Throughout American history, immigration policy has repeatedly changed direction. Employers encouraged foreign workers to come, political pressure eventually restricted their entry, and the economic demand for their labor often remained. From Chinese railroad workers in the 1860s to Mexican agricultural workers a century later, the pattern is remarkably familiar. Why does American immigration policy keep repeating itself?

The Barn

Set the scene for me: how was U.S. immigration governed in the decades prior to passage of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, officially called the Immigration and Nationality Act?

The Mack

The Immigration Act of 1924 established a national-origins quota system that heavily favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe. The system was designed to preserve the existing ethnic composition of the United States.

As historian John Higham observed in his account of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act: “Nativists during this period argued that the so-called new immigration from southern and eastern Europe was racially inferior to the ‘old immigration’ from northern and western Europe. It was therefore polluting the nation’s bloodstream.”

Under the quota system, immigrants from Britain and Germany received relatively generous allocations, while immigrants from Italy, Greece, and much of Eastern Europe faced severe restrictions.

Immigration from the Western Hemisphere was not subject to the national-origins numerical quotas. That meant Mexico and other Latin American countries operated under a different system from Europe and Asia.

Beginning in 1942, the United States had recruited temporary Mexican agricultural workers through the Bracero Program. Over its lifetime, the program recorded approximately 4.6 million worker admissions, including repeat admissions.

The Barn

So, during the lifetime of the Bracero program, 1942-1964 , more than 200,000 Mexicans crossed the border into the United States each year, primarily seeking jobs in agriculture?

The Mack

Over the program’s 22-year history, that averages roughly 209,000 admissions per year. Many Mexican workers participated in the program repeatedly, returning to Mexico when their contracts expired and coming back for subsequent agricultural seasons. Consequently, 4.6 million admissions does not mean 4.6 million different Mexicans immigrated to the United States.

The program began relatively modestly during World War II and expanded substantially during the 1950s. By the late 1950s, American agriculture had developed a system that accommodated approximately 400,000 temporary Mexican worker admissions annually.

The Barn

Seems like it parallels the Chinese Problem… open the gates wide and then a decade or two later slam it shut. From encouraging 400,000 annually to help in agriculture, to squeezing the flow down to 20,000 per year.

The Mack

There is a striking parallel, particularly when we look at the relationship between employers’ demand for immigrant labor and the political pressure to restrict immigration.

First, let’s get the numbers straight.

During the late 1950s, the United States was admitting approximately 400,000 Mexican agricultural workers annually through the Bracero Program.

Then:

• 1964: The Bracero Program ended, eliminating that large-scale temporary agricultural labor channel.
• 1965: Hart–Celler established a 120,000 annual ceiling for permanent immigration from the entire Western Hemisphere, effective in 1968.
• 1976: Congress extended the 20,000-per-country limit to Mexico.

However, the 20,000 figure applied to certain categories of permanent immigration, not all Mexican workers entering the country. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens were exempt, and other temporary-worker provisions remained available.

So we cannot quite say Congress reduced total permitted Mexican immigration from 400,000 to 20,000. Those numbers measure different kinds of admissions.

The Bracero figures represent temporary worker admissions, including repeat admissions, while the later immigration limits concerned permanent immigration categories.

The Barn

Nevertheless, the combination of these changes substantially restricted Mexican labor migration, right? Can you compare these two immigration periods: the Chinese Problem and the Bracero program?

The Mack

Chinese Immigration and the Bracero Program: A Historical Comparison

Compare	Chinese immigration	Mexican immigration
Period of labor recruitment	1860s	1942–1964
Principal employers	Railroads, mining, agriculture	Agriculture
Economic incentive	Demand for inexpensive, available labor	Demand for seasonal agricultural labor
Government encouragement	Burlingame Treaty, 1868	Bracero agreements, beginning 1942
Political opposition	Organized labor, anti-Chinese movements	Labor organizations, farmworker advocates, immigration restrictionists
Major restriction	Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882	Bracero termination, 1964; immigration ceilings, 1965–1976
Underlying economic demand	Did not immediately disappear	Did not immediately disappear

In both cases, the government initially facilitated access to foreign workers, and later restricted that access partly in response to concerns about domestic workers.

she loves me…

she loves me not…

The Barn

So, government restricts the supply of immigrant labor without eliminating the economic demand for it. I’m holding my breath, what happens next?

The Mack

In the Chinese case, employers adapted by seeking other workers, changing their operations, or continuing to employ Chinese workers already present.

In the Mexican case, employers still needed agricultural labor, while Mexican workers still had powerful economic incentives to seek employment in the United States.

One consequence was continued unauthorized migration, although other economic and policy factors also contributed.

And this brings us directly to IRCA in 1986.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: Another Attempt at Reform

The Barn

IRCA was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, what did it propose to do?

The Mack

Twenty-two years after the Bracero Program ended, Congress was attempting to address an established unauthorized immigrant population by legalizing millions of people while penalizing employers who knowingly hired unauthorized workers.

The Barn

IRCA has been described as one of those “three-legged stools.” Tell me about it.

The Mack

Sure, here are the three legs re IRCA.

• Legalization (Amnesty): A path to legal status and eventual permanent residency for long-term unauthorized immigrants.
• Employer Sanctions: For the first time in U.S. federal law, it became illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee unauthorized workers.
• Border Enforcement: Increased funding and resources for the U.S. Border Patrol and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The Barn

It turns out one of those legs was so weak, there was never a chance it would work.

The Mack

Yes, subsequent policy analyses—such as evaluations by the Migration Policy Institute—noted that the stool wobbled or failed over time because employer sanctions were difficult to enforce consistently.

There is a recurring historical tension here: immigration policy can restrict the legal supply of workers more readily than it can eliminate the economic incentives that attract them.

The Barn

Maybe there is something about homo sapiens, the smart ape. Perhaps it is time for a deep dive into our past.

The Mack

That should be fun, and hopefully informative.