The partial government shutdown over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protocols and the heated debate over the proposed Save Act demonstrate how deeply divided our political leaders have become over immigration. Politicians’ actions and rhetoric are driven by concrete motives, and immigration is no exception. Because immigration policy, both current and future, will significantly shape the long-term trajectory of our country, it is important to separate actual motives from the often misleading rhetoric that bombards us daily. Historical context is an essential tool for this task.
When stated justifications for a policy don’t match the actual consequences, it is a sign to dig deeper.
For example, Republicans emphasize enforcing existing immigration laws and safeguarding American citizens by prioritizing the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants. However, deportations have gone well beyond the stated priority of targeting criminals, resulting in the removal of many long-term productive residents. Critics argue the real objective may be the removal of all illegal immigrants and that aggressive enforcement has caused unnecessary harm to legal immigrants and American citizens.
Democrats, by contrast, have prioritized the rights and due process of undocumented immigrants. Their proposals, coupled with existing sanctuary policies, would significantly slow deportations. Critics contend that significantly slower deportations may be the actual goal. They also point out that sanctuary policies have frequently led to criminal illegal immigrants being released into communities rather than referred to ICE, resulting in several high-profile murders and other serious crimes.
This ongoing conflict reached a flashpoint during Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Clashes between ICE agents and protesters, some of whom turned violent, escalated into a deadly confrontation. Federal agents fatally shot two American citizens amid the chaos. Both parties have blamed the other, with some facts still in dispute.
The proposed SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration in federal elections and photo identification when casting a ballot. The majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents support the bill. Democratic leadership argues the Save Act is Jim Crowe 2.0 and potentially disenfranchises groups who might have difficulty obtaining the necessary documents. Critics view these as questionable arguments raising questions about ulterior motives. Republicans frame the bill straightforwardly as protecting the vote from potential fraud. Even so, critics worry it could make voting more difficult.
The stakes are substantial. According to Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) there are approximately 18.6 illegal immigrants in the country, a number that increased significantly under the Biden administration. Assuming legalization and naturalization of these individuals, there could be electoral consequences that shift the balance of power for decades.
Please note that the Census count includes illegal immigrants. Since the 435 congressional seats are apportioned on this population data, in 2030 the size and location of the illegal immigrant population could have an impact on who wields power in Washington.
The constant drumbeat of media messaging in both Democratic and Republican echo chambers reinforces the skepticism noted above. Generally, this messaging from the politicians and their media outlets intentionally targets our emotions. For example, right-wing media highlights murders and crimes by illegal immigrants while left-wing media highlights family separation and the two fatal shootings by ICE. While these stories are relevant, it is important to discern if they speak to the overall policy or the process of implementing that policy. Emotional stories can short-circuit this evaluation and obscure the big picture.
To complicate matters, some stories are told minus salient facts while others are so mischaracterized they become lies. In short, the “emotional story” tactic is often targeted manipulation for political gain. Both sides employ this tactic.
To be informed voters, we must navigate the constant barrage of influence campaigns and carefully discern the facts. One of the most effective tools for doing so is placing the issue in its proper historical context.
To understand how the political parties are leveraging immigration policy now, this series of articles examines how they leveraged it in the past. Even though it is a brief overview, it will be eye opening, connect the dots between the past and the present, and offer avenues for additional exploration. Let’s dive in.
19th Century Political Machines, 1840s through Early 20th Century
“Political machines were highly organized, hierarchical party structures—usually urban or local—that centralized political power in the hands of a single “boss” or small inner circle. They operated like efficient, semi-private organizations that traded tangible benefits (patronage jobs, city contracts, housing assistance, food, coal, legal help, or outright cash) for votes, loyalty, and campaign support.” Both parties operated political machines.
The Democratic Party’s urban political machines, which dominated most big-city machines, built a powerful voter base by courting successive waves of Irish, German and later, Southern/Eastern European immigrants. It was brute, hands on politics. With an organized hierarchy deeply embedded in the community, the machines provided jobs, social services, housing aid and expedited naturalization in exchange for loyal votes, voter turnout and organizational support.
Since the Naturalization Act of 1795, the minimum naturalization period was 5 years. While the political machines did assist immigrants who had met the requirements, they also gamed the system to fast-track naturalizations especially during election years. Their tactics included bribing judges, backdating arrival dates and paying witnesses to lie about applicants’ arrival dates.
Tammany Hall was a notorious New York City machine that earned its reputation in part for creating “naturalization mills” during election seasons - high volume, rapid, frequently fraudulent processing of naturalization applications. In 1868 it is estimated that 41,000 – 44,000 immigrants were naturalized in September and October with 85% of the new citizens voting Democrat.
While Tammany Hall in New York City was a notorious example of a Democratic party machine that traded services for votes, this model was replicated successfully in other urban cities such as Chicago, Boston, Jersey City, Kansas City and Albany. Their efforts resulted in solid Democratic control for decades.
