In the early decades of the 20th century, American immigration law underwent a fundamental transformation. At the heart of this shift was the integration of eugenic ideology into legislative policymaking—a movement that redefined legal standards for entry into the United States and reinforced deep-rooted racial and ethnic hierarchies.
This long-form article explores the evolution of these laws, the key figures behind their development, and the far-reaching legal consequences of intertwining pseudoscience with statutory authority.
From ‘Free White Persons’ to ‘Socially Inadequate’: A Legal Trajectory
The 1790 Naturalization Act, the first federal immigration statute, codified race into citizenship law by limiting naturalization to “free white persons.” That foundation would remain legally influential for over a century, laying the groundwork for a pattern of exclusion that would evolve into more sophisticated and systemic restrictions.
By the late 19th century, concern over immigration expanded beyond race to include mental health, physical ability, and economic self-sufficiency. The Immigration Act of 1882 was a turning point. It denied entry to those “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge,” a phrase that continues to echo in modern immigration law. That same year, the Chinese Exclusion Act became the first federal law to ban a group explicitly based on ethnicity.
The federalization of immigration policy in the 1890s and the creation of Ellis Island as the central processing hub helped consolidate power—and scrutiny—over who could enter the country. Increasingly, public health fears over outbreaks like smallpox, typhus, and cholera dovetailed with growing anxiety about immigrants bringing disease and moral degeneracy into the body politic.
The Rise of the Eugenics Movement and the Legal Codification of Pseudoscience
While some calls for immigration restriction focused on economic concerns—namely, the protection of American labor from “cheap foreign labor”—others turned to the language of science. Influential figures like Carl Brigham, whose Study of American Intelligence linked poor military test results to recruits of Eastern and Southern European descent, provided a veneer of scientific legitimacy to deeply biased assumptions.
The Immigration Restriction League (IRL), formed in Boston, was among the earliest organizations to advocate for legal restrictions based on literacy and heredity. It was under the leadership of IRL President Prescott Hall that eugenics formally entered the immigration debate. Hall collaborated with Charles Davenport of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO), who in turn appointed Harry Laughlin to spearhead research into the supposed genetic inferiority of immigrant populations.
Laughlin’s data-gathering methods were expansive, utilizing mental institutions, prisons, and reformatories to create a profile of “hereditary defectives.” This research was used to argue that Eastern and Southern European immigrants disproportionately contributed to criminality and mental illness in the U.S., findings that were weaponized in the halls of Congress.
Public Health as Legal Gatekeeper: The Role of the U.S. Public Health Service
The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) played a key role in legitimizing the eugenics agenda. Beginning in 1914, top officials in the PHS aligned themselves with eugenic organizations, advocating for the exclusion of those they deemed physically or mentally “unfit.” These officials oversaw health inspections at Ellis Island and were instrumental in shaping what became a legally binding definition of “unfit.”
By 1917, Congress had broadened the legal definition of those “likely to become a public charge” to include:
“all idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons…,”
“persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority…,” and
“mentally or physically defective…”
Eugenicists successfully pushed for this list to reflect more detailed categories of those considered “socially inadequate.” These terms would serve as statutory exclusion criteria for years to come.
The 1924 Immigration Act: Codifying Eugenics into Law
In 1920, Laughlin testified before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, using his data to argue that America’s gene pool was under threat. Chairman Albert Johnson of Washington State, a vocal proponent of immigration restriction, appointed Laughlin as the committee’s “expert eugenics agent.”
Armed with government funding and a national platform, Laughlin published volumes of “evidence” in support of his claims, including a massive survey published by the Government Printing Office. In 1924, his efforts culminated in what became known as the Immigration Act of 1924 (or the Johnson-Reed Act).
This law revolutionized the American immigration system by establishing national-origin quotas based on the 1890 U.S. Census, effectively favoring Northern and Western Europeans. Immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe—particularly Italians and Jews—were targeted for exclusion. The Act also banned most immigrants from Asia.
A visual chart displayed in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda quantified the supposed fiscal burden of “social inadequates,” reinforcing public perception of immigrants as liabilities. Upon signing the law, President Calvin Coolidge remarked, “America must remain American”—a phrase that would echo through decades of restrictive immigration rhetoric.
Legal Legacy and Repeal
The Immigration Act of 1924 effectively ended the largest wave of immigration in American history and institutionalized racial and ethnic hierarchies in immigration law. These quotas remained in place until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the national origins formula and prohibited discrimination based on race or nationality in the immigration process.
The law’s eugenic underpinnings—though discredited scientifically—left a long-lasting legal and social imprint. Concepts like the “public charge” rule, used to deny visas or permanent residency to individuals likely to rely on government assistance, continue to resurface in immigration policy debates.
Conclusion: The Cautionary Tale of Eugenics in Law
The U.S. experience with eugenics-driven immigration law serves as a legal and moral warning. It illustrates how pseudoscience, when legitimized by law and bureaucracy, can reinforce discrimination, violate constitutional rights, and create enduring harm. For legal scholars, the 1924 Immigration Act and its antecedents demand not only historical reckoning but continued vigilance against the misuse of data and public health as tools of exclusion.
As the nation continues to debate immigration policy, understanding the legal history of eugenics in American law is essential. It forces us to confront uncomfortable truths—and, ideally, to legislate with greater equity, rigor, and respect for human dignity.
📌 Further Reading and Sources:
- Paul Lombardo, University of Virginia – Expert on bioethics and law
- U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
- Government Printing Office Archives
- Reports from the Eugenics Record Office and U.S. Public Health Service (1910–1930)
