A recent study by conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation sheds a great deal of light on the sausage mill of policy research, and the courage and integrity of the process of policy research altogether.

The Heritage study itself estimated that over the next 50 years, the relaxing of immigration rules in the U.S. would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. The study was performed by a recent Harvard Ph.D. and a former federal budget official.  From what I can tell, given the assumptions the authors used, the calculations are about right, but policy studies are not solely about calculations. For example, the study calculated that increased legalization of immigrants would be a huge budget windfall for more than a decade. Had they looked a decade, or even two or three decades out, it was clear that immigrants were a huge fiscal boon. This is pretty much what every other economist who has studied the matter has also concluded. So, the study generated an intense round of criticism, some of which was well deserved.

The authors chose an improbably long horizon from which to make fiscal estimates of immigration. Fifty-year-long studies often have merit, but not on issues like Medicaid, educational cost, and other things that are heavily dependent upon adaptive public policy. So, the choice of this time horizon naturally smelled a bit like a selective interpretation of the data. Good research should illuminate, not merely support an opinion. Still, the criticism of the study is most pointed in its targeting of the assumptions underlying immigrant behavior over the next 50 years. The study assumed that immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren would exhibit very little integration into society and use public services at a much higher rate than the native population. This might or might not be true, but it is certain that how true it will actually be dramatically alters the conclusions of the study. For this reason alone, the study is of limited policy value, but the story didn’t end there.

It turns out the researcher with the Harvard Ph.D. has been guilty of studying the link between IQ and immigration in the United States. Now I don’t think this is an especially interesting area of research, not only because it relies on data derived from the highly questionable research of psychologists, but because there’s no good policy use for the answers. Still, neither the intense study of irrelevant issues, nor an ill-informed attack on research is newsworthy. What is notable is the reaction of the Heritage Foundation. They fired the man for the content of his doctoral dissertation, which was approved by leading academics of the center and left. That is cowardice, pure and simple.

Jim DeMint shocked many in Washington when he resigned from the Senate to lead and revive the Heritage Foundation. In only six weeks he has heaped more damage on the institution than most could manage in an entire career, while demonstrating deep cowardice in the process. Perhaps he should head back to the Senate.