Turning Point The National Origins Act MAY 26, 1924 The Case
MEMO l\AND'UM
, titutions rest
"AID-erican lnS "
shiP, They
od Cltlzen
solely on go b people who had a
were created y self_government,
background of
ld be limited to
, als shOU
, to
rlV
NeW ar
b them In
r
't",T to abso
our capaCl,y
'tl'zenshiP,
f good Cl
the ranks 0
t .American,
st be kep
AID-erica mu
it is necessary
or
thiS
purpose,
f restricted
F
, Ue policy 0
'd
to contln a
I ro conVlnce
immigration, ' '~ e:anomic and ,
that our pres en
arrant a liml­
diuons w
social con
be adIDitted , ' ' '
tation of thOSe to t want to be
' 't
do no
Those wh 0
l\ ..-nerican SpWl
of the
partakerS
'n .Amerlca,
ought not to settle 1
.PJ.J.>'
.
C \Vin coolidge,
president aUnion Address,
state of tne
23
oecember 6,19
, "
A few months after Coolidge's speech, Con­
gress took him at his word, Led by Representative
A1bertJohnson ofWashington and Senators Henry
Cabot Lodge ofMassachusetts and HiramJohnson
ofCalifornia, Congress passed the Immigration Act
of 1924, also called the National Origins Act.
The act strictly limited immigration from every
country outside the \Vestern Hemisphere by im­
posing quotas. Until 1929, quotas would be based
on the national origins ofthe United States popula­
tion using the 1890 census. After that, quotas would
be set using the 1920 census. The bill limited total
immigration to about 150,000 people per year start­
ing in 1929, a drastic reduction from the almost
1 million that arrived each year from 1900 to 1914.
For a nation founded by immigrants, the
National Origins Act seemed a complete reversal of
its traditional policy. For a nation worried about its fu­
ture, the act seemed a promise to keep America for
Americans. \Vhat did it mean to be an American?
\\Tho was able, or qualified, to become one? Should
the country continue its relatively open policy, or were
tighter restrictions needed? These questions were cen­
tral to the debate over the National Origins Act.
Despite certain objections, President Coolidge
signed the bill into law on May 26, 1924.
The BackgTound
Before the Civil \Var, most Americans agreed that
an open immigration policy was essential to the coun­
try's growth. Immigration provided settlers for the
territories and workers for expanding industry. Most
immigrants of the time-like most Americans~had
404
CAS EST U 0 Y
~
-........... -
. ,-. I
-,
-.~
-
---"­
roots in northern and western Europe. That did not
mean all new arrivals were equally welcomed: early
Irish and German immigrants, for example, often faced
a hostile reception. Nonetheless, because most early
immigrants and Americans shared similar roots, few
saw immigration as a threat to the country's values,
and most viewed it as an integral part of the national
character and tradition. While the United States had
a surplus ofland and a shortage oflabor, an open pol­
icy seemed to serve its needs.
Cba glng VIa I This view had changed dra­
matically by the late 1800s. Regional and national
economies experienced a frightening series of de~
pressions. The Western frontier was disappearing;
the South was in transition. Urban problems ofover­
crowding, disease, and labor unrest worried many
Americans. Newcomers were blamed for these prob­
lems--especially the "new" immigrants who came
from Asia and southern and eastern Europe.
Pr~udice and anti-immigrant feelings grew
in the late 1800s, as did calls to limit immi­
gration.1n California, Chinese immigrants were
unfairly blamed for many social and economic
ills. Riding the wave of anti-Chinese feelings,
Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of
1882, preventing Chinese immigrants from be­
coming United States citizens. For the first time,
the United States had restricted immigration
based solely on national origin. Prior restrictions
were based on keeping criminals or those with
contagious diseases out of the country.
E ganlel In arguing for the exclusion of
new immigrants, restrictionists promoted eugen­
ics, the idea that heredity, or genetics, determined
who was "fit" or "unfit," and thus superior or infe­
rior. Eugenics suggested that persons from north­
ern or western European stock could be true
Americans because they were "fit"--intelligent,
strong, and self-reliant. People from southern and east­
ern Europe, Asians, Africans, andJews were deemed
"unfit" and therefore unable to become Americans.
