The United States has often been described as a nation of immigrants, yet its history is equally marked by powerful waves of anti-immigration sentiment and restrictive policies. From the earliest days of the republic, debates over who should be allowed to enter and become a citizen have shaped laws, fueled political movements, and left deep scars on the national psyche. Understanding the long and complex history of anti-immigration feeling in America is essential for making sense of today’s heated debates—and for recognizing patterns that repeat across centuries. This article traces that history from the nativist movements of the 1800s through the quota laws of the 1920s, the reforms of the 1960s, and the intensely polarized battles of the twenty-first century.

Early Immigration and Nativism

Large-scale immigration began in earnest during the first half of the 19th century, driven by famine, political upheaval, and economic opportunity in Europe. Between 1820 and 1860, more than five million immigrants arrived, most from Ireland and Germany. In cities like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, these newcomers often lived in crowded tenements and took low-wage jobs. While many native-born Americans welcomed the cheap labor, others saw the new arrivals as a threat to their culture, religion, and political order.

This anxiety gave rise to the Know-Nothing Party (the American Party) in the 1850s, a political movement that targeted Irish Catholic immigrants. Know-Nothings believed that Catholics owed allegiance to the Pope rather than the United States and would undermine democratic institutions. They also opposed German immigrants, who were seen as clannish and unwilling to assimilate. The party won several state and local offices before collapsing over the issue of slavery. Nonetheless, it demonstrated how quickly nativist sentiment could translate into political power.

Violence often accompanied prejudice. In 1844, anti-Catholic riots in Philadelphia led to the burning of churches and the deaths of at least 20 people. In 1855, a nativist mob attacked a German wedding party in Chicago, killing one and wounding others. These incidents were not isolated; they reflected a deep fear that immigrants would fundamentally change the character of the nation.

Westward Expansion and Anti-Chinese Sentiment

On the West Coast, the target was Chinese immigrants. The California Gold Rush of 1849 attracted tens of thousands of Chinese laborers, who soon faced intense discrimination. They were forced to pay special taxes, barred from testifying in court against whites, and subjected to physical attacks. After the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869, many Chinese workers competed for jobs in agriculture and manufacturing, fueling white resentment. In 1871, a mob in Los Angeles lynched 18 Chinese men—one of the largest mass lynchings in American history.

The most prominent anti-Chinese politician was Denis Kearney, leader of the Workingmen’s Party of California, who rallied crowds with the slogan “The Chinese must go!” His agitation helped push Congress to act.

Legislation Against Immigrants

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

The first major federal law to restrict immigration based on nationality was the Chinese Exclusion Act, signed by President Chester A. Arthur in 1882. It barred all Chinese laborers from entering the United States for ten years and denied Chinese immigrants the right to become American citizens. The law was renewed in 1892 (the Geary Act) and made permanent in 1902. It was not repealed until 1943, when China became a World War II ally. The Exclusion Act set a precedent: for the first time, the United States had explicitly barred an entire ethnic group from its shores.

The backlash did not stop with Chinese immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1917 introduced a literacy test for adult immigrants and created the “Asiatic Barred Zone,” excluding most people from Asia. It also expanded the list of excludable classes to include anarchists, epileptics, and “feeble-minded” persons—a reflection of the eugenics movement that was gaining scientific credibility at the time.

Restrictive Quotas in the 1920s

The most sweeping anti-immigration legislation came after World War I. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 imposed a 3% cap per nationality based on the 1910 census, which heavily favored Northern and Western Europe. But that was only a prelude to the Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act), which set a 2% quota based on the 1890 census—a year before the great wave of Southern and Eastern European migration. The law also completely excluded immigration from Asia.

The 1924 act was designed to preserve the “Nordic” racial character of the United States. Its chief architect, Representative Albert Johnson, was a eugenicist who believed that Southern Europeans and Jews were genetically inferior. The law drastically reduced immigration from Italy, Poland, Greece, and Russia, while immigration from Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia remained high. These quotas remained largely unchanged until 1965.

During the Great Depression, anti-immigrant sentiment took a particularly cruel turn against people of Mexican descent. Under the guise of “repatriation,” an estimated 400,000 to 2 million Mexican Americans and Mexicans were forcibly deported or pressured to leave the United States, often without due process. The majority were American citizens. This episode remains a painful memory in Mexican American communities.

Post-World War II Changes

World War II forced Americans to reexamine the racial basis of their immigration laws. The war against Nazi Germany made eugenics-based policies increasingly untenable. The Magnuson Act of 1943 repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and allowed Chinese immigration on a token quota. The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 admitted over 400,000 refugees from war-torn Europe, though many were required to have sponsors and jobs.

