AP Syllabus focus:
‘After World War I, nativist campaigns produced quotas that restricted immigration—especially from southern and eastern Europe—and increased barriers to Asian immigration.’
The 1920s witnessed a surge in restrictionist sentiment as Americans responded to postwar anxieties by endorsing federal policies that sharply limited immigration. These policies reflected long-standing prejudices, new fears about cultural change, and growing demands to protect what many believed to be traditional American society.
The Rise of Restrictionism After World War I
As wartime tensions merged with domestic unease, many Americans argued that the nation faced cultural and economic threats from continued immigration. These concerns fueled the nativist campaigns that pressed Congress to impose strict federal controls on immigration for the first time in U.S. history.
Sources of Nativist Pressure
Public distrust of newcomers intensified after 1917, drawing legitimacy from pseudoscience and fears about political radicalism.
Nativism: A belief that immigration threatens the cultural, political, or economic stability of the nation, often favoring native-born Americans over immigrants.
One powerful influence was pseudo-scientific racial theory, particularly the popularity of eugenics, which misused genetics to argue that immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were inherently less desirable. Another pressure came from widespread concerns that immigrants might import socialist or anarchist ideas, especially amid the First Red Scare. These views helped build political momentum for strict federal laws.
Legislative Foundations of the Quota System
Restrictionists achieved major victories in the early 1920s as Congress established numerical limits on immigration for the first time. These policies represented a decisive shift away from the United States’ earlier openness to European migration.
The Emergency Quota Act of 1921
This law imposed the first national quotas, limiting annual immigration from any country to 3 percent of the number of people from that country living in the United States in 1910.
This political cartoon depicts a giant funnel labeled “Europe” directing immigrants toward the United States as Uncle Sam restricts entry at a gate marked “3%.” It illustrates how the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 sharply limited immigration by allowing only a small fraction of applicants to enter. The cartoon predates the 1924 act but reflects the same restrictionist logic. Source.
The Johnson–Reed Act (Immigration Act of 1924)
The Immigration Act of 1924 expanded and hardened the quota system by reducing the percentage to 2 percent and shifting the reference year to 1890. This earlier date drastically reduced immigration from southern and eastern Europe—regions that restrictionists associated with undesirable racial and political traits.
This map displays the quota areas and assigned immigration limits established under the Immigration Act of 1924. It highlights the large quotas reserved for northern and western Europe and the minimal or absent quotas for other regions, including Asia. Although more detailed than necessary for students, it clearly visualizes the discriminatory structure of the national-origins system. Source.
Quota System: A federal policy limiting immigration by assigning numerical caps to specific countries, often designed to favor northern and western Europeans.
These quotas aimed to preserve what lawmakers described as America’s “national origins” composition while ensuring that newer immigrant groups would remain a small, permanently restricted minority. Supporters argued that the nation needed time to “assimilate” earlier immigrant waves, but these rationales masked the racial and cultural biases driving the legislation.
Racial Exclusion and Barriers to Asian Immigration
Restrictionism in the 1920s did not only target Europeans. The United States had long enforced exclusion against Asian immigrants, and the new quota system intensified these barriers. Asian nations received zero quotas, effectively banning almost all Asian immigration and reinforcing earlier laws such as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1907 Gentlemen’s Agreement with Japan.
The 1924 act also created the Asian Exclusion Zone, formally prohibiting immigration from nearly all Asian countries.
This 1882 cartoon shows a Chinese immigrant excluded from the “Golden Gate of Liberty,” symbolizing early anti-Asian immigration policies. It demonstrates how Asian migrants were targeted for exclusion decades before the national-origins quota system. Although predating the 1924 act, it clarifies how the zero-quota provisions extended an established pattern of racial restriction. Source.
Motivations Behind Restrictionist Legislation
Although scientific racism and xenophobia played central roles, several additional factors shaped the broad appeal of restrictionist policies.
Economic and Social Concerns
Many Americans worried that immigrants would compete for jobs or depress wages during a period of economic adjustment after World War I. Urban overcrowding and rapid industrialization contributed to concerns about poverty, labor unrest, and changing urban cultures.
Political Radicalism and National Security
The Red Scare encouraged widespread suspicion that immigrants might support radical movements. The Palmer Raids, which targeted suspected radicals—many of whom were immigrants—reinforced public assumptions that immigration and subversion were linked.
Protection of American Identity
Restrictionists argued that preserving American cultural homogeneity required limiting groups perceived as difficult to assimilate. These ideas reflected a broader cultural struggle in the 1920s over modernity, diversity, and national identity.
Consequences of the Quota System
The quota laws fundamentally reshaped the nation’s demographic patterns.
Sharp Decline in Southern and Eastern European Immigration: Annual numbers dropped dramatically, altering the trajectory of communities such as Italians, Poles, and Jews.
