Why do the public discussions of immigration overwhelmingly
focus on our Southern border while the influx of almost equal numbers of Asians,
Europeans, and Indians goes unnoticed? Why fixate on
Hispanics?
The prevailing explanation, at least the
one advanced publicly by Donald Trump and his supporters, is that Hispanic
immigrants are disproportionately inclined toward criminality and long-term
welfare dependency vis-à-vis other immigrant groups.
The elephant in the room is the low
I.Q. of these would-be future Americans. Specifically, the average I.Q. in
central American countries – Honduras 81, El Salvador 81, Guatemala 79, for
example – would assign these migrants and their offspring to the "educable"
or mildly retarded category in schools, unable to master all but the basics
(Mexico might be a small exception with an average I.Q. of 88).
To
be sure, the newcomers may be a tad smarter than their countrymen left behind,
but even so, an average of a few points higher would not substantially alter
their intellectual shortcomings. Put into context, the average
I.Q. of black Americans is 85, so these Central Americans would be at the
very bottom of America's educational achievement hierarchy. This
awkward reality is not totally racial – notable exceptions exist,
and these "educable" Hispanic immigrants will be far outnumbered by
whites with similarly low cognitive abilities.
Critically,
low I.Q. is likely to persist across generations and is intractable compared to
reversing criminality or welfare dependency, since criminality can be mitigated
by tougher law enforcement, while welfare rolls can be trimmed. Low
I.Q., by contrast, is impossible
to boost. Skeptics should consider the failure
of Head Start and countless similar interventions in this futile
quest.
The
influx of millions of low-I.Q. people will likely transform America (politics
included) and conceivably even edge us closer to nations like Brazil
and even Venezuela. While recent immigrants from places like El
Salvador on their own lack the numbers to execute this transformation, added to
those of the Bernie Sanders ilk already here, they can turn electoral
minorities into majorities. California may be a
harbinger. Make no mistake: Trump and his supporters have a credible
case that an open southern border may well alter American quantitatively,
qualitatively, irreversibly, and for the worse.
Anticipating
this transformation is hardly rocket science.
First,
this will be a population plagued by innumeracy in a society requiring at least
some ability to comprehend numbers. How many low-I.Q. people
understand what a million or billion is, let alone trillions, all commonplace
terms in deliberations over the national debt and trade
deficits? Keep in mind that many of those with low I.Q.s love the
lottery, where one-in-a million odds seem
"reasonable." These are also people who as jurors can award
damages in the hundreds of
millions thanks to junk science. Imagine
a judicial system where a handful of juries regularly dictates
hundred-million-dollar judgments that bankrupt corporations while creating
extensive unemployment and destroying pensions. Do these
"generous" jurors honestly believe that their outsized kindness makes
economic sense?
Meanwhile,
picture the cognitively challenged following environmental disputes where, for
example, a proposed regulation shifts from one part per hundred million to two
parts per hundred million, a change that may be portrayed (accurately but
probably deceptively) as doubling the permitted toxic waste but in fact may be
environmentally meaningless, given infinitesimal quantities. What
does "a part per hundred million" mean to those mystified by
"million"? More importantly, can they grasp how seemingly
high-sounding environmental intervention may have business-killing
ramifications?
Imagine
a low-I.Q. person trying to follow a public debate on, say, spending more on
education, that includes such basic economic concepts as opportunity costs and
trade-offs. Can he draw the connection between government mandating
cheaper medical costs and fewer doctors? Probably not.
Ditto
for calculating non-economic costs, especially non-obvious ones. Try
explaining to those who can't get past 6th grade that artificially high
minimum wages in practice harms intended beneficiaries, since these mandates
raise the cost of hiring alleged beneficiaries. Or that alluring
soak-the-rich tax rates will fail, since the wealthy will escape confiscatory
taxes or refuse to invest in economically productive ventures.
Can
they grasp America's foundational political principles? Try
explaining that the rule of law requires only following certain detailed
procedures and that it does not guarantee that those
"obviously" 100% guilty will, in fact, be convicted. Or why
the First Amendment protects hurtful or offensive speech. Or that
the morally offensive – for example, adultery – is not illegal unless
prohibited by a specific statute.
Such
intellectual insufficiencies almost guarantee widespread Bernie Sanders-style demagogy,
a world where voters embrace free lunches thanks, supposedly, to an endless
supply of billionaires agreeable to being fleeced. Campaigns will
see rivals competing to be Santa Claus, as if every alluring benefit were an
unalienable government-funded right. Pandering office-seekers will
also demand that government just get rid of "bad things" regardless
of cost or legal obstacles. Just try to convince those of limited
intelligence why eliminating all sexual harassment invites totalitarian cures far
worse than the offending behavior. Does the concept "totalitarian"
mean anything to those stymied by 4th-grade reading lessons?
There
is some upbeat news here. The Founders fully understood this danger
and, for those accusing Trump, et al. of racism, the Constitution was written
at a time when America (excluding slaves, of course) was overwhelmingly white
and of European ancestry. Warnings of low I.Q. are not dog-whistle
racism. Many Founders were personally familiar with mass foolishness
where people demanded "free" government handouts. The
Constitution itself was created in response to the Shays Rebellion, when mobs
of destitute farmers attacked courthouses in the hope of forcefully discharging
their debts.
The
Constitution reflects the fear of the Great Unwashed: checks and balances; the
separation of powers; federalism; explicit limits on government power (for
example, Article I, Section 9 and the Bill of Rights); the lifetime appointment
of judges; and the Electoral College, not a popular majority, electing the
president, among multiple other barriers to foolish mob
rule. Meanwhile, the states sharply limited the franchise to
property-owners to block the easily misled poor from heeding soak-the-rich
demagogy.
Nevertheless,
the threat of rapacious economic appetites remains
relevant. Constitutional limits can accomplish only so
much. Puerto Rico is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, but it
has nevertheless overspent itself into
near bankruptcy. California seems headed in this direction
thanks to widespread beliefs that any idea that sounds good – for example,
universal health care for all immigrants – deserves to be
implemented. Several
cities such as Detroit have declared bankruptcy due to never having to
say "no" to "good ideas" while refusing to pay the bills.
It is impossible to specify a tipping
point when the U.S. drifts into a Third World-like wealth-destroying
"socialism," where government barely functions thanks to an inept
workforce. It may require an influx of millions more low-I.Q.
immigrants before this calamity finally arrives, but this fear is not racist
hyperbole. This is the elephant at our southern border.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/the_elephant_at_the_southern_border.html
