The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
“100 years ago today, America committed its biggest immigration blunder when President Calvin Coolidge signed the National Origins Act. As we commemorate the anniversary, most of the conversation focuses on condemning the racist motivation of excluding Asians and Southern and Eastern Europeans. . . .
“But almost nobody talks about two things. One is the self-harm the 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.
“The second thing we’re overlooking is that we face the real risk of repeating the same blunder. Forces identical to those that led to the 1924 law are at play.
“Trump and his allies are dominating the headlines and winning the rhetorical battle with the hyperbolic message that immigrants are villains who threaten our economy, culture and security. Like 100 years ago, they claim that mass exclusion is essential to save America. President Biden — like most people — seems confused about how to respond.
“As voters and citizens, will we be smarter this time around? . . . The architects of the 1920s immigration restrictions claimed to be protecting American workers, but they accomplished the opposite. . . . Today, we face conditions eerily similar to 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. . . . And a group of politically motivated and well-funded pundits are making the same old ‘villain’ argument that immigrants hurt us economically and threaten our precious heritage.
“That group is winning the rhetorical battle because the most common counterargument isn’t effective. Those who favor immigration mainly push the compassionate idea that immigrants are the ‘poor, huddled masses’ to whom we have a moral obligation — even if it costs us dearly. But that doesn’t light a fire under people or mobilize voters. . . .” — The US Is Reviving the Worst of its Immigration History to All of Our Peril, Zeke Hernandez, The Hill, 5/26/24 [Link]
Fact Check of Above Quote: Mass immigration advocates typically sink into unreality and deception, but this article hits an exceptional depth of falsehood. Far from a blunder, the 1924 immigration act was one of the most beneficial pieces of legislation in our history. To understand this fact, let’s consider the situations in our country prior to the act and after it.
As the 1920s began, we were trying to assimilate a massive wave of immigration which took off in the 1880s. Many problems were in evidence. National cohesion was suffering as city neighborhoods and even regions were becoming patchworks of different ethnicities and cultures. The state of working-class people, native and foreign-born, was often desperate and miserable. A continuous flow of immigrants depressed wages and discouraged improvement of working conditions.
Due to this situation, labor unrest and violence were on the uptick. Left-wing radicals, a significant number of them from immigrant backgrounds, exploited this strife to advance their agendas. Change began after the 1924 act slashed immigration. Without a continuous supply of cheap labor to exploit, business management felt pressure to accede to labor unions and other legitimate demands of working people. After that point, despite the interruption of the Great Depression, workers began to make progress. By the 1960s, they had widespread access to a middle-class standard of living. This economic progress aided assimilation. Greatly assisting it was the end of immigration which replenished and strengthened balkanized communities.
The 1924 act aided social stability with its quota system which prevented radical demographic shifts. This system, the author lambasts as “racist,” the usual response of immigration advocates to any policy they don’t like. In fact, it is simple common sense to preserve ethnic continuity and the cohesion it provides.
Despite the claim that we need mass immigration for innovation and economic vitality, the period following the 1924 act saw an unprecedented surge of American creativity and development. The author ignores this achievement while claiming that we lacked some highly-skilled scientists. Even so, that is no argument for mass immigration. A limited quota for exceptional people can meet whatever needs we have.
The author inadvertently speaks the truth when he states that “[W]e face conditions eerily similar to those leading up to the 1924 law.“ Indeed we do, as immigration—unprecedented in numbers and diversity—threatens our national identity. Also, our working class is slipping back to where it was before the law, and much of our middle class is not doing so well either.
We would be fortunate today if we had politicians as wise and responsible as their predecessors were a century ago. The author sarcastically mocks immigration restrictions who wish to protect “our precious heritage.” Obviously, that heritage means nothing to him. Maybe he’s a pundit “well-funded” by pro-immigration interests.