Immigration

Is Heritage Foundation's Push Against Low-Skilled Foreigners a Proxy for IQ-Based Immigration?

|

It would certainly seem so from a story this morning in the Washington Post on one of the author's of the Heritage study about the social welfare costs of immigrants that I blogged yesterday. The Post reports that Jason Richwine, who co-authored the study with Robert Rector, wrote his Ph.D. dissertation, "IQ and Immigration Policy," at Harvard University in which he explicitly considered whether Uncle Sam should IQ-test prospective immigrants. Here's what Richwine's dissertation abstract says:

The statistical construct known as IQ can reliably estimate general mental ability, or intelligence. The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations. The consequences are a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market. Selecting high-IQ immigrants would ameliorate these problems in the U.S., while at the same time benefiting smart potential immigrants who lack educational access in their home countries.

The Post continues:

Richwine's dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races. While it's clear he thinks it is partly due to genetics — "the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ" — he argues the most important thing is that the differences in group IQs are persistent, for whatever reason. He writes, "No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against."

Furthermore, says the Post:

That rhetorical strategy is reflected in Heritage's current work on immigration. His and Rector's report recommends greatly reducing "low-skilled" immigration and increasing "high-skilled" immigration. "The legal immigration system should be altered to greatly reduce the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and increase the number of new entrants with high levels of education and skills that are in demand by U.S. firms," they write.

My question, if maintaining a national IQ is a worthy goal for Uncle Sam, why stop with immigrants? Why not test Americans too and put in place measures to raise their IQ as well? Eugenics anyone?

(But what impresses me is that Harvard lets people write dissertations like these. Score one for free speech.)

Update: I just got this statement from Mike Gonzalez, Vice President of Communications, The Heritage Foundation:

"This [Jason Richwine's dissertation] is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation.  Nor do the findings affect the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer."

NEXT: Obama's Cigarette Tax Hike Going Nowhere

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You are comparing immigration quotas to eugenics?

    Where is the giant emoticon?

    1. Yeah that Godwin sticks out like a tumer.

    2. Yeah, where would she get the idea that IQ-based policy preferences along racial lines could be eugenicist….

  2. “white native population”

    Who knew albino Indians were especially intelligent.

    1. Please do not invoke the name of the Albino Algonquin!

    2. Would you argue that white folks born in the United States are in fact not native to North America?

      1. I would further argue that Mexicans born in Mexico are also native to North America.

      2. The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations.

        I’m a member of the ‘white native population’ whose great grandparents once counted as ‘non-white’. They were Eastern European Jewish, and exactly the same things were said about their IQ’s that people say now about blacks and Hispanics. The same was said about the Irish (there’s a book called something like ‘Before the Irish were white’). And the Chinese who now dominate our Engineering and Science schools.

        I call bullshit on the whole argument–what counts as ‘white’ is socially constructed, and nothing can be projected from it at all.

        1. I don’t give a shit if the IQ of immigrants is substantially lower than that of the white native population; I still need someone to mow my lawn, cook my tacos, and sew my garments.

          1. Then pay money – and if you want subservience and obsequiousness, be prepared to pay even more. 🙂

            1. Then pay money…

              They are getting paid. The second part of your comment is stupid. I don’t want subservience or obsequience. I want my fucking lawn mowed, cheap tacos, and reasonably priced clothing.

              1. It isn’t stupid – some people do want subservience and obsequiousness. You can trust me on that – I’ve worked as a servant before. I’ve also worked as both a tradesman and skilled craftsman and still found that’s what many people expect. Furthermore, a whole lot of Americans who hire people to do so-called menial jobs want them to work like dogs, but don’t like to pay much of anything. Hell, most of the time they won’t even pay their household employee taxes.
                BTW, “reasonably priced clothing” generally comes from overseas – not here.

        2. IQ testing has advanced a bit over the years, and only the most politically correct will argue that IQ is merely a social construct.

          As for “white” being a social construct: sort of, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to say that “The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population.”

