March 4, 2025 — President Donald Trump’s recent immigration policies have reignited fierce debate across the country. From proposing an end to birthright citizenship to freezing funding for refugee resettlement, his approach has been called both groundbreaking and regressive.
But how do these measures compare to the United States’ historical treatment of immigrants? UC Berkeley historian Hidetaka Hirota, a specialist in the history of American immigration law, offers key insights into the country’s long-standing and often exclusionary policies.
A Nation of Immigrants… or Exclusions?
“There was never a time in U.S. history when borders were completely open,” says Hirota. In fact, American immigration restrictions date back to the colonial era, when impoverished migrants—labeled as “paupers” or “vagrants”—were denied entry to communities, especially if seen as an economic burden.
These early practices, inherited from English poor laws, evolved into the legal basis for 19th-century deportations and ultimately helped build the foundation of the modern immigration system.
The Political Construct of a “Nation of Immigrants”
The image of the U.S. as a welcoming, diverse melting pot is more myth than reality, according to Hirota. The phrase “nation of immigrants” only gained political traction in the 1960s as a way to counteract racially discriminatory laws that had barred Asians and restricted southern and eastern Europeans for decades.
“That concept helped abolish those laws,” Hirota notes, “but it also downplays the restrictive parts of immigration history.”
Labor Tensions: Then and Now
The clash over immigrant labor is nothing new. In the 19th century, Americans feared low-wage competition from Irish and Chinese workers. Campaigns like “Beware of pauper labor” mirrored modern concerns about immigrant labor undercutting wages.
Even today, a divide exists between business owners who want access to cheap labor and political conservatives who demand border crackdowns. Interestingly, figures like Elon Musk have publicly clashed with Trump over issues like H1-B visas, echoing a long-standing capitalist/nativist divide.
Language of Exclusion: “Unnatural” Then, “Illegal” Now
Today’s term “illegal alien” echoes earlier rhetoric. “Back then,” Hirota explains, “immigrants brought by businesses were called ‘unnatural immigrants.’” These individuals were seen as manipulated by capitalist interests rather than arriving through their own free will—just like today’s debate over “legal vs. illegal” immigrants.
Who Is a Citizen?
Citizenship has also long been fragile in America. Before the 14th Amendment, people assumed that being born in the U.S. made you a citizen—but even that was often denied in practice. Hirota points to Irish citizens deported from Massachusetts in the 1800s and Japanese American citizens incarcerated during World War II.
Even during the Great Depression, Mexican Americans—many of them U.S.-born—were forcibly “repatriated” to Mexico. “Legal citizenship often did not guarantee social or political rights,” Hirota warns.
How Restrictive Is Today’s System?
By historical comparison, the period from 1924 to 1943 was likely the most openly discriminatory, thanks to laws barring Asians and limiting southern/eastern Europeans. However, the sheer scale of modern enforcement makes today’s policies extremely strict in practice.
“Earlier laws were harsh, but implementation was lax due to underfunding,” Hirota explains. “Today, billions are spent on border control and deportation infrastructure, making it harder than ever to immigrate or gain legal status.”
Refugees and Race
The legal concept of a refugee is relatively new, born after World War II to aid Holocaust survivors. But even then, most admissions were based on presidential authority rather than established law, a loophole designed to bypass slow-moving immigration reforms.
Over time, acceptance of refugees has shifted dramatically. “In the 1950s, Europeans were welcomed. But by the 1970s, when refugees were largely Vietnamese or Latin American, public resistance grew,” says Hirota. “The refugee issue is deeply racialized.”
The Bottom Line: History Repeats
Hirota sees Trump not as an anomaly, but a continuation of deep American traditions. “Trump is bold, yes—but his views were built on earlier discourses,” he says.
From labor tensions and racial prejudice to citizenship denial and refugee suspicion, America’s immigration story is less a straight line of progress than a cycle of control and resistance.
“The threats to immigration and citizenship today,” Hirota concludes, “are just the latest chapter in a very long book.”
Category: Politics, Immigration, U.S. History, Law & Policy
Tags: Donald Trump immigration, U.S. immigration history, Hidetaka Hirota, birthright citizenship, refugee resettlement, anti-immigrant policies, deportation in America, labor and immigration, American citizenship rights, Know-Nothing Party
