Recently, I stumbled upon yet another example of an academic study confirming a general thesis I have been developing for some years: “Almost all recent social scientific research on controversial topics is little more than deceitful foolishness.”

This particular example, published in the Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, claims that Mexican immigrants experience increased and unhealthy levels of stress when they come to the United States, particularly as they attempt to adopt American culture. The harder they work at it, the study suggests, the unhealthier they become under the burden of this stress. It is a remarkable claim. The implication is that by just doing what most immigrants in the history of the United States have tried to do—that is, assimilate to the culture by adopting the language, the customs, and the beliefs dominant here—unspeakable harm comes to these immigrants.

The insinuation is clear. If immigrants could just be permitted to remain as they (or their parents) are upon arrival, they would be better off. And there is a further claim postulated as to the causes of the stress. Effort at assimilation is the main driver of the increase in unhealthy stress, but it is the expectation from Americans that they change, and the discrimination that follows when they don’t, that is the primary source of their unhappiness and stress. (Presumably, discrimination would decrease with effort at assimilation, and successful acclimation to American culture would decrease levels of discrimination, but the study does not discuss the relationship between these two causal forces).

Even more remarkable is the suggestion that any upward tick in stress levels is entirely attributable to psychological factors. There is not a single word in the article about any of the possible biological factors that very typically drive stress. Diet, for example, is a prime factor in every other comparable study. Eating an unhealthy diet, with too much sugar, fat, and salt, essentially guarantees higher levels of stress hormones like cortisol as well as other major health risks. Without any concrete data on the question, one can be very reasonably assured that the typical Mexican immigrant, and especially those from rural and semirural places, consumed a diet with significantly less sugar, salt, and saturated fat before coming to America—the land of very cheap and very unhealthy food. One can practically guarantee, too, that most Mexican immigrants, once here, are drinking much more soda and other sugary drinks—one of the food addictions of contemporary America—than they did in their country of origin, where those products would take up a much larger chunk of their disposable income.

This is part of “assimilation to American culture” that one can happily encourage immigrants to resist. Many of us who were born here have learned to resist a good deal of the so-called staple foods of Americans (many of which are of the fast food and snack variety) because we are aware of how bad such a diet is for one’s health. But this article’s authors deliberately avoid any mention of this aspect of acculturation in order to insinuate that it must be other things—such as being asked to become fluent in English—that are causing the increased stress. And of course, they never admit that it is difficult to measure something like the stress associated with “being asked to become fluent in English and subsequent effort to learn the language,” let alone scientifically proving that it causes stress.

There are several other intriguing questions the article also fails to ask. For example:

Is American life perhaps more stressful than Mexican life because of the rural-to-urban transition that many Mexican immigrants make? Many come from rural areas to live in larger cities, where there are sizable existing immigrant populations from their home country. Any move from rural to urban, even absent other factors, reliably increases stress. But this study dedicates zero attention to this aspect of the story.

And how about a moral question? If we ignore our doubts about the shoddy methodology of the study and consider this stress spike a real finding, how can we justify supporting the migration that produces it?

Wouldn’t these people be better off in terms of health and happiness if they stayed put? The research seems to suggest the answer is clearly affirmative. Why, then, are we encouraging so many to come to a place where they will experience more stress? Why are we fighting to keep the authorities from taking them back to a place where they were happier and healthier? It’s almost like the folks who buy this argument want immigrants to be more stressed than they would be if they were at home.

The better to blame white Americans, one supposes. If immigrants had demonstrably lower levels of stress while living out their lives as nonimmigrants, then the hyper-pro-immigrant lobby that is American academia would have one less evil aspect of American culture to examine, study, and shame the American people about. So, all things being equal, we can perhaps expect such authors as these to willingly sacrifice the health of immigrants for the noble project of denouncing America for its lack of sufficient openness towards immigration.