Garett Jones on open borders

I am very pleased that the new Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith open borders graphic novel has hit #1 on The Washington Post non-fiction bestseller list.  I am also pleased to see Garett Jones examine the idea in a new short paper, here is part of his critique:

I use the same constant returns to scale framework as Caplan, in which the migration of every human being to the United States would increase global output per capita by about 80%. I then estimate that in the benchmark model, where IQ’s social return is much larger than its private return, the per-capita income of current U.S.residents would permanently fall by about 40%. This is not an arithmetic fallacy: this is the average causal effect of Open Borders on the incomes of ex-ante Americans. This income decline occurs because cognitive skills matter mostly through externalities: because your nation’s IQ matters so much more than your own, as I claim in 2015’s Hive Mind. Therefore, a decline in a nation’s set of average cognitive skills will tend to reduce the productivity of the nation’s ex-ante citizens.

I will be sure to link to Bryan’s reply when it comes.

Comments

Most of the comments will be about Trump. Then Ray Lopez will complain that no one said anything about patents.

Has Jones estimated the effects of increasing US IQ via immigration? With the exception of unaffordable housing prices and rents, that policy seems to be working pretty well in Canada and Australia.

It would be an interesting question to see how much regression toward the mean among immigrants there is in Canada due to clannishness leading to higher IQ first wave immigrants working the system to get their lower IQ relatives in.

In general, immigration would seem like an interesting topic for Moneyball-type analyses. Here's a basic question that is almost never asked: how should America pick the best immigrants?

But, of course, baseball stats are a Safe Space for smart white guys, while immigration is very much not.

Yes it will.

As Steve said, regression to mean really needs to be factored into the "High IQ first-gen immigrant" benefit calculation and discounted to net present value. This is depressing, but there's strong evidence for the second gen doing not nearly so well.

Of course, with open immigration, the average immigrant IQ will plummet. At the moment barriers to entry (accidentally) select for quality; you need to be seriously smart and determined to break into the US workforce legally.

Jones' model appears incredibly static. I see no dynamics for the evolution of national IQ. Given the effect of environment (nutrition, prenatal care, etc.) on IQ, those who immigrate under open borders will have children with higher IQ. After a generation or two, it seems plausible that US national IQ after open borders would be relatively close to US national IQ before open borders. I think a more plausible theory of how IQ affects growth would include the distribution of IQ along with an interaction between that distribution and the size of the population.

In any case, the effect of immigration on IQ is probably not the main reason we shouldn't have open borders.

"After a generation or two, it seems plausible that US national IQ after open borders would be relatively close to US national IQ before open borders."

Is that the case currently for immigrant families?

I am not an expert in this field, just a knowledgeable observer. Here is one post that summarizes a couple of articles looking at multiple countries: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7881. Here is a relevant summary table: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/robie-table-2.png.

There seems to be little difference in the US between native born and 2nd gen. The results from other countries are quite intriguing and studying the variation there is certainly already someone's research agenda. Would this kind of result hold under an open borders immigration policy. Doubtful. Just how different it would be depends (I'm sure) on many factors.

Unz sees things differently: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/berlin-gets-bad-news-from-pisa/

That's just from a quick google search, and I would have liked to see a closer look at the US. So feel free to add anything that seems credible.

Why any immigrants?

No need to the open the border to run your social experiment. Just make housing very expensive where the jobs are and then watch the right side of the bell curve forced out into the streets. Absolutely Darwinian but then watch the national IQ go up and to the left. That's what you wanted right?

Left side of the Bell Curve.

I wrote a 5 part series in 2000 on How To Help the Left Side of the Bell Curve:

https://vdare.com/articles/america-and-the-left-hand-side-of-the-bell-curve-part-v-finally-some-good-ideas-for-helping-the-left-half-of-the-bell-curve

But, of course, caring about the welfare my fellow citizens with two digit IQs is just more proof of how I am evil.

Its evidence of your double secret agenda. After all, VDARE!

'caring about the welfare my fellow citizens with two digit IQs is just more proof of how I am evil'

How about words other than evil? Like this from your wiki article - Neoconservative columnist John Podhoretz wrote in the National Review Online blog that Sailer's statement was "shockingly racist and paternalistic" as well as "disgusting".

Neatly illustrates the mind's marvelous, supple shifting back and forth between the representative and the group: anyone familiar with Podhoretz's bilious twitter feed can attest that if gentlemen still regularly went about with canes, his would likely be well-employed in beating underlings about the head and shoulders.

Precisely - it takes real effort to get someone like Podhoretz, not to mention the National Review, to consider you a racist. Normally, the National Review is a comfortable haven for all sorts of people that would be approved of here as being honest truth tellers when it comes to defining the various characteristics of various races.

Really? I haven't attentively read the National Review since my father-in-law let his subscription lapse, oh, a dozen or fifteen years ago, and then mainly for Florence King and Rob Long - but I don't think it would take much effort at all. In this environment, conservatives are few, after all. One signifier that you are not a conservative would be the disinclination to *ever* discard the rhetoric around "racism," even if it perpetuates discord, because you find the term useful when wielded in the service of seeking power over others; power being the only currency you believe in, is another handy signifier.

Podhoretz and his buddies at the National Review are going to say whatever it takes to stay on the invite list for their liberal friends' cocktail parties, which is why they drop their monocles in their champagne glasses when they're told to. Thank goodness for groypering.

Who has said this since Buckley purged the paleos?

Health Insurance Might not be Good for Everyone low IQ people especially they may be low IQ but they are very clever at getting what they want.

Or, perhaps, there are people of indeterminate IQ that are very clever at convincing low-IQ people to give them more money and power.

The constant returns to scale get the researcher every time.
"because your nation’s IQ matters so much more than your own"
Here the post applies gains (or losses) to scale after the Caplan model.

We obviously do not have constant returns to scale otherwise we would have long ago concentrated in one spot. I never really got Caplan's point except for the hidden effect of evolution. There will be a natural limit to scale you cannot continually pack, humans have a finite bandwidth.

And that's before any externalities like housing supply constraints and social capital begin to bite.

It is hard to deny the efficacy of free migration on utilitarian grounds: There will be winners, and there will be losers, though the winners will gain more than the losers lose.