          1. Maybe not meaningless, but still a tremendous oversimplification.

            What could possibly go wrong with reducing the comparison of different instances from a set of obscenely complex yet horrendously kludgy biological parallel computing machines to comparing a single number for each ?

            1. I suppose that would depend partly on just how kludgy one’s own biological parallel computing machine happened to be.

        3. IQ depends a lot on environmental factors. Both developmental and social. I don’t know if that’s bigger than genetics or not, but I would think that it is far more relevant than racial grouping. But it is certainly true that poor nutrition as a child, or lack of stimulation as a very young child does affect intelligence quite a bit. And poorer immigrants are much more likely to have had those problems than native white people.

          1. But it is certainly true that poor nutrition as a child, or lack of stimulation as a very young child does affect intelligence quite a bit. And poorer immigrants are much more likely to have had those problems than native white people.

            That seems like an overly broad generalization. Is there any data to back that up? I could possibly agree on the nutrition thing, but the stimulation assertion seems a stretch.

            1. There’s plenty, but it’s from places like Romanian orphanages.

              There’s an article seemingly everyday in the NYT about how blacks aren’t getting into the advanced schools because their parents don’t use enough words around them, but there’s no evidence in support and plenty against.

            2. The nutrition thing seem obvious to me. When they physical structures of the brain are developing, it is pretty crucial to have the right nutrients and enough of them. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..elligence. Then there are things like heavy metal exposure, which poor people in less developed countries are often more exposed to (do those Mexican sugar skulls still use lead pigments?).

              1. Mexico is the fattest country in the world.

                1. That’s nice. Does that have something to do with lead poisoning?

                  1. We have millions of natural experiments that refute that hypothesis. (Yes, I do know Mexico has a lead problem.)

        4. “They were Eastern European Jewish, and exactly the same things were said about their IQ’s that people say now about blacks and Hispanics.”

          Not true – ’tis a Gouldlie.

          And, are you claiming that it’s impossible to measure the intelligence of anyone except English speaking whites? That’s pure nonsense: read the thesis.

          And there was no “race” in his thesis, just the continent or country of origin for the immigrants.

  3. My question, if maintaining a national IQ is a worthy goal for Uncle Sam, why stop with immigrants?

    Couldn’t you say the same thing about virtually any restriction? If maintaining a prohibition against known criminals immigrating is a worthy goal, why stop with immigrants?

    Come on. Can someone give Dalmia some adult supervision when she writes about immigration?

    1. I believe we do prosecute criminals even among nonimmigrants.

      1. that explains the sanctuary cities

        1. There are cities where non-immigrant criminals can find sanctuary from prosecution?

          1. Washington DC?

            1. Small parts of it, anyway. For the select.

      2. But Tony we don’t take away people’s citizenship for being criminals. So by Shaika’s logic, how could we prevent known criminals from immigrating?

        1. I’m sorry, are we still pretending this conversation is about something other than old white men being afraid of dark-skinned people moving in next door?

          1. No Tony, we were still pretending you were an intelligent person capable of having a rational conversation. It is a mistake I sometimes make despite everyone on here warning me against it.

            1. Well the libertarian position on this issue is something other than eugenics-based restrictions on movement, I suspect.

            2. It’s not so much that Tony lacks intelligence. The simple fact is that he’s dishonest, and you can’t have an honest conversation with a dishonest person.

    2. She’s not promoting deporting stupid natives, I don’t think. But the idea of sterilization of low intelligence citizens is not a new one. I think that’s more what she was getting at.

    3. Exactly, John. If immigration is to help the country, it makes sense to make some effort to prefer high-quality immigrants.

      1. If immigration is to help the country

        That’s crazy!

        1. Yeah utilitarianism!

          1. We’re individualists Cali, we’re not concerned with deciding policy based on how much a person can offer to society, that’s each person’s choice…. Except for immigration, where National Worth is mandatory.

