IQ Based Immigration

[Luziyca]

IQ is inaccurate. Maybe a points system like that in Canada.

[Greater-London]

Such a stupid idea for various reasons. First of all the IQ test isn't an especially good way of measuring intelligence, well it only measures a certain type of intelligence. Alongside the idea that high IQ = clever isn't true if its a case of immigrants that you "want" then being "clever" isn't even nesisearly what you want. Ideally you would priorities people who have skills that the your country is lacking and that may not be a job that requires a "high IQ"

[Ripoll]

I wasn't referring to their authoritarianism or their states, but their multicultural societies. They failed because nationalists threw a hissyfit and wanted to feel special by killing people who didn't look like them.

The only reason multiculturalism fails is because people who dislike multiculturalism disrupt it's peace.

Regardless of why it is caused, doesn't it still prove that it isn't the most sustainable of things?

Is this a real argument? Regardless of why? We're supposed to take someone seriously who says the only thing that matters is what happened not why?

Multicultalism was a major success in England and the US.

[Ripoll]

Until we have taken care of ALL of our own, we shouldn't be allowing any immigration in the first place.

What if I told you opening borders would double GDP, come close to eradicating poverty, and hardly efect real wages of natives? What if I told you the way to take care of more of our own was to open up?

[Alizeria]

This is an utterly terrible idea, even though I understand the underlying argument and can see how one would find it tempting.

However the fact of the matter is that having a high IQ does not necessarily make for a more productive workforce, economy or society and as such skills-based immigration should continue to be the standard in western countries.

[Alizeria]

Until we have taken care of ALL of our own, we shouldn't be allowing any immigration in the first place.

What if I told you opening borders would double GDP, come close to eradicating poverty, and hardly efect real wages of natives? What if I told you the way to take care of more of our own was to open up?

I'd take you to countries like the UK, and to other parts of the EU, where they more or less tried this with absolutely no success.

[Ripoll]

What if I told you opening borders would double GDP, come close to eradicating poverty, and hardly efect real wages of natives? What if I told you the way to take care of more of our own was to open up?

I'd take you to countries like the UK, and to other parts of the EU, where they more or less tried this with absolutely no success.

And I would say that's not the case at all. Though anti-immigration rhetoric proves to be more popular economic data seems to suggest the effects of immigration on the Labour market have been of minimal consequence to native workers, and the net contribution in taxes has been positive across the board.

[Othelos]

Right, and what if doing that means allowing immigration?

And that's another thing, just why can't you do both at the same time? It's not like you're going to solve the problems of all Americans one at a time.

Well, until we do, that is where our resources should be used.

Edit: and how does allowing immigration take care of Americans?

They fill in new jobs, which helps our economy, which helps Americans. Then there are students who come here to study at some of the best colleges and universities in the world - obviously they should be able to stay here and work afterwards.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Until we have taken care of ALL of our own, we shouldn't be allowing any immigration in the first place.

What if I told you opening borders would double GDP, come close to eradicating poverty, and hardly efect real wages of natives? What if I told you the way to take care of more of our own was to open up?

Eradicating poverty by importing people who are predominantly from impoverished regions?

For GDP, I don't know, but as far as I know, it won't affect real wages of natives as wages, as most of these immigrants would be taking low-level jobs that natives don't usually do.

[Geilinor]

Assuming that an IQ test says more about a person than education and what they've done in life. Which is not true at all.

[Geilinor]

Right, and what if doing that means allowing immigration?

And that's another thing, just why can't you do both at the same time? It's not like you're going to solve the problems of all Americans one at a time.

Well, until we do, that is where our resources should be used.

Edit: and how does allowing immigration take care of Americans?

By bringing in taxpayers and people who can help build certain parts of the economy and therefore hire more people or pay for educating more people. Americans can also more easily move to where their skills are needed.

[The Sotoan Union]

IQ does not actually measure how smart, how wise, how useful, or how deserving of anything anybody is.

Standardize test are pretty much how the US determines your educational opportunities.

Not really IQ tests though. Standardized tests just measure how well you paid attention in school when they were teaching you how to take the standardized test.

[Ripoll]

What if I told you opening borders would double GDP, come close to eradicating poverty, and hardly efect real wages of natives? What if I told you the way to take care of more of our own was to open up?

Eradicating poverty by importing people who are predominantly from impoverished regions?

For GDP, I don't know, but as far as I know, it won't affect real wages of natives as wages, as most of these immigrants would be taking low-level jobs that natives don't usually do.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ed/275332/

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

No. IQ is not at all genetic, and this has been proven in multiple studies.

