Key Takeaways
1. America was always a "Nation by Design," not by chance.
From the moment they managed their own affairs, well before political independence, Americans were determined to select who might join them, and they have remained so ever since.
Intentional shaping. The United States, unlike Old World nations where people came with the territory, actively shaped its population from its earliest days. This involved violent elimination of indigenous dwellers, forced importation of African workers, and active recruitment of Europeans deemed "suitable." The Declaration of Independence itself included grievances against British immigration and naturalization policies, highlighting the founders' early understanding of immigration as a key instrument of nation-building.
Founders' vision. The American colonies were a collection of diverse population fragments, and turning them into a unified republic was an ambitious task. The founders sought to regulate immigration and naturalization to foster a politically integrated white republic. This proactive approach laid the groundwork for the enduring belief that the nation could be designed, setting a precedent for future policy.
Unusual latitude. The very nature of the immigration process provided Americans with unusual freedom to define their society. They not only set conditions for political membership but also decided who would inhabit their land, a power rarely exercised to such an extent by other nations. This foundational design, driven by both economic and political aspirations, established a pattern of intentionality that persisted throughout U.S. history.
2. The "Laissez-Faire" Immigration Myth is False.
My account thus challenges the widely held notion that until the late nineteenth century, the United States maintained a laissez-faire stance in the sphere of immigration.
Early regulations. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. never had a truly "open borders" policy. Well before federal legislation, states enacted considerable regulations, particularly at port-of-entry cities, to control who could enter. These early measures, though often challenged by courts, collectively amounted to a de facto national immigration policy.
Federal involvement. The absence of explicit federal immigration laws in the early republic did not signify a lack of interest in control. Instead, it was largely due to the overriding political issue of states' rights in relation to slavery, which relegated immigration policy to the state level. However, federal actions like the Passenger Act of 1819 and diplomatic efforts to influence European emigration policies demonstrate early national government involvement in shaping immigration flows.
Purposeful selection. From the outset, the goal was always to attract "desirable" settlers while deterring "undesirables." This selective approach, whether through land policies, naturalization laws, or passenger regulations, was a deliberate act of national design. The idea that the U.S. simply let anyone in until the late 19th century is a historical misinterpretation, often used to frame later restrictions as a departure from a mythical past.
3. Economic Needs vs. National Identity: The Enduring Policy Tension.
The contradiction, which has recurred in various forms throughout American history, often producing “strange bedfellows” on both sides of the confrontations over immigration, is at the heart of the present account.
Dual drivers. U.S. immigration policy has consistently been shaped by two distinct, often conflicting, sets of considerations: economic utility and national identity. Immigrants were seen as both valuable labor and potential threats to the existing social fabric. This tension led to complex and often inconsistent policies.
"Strange bedfellows" coalitions. This inherent conflict frequently resulted in unusual political alliances. For example:
- Pro-immigration: Capitalists seeking cheap labor often allied with ethnic groups advocating for family reunification.
- Anti-immigration: Labor unions fearing wage depression sometimes joined cultural conservatives concerned about national identity.
These shifting alliances made consistent, coherent policy difficult to achieve.
Evolving definitions. The definition of "economic utility" and "national identity" changed over time, leading to new debates. Early on, the need for agricultural labor was paramount. Later, industrial demand for unskilled workers became a driver. Simultaneously, national identity shifted from "Anglo-American" to "pan-European," and then faced challenges from non-European immigration, constantly redefining who was considered "assimilable."
4. The Shifting Face of "Undesirable" Immigrants.
In the United States alone, just about every cultural attribute imaginable was found objectionable at one time or another, notably “race,” as constructed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, referring to not only “Asiatics” and blacks but also “mixed-breed” Mexicans, different European nationalities, and Jews; religion, notably Roman Catholics from the eighteenth century until quite recently; and language, starting with German speakers at the time of the founding and again in the early twentieth century, and Spanish speakers today.
Evolving targets. The category of "undesirable" immigrants has been a constant in U.S. history, but its specific targets have shifted dramatically. Initially, British policy sought to dump convicts and paupers, which the colonies resisted. After independence, concerns broadened to include:
- Early Republic: German speakers (for language/political culture), Irish Catholics (for religion/loyalty), and free blacks (for race/social integration).
- Mid-19th Century: Irish and German Catholics (for religion, perceived political subversion, and poverty).
