Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
It appears that the Pioneer Fund and its support for the "study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics in
the human race" and "into the problems of race betterment with special
reference to the people of the United States," still has influence in the 21st Century. For a lengthy backgrounder on this subject, see History of the race and intelligence controversy – Wikipedia.
The Heritage Foundation released its long awaited report this week for the stated purpose of defeating the "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill (and thus it is a political document). The report was written in part by Jason Richwine. Dylan Matthews at Ezra Klein's Wonkblog introduces us to Mr. Richwine, Heritage study co-author opposed letting in immigrants with low IQs:
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. Richwine’s
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.
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.”
Toward the end of the thesis, Richwine writes that though he believes
racial differences in IQ to be real and persistent, one need not agree
with that to accept his case for basing immigration on IQ. Rather than
excluding what he judges to be low-IQ races, we can just test each
individual’s IQ and exclude those with low scores. “I believe there is a
strong case for IQ selection,” he writes, “since it is theoretically a
win-win for the U.S. and potential immigrants.” He does caution against
referring to it as IQ-based selection, saying that using the term
“skill-based” would “blunt the negative reaction.”
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.
Richwine also invoked
skill considerations in arguing against the “diversity visa” program.
“A better mix of selection factors would give more emphasis to
skill-based immigration, but the diversity lottery involves no selection
at all. It does not make the workforce more skilled, reunite families,
or further any humanitarian goals,” he writes. On this point, he’s in
tune with the rest of Heritage, which has consistently supported expanding high-skilled immigration and limiting low-skilled immigration.
Aaaand the push back from the Heritage Foundation:
Mike Gonzalez, VP for Communications at Heritage, emails: “This 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.
Did Heritage not know when they hired this guy that he subscribes to the controversial "science" of hereditarianism and eugenics? I find this hard to believe. He was specifically hired to write an anti-immigrant nativist political manifesto opposing immigration reform.