Federal Immigration Policy in the United States: Historical Legacies and Modern Trends

Author: Yair Guijosa-Torres

August 27, 2025

[Image source: Molina Law Group]

Introduction

As the Trump Administration continues to decree Executive Orders on immigration, it is important to contextualize the impact of these policies within the broader history of immigration policy in the United States. The political tensions, racial exclusion, executive authority, conditional belonging, and national security concerns of immigration in the U.S. are trends that have manifested throughout the 20th and 21st century. Using various sources from news outlets, policy institutes, and academic publications, this article seeks to answer the research question: “What are the major trends of immigration policy across the federal government in the 21st century?” While the majority of this paper focuses on the 21st-century immigration policy trends, this article explores the immigration policies of the 20th century, suggesting that the sociolegal culture of today has derived within the context of the latest century. Ultimately, this paper explores how federal immigration policy has evolved over time, highlighting the key trends of the 21st century.

Overview of Immigration Policy in the United States during the 20th Century

During the early 20th century, immigration policy was primarily shaped by eligibility for entry into the United States. According to Philip Martin, a Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, between the 1820s to 1960s, most migrants entering the United States came from different parts of Europe (Martin, 2014). The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was one of the laws that influenced this migration pattern. Due to national security concerns about Chinese-American workers risking the “purity” of the white race, the law specifically halted the flow of Chinese migration for ten years and blocked naturalization as a pathway to citizenship (History Staff, 2018). During this period, not only did legislators in Congress attempt to limit the migration of Asian people into the U.S., but they also attempted to control Southern and Eastern European migration through the Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson-Reed Act. This law established quotas based on immigrant nationality, which favored Northern and Western Europeans above all other immigrants (Cohn, 2015). The immigration policy of the early 20th century was distinctly racialized, preventing Chinese and Southern and Eastern Europeans from entering the United States, all while creating opportunities for Northern and Western Europeans to migrate into the country. The laws passed during the early 20th century emphasize a shift toward stricter migration regulations in the form of numerical quotas which severely limited the flow of migration, an approach that was not introduced or common within the United States until the 1920s.

Similar to early 20th-century immigration policy, the mid-20th century highlights a shift in immigrants eligible to enter the United States during World War II, particularly among Asian and Latine immigrants. The rivalry between the United States and Japan during WWII encouraged the 1942 Executive Order 9066, which forced Japanese immigrants into internment camps and discouraged the flow of Japanese immigrants into the United States. Within the same year, to make up for the labor shortage due to the war, the Bracero Program allowed for open migration between Mexico and the U.S. for employment in the agricultural sector, motivating a constant transnational migration of Mexican laborers (Thurber, 2023). While Executive Order 9066 reflected the racial tensions of WWII and mitigated the entry of Japanese migrants into the United States, the Bracero Program established networks between Mexicans and Americans, creating a transnational identity of Mexican-Americans that relied on the accessible and open border between the two countries. Mexican laborers were invited into the country to fulfill labor shortages. Their migration was tied to temporary economic need rather than a commitment to long-term integration in the United States.

Meanwhile, given the WWII alliance that eventually emerged between China and the United States, Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in the Magnuson Act of 1943. Though the U.S. government formally ended this discriminatory immigrant law, under the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924, Chinese migration was limited to an annual quota of 105 individuals (Baird, 2021). This repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 did little to dismantle the structural barriers that limited Asian migration. The restrictive quota reveals the continued racial prejudice that the United States held against certain immigrants, particularly people from Asia. These patterns demonstrate how immigration law served as a reflection of both racial hierarchies, forming the selective inclusion that would continue to define immigration policy into the 21st century.

