Through the late nineteenth century, the United States encouraged immigration and maintained an open-door policy. From the early seventeenth century through the mid-nineteenth century, Protestants made up a large percentage of new immigrants to North America, although a number of Jewish and Catholic immigrants arrived in the American colonies well before the American Revolution. The colony of Maryland began as a haven for Catholics in the seventeenth century, and Catholics from Spain settled in Florida and the American Southwest as early as the sixteenth century, well before Jamestown. By and large, though, the vast majority of the earliest settlers were Protestant.
By the early nineteenth century, increasing numbers of Catholic immigrants from Italy, Ireland, and Poland began arriving in the United States, and many went to work building the canals and railroads of the Eastern Seaboard, later becoming an integral part of the labor force in the nation’s coal mines and textile mills. By the mid-1850s, the growing number of Irish-Catholic immigrants provoked an increasingly virulent nativism among xenophobic and anti-Catholic Americans, leading to the establishment of the American Party, more commonly known as the Know-Nothings. The Know-Nothings proposed tighter restrictions on European immigration and sought to discourage Catholics from holding political office or gaining any influence in American public life (laws that remain on the books in some states, although they are no longer enforced). Following the Civil War, repressed anti-immigrant sentiments reemerged, and a number of states passed new laws restricting immigration and making it difficult for new immigrants to participate in the electoral process. In 1875, the Supreme Court found state limitations on immigration unconstitutional on the grounds that only the federal government had the authority to regulate immigration. By the early 1880s, growing concern with Chinese immigration in the West led to increased pressure on Congress to enact additional laws restricting immigration. In 1880, the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, and Greenback parties all endorsed restrictions on Chinese immigration, which was considered to be a matter of “grave concern.” In response, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. In 1884, the Republican and Democratic national conventions called for full enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Between 1885 and 1887, Congress enacted a series of laws further prohibiting certain laborers from immigrating to the United States, many of which targeted immigrants from Asia.
In 1891, Congress established an Immigration Service within the Treasury Department to screen immigrants. Despite these new, restrictive immigration laws, immigration to the United States accelerated during the period from 1880 through the early days of World War I, and a large percentage of these immigrants were from southern European countries such as Italy and Greece. Initially, immigrants from these countries drew little attention, but as their numbers swelled, alarms were raised. In response to the even higher volume of immigration after World War I, Congress passed the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, which created a quota system that severely limited immigration from Asia and established a preference system for immigrants that favored residents of northern European countries. It was not until the Magnuson Act of 1943 that Chinese persons were eligible to become citizens of the United States, and it would take another twenty years for the Immigration Act of 1965 to eliminate ethnic quotas.
Immigrants often found themselves the targets of political discrimination, as was the case with many German immigrants, who were prosecuted for sedition during World War I, and many American-born citizens of Japanese descent, who were forcibly sent to internment camps in the western United States during World War II. Concerns about American communist sympathizers in the 1950s led far right-wing political groups such as the John Birch Society to crusade for draconian limits on immigration (a position that the group continues to endorse).
During the 1940s, the Roosevelt administration and the Mexican government undertook a cooperative venture called the “bracero program,” which involved a series of laws and executive agreements designed to encourage the temporary migration of Mexican workers to the United States to be hired for contract work, which helped to addressed the labor shortages in the United States during World War II. Half a million Mexican laborers had been deported from the United States during the Great Depression; thus the bracero program not only supplied needed labor for American employers, but it also promised to serve as a fresh start for U.S.-Mexican relations with regard to the treatment of migrant workers. The bracero program ended for most employers after the war, but it continued in the agricultural sector until its expiration in 1964.
The bracero program officially ended during the Johnson administration, but migrant workers continued to flow northward to work the fields of California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, eventually spreading eastward and northward. The ensuing migrations swelled the population of immigrant workers from south of the border, many of whom were working in the country without permission from (or under the protection of) American law. Federal law did permit certain illegal aliens to obtain legal residence status, but these provisions applied to few migrant workers.