Hey, sounds like free International Trade! And hey, do the politics as homework. :-)

The losers would lose less without free migration.
Why do winners get to decided? Oh right, because they are the winners. We'd be living in mud huts or homeless shelters if the losers got to decide.

You don’t talk to me like that! I have graduated top of my class in cock sucking!

Actually, I think the Caplanian Party Line is that there are no losers under open borders; it's just that some will win more than others.

That us the return to scale argument, we can all jiggle into a niche somewhere and reap the larger benefit.

That is certainly not Caplan's view, as you would know if you read his book. Caplan is not afraid to say "these people would definitely be losers in a world of free migration." But he follows it up with: "here are reasons we should do it anyway."

I used to be a pretty regular Econlog reader; if I recall, the only people BC was willing to admit would be worse off in his open borders quasi-utopian vision were US born high school dropouts. Have his views evolved?

No it's very very easy to argue: show me a country without borders that is still a country. You can't, so your are done, it doesn't matter what nice drawings you've made on a chalkboard.

I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks full blown open borders are a good idea. Most of the people who support it also want to abolish profits and have a Medicare for all healthcare system that would fully cover all medical needs for non citizens.

Some versions of open borders work. The USA could have open borders with comparable middle class English speaking nations like Australia, Canada or the U.K. We almost did have open borders with Canada before 9/11 and should probably be trying to get back to that point. But given how many hundreds of millions of people would like to come the the USA combined with how restrictive state and local governments are becoming it would be a disaster. We have hospital consolidation, rising housing prices, red tape hamstringing new infastrucure, public schools stretched thin etc.

Wow, it's almost like the West is suffering from an epidemic of people who aren't able to conceptualize scarcity of resources.

Repeating that snark about that graphic "novel" every time it's mentioned is lame, but then your whole shtick is essentially variations on the same boring snark.

World citizens choose their geography by maximizing the proportion of whites in the area. The low hanging fruit, the multi trillion dollar bill on the floor is maximizing white fertility and minimizing every other race's.

I don't think Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine and the like are quite as desirable for world citizens as increasingly non-white Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore.

South Africa, on the other hand, is well ahead of the non-whitening curve, and we can see what that has done for its immigration potential. The immigrants are still sore over all that apartheid business, I guess.

South Africa is a huge magnet for immigrants, and illegal immigration into South Africa is widely perceived, by all South African communities, as a significant issue.

Illegal immigration in South Africa takes the same form of illegal immigration in the US, which is to say it's from citizens of neighboring countries picking the low-hanging fruit. If we are talking about "world citizens" I think you'll find that not many are choosing South Africa over the countries that will be like South Africa in a generation or two.

Nigeria is not a "neighboring country" of SA

By the way, good job painting all the countries that were called untermensch 75 years ago as undesirable, mein Fürher.

I haven't really painted them as anything--I'm simply describing the revealed preferences of high-skilled emigrants. Including ones from those very same countries, interestingly enough.

I think we should not understimate the benefits of international cooperation. China has placed 100 billion dollars for investments under Brazil's control. They are negotiating a free trade treaty that will help two of the biggest economies in the world to leverage their advantages. That is what economics is about.

Garrett Jones is right. Capable people improve one's life, morons make it miserable. One deposits a cheque in the bank, the moron of the cashier misspells the name and anxious hours follow till the mistake is corrected. The GNP falls, one moves to a high IQ place like Shanghai (or Yizhar), the GNP falls a bit more and so on.

I don't think it is a matter of IQ. Thanks to the correct leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Mao Zedong Thought, Shanghai and other cities have prospered. Under the Manxhurian invaders and the Nationalist fascists, the Dhinese were every bit as smart as they are nowm but they were slaves.

Smart = Necessary-but-insufficient-condition for high growth. Needs exigent factors too.

Problem solved.

Needs exigent factors too. How many epicycles more do you want to add?

Lots of "low-IQ countries" have high rates of growth, don't they?

Those kids in Hong Kong disagree with the great Godot of Beijing.

When I saw "Manxhurian invaders", I assumed he was making a joke rather than a mere typo. "Dhimese" would have been better, though.

Is the concern that open borders would allow so many low IQ immigrants into the country that they might elect an unqualified carnival barker as president?

Assume that "low IQ" is a euphemism for Democrat (gullible, ignorant) voter and it all makes sense.

No the concern is that a country with Open Borders will cease to be a polity at all and will become nothing but the plaything of other powers.

They aren't sending their best, after all.

For many (traitors among us) making America a plaything of other powers is an positive, not a "concern.'

Evidently a low IQ, however defined, is a hindrance not only to the afflicted individual but to everyone around him. But this situation isn't limited to intelligence. Other deviations from the optimum human also drag down the overall societal capacity. Blind people require a different and more expensive upbringing than those with normal sight. Those with genetic diseases, diabetes for example, are a millstone around the neck of increasing GDP. Short people need infrastructure adjustments that others don't. One gender is often subject to mental issues on a periodic basis, shouldn't it be eased out of the picture? Worrying about only "average" intelligence is a big enough concern.

Would Bryan Caplan

Please do

A Graphic Novel

On

Income and Wealth Inequality?

Good post just the other day: https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2019/11/the-truth-about-income-inequality.html

You will notice that he and the WSJ are talking about the top quintile, and not the top .1 or top 1%. If Bill Gates is in the room, the average income of the 10 people in the room is quite high. Wealth tax and Saez are at the high end of the wealth and income distribution, not the quintiles. By the way, do you know what a quintile is...it's top 20%. Misleading WSJ article.

The top 1% in household income will be heavily distorted by including investment income.

That’s really not apples to apples. But looking at the data like this at all is incredibly misleading.

The median household income for a married dual earner couple is well over $100,000.

What you’re capturing here is the dramatic rise in single mother households. Out of wedlock births went from 7% to over 40%.

Comparing dual earning households to single mother households is .... not justifiable.

When you compare married couples’ incomes you go from about $40,000 to over $90,000.

And that’s before you even touch the transfer payments.

By the way, the trick to avoiding all this bs is to look at consumption data. That levels the data and avoids the nonsense. Smart inequality obsessed economists look strictly at consumption data.

But Bill is a pseudo-haiku touting lawyer, and has no need for data.

OK Boomer? Or should we say OK counselor?

