The historical trajectory of immigration law in the United States represents a complex intersection of economic necessity, racial ideology, and the progressive centralization of federal authority. Far from being a consistent narrative of welcoming the “huddled masses,” the legal framework governing entry into the American polity has functioned as a sophisticated mechanism of demographic and social engineering. Since the pre-colonial era, the movement of people—whether voluntary, coerced, or entirely forced—has been regulated to serve the shifting requirements of a burgeoning agrarian society, an industrializing power, and eventually a modern security state. This analysis explores the legal and enforcement mechanisms that defined American identity from the arrival of the first European settlers and enslaved Africans to the contemporary era of biometric surveillance and mass deportation operations, emphasizing the enduring link between labor exploitation and racial hierarchy.

The Colonial Foundation: Mercantilism and the Genesis of Forced Migration

The earliest regulatory frameworks for migration in North America were established not by a central republic, but by European imperial powers seeking to maximize the economic utility of their colonial outposts. The Spanish, who founded St. Augustine in 1565 and expanded into Texas and New Mexico by 1598, viewed migration as an extension of the Crown’s religious and territorial ambitions.¹ However, it was the English model that would leave the most indelible mark on American legal structures. During the 17th century, the British government viewed its citizens as vital economic resources, frequently restricting the movement of skilled artisans while simultaneously encouraging the “transportation” of “undesirable” elements to the colonies to spur economic growth.³

In the initial decades of English settlement, the labor demands of the tobacco and rice economies in the Chesapeake and Carolinas necessitated a massive influx of workers. This was initially met through the system of indentured servitude, where impoverished Europeans exchanged four to seven years of their labor for oceanic passage and “freedom dues”.³ By the mid-1700s, a significant proportion of European arrivals were indentured servants.³ However, the 1717 Transportation Act introduced a more coercive element, granting English courts the authority to sentence convicts to transportation for up to 14 years, effectively turning banishment into a labor supply mechanism.³

The Institutionalization of the Transatlantic Slave Trade

The most profound and horrific form of forced migration began in 1619, when the first recorded shipment of “20 and odd” enslaved Africans arrived in Jamestown aboard a Dutch ship.¹ This event initiated a centuries-long system of chattel slavery that would eventually populate one-third of the North American colonies with forced laborers.⁶ Between 1525 and 1866, an estimated 12.5 million Africans were abducted and transported across the Atlantic, with approximately 10.7 million surviving the brutal Middle Passage to reach the New World.⁷ Of these, between 500,000 and 600,000 were brought to the British colonies that would become the United States.⁵

The transition from indentured servitude to permanent, race-based slavery was facilitated by “positive law”—statutes and judicial precedents that denied the legal personality of the enslaved.⁷ In 1641, Massachusetts became the first colony to legalize slavery in its “Body of Liberties,” justifying the practice through biblical interpretations and the concept of “just wars”.⁷ Virginia followed with a watershed 1662 law establishing that the status of a child would follow the mother (partus sequitur ventrem), ensuring that enslavement would be a hereditary condition.⁹ Maryland legalized slavery in 1663, and by 1664, New York, New Jersey, and the Carolinas had implemented similar codes for lifelong servitude.⁹

Colonial Legal Status and Labor Regulation (1607–1775)	Legal Mechanism	Source of Authority	Primary Demographic
Indentured Servitude	Voluntary Contract	Common Law	Impoverished Europeans 3
Convict Transportation	1717 Transportation Act	British Parliament	Convicted Criminals 3
Chattel Slavery	Colonial Slave Codes	Colonial Legislatures	Abducted Africans 7
Native Enslavement	Capture in Warfare	Custom/Legislature	Indigenous Peoples 7

The regulatory environment of the 18th century also saw early attempts at federalizing immigration authority. The British Parliament’s Plantation Act of 1740 sought to create a uniform naturalization system requiring seven years of residency and a religious test, which often clashed with more liberal colonial policies intended to attract settlers.³ By the time of the American Revolution, the restriction of migration and naturalization by King George III was cited in the Declaration of Independence as a primary grievance, signaling that the control of people’s movement was central to the concept of national sovereignty.³