While the Democratic machines were dominant in many urban areas, Republicans also built political machines employing many of the same tactics. Republicans had their share of colorful corrupt bosses. The difference is they targeted different constituencies such as business interests, Protestants, Union veterans and specific immigrant groups like Germans and African Americans. They were more closely aligned with industry and railroads whereas Democrat machines offered welfare-style services to newly arrived immigrants.
After over 60 years the era of the political machines came to a close: “By the early 1900s, this had become a national scandal. Observers feared it was corrupting elections and devaluing genuine citizenship. A 1903 report by Special Agent C.V.C. Van Deusen (to the Attorney General) declared that the administration of naturalization laws was “contemptuous, perfunctory, indifferent, lax, and unintelligent, and in many cases … corrupt.”” Public outrage and Progressive lobbying efforts in favor of centralized government control led to the Naturalization Act of 1906 which federalized the process.
Act to Encourage Immigration (1864)
This Act was a Republican effort led by Lincoln to address severe labor shortages caused by the Civil War and the only bill ever passed that encouraged immigration. Secondary goals included settling the Western territories and supporting the Union economy. It was repealed in 1868 due to opposition from labor organizations who claimed it undercut wages and working conditions.
Ironically, it was Democrats, not Republicans who reaped the political rewards of this Act since Democratic machines were ready and willing to welcome the new immigrants into their organizational structure in exchange for their votes.
The Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act, National Origins Quota Act)
While it does not appear that either party derived immediate electoral benefit from the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, it is a key historical event in immigration history. It was passed under Republican President Calvin Coolidge with broad bipartisan support: 323-71 in the House and 69-9 in the Senate. The Act dramatically cut overall immigration rates and imposed quotas heavily favoring Northern and Western Europeans while restricting Southern/Eastern Europeans.
The Act effectively banned Asians on racial grounds and severely restricted applicants from African countries. Interestingly, immigration from the Western Hemisphere was not subject to quotas even though it was curbed by “literacy tests, public charge rules, head taxes, visa fees, and contract labor prohibitions”. Uncapped but regulated western hemisphere immigration was driven by the desire to continue good relations with our neighbors but more importantly to satisfy the demands of cheap-labor interests of American employers.
Competing against industry, labor unions were a driving force behind the restrictionist policies of the 1924 Immigration Act. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) under Samuel Gompers, led a sustained and organized lobbying effort based on the argument that waves of immigrants served to depress wages and undermine working conditions. Immigrants also provided ready-made pools of strikebreakers which created a major barrier to unionization.
Beyond labor and industry's competing economic interests, the US State Department stated the goal was “to preserve the ideal of US homogeneity”.
Yet another justification for the bill was widespread adoption of the new “science” of eugenics, that era’s shiny new theory. “It drew from the ideas of Francis Galton (who coined the term in 1883) but had evolved in the United States into a prominent movement emphasizing both positive eugenics (encouraging reproduction among those deemed “fit” or superior) and negative eugenics (preventing reproduction or entry among those deemed “unfit” or inferior)”
The “science” of eugenics was adopted first by Progressive elites followed by the universities, institutions and then the general public across party lines.
For example: “Harry Laughlin (who served as “Expert Eugenics Agent” to the House Immigration Committee) testified and lobbied that Southern and Eastern Europeans carried higher rates of “feeblemindedness,” criminality, and other undesirable traits that would “adulterate” America’s “germ plasm.” Rep. Albert Johnson (R-WA), the bill’s chief House sponsor and a eugenics advocate, chaired the committee; the quota formula itself originated in a eugenics subcommittee report. The explicit goal was to “change the character of immigration, and hence of our future population, by bringing about a preponderance of immigration of the stock which originally settled this country.””
Support for national origin quotas was also driven by high unemployment and a broader desire for isolationism after the WW1 and concern that Bolsheviks and anarchists would enter the country via immigration.
The Immigration Act of 1924 set the stage for the Immigration Act of 1965, which we will outline in Part 2 of this series. The 1965 Act established the basic framework of our current immigration system. Understanding how this bill evolved will shed important light on how we arrived at today’s situation.
DETAILS
June 12, 2026 update: further research indicated I had understated union influence on the 1924 Act and I made the appropriate correction. For more information please consider this companion pierce on the impact of labor unions on immigration policy over the decades.
I published “The Clash Over Immigration: Part 2” on April 6, 2026.
Links are provided though out for deeper dives on individual subjects.
We can expect the rhetoric between the parties over Birthright Citizenship will be equally divisive.
For additional history of immigration laws considering Cato Institute’s “Brief History of US Immigration Policy from the Colonial Period to the Present Day” and Federation of American Immigration Reform’s “History of U.S. Immigration Laws”.