Income is income, including investment income. To say it is not an apple but a peach, is delusion. The rest of your comments is a string of irrelevant non-sequiturs designed to overlook the data. Relative consumption data, which is a strange argument to make, is really funny also: if you are poor, you consume more, relative to a higher income, because you have less room to save.

Skeptic, you string words together but make no sense. Please do some reading on this subject. I don't expect you will but will just look at an irrelevancy such as out of wedlock births. Weird, Weird, Weird.

So, serious question. If the top quartile and bottom quartile are not very unequal, does that mean that the problem is inequality within the top quartile? In other words, income should be redistributed from the top 1% or top .1% to the 19% after that? That wouldn't change inequality between top/bottom quartiles, which is apparently okay, but it would even out the actual inequality, which is entirely between people within the top quartile.

you might want to look at the gini coefficient as the way to measure the item you raised. And then look at how its changed, and how it has changed relative to other OECD countries.

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/atkinson-piketty-saezJEL10.pdf

It would be a very short book boiled down to one ugly human trait: envy.

I don't totally disagree with Jones, but he has persistent bias. Very much a "Political systems and shared national identities don't matter, if you've got high national IQ" guy. He does epitomize the sort antidemocratic, IQ as national destiny, pro-"meritocracy" school, with its thin knowledge of cultural and political evolution. His ideal nation is probably an expert run society with little democratic process which is open to any with a high IQ to enter.

Of course I think this is pretty wrong. Liberal democracy and shared national identity matter!

This leads to some pretty egregious slights of hand in his reasoning. The PRC is only one dot in his regressions on the association of political with %ethnic Chinese with political corruption, despite encompassing over 90% of Chinese.

He also tends to underrate real terms Standard of Living indicators (life expectancy, nutrition, described happiness) which show real convergence, for GDP per capita which does not so much, because it is more convenient for his case.

Let's work out the most efficient use of Garett Jones' personal belongings and distribute them to maximise efficient outcomes.

Good serious answer. Obviously a society needs all types, and organization of that society matters a lot. There are jobs that require high IQ, and there are jobs that require .. to put it kindly, attention span. As long as people are properly slotted, everything goes along swimmingly.

I remember an anecdote, from before good AI and computer vision, that a lumber company needed someone to sit and watch plywood sheets go by, and hit the reject button 1 time out of 100, or whatever. They couldn't find the right person, until they hired a .. long attention span worker. In that moment she improved overall productivity, and was no longer just a "Zero Marginal Product Worker" because "Low-IQ."

Now of course it become a bit different, as AI eats those jobs. But there is still Uber driving, to be semi-harsh about it.

You have a good point, and it also relates to free trade. I am a free trader for two reasons, for its economic efficiency, and the libertarian feeling that no one should tell me who to trade with. The nagging issue I have with it is that, as you mention, we have all types. We can ship all the 'low IQ' jobs abroad even if they'd do them cheaper. We need some of that work for our own people to do.

Agreed. People overrate the supply of brainpower and underrate the demand for it. Cutting off unskilled workers causes a misallocation of labor, which causes less specialization, which causes the market to shrink. That's why a society of 1000 smarties is poorer than a society of 1000 smarties and 100 dummies, even if it’s much smarter. Someone has to sweep the streets and pick up the garbage; why waste our best minds on it? That's not their comparative advantage. These are low skill jobs, and that's what low skill labor is for. That's *their*comparative advantage. Who needs Einstein when basic services aren't met?

Even as certain jobs are automated or outsourced, there are some relatively low-skill ones that are here to stay, at least for the next 30 years. Electricians, carpenters, plumbers, painters, roofers, movers, mechanics, handymen, janitors, guards/bouncers, landscapers, gardeners, garbage men, fishermen, construction workers, truckers (at minimum to help load, unload, and document), window/heating/air-conditioning installation and maintenance, salesmen, strippers, escorts, porn stars, personal trainers, manicurists/pedicurists, babysitters, barbers, dog walkers, caretakers, and positions in the military.

Even at the margin with a lot of unskilled workers already here, low-skill newcomers' marginal productivity would have to be zero or negative to harm the economy. Possible, but not likely. But I'm not sure it matters. As Tyler has noted, open borders are never really open because of land-use regulations, zoning laws, and employment benefits that raise the cost of living and working. The housing and labor markets are not going to be deregulated anytime soon, so if unskilled and low-skilled immigrants can't pay rent or provide value at a minimum wage, they'll be priced out by the market, no border wall needed.

Electricians, carpenters, plumbers, there are some relatively low-skill ones that are here to stay...... Electricians, carpenters, plumbers, ...fishermen, construction workers,window/heating/air-conditioning installation and maintenance

That's why members of the genius class need to hire a plumber when their kitchen faucet drips, an electrician to install a new receptacle for the wall-mount big screen TV and an HVAC pro to get the furnace back in action. A genius pencil-pusher like yourself probably can't even explain how your refrigerator works, much less repair it.

Maybe physicians are at the apex of the "skilled" workers in US society. But their methodology involves speaking with a patient, ordering tests that are analyzed and diagnosed by computer, and prescribing potions on the basis of other computer activity. Obviously, tremendous skill is involved.

Somehow the white collar abstraction specialists, whose duties are mostly keyboard data entry, have convinced themselves, and others more lowly, that they are the "skilled" workers of the world, even though their skills are rated in subjective terms, unlike those of the air-conditioning repairman. If the decisions of the "skilled" worker aren't optimal another phone call must be made or an email sent. The results may not be known for years. If the AC man can't make the house cool in a short period of time he gets fired and a different one attacks the problem. Which, according to savants like yourself, would be an "unskilled" worker, easily found on any street corner or bar stool.

You exhibit a common feature of the pseudo-elites, the would-be elites. A lack of perception of reality. Let us know how your personal rebuild of the transmission of your Lexus goes. And the details of how the installation of your hot tub in the family room comes out.

Economists categorize jobs into high-skill and low-skill, largely based on the education and technical training one needs to do them. It is not a ranking of superiority or a measure of value, and I begrudge no one for an honest day's work. Reality has a surprising amount of detail, modernity especially so, and it is precisely because specialties run so deep that educated elites aren't willing or able to fix their cars or install A/C. This is a good thing; as the commenter I responded to said, a society needs all types of labor to thrive.