Stagnation of Asian Immigration: Near-total bans halted the growth of Asian American communities for decades.
Reinforcement of Racial Hierarchies: By favoring northern and western Europeans, the laws encoded racial preferences into federal policy.
Institutionalization of Federal Control: The federal government assumed permanent responsibility for regulating immigration volumes and origins.
Restrictionism and the quota system thus embodied the era’s tensions—between openness and exclusion, diversity and homogeneity, and competing visions of what the United States should become in a rapidly changing world.
FAQ
The United States implemented a yearly numerical cap for each country, and immigration officials tracked entries against these limits. Once a country’s quota was reached for the year, additional immigrants were denied entry regardless of personal circumstances.
Processing stations such as Ellis Island increasingly served as bureaucratic checkpoints rather than reception centres. Officers checked applicants’ national origins, documentation, and any potential exclusions under existing health or moral standards, adding another layer of scrutiny.
Supporters believed the 1890 census represented a demographic moment before large-scale arrivals of southern and eastern Europeans. By using this year, quotas heavily favoured northern and western European nations.
This choice reflected both racial preferences and a desire to freeze the nation’s cultural composition. Legislators often cited “scientific” arguments about national character, though these were grounded in bias rather than evidence.
Quota limits made it extremely difficult for newer immigrant groups to bring over relatives.
Countries with very small quotas often had long waiting lists, meaning families could be separated for years.
Asian immigrants faced even greater barriers as many nations were assigned zero quotas, making reunification nearly impossible.
Religious and ethnic communities developed support networks to assist separated families, but federal policy left many without legal pathways.
Many business leaders opposed strict quotas because they relied on immigrant labour, especially in manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. They argued that restriction would raise labour costs and reduce workforce flexibility.
However, some industrialists supported quotas to limit labour radicalism, believing that reducing immigrant workers would stabilise industrial relations. Their divided stance contrasted with the unified support from nativist political groups.
Policymakers distinguished between diplomatic or commercial engagement and domestic racial policy. They maintained trade relationships with Japan and China while enforcing exclusion at home.
Justifications typically rested on:
Claims that Asian immigrants could not assimilate into American society
Pressures from western states with strong anti-Asian movements
The belief that exclusion protected national unity despite international tensions
This contradiction often strained foreign relations but persisted due to strong domestic political support.
Practice Questions
(1–3 marks)
Explain one reason why the United States introduced immigration quotas in the early 1920s.
Question 1 (1–3 marks)
Award up to 3 marks for a valid explanation that clearly identifies a reason and provides supporting detail.
1 mark: Identifies a reason (e.g., nativism, fear of radicalism, pseudo-scientific racism, post-war economic concerns).
2 marks: Provides a basic explanation of how this reason contributed to the introduction of quotas.
3 marks: Offers a developed explanation with accurate contextual detail (e.g., linking nativist sentiment to the First Red Scare or the belief that southern and eastern Europeans were less assimilable).
Examples of acceptable points for full marks:
Nativist pressure grew after the First World War, leading many Americans to believe that immigration threatened national identity, prompting Congress to introduce quotas.
Concerns about political radicalism, heightened by the Red Scare, encouraged the belief that immigrants might bring anarchist or socialist ideas, leading to restrictive laws.
Pseudo-scientific racial theories claimed some Europeans were inferior, influencing lawmakers to favour northern and western Europeans through quota limits.
(4–6 marks)
Analyse how the Immigration Act of 1924 reflected wider cultural and political tensions in the United States during the 1920s.
Question 2 (4–6 marks)
Award up to 6 marks. Responses should demonstrate analysis rather than simple description.
1–2 marks: Provides general statements about the Immigration Act of 1924 with limited or no analytical depth.
3–4 marks: Shows some analysis by connecting the Act to broader cultural or political tensions (e.g., debates over assimilation, racial theories, fear of change). May lack depth or specificity.
5–6 marks: Presents a well-developed analysis linking the quota system to multiple wider tensions of the 1920s, supported by precise evidence (e.g., nativism, eugenics, anti-Asian discrimination, post-war instability, conflicts over American identity).
Examples of points that gain credit:
The Act reflected widespread anxiety about preserving a perceived American cultural homogeneity, favouring northern and western Europeans and limiting groups considered less assimilable.
It was shaped by pseudo-scientific racial theories associated with the eugenics movement, showing how racial ideology influenced national policy.
Anti-Asian sentiment, already strong due to earlier exclusion laws, was embedded in the Act’s zero quotas for Asian countries, illustrating long-standing racial bias.
Post-war economic and social tensions, including urban overcrowding and fears of labour unrest, reinforced calls for restricting immigration.
A top-level response will integrate multiple factors and show how the Act both shaped and reflected the restrictive, anxious climate of the decade.