Evidence for eugenics came from biased studies,
but Americans increasingly believed in it. Senator
William Dillingham's 1911 commission published a
report staring that the new immigrants were a threat
to the nation and that certain ethnic gTOllpS should
be considered undesirable. Madison Grant's widely
read book, The Passing 0/ the Great Race (1916),
"Unless the U.S. adopts this biologic principle
[of racial differences]1they will be flooded
over by people of inferior stock because of
their greater fecundity [birth rate]."
Dr. Harry H. Laughlin, speaking for the United States secretary
of labor in support of the National Origins Act
"I felt confident that the
President would sign the
Immigration bill, for I
~
know he sympathizes with ~
the general purposes of
~
the ,legislation and real­
izes fuUy its great impor­
tance. It is a very great
measure, one of the most
important if not the most
important, that Congress
has ever passed. It
reaches far Into the
future."
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (right)
"Immigrants have
contributed greatly
to the industrial
development of
this country; con­
tributed not alone
by their numbers
but also by their
age, sex and
training."
>
i
Constantine Panunzio
: (left) in his 1927 book,
~ Immigration Cross­
~ roads, in defense of
~ open immigration
"This association protests against the enactment
of said measures as ... intolerant in purpose
and effect, unfounded upon any fair, useful or
logical test for fitness for American citizenship,
and unjust to race stocks which have proved
pre-eminently loyal in peace time and in war,
law abiding and productive...."
Emily S. Bernheim, Executive Secretary of the
United Neighborhood Houses of New York,
in a letter to President Coolidge opposing the act
Turning point supported this view. Grant claimed that heredity was
the key factor in all human progress. These works
seemed to "prove" that the new immigrants were in­
ferior and an "alien menace."
World War I convinced many that the open
immigration tradition had failed, since foreign ties
had involved the country in a horrible war. The
1917 revolution of the Bolsheviks in Russia linked
fears of communism with foreigners in American
minds. Labor unrest and domestic terrorism in­
spired dread that the United States might collapse
from internal strife.
Congress passed the first widely restrictive
immigration law in 1921, with a limit of 357,000
people per year based on a national quota system.
Many felt the 1921 law did not do enough. It failed
to decrease southern and eastern European immi­
gration. Representative Albert Johnson and Senators
Lodge and Hiram Johnson pressed for an even
stronger law. With the National Origins Act of 1924,
restrictionists won the debate over immigration.
This law would govern immigration until 1965.
The Opinions
Since the nation's founding, opinions have been
split between open and restrictive immigration
policy. Restrictionists were dominating the debate
by the early 1900s, but many Americans held
firm to the belief that immigration was one of the
country's greatest strengths. They championed a
more open policy. The quotes on the preceding
page reveal the conflict in opinions on immigration
and the National Origins Act.
The Outcome
The ResponsB Many foreign governments re­
acted angrily to the new immigration policy.Japan­
ese Lieutenant General Bu~iro Horinouchi stated,
"We must be determined to undergo whatever hard­
ships are necessary in avenging the insult which
America has done our country." Another Japanese
leader said, "Ifhistory teaches anything, an eventual
collision between Japan and America on the Pacific
is inevitable." Some Americans felt the act would
harm all foreign relations.
Public opinion and newspaper editorials in the
United States, though, reflected widespread support
for the National Origins Act. The Cleveland Plazn
Dealer stated in an editorial, "Immigration is a do­
mestic problem. The Japanese are neither as unso­
phisticated nor so domineering as to try to override
the clearly expressed will offriendly America."
Congress soon moved to strengthen immigra­
tion restrictions even more. It created a border pa­
trol to prevent illegal immigration-not by Mexicans
or Canadians, but by Europeans trying to get around
quota restrictions. It also gave immigration officers
more power to arrest suspected illegal residents.