The Early Republic: Defining Citizenship and the Racial Blueprint

Following the acquisition of independence, the United States faced the existential task of defining who belonged within its newly minted borders. The Constitution granted Congress the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization” but was notably silent on the power to exclude or deport free people.³ The early Republic adopted a three-fold concept of citizenship: jus soli (right of the soil), jus sanguinis (right of the blood), and naturalization by consent.³

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first federal statute to define eligibility for citizenship, and its language established a racial hierarchy that would endure for over 150 years. By limiting naturalization to “free white persons” of “good character,” the Act explicitly excluded enslaved people, free Black persons, Native Americans, and later, Asian immigrants from participating in the national project.¹¹ This was not merely a passive exclusion but a deliberate effort to link republican values with Western European ancestry.¹²

Ideological Conflicts and the 1808 Threshold

The Federalist era brought the first major use of deportation as a tool of political suppression. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 authorized the President to arrest and remove foreign nationals deemed “dangerous to the peace and security of the United States”.¹¹ These laws were prompted by fears of radicalism stemming from the French Revolution and represented an early instance of the executive branch using immigration control to maintain ideological homogeneity.¹¹

Simultaneously, the young nation grappled with the moral and economic contradictions of the slave trade. The Constitution’s Article 1, Section 9, had prohibited Congress from banning the “migration or importation” of persons prior to 1808, a compromise that allowed Southern states—particularly South Carolina—to import thousands of additional captives.¹⁷ In 1803, prompted by the Haitian Revolution and the fear of anti-slavery campaigners, Congress banned the immigration of free Black persons into certain states.¹¹ Finally, in 1807, President Thomas Jefferson promoted the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves, which took effect on January 1, 1808.¹

While the 1808 ban ended the legal international trade, it did not end the arrival of Africans. Approximately one-third of slave ships between 1808 and 1860 were owned or outfitted by Americans, and illegal importation continued into the Civil War era.² The 1819 Steerage Act introduced the first federal requirements for reporting on immigration, primarily to monitor the health and number of European arrivals, marking the beginning of the “first great wave” of immigration that would see 10 million people arrive from Northern and Western Europe between 1820 and 1880.¹

Expansion and the Internal Border: Indian Removal and Fugitive Slaves

As the United States expanded westward, its “immigration” policy was frequently a policy of forced internal displacement and the rigid control of non-citizen labor. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the confiscation of land and the forced march of thousands of Native Americans, most notably the Cherokee “Trail of Tears” in 1838, where 4,000 died during relocation to the West.¹¹ This period also saw the “Long Walk” of the Navajo in 1864, further illustrating that the federal government’s power to move populations was a core feature of its sovereign expansion.²⁰

In the mid-19th century, the legal status of Black Americans—both enslaved and free—became the central point of constitutional crisis. The Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 established a domestic deportation regime that would later serve as a blueprint for modern immigration enforcement.²¹ The 1850 Act, part of the Compromise of 1850, mandated that the federal government actively assist in the recovery of runaway slaves and denied them the right to a jury trial or to testify in their own defense.²⁰

Precursors to Modern Enforcement: The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

The enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 featured several mechanisms now common in the Department of Homeland Security’s operations. Federal marshals could be heavily fined for refusing to enforce the law, and the public could be “deputized” to assist in captures.²¹ Special commissioners were appointed to hear cases, receiving $10 if they ruled in favor of the slaveholder and only $5 if they sided with the accused fugitive, a blatant financial incentive for removal.²¹

This system prompted a significant federalism debate, as Northern states passed “Personal Liberty Laws” to obstruct federal agents, essentially creating the first “sanctuary” jurisdictions.²¹ In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), the Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s exclusive power to enforce fugitive slave removals, a precedent that established the “plenary power” of the federal government over matters of status and removal, which would later be applied to non-citizens.²⁶

