Heritage study co-author opposed letting in immigrants with low IQs: The Heritage Foundation made something of a splash with its study suggesting that immigration reform will cost the public trillions…. Jason Richwine’s doctoral dissertation… asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races… partly due to genetics…. [H]e argues the most important thing is that the differences in group IQs are persistent…. “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”… Rather than excluding what he judges to be low-IQ races, we can just test each individual’s IQ and exclude those with low scores. “I believe there is a strong case for IQ selection,” he writes, “since it is theoretically a win-win for the U.S. and potential immigrants.” He does caution against referring to it as IQ-based selection, saying that using the term “skill-based” would “blunt the negative reaction.”
That rhetorical strategy is reflected in Heritage’s current work on immigration. His and Rector’s report recommends greatly reducing “low-skilled” immigration and increasing “high-skilled” immigration…. Richwine also invoked skill considerations in arguing against the “diversity visa” program…
This, I think, poses a huge problem for everybody associated with the Heritage Foundation in the future. It is a reasonable inference to hear "superior race" when DeMint and Rector and company say "highly skilled".