The bracero program was opposed by the charismatic Latino activist Cesar Chavez and his National Farm Workers Association (which eventually became the United Farm Workers [UFW] union) on the grounds that it failed to protect the rights of migrant workers, who lacked the right to unionize, and thus they were easily fired if they refused to work for the low wages and in the poor working conditions offered by their employers. In 1965, Chavez’s group, in conjunction with several other migrant workers’ organizations, initiated a nonviolent boycott against the growers of table grapes in Delano, California. Chavez enlisted the support of student groups and church groups and ultimately took his case to the American consumer, persuading more than ten million Americans to forgo buying table grapes over the course of the boycott. In the Campaign of 1968, Democratic hopeful Robert Kennedy joined Chavez to celebrate the end of a fast that Chavez had embarked on, and in return, Chavez and the UFW endorsed Kennedy’s candidacy (the support of Chavez and the UFW had played an important role in his short-lived electoral success; tragically Kennedy was later assassinated on the night of his victory in the California primary). The UFW ultimately signed a labor contract with the Delano growers in 1969 that provided for fairer hiring and working conditions for migrant labor in the industry. When the contract expired four years later, the UFW joined up with the Teamsters (and, ultimately, the AFL-CIO) to strike for a new contract. The strike turned violent, and the UFW called it off, instead lobbying California governor Jerry Brown for greater legal protection. Their initial success proved to be short-lived, as later administrations provided more leeway for growers and fewer rights for migrant workers.
Despite their precarious legal position, migrant workers continued to stream into the United States, both legally and illegally. By the 1980s, tensions over immigration policy resurfaced, spurred by this growth in immigration, mostly from Latin America. In the fall of 1980 alone, approximately 124,000 Cubans arrived in the United States as part of the Mariel boatlift (most of whom were permitted to stay in the United States under the unique “wet-feet, dry-feet” policy governing Cuban immigrants, who are not deported if their feet come into contact with American soil before they are detained by law enforcement officials). In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration and Reform Control Act, which tightened border security and increased penalties for employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants, but which also offered amnesty to any immigrant who had entered the country illegally prior to 1982. At the time, the legislation was part of a bipartisan compromise between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the Republican president. For the most part, immigration policy was not a source of controversy in presidential campaigns during much of the twentieth century, despite being a source of controversy in society more generally. In part, this was due to a shared view on immigration by both major parties. For example, despite recent legislative efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigration, the Republican Party platform in the Campaign of 1988 still recognized the valuable contributions made by immigrants to the United States, while also reaffirming the right of the country to control its borders.
However, in the Campaign of 1992, this situation changed. The Republican Party platform called for strengthening border patrol activities to prevent further growth in illegal immigration, and it advocated rolling back the number of migrant laborers working outside of the purview of the law. In contrast, the Democratic platform emphasized the contributions made by immigrants to American society and did not call for further limits on immigration or tougher measures to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush defended his decision to repatriate Haitian refugees who were fleeing political violence and poverty in their home country, while Democratic nominee Bill Clinton criticized the repatriation as lacking in compassion (although after he was elected, Clinton too found himself repatriating Haitians, and he later sent U.S. troops to Haiti to restore the deposed Aristide, presumably hoping that the presence of a democratically elected leader would stem the flow of Haitian refugees).
The nation’s overall mood began to turn sharply against illegal immigrants during the Clinton years. In 1994, the state of California passed Proposition 187, a voter-initiated referendum known as the Save Our State (or SOS) Initiative, which was designed to prevent illegal residents and their children from receiving public benefits such as emergency health care and public education (although it contained no provisions to deport these individuals, who were crucial to the state’s agriculture industry). The courts eventually struck down the law, but the measure had long-lasting consequences for politics in California and the nation as a whole. Support for Proposition 187 broke down largely along party lines, with most support coming from Republican voters. The measure was endorsed by then Republican governor Pete Wilson (who had presidential aspirations at the time). Democrats sharply opposed the measure. Latino voters in California also opposed the measure, although they did not vote in large numbers, presumably believing that the measure would never pass. Ironically, one consequence of Proposition 187 was that its passage served to mobilize the Latino community in California and elsewhere and made it more difficult for Republican candidates to do well in future statewide elections in California.