            1. I’ve never claimed to be a libertarian.

  4. Averages are a funny thing in bell curves. If you look at men vs. women as they perform within the white cohort, you’ll find the men very slightly flatter (more geniuses, more idiots). Arguing about aggregate IQ avereages within populations doesn’t tell me enough. Are most of the Hispanics who come in between, say 90 and 105? 85 and 112? In that case, who gives a fuck as all you are saying is that slightly more people from the low side of the 1st distribution come than the 2nd, but really they can all do 95% of the jobs available today competently.

  5. So white people score the highest on a test designed by white people? Fascinating!

    1. Actually, I think Asians score the highest.

      1. East Asians and Jews tend to score highest, which sort of puts the kibosh on the idea that IQ tests are some sort of Aryan plot.

        1. East Asians and Jews tend to score highest, which sort of puts the kibosh on the idea that IQ tests are some sort of Aryan plot.

          I like to point out something similar when people argue that selective schools are a tool of white racism.

        2. No one here has claimed IQ tests are an “Aryan plot”, that’s a straw argument. What HAS been argued is that this study advises immigration policy be based on IQ (100% accurate) and that this is a poor idea.

          1. livertarian just claimed exactly that.

            1. That is specifically NOT what he said. That a test made by a certain group is scored well by the same people who made it is not even close to declaring something ANY kind of plot, let alone an “Aryan” plot.

              1. That a test made by a certain group is scored well by the same people who made it

                Except this isn’t true, you dumb motherfucker.

                1. Oh, white people as a group score poorly on IQ tests? And even if that wasn’t true, it STILL wouldn’t support your assertion that he’s claiming IQ tests are an “Aryan plot”. You dumb lying motherfucker.

                  1. “So white people score the highest on a test designed by white people?”

                    Obviously not an insulation of an Aryan plot. SN

                    1. *insinuation

                    2. Yes, obviously not. You’re being sarcastic of course, but it says nothing about the reason or reasons why the test would favor the group that designed it. There need be no presumption of a plot, let alone an “Aryan” plot, for that to be true.

                    3. In case you don’t know, which is likely, the Communist division of Marxist* psychologists doesn’t believe there’s a racial or cultural bias to IQ tests.

                      *There may or may not be an actual Communist division of Marxist psychologists.

      2. You’re not going to pit mere factual correctness against political correctness, are you?

  6. Why not test Americans too and put in place measures to raise their IQ as well?

    But what will happen to our police departments?!? All their applicant pools will dry up!

    1. Epi, do you know why the number 200 is so vitally descriptive of dunphy? It’s his IQ and the amount of weight he can bench and the number of badge bunnies he nailed.

      1. It’s also the number of times he’s told us all about that. Without being prompted.

        1. It’s also the number of times he can masturbate in a day before nothing but a puff of dust comes out.

          1. Just because you’re jealous is no reason to be bitchy, NutraSweet.

            1. My personal record is 11. After that it was like the dusty sigh of a mummy’s tomb opening.

              1. “like the dusty sigh of a mummy’s tomb opening”

                Hmmmm. Stolen, I think.

          2. When dunphy goes big wave surfing in the open ocean, he won’t drop in on any wave under 200 feet tall.

          3. Hmm, eight times an hour, give or take an extended and painful piss break every few, for twenty four hours, sir, I take that challenge!

      2. Not bench, curl. One handed.

        1. Yeah, a 200# bench isn’t that impressive. When I was a teenage astronaut I could easily do 200.

      3. I thought it was the number of lives he saved – or was it medals he has been awarded?

    2. But what will happen to our police departments?!? All their applicant pools will dry up!

      Sounds like a feature to me.

  7. The consequences are a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market.

    Because stuff like that don’t happen round smert folks.

  8. “Why not test Americans too and put in place measures to raise their IQ as well?”

    Because Americans belong here. The dregs of Asia, Africa, and Central America do not.

    Air India is ready when you are, Dalmia. Go back to your homeland and leave my nation alone.

