FEE's Jefferey Tucker has the same IQ denialism that you see in Brook. Tucker doesn't like IQ because it arose out of the Progressive era as one way of better managing society according to Progressive ideals. I too don't like the Progressive era but that doesn't mean that IQ, ie cognitive testing, is illegitimate. That's just bad reasoning.

Yawon not only does not believe that immigrants should be selected based on IQ, he doesn't even believe such a thing as IQ exists!
Just FREE-WILL-YOURSELF to the level of Aristotle's intellect! It should be no problem, right? Free will, baby!!!

But seriously, once you get just how significant "IQ" is in society, your whole perspective on many issues has to be re-assessed.
For instance, the idea that our manual labor can just magically *will itself* into becoming high skilled engineers is absolutely ridiculous, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to take into account when deciding whether or not to flood the country with low skilled outsiders.

Does anyone even remember the concept of the crow epistemology? Darn obleftivists...
A similar metaphor can be used in regards to individual human beings' differences in intelligence. This is not controversial. In fact, I saw something very similar being said in a book on mnemonics I read a few months ago. Some people can handle more data at once, just like the crow example, some can "work with" more data and do so much faster than others, they have better problem-solving skills, etc. And that doesn't take anything away from the need to be productive and not a lazy sloth. But does anyone really not remember his high school years? What about primary school? College? There were the brighter students, and the less bright. It was not *just* "laziness" that differentiated the two.

Working hard is a pre-requisite for success. But your potential ability plays an important a role as to how far your hard work can take you. How this perfectly simple, common sense proposition has become controversial these days just goes to show how far the left has dominated the field of education for decades, brainwashing each new generation to further and further extent.

“Productive work” does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.
- Ayn Rand

(Bold added)

Just because Europeans could be assimilated doesn't mean that Muslims and other third worlders can. This is something that Brook should be challenged on.

Brook said we need more high IQ immigrants, yet he doesn't believe that IQ should be a factor in immigration.

Yaron said fly over country is "empty." I guess he hasn't heard of the issues with respect to water in these areas. There is no way that you could fill up flyover country with 100 million people in a short period of time.

And Brook keeps lecturing us on "free will." Don't immigrants have free will? What is so magical about assimilation.

If bringing in more people was so fantastically good for the economy, then America would be incomparably richer than tiny New Zealand. It isn't.

The simple truth is good trade links can do exactly what immigration does, in expanding economic potentials and enhancing agglomeration advantages. Especially in today's world.

But I agree with Brooks sentiment that America should be bringing in highly skilled people that allow advanced industries to expand, and keep professional labour costs down. That can only be good.

Yaron said he doesn't have a problem with 100 million more immigrants into the United States. He says we need more people.

Why wouldn't 100 million more immigrants make Israel a better place?