In fact, jobs that are physically demanding and require dexterity, like electrical wiring and landscaping, will probably outlast some jobs that are more mentally demanding, like data analysis or stock trading. Why? Complexity! We've been navigating the physical world, climbing, and fighting for millions of years; we've only been thinking abstractly for thousands of years. In that sense, we have a cognitive head start on AI for certain blue collar work.

But I find it ironic that you think I and "pseudo-elites" underrate the value created by blue collar workers yet also think white collar workers are "mostly keyboard data entry". If anyone has "a lack of perception of reality" or a superiority complex, it's you.

Absolutely you and your abstract thinking brethren underrate the value created by "blue collar workers", ie. anyone that uses physical activity as part of their daily work. jobs that are more mentally demanding, can you prove that it takes more mental agility to make a decision on a stock purchase than it does to drill a water well in an unfavorable geological formation? Is it more mentally taxing to construct a syllabus for a course in English Literature, something that's been done thousands of times, or determine if the ends of a 4000 lb. pipe bend are at exactly right angles? Perhaps in bygone days data analysis, a chore usually reserved for the least enterprising in the room, may have required a modicum of intelligence. Today it's information entered and digested in a computer program.

Sadly, the US educational system has convinced even the most adept of the hands-on thinkers that their role in society is inferior to that of that hyper-educated. It's the most damning feature of the lower classes.

I'm not sure if it is "more mentally taxing to construct a syllabus for a course in English Literature, something that's been done thousands of times, or determine if the ends of a 4000 lb. pipe bend are at exactly right angles".

But the "English Literature" person, assuming this is a proxy for "high g/IQ" *probably* (on average), tends to have more of other skills that are a big complement to being able to the technical skill. Being able to rationally organize, business plan, manage business costs, set rules and procedures for the business, etc.

Even if we assumed technical-spatial-manual skills were absolutely uncorrelated with IQ - and they probably aren't, but lets allow that its relatively low for the sake of an example - abstract reasoning ability is a huge complement to making *use* of just about any set of skills in a practical form.

As an aside, I saw an AI bigwig say recently that AI displacement required "worker retraining." That's a bit last-century IMO. AI displacement requires re-slotting, including into other (one hopes) good jobs which don't require "High-IQ" or training.

Prof Jones has reached the Neo-Fisherian analogue local minima of the IQ/ borders discussion. He may come out of it, but then again he may not. We wish him luck.

The assumption that "the migration of every human being to the United States would increase global output per capita by about 80%” is akin to thinking that capturing an asteroid made of gold would make us all wealthier, yes?

Hey, if that gold asteroid impacted the US, think of how much higher the value of our natural resources would be! We're practically losing money by not causing a mass extinction.

On the other hand if we continue letting third-worlders come here in the name of the almighty GDP we're probably going to wish we got hit by an asteroid.

Not sure I'd go that far. To me, it seems more like the equivalent of those numbers you hear some CNBC anchor estimate of the value of an asteroid with a million tons of titanium at $4 billion because the spot price of titanium is currently $4,000/ton.

No, because the new arrivals would be much more productive than they were in their home countries.

You can do the thought experiment the other way around, too. Think about the most productive person you know. Now think about sending that person to, say, Haiti. How productive would s/he be there? Not as much as here, that's for sure.

He should take into account the Flynn Effect. US average IQ was around 80 when US per capita income was around $10,000.

Also, how exactly does having more low IQ people around reduce one’s income? Particularly if those low IQ people live in a completely different part of the US? The only plausible mechanism would be that they reduce the quality of government. But there are many ways of handling that which are less restrictive than restricting immigration (such as only giving full voting rights to high-IQ immigrants).

Moreover, realistically not all 7 billion people would move to the US under an open borders scenario—we’d get a self-selected group of younger and more ambitious people. We know this because they have open borders between countries with relatively disparate incomes in the European Union, yet many people still live in Bulgaria and Poland. The younger and more ambitious people who are more likely to move would also likely have higher IQs and having them vote would likely improve our political system, as our current system is unduly tilted towards the old and complacent.

To add another point to this, the greatest wave of migration in the United States was the internal migration of blacks from the South (where many lived in third-world conditions) to the North in the early 20th century. There were open borders in this scenario. Here again, the most ambitious blacks were the most likely to move. Although they had lower skills compared to northern blacks, they quickly converged as their skills had been artificially suppressed by the third-world living conditions in the South. There is no evidence that this migration reduced incomes in the North; to the contrary, it fostered development in both North and South by moving labor to where it was according to market prices the most productive.

Yes, many blacks went north to the northern cities (and southern ones), labouring in their industries during a period of greatly expanding demand for labour.

Tell, me, how have the descendants of those blacks fared in the cities? Are they still the great boon to social welfare?

Well they do seem to be exporting a whole lot of art and sport to the farthest reaches of the globe. There were winners and there were losers... but on the whole, their contributions have to exceeded their infringements.

This is a good comparison case. Anyone know of any attempts to put a dollar value on it?

Interesting comment. To quantify as a "natural experiment", consider - https://news.umich.edu/the-economic-legacy-of-the-great-migration/

Children of migrants to North compared to characteristics matched South stayers' kids earn $1000 USD more. So a small gain. Ostensibly. Nominally.

But in the total economy, that nominal gain might be eaten up for individuals by increased living costs. Purchasing power parity indicates lower relative value in the north (to about 10%) - https://taxfoundation.org/real-value-100-each-state-2016/ .

And the costs of increased crime in the public sphere (the Great Migration being obviously associated with skyrocketing northern inner city crime) may be far larger when we consider socially shared costs. (How to place a cost on "No go zones" / murder / vandalism / drug dealing / rape?).

So less than clear that this was a bonus.

(Lower "poverty" probability is cited, but since "poverty" in developed nations is just a relative income measure, unadjusted for consumption or local PPPs, it's pretty much telling us nothing that the raw income measure didn't.)

Poverty in the U.S., uniquely and to their credit, is not a relative measure, but is benchmarked to actual costs of living

Looks correct in some ways. Looking at paper, looks like they use Census information, which looks to be income based and benchmarked like you say (so not just relative). but not geographically adjusted, so potentially still some confound by state PPP - https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html#

But there are many ways of handling that which are less restrictive than restricting immigration (such as only giving full voting rights to high-IQ immigrants).

Politics is the art of the possible, man, and that is not possible.