    1. Shut the fuck up, you racist scumfuck. Please go die in a fire. Like, right now.

    2. Ugh, really?

    3. Black flaggin’ Molly flogger, go back to Gawker where your kind belong.

  9. I’m trying to figure out what Shikha wants me to be outraged about today. That it might be preferable to attract higher skilled, higher IQ immigrants is eugenics? Um, someone not get enough sleep last night or something?

    1. The part where their children make the next generation of Americans dumber (and this is a terrible thing!) is pretty risable.

      1. The part where their children make the next generation of Americans dumber

        If the children of immigrants are compelled to attend US public schools then there’s no stopping this from happening.

      2. …which wasn’t part of the Heritage study that Dalmia is trying to attack. SD is engaging in pure guilt by association.

      3. and this is a terrible thing!)

        Well, it’s not a good thing

  10. I worked with a customer in Singapore who told me once that he could never move to America because he would hate having to do his own laundry and housecleaning. Sounds like we have a lack of unskilled labor to me, because frankly I am also tired of doing my laundry and housecleaning.

    He also had some sage advice about hiring help… never hire Filipino women, they were too clever and would take advantage of you. Indonesian women are best. 😛

    He was Indian…

    1. Check out the race and class divisions in Singapore, where there is affirmative action on living in apartment buildings to make sure each class identity gets it’s fair share of apartments.

      It’s not all peaches living in countries with lower castes reduced to menial labor and service to the upper classes – jobs many people will not even take – because most of them are reasonably excluded from doing anything else.

      But hey, you get your lawn mowed for you, and if your community is gated you probably don’t have to worry about semi-justifiable riots.

      Frankly when it comes to immigration, I want to import the kind of people who can’t do their own goddamn laundry even less than the ones unqualified to do anything else.

      1. The maids in Singapore are young women who come over, spend a few years making money and then go home to go to university. There were some stories of abuse but it’s some nefarious exploitation system. Plenty more people here would hire maids like that if it was as affordable as it is in Singapore.

        1. it’s not some nefarious exploitation system.

        2. It probably helps to be surrounded by desperately poor and much more populous countries. Well, as long as they don’t invade.

        3. Singapore is also, IMO, more likely capable of handling it. I would judge our capabilities of handling it less. We are mad with political correctness and identity politics.

          Singapore is more laissez-faire about a lot of stuff. When you see a USA where a huge number of white people have non-white people doing their laundry it will start a riot, if not among the non-whites, than among the lefty whites.

          We couldn’t use filipino labor for maids so they could scrounge up the cash for filipino college. There will be cries of raysisism, and the only solution will be to have the federal government loan the filipino maids the vastly inflated and largely unjustifiable sums needed to attent US college.

          And when the maids (regardless of ethnicity) find out that instead of working as a maid for 8 years and paying for college, they can just scream RAYSIS and go to college for free, that’s what most of them will do.

      2. “Frankly when it comes to immigration, I want to import the kind of people who can’t won’t do their own goddamn laundry even less than the ones unqualified to do anything else.”

        FIFY

    2. Our maids in Singapore were always Filipino. They were great cooks as well. Won’t pretend it wasn’t a treat but now that I’m an adult it would seem weird to have someone else living in the house like that.

      1. My mother’s (navy wife, late 1940s) maids in Hawaii were mostly Filipino too. I doubt many of them were college bound though.

  11. The vast majority of illegal aliens in the US are low-skilled not high-skilled.
    While there are definitely really stupid visa restrictions on high-skilled immigrants as well as low-skilled ones, it is much MUCH easier to immigrate to the US if you are high skilled. As in technically possible versus impossible.

    About 90% of the problem is the fact that it’s ALREADY impossible for low skilled workers to immigrate. Given that there is no realistic legal way for anyone with less than a college degree or a close US relative to get a legal visa, these people default to the illegal path. Immigrating legally simply isn’t an option. Tightening restrictions against low-skilled immigrants and loosening them for high-skilled ones would thus do next to nothing to resolve the situation.

    1. it is much MUCH easier to immigrate to the US if you are high skilled. As in technically possible versus impossible.