Post-WWII and into the Cold War era of the mid-20th century, immigration policy took a turn in the United States, reflecting an increase in migration from Asia and Latin America. A prominent law that was important to the heightened presence of Asian and Latine immigrants was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This law continued to favor the national quota system that was introduced in the 1920s, maintaining preference for Northern and Western European immigrants, but it also notably ended Asian exclusion and introduced a preference system based on skill and family ties (Office of the Historian, 2016). However, by 1965, amendments to this immigration policy abolished the national quota system due to its discriminatory nature against individuals from the East Asia and prioritized the entry of immigrants with family ties in the United States and/or specialized skills, which shaped the path toward more Asian and Latine immigrants entering the country (Chishti et al., 2015). Migration trends signal that, between 2000 and 2009, 7.5 million Asian and Latin American immigrants entered the U.S. compared to other immigrant groups from different regions (Martin, 2014). This statistic highlights how Asian and Latine immigrants took advantage of the reformed immigrant laws of the 1960s, using their family links as a pathway to immigration into the United States. This law contributed to the increased immigration of Asian and Latine immigrants.

By the late 20th century, immigrant groups in the United States experienced conditional belonging concerning the ability of undocumented immigrants’ to access healthcare services and employment opportunities. During the 1980s, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) passed by Congress legalized long-term undocumented immigrant residents and discouraged employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, placing a fine of up to $10,000 for knowingly recruiting an undocumented person (Nichols, 1987, p. 503). The following decade, Congress also submitted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) which formally restricted undocumented immigrants from accessing healthcare services from programs partially funded by the federal government; however, in cases of emergencies and immunizations, undocumented individuals could seek care. The legislation allowed some immigrant groups, such as permanent residents, to access care only after the first five years in the United States (Espinoza-Kulick & Cerdeña, 2022, p. 3; Sullivan, 2024, p. 6). This immigration policy demonstrates the conditional access that is formed by having undocumented status. It outcasts certain immigrant groups, especially undocumented immigrants, from society. Psychologically, it fosters a narrative that immigrants are not worthy of healthcare services and employment opportunities, which dehumanizes them.

A month after PRWORA passed, the Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which increased law enforcement measures taken against undocumented immigrants, broadened the reasons that an immigrant could be slotted for deportation, and legitimized detainment (104th Congress, 1996). The laws of the late 20th century created a culture of strict boundaries between those deserving of rights and those who do not deserve nor belong, which shaped the 21st-century discourse about immigration. It encouraged the dehumanization of immigrant groups within the United States, allowing detainment and restrictive access to healthcare for people who contributed to the economic development of the U.S. and its diverse culture.

Four major trends can be identified in the federal immigration policies of the United States from the 20th century: racial preference for Northern and Western Europeans, heightened restriction via the quota system, influx of Asian and Latine immigrants, and dehumanization of immigrant communities. Immigration policies, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924, gave better opportunities for Northern and Western Europeans to migrate into the United States by limiting the mobility of Chinese immigrants while creating a numerical quota system that gave more spots to European immigrants compared to other regional immigrant groups. These restrictions highlight how racial preference and the quota system are intrinsically connected, emphasizing the lengths to which immigration policy was used as a tool to restrict the mobility of individuals from racialized communities. The Immigration Act of 1924 also reveals a stark contrast between open migration within the United States before the legislation was enacted and a closed border afterward. The amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 explains the increase in Asian and Latine immigration because it provided an opportunity to immigrate into the United States via their family relations. IRCA and PROWRA explicitly restricted access to healthcare services and employment opportunities for undocumented immigrants, while IIRIRA further legitimized the dehumanization of immigrant groups in the country by allowing inhumane practices to enforce immigration law, such as detainment. The IRCA, PRWORA, and IIRIRA laws showcase the boundaries between undocumented immigrant and citizenship status, creating an immigrant social culture of conditional belonging.

Immigration Policy Trends in the United States during the 21st Century

Immigration policies in the 21st century show how various administrations have tried to adapt 20th-century federal immigration laws to a society increasingly anxious about national security. According to Ph.D. scholar of social welfare for Black and Latino workers, Bryan Warde claims that following the events of September 11 and the growing federal focus on national security, the George W. Bush Administration faced even greater resistance in trying to advance immigrant legislation. From 2005 to 2007, the Bush Administration introduced three different immigration policies that were all shut down. One of which was the Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2006. It called for increased border security and immigration penalties, a temporary guest worker program, a permanent resident status program for individuals who had been in the U.S. and employed in the last five years, and it encouraged mandatory deportation (The White House, 2006; Warde, 2024, p. 272). Though these policies never passed Congress, it demonstrates the complexity of the Republican president attempting to create opportunities for immigrants to move and/or stay in the United States within a precarious social culture that was concerned with national security. However, the lack of reformative immigration policy within the Bush Administration reflects the willingness to continue discriminatory practices against immigrants, particularly Muslim communities, which were subject to prejudice due to the anti-immigrant legacy of the September 11 attacks.