Internal Removal and Expansionist Policies (1830–1860)	Mechanism	Justification	Impact
Indian Removal Act (1830)	Forced relocation	Territorial Expansion	Displacement of Southeastern tribes 20
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)	Conquest/Annexation	Manifest Destiny	Acquisition of territory and 100k+ people 11
Fugitive Slave Act (1850)	Federal Commission	Property Rights	Federalization of capture/return 21
Dred Scott Decision (1857)	Supreme Court Ruling	Racial Exclusion	Blacks denied U.S. citizenship 11

The 1857 Dred Scott decision further cemented this exclusionary logic by declaring that people of African descent were not and could never be U.S. citizens.²⁰ This era of internal border policing only ended with the Civil War and the 13th and 14th Amendments, which abolished slavery and granted birthright citizenship, respectively.¹¹

The Rise of Federal Surveillance: The Page Act and Chinese Exclusion

Following the Civil War, the focus of exclusionary sentiment shifted toward the Pacific. The California Gold Rush (1849) had sparked the first mass immigration from China, and Chinese labor became essential to the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad.¹¹ However, as economic conditions soured and nativist sentiment grew, the federal government began to experiment with racially targeted immigration control.

The Page Act of 1875 was the first federal law to explicitly restrict immigration based on race and perceived morality. While it barred contract laborers and criminals, its primary target was Asian women, who were stereotyped as prostitutes.²⁹ Section 3 of the Act gave immigration officials full authority to determine if an Asian woman was being trafficked for “lewd and immoral purposes”.³⁰ U.S. consuls in Asian ports conducted rigid interrogations, using language barriers and racial stereotypes to exclude thousands of women, which successfully “dismantled the Chinese-American family” by creating a massive gender imbalance.³⁰

The Plenary Power Doctrine and the Chinese Exclusion Act

In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, suspending the immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years—a ban that was repeatedly extended until 1943.¹ This was the first law to prevent a specific ethnic group from entering the country.³ To enforce this, the government created the first bureaucratic systems of documentation and registration. The 1888 Scott Act barred returning Chinese residents even if they held certificates of re-admission, and the 1892 Geary Act required all Chinese residents to carry a Certificate of Residence at all times.¹¹

These laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889) and Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893). These cases established the “Plenary Power Doctrine,” which holds that the power to exclude and deport non-citizens is an “incident of sovereignty” belonging exclusively to the legislative and executive branches, largely independent of judicial review.¹⁰ This doctrine remains the foundation of modern immigration law, allowing for policies that would be unconstitutional if applied to citizens.³³

Processing and Policing: Ellis Island vs. Angel Island

As the 19th century closed, the federal government centralized its immigration authority. The Immigration Act of 1891 created the Bureau of Immigration and expanded the list of excludable and deportable migrants to include those “likely to become a public charge” (LPC), polygamists, and people with contagious diseases.¹¹ This era was defined by the operation of two distinct “gates” that symbolized the nation’s racial preferences.

Ellis Island, which opened in New York in 1892, processed primarily European immigrants. The priority was efficient admission; approximately 98% of arrivals were permitted to enter, with processing typically lasting only a few hours.³⁵ In contrast, Angel Island, which opened in San Francisco in 1910, served as a detention facility designed to constrict Asian immigration.³⁶ While only 10% to 20% of European immigrants were detained at Ellis Island, over 60% of immigrants at Angel Island were detained, often for months, for invasive interrogations and medical exams.³⁵

The Medicalization of Exclusion

Immigration officials at these stations utilized the concept of the “diagnostic gaze,” believing that disease and “unfitness” were written on the body.³⁸ European immigrants faced medical exams primarily for processing, while Asian immigrants were subjected to invasive testing for parasitic infections like hookworm as a tool for deportation.³² The “LPC” doctrine became a catch-all for excluding the poor, the sick, and single women, who were often labeled “moral risks”.³⁸