Its weird how Libertarians propose this. It makes happy neither migrants with no desire to be second class citizens, nor locals, who even less want a bunch of disenfranchised about than they want these people anyway. It's not consistent (you can exclude people from your political and public institutions, just not your market and territory?). And it displays their non understanding of the disastrous potential consequences of a democratic disenfranchising and what democracy exists to offer an alternative to.

Other than signalling how little they regard democratic governance, its not clear what they think it achieves?

We have a few classes of "citizens" already. Full and legal, on some kind of legal visa, in some sort of semi-documented illegal state, and fully undocumented illegal.

Maybe there is too much contention and path dependency to normalize this, but I think theoretically we could move everyone below "with visa" into "migrant worker." Those should have civil rights, but as compassionate as I (think I) am, it might even be reasonable to remove birthright citizenship for that group. As a wag just put it, migrants are still citizens of where they came from. And it does remove an important incentive.

And their numbers being small and this status being short and this being by choice, together, is central to acceptance of those limitation of suffrage which are accepted.

Liberal argues for literal Apartheid.

Yeah that’s insane.

Apartheid was quite different. Classification by race, and restrictions by territory.

This would just be an open ended work visa, without birthright citizenship attached.

Would we get "younger and more ambitious" immigrants if we were also offering a litany of free benefits and health care, no strings attached, as promised by all of the major Democratic presidential candidates? Or would we in fact get a few billion free riders, setting aside the fact that anyone who leaves a developing country for a fully-developed one is a free rider by definition?

"He should take into account the Flynn Effect. US average IQ was around 80 when US per capita income was around $10,000."

Why? The Flynn effect is non-g-loaded and has ended. "there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s"

"Particularly if those low IQ people live in a completely different part of the US?"
So we're going to have hukou now to keep low-IQ people away from the high-IQ? That sounds great, and very possible (?)

"The only plausible mechanism would be that they reduce the quality of government. But there are many ways of handling that which are less restrictive than restricting immigration (such as only giving full voting rights to high-IQ immigrants)"

Sounds much more restrictive and much less possible.

"we’d get a self-selected group of younger and more ambitious people."

Well, let's bet the farm on that speculation. It's not like it can't be undone, right? Oh wait...

More likely we would get most immigration from Central America. Outside Central America, it would probably skew towards the global "middle class" who can afford to come and are motivated to come, but are not well off.

This is delusional first-order thinking.

Having low IQ people around is a severe drain. Low IQ types impose the following costs in proportion to their limits.

1) Less productive, and vastly more likely to be a welfare cost, either directly or through their Low-IQ children. (Hell, you need to probably be IQ 115 to break even on welfare expectations now..)
2) More likely to be criminal, and impose criminal costs
3) More likely to lower the quality of governance, and to fail collective action problems more generally.
4) All immigrants increase the cost of housing because of supply side constraints (which you can't fix, it seems).
5) General costs relating to social capital and cohesion,

And what if the Low-IQ immigrants actually live NEXT DOOR and not "in a completely different part of the US"? and it's your kids who have to enjoy the EFL environment?

"More likely to lower the quality of governance, and to fail collective action problems more generally."

Unless they are low education whites electing Donald Trump, in which case they (a) are salt of the earth, and (b) an opportunity to inject "High-IQ" policies into the White House.

Maybe those aren't such High-IQ policies, eh?

The difference, of course, being that the inbred yokels who elected Orange Man are citizens of this country with the right to self-determination, meaning a) they can choose whichever leader they like and b) they have zero obligation to admit anyone else to live amongst them whether that would raise the GDP and/or national IQ or not.

Naturally the coastal elites have decided that their fellow countrymen, in democratically electing a president that is not a proponent of open borders, have committed an unspeakable offense to their values and/or pocketbooks, which is why Orange Man must be impeached and the flow of immigrants be resumed post-haste. It's a win-win, not only do you get more proles to lord over, you also get to wipe out the awful racists in the hinterlands, not only securing your power in the future but also teaching those deplorables a lesson, you see.

This is where I point to the fence like Babe Ruth.

What this reveals is both the unseriousness "High-IQ" policy and the underlying racial driver. It is all about the white nationalism. That's why Steve Sailer is fast off the gate to high five Garett Jones and GMU. He sees this study for what it is.

You want High-IQ from brown people, to prove their worth, but you embrace Low-IQ from white people because in your mind "they're in."

Real Americans(tm)

High IQ doesn't make a country. We have plenty of people in this country, much less who want to be in this country, who nominally have a high IQ but espouse all sorts of terrible ideas that would either render the American experiment unworkable or mutate it beyond all recognition. We know two of them, they own this blog.

We don't need only high IQ immigrants just like we don't need to base immigration policy off what leads to high scores in economic indicators. We need people who are able to appreciate and sustain the moral and cultural qualities that made America a desirable place for immigrants in the first place, rather than those who seek to undermine it or simply leech off its wealth. If that means more white people then so be it.

This is all I'm saying. Just say (((high IQ))) and you can see where I was coming from.

Again, it is what it is. What otherwise is supposed to be the substance of the American nation? It can't be founded on or by a particular race/ethnicity. It can't be based on a collection of people with a common ideology or goals. It can't be a distinct geographical entity with defined borders. What is it then? Just a big shopping mall that people enter and leave to take advantage of its wealth as it suits them? In what way is this a blueprint for a successful and sustainable society?

...it's worked pretty well so far. It's a collection of people from all over the world who want to live in a place that allows generally more freedom than most other places, and is NOT burdened with ancient racial and ethnic ideologies and conflicts (besides the original sin of slavery). That's actually America's killer app, and it's a big reason why we are so attractive to motivated immigrants who just want to have the freedom to work and thrive in a place where their ethnicity shouldn't matter all that much.

It's worked pretty well so far without open borders?

Yes. I do not advocate for open borders, and those that do are unrealistic like most strong libertarians are. My point is the status quo is working just fine, but I don't think Shark Lasers likes the status quo either.

The problem with the status quo is that we're eating the cultural seed corn of the nation. As asdf notes below, the people who built America out of the wilderness endured extreme hardship to do so. That's quite different than the immigrants of today arriving to a fully-developed nation with a robust welfare state. It shouldn't be surprising then that so many of them (including the children and grandchildren of the last century's immigrants, which is an entirely different sort of injury) expect America to be able to provide for them regardless of their ability to improve the nation, and feel no loyalty to it other than how they can profit from it. Is it unreasonable to suggest that a nation of consumers who are only interested in improving their personal economic prospects is less healthy than a nation of builders who are invested in the society they created?