Border Patrol In 1'926 these Border Patrol officers in Laredo, Texas, show off their equipment and personnel for a photo
portrait by Eugene Goldbeck. They hoped to prevent Europeans from evading quotas by coming in through Mexico.
CASE STUDY
"
-
-"
"""-=
....."
,­
,
-
immediate Eftacts The act had immediate
effects on immigration. For the most part, it ended
legal Chinese and Japanese immigration. The goal
ofencouraging more immigrants from northern and
western Europe and restricting the number from
other areas was achieved. The Quota Board set up
by the act raised the British quota from 34,007 un­
der the 1921 law to 65,721, while setting the Italian
quota at 5,802, Poland's at 6,524, and Greece's at 307.
The National Origins Act was the main catalyst
for changes in the character of United States immi­
gration. First, total immigration fell sharply. From
1906 to 1915, 9.4 million people had immigrated to
the United States. Less than 2 million immigrated to
the United States from 1925 to 1948.
More notably, the national origins ofimmigrants
changed dramatically, just as restrictionists had
desired. From 1900 to 1910, northern and western
Europe had sent 21.7 percent ofall United States im­
migrants; southern and eastern Europe, 70.8 percent;
Canada and Mexico, 2.6 percent; and all other coun­
tries, 4.9 percent. From 1924 to 1946, northern and
western Europe sent 43.1 percent of immigrants;
southern and eastern Europe, 18.9 percent; Canada
and Mexico, 33 percent; and all others, 5 percent.
People scrambled to get the required visas be­
fore their country's annual quota was filled. Irma
Busch from Germany recalled, "I went to Hamburg
in 1924, and it was one year before I finally got my
quota number.... At the consulate, they said to me,
that if I had been born a little bit further down in
Silesia, in the Polish sector, I couldn't have come
here, because that would have been under a differ­
ent quota. There were always more people applied
from that part than there was a quota for."
La r Effects Even before and during World ·
War II, the quotas held fast. Thousands desperate to
flee the terror of fascism were shut out, including
many Jews. Boats ofhopeful immigrants were turned
away. In 1938, as anti-Jewish violence erupted in Ger­
many, Congress rejected a proposal to admit about
20,000 German children, most ofthem Jews. Congress
claimed that it might draw the nation into war--and
would violate the quota system. Yet in 1940 Congress
admitted 15,000 English children to the United States.
As a result of the National Origins Act, the
United States suffered a labor shortage, especially
agricultural workers, during World War II. The
United States asked Mexico to help ease the short­
age. The resulting bracero program allowed Mexi­
cans to enter the United States as short-term
farmworkers. More than 4 million Mexicans served
as braceros in the United States until Congress ended
the program in 1964.
The Significance
For more than 40 years, the National Origins Act
remained in force. Americans continued to support
it, but as the early 1960s civil rights movement grew,
President Kennedy and others questioned whether
the act truly reflected American values. In 1965 Con­
gress passed a new immigration law, ending the Na­
tional Origins Act. The 1965 law seemed to return
the United States to its former, more open status.
While limiting open immigration to 200,000, it al­
lowed in any number ofrelatives of United States cit­
izens. It gave each country the san1e quota, 20,000,
but did not end the quota system.
The main results of the National Origins Act
-limits on total immigration and the use ofa quota
system-remained unaffected. More than 70 years
after the act, its restrictive principles continue to
dominate United States immigration policy.
RESPONDING TO THE CASE
1. Why did the restrictionists support a quota
system for immigration? What did they hope such
a system would accomplish?
2. One of the effects of the National Origins Act
was that immigration from Canada and Mexico
increased greatly. Would supporters of the act
have welcomed these immigrants? Explain.
3. Did the National Origins Act achieve the goals
of its supporters? Explain.
Suppose you are an opponent of the National Ori­
gins Act in the 1920$. You have the opportunity
to address Congress before they decide on the
bill. What would you say to them to convince
them of your argument? Write a brief address you
could give to the House of Representatives and the
Senate explaining your views.