Besides, even if it was genetic, the idea of us having only immigrants with high IQ's coming into the country is just silly. You can have a high IQ and be a failure, and have a low IQ and be a prodigy.

The jurisdiction on whether or not they can enter the country should be based on their criminal record, their education, their skills, and how they can benefit the country overall.

[Diopolis]

Immigration, to many is a two edged sword. It can be a good thing, and a bad thing. You can have the best, and the worst of the world immigrating, at least that is the current immigration system in many nations.

Of course, cutting off immigration isn't a very good of an idea. We will see increased chances of inbreeding, and decrease genetic diversity, which isn't a very good thing to ensure the survival and health wellbeing of any country, but too much immigration can be quite detrimental to many nations, as if the immigrants are all welfare users, and consume more than they give, then they are a strain on society.

Of course, we want the best, not the worst of the world in a nation, so why don't we set an immigration quota that is based off IQ? Some think it is genetic, and in this case, we will have smarter people in the future, but others think that it is based off the education and experiences of the person, but if that person has a high IQ under this circumstance, then they would be highly educated and would therefore be beneficial to the workforce and (very likely) have highly educated children, which is beneficial to a nation.

So NSG, should we have an IQ-based immigration system?

No, because IQ is very much a flawed system, and also western countries typically have a greater problem finding unskilled labor to fill low-wage, menial positions than in finding skilled labor.

[Tahar Joblis]

A very standard party-line response for some parties, but not precisely empirically accurate. IQ, if known, is a very powerful predictor of many things other than IQ tests. It is only by controlling for almost every other available factor (education, high school GPA, parents' education, parents' income, etc) that you can make it look like it's only predicting IQ tests; absent those measures, or with easily-gamed measures of those, the IQ test becomes a powerful predictive tool.

The only thing an IQ test shows is that you are a good test-maker.

Seriously, if you are a good test maker it doesn't matter what sort of intelligence you actually have. I am an excellent test maker yet I am of average intelligence, or at least I don't pretend I am superior to everyone else (even if I am an asshole).

"Test-taker," you mean?

As I said, it has predictive validity in and of itself. Which is why it's used extensively. Being a "good test-taker" correlates - strongly - with a bunch of other desirable traits. The US military, for example, uses the ASVAB. What does the ASVAB measure?

Well, aside from your basic level of literacy and numeracy, it's more or less an IQ test battery.

Why does the US military use it? Because it has a high level of predictive utility.

Colleges use the SAT. What does the SAT measure? Well, to a small degree, it measures your educational attainment, up to basic numeracy (algebra and geometry, in particular) and basic literacy. To a small degree, thanks to the SAT test preparation industry, it is influenced by test-specific training. To a large degree, it simply correlates with IQ, or as some scientists have put it, "the SAT is mainly a test of g."

Why do colleges use SAT scores? Because they have a high level of predictive utility. It's not a random gate-keeping activity; they want good students, and SAT scores are one way to insure that.

Can you provide similarly good predictions using other factors? Sure, if you include enough of them. But typically, colleges and the US military either don't have access to that information, or in some cases aren't allowed to use those factors.

Are these perfect proxies for future success? No. I know a woman who blitzed through the honors program at her college, went into law school and graduated law school just fine who had tested out with a below-average (i.e., double digit) IQ, a surprisingly low number. I know another woman with an IQ over the MENSA line of 130 who has gone from filler job to filler job.

However, the correlation is on the whole very strong between IQ tests (and IQ-like tests) and ability. In actual reality, IQ is a powerful predictive tool; far from perfect, and with very troublesome complications, but powerful enough that even tests that are mostly just bad IQ tests are widely used for perfectly rational reasons.

The SAT, for example, is definitely a bad IQ test and would lose almost all predictive power whatsoever once you controlled for IQ and high school GPA. I suspect an actual IQ test might well be a superior predictor of college performance, in fact, although the factors that distort the SAT away from being a measure of IQ (namely high SES and access to superior test prep services) also correlate with positive performance in college. (Parents who can comfortably bankroll college are really helpful to have, it turns out.)

Is it fair? Is it just? Those are very different questions, and ones which can be debated at great length. But is it effective and useful? Definitely.

Would IQ based immigration be better for a society than their current system? Or more fair? Or more just? Possibly. Many countries have dysfunctional, unfair, arbitrary, and all around shitty systems for regulating immigration.