From the May 9 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player ...
From the May 9 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group's The Laura Ingraham Show:
Loading the player ...
From the May 8 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player ...
A co-author of the Heritage Foundation's new immigration report, which right-wing media have hyped despite even conservative criticism about its methodology, has long promoted inflammatory theories about the relationship between race and IQ in Hispanic immigrants, an unsurprising fact given his ties to extremist anti-immigrant organizations.
Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post's Wonkblog reported that Jason Richwine, a co-author of the Heritage report, asserts in his 2009 doctoral dissertation titled "IQ and Immigration Policy" that "there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races." Matthews wrote [emphasis added]:
While it's clear he thinks it is partly due to genetics -- "the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ" -- he argues the most important thing is that the differences in group IQs are persistent, for whatever reason. He writes, "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."
Matthews also included Richwine's dissertation abstract, which forwards the idea that the U.S. should not only select its immigrant pool based on IQ, but that immigrants and their future generations are not apt to obtain his desired level of intelligence [emphasis added]:
The statistical construct known as IQ can reliably estimate general mental ability, or intelligence. The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations. The consequences are a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market. Selecting high-IQ immigrants would ameliorate these problems in the U.S., while at the same time benefiting smart potential immigrants who lack educational access in their home countries.
His dissertation, however, was not the first time Richwine promoted these offensive claims. In July 2008, while Richwine was a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, he said in a panel discussion of the book The New Case Against Immigration, broadcast on C-SPAN, that "races differ in all sorts of ways, and probably the most important way is in IQ":
The argument that immigrants themselves are no different from the ones that came 100 years ago I think is, is quite wrong, and I think that the major difference here is ethnicity -- or race, if you will. I think that race is important for two main reasons. One is that human beings as a species are a naturally tribal group of people. We have inside, outside, groups. We have families, for one example, where, you know, family comes first in virtually every society. And we tend to be very attuned to even small, trivial differences between groups. I don't mean to suggest I think this is a good thing, I wish we could be more universalist, but the reality is that we're not going to be that way, and we shouldn't be basing policy on that either.
The second reason I think race is important is that there are real differences between groups, not just trivial ones that we happen to notice more than we should. Races differ in all sorts of ways, and probably the most important way is in IQ. Decades of psychometric testing has indicated that at least in America, you have Jews with the highest average IQ, usually followed by East Asians, and then you have non-Jewish whites, Hispanics, and then blacks. These are real differences. They're not going to go away tomorrow, and for that reason, we have to address them in our immigration discussions and our debates.
Richwine's anti-immigrant language is reminiscent of that used by the Pioneer Fund, which the Southern Poverty Law Center designates as a hate group that "funds studies of race and intelligence, as well as eugenics, the 'science' of breeding superior human beings that was discredited by various Nazi atrocities." The Pioneer Fund supports the notoriously anti-immigrant and fellow SPLC hate-group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), founded by nativist John Tanton who publishes The Social Contract Press. Richwine spoke at a 2010 event for The Social Contract Press on the "myth of immigrant crime," and, according to the group, argued that "immigrant and illegal alien crime is higher than crime committed by other demographic groups." After joining the Heritage Foundation's Domestic Policy Studies Department in January 2012, Richwine spoke at a Social Contract writing workshop last September about the "connection between culture and immigration" as part of a weekend event hosted by anti-immigrant and white nationalist organizations.
UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation issued a statement to BuzzFeed about Richwine's 2009 dissertation:
"This is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation," Heritage VP of Communications Mike Gonzalez told BuzzFeed in a statement. "Nor do the findings affect the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer."
This post has been updated for clarity.
Fox News devoted significantly more airtime to the Heritage Foundation's claims that providing legal status to undocumented immigrants will have negative fiscal impact, but mostly ignored pro-immigration rallies during the same period.
According to the Washington Post, the Cato Institute has identified another major flaw with the conservative Heritage Foundation's immigration report that further invalidates Heritage's conclusions: Heritage has repeatedly touted the use of "dynamic" scoring, as opposed to the "static" scoring used in its immigration studies, as the more accurate model for gauging fiscal impact.
As Cato Institute immigration expert Alex Nowrasteh explained, estimating a proposed bill's fiscal impact using dynamic scoring involves taking into account how legislation "will affect the rest of the economy, also changing tax revenue and government spending." He added: "Since increased immigration will increase the size of the economy, it will also increase tax revenue and some government spending."