While the Bush Administration ultimately failed to pass a major reformative immigration policy within Congress, Democrat Barack Obama’s administration highlights a shift in using Executive action to bypass the legislative branch. After not being able to pass the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act) in 2011 through Congress, which would have provided a pathway for permanent residency for undocumented immigrant children, and potentially to naturalization, Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA Act) as an Executive Order (American Immigration Council, 2024; Benenson, 2024; Warde, 2024, pp. 277–278). This immigration policy established temporary protection from deportation and allowed work permits for children who arrived in the U.S. before turning 16 and who had lived in the country since June 15, 2007, among other eligibility requirements; however, it did not provide a path toward citizenship (Howard University School of Law, 2023). This policy reflects a broader shift in federal immigration policy, as the Obama Administration relied on executive authority to implement changes that Congress was unwilling or unable to pass. Although DACA provided temporary protection and work authorization to certain undocumented immigrants, its limited scope and vulnerability to legal and political challenges revealed the constraints of using executive orders in place of comprehensive legislative reform. The failure to pass the DREAM Act via Congress and reliance on an Executive Order (DACA Act) to transform federal immigration policy highlights the conflict and divisive perspectives between politicians in attempting to manage immigration within the United States. 

[Image credit: Reuters via Business Insider]

Despite DACA, Obama’s approach to immigration was not without pitfalls. Obama deported more immigrants during his two-term presidency than any other U.S. president up to that point in time: in total, around 3 million individuals were deported during Obama’s two terms (Linzer & Guan, 2020; Sierra, 2025). Obama’s presidency is complex. He demonstrated an effort to create a pathway toward permanent residence for immigrants through the DACA Act, while still allowing detainment and deportations to occur.

Donald Trump’s first term in office reflects the growing use of executive action to reform immigration policy within the United States during the 21st century. Trump’s presidential campaign focused on immigration reform. At the start of his first term in 2017, he signed Executive Order 13769 to enact a travel ban from countries that had large Muslim populations.. Days prior to this policy, Trump signed Executive Order 13767 to build a wall on the US-Mexico border. Trump’s EOs shows a growing use of executive action to reform immigration policy.

The use of executive authority is also shown in the Biden administrations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, Biden’s administration acted on 605 immigration-related executive actions, which is higher than Trump’s 472 immigration-related actions during his first term (Chishti et al., 2024). Notably, Trump, in his first seven months as president in his second term, signed 170 EOs. For context, in a full four-year term, the total EOs signed for Biden, Obama (first term), and George W. Bush (first term) were 162, 147, and 173 respectively (The American Presidency Project, 2025). This increase not only in immigrant-related executive actions to bypass Congress highlights a shift toward immigration policy being largely controlled in the executive branch.

Towards the end of 2017, the Trump Administration announced that they were going to repeal the DACA Act, which was followed by the Department of Homeland Security’s creating a memo on steps to abolish the policy. Multiple legal challenges were put forth to the Supreme Court, and by 2020, the Court denied the administration’s attempt to rescind the program because their reasoning to remove it was “arbitrary and capricious.” Though Texas further challenged the legality of DACA, and it is still up for debate today (Department of Homeland Security, 2017; MALDEF, 2024). The legal changes over DACA shows how immigration policy in recent years has become increasingly unpredictable and politically charged. Instead of being resolved through long-term laws, major decisions are often made and reversed by presidential administrations, which creates confusion and leaves many immigrants unsure about their future in the United States.

