Hacker News Reader

Comment by erpaa | Hacker News Reader

Good Idea actually. In Norway this issue was studied when it still was still politically possible. The probability of a baby becoming "marginaliserad" ie social fuck-up was 40% for single mothers, 20% for working mothers and "incredibly low" for full-time mothers. Babies have no absolute intrinsic value perse, this is why replacing natives with imported IQ-72 people does not work.

View on HN

We've banned this account for trolling. If you continue to create accounts to break the site guidelines with, we will ban your main account as well.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of the site to heart—intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation—we'd be grateful. This community is fragile and far from fireproof.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18739154 and marked it off-topic.

Confusing correlation with causation again, are we?

Another interpretation of those numbers is that single mothers often start off from a worse basis and the support isn't good enough.

And with low income immigrants, mothers are more likely to stay at home, given the relative lack of earning opportunities.

The "IQ-72" people do not have the gumption to leave their home countries in the first place.

That's a simplistic view. Immigrants and expats are a diverse bunch.

Funny. If imported ppl were IQ=72 they would not hijack Norway wellfear system :D

And the immigrants are indispensable in Norway, especially on the lower end of the pay scale. Wages have risen in Norway so much that Norwegians reduce their working hours on a big scale.

Most immigrant households in the USA are on welfare.

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Hous...

> A September 2015 report by CIS asserted that "immigrant households receive 41 percent more federal welfare than households headed by native-born citizens."[78] The report was criticized on the basis of poor methodology by Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute. Nowrasteh said that the report opted not to examine how much welfare immigrants use, but to examine households led by an immigrant so that the report could count the welfare usage of the immigrant's US-born children, which leads to a misleading estimate of immigrant welfare use.[78]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

"Center of Immigration Studies" seems like a very dubious source of information when even Cato is criticizing them.

https://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-oversta...

They should be counting USA born, dependent children. Having a “border baby” who is eligible for welfare is a primary source of that household welfare.

Cato is funded by the Koch brothers who love illegal immigration because of cheap labor

Reply on news.ycombinator.com