In the Campaign of 1996, the Republican National Convention approved a platform plank stating that illegal aliens should not receive public benefits other than emergency aid. The Democratic Party platform criticized Republicans for attempting to deprive immigrant children of their access to education. Instead, Democrats supported increasing civil and criminal sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants.
In the Campaign of 2000, the Republican National Convention nominated Texas governor George W. Bush, who (like his brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush) was known for his moderate views on immigration. In a critical change in the GOP platform, Republicans again applauded the role of immigrants in building the United States and abandoned their earlier proposals for new legislation that would have deprived illegal immigrants of social services. This change helped Bush tailor his message to the growing number of Hispanic voters, many of whom supported his candidacy. In the Campaign of 2004, incumbent president Bush proposed a new guest worker program that would permit some seven million nonresidents to work in the United States for a limited amount of time. His challenger, Democrat John Kerry, criticized the guest worker program as too narrow and instead suggested legislation that would benefit undocumented residents who were already working in the United States. Kerry proposed legislation that would put millions of undocumented aliens on the road to citizenship. Both the Bush and Kerry campaigns competed vigorously for the votes of millions of Hispanic voters. Latino voters turned out in record numbers, with over seven million Latino voters casting ballots on Election Day, an increase of well over a million from the previous election.
Bush’s efforts to court the Latino vote in 2004 paid off. The Hispanic vote had historically been more favorable toward the Democratic Party (although Reagan made some inroads in the Campaign of 1980). In 2004, Bush received somewhere between 30 percent and 40 percent of the Latino vote (depending on the survey used), which is at or near a record level for a Republican presidential candidate (and an improvement on his own performance in 2000). After winning the 2004 election, President Bush proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation, including a path to citizenship for undocumented residents, but he was unable to convince a Republican-dominated Congress to enact his reforms.
Most of the current efforts to ease restrictions on immigration in the United States center on the children and families of illegal immigrants. In 2001, Congress (with the support of President Bush) proposed the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM), which would have granted permanent residency (under certain conditions) to children of undocumented residents. The legislation enjoyed bipartisan support; Republican senators John McCain and Orrin Hatch signed on as cosponsors. This bill has been reintroduced in various forms over the years but has failed to pass in the Senate. Additionally, some Republicans who initially supported the legislation have shifted their position. Democrats have generally endorsed the passage of the newest incarnation of the DREAM Act. Obama lobbied hard for passage of the act, although he was also criticized by immigrants’ rights groups for achieving record levels of deportations during his first term.
The Republican candidates for president were, on the whole, far more critical of attempts to ease up on immigration restrictions in the Campaign of 2012 compared to McCain only four years earlier. During the primary season, GOP hopefuls all supported building a fence of some sort along the U.S. border with Mexico (varying in size and features, including whether it was electrified), a position Republican nominee John McCain also endorsed in the Campaign of 2008 (although McCain also endorsed a path to citizenship at some indeterminate point after the border had been secured). Mitt Romney expressed strong opposition to the DREAM Act and suggested that by creating a hostile environment for illegal immigrants in the United States, they would self-deport.
After the 2012 election, Congress failed to make any progress on immigration reform in spite of the efforts of future 2016 presidential aspirants Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who participated in passing a reform proposal in the Senate in July 2013, only to see the bill defeated in the House. After the 2014 midterm, Obama addressed the nation in a televised evening appearance to announce that he was using his power to issue an executive order to offer temporary protection to individuals who had been brought to the United States illegally as children (the targets of the DREAM Act). They would be permitted to work legally, subject to a fee and a background check. His action was not a path to citizenship, and because it was an executive action, it could be reversed by a later president. Obama’s pitch came with an appeal to American values: “What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal—that all of us are created equal, and all of us have a chance to make of our lives what we will.” Republicans in Congress suggested that Obama’s move would preclude any immigration reform being passed, which most political scientists viewed as an empty threat (in that this appeared unlikely regardless).