Comparative Enforcement Metrics (1892–1954)	Ellis Island (East)	Angel Island (West)
Primary Demographic	Northern/Western Europeans	Chinese/Japanese/API
Detention Rate	~10–20% 35	~60% 35
Primary Function	Gateway/Processing 36	Policing/Detention 36
Average Processing Time	3 hours 36	2 weeks to 2 years 36
Admission Rate	~98% 35	Significantly lower (targeted exclusion)

The Quantitative Turn: Quotas, Eugenics, and the Border Patrol

By the early 20th century, anti-immigrant sentiment began to incorporate “scientific” racism and eugenics. The 1917 Immigration Act, passed amid World War I security fears, implemented a literacy test and created the “Asiatic Barred Zone,” extending exclusion to nearly all of Asia and the Pacific Islands.¹¹ This was followed by the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the 1924 National Origins Act (Johnson-Reed Act), which sought to “rewind” the country’s ethnic mix.¹⁵

The 1924 Act established quotas based on 2% of each nationality’s representation in the 1890 census, a tactic specifically designed to exclude Southern and Eastern European Jews, Italians, and Slavs who had arrived in greater numbers after that date.¹⁵ It also excluded any person “ineligible for citizenship,” effectively ending Japanese immigration and violating the earlier 1907 Gentleman’s Agreement.¹

The Genesis of the U.S. Border Patrol

To enforce these quantitative limits, Congress established the U.S. Border Patrol on May 28, 1924.⁴² The agency’s culture was heavily influenced by its first recruits, many of whom were former Texas Rangers—an organization with a history of racial violence against Mexicans and Black Americans.⁴³ While the 1924 Act did not restrict migration from the Western Hemisphere, the Border Patrol was deployed to control the movement of Mexicans, who for the first time were systematically viewed as “illegal aliens”.⁴³

The mission of the Border Patrol in its early years was primarily to prevent Asian and European immigrants from circumventing quotas by entering through Mexico.⁴⁶ However, by the 1930s, the focus shifted toward Mexicans. During the Great Depression, over 500,000 people, including some U.S. citizens of Mexican descent, were forcibly deported or “repatriated” in an effort to protect American jobs.⁴⁵

Labor as a Disposable Resource: The Bracero Program and Operation Wetback

The mid-20th century highlighted the government’s use of migration as an economic tap that could be opened or closed at will. World War II created a massive labor shortage in agriculture, leading to the 1942 Bracero Program, a bilateral agreement with Mexico to import temporary agricultural workers.¹ Between 1942 and 1964, more than 4.5 million contracts were issued to Mexican “braceros”.¹⁶

While promised minimum wages and decent living conditions, braceros faced rampant discrimination, exposure to deadly chemicals, and wage theft.⁴⁷ In Texas, the maltreatment was so severe that the Mexican government temporarily banned its citizens from working in the state.⁴⁸ The program was designed to incentivize a return to Mexico, utilizing fear of deportation and racial segregation to keep workers compliant.⁴⁹

The Paradox of 1950s Enforcement

The Bracero Program existed alongside aggressive exclusion. In 1954, “Operation Wetback” saw the deployment of paramilitary border control measures, resulting in the mass deportation of over one million people in a single year, often under inhumane conditions.¹ This period also saw the passage of the McCarran-Walter Act (1952), which consolidated immigration laws and ended the total ban on Asian immigration while preserving the national-origins quota system and creating new categories for temporary workers like the H-1 visa.³

Evolution of Mexican Labor Programs (1917–Present)	Name	Dates	Context
First Guestworker Program	Informal/WWI Program	1917–1921	WWI Labor Shortage 4
Bracero Program	Mexican Farm Labor Program	1942–1964	WWII/Post-War Boom 15
Operation Wetback	Mass Deportation Program	1954	Nativist Backlash 1
H-2A Program	Seasonal Agricultural Worker	1986–Present	IRCA Expansion 4

The Civil Rights Era and the Transformation of American Demographics

The 1960s brought a radical shift in the philosophy of immigration control. Influenced by the Civil Rights Movement and the need to improve the nation’s international image during the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy and later Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for the abolition of the national-origins system.¹⁵ The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) replaced quotas with a preference system based on family reunification and professional skills.¹⁵

