The claim that this would somehow be inherent to the genetics of the people there is nothing more than a childish allegation.

You're strawmanning every "hereditarian" as a pol-tier retard. If we assume that, for instance, Syrians' average IQ of 83 (which falls in the "ideal" range for criminality) would not have an effect on their behavior is insane, we know that IQ:

1. Is consistently negatively correlated with religiosity (plenty of intelligent religious people, just a trend)
2. Is negatively correlated with delinquency, as well as violent and anti-social behavior
3. Is consistently positively correlated with both wealth and even more so with income
4. Is consistently (~0.4-0.6) correlated with brain size via MRI and other measurements

Even if IQ differences across racial groups are 100% environmental, it would still take several generations for Syrians (with worse parenting, lower initial IQs, lower educational attainment, lower incomes as a result of the previous two) could still have a somewhat consistent IQ, even with generous government benefits (muh bennies). Meaning differences in crimes and acceptance of economic facts/basic historical knowledge. If you happen to care about libertarianism, low IQ populations are not your friend, even if they're only low IQ due to discrimination and socioeconomics.

PhD Anthropologist Alondra Oubré has written a great article on "The Warrior Gene" tl;dr it's strongly correlated with crime (it predicts delinquency WITHIN a racial group, I don't mean look blacks have this genes and whites don't that would be bullshit obviously, it predicts crime within ethnic groups)- it's not shared equally among various ethnic groups, so better not mention it! Which is actually super fucking evil, because the people that carry the MAOA-2R are predisposed to extreme violence especially if they've been abused- shouldn't we do everything we can to tell the people whose kids are most likely to carry it "stop abusing your kids pls."

So, no one would claim Muslims are just lacking the "white gene" therefore they're subhuman (no one worth mentioning in a debate.) Most racists don't have a rational view of science, but support most of the conclusions of hereditarianism (except when it is inconvenient for them)- but the majority of anti-racists also have no ability to make a rational case for the scientific theory supporting their cause, the environmentalist view. So, basically, we can talk about retarded anti-racists and racists, wow, they're retarded and don't adhere to the scientific method, cool, or we could actually debate within the rational realm of whether or not group differences are innate or environmental and what combination is likely, if any exists, and what effects we can expect given the validity of one theory or the other. Clearly, we should either do the latter, or stop circle jerking about how stupid people who have low-IQs and strong cognitive biases are (circlejerking about the stupidity of people who don't submit their empirical beliefs to the test of aligning with reality.)

I'm not going to try to make an airtight case for hereditarianism here, but I would ask you to look into how the two different theories of racial IQ gaps could account for these "hateful" questions/statements:

1. There are a wide variety of physiological differences, resulting from the different environmental pressures of different ethnic groups. Blacks have broader shoulders and narrow hips (more efficient stride) than whites, and whites have broader shoulders and narrower hips than Asians; blacks have shorter gestation periods than whites, whites shorter gestation periods than Asians; blacks can support their head/back of their own volition earlier than whites, and whites earlier than Asians; brain size is correlated with IQ (0.4-0.6) consistently, and Asians have the largest brain size, then whites, then blacks. Given that there are a wide variety of innate physiological differences between racial groups (races which are admittedly somewhat arbitrarily defined but are not "social constructs"), and that these differences resulted from tens of thousands of years of differing environmental pressures, does it not stand to reason that these environments had different pressures and natural selection, therefore, might have selected for different IQs? For example, if in tropical climates where natural selection might have primarily focused on individuals' immune systems instead of other valuable traits, does it not stand to reason that environments with less of a focus on strong immune systems could select for other valuable traits (IQs in those environments would be "less random" as selection would be more focused towards intelligence than disease resistance)?
2. Given that IQ has a cost (larger brain size, which is necessary for higher IQ, is very calorie intensive), does it not stand to reason that if IQ could be higher and be beneficial natural selection would select for it, and conversely, IQs beyond the "ideal" point for IQ would be ceteris paribus inferior to slightly lower IQs in that environment?
3. If discrimination against blacks causes their IQ to be lower than whites, who is discriminating against whites to cause their IQs to be lower than Asians and Ashkenazi Jews?
4. Would the environmentalist model of IQ predict that Ashkenazi Jews who lived in societies strongly biased against them for hundreds of years would have high IQs? Would this model predict that blacks in all 50 states, whether particularly liberal or conservative (aka racist in liberal speak), would this model predict that blacks would score lower than whites in every single state, county, and city, no matter how liberal?
5. Could even 10% of these consistent IQ differences be a result of genetic distinctions and not solely cultural/socioeconomic ones?
6. This is a bit redundant, but: is the most rational view, disregarding a desire for everyone to be equal, that "divergent" evolution between races stopped within the brain, but did change the size of the cranial cavity to be larger in groups that today score higher on IQ tests, skull shape, facial structure, number of vertebrae, length of pregnancy, size of hips (to meet the needs of larger/smaller skulls), length of appendages, and many other physiological features?

You might consider looking at this. It's by Rushton, who is a controversial figure, but even if you hate him for his support for hereditarianism, he does a great job of giving you the basic definitions and data that everyone agrees on (almost), it's the interpretation OF the data that differs. I would encourage you to avoid left-wing blogs on this debate, as they are about as unbiased a source for information as stormfront; I am not saying you should avoid environmentalists scientists, I am saying you should avoid left-wing sophists.

Oh, and full disclosure for the sake of honesty, of the people who are "hereditarians" there are two types, generally speaking:

1. You have hereditarians who probably were left-of-center "common sense anti-racists" for most of their life who had an emotional aversion to theories claiming that racial differences in IQ are innate, but certain facts seemed to really be outside of what environmentalists predict, and due to the data they were led towards a conclusion that differences are real. This was actually me, I then decided that this information was repulsive, read one article that said "hereditarianism is wrong" and didn't look at it for three years. Smart money says that most people are more dutiful censors of their own thought than I have been.

2. You have hereditarians who eagerly endorse the conclusions of this theory as it can in some ways support their hatred of other groups of people. As I've pointed out, not all racists are hereditarians, but I am absolutely willing to admit that most racists support the general idea of this theory. At which point you should be wondering why do we even debate this? Well, if race differences in IQ are innate, this means that certain groups will inevitably have poorer outcomes, and if we're all dogmatic environmentalists this will create permanent conflict as we try to solve the unsolvable problem of inherent inequality- not to say that no one in the US is racist, but again, worst case scenario, it's really important to answer these questions. Honestly, I'm not sure "everyone is equal except because of culture" is even the best case scenario, because frankly I would rather be tasked with trying to alter the expression of certain genes than unfucking, for example, Syria's culture.