Because Congress remains divided on immigration, it remains an issue in the Campaign of 2016. In the first GOP debate, the candidates, including those viewed as moderates on the topic such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, were endorsing the creation of a two-thousand-mile wall with an interior electronic tracking system, similar to what they advocated in the 2012 campaign. But the party has not settled on all facets of this complex issue. Donald Trump, for example, has consistently hewed to a hard line with regard to immigration, while Marco Rubio has been subjected to increasing and intensifying criticism for his support of the failed 2013 Senate immigration reform bill. Most candidates, including Bush, were critical of sanctuary cities (those cities that refuse to act as agents for Immigration Control and Enforcement by querying the immigration status of anyone they encounter in their duties, and deporting those who cannot prove that they are in the United States legally) and suggested that they would withhold federal funds from those cities. The law enforcement community remains divided about questioning crime victims, bystanders, and witnesses about their immigration status; many fear it will hamper their efforts to investigate crime and may result in crime victims being reluctant to contact law enforcement. Ironically, those who support cooperation with the federal government on this issue tend not to be those who have favorable attitudes toward the federal government more generally.
Most notoriously, this attitude is demonstrated in the voice of GOP hopeful Donald Trump, who has alleged that the vast majority of those who cross the borders illegally, Mexicans in particular, are murderers, rapists, and drug dealers. Trump further accuses the Mexican government of deliberately sending criminal elements to the United States. “Our leaders are stupid,” Trump declaims, “our politicians are stupid, and the Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning, and they send the bad ones over because they don’t want to pay for them, they don’t want to take care of them. Why should they, when the stupid leaders of the United States will do it for them? And that’s what’s happening, whether you like it or not.”
Trump’s recommendations regarding immigration have dominated a good portion of his campaign, and he has received both an unexpected amount of support and considerable criticism for his assertions about immigrants. Wanting to erect a wall on the southern border, Trump has persistently dug in on his claims that immigrants are a disruptive and dangerous element. In a recent and disturbing turn of events, two thugs beat and urinated on a homeless Latino man in Boston, an event that spurred the outrage of Boston’s mayor but was met with a different reaction from Mr. Trump, who explained that he “hadn’t hear about” the event, and then, while admitting that “it would be a shame” that such a thing would happen, he seized the opportunity to reflect upon the character and desires of his followers, who “are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. I will say that, and everybody here has reported it.” Trump’s comments have been viewed as chillingly demagogic by some, and yet in the days following both the incident and Trump’s reaction, his standing in the recent polls remains strong.
Because the federal government has been viewed as reluctant to take up the task of comprehensive immigration reform, much of the current political debate over immigration policy is being driven by actions taken at the state and local levels. For example, several states have recently passed legislation that tasks local law enforcement officials with enforcing a strict immigration policy, including requiring residents to carry proof of citizenship papers at all times (Arizona) and restricting where those who cannot prove legal residence may live and work (Alabama). The Obama administration challenged these laws, maintaining that border and immigration policy is solely within the scope of the federal government. Arizona is also among the states that seek to challenge the notion that children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally are automatically citizens. While the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “birthright citizenship,” these states are seeking to institute a separate status of state citizenship, wherein the U.S. citizenship status of the parents determines the state citizenship status of the child. Arizona and Kansas currently require proof of U.S. citizenship in order to cast a ballot in an election. In the Campaign of 2016, several GOP hopefuls have indicated that they would like to end birthright citizenship. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee have all suggested that children born in the United States to parents who are not legal residents should not be considered citizens (despite the language of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees otherwise, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court), and that birthright citizenship as a legal practice should be abolished. To that end Sen. Graham has cosponsored proposed legislation that would change the construction of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that would no longer support birthright citizenship for children of undocumented aliens. This harkens back to the rhetoric of the late nineteenth century, when opponents of Asian immigration to the United States denounced birthright citizenship.