Oh please. What have you done lately "to improve the nation"?

It's all just bullshit. The country is fine, best one in the world, and will continue to be so as it always has with people wanting to come here from all over the world. You just don't like brown people. You can come up with justifications all you like, but that's the fact.

Is that the best you can do? Can't answer difficult questions, so I'm racist? I think we are done here.

Surrender accepted.

America, at a time where it was abundant in land and natural resources, short on labor, and had few peer competitors on its continient was relatively good at integrating white christian europeans from various parts of Europe who could afford and survive an expensive and difficult ship voyage and then make it on in a new country with no welfare state.

Even this level of integration was difficult, and it passed a 40 years moratorium on immigration in order to digest its new arrivals despite their relative cultural and genetic relatedness. This was probably necessary given that the difficulties America experienced when foreign born % reached around the levels we have today. Remember the Sicilian Mafia? Urban machine politics? "White People" is an accomplishment that took America a century to accomplish.

Blacks never got integrated and have been a drag on America since they arrived. After the war we northerners should have sent them back to Africa. Instead they migrated into our northern cities and destroyed them.

There are many mostly white countries. Why not give one of them a try? They probably even have some cities that aren't destroyed.

Why is it that I should have to leave my home to appease immigrants leaving their homes? Wouldn't you call that a replacement?

You aren't 'appeasing' anyone. Immigrants don't care if you stay.

Of course they don't, it's not their home. That's part of that indifference I was talking about. Of course the distinction is that if immigrants don't like the transformed America, they can always go back to their homes. But I don't have anywhere to go, this is my home.

Your logic fails. Once the immigrant is here 'transforming' everything, it's their home now. Yours is just the usual nativist (and racist) bullshit. You probably think you're being clever but you're just saying the same thing they've been saying since Ben Franklin didn't want Italians and Spaniards here.

You have to be a special kind of scum to try to use the culturally marxist "racist" buzzword to try to silence people who recognize it's their land, country, traditions and demographic future that are being stolen from under their feet.

Don't worry, though, in the age of openly available bioweapons that is comming before the end of this century, the reckoning will come anyway.

the moral and cultural qualities that made America a desirable place

Those moral and cultural qualities aren't permanent, they change before our eyes. Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, according to who considers themselves to be affected. At this point a woman can make an accusation about a man relating to an event that occurred years ago and it is seriously considered by somebody. This would have been preposterous not long ago. It's now illegal to stage cockfights or raise fighting cocks in every US jurisdiction, a practice that was common in many places less than a century ago. Nineteen-year old women in search of gold among older, financially secure men are now painted as vulnerable children. "Prostitute" has disappeared from the lexicon and been replaced by "sex trafficking victim". What are the constant moral and cultural qualities that make the US such an attractive place?

anonymous: You want High-IQ from brown people, to prove their worth, but you embrace Low-IQ from white people because in your mind "they're in."

I don't think the guy's sitting here advocating for Russia and Poland's special needs children to be sent to the US.

But you might treat White and Black and so-on, Americans of low IQ as "in", because, yeah, "they're in". In the country, and you can't dispossess them by exiling them. Even if you could and were willing to do so morally, normalizing the very idea that people's citizenship status could be subject to exile if they fall beneath some threshold has insane, horrible consequences... And those horrible consequences are just. not. there. for setting skills thresholds for migrants (no matter how much Open Borders advocates want to wish that they were).

And there is some complement to division of labour of certain activities to the dull and persual of comparative advantage, so these people can have some role. But you wouldn't be asking for more of them, hence no "Open borders for Russians".

It's tough when one candidate is in favor of fascism and socialism, and the other is an anti-fascist but a corrupt moron. What is the "High IQ choice" there

That was the David Duke vs corrupt dude election in Louisiana. Corrupt dude later served hard time fo racketering.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards

Academic economists typically live in neighborhoods with $400K entry fees and look on adoringly as their oompa-loompas spread pine straw. They aren't thinking about entire business sectors built around kidnapping avoidance and people getting slaughtered in their beds.

The libertarians have always been a little out of touch with reality, but now the situation is laughable.

The average one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles rents for $2,500 a month.

More immigration?

The average one-bedroom apartment in Sapporo Japan rents for $450 a month.

Nothing like some death marches to free up residential units, I guess.

The cheapest apartment in Sapporo is $450 and is 23 sq. meters - not close to a one bedroom apartment.

Yet, it is room enough for hundreds of Korean slaves.

Yeah... I know right... it's almost as if no libertarians have suggested that price of housing in LA might fall if there were fewer restrictions on land usage.

So, open borders first and then inevitably the immigrant children will support removing rent control, yimby, etc. as is the historical pattern?

I'm told they are natural conservatives but no word yet on whether they are natural libertarians.

Of course they presumably must be because surely no person would have such a low IQ as to believe he could create a libertarian paradise via the wholesale import of people who are not and will never be libertarian.

Argh... no. Benjamin Cole's objection to immigration is high rents. His (implied) preferred policy is immigration restriction, when in this case the solution to high rents is liberalized land-use. He also just doesn't seem to be aware of the numerous articles (even on this blog) promoting liberalized land use.

So if his complaint is about high rents, immigration restriction seems a strange policy option to address the issue.

If you know him, he is very much in favor of liberalizing land use (among other things)

Yes, I am in the camp for total decontrol, no property zoning and the most limited building and safety rules possible. There is a also exactly no chance property zoning will be eliminated in America,

If Caplan would preface his comic book with a paragraph to the effect that conditional upon the total elimination of property zoning, then more immigration might make sense....

But, as in Hong Kong, the propertied-financial class as too large a stake in maintaining property values.

If property values actually go down, what happens to bank loans outstanding?

Side note. Two cities with very high rent to income ratios are Hong Kong and Santiago.

It's weird how relative to George Mason University, and this group, Noah Smith has become such an outlier. Noah expands, "it's a one-factor static model of GDP, LOL"

But it reinforces biases, so we're all good? Poor, poor, GMU.

Not really, Noah has been on a one man crusade against Garret Jones for almost a decade now.

I believe he started personally attacking Jones as early as 2012. I have no real sense of the reason, but Noah loathes Jones and never misses an opportunity to personally insult him.

