Reply With Quote
What's your argument against section one of the 14th amendment?
What's your argument against section one of the 14th amendment?
your empirical support was Chuck
just curious, which books do you have in mind?
Actually quoted another article that presented the same data and sat statistics.
the Reason article with the headline asking whether Hispanics were too stupid to be citizens?
btw, can you explain how SAT scores correlate with good citizenship?
elitist to the gills; would predicate citizenship status on standardized test scores.
"Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals."
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence
Idk. This was a subject that wasn't covered very well in high school. Then you read about the United Fruit Company and you start to understand the role we played in creating third world conditions down there. And then you get into the fact that we did the same things in other regions too so that our companies could make more money and we could have cheaper goods at the cost of those countries having good, stable governments that allowed their citizens to prosper.
I don't see any correlation with skin phenotype there.
That's not my point with that quote. My point is having an IQ test as part of a merit based legal system is perfectly reasonable. Allowing people to walk across the border is not.
where's the scientific evidence that certain skin phenotypes correlate with lower intelligence? you've argued that repeatedly.
Actually, the law requires that we do.
It is one hundred percent legal to ask for asylum. To prevent people from doing so is almost certainly illegal.
Lol the ?
Last edited by Blake; 10-30-2018 at 01:51 PM.
They were offered refuge in Mexico.
sorry, it's still illegal to refuse people the opportunity to ask for asylum in the US.
I pointed towards a concern that is a potential threat to the country. A merit based system minimizes the risk of that concern. The current process does not.
They were already offered asylum in a safe country. Logic dictates they should be declined if they do ask.
What concern and what threat?
sorry, in matters of law, logic does not dictate.
An underperforming majority. That concern.
Who's gonna pick dem apples if you're only letting in the smart immigrants? You and Chris?
I agree. But hush on their treatment while applying. There also should be a limit on number of applications reviewed within a given time span.
Under no cir stances they walk freely on US soil before being approved
Democrats drag feet or outright oppose much of what I wrote about. Hence: many Democrats are traitors
fear of a brown nation?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
