Critical points in immigration history: From restriction to reform and back again

Recently, I gave two presentations; first at the Pope St. John XXIII Seminary in Massachusetts, and the second at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut. Both presentations were on the past 100 years of immigration history.

The old saying “the more things change, the more they are the same” seems to be true regarding our last 100 years of immigration history. Many believe that history is cyclical, in that history repeats itself. Some individuals acknowledge fluctuations throughout history, yet maintain a more linear and progressive perspective on its development.

If we begin in 1925, we find a reaction against the influx of significant numbers of immigrants during the great migration from Europe, which began in the 1890s and was greatly curtailed and almost completely halted by the Immigration Act of 1924. The new law favored northern and western Europeans, while excluding southern and eastern Europeans.

There are many similarities in the social thought of that time in history and now.

It was proposed that a pause be taken in the great migration, which saw millions of people come to the United States to meet our labor needs. There were no restrictive laws, only a few regulations that excluded criminals and those unable to work, or those with communicable diseases.

If your immigrant forebears came before 1924, they came legally because it was almost impossible to come illegally at that time in history. It is something people forget as they disparage the new undocumented.

Our focus today on legal entrance begs this question. Once again, this has become an excuse to exclude certain categories of migrants, especially those from poorer countries. The latest presidential executive order excluded 39 countries from entering the United States.

If we jump forward a bit to a turning point in our history, we come to 1965. This was a time when our country was ready to right the wrongs of the past and give every country of the world an opportunity for its migrants to come to the United States. The law favored relatives of U.S. citizens and those with needed skills. The law allowed immigrants from many new countries to come to the U.S., especially those from South America, Asia and Africa.

This was the time of the civil rights era, and President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill, saw his action as a contribution to international civil rights. However, although the bill theoretically leveled the playing field, it still had its issues and created new problems that had not been intended. Because of a stringent cap on agricultural workers, we saw the beginning of a new wave of undocumented people who came, especially for agriculture and other entry-level positions.

It was only in 1986 that Congress, under President Ronald Reagan, passed “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)” of 1986, which regularized the status of over 3 million people but excluded an equal number of people who remained undocumented. This has continued to the present and certainly is the origin of our present negative view of migration.

Since that time, no major positive changes in immigration law have occurred, only more restrictions. Our country has not dealt with our labor needs, nor with some of the family reunification problems that have been created.

As we entered this new administration in 2025, tremendous changes have taken place in our immigration system. Most especially, the emphasis on deportation for those who are here without documentation or have overstayed their visas. No scientific evidence is provided regarding labor demands or the difficulty in the integration of new migrants. Unfortunately, we have returned to the same nativist or racist attitudes that occasioned the first major restriction bill in 1924.

It is important to name a problem if you wish to solve it. And the problem we are dealing with is a mythical replacement theory — that the new immigration is a plan to replace the white race in America.

Previously, this perspective lacked logic, but for various reasons, this has become the main justification for new restrictionist policies.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the foundations for the new restrictions of this movement, which will have long-term detrimental effects not only to our population growth and economic well-being, but also on the moral position America has as a beacon of hope for the world.

Read More Commentary

A call for peace

Readers share family favorites for our season of stories

The German bishops’ conference, over the cliff

Question Corner: Will the Catholic Church have women deacons?

The charity of Jane Austen

The Advent the church collapsed

Copyright © 2025 OSV News

 Print