- Late 19th/Early 20th Century: Chinese (for race, labor competition, perceived inassimilability), then Southern and Eastern Europeans (for race, religion, perceived low intelligence, and "sojourner" tendencies).
- Late 20th Century: Mexicans and Central Americans (for perceived illegal status, language, and cultural threat).
Racialization of difference. These distinctions were often framed in racial terms, even among white European groups. "Whiteness" itself was a fluid concept, initially limited to "Anglo-Saxons," then expanding to include "Gothic" (Northern European) groups, and eventually encompassing Southern and Eastern Europeans. This racial hierarchy justified exclusion or restriction based on perceived biological or cultural inferiority.
Beyond economics. While economic concerns often underpinned the desire to exclude, fears about national identity, cultural cohesion, and political loyalty were equally powerful. The "undesirable" label was a tool to manage perceived threats to the nation's character, regardless of economic utility.
5. "Remote Control" and Border Enforcement: Projecting Power Abroad.
The implementation of restrictionism entailed a vast expansion of the American state’s capacity to regulate movement across its borders, and the deployment of this capacity within the territory of other sovereign states so as to achieve the elusive “remote control” to which regulators had long aspired.
Early attempts. The concept of "remote control"—managing immigration before embarkation—emerged early. The British Passenger Act of 1803, designed to deter emigration to the U.S., served as a model. The U.S. Passenger Act of 1819, while ostensibly humanitarian, also aimed to screen out undesirable European immigrants by regulating ship conditions and capacity.
Institutionalization of control. The 1920s saw the full operationalization of remote control. The quota system, coupled with the creation of an elaborate overseas bureaucracy within the State Department, shifted the burden of proof to applicants. Consular officials were empowered to:
- Issue visas based on strict quotas and eligibility criteria.
- Conduct preliminary screenings for health, literacy, and political suitability.
- Deny visas to those deemed "likely to become a public charge" (LPC).
This system effectively projected U.S. borders outward, making it difficult for unwanted immigrants to even embark.
Carrier liability. Shipping lines were enlisted as de facto border agents. They faced penalties for transporting inadmissible passengers, incentivizing them to pre-screen individuals. This mechanism, refined over decades, became a powerful tool for enforcing U.S. immigration policy far from its physical borders.
6. International Crises and Foreign Policy: Shaping Who Gets In.
Refugee policy has tended to be driven by strategic considerations arising quite directly from the dynamics of the international political system: providing asylum to the victims of one’s enemies was consistent with the imperatives of realpolitik in that it demonstrated the antagonist’s evil ways and undermined its legitimacy.
Realpolitik and asylum. U.S. refugee policy has often been a direct extension of its foreign policy. During the Cold War, admitting refugees from Communist countries served to:
- Demonstrate the perceived evils of opposing regimes.
- Undermine the legitimacy of adversaries.
- Gain propaganda victories in the ideological struggle.
This "calculated kindness" prioritized strategic interests over purely humanitarian concerns, leading to selective admissions based on geopolitical alignment.
Post-WWII shifts. The post-World War II era saw the U.S. take a leading role in establishing international refugee organizations (like IRO and UNHCR). However, domestic resistance to altering main-gate immigration laws meant that refugee admissions often occurred through ad hoc measures or presidential parole authority, rather than within the established quota system. This created a "side entrance" for refugees, distinct from regular immigration.
Global conflicts, local impacts. As Cold War confrontations shifted from Europe to the Third World, refugee flows diversified, bringing in large numbers from Cuba, Southeast Asia, and Central America. These admissions, driven by foreign policy, had significant and often unanticipated impacts on the demographic and cultural composition of the U.S., further complicating the national identity debate.
7. The Persistent "Back Door": Unregulated Labor and Contradictory Policy.
The emerging distinction between a main gate tightly regulated in keeping with the “national interest,” as determined by the guardians of the country’s “Nordic” character, and an informally managed “back door” where agricultural employers ruled supreme, was thus institutionalized into a long-lasting feature of American immigration policy.
Economic imperative. Despite stringent main-gate restrictions, a "back door" for labor, particularly from Mexico and the Caribbean, persisted and expanded. This was driven by the insatiable demand from agricultural employers for cheap, flexible, and often disposable labor, especially for labor-intensive crops. This informal system often contradicted the cultural and racial preferences embedded in main-gate policies.
"Wanted but not welcome." The "back door" institutionalized a "wanted but not welcome" dynamic. Employers actively recruited and benefited from undocumented workers, while policymakers, often influenced by agricultural lobbies, tacitly allowed the flow to continue. This created a class of workers who were essential to certain sectors of the economy but denied full social and political integration.