This legislation tripled the number of immigrants arriving each year and fundamentally shifted the source countries away from Northwestern Europe toward Asia, Latin America, and Africa.³⁹ It also placed the first numerical caps on the Western Hemisphere (120,000 per year), which inadvertently fueled the growth of undocumented migration as demand for labor remained high while legal pathways were restricted.³⁹

The Refugee Act of 1980 and the Amnesty of 1986

The Vietnam War and crises in the Caribbean led to the Refugee Act of 1980, which established a statutory system for asylum seekers and refugees.¹ By 1986, the growing population of undocumented residents led to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This “grand bargain” provided amnesty to 3 million people while imposing sanctions on employers who hired unauthorized workers and further increasing the Border Patrol force by 50%.¹⁵ Despite these measures, the demand for agricultural and service labor continued to drive “gatekeeper” border policies that allowed for the entry of workers during economic booms and their removal during recessions.⁵²

The Security State: 9/11 and the Militarization of the Interior

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, catalyzed the most significant reorganization of the federal government since 1947. The 2002 Homeland Security Act dissolved the INS and transferred its functions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on March 1, 2003.⁴⁶ The mission of immigration enforcement was split between U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for the borders and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the interior.⁵³

Under this new regime, immigration was re-framed as a primary national security threat. The number of encounters and arrests performed by ICE increased substantially, including high-profile raids at places of employment, worship, and education.⁵³ The “criminalization” of migration became more pronounced, with the use of 287(g) agreements to deputize state and local police to perform federal immigration functions, a practice reminiscent of the Fugitive Slave Acts’ use of local authorities.²²

The Trump Administration’s Revisionist Enforcement (2025–2026)

The return of the Trump administration in 2025 signaled an era of “deterrence unmatched in modern border history”.⁵⁵ Under Secretary Kristi Noem, DHS implemented a whole-of-government approach to execute the largest domestic deportation operation in U.S. history.⁵⁴ Key measures included the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), which tripled ICE’s budget and allocated $30 billion for a hiring surge.⁵⁶

The administration set a daily arrest quota of 3,000 undocumented immigrants and utilized CBP officers to replace ICE field directors to militarize interior enforcement.⁵⁴ Training for ICE recruits was reduced from 22 weeks to 47 days, and the hiring age cap was waived to facilitate rapid expansion.⁵⁶ These aggressive tactics led to high-profile incidents, including the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in early 2026, which triggered widespread protests and bipartisan calls for investigations into enforcement tactics.⁵⁴

Modern Enforcement and Detention Statistics (2025–2026)	Data Value	Date/Context
Southwest Border Apprehensions	245 per day (average)	Dec 2025 55
ICE Detention Population	~69,000 individuals	Jan 2026 54
Daily Removal Operations	Zero releases into U.S.	May–Nov 2025 55
ICE Training Duration	47 days (down from 22 weeks)	2025 56
“Worst of the Worst” Listings	Hundreds of thousands	wow.dhs.gov 55

Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of the Sovereign Gate

The history of United States immigration law and enforcement reveals a persistent tension between the nation’s economic reliance on migrant labor and its desire to maintain a specific racial and ideological identity. From the colonial slave codes and the 1790 Naturalization Act to the modern security apparatus of DHS, the legal framework has consistently evolved to centralize federal power and limit the rights of those deemed “alien.”

The “plenary power” established in the wake of Chinese exclusion continues to shield modern enforcement tactics from judicial scrutiny, allowing for the persistence of mass detention, rapid removal, and the militarization of both the border and the interior. As the nation grapples with the fallout of mass deportation operations and the ongoing debate over sanctuary jurisdictions, the fundamental questions of the early Republic remain: who is entitled to the protections of citizenship, and at what cost does the state maintain its “absolute independence and security”? The evolution of these laws suggests that as long as labor is viewed as a disposable commodity and migration as a security threat, the architecture of exclusion will remain a central feature of American governance.

