Bush, said Hernandez fired shots at the vehicle as it sped away “knowing it was occupied with the nine individuals,” at least seven of whom were illegal aliens — some of whom later were called to testify for the government.

Has the Justice Department made any attempt to deport these people now that they’ve testified?