Immigration Crossroads: Five Historical Lessons for Illuminating Today's Policy Debates

President Trump says he wants to end birthright citizenship. Such a change would radically remake our national landscape. Think about how many people you know are the children of immigrants, and you will begin to understand the potential impact of this proposed change on their lives and the fabric of our communities.

In 1898, the Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, born to Chinese immigrants, challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship upon returning from a trip abroad. This landmark decision established the principle of birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of American identity.

Essential Question: What does birthright citizenship reveal about the relationship between the Constitution and the inclusion of immigrants in the American story?

Ellis Island, the gateway for millions of European immigrants, is often romanticized as a symbol of the American dream. On an average day during its peak years of operation, approximately 5,000 people passed through Ellis Island, with many completing the process in just a few hours. Until the Immigration Act of 1924 (lesson available for free on the Re-Imagining Migration website), which imposed strict quotas based on national origins, non-Asians arriving in the U.S. faced relatively few restrictions, no quotas and no closed borders.

In contrast, Angel Island, the processing center for Asian immigrants, was marked by exclusion, interrogation and detention, with many immigrants held for weeks, months, or even years. These two immigration stations highlight the stark differences in how immigrants were treated based on race and national origin, exposing the inequities in America's immigration history.

Essential Question: How do the contrasting experiences at Angel Island and Ellis Island reflect the role of race and ethnicity in shaping immigration policy and identity in America?

Current proposals to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, including their U.S. citizen children, evoke historical episodes of large-scale deportations. These proposals, which include the potential involvement of local sheriffs, the military and the National Guard, raise questions about their historical precedents.

During the Great Depression, politicians and some members of the public unjustly blamed people of Mexican descent for economic hardships, leading to a mass exodus of an estimated 1 to 2 million individuals from the United States to Mexico. This group included both Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans, with a significant portion being U.S. citizens—many sources suggest around 60 percent. The removals occurred through various means: formal deportations by federal authorities, coerced "voluntary" departures, locally organized repatriation programs, and people leaving due to economic pressures and a hostile social climate. Many individuals, including U.S.-born citizens, were compelled to leave for Mexico, a country some had never known. The removals often targeted entire communities, with raids and roundups organized by local authorities and private groups, representing a complex interplay of federal immigration enforcement, state and local initiatives, and private actions that resulted in one of the largest mass removals in American history. 

Ironically, just a few years later, the U.S. government initiated the Bracero Program (1942–1964) to recruit Mexican laborers to address wartime labor shortages. This shift underscores how immigration policy has often been dictated by economic priorities—in this case, expelling workers during periods of scarcity only to recruit them when labor was needed.

Essential Question: What do the Mexican Repatriation and the Bracero Program reveal about the relationship between economic forces and immigration policy?

Many of the president's advisers have spoken about the need to fundamentally rethink which immigrants we admit to the country. The last time the U.S. undertook such a sweeping re-evaluation of its immigration system was in 1965, with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act.

The Hart-Celler Act abolished the racially discriminatory national origins quotas that had defined U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s. By prioritizing family reunification and skilled labor, this legislation transformed the demographics of the United States (lesson available for free on the Re-Imagining Migration website), paving the way for increased immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America. It marked a turning point in how America defined who could belong.

Essential Question: How does immigration policy impact America's identity and shape ideas of who "belongs" in the United States?

Several members of the Trump administration, along with some activists, have proposed several policy changes that would dramatically impact the relationship between immigrants and schools. Critics argue that many of these proposed changes could conflict with existing legal protections, particularly the 1982 Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that allowed school districts to deny free public education to undocumented children by charging them tuition. The court ruled that such a policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, affirming the principle that all individuals, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to basic rights and opportunities. The court also emphasized the importance of education in preparing individuals to participate meaningfully in the civic life of their communities, highlighting the crucial role educators play in shaping a more inclusive society.

This case underscores the ongoing tension between immigration enforcement and the protection of individual rights.

Essential Questions: Why is access to education essential not only for empowering individuals but also for strengthening communities and fostering their participation in civic life? What does the Plyler v. Doe decision teach us about the balance between immigration enforcement and the protection of human rights in America?

Adam Strom has spent his entire educational career working to create communities of belonging within and outside the classroom. He is the executive director of Re-Imagining Migration, an organization whose mission is to advance the education and well-being of immigrant-origin youth, decrease bias and hatred against young people of diverse origins, and help rising generations develop the critical understanding necessary to build and sustain welcoming and inclusive communities.