By 2024, Trump’s presidential campaign demonstrates his anti-immigrant stance by framing immigration as both a national security and economic threat, revealing a growing divisive political tension between Democrats and Republicans. During a Trump rally in Pennsylvania in October 2024, Trump claimed, “you have an invasion of people,” when talking about immigrants to the audience and that “when you see the border, it’s not just the crime. Your jobs are being taken away too” (Hussein, 2024). The use of “invasion” and the link between immigrants and economic precarity had been utilized before during his campaign in 2016 and throughout his first term. This use of language feeds into an anti-immigrant sentiment that is based on national security, blaming immigrants for economic instability. At the same time, this rhetoric ostracizes immigrant groups, deeming them undeserving of rights and access to healthcare and services. When considering the travel ban Trump enacted in 2017, which restricts entry from certain immigrants, predominantly Muslim countries, it reveals that his anti-immigrant sentiment not only outcasts immigrant groups but also distinctly racializes them, similar to 20th-century immigration politics. Immigration policy from the 2010s to the 2020s has become increasingly divisive along different political parties. Republicans have largely advocated for restrictive, often anti-immigrant policies, while Democrats have expressed support for more inclusive reforms, though their efforts have generally fallen short of pushing for truly progressive change.

For instance, Joe Biden’s administration on immigration policy highlights this complex narrative between support and opposition of immigration within the United States, balancing between maintaining restrictive immigration law enforcement and restoring refugee programs. For starters, the Biden Administration entered office at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining Trump’s enforcement of Title 42 of the United States Code, a legal health regulation to stop the spread of the disease by limiting immigration. Title 42 allowed the U.S. government to send undocumented immigrants, who tried to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, back to Mexico without accessing the U.S. asylum system or any immigration hearing (Chishti et al., 2024; Sigmon, 2024). More specifically, in 2022, Biden expanded the enforcement of Title 42 against Venezuelans who attempted to enter the country undocumented via the southwest border (E. Sullivan & Kanno-Youngs, 2022). Alongside enforcement measures, the Biden Administration also made efforts to restore and expand humanitarian protections, particularly for individuals from Latin America and the Caribbean. One of the biggest impacts of Biden’s Administration on immigration policy was restoring refugee programs, such as the Central American Minors Program (CAM), which was taken down by the Trump Administration in 2018: CAM allowed some United States parents to request that their children receive refugee status to enter the country (Sigmon, 2024). While the Biden Administration restored refugee programs that the Trump Administration terminated, they also limited opportunities for immigrants to seek asylum, putting them at risk of danger.

The following year, the Biden Administration continued to show mixed signals of support and opposition towards immigrant communities in the United States. In 2023, Biden expanded formal humanitarian parole to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans. However, at the same time, after finally ending Title 42, Biden’s administration initiated the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, which prevented immigrants from seeking asylum from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border unless they scheduled an appointment for asylum via the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) One App, among other exceptional circumstances (Chishti et al., 2024). While the Democrat party falls short of progressive immigration reform, the left wing has attempted to push for more inclusive immigration reform more than Republicans. The lack of progressive immigrant policies sheds light on the tense political controversy of immigration reform in the country. This tension makes it difficult to pass progressive policies that would help undocumented immigrants integrate within the United States, maintaining conditional access to healthcare and services for undocumented immigrants. 

[Image source: World-Wire]

The 21st-century discourse on U.S. immigration policy has been shaped by several critical and interconnected trends. First, there is a clear and growing reliance on executive authority, as presidents increasingly bypass Congress to pass immigration-related policies, demonstrating a shift of immigration policymaking power toward the executive branch. Second, while both Republican and Democratic administrations have failed to take meaningful action on progressive immigration reform, the Republican party remains largely anti-immigrant, whereas the Democratic party tends to be more pro-immigrant. Third, access to care for undocumented immigrants remains conditional and limited, reflecting legislative legacies that restrict undocumented individuals’ rights to asylum. Fourth, the congressional branch continues to demonstrate heightened division and stagnation on immigration legislation, leaving gaps for executive action but few meaningful reforms. Finally, concerns about national and economic security fuel anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies, further ostracizing immigrant communities and complicating efforts to create comprehensive, humane immigration reform.

