Posted on 05/08/2013 12:06:21 PM PDT by reaganaut1
The Heritage Foundation made something of a splash with its study suggesting that immigration reform will cost the public trillions. Past work by one of its co-authors helps put that piece in context.
Jason Richwine is relatively new to the think tank world. He received his PhD in public policy from Harvard in 2009, and joined Heritage after a brief stay at the American Enterprise Institute. Richwines doctoral dissertation is titled IQ and Immigration Policy; the contents are well summarized in the dissertation abstract:
"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."
Richwines dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races. While its 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.
Toward the end of the thesis, Richwine writes that though he believes racial differences in IQ to be real and persistent
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Exactly. The socially acceptable way to get around this is to only invite in ‘high skill’ (wink, wink) workers. That’s what more sensible countries like Canada and Australia are already doing.
I think your definition of ‘burden on society’ must be more narrow than is the modern legal AND illegal immigration experience in the US. A majority of both groups lean on government entitlements.
What rational country would allow in even legal immigrants who did not have job skills and economic potential?
H-1B visa immigration is the opposite of this. Work visas for smart people. Hopefully they find domestic spouses and stick around making America smarter.
The Washington Post is just pandering to its low IQ subscribers.
H-1B visa lowers the wages of out best and brightest. Basically ALL immigration, both legal and illegal, must stop for at least 50 years IMO.
hahahahahah
High IQ is mainly important for employment. Entertainment and companionship value are also desirable. If someone is good looking, athletic, funny, can sing, or smile and read a TelePrompTer with a fake Chicago jive cadence, their IQ doesn’t matter. There are 73 million Canine-Americans in this country with the IQ of a 2 year old and they are greatly loved. The world would be a better place if more Americans had the brains of man’s best friend. It’s those medium IQs that are the problem.
The evidence may be there but from experience, the intelligence of many people and what we call common sense (not the liberal definition) are mostly distant cousins. Its almost as if the equation is as follows:
IQ plus common sense = 1
Jason “Richwines doctoral dissertation is titled IQ and Immigration Policy; the contents are well summarized in the dissertation abstract: “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. Richwines dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races. While its 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.
Bingo.
Richwine is unquestionably correct. We are largely importing masses of low IQ people who cannot support themselves if they can no longer pick tomatos or mow lawns (or just decide they don’t want to anymore), and then will either commit crime or go on welfare or both.
Instead of millions more like that, how about a small number of brilliant scientists, inventors, etc.?
But, the Dhimms might not get the votes of the latter, while they are assured of getting the votes of the former.
Rubio, you are either an idiot or a sell-out.
Yeah we let that low IQ Cuban, Rubio in and look what happened, he became a traitor!
It is an article of faith among the Left that there is no statistically significant difference in intelligence or other mental quality between the races, and that intelligence has NO relation to genetics.
To argue otherwise is, BY DEFINITION, racist. And therefore false.
You got it.
The weirdest part about their obsession in this regard is its implications.
We must not recognize that people with very dark skin have, on average, lower intelligence, because then we as a society will treat all people with dark skin as second class citizens. The only solution to this is to deny the remarkably obvious fact that, on average, they do.
The implication is that people of lower intelligence SHOULD be treated as second-class citizens, regardless of skin color.
I would personally prefer to develop an ideology by which a person’s intelligence has nothing at all to do with his human rights. Intelligence is wonderful, but vastly over-rated. As anyone who has ever attended a Mensa meeting can attest, the upper 2% of IQ includes a remarkably high percentage of dweebs, losers and whiners.
Lower IQ people tend to produce less and end up in Congress.
No rational country would. We will.
Wouldn’t that be IQ-profiling?!? ;’)
This is a ^^^^^^^^ idea, imho — just build the border barrier, and keep sending ammo to the druglords south of it, while doing a massive roundup of illegals north of it.
Muzzies? Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a hate group, the Koran etc is hate speech, and both can be banned under existing Demwit law. And it must be.
The left objects when anyone tells the truth. Sometimes the truth is not what a person wants to hear, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
It’s pretty hard to fix a problem if you’re not willing to admit what the problem is. But the left would rather stick their fingers in their ears and continue the charade that there is no problem rather than acknowledge the truth and deal with it.
John 8:32 “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Mark Levin talks about corporatism vs. conservatism, this is an example of a distinction between the two. Corporatism is about the narrow interests of a few while conservatism is what is good for everyone. Cross the Club for Growth and the Americans for Tax Reform off your good guys list; don’t give them any money. I believe that Americans for Tax Reform is the Grover Norquist group—evil in a business suit.
It is funny how the interests of cheap labor corporatists and anti-business leftists overlap on the issue of immigration and cheap labor. They both need poverty and cheap labor; the cheap labor corporatists need a large number of poor people to keep their wages down and the Democrat leftists also need the cheap labor to provide them with voters. These two sides may be opposites but they both profit from other people’s misery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.