      That is backwards.There are very few highs killed illegal immigrants vs 10 million low skilled. It is easy to get a low skill job with no, or obviously fraudulent paperwork. Almost impossible for high skill labor.

  12. We wouldn’t even be having this discussion about the skill level of immigrants if we didn’t make so many barriers to our low or no skilled citizens finding work. I also believe the “jobs Americans won’t do” culture is partially based on the welfare establishment. Get rid of welfare, minimum wage laws, mandatory public school, etc. and we will have less of a problem filling low-skilled positions. We would also have more positive and productive incentives in place for those who move here.

  13. The Heritage guy sounds like an asshat, but Dalmia conflating skill level with IQ is moronic. There are plenty of high-IQ gender studies majors and low-IQ auto mechanics.

    1. And particularly, there is no shortage of low-IQ math professors. Right, Tulpy-Poo?

      1. Now that’s just mean. His gross personality orders have little to do with his IQ.

    2. There are plenty of high-IQ gender studies majors…

      Citation needed.

      1. I’ve met a lot of very intelligent GSMs and community organizer types. They just start from seriously fucked up premises and have ideological blind spots all over the place.

        1. “One is plenty” would have been a better answer.

          1. Apparently my IQ isn’t high enough to understand why….

      2. There are plenty of smart people who believe all kinds of silly things. It does take some intelligence to come up with the tangled web of bullshit that gender studies people study and write books about. That degree of delusion doesn’t just create itself.

  14. what cracks me up about immigration is that if it was high skilled doctors and lawyers coming over are border illegally there would be no debate about increased border security, the democrats and republicans would be united in building the largest mine field and wall ever conceived complete with machine guns every 20 ft separating the US and Mexico.

  15. I’m not for deportation or eugenics, but could we have votes weighted by IQ? Like, 115 gets you an extra vote, and 130 gets you two? We can let people

    1. Whoa. Should have know that < and &gt; would get me in trouble. That was “greater than 115…”, “greater than 130…”, and “We can let people less than 90 vote, but just let them know the result will be multiplied by zero. I don’t think they’ll see a problem with that.”

    2. Sure, but if you’re too dumb to work the reason comments, your vote counts negative.

    3. I think that’s what the elections supervisor in Palm Beach was trying in 2000 with the butterfly ballot.

      All she ended up proving was that a lot of people who wanted to vote for Al Gore were stupid. Kind of ironic, considering that she was a Democrat.

  16. I don’t want restrictions on the movement of people for any reason. But statements like this annoy me:

    But what impresses me is that Harvard lets people write dissertations like these. Score one for free speech.

    So, she’s implying that these studies are so distasteful, or so lacking in scientific utility, that the only reason Harvard would “let” people do them is due to a fealty to free speech.

    She’s missing the point that the “truth” matters. If something is “true”, to the best of our ability to describe it, then we must look at it, no matter how distasteful. We must be able to accept and discuss things that are true. Right now, these statistical assertions about IQ differences are true, as far as I know. Also, predictions/associations of life quality for people grouped by IQ are pretty good.

    There are lots of reasons why this could be true. It is “ok” to look at it. It’s completely different than some mad statist trying to implement eugenics.

    1. So, she’s implying that these studies are so distasteful, or so lacking in scientific utility, that the only reason Harvard would “let” people do them is due to a fealty to free speech.

      No, she’s implying that one might expect a university to muzzle such studies and their authors out of political correctness (wasn’t there someone that got in trouble in regards to sex differences several years back?) and is pleased they haven’t tried to do that.

      1. Considering the context — Dalmia trying to score guilt by association points against the Heritage study — I seriously have to doubt that interpretation.

    2. Well said.

  17. As an outsider having lived in Czechia forever I think there are clear differences between Czechs and their German neighbors. Czechs are better looking and better athletes (not unrelated variables) on average, Germans are more intelligent, on average. Both score high in future time orientation and are hard-working. I think a significant portion of this difference is due to genetic differences, not merely cultural differences.