Compare and Contrast Chart: U.S. Federal Immigration Policy of 20th and 21st Century

Category	20th Century	21st Century	Similarities
Racial Preference & Exclusion	Preference for Northern & Western European Immigrants	Continued racialized exclusion targeted towards immigrants	Both centuries use racial frameworks to determine access and belonging
Policy Mechanisms	Congress passed major immigration reforms	Increased reliance on executive actions due to legislation stagnation & polarization within Congress	Federal law remains the primary instrument for shaping immigration policy
Conditional Belonging (Access to Rights)	Established a binary between documented and undocumented immigrants that made access to rights conditional	Undocumented immigrants continue to face conditional access to healthcare, asylum, and permanent residency	Both centuries restrict access to rights based on immigration status
National Interest & Security	Immigration policy tied to WWII, Cold War, and labor needs	Post-9/11 and Covid-19 focus on national security, border surveillance, and terrorism framed as threat to health, economy, and safety	Immigration policy often justified by perceived threats (racial purity, war, terrorism) to national interest & security

Comparing 20th and 21st Century Immigration Policy Trends

One major trend from the 20th and 21st century is the use of federal law to control migration through exclusionary and conditional terms. In the early to mid-20th century, exclusion was shaped by racial hierarchies, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924. Though immigration laws, such as the Magnuson Act of 1943, during the mid-20th century eliminated racial exclusions, immigration policy still remained racially selective through quotas and reflected the national interests of Post-WWII and Cold War politics. The laws of the late-20th century, such as the IRCA, PRWORA, and IIRIRA, established conditional belonging of immigrant groups in the United States. In the 21st century, the logic of conditional belonging continued, in particular, access to permanent residency and access to healthcare remains tied to specific qualifications, such as age of arrival or national origin, rather than universal human rights. While administrations have changed over time, policies like Trump’s travel ban and Biden’s Title 42 continue to reinforce racial discrimination, specifically impacting immigrants from the Global South.

An important shift from the 20th to the 21st century of immigration policy in the federal government is the increased use of executive power, showcasing both legislative stagnation and political polarization. In the 20th century, major immigration reforms, including the national quota system and the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, were passed through Congress. However, in the 21st century, the legislative branch has struggled to pass major immigration reforms, leading to an increased reliance on Executive Orders. Obama’s DACA program, Trump’s border wall, and Biden’s use of Title 42 demonstrate how immigration policy has become increasingly concentrated in the executive branch. This change in the federal government of the United States underscores the unstable climate of immigration policy and unreliable executive decisions that change from administration to administration.

Both centuries demonstrate the use of immigration policy to serve national interests. Racial quotas of the 1924 Immigration Act and the labor invitations of the Bracero Program demonstrate how immigration law was shaped by race and economic utility. In contrast, the 21st century was shaped by national security concerns about terrorism, disease, and border surveillance. The post September 11 policies showcased a shift toward associating immigrants as national threats, leading to increased border security, detainment, and deportation. While the exclusionary laws of WWI and II share similar sentiments of 21st century immigration politics, each event is driven by different motives, such as protecting racial “purity,” responding to wartime threats, and/or addressing economic instability.

While both Republican and Democratic administrations in the early 2000s took actions that both supported and harmed immigrant communities, their records reveal a more complex reality than the current polarized narrative suggests. President Bush, despite being a Republican, proposed immigration reforms that could have benefited undocumented immigrants, while also advancing border enforcement. Similarly, President Obama supported protections like DACA but also oversaw record-high deportations. These examples show that both parties have historically contributed to harmful immigration policies. However, in today's political climate, the divide between pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant positions has become more openly partisan, even as neither party has delivered meaningful, progressive immigration reform. This ongoing failure continues to leave immigrant communities vulnerable and underserved.

Conclusion

This article discusses the major trends of U.S. federal immigration policies enacted in the 21st century, illustrating how U.S. immigration law has evolved from the 20th century whilst retaining certain inequities in its function: to selectively regulate belonging based on shifting racial, economic, and political interests. By comparing historical policies, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, with more recent developments like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Title 42, and executive travel bans, this paper reveals a pattern of exclusion, conditional acceptance, and growing reliance on executive power in the absence of meaningful legislative reform. Understanding these patterns in the immigration policy of the United States is significant because they reveal how immigration policy has never simply been about administering entry into the country, but also about the federal government’s desire to control narratives of deservingness, economic labor, and perceived security threats. 

