Immigration and the focus on economic prosperity lie at the core of the American identity. Capitalistic and liberal economic ideals inscribed in the constitution set the stage for a fiscally concentrated society. The United States was built on immigration and has the most open immigration policy in the world. These topics were always prevalent in American Politics, but they were particularly important in 1924 and, similarly, they are important in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
Leading up to the Immigration Act of 1924, the nation saw the highest immigrant population rates, coasting at approximately 13 to 14 percent between 1860 and 1910. The nation finds itself at similar rates to the end of the 19th century; in 2022, it was estimated that 13.9 percent of the US population was composed of immigrants. Parallel to the concern before the Immigration Act of 1924, there is a major discussion regarding a more restrictive immigration policy happening today. Since the capitalist agenda often synthesizes issues such as immigration, comparing and contrasting the role of the economic lens 100 years ago and today is unavoidable.
In 1924, the Johnson-Reed Act was instated, which made it the most restrictive immigration policy in American history. Many of the first restrictive migration policies related to Chinese Exclusion, but as time passed, more limitations were posed for a broader scope of racial, ethnic, and political groups. This legislation reduced the already low nationality-based quotas. It was designed to favor immigration from northern and western European countries while continuing to limit immigration from eastern and southern countries.
At the core, the restrictive shift was to maintain the concept of U.S. homogeneity. The post-WWI environment gave weight to narratives that associated immigrants with stealing labor opportunities and national security concerns. Although there are economic arguments that may have falsely legitimized the Johnson-Reed Act, it is clear that these were minor in comparison to the overwhelming racial and ethnic considerations.
In the 2024 presidential election, registered voters say the economy is their utmost concern. The “economy” category is extremely broad and encapsulates nearly all of the other issues classified as “very important.” This economic importance will cast a significant shadow over the immigration conversation. This is dangerous, as history shows that economic narratives have often diverted attention from necessary ethical conversations.
While there has been societal progress in the form of fundamental rights, the endeavor to preserve U.S. homogeneity is still prevalent. For example, Trump states that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country. The surge and tolerance of anti-immigration rhetoric, alongside persistent tropes about immigrants stealing jobs and posing a national security risk, make this situation increasingly concerning. These narratives create opportunities to conceal racist, ethnic, and xenophobic biases—whether explicit or implicit. It is necessary to remain vigilant against the potential misuse of economic arguments to mask these prejudices.
Given the room for subjectivity and the severity of the issue, Congress must address immigration. The most significant shifts in the immigration population, particularly in 1924 and 1965, can be attributed to two critical legislative changes—not executive. The legislative branch has the authority to make and reform the laws. Still, due to the complex nature of immigration policy, there has been a significant standstill as the country struggles to create a comprehensive strategy to move forward. While there have been many vehement adjustment proposals since 1986, there has been an overwhelming lack of legislation regarding immigration to make it through Congress.
That said, voters looking to the executive branch to address unsustainable immigration policies will only produce unsustainable solutions. The preceding president can undo executive action and is bound by Congress’s control over the budget. These actions are fragile when compared to the inherent power of the legislative branch. Additionally, if immigration policy continues to be seen as a presidential concern, the American people may begin to see this complex issue in the eyes of just two individuals. Immigration reform deserves collaborative, creative, and nuanced proposals. It is dire to redirect the pressure to the legislative branch to craft a comprehensive plan and overcome stagnation.
***
This article was edited by Matthew Santamaria and Sarah Davey.