    I don’t think there are any genetic differences in average intelligence, physical beauty, future time orientation or athletic ability between ‘races’. Not only would that would be totally racist of me, it so obviously runs counter to reality that it’s not even worth intellectually considering.

    1. So you think there are differences between ethnicities within a race but not between races? I don’t see how that’s plausible.

      I don’t have a dog in this fight, as I believe people should be judged as individuals, not ethnic-units.

      1. Not only would that would be totally racist of me, it so obviously runs counter to reality that it’s not even worth intellectually considering.

        Check your sarcasm detector.

        1. I like to remember a time when Tulpa had the occasional valid and interesting argument to make and assume the account has been hacked.

          It’s the romantic in me.

        2. Usually sarcasm isn’t paired with the exact opposite pov in the same post, but OK.

          1. I think the point was to compare acceptable plausible arguments with unacceptable more-plausible arguments.

  18. Finally, an issue on which progs and cons can unite. Cons hate low-skilled immigration because they fear its alleged welfare costs and now its effect on average IQ, apparently. Progs hate it because Mexicans are so hard-working and efficient that farmers would rather hire them than American-born citizens and that’s just racist!

    1. Progs hate that indeed, but I wouldn’t worry much.

      There’s a reason Americans no longer do those jobs, and it’s got at least something to do with prog hatred for such jobs.

      Unless you are racist and think the Mexicans are somehow immune to class demagoguery, it won’t take but a generation or two to make them too good for it too.

      Then what are you going to do, import more immigrants? Ponzi schemes work so well in finance, I see no reason why we shouldn’t try one with population demographics. What could go wrong?

  19. EUGENIXXXXXX NOOOO

    Cry some moar.

  20. How dare Shikha suggest that IQ, which is often used as a proxy for race by racists and eugenicists, is being used here as a proxy for race! How kooky can one woman be!

    /kneejerknativist

    1. It’s also a proxy for productivity and criminality. If you weren’t some proggy cast off looking to call everyone racist, you would understand that.

      1. It’s also a proxy for productivity and criminality.

        Correlation /=/ causation. Saying there’s a correlation is a far cry from asserting that race is a meaningful indicator of a person’s worth or saying that we should base our immigration on race.

        If you weren’t some proggy cast off looking to call everyone racist, you would understand that.

        “Everyone”? Try “one person” Specifically, the guy who repeatedly implies that race is an indicator of intelligence and worth. Well, it WAS one person. Now that you’ve transformed into an apologist for racist policies while declaring that anyone who thinks race-based policies are racist is a “proggy castoff”, I somehow doubt you on the subject as well. But I’m sure a few ad hominem attacks and insults will show me!

        1. Get a hold of yourself.

        2. Just to be clear, you’re calling the immigration policies of Australia and Canada racist.

          1. Their immigration policies are based on race? That’s a new one. Your graphic doesn’t support your assertion, by the way.

            1. Listen up, retard. Nobody, repeat *nobody* has suggested a race-based immigration policy. Richwine’s recommendation is skill-based immigration, like Canada and Australia. This shit isn’t the least beat difficult to understand.

              1. I’m sure if you call your opponents retards often enough, they’ll see your infinite wisdom.

                You’re correct that he doesn’t propose a strict race-based test. I was mistaken in that regard.

                However, IQ /=/ skill. He calls it that, but his proposals aren’t meant to measure particular job skills or skillsets.

                1. He calls it that, but his proposals aren’t meant to measure particular job skills or skillsets.

                  Do you have a cite for this, or are you just making shit up again?

                  1. Uh, from the WaPo article we’re talking about.

                    He does caution against referring to it as IQ-based selection, saying that using the term “skill-based” would “blunt the negative reaction.”

                    1. 1)Shikha has mentioned several times that she thinks it’s weird that Canada considers welders ‘high-skilled.’ So your argument must be with her as much as him.

                      2)There’s nothing else in the article that supports the notion that he prefers IQ tests over skills-demand.(I’d bet it likely that he does, but that one sentence from a WaPo guy doesn’t make that irrefutable.)

