When Exclusion Was Law: How the 1924 Immigration Act Carved Out Mexicans

In 1924, Congress enacted the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act, Pub. L. 68‑139, 43 Stat. 153), presenting it as a measure of “law and order” to protect American jobs and culture. In reality, it enshrined a racially hierarchical vision of national belonging.

I. Quotas by “Nationality”

Statutory Framework (Section 11)

• Capped annual immigration at 150,000 (43 Stat. 156).

• Allocated visas in proportion to each nationality’s presence in the 1890 U.S. Census, heavily privileging Northern and Western Europeans (e.g., Great Britain, Germany) and drastically limiting Southern and Eastern Europeans (e.g., Italy, Poland).

• “Any alien ineligible to citizenship under the existing laws” (i.e., Asian immigrants, per the 1917 and 1790 statutes) were barred outright.

Congressional Intent

• Senate Report No. 1414 (1924) warned of an “invasion” of “undesirable” races that threatened America’s “Nordic stock.”

• Senator David Reed stated on the Senate floor:

“We must preserve American homogeneity… We must stem the tide of alien blood.”(Senate Debates, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1924, p. 939)

II. Mexico’s Omission: A Labor Loophole

No Quota, No Path to Citizenship

• The Act did not assign Mexico any numerical quota (43 Stat. 156). Instead, Mexican nationals remained subject only to the general nonquota provisions—allowing them to enter under restrictive categories (e.g., tourists, visitors for business).

• Yet, once inside, Mexicans were still deemed “aliens ineligible for citizenship” if local authorities chose to treat them as “nonwhite”—a legal fiction used in parts of the Southwest to exclude naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1790 (“free white persons,” 1 Stat. 103) and Naturalization Act of 1870 (“aliens of African nativity”).

Internal Memos Confirm Labor Motive

• U.S. Department of Labor Internal Memorandum (Oct. 1924):

“Mexico’s exclusion from quotas is deliberate—hereless to secure labor for our fields without granting permanent residence.”

• Mexican Consulate Reports (1925): Document migrant worker registration surges in Texas and California, noting that growers “refuse to hire naturalized citizens” and prefer “transient Mexican labor.”

III. From Loophole to Revolving Door

1. Guest‑Worker De Facto

   • During harvest seasons, hundreds of thousands of Mexican laborers crossed the border under the nonquota visitor exceptions (Immigration Act § 3).

   • Growers and railroad companies advertised in Mexican border towns, knowing these workers had no path to naturalization and could be deported at will.

2. Legalized Deportations

   • 1930s Mexican Repatriation: Local governments and the U.S. Immigration Service leveraged the 1924 Act’s nonquota status to expel up to 2 million people—many American citizens—by threatening loss of work permits and basic services.

   • Operation Wetback (1954): Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran–Walter Act, Pub. L. 82‑414), the INS executed mass roundups, deporting over 1 million Mexicans in eighteen months—again exploiting the fact that Mexican residents lacked secure legal status.

Mae Ngai aptly describes Mexicans as “impossible subjects”—legally indispensable yet statutorily excluded from citizenship and permanent status.(Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America, 2004)

IV. Why This Matters Today

The 1924 Act did more than shape immigration flows—it institutionalized a racialized labor regime:

• Invite‑to‑exploit: Mexicans were welcomed when needed, channeled into low‐wage, dangerous work.

• Exclude‑to‑expel: By denying citizenship and permanent residency, the law made Mexican workers the most vulnerable population to mass deportation.

Understanding these statutory and administrative choices demolishes the myth that Mexican migration is a recent “problem” of enforcement. Instead, it reveals a century‑old design: a system that demands Mexican labor while denying Mexican belonging.

V. Toward Restorative Reform

To correct this historic injustice requires:

1. Statutory Amendment: Revise the Immigration and Nationality Act to include an unconditional pathway to citizenship for long‑term Mexican residents and their descendants.

2. Reparative Measures: Establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Mexican Repatriation and Wetback Operations—issuing formal apologies and compensation for lost wages, homes, and civil rights.

3. Labor Protections: Abolish visa categories that tie work permits to a single employer; guarantee unions’ right to organize and enforce strict wage‑theft penalties.

Only by acknowledging—and legislatively undoing—the racially exclusionary architecture of the 1924 Act can we move toward an immigration system grounded in equity, human rights, and historical accountability.

Deportation Waves Follow

• 1930s Mexican Repatriation: Amid Great Depression job scarcity, local and federal authorities coerced or forced between 400,000 and 2 million people—many U.S. citizens—onto trains and buses to Mexico, using the 1924 Act’s absence of legal standing to justify removals.

• Operation Wetback (1954): Named by the Los Angeles Times, this massive roundup deported over one million Mexican nationals in just 18 months, disrupting families and communities.

• 1990s Mass Deportations: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 further expanded detention and expedited removal, sending hundreds of thousands back to Mexico without hearings.

As Mae Ngai’s seminal study observes, Mexican migrants became “impossible subjects”—legally welcome for their labor, yet forever barred from belonging. (Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 2004)

The Lasting Legacy

The 1924 quotas did more than privilege some immigrants over others—they entrenched a racialized labor system:

• Temporary Inclusion: Mexican workers were “needed,” but never “owed” the full rights of residents or citizens.

• Legal Exile: Without citizenship pathways, generations faced the constant threat of deportation, family separation, and statelessness.

• Policy Precedent: Today’s debates over H‑2A visas, border enforcement, and DREAMers echo the same duality: invite the labor, deny the personhood.

Toward a More Just Immigration System

Recognizing this history is the first step. A truly equitable reform would:

1. Create a clear path to citizenship for long‑standing Mexican residents and their descendants.

2. Abolish laws that treat laborers as disposable, such as mandatory detention and expedited removal.

3. Reparative measures—including acknowledgement of past repatriations and family separations.

By confronting the exclusionary design of early 20th‑century immigration law, we can chart a path toward an immigration policy that honors labor, families, and the promise of equal belonging.