Come on man, that’s just willfully misrepresenting what Jones said.

All part of his one man anti-Jones crusade. Unless you’ve now signed up as well.

This is Jones straight up:

"I suspect that if people were more aware of the awfulness of their neighbors, support for the welfare state would decline."

I think that's wrong on fact. Most people are good, the world over. Which makes it a rather evil idea to sell. Sorry.

You can disagree with him on the merits, sure. And feel free to counter the survey data he cites with your own.

But Noah’s framing of his argument was still willfully disingenuous.

We are about 1% psychopaths and 10% Machiavellians, which isn't too bad. It certainly doesn't make "your neighbors" likely to be either.

It doesn't mean that welfare recipients are necessarily going to be made up of these groups. As Pinker pointed out, psychopathy and Machiavellianism may be successful strategies .. especially when they are at low rates in the population.

It does mean that social programs should have social workers trained to spot any cheaters.

Speaking of cheaters, most college students, for example, admit to cheating, which probably underestimates the true amount of cheating taking place (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/how-to-stop-cheating-in-college/479037/).

Hobbes was far more accurate about the nature of human beings than Rousseau.

Oh, that 10% Machiavellians was "among professional marketers!"

Jones' model is far too simple of course, but probably better than Caplan's. What kind of realistic multi-factor model would Smith propose to deal with a migration of 20x the US's current population (per Jones's formulation) to the USA?

It seems likely that all the US's institutions would collapse, and probably be born in a state that would offer far less than current incomes to current residents. 40% is optimistic!

My question would be "how much are each of these economists aware that 'open borders' is, for the public, a proxy question? A stand-in for much smaller policy changes?"

My sense is that Smith recognizes the proxy, and answers the popular interpretation.

That’s not the correct take. Noah engages in thought experiments like this with people of his own political persuasion all the time.

This is a personal issue, and seemingly a one way one at that.

Who is Noah Smith?

A big yawn on this one. The worst thing in the world is intra-faculty disputes.

So why isn't capital export (capital emigration) not accomplishing the same thing? Or does it?

Many seem to be missing the point of the exercise. The simplistic model as Caplan used it still shows enormous costs. Therefore more complex models could even weaken Caplan's case further. I don't see Jones as saying this is THE one true model to use.

Should I treat everyone as equally valuable, even if some people are more likely to share reciprocity or commonality? And if I am to ignore reciprocity/commonality, should I at least limit the application of the "everyone is exactly equal value" theory to those who subscribe to it themselves?

The issue w/ open borders is that it relies on valuing ingroup and outgroup benefits as equal. But that isn't really how humans seem to work.

It's a bit like like a trolley experiment: You know one side has N random people, all of whom are locals/citizens/etc; the other side has N+1 random people from 12,000 miles away. One group is getting killed.

There's one extra person on the "foreigners" side. But I think most folks would send the trolley to kill the foreigners, and I don't think N would need to be very high. More to the point, I think most people worldwide would do the same thing (assuming the problem were reversed to make them into locals and us into "foreigners.")

Reciprocity is a powerful force. So is self-interest. I don't value the interests of random people across the globe NEARLY as high as I value the interests of similar-to-me people. N is not very high for me. For some reason that is not considered to be a moral stance which can be publicly discussed (ergo my anonymity here) but as far as I can see it is a hugely popular stance everywhere.

The problem w/ open borders is that it relies on an assumption of equality of value.

I wonder if he is wrong, and rather what you need is enough very smart people and a high enough percentage of very smart people.

I think Brain Drain is an under-analyzed phenomenon.

Have you read Mein Kampf, or are you just saying that people you disagree with are Nazis? BTW the people Hitler hated had the highest measured IQs of any ethnic group.

The former. I didn’t accuse anybody on this blog of being a Nazi.

I'd rather live in poverty among the loyalty and shared vision of family, friends, and compatriots than live in prosperity among the contempt and indifference of foreign strangers.

That's the most paranoid, ridiculous thing posted in this thread. Have you ever met an immigrant?

The good news is that no one's stopping you from doing that; you can set up living arrangements so that you're pretty much surrounded by the people you want (assuming you can get those other people to agree).

But let's be clear on your unstated underlying position. You want to ban others in your country from including "foreign strangers" among their family, friends, and compatriots. But it doesn't sound quite as defensible, reasonable, or sane that way.

"You want to ban others in your country from including "foreign strangers" among their family, friends, and compatriots."

False. He wants a sovereign nation that exercises control over who crosses its borders.

So like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the like? In that case I agree. But I'm not sure if those countries' policies would suffice for him.

So if, say, Idaho or West Virginia became a "sovereign nation tlhat exercises control over who crosses its borders" he'd move there and be fine living in "poverty among the loyalty and shared vision of family, friends, and compatriots"?

He's being disingenuous. He wants his "shared vision" imposed on a continental scale on people and areas thousands of miles away.

Just so we're clear, I do live in an area where most people around me have a shared vision, and the last time we (or specifically our ancestors) tried to become a sovereign nation that exercised control over our borders the Federals invaded and burnt our houses to the ground.

Setting that aside, it's not clear to me why it's not OK for me to impose my values on a continental scale on people and areas thousands of miles away, but it is OK for you to do the same to me. I suppose when you're on the right side of history you feel you can do what you want.

Your ancestors enjoyed enslaving many of your neighbors' ancestors. Which I guess is part of your shared vision?

So I'm to assume then that an entirely peaceful separation will be met with well wishes today? Because there are plenty of people who feel they have the same moral imperative over the deplorables today that the northerners had over the Confederacy. They were your neighbors too.

Except no one wants a separation today. Or rather, hardly anyone does. Because that would be stupid.

The CSA did not just want to be a sovereign region, but wanted to impose its vision on a continental scale to the western states and territories, and even to Latin America.

"Setting that aside, it's not clear to me why it's not OK for me to impose my values on a continental scale on people and areas thousands of miles away, but it is OK for you to do the same to me. I suppose when you're on the right side of history you feel you can do what you want."

In a country with immigration, you're allowed to live apart from immigrants. The vast majority of people choose not to, but the option is there.

In a country where immigration is banned, you're also de facto banned from deciding to interact with immigrants.

The first scenario isn't imposing anything on you. The second scenario is.

You can emigrate. Many choose not to. But the option is there.