As Nowrasteh went on to note, however, Heritage used "static" scoring to analyze immigration reform in 2007 -- which assumed the bill would not affect the rest of the economy.
Heritage has also employed the "static" method in a new analysis claiming that granting "amnesty" to undocumented immigrants would cost U.S. taxpayers $6.3 trillion, leading immigration experts and economists to dismiss it. The American Enterprise Institute stated that using such a model "fails to capture indirect but important economic impacts of immigration such as increasing economic activity or positively affecting American employment."
As the Post reported, this directly contradicts Heritage's views on "dynamic" scoring:
The libertarian Cato Institute has also rebutted the Heritage Foundation's analysis and said Monday that it fails to take into account the economic benefits of immigration reform.
"We're very disappointed that our fellow free-marketers at Heritage, who have done such great work promoting dynamic scoring methodology for so long, would fail to employ it on immigration reform," Cato spokesman Chris Kennedy said.
Indeed, as Cato noted, Heritage Foundation founder and former president Ed Feulner championed the use of dynamic scoring in a 2002 column. Fuelner called the "static" model "wrong-headed" and advised Congress to "switch to a method many business owners use-'dynamic scoring'-which assumes that if you change the way you do business, customers will react in relatively predictable ways."
Fuelner added: "Would 'dynamic scoring' always give lawmakers perfect estimates? No, but it surely would get much closer to the true cost than 'static scoring' does."
In a 2002 research piece on taxes, then-senior fellow Daniel Mitchell (now a senior fellow at Cato) similarly warned about the "perils and pitfalls of static forecasting" and advised against continuing to use "outdated and inaccurate static models." He wrote:
An objective examination of the historical evidence, however, demonstrates that dynamic scoring gives policymakers more accurate information. Dynamic scoring does not predetermine outcomes; it simply ensures that lawmakers will have the most comprehensive data when making decisions.
The strong theoretical argument for dynamic scoring is buttressed by a great deal of historical evidence. The United States has experienced significant shifts in tax policy over the years, and the historical record both demonstrates the shortcomings of static analysis and provides ample proof that the revenue-estimating process should be modernized.
William Beach, Heritage director of data analysis, argued in prepared remarks to the House Ways and Means Committee in September 2011 that "the absence of dynamic economic analysis in major policy debates should be enough to stop such a debate until it is informed by such analysis."
Moreover, a section in its April 23 report, "America's Opportunity for All" -- for which former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) co-wrote the foreword with Fuelner -- calls for using dynamic scoring "to make more practical and useful fiscal information available to Congress":
Budgeting has all but collapsed in recent years, reflecting an erosion of both fiscal policy and Congress's ability to govern. Process reforms should focus first on compelling Congress to budget regularly in a systematic and responsible way. Enforcement procedures should be strengthened to ensure spending discipline. Finally, the process should incorporate realistic projections of fiscal outcomes. For example, lawmakers should estimate and publish the projected cost over 75 years of any proposed policy or funding level for each major federal program, especially entitlements. Any major policy change should also be evaluated over a long-term horizon. In addition to calculating the costs of proposed congressional actions without regard to the economy's response to those actions (known as "static" scoring), the government should require a parallel calculation that takes that response into account (known as "dynamic" scoring) to make more practical and useful fiscal information available to Congress when it decides whether to pursue certain actions.
In criticizing the report, economist Tim Kane, a former Heritage fellow whose 2006 report on immigration for the organization concluded that the "argument that immigrants harm the American economy should be dismissed out of hand," wrote:
The net effect of this Special Report does real damage to the cause of dynamic analysis. For more than a decade, Heritage has called on CBO to add dynamic analysis to its tax reform studies. I could not agree more. And now, ironically, I can only hope CBO does an analysis of immigration reform that will show how skewed the Heritage immigration work has become.
Media outlets are reporting that a new immigration report from the conservative Heritage Foundation found that passing the proposed Senate comprehensive immigration bill will cost $6.3 trillion. In fact, the Heritage report is not an analysis of the entire Senate's "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act," and does not take into account costs or savings of the proposal's broader reforms.
From the May 6 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player ...