Works cited

1. Timeline of Immigration to the United States – City of San Diego, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/timeline_of_immigration_to_the_us.pdf
2. Slave trade to the United States | Law | Research Starters – EBSCO, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/slave-trade-united-states
3. A Brief History of US Immigration Policy from the … – Cato Institute, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-07/policy-analysis-919-revised.pdf
4. A Timeline of Immigration and Farm Worker Policy in the U.S. – NFWM, accessed February 22, 2026, https://nfwm.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Updated-Immigration-FW-Timeline.pdf
5. Beginnings | African | Immigration and Relocation in U.S. History | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/african/beginnings/
6. Articles Slavery as Immigration? – USF Scholarship Repository, accessed February 22, 2026, https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=usflawreview
7. Slavery and Law in 17th Century Massachusetts (U.S. National Park Service), accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/slavery-and-law-in-early-ma.htm
8. Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Brown University, accessed February 22, 2026, https://slaveryandjusticereport.brown.edu/sections/slavery-the-slave-trade-and-brown/
9. Slavery in Colonial America | American Battlefield Trust, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/slavery-colonial-america
10. The Chinese Exclusion Cases and Policing in the Fourth Amendment–Free Zone – Stanford Law Review, accessed February 22, 2026, https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/09/73-Stan.-L.-Rev.-Online-Chang.pdf
11. Timeline – Immigration History, accessed February 22, 2026, https://immigrationhistory.org/timeline/
12. Naturalization Act of 1790 | History | Research Starters – EBSCO, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/naturalization-act-1790
13. Nationality Act of 1790 – Immigration History, accessed February 22, 2026, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/
14. H. R. 40, Naturalization Bill, March 4, 1790 | U.S. Capitol – Visitor Center, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/h-r-40-naturalization-bill-march-4-1790
15. MAJOR US IMMIGRATION LAWS, 1790 – PRESENT – Migration Policy Institute, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/CIR-1790Timeline.pdf
16. History of Deportation Handout – AHA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.historians.org/resource/history-of-deportation/
17. The End of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade | Charleston County Public Library, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.ccpl.org/charleston-time-machine/end-trans-atlantic-slave-trade
18. Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves – Wikipedia, accessed February 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves
19. Interpretation: The Slave Trade Clause – The National Constitution Center, accessed February 22, 2026, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/761
20. Global Timeline | Immigration and Relocation in U.S. History | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/global-timeline/
21. Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 – Social Welfare History Project, accessed February 22, 2026, https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/federal/fugitive-slave-act-of-1850/
22. Immigration Enforcement and the Fugitive Slave Acts: Exploring Their Similarities – Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law, accessed February 22, 2026, https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/1000/
23. The Fugitive Slave Laws and Boston (U.S. National Park Service), accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/fugitive-slave-laws-boston.htm
24. The Fugitive Slave Act (1850) – The National Constitution Center, accessed February 22, 2026, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/the-fugitive-slave-act-1850
25. What the Fugitive Slave Act Can Teach Us About Sanctuary Cities – Time Magazine, accessed February 22, 2026, https://time.com/4659391/sanctuary-cities-fugitive-slave-act/
26. Fugitive Slave Laws – Encyclopedia Virginia, accessed February 22, 2026, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/fugitive-slave-laws/
27. Lessons from the Past: How the Antebellum Fugitive Slave Debate Informs State Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law – SSRN, accessed February 22, 2026, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1886130_code1669260.pdf?abstractid=1857897&mirid=1
28. Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of …, accessed February 22, 2026, https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/54-4_Chin_Finkelman.pdf
29. Decitizenizing Asian Pacific American Women – Scholarship Repository, accessed February 22, 2026, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3150&context=facpubs
30. Chinese Women, Immigration, and the First U.S. Exclusion Law: The Page Act of 1875 – National Park Service, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nps.gov/safr/blogs/chinese-women-immigration-and-the-first-u-s-exclusion-law-the-page-act-of-1875.htm