The hope is that, through this article, readers can now better understand the connections between past and present immigration policy, recognizing that today’s headlines and executive orders are not isolated events.Yet, this paper also has its limitations. It focuses predominantly on federal policies and executive actions, without discussing the role of state-level immigration policies, the lived experiences of undocumented individuals, or the influence of international migration trends beyond the United States. Future research could build upon this work by involving immigrant perspectives.

Action should be taken to challenge the disproportionate power of the executive branch in determining immigration outcomes, especially when legislative stagnation prevents balanced and equitable democratic reform. Policymakers should push for immigration frameworks that prioritize human dignity and accessibility over surveillance, exclusion, and bureaucratic barriers. Creating policies that guarantee access to healthcare, entitlement of legal protection, and pathways to citizenship, regardless of age of arrival or national origin, are important next steps in addressing the failures discussed in this research. Ultimately, the struggle over immigration policy mirrors broader questions about who belongs, who decides, and what kind of nation the United States aims to be.

---

Glossary

• Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965: These amendments abolished the national quota system and prioritized immigration based on family reunification and skills, signaling a turn away from overtly racialized immigration criteria and increasing immigration from the Global South. It marked a pivotal moment in shaping post-war immigration policy that affected future flows from Asia and Latin America.

• Bracero Program: A labor program during WW2 between Mexico and the United States that permitted open migration for agricultural laborers. It created a transnational identity among Mexican-American communities while highlighting how migration was allowed conditionally based on economic need.

• Central American Minors Program (CAM): A refugee program allowing eligible U.S. parents to request refugee status for their children from Central America. Biden reinstated CAM in response to Trump-era rollbacks.

• Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882: This law halted the migration of Chinese individuals for ten years and blocked naturalization as a pathway to citizenship, reflecting racial anxieties about the “purity” of the white race and raising concerns of national security.

• Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule: Implemented by the Biden Administration, this rule prevents asylum seekers from entering through the southern border unless they secure appointments via a mobile app or meet certain exceptions, underscoring the conditional nature of access to legal protection.

• Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2006: A proposed bill under the Bush Administration that sought to balance increased border enforcement with guest worker programs and limited permanent residency. It failed in Congress amid heightened concerns over national security.

• Conditional Belonging: A recurring trend in U.S. immigration policy where immigrant access to legal status, services, and rights is based on selective eligibility.

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Signed as an Executive Order by President Obama after the failure of the DREAM Act in Congress, DACA provided temporary protection from deportation and work permits for undocumented youth who met specific eligibility criteria. However, it did not offer a path to citizenship.

• Executive Order 13767: Signed by President Trump in 2017, this EO ordered the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, reinforcing anti-immigrant rhetoric and militarized border enforcement.

• Executive Order 13769: Also signed in 2017, EO 13769 barred entry from several Muslim-majority countries and reflected a shift toward national security-driven, racialized exclusion policies.

• Executive Order 9066: Signed in 1942 during WWII, Executive Order 9066 authorized the forced relocation and internment of Japanese immigrants, limiting Asian immigration and reinforcing national security fears through a racially targeted policy.

• Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA): IIRIRA increased deportation and detainment authorization while broadening reasons for removal, reinforcing the criminalization of undocumented presence and reinforcing anti-immigrant sentiment in federal law.

• Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act): Established a national origins quota system that favored Northern and Western Europeans while severely limiting entry from Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe. This policy institutionalized racial preference and marked a shift toward numerical immigration restrictions in the United States.

• Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952: This act maintained the racial quota system but ended explicit Asian exclusion and introduced a preference system based on skill and family ties. It marked a pivotal moment in shaping post-war immigration policy that affected future flows from Asia and Latin America.

• Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA): IRCA legalized certain long-term undocumented immigrants while punishing employers for knowingly hiring undocumented individuals, establishing both protections and enforcement mechanisms.

• Legislative Stagnation: A state of slow political activity in Congress where immigration reform repeatedly fails to pass.

• Magnuson Act of 1943: This law repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act which formally ended explicit Chinese exclusion but continued to limit migration through a restrictive annual quota of 105 individuals. 

• Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA): This legislation restricted undocumented immigrants from accessing federal healthcare services except in emergencies or for immunizations. It institutionalized conditional access to care based on legal status.