Policy hypocrisy. The bracero program and its successors, along with lax enforcement of border controls and employer sanctions, exemplified this contradiction. While the main gate was designed to preserve a specific national identity, the back door facilitated the entry of populations deemed "undesirable" by those very same identity standards. This dual system created a permanent, often exploitative, labor force and contributed to the growth of undocumented immigration.
8. Path Dependency: How Past Choices Constrained Future Immigration Policy.
Seldom has a scientific formulation encompassed a greater tragedy.
Inertia of institutions. Once established, immigration regimes acquire "inertial power" through entrenched institutions and the interests of actors invested in the status quo. This "path dependency" means that early policy choices, even if made under different circumstances, profoundly constrain future options, making radical change difficult.
The quota system's resilience. The national origins quota system, established in the 1920s, is a prime example. Despite its discriminatory basis and the dramatic changes in global circumstances (e.g., the Holocaust, Cold War), it remained largely intact for decades. Efforts to reform it were often limited to creating "loopholes" or "side entrances" rather than fundamentally altering the core structure.
Unintended consequences. Path dependency often leads to unintended consequences. The 1965 Immigration Act, intended to eliminate discriminatory quotas and promote family reunification, inadvertently led to a massive increase in non-European immigration due to "chaining" effects. This outcome, unforeseen by its architects, became the new status quo, demonstrating how initial choices can set a course with far-reaching and unexpected results.
9. The 1965 Act: Unintended Diversity and New Challenges.
But as this was being celebrated in a moving ceremony at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, much less was said of the fact that the long-awaited reform also imposed unprecedented restrictions on browns and blacks from neighboring countries.
Symbolic reform. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was hailed as a landmark civil rights achievement, abolishing the discriminatory national origins quotas and ending Asian exclusion. It symbolically redefined the U.S. as a pan-European nation, open to all, and was celebrated at the Statue of Liberty.
Unforeseen demographic shift. The law's architects did not anticipate the dramatic demographic transformation it would unleash. By prioritizing family reunification and eliminating country-specific quotas, it inadvertently led to a massive increase in immigration from Asia and Latin America, far surpassing European flows. This "chaining" effect, where new immigrants sponsored relatives, created a self-sustaining dynamic of diversification.
New restrictions and contradictions. While opening doors for some, the 1965 Act simultaneously imposed unprecedented numerical limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere for the first time. This targeted "browns and blacks" from neighboring countries, reflecting persistent anxieties about racial and cultural identity, even as the nation celebrated its newfound openness. This created new contradictions, as the "back door" for labor continued to operate, often illegally, from these very regions.
10. The 1990s and Beyond: Restrictionism's Limited Success.
Yet in the end, the mountain gave birth to . . . more than a mouse, something like a hefty rat, but still a considerably smaller offspring than its dramatic travails presaged.
Rising anti-immigrant sentiment. The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw a significant surge in anti-immigrant sentiment, fueled by concerns over:
- Economic impact: Perceived burdens on welfare systems and competition for jobs.
- Cultural identity: Fears of linguistic and cultural separatism, particularly from Hispanic populations.
- Security: Post-9/11 anxieties linking immigration to terrorism.
This public mood, often amplified by media and politicians, created strong pressure for drastic immigration reductions.
Legislative efforts and limitations. Despite this widespread sentiment, efforts to fundamentally restrict legal immigration largely failed. Laws like IRCA (1986) and IIRIRA (1996) focused primarily on illegal immigration through employer sanctions and border enforcement, but these proved largely ineffective. Proposals to drastically cut legal immigration, especially family-based categories, were consistently blocked.
Why restriction failed. The limited success of restrictionism can be attributed to several factors:
- "Strange bedfellows" coalitions: Pro-immigration forces (business, ethnic lobbies, civil rights groups) effectively countered restrictionist efforts.
- Political opportunism: Politicians, especially Republicans, became increasingly aware of the growing electoral power of Hispanic and Asian voters, tempering their restrictionist rhetoric.
- Economic realities: Demand for both high-skilled and low-skilled labor persisted, making drastic cuts economically unfeasible.
- Institutional inertia: The existing legal framework, particularly family reunification, proved difficult to dismantle.
The result was a complex, often contradictory, immigration regime that continued to facilitate significant, diverse flows, despite public calls for reduction.
Last updated:
