Written by Bo Winegard.
In a recent tweet, the always provocative Richard Hanania wrote: “How you know the race and IQ people are just bigots: if you take IQ seriously, your main cause should be getting everyone on earth with a 110 IQ or higher into your country. This would be the only logical position one can hold.”
The race-and-IQ people targeted by Hanania are not specified, but he is presumably referring not merely to those who believe that human races vary in cognitive ability (since every relevant expert accepts that) but to those who believe it is important to speak candidly about race and IQ rather than retreat into silence or noble lies.
If so, the argument appears to be this:
Those who believe honesty about race and IQ is preferable to silence, and who nevertheless disagree with Hanania’s preferred immigration policy, are not merely mistaken but bigoted. And they are bigoted because they do not wish to admit everyone with an IQ of 110 or higher into the country.
Now, Hanania is prone to hyperbole, so before arguing against this claim, it is worth restating it in less incendiary terms:
People who believe IQ is an important trait, one that reliably predicts positive social outcomes, and who believe it is substantially heritable should support the admission of as many high-IQ immigrants as possible. If they oppose this, the most plausible explanation is racial animus or xenophobia. They are just bigots.
But even in this softened version, the argument remains unpersuasive. It assumes that if a person opposes bringing in, say, twenty million Chinese immigrants with IQs above 110, the only possible explanation is bigotry. After all, wealth is good—and larger, smarter, more specialized populations tend to generate more wealth. Refusing the opportunity to import millions of high-IQ immigrants thus appears, from this perspective, like refusing a winning lottery ticket. If not prejudice, what else could explain such “irrational” rejection of an obvious economic benefit?