The Bracero Program (1942–1964) brought millions of Mexican laborers to work on farms and railroads, creating a legal pathway for temporary workers. Yet it also reinforced a system of low-wage, vulnerable labor and established a pattern of circular migration that later critics would blame for undocumented immigration.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

The most transformative piece of immigration legislation in the twentieth century was the Hart‑Celler Act, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson at the base of the Statue of Liberty. The law abolished the national origins quota system and replaced it with a system based on family reunification, skills, and refugees. It also set the first numerical limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere.

Supporters of the 1965 act believed it would lead to only modest increases in immigration. Senator Edward Kennedy assured the public that “the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.” Those predictions proved spectacularly wrong. By removing racial barriers, the act opened the door to large-scale immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Between 1965 and 2000, the foreign-born population in the United States more than tripled, from 9.6 million to 31.1 million.

The 1965 law also sparked a backlash among those who felt that the new arrivals were changing the nation too quickly. Resentment simmered for decades before boiling over into the modern anti-immigration movement.

Modern Anti-Immigration Movements

The Resurgence of Restrictionism in the 1990s

In the 1990s, anti-immigration activism moved from the margins to the mainstream. A key catalyst was California’s Proposition 187 (1994), a ballot initiative that sought to deny public education, health care, and other social services to undocumented immigrants. The measure passed with 59% of the vote but was largely struck down by the courts. Nonetheless, it energized a wave of nativist organizations such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA.

At the national level, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 increased border enforcement, expanded grounds for deportation, and criminalized certain immigration violations. It also made it much harder for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status, even if they had U.S. citizen children.

Post-9/11: Immigration as National Security

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally shifted the discourse. Immigration enforcement moved under the newly created Department of Homeland Security, and border controls were dramatically tightened. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded surveillance and detention powers that were often used against non-citizens. Visa overstays became a major concern, and the government began programs to track foreign students.

The post‑9/11 environment also saw the rise of state‑level immigration enforcement. Arizona’s SB 1070 (2010), which required police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspected of being undocumented, became a national flashpoint. Similar laws followed in Alabama, Georgia, and other states, leading to a patchwork of local policies and legal challenges.

The Trump Era: Hardline Policies and “Build the Wall”

The 2016 election of Donald Trump marked the zenith of modern anti-immigration sentiment. Trump’s campaign rallies featured chants of “Build the wall,” and he promised to end illegal immigration and drastically reduce legal immigration. As president, he:

  • Issued the Muslim travel ban (Executive Order 13769), barring travelers from several predominantly Muslim countries.
  • Implemented a family separation policy at the southern border, causing international outrage.
  • Expanded the “Remain in Mexico” program (Migration Protection Protocols), forcing asylum seekers to wait in dangerous border towns.
  • Tightened the public charge rule, making it harder for low-income immigrants to obtain green cards.
  • Attempted to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

These policies were accompanied by a sharp increase in enforcement actions, including workplace raids and increased detention. Anti-immigration rhetoric became a staple of the administration’s communication strategy.

The Biden Era and Ongoing Polarization

President Joe Biden reversed many of Trump’s executive actions upon taking office, but the border crisis that unfolded in 2021–2022—driven by a surge of migrants from Central America, Venezuela, and elsewhere—kept immigration at the center of national debate. The Biden administration maintained Title 42 (a Trump‑era public health order that allowed rapid expulsions) for months before its expiration in May 2023. Since then, border encounters have remained high, and the issue continues to polarize public opinion.

States like Texas and Florida have launched their own enforcement operations, busing migrants to “sanctuary” cities. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has weighed in on multiple immigration cases, including the legal challenge to the Remain in Mexico policy and DACA. The landscape is more fragmented than ever.

Impact on Policy and Society

Anti-immigration sentiment has had profound effects on the United States. Economically, restrictive laws have reduced the flow of workers in some sectors while creating a large undocumented workforce in others. Socially, they have fostered discrimination, fear, and isolation within immigrant communities. Many children of undocumented immigrants grow up in the shadows, unable to access affordable college education or job opportunities.

The psychological toll is immense. Studies show that Latinos—both citizens and non-citizens—report higher levels of stress and anxiety in periods of heightened enforcement. The threat of deportation can tear families apart, leaving U.S.‑citizen children without parents.

Demographically, the United States is becoming more diverse. The foreign-born population now exceeds 45 million—about 14% of the total. That percentage is near historical highs, though still below the peak of nearly 15% in 1890. The future share will depend heavily on immigration policy.

Lessons from History

The history of anti-immigration sentiment in the United States teaches several lessons. First, such sentiment is rarely new; it often recycles old fears about race, religion, and economic competition. Second, restrictive policies have a long history of unintended consequences—the 1965 law being a prime example. Third, the nation has repeatedly oscillated between openness and restrictionism, and today’s polarization is part of that cycle.

There is no easy resolution. The United States must decide whether it will maintain its identity as a nation of immigrants or retreat into a fortress. Understanding the past—the nativist mobs, the exclusion laws, the quotas, the deportations—can help Americans approach the future with greater wisdom and compassion.

For further reading, see these authoritative resources: