Question: Is your purpose and premise for your argument and posting all of your studies with their data to convince all who read it that immigration to the United States should be limited to individuals with high IQ's? And this can be accomplished most easily by discriminating against ethnic profiles that have not historically demonstrated a large percentage of members with high IQ's? Apparently Muslims qualify for discrimination because their "religiosity" qualifies as a sort of "reverse" IQ test.
Mike, I was under the impression from an earlier post that you had judged my motivations to be bad based on your interpretation of a couple comments I made and weren't going to communicate with me. But you demonstrate a lack of comprehension of what I've stated explicitly are my positions.
The government of a country whose inhabitants wish to be free from terrorism, Sharia zones, and religiously motivated aggression against and subjugation of women should indeed discriminate against Muslims in its immigration policy -- because political Islam is a national security threat, not because of IQ per se. You can reject everything I've said about racial IQ heritability and still believe, as Peikoff does and Ayn Rand almost surely would, that Western countries ought to defend their borders from the threat of Islamification.
Religiosity per se is not a threat. A benevolent religion might have taken hold in the Arab world, but it didn't. So we have to deal with the reality that political Islam is a maleveolent, conquest-oriented cultural creation that is spreading demographically.
As for the problem of non-Muslim, low-IQ immigration, you could get people who are more likely to be productive and less likely to engage in crime by requring some test of basic mental ability and civic knowledge and demonstrated job skills or educational commitments. You could still have a temporary guest worker program for people who can't meet the threshold for permanent residency or citizenship.
Race is important insofar as you want the children of immigrants to also have high IQs. Blacks with high IQs have children who tend to revert toward the black mean because children inherit a parent's genotype, not the parent's particular genome.
And as I've said, IQ isn't the sole reason for using race as a criterion for immigration. I've suggested that Japan could rationally seek to limit the number of Swedish immigrants it takes in just as the Swedish could rationally seek to limit the number of Japanese they take in, even though both populations are high-IQ and culturally benevolent. There are still cultural and aesthetic differences that both populations could want to mutually seek to prevent from being mixed out of existence. US immigration policy under which Ayn Rand became American was designed to preserve the existing racial balance and virtually barred all Asian immigration for aesthetic reasons.
I don't prescribe such a policy for all countries, but I hold that immigration criteria, even if based on entirely arbitrary distinctions such as astrological sign, don't constitute rights violations under a proper, negative conception of rights. I demonstrated this to William by showing that any private land area that restricts movements into it could be an inspient nation that does the same exact thing in the same exact area, meaning nobody's freedom status outside it changes. Ted Turner owns more land than the land area of many soverign nations. Turner's land or the same geographical area that becomes "Turnerlandia" the nation do not violate rights by refusing entry for any reason to anyone living outside the area.
Genetic Similarity Theory suggests that race isn't arbitrary. Genetic Similarity Theory is supported by implicit association tests tell us that aesthetic preferences for people of one's race are largely innate and can be observed in infants as young as 6 months. A biologically objective attraction toward racial phenotypes resembling one's own is "is hardwired into the brain and operates unconsciously because areas that detect ethnicity and control emotion are closely connected, according to scientists" (http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120626/10458/racism-decision-cognition-emotional--ethnicity-human-brain-psychology.htm).
This dovetails with research by Putnam showing that racial diversity is corrosive to communities and reduces basic measures of happiness such as level of trust in others:
diversity generates withdrawal and isolation. The thousands of people surveyed were not intolerant, bigoted or even hostile; they were merely miserable. This is mass depression, the kind associated with loss, quiet resignation, and hopelessness...
Like many social scientists living in symbiosis with statists, Putnam doesn't confine himself to observations; he offers recommendations. Having aligned himself with central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the gloomy facts with a stern pep talk. Take the lumps of diversity without complaining! Mass immigration and the attendant diversity are, overall, good for the collective. (Didn't he just spend five years demonstrating the opposite?)
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/putnam-59065-diversity-social.html
|
