Should there be open immigration

[Tank_Guy#3]

No, it would be suicidal. If we did that, everyone with half a brain will move here. This will rapidly overwhelm our police and social services. It would also damage the third world nations the immigrants are coming from. They already have the problems of all their good doctors and engineers moving the the first world. These are only the practical problems, the cultural differences will cause trouble as well.

Also, think of the economic chaos that would be thrust on the recieving nations. Millions of foreigners willing to work for a fraction of the cost of what someone already working would get. And the taxes would sky-rocket to astronomical levels to help try and fund all the overwhelmed social programs, thus pushing the middle and upper classes to the breaking point, and their standard of living would drop like a rock through a black hole. Also like you have stated the police forces would be powerless to stop the explosion of crime that this would allow, if implemented.

 

[Steph]

An elegant solution would be to restrict immigration to people with IQs a standard deviation above the national average (113 for the US at the moment).

Once again a good example that IQ doesn't mean much...

IQ scores are expressed as a number normalized so that the average IQ in an age group is 100. In other words, an individual scoring 115 is above average when compared to people in the same age group.

Roughly 68% of the population has an IQ between 85 and 115. The "normal" range, or range between -2 and +2 standard deviations from the mean, is between 70 and 130, and contains about 95% of the population. An accurate score below 70 may indicate mental retardation, and a score above 130 may indicate intellectual giftedness. Retardation may result from normal variation or from a genetic or developmental malady; analogously, some otherwise normal people are very short, and others have dwarfism. Giftedness appears to be normal variation; autistic savants have often astonishing cognitive powers but below-average IQ's.

No wonder the American are the first power in the world. They manage to get an average of 113 for a test which is specifically defined as having an average of 100 for a population.

 

[bad_ronald]

No wonder the American are the first power in the world. They manage to get an average of 113 for a test which is specifically defined as having an average of 100 for a population.

First, the average American IQ is 98 (France, as well), hence 113 is a standard deviation above it (i.e., +15 points). Secondly, when I say average IQ of 'x' for a nation, I am, of course, referring to the average with respect to some other group, since it would always be 100 for a group in isolation and wouldn't be useful for international comparisons. By convention, an IQ of 100 is the average of the United Kingdom (using this standard, the world mean is in the low nineties). To address your first quoted statement ("IQ scores are... the same age group."), I am considering only adult IQ (where the age group is more or less everyone above 18, as the maturation of the brain is complete).

 

[Steph]

with IQs a standard deviation above the national average (113 for the US at the moment)

It's a misleading sentence. I thought you were saying the national avergage for the US was 113, when you were saying the standard deviation above is 113...

 

[bad_ronald]

It's a misleading sentence. I thought you were saying the national avergage for the US was 113, when you were saying the standard deviation above is 113...

Yes, the sentence could be parsed as either "[a standard deviation above the national average [113 for the US at the moment]]" or "a standard deviation above the [national average [113 for the US at the moment]]". Such ambiguities are difficult to avoid in English, no harm done I hope .

 

[Ayatollah So]

Millions of foreigners willing to work for a fraction of the cost of what someone already working would get.

If you don't allow the workers to move to where the jobs are, the employers can still move the jobs to where the workers are. So what's the difference? Well if the poorer country has weak environmental protections and weak workers' rights, the difference is that not only will wages be low, but conditions will be miserable as well.

 

[Adebisi]

I dont see how your IQ could possibly affect your right to live where you want.

Stopping immigration from certain cultures will hardly solve the problems with immigration in Europe, as the structures remain the same, and those in the margin will be left unemployed, regardless of their culture.

 

[bad_ronald]

I dont see how your IQ could possibly affect your right to live where you want.

Stopping immigration from certain cultures will hardly solve the problems with immigration in Europe, as the structures remain the same, and those in the margin will be left unemployed, regardless of their culture.

Stopping people with low IQs from immigrating is not the same thing as stopping those with a different culture. The benefits of barring people with low IQs from entering include the very problem you mentioned (i.e., being "at the margin" in terms of SES).

 

[downtown]

An elegant solution would be to restrict immigration to people with IQs a standard deviation above the national average (113 for the US at the moment).