For those interested in following the history, links are included below:
The Clash Over Immigration, Part 1 - the article above
The Clash Over Immigration, Part 2
The Clash Over Immigration, Part 3
The Clash Over Immigration, Part 4
The railroads brought in immigrants to settle the West with people who would become customers - using the railroad to bring in goods and ship out grain. In the Great Plains, they would bring in communities: Danes in this section, Czechs in that one, etc. the immigrants would homestead the land and you can still find towns that are "Little Sweden" or "Mini Ukraine" from North Dakota to Kansas. After they arrived, the immigrants often realized they were at the mercy of the railroads and turned against the companies.
Your opening summary of the current "clash" over enforcing immigration laws can best be summarized by the term "selective outrage".
The same people supposedly outraged now and claiming to care about migrants were quiet when 500,000 unaccompanied minors crossed the border during the the Biden admin - in which 85,000 couldn't be contacted for their follow up with whistle blower testimony and estimates suggesting thousands of those children were likely trafficked or put to hard labor. Where was the outrage and concern for those poor children then? Where was the outrage when 5,100 children were in foster care in 2011 (Obama Administration) due to immigration enforcement of their parents? It's helpful to understand that one party did a 180 on immigration in 2016 - CA didn't become a "sanctuary state" conveniently until 2017!
In 1970 the foreign born population in the US was 4.7% (9.6 million people) of the population, and as of 2025 the foreign born population reached a record high of 15.8% (53.3 million) over 3x as a percentage and 5x in absolute number. During this same period of record migration, the US also experienced historic low homebuilding after the 2008 financial crisis where home building fell from 1.8 million units per year in 2006 to less than 800k for the five years after the crisis and gradually increasing... but STILL below pre-2008 levels... The US brought in millions of migrants during a period of historically low home building = contributed to the housing shortage and the rise in rents and home prices.
How did the Democrats view immigration pre-2016?
Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union:
"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold may otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must do more to stop it!"
Barbara Jordan, Civil rights leader, head of U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (1993 under Clinton), Democrat Representative:
"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave. We must control illegal immigration before it erodes our first commitment to legal immigration in the national interest. Immigration is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution guaranteed to everyone, anywhere in the world who thinks they want to come to the United States. Immigration is a privilege!"
2015 Bernie Sanders claiming the Koch brothers favored mass illegal immigration: "What I think they are interested in, is seeing a process by which we can bring low wage labor of all levels into this country, to depress wages in America."
Citizens detained, no due process, racial profiling, families targeted/detained, children in foster care... were all results of immigration enforcement during the Obama admin:
12/4/2014, ACLU: The Ones Obama Left Behind - And Deported Without a Chance to Be Heard
"Each year, over 363, 279 - 83 percent - of deportations from the United States are ordered by immigration officers, NOT judges. Those deported in 'summary removal' processes do NOT get a hearing or a chance to present evidence, or call a lawyer, or even say goodbye to their families before they are banished, sometimes for life."
4/7/2014, TIME: Most Immigrants Deported Under Obama Had Thin or NO Criminal Record
"Two-thirds of immigrants deported from the U.S. since 2008 committed minor traffic violations or had NO criminal record at all despite Obama's promise that his administration was targeting immigrants who were threats to the community."
3/21/2014 ACLU: Three Ways We Got to 2 Million (3.1 million total for 8 Obama years)
"At the same time, we have seen U.S. citizens and Green Card holders improperly detained, targeting of Latinos and immigrants by local police, and increased fear in communities, yet no indication that the Administration plans to curb Secure Communities." "In its first five years, the Obama Administration has deported about twice as many people as the Bush Administration did in the same period - all while the number of immigration judges has remained virtually stagnant and border apprehensions are at an all-time low." "The reality is that this Administration has increasingly relied on methods, such as expedited removal and reinstatements of old decisions."
1/4/2016, Politico: Obama Administration Kicks Off Family Deportation Raids
“The Obama administration confirmed Monday that it began a new wave of arrests of Central American immigrant families over the weekend, moving forward with deportations of MOTHERS and CHILDREN despite an outcry from immigrant rights groups and potential political fallout for Democrats.”
7/10/2010: New York Times: Illegal Workers Swept From Jobs in 'Silent Raids'
11/8/2011, The Atlantic Philanthropies: Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System
“Deportations and detentions of undocumented immigrants are destroying families, according to a ground breaking report by the Applied Research Center (ARC). When parents are detained or deported, their children are placed in foster care. Parents face a difficult, if not impossible, battle to regain custody because of barriers by immigration enforcement and the child welfare system. ARC estimates that at least 5,100 CHILDREN live in foster care whose parents were deported or detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”
Yet, no one took to the streets daily in protest. No one was encouraged to obstruct ICE - CNN even did a ride along and aired it! No one was shooting at ICE/Border agents.
"Selective Outrage" because it is being done by a Republican administration!