31. On the Mere Presumption: The Page Act of 1875 and the Ramifications of Racialized Immigration Policy on Chinese American Women – RAIS, accessed February 22, 2026, https://rais.education/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/0428.pdf
32. Immigration from Asia and the Pacific, 1870s to 1950s | National …, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.archives.gov/research/aapi/immigration
33. Chae Chan Ping at 125: An Introduction – University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, accessed February 22, 2026, https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=olr
34. It’s Long Past Time to End 100-Year-Old Racist Immigration Laws That Still Dominate Our Country, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.asianlawcaucus.org/news-resources/perspectives/end-1326-racist-laws
35. Angel Island — Ellis Island’s Racist Uncle that We Don’t Like to Talk About, accessed February 22, 2026, https://shglawpa.com/angel-island/
36. Lesson Plan: Immigration Stations, accessed February 22, 2026, https://immigrationhistory.org/lesson-plan/immigration-stations/
37. Advancing Research To Address The Health Impacts Of Structural Racism In US Immigration Prisons – PMC, accessed February 22, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10966767/
38. AIIM – Ellis Island / Angel Island | Angel Island Immigration Station – San Francisco, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.aiisf.org/ellis-angel
39. The History of U.S. Immigration Policy, Explained – Boundless, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/the-history-of-us-immigration-policy-explained
40. The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act) – Office of the Historian, accessed February 22, 2026, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act
41. A Century Later, Restrictive 1924 U.S. Immigration Law Has Reverberations in Immigration Debate – Migration Policy Institute, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/1924-us-immigration-act-history
42. Border Patrol History – U.S. Customs and Border Protection, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/history
43. Border Patrol’s 100th Anniversary Offers Chance to Look Back at Its Disturbing Origins, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/border-patrol-100th-anniversary-origins/
44. The Border Patrol’s Culture of Racism Impacts Every Facet of the Agency Today, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/border-patrol-racism-history/
45. Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States – Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/close-slavery-guestworker-programs-united-states/
46. Article: From Horseback to High-Tech: U.S. Border …, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/horseback-high-tech-us-border-enforcement
47. The Bracero Program: Prelude to Cesar Chavez and the Farm Worker Movement, accessed February 22, 2026, https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2023/09/27/the-bracero-program-prelude-to-cesar-chavez-and-the-farm-worker-movement/
48. After Repatriation: New Migrations, Same Backlash, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.calmigration.org/learn-chapter/after-repatriation
49. The Bracero Program and the Exploitability of Migrant Workers – CUNY Academic Works, accessed February 22, 2026, https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6291&context=gc_etds
50. Outstanding Senior History Thesis, accessed February 22, 2026, https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/24/HHR2024redus.pdf
51. Historical Overview of Immigration Policy, accessed February 22, 2026, https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy
52. Transient Servitude: The U.S. Guest Worker Program for Exploiting Mexican and Central American Workers – Monthly Review, accessed February 22, 2026, https://monthlyreview.org/articles/transient-servitude-the-u-s-guest-worker-program-for-exploiting-mexican-and-central-american-workers/
53. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Wikipedia, accessed February 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement
54. ICE and Deportations: How Trump Is Reshaping Immigration Enforcement, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/ice-and-deportations-how-trump-reshaping-immigration-enforcement
55. Under President Trump and Secretary Noem, the Department of Homeland Security Has Historic Year, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/19/under-president-trump-and-secretary-noem-department-homeland-security-has-historic
56. ICE expansion has outpaced accountability. What are the remedies? – Brookings Institution, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ice-expansion-has-outpaced-accountability-what-are-the-remedies/
57. The Trump Administration’s ICE and CBP Have Become a Threat to Americans: Congress Must Ensure That DHS Follows the Law and Adopts Commonsense Reforms, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-ice-and-cbp-have-become-a-threat-to-americans-congress-must-ensure-that-dhs-follows-the-law-and-adopts-commonsense-reforms/