In addition to representing the heavily-Hispanic 3rd Congressional District in New Mexico, Lujan is the second vice-chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
According to the Washington Post’s Wonk Blog, Jason Richwine previously opposed letting in immigrants with low IQs. In addition Richwine wrote in his doctoral dissertation, “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.”
“It is reprehensible that someone would make the argument that one race is inherently not as smart as another,” Lujan said. “Jason Richwine’s extremely offensive views of the Hispanic community are shocking. They also illustrate the narrow-minded attitudes that we must confront in our attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform that will strengthen our security, our economy, and families across our nation.”
The Heritage Foundation issued a statement to the Washington Post disavowing Richwine’s previous views:
Mike Gonzalez, VP for Communications at Heritage, emails: “This is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation. Nor do the findings affect the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer.”
Study itself criticized
The study itself has been criticized as being critically flawed. One major reason is that the study only looked at the costs of immigrants and didn’t factor in any economic benefits the immigrants would make to country’s economy.
Even the libertarian CATO Institute said the Heritage study is flawed.
The new Heritage report is still depressingly static, leading to a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue. It explicitly refuses to consider the GDP growth and economic productivity gains from immigration reform—factors that increase native-born American incomes. An overlooked flaw is that the study doesn’t even score the specific immigration reform proposal in the Senate. Its flawed methodology and lack of relevancy to the current immigration reform proposal relegate this study to irrelevancy.
The Heritage Foundation responded to criticism by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., by criticizing Rubio over “the modern welfare state.”
The Heritage Foundation says that “a failing entitlement system” should be fixed now.
Lujan’s statement also referred to these problems.
“It was already clear that the Heritage Foundation report on the costs of immigration reform is a flawed document meant to undermine efforts to pass immigration reform,” Lujan said. “The deeply offensive views held by one of its authors underscore just how much credibility this report lacks.”