While some candidates, such as John Kasich and Chris Christie, are less clear on the issue, there are a few who oppose denying birthright citizenship. Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, and George Pataki have all rejected proposals to amend the Constitution to abolish birthright citizenship. Responding to the question, Gov. Jeb Bush impatiently remarked, “I think that people born in this country ought to be American citizens. Okay, now we got that over with,” a comment that was welcomed by many who are concerned about the potentially xenophobic tone sounded by candidates such as Trump and Graham; nevertheless, Gov. Bush received considerable criticism for having unapologetically and repeatedly used the term “anchor baby” in alleging that some undocumented immigrants deliberately enter the United States to give birth to their children while guaranteeing for them American citizenship. While refusing to apologize for using the term, the governor did try to explain himself further by awkwardly claiming that the designation “anchor baby” is “frankly, more related to Asian people.” While Mr. Trump’s comments regarding undocumented immigrants are the more volatile, it would appear that Gov. Bush is encountering an equal or greater amount of criticism for his use of the term “anchor baby,” even though he does not oppose birthright citizenship.
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, national concerns about immigration have expanded to encompass an additional focus—the infiltration of America’s borders by potential terrorists. The September 11 attacks were accompanied by a new strain of nativism that percolated up through the general population from more ideologically charged fringe groups. Whereas in the past, Catholics of all stripes (especially Irish, Italian, and Polish Catholics), Jews, East Asians (especially Chinese and Japanese immigrants), and Hispanics became targets of anti-immigrant bigotry, after the terrorist bombings on 9/11, Muslims and anyone of Arab or Middle Eastern descent were singled out as personae non gratae. In some places Sikhs, ignorantly mistaken for Muslims because of their tradition of wearing turbans, were victimized in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Cities have attempted to ban the construction of mosques, and states such as Oklahoma have banned the practice of sharia law, all motivated by the perception that Islam is a religion that is inherently antidemocratic and that those who practice the religion all harbor nefarious intentions toward the United States. In the 2012 GOP primary debates, candidates were asked if they would be willing to hire a Muslim as a cabinet member. Only Mitt Romney, a Mormon, said yes. This posture evokes memories of the Know-Nothing anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism of the past; and while the majority of Americans recognize the distinction between Islam as a religion and the beliefs of a smaller number of religious extremists, the volume of anti-Muslim attitudes from various quarters cannot go unnoticed. The terrorist attack in Paris in November 2015, which cost 130 lives, followed by the San Bernardino, California, terrorist shooting in December has directed even more intensified attention to immigration policy and raised the level of anxiety over immigration on the campaign trail, especially among GOP candidates. Donald Trump, most notably and not without controversy, had initially proposed imposing a temporary prohibition against Muslim Syrian refugees seeking entrance into the United States, a proposal accompanied by perceived implications that Mr. Trump holds as untrustworthy Muslims in general. Directly following the San Bernardino tragedy, Mr. Trump called for a temporary but “total and complete shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States,” a proposal that has been soundly rejected throughout the GOP, stridently condemned by Republican speaker of the house Paul Ryan and especially criticized among presidential candidates. Governor Bush defined Mr. Trump’s reaction as “unhinged,” Senator Rubio noted the unconstitutionality of the proposal, and even Senator Cruz, who has consistently appeared more concerned about alienating the Trump faction and somewhat sympathetic with the attitudes underlying Trump’s comments, cautiously distanced himself from Trump’s xenophobic generalizations regarding Muslim immigrants.
See also Anti-Catholicism; Nativism Issue; Voting Reform Issue
Barabak, Mark Z. “Campaign 2000; Bush Softens Sharp Edges of Republican Platform.” Los Angeles Times, July 28, 2000, p. A1.
Daniels, Roger, and Otis L. Graham Jr. Debating American Immigration: 1882–Present. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
Downes, Lawrence. “A Republican Broadside on Immigrants.” Taking Note, New York Times, August 7, 2015. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/a-republican-broadside-on-immigrants/. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Graham, Otis L., Jr. Immigration Reform and America’s Unchosen Future. Bloomington, IN: Author House, 2008.
LeMay, Michael C., and Elliot Robert Barkan. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Peralta, Eyder. “Obama Goes It Alone, Shielding Up to 5 Million Immigrants from Deportation. National Public Radio, November 20, 2014. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/20/365519963/obama-will-announce-relief-for-up-to-5-million-immigrants. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Swain, Carol M. Debating Immigration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
“Will Rick Perry Throw the Tea Party Under the Bus?” Mother Jones, August 25, 2011.