The right-wing media is promoting a study by the conservative policy group Heritage Foundation which claims immigration reform will cost $6.3 trillion dollars and damage the economy. This claim has been repeatedly debunked, even by conservatives, and is a revision of a 2007 study that utilized "fatally flawed" methodology.
Fox News guest Michael Cutler, a former agent with the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Services and also a fellow at the nativist organization the Center for Immigration Studies, used the Boston Marathon bombing investigation to attack the deferred action program for undocumented students. In reality, the program, which is intended to provide deportation relief to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, is unrelated to the circumstances of the suspects' immigration status
During a discussion with Fox News host Megyn Kelly about recent arrests in the Boston Marathon bombings, Cutler used the fact that one of the suspects reportedly was here on a student visa to attack the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. After casting doubt on the process by which asylum is granted, Cutler brought up DACA and suggested the program had similar security lapses. He asked: "Do you really think anyone is scrutinizing anything?" He also claimed that the program approves 99.5 percent of applicants:
In fact, those who qualify for deferred action are undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States before age 16. While the Boston bombings suspects' current immigration status is in dispute, they were reportedly in the United States under student visas and were legal non-immigrants.
Currently, there is not a mandatory in-person screening process for DACA applicants. However, in-person interviews may be requested for applicants who are suspected of fraud and for quality assurance purposes. But the process to apply is so arduous that these applicants are heavily scrutinized. Other than the several pieces of identifying documentation needed to begin the process as well as the $465 in fees, each applicant must go through a biographic and biometric background test.
Fox News has repeatedly invoked the Boston bombings to suggest that immigration reform could exacerbate existing problems within the immigration system. However, their commentary actually highlights shortcomings that the bipartisan Senate bill will address in full.
According to Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, the conservative Heritage Foundation is set to release a report that claims immigration reform will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. But Heritage's analysis is reportedly based on a 2007 study that was widely discredited by experts for its faulty methodology and dubious conclusions.
On KFTK's Allman in the Morning, Wallace stated that he plans to host Heritage Foundation president and former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint to introduce the report this weekend. Wallace said that the report will show that the proposed Senate immigration reform bill will "cost the Treasury billions of dollars" because "people would be eligible for Obamacare and various welfare programs."
In fact, as Wallace himself noted, undocumented immigrants who are granted legal status under the Senate bill will not be eligible for federal public benefits or subsidized health care for at least a decade. Moreover, immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to rely on such programs.
Wallace went on to criticize the conservative myth that immigrants come to the United States to gain access to government benefits.
Here are five facts media should know about the Heritage Foundation's previous problematic immigration report:
From the May 2 edition of The Laura Ingraham Show:
Loading the player ...
Fox News trumpeted the false claim that immigrants who receive provisional status under the immigration reform proposal would get a "tax amnesty" because the bill does not mandate they pay back taxes. In fact, the bill requires that immigrants -- at least three quarters of who already pay payroll taxes -- pay a tax liability before they can qualify for provisional legal status and ensure they pay taxes before they can renew their legal status.
In a FoxNews.com op-ed, Dan Stein, president of the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform, accused the bipartisan group of senators behind the bill of giving a "tax amnesty" to undocumented immigrants because the bill does not contain language addressing "back taxes" and does not explicitly explain how taxes will be assessed. He wrote that "taxes assessed" are different from "taxes owed" and there is no proof that the proposal would require immigrants to pay anything:
While this sounds good at first blush, "taxes assessed" is not the same as "taxes owed." A tax assessment occurs when the IRS officially records that a person owes money because an individual files a tax return, or the IRS audits an individual - whether or not he has filed a return - and records how much the person owes.
The bill requires aliens to only pay taxes that the IRS has assessed at the time they apply for ["registered provisional immigrant"] RPI status.
If the IRS had no knowledge that the individual had been working here, there would obviously be no tax liability assessed and the alien has nothing to satisfy for the purpose of getting RPI status.
In fact, immigrants who apply for provisional legal status would have to pay taxes. The bill states that immigrants may not receive provisional status until any federal tax liability is satisfied in accordance with regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Treasury. This gives the IRS the discretion to decide how a tax liability will be administered to immigrants seeking the legal status. If an immigrant is granted legal status they would still be required to pay taxes during that period as well.