• Racialized Exclusion: The use of immigration laws and practices to systemically target and restrict entry for certain racial and ethnic groups.

• Title 42: A public health policy invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to expel migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border without immigration hearings. Title 42 was used by both Trump and Biden administrations and symbolized a health-based justification for migration restriction.

---

Sources

1. 104th Congress, H. of R. (1996, September 24). H. Rept. 104-828—Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996(1995/1996) [Legislation]. Congress.Gov. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/104th-congress/house-report/828/1

2. American Immigration Council. (2024). The Dream Act: An Overview. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/dream-act-overview/

3. Baird, S. (2021). Immigration Act of 1943. EBSCO Research Starters. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/immigration-act-1943

4. Benenson, L. (2024, May 21). Fact Sheet: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). National Immigration Forum. https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-on-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca/

5. Chishti, M., Bush-Joseph, K., Putzel-Kavanaugh, C., & Greene, M. (2024, December 4). Biden’s Mixed Immigration Legacy: Border Challenges Overshadowed Modernization Advances. Migrationpolicy.Org. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-immigration-legacy

6. Chishti, M., Hipsman, F., & Ball, I. (2015, October 15). Fifty Years On, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Continues to Reshape the United States. Migrationpolicy.Org. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states

7. Cohn, D. (2015, September 30). How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed through history. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/09/30/how-u-s-immigration-laws-and-rules-have-changed-through-history/

8. Department of Homeland Security. (2017). Memorandum on Rescission Of DACA. https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca

9. Espinoza-Kulick, M. A. V., & Cerdeña, J. P. (2022). “We Need Health for All”: Mental Health and Barriers to Care among Latinxs in California and Connecticut. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12817. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912817

10. History Staff. (2018, August 24). Chinese Exclusion Act: 1882, Definition & Immigrants. History. https://www.history.com/articles/chinese-exclusion-act-1882

11. Howard University School of Law. (2023). A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: DACA and the DREAM Act. https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/immigration/daca

12. Hussein, F. (2024, October 12). Despite Trump’s claims, data shows migrants aren’t taking jobs from Black or Hispanic people. PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/despite-trumps-claims-data-shows-migrants-arent-taking-jobs-from-black-or-hispanic-people

13. Linzer, G., & Guan, S. (2020). Obama Era Deportations. The American Leader. https://theamericanleader.org/timeline-event/obama-era-deportations/

14. MALDEF. (2024, September 17). Status of Texas v. United States (DACA). MALDEF. https://www.maldef.org/2024/09/status-of-texas-v-united-states-daca-2/

15. Martin, P. (2014). Trends in Migration to the U.S. Population Reference Bureau. https://www.prb.org/resources/trends-in-migration-to-the-u-s/

16. Nichols, P. D. (1987). United States Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: A Critical Perspective. International Law. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1236&context=njilb

17. Office of the Historian. (2016). The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act). https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act

18. Sierra, S. (2025, February 13). Did President Obama remove more noncitizens from the U.S. than any other president in U.S history? El Paso Matters. http://elpasomatters.org/2025/02/13/gigafact-fact-brief-most-deportations-obama-trump-removals/

19. Sigmon, E. (2024, August 6). From campaign to implementation: An overview of Biden’s immigration policy. Elcano Royal Institute. https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/from-campaign-to-implementation-an-overview-of-bidens-immigration-policy/

20. Sullivan, E., & Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2022, October 13). Biden Administration to Offer Thousands of Venezuelan Migrants Legal Path Into U.S. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/us/politics/biden-venezuela-migrants-humanitarian-parole.html

21. Sullivan, Marybeth. (2024). State Laws Affecting Undocumented Immigrants.

22. The American Presidency Project. (2025, August 8). Executive Orders. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

23. The White House, P. G. W. B. (2006). Fact Sheet: Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Georgewbush-Whitehouse.Archives.Gov. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060515-10.html

24. Thurber, D. (2023). Research Guides: A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in the United States: 1942: Bracero Program [Research guide]. https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program

25. Warde, B. (2024). Inside U.S. Immigration Policy: The Historical and Social Forces Shaping Contemporary Debates (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375012