                      3)There’s an update from a guy named Mike Gonzalez. I’ve got two Mike Gonzalez’s in my phone and I used to know another one. Weird.

                    2. 1)Shikha has mentioned several times that she thinks it’s weird that Canada considers welders ‘high-skilled.’ So your argument must be with her as much as him.

                      This has nothing to do with whether IQ is the same as skill or not.

                      2)There’s nothing else in the article that supports the notion that he prefers IQ tests over skills-demand.(I’d bet it likely that he does, but that one sentence from a WaPo guy doesn’t make that irrefutable.)

                      The entire article (and the study abstract) talk about using IQ, it specifically mentions using the term “skill-based” instead of “IQ-based”. Yet “skill” is not the same thing as “IQ”.

                    3. This has nothing to do with whether IQ is the same as skill or not.

                      It has to do with whether you and Shikha are intellectually honest.(conclusion: no)

                      The entire article (and the study abstract) talk about using IQ, it specifically mentions using the term “skill-based” instead of “IQ-based”. Yet “skill” is not the same thing as “IQ”.

                      Just to be clear, the WaPo is the final authority. There’s no reason to actually read anything (with the occasional exception of an abstract!) on account of the (new) Paper of Record having had their say. And their say is: racist!

                    4. It has to do with whether you and Shikha are intellectually honest.(conclusion: no)

                      Bullshit. Issues that have nothing to do with what I’m talking about don’t prove anything about me.

                      Just to be clear, the WaPo is the final authority. There’s no reason to actually read anything (with the occasional exception of an abstract!) on account of the (new) Paper of Record having had their say.

                      So basically you’re claiming they’re lying about the content of the paper. You don’t have any evidence they are, neither you nor I have casual access to the paper, so stop pretending otherwise. Put up or shut up.

                      And their say is: racist!

                      Mine too, you racist little scumbag. When a man uses IQ as a proxy of race, repeatedly implies that IQ differences are caused by race, I call that person racist. When a person DEFENDS that sort of racist shit as being oh-so-sensible and not racist at all, I call that person racist too. You piece of shit.

  21. Here’s my thought experiment for Ms. Dalmia and all other open borders types. One day 50 million people walk across the southern US border. Every one of them speaks no English, has an IQ of 80, a contagious disease, and a criminal record. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? If you say it’s a good thing, I think you’re crazy. If you say it’s a bad thing, then (to adapt a punchline from an old joke about prostitutes) you are a “immigration restrictionist” and we are just haggling over the limits.

    1. David Henderson at Econlog has critiqued Bryan Caplan for not addressing this argument.

  22. I love how the virtues of the free market – competition, free trade, economic growth improving the lives of the poor (economic growth-promoting immigration is a “ponzi scheme”) – suddenly become grave sins when immigration comes into play, while the much reviled “egalitarian outcome” and “rich-poor gap” (we’ll have a “permanent underclass”) are transformed into hallowed ideas.

    1. I love how conventional wisdom prevents almost everyone from noticing that technological development, GNP per capita, etc. is as dependent on the percentage of smart people as it is on government policy.

      1. I like how immigration magically causes economic laws about supply and demand to only apply to labor above a certain monetary threshold (which is not the same thing as intelligence).

        1. Well, it’s one thing to import a bunch of engineers and have downward pressure on their wages, and another to import a bunch of unskilled laborers and have downward pressure on the wages of the poorest.

          1. Yeah, it’s not as if in economic hard times for less-skilled laborers, immigration will go down or anything. Except that’s EXACTLY WHAT’S HAPPENED since the recession. The labor market: apparently the only market that needs micromanaging.

            1. Therefore exactly the same thing would happen in an open borders situation … why exactly?

        2. wut!?

  23. “(But what impresses me is that Harvard lets people write dissertations like these. Score one for free speech.)”

    Why am I not surprised that you’d support a dishonest, manipulative lack of information about immigrants and immigration? And proudly display the oh-so typical Kumbaya ignorance about IQ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.