OPINION: US at risk of repeating same immigration blunder as a hundred years ago

So, here’s the deal. This is draft number too-many-to-count on this immigration issue as it is a subject about which it is difficult to write, to say the least.

How do I navigate through the political rhetoric that is dominating the news? How do I get the point across that, to me, immigration hasn’t necessarily been a partisan issue; after all, former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, was labeled “Deporter in Chief” after he deported over 5 million immigrants during his tenure, while President Donald Trump, a Republican, deported over just 1.5 million during his first term.

On the other hand, former President Joe Biden deported about the same number as Trump’s first term but allowed a record 8 million immigrants to cross the border. There is a lot of context needed to explain these numbers. For instance, Biden’s deportations focused on the border area while Obama and Trump’s numbers included more deportations in the interior. Clear as mud?

I have great friends that have different opinions on immigration, and I don’t want to ruin those relationships. Yet, I thought something must be said and because I lead a business organization that focuses on the Hispanic and small business communities, including immigrant-run businesses. I was compelled to address the economic impacts of immigration and the positive contributions that immigrants make to our state and country and dispel the stereotypes and political hyperbole currently in the media regarding immigration.

I also wanted to emphasize that we have invited Dr. Zeke Hernandez, a professor from one of the best business schools in the U.S., the Wharton School of Business, to speak at a luncheon on Feb. 21. Hernandez is an expert from professional research and personal experience, as he was born in Uruguay.

In my opinion, almost nobody talks about what is outlined in Hernandez’s book. The following paragraphs are paraphrased from his book, “The Truth about Immigration,” and his other writings.

A big issue is the self-harm the 1924 National Origins Act’s restrictions caused to America: significant job losses, obliterating innovation by American scientists and companies, lowering investment across our communities and giving rise to the border problems we still experience to this day.

Another thing we’re overlooking is that we face the real risk of repeating the same blunder. The 1924 law banned all immigrants from Asia and restricted Europeans to 2% of the number of foreigners from any given country that were residing in the U.S. as of 1890. The quotas slowed Southern and Eastern Europeans’ arrival to a trickle as immigrants went from nearly 15% of the U.S. population to less than 5%. The self-harm is clear in hindsight.

The 1924 quotas led America to lose out on thousands of foreign scientists. As a result, U.S.-born scientists became 68% less likely to patent, and companies dependent on foreign talent suffered a multi-decade decline in patenting.

Beyond harming consumers and businesses, these lost innovations compromised national security by weakening America’s leadership in areas like chemistry, physics and math. Part of the reason the U.S. fell behind in the space race was its paranoia toward foreigners, and its subsequent catch-up was powered by aggressive recruitment of immigrant talent.

The architects of the 1920’s immigration restrictions claimed to be protecting American workers, but they accomplished the opposite. At the height of the Great Depression, politicians worried that American workers were being hurt by competition from Mexicans; the government forcibly repatriated one-third of all Mexicans living in the U.S. The effort backfired, resulting in fewer and lower-paying jobs for American workers.

The 1924 law stayed in place for over 40 years. In the end, the Civil Rights Movement and the fight against the Soviet Union forced Congress to act. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated the country-specific quotas and immigration levels have returned to about 15% of the country’s population.

The number of visas we hand out is far below what our country needs for economic, humanitarian and other purposes. We don’t even replace the 700,000 prime working-age people who die each year, let alone allow the people needed to power an ever-expanding and ever-more-complex economy.

Today, we face conditions eerily like those leading up to the 1924 law.

This time, we’ve experienced a mass arrival of Asians and Latin Americans. Like 100 years ago, many today worry that they’re poor, uneducated, don’t speak English and bring unassimilable cultures and religions. The combination of 9/11 and a leaky border now provide a national security pretext for draconian restrictions, as WWI did back then. And the same old “villain” argument that immigrants hurt us economically and threaten our precious heritage persists.

And so, we find ourselves facing the same precipice our forebears did 100 years ago. Will we be smarter this time?

Ernie C’deBaca is president and CEO of the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce, a board member of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Journal’s Community Council.