If you complain that you don't want to emigrate because your stuff's here, well the same can be said by the people you've claimed should internally separate themselves by internally migrating away. (Not that such "White Flight" is, in fact treated as entirely reasonable in the mainstream).

"In a country where immigration is banned, you're also de facto banned from deciding to interact with immigrants."

This seems like an odd framing. A sovereign nation has to make decisions in some way. If most people don't want much immigration, then its unclear why the minority have a sacred right to invite immigrants into the country that should override the determination of the sovereign nation using normal democratic principles.

If your point is that democracy is slavery and anarchy is the only moral system then you're being consistent.

"The good news is that no one's stopping you from doing that; you can set up living arrangements so that you're pretty much surrounded by the people you want (assuming you can get those other people to agree)."

No you obviously can't. Hello Rip van Winkle, how were things before civil rights? They's different now.

My purely local observation: it's more - low IQ combined with a lack of "openness" that will ultimately contribute to the decline and fall.

Open Borders is palpable idiocy.

But I too am pleased, tickled pink in fact, that our utterly bankrupt "intellectual elites" have chosen this particular sword to gut themselves upon publicly. What instincts!

Good riddance and please don't let your head spin too badly as you get flushed down the toilet of history.

Two scenarios:

1) All top IQ individuals cluster into one country

2) All countries have the same IQ distribution

Which one has the highest overall global welfare?

The only way to get long run economic growth and scientific advancement is for a country to have a relatively high average IQ and a non-totalitarian political system.

That means eugenics. Either the differential fertility rate kind or the genetic engineering kind.

It's unclear when/if the genetic engineering kind will come. The best bet to make that future possible is not too fuck with the OECD scientific progress machine (with whacked out radical proposals like open borders that could sink it all). That gives the first world more time and resources to spend seeing if genetic improvement is possible, which is the only real solution the low IQ third world problem that isn't literally Hitler.

The set-up to Kremer' (1993) O-Ring theory can help answer this question with respect to global *output*. The nature of production means that a smart person's marginal output (when working with other smart people) is higher than the marginal output of a not-smart person working in the same environment. In short, option (1) would maximize global *output*.
*Welfare* sounds like such a bogus term. What does it mean? Utility? Happiness? Some basic life-states (health, education, security, dignity) combined with some basket of goods and services (food, transportation)?

Borders and taxes are for poor people. If you're wealthy enough, you can live legally in just about any country on the globe. And probably avoid paying much of the taxes your less fortunate fellow residents pay.

I keep waiting for libertarians to advocate No Borders, which is the only principled libertarian position. Libertarians don't want No Borders, because then people get to draw their own. Libertarians want Open Borders, which require State enforcement.

Bingo. If myself and 2 others land on an unclaimed rock, (or buy one), and announce our Republic with very particular immigration rules and a strong border backed by our guns, would the open borders crowd accept that?

No way; they'd be telling me we had to share the rock with 1.2 Billion Africans, (for our own benefit of course). The Open Borders crowd completely deny the possibility of collective sovereignty, and hence they deny property. They are socialists, not libertarians.

"Libertarians don't want No Borders, because then people get to draw their own. "

What does that mean? Elimination of sovereign nations? It seems like many libertarians do want that, although they are less keen to announce it.

In a world of No Borders, that is, no States, there would only be property lines and the category of "immigrant" would disappear. There would only be owners, tenants and trespassers. That is the only intellectually honest libertarian position. Open Borders is just the State importing its own constituency and diluting its citizens' votes. "Electing a new people," so to speak.

There is pretty good evidence from America either way that could answer this. You could see if America has endured a period of massive GDP per capita reductions due to immigration. If you don't see one, Jones is probably stroking his own will to believe.

Compared to the scenario Jones lays out - which is the entire global population moving and reduction to 40% income for current residents - the US has mostly relatively little migration, mostly of some Europeans, up selected Asians and Central Americans. 40% of current income (which is not even Eastern European poor) is modest given the scale of the change under discussion. The levels of migration seen by the US *don't* tell you much about such an extreme scenario. Neither does Jones' methodology with any precision, but his simple model is probably a better bet to get at such an extreme scenario than the "trillions of dollars lying on sidewalks from missed division of labour" folk (like Caplan).

Read Hivemind it goes over this

Unfortunately its not that simple. Endogenaity plagues immigration studies. Immigrants are attracted to economically growing nations. If Fulford, Petkov, and Schiantarelli (2015 ) panel study is reliable then it would appear that Jones is correct and its the open borders type who are "probably stroking his own will to believe".

This leads to some pretty egregious slights of hand in his reasoning. The PRC is only one dot in his regressions on the association of political with %ethnic Chinese with political corruption, despite encompassing over 90% of Chinese.

This leads to some pretty egregious slights of hand in his reasoning. The PRC is only one dot in his regressions on the association of political with %ethnic Chinese with political corruption, despite encompassing over 90% of Chinese.

Regards,
Anmolosm

Doesn't anyone remember? A few years ago Germany conducted a limited open borders experiment and the results were.... to put it mildly a disaster.

Also, Poland (where I live) had open borders for over a hundred years and it completely sucked. So....... why should the US try this again?

Ah, the smell of morons promoting the ultimate form of white genocide that is open borders.

If you are white and you support anything that is different from white separatism (or, in Europe - civil war and deportation of all not-whites out of the continent), that means you are an evolutionary maladaptive moron and will become extinct.

In the future, the only whites that will survive as whites will be far right, racist ones. Others will just merge with the brown scum hordes.

Open borders means that idiots like you are free to leave. It works both ways.

We aren't leaving, we are just waiting for the appropriate time to kill you all.

Let's take the argument seriously and not just dismiss it as racist. Wouldn't one of the best counter arguments be to simply point readers to photos of the Koreas at night? Surely that can't be a case of North Korean's having low IQs and South Koreans having high IQs?
What about the rapid economic development of China over the past several decades? Did IQs go up during that time (probably)? Did increasing IQs cause the increase in economic welfare (probably not). Of course, you could say that the Chinese are the exception, but then you would to start to sound racist.
Finally, while the national IQ adherents might use this as an excuse to keep out low-skilled immigrants, if they truly believe what they say then they should be the most ardent supporters of increasing high-skilled immigration (no matter the country of origin, sorry Mr. Trump).

Comments for this post are closed