There would be many benefits:

• It is one of the most effective ways to ensure that all accepted immigrants will be productive members of the society
• It will create a positive perception of immigrants
• The average immigrant would generate more tax revenue than the average American
• They will raise the average national IQ, and IQ is positively correlated with many beneficial things (please don't confuse this with causation), including: educational achievement, occupational achievement, law abidingness, inside of wedlock child births (regardless of whether you think this is necessary, it is beneficial for a child to have two parents caring for him/her), etc.
• In the way that I've worded it (i.e., "a standard deviation above..."), the law would never have to be rewritten since the requisite IQ would increase as the mean IQ increases

Of course, the IQ test would be given in the native language of the potential immigrant to ensure fairness.

@OP,

No, there should not be open immigration.

I think this is a pretty bad idea, on several counts

first, there is the assumption that the IQ test is the best way to measure if somebody will be a good employee. Besides the fact that there are several intelligences not measured by the IQ test (musical is the first to come to mind). Secondly, Immigrants, no matter how smart, are going to have difficulties adjusting to a new culture, regardless of their IQ score, which can effect the production.

second, its unfair for someone who can still bring an awful lot to the table to have their future riding on one test, with so many hidden variables that change how well they can do (the immigrant who's trying to leave central africa isnt going to do as well...he isnt well fed). 'specially with all the stupid people we already have, or worse, the lazy smart people

Finally, with support, IQ, productivty, law-abidingness, etc, can incrase with each generation. Both of my sets of grandparents were poorly educated immigrants, who werent that smart. Some social programs, and a hell of a lot of hard work later, all of their kids and grandkids have gone to college at prestigious universities.

Really, i understand that you are really into IQ seperations...yes, I read the bell curve too...but to restrict immigration because of IQ is awful

 

[Illini Rule]

Illigal immigration is a good thing. It will create a larger work force. The US was built on immigrants during the industrial age and should continue to let more come in and improve the nation

 

[bad_ronald]

first, there is the assumption that the IQ test is the best way to measure if somebody will be a good employee.

In a perfect world, we would have an infinite amount of information pertaining to a potential immigrant, but both our information gathering capabilities and time are limited. Limited time is just as important of a consideration. I challenge you to find any better use of one to two hours in predicting the success of an applicant at the far-reaching level that IQ can.

Besides the fact that there are several intelligences not measured by the IQ test (musical is the first to come to mind).

Such things cannot be properly called intelligence; they should be called talents or skills. Intelligence is fluid g.

Secondly, Immigrants, no matter how smart, are going to have difficulties adjusting to a new culture, regardless of their IQ score, which can effect the production.

Even so, we can still determine which immigrants will be more likely to assimilate (let's not forget the opportunity cost).

second, its unfair for someone who can still bring an awful lot to the table to have their future riding on one test

An individual's IQ scores do not vary much test to test (discounting scam online tests), so with a large enough sample (i.e., sufficient questions) one can be very certain of the person's expected range.

with so many hidden variables that change how well they can do (the immigrant who's trying to leave central africa isnt going to do as well...he isnt well fed).

I would not be opposed to a person waiting a year or so as a non-nationalized worker before applying for citizenship. This would ensure that they are in a well nourished state.

'specially with all the stupid people we already have

I agree but contend that this makes it even more important that we accept only intelligent candidates.

or worse, the lazy smart people

There is no convenient way to test for conscientiousness; an applicant could simply lie on a multiple choice test akin to that of an intelligence test (where lying isn't a factor).

Finally, with support, IQ, productivty, law-abidingness, etc, can incrase with each generation.

This is by no means a certainty. The heritability of g is 80% by adulthood, which leaves 20% to the environmental factors. Even if one could eliminate all IQ depressing environmental factors, the genetic aspects can only be changed through differential breeding, mate selection, etc.

Both of my sets of grandparents were poorly educated immigrants, who werent that smart. Some social programs, and a hell of a lot of hard work later, all of their kids and grandkids have gone to college at prestigious universities.

Well, that's one example; there are many who have failed to achieve.

Really, i understand that you are really into IQ seperations...yes, I read the bell curve too...but to restrict immigration because of IQ is awful

It's effective; that is what is important.

 

[Ayatollah So]

We're better off taking the smart and the stupid. At least down to a level rare enough not to be worth testing for.

 

[IglooDame]

In the past with unchecked immigration from western/southern Europe, China, etc, the US was getting immigrants who didn't necessarily have high IQs, but did very clearly have industriousness and a desire to succeed - else they wouldn't have been on the boats in the first place.

I fear that with current heavily-restricted immigration, we're screening out not necessarily the industriousness and desire to succeed, but the self-control to succeed within the limits of our laws, and the ability to assimilate and join the system rather than be wary and evasive toward it.