August 1, 2025 – A recent University of Houston Law Center webinar, titled “The History of U.S. Immigration,” brought together a panel of immigration scholars to examine the evolution of American immigration laws and how past policies continue to exert influence today.
“We study history, so we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past,” said UH Law Dean Leonard M. Baynes, who served as both the moderator and a presenter during the event.
“About 100 years ago, the U.S. had a very restrictive immigration policy. In terms of demographics, we’re in a similar place to where we were about 100 years ago, with a very large percentage of the population being foreign-born,” he added, referencing a recent Newsweek article.
Around the 1920s the United States established immigration policies and quotas that favored Northern and Western Europeans while restricting immigrants from other countries especially Asia. During this period, Congress also passed the Labor Appropriation Act of 1924, officially establishing the U.S. Border Patrol for the purpose of securing the borders.
In addition to Baynes, the virtual panel included Kevin Kenny, a professor of history at New York University; Gabriel “Jack” Chin, chair and professor of law and director of clinical legal education at the University of California-Davis School of Law; Bryan Stone, professor of history at Del Mar College; and Daniel Morales, UHLC associate professor of law.
Kenny noted that immigration law is largely absent from the U.S. Constitution. “Strangely, for a country that attracted so many immigrants, the Constitution says nothing about their admission, exclusion, or expulsion,” he said. “The sole provision in the Constitution concerning immigration has to do with the naturalization of foreigners after they arrive. Congress duly passed laws stipulating a waiting period, proof of good character, and an oath of allegiance.” However, Kenny said that much of this policy only applied to ‘free white persons,’ and it wasn’t until 1870 that people of African origin could naturalize but most Asian immigrants could not become citizens until the 1940s and 1950s.
Chin highlighted the longstanding exclusion of Asians from the U.S., which he said, “was one of the longest-lived and most effective public policy initiatives ever undertaken by the nation.” That policy was eliminated through the Immigration and Nationality Act amendments of 1965, which he described as “one of the most effective Civil Rights reforms ever to take place in the United States.”
“We study history, so we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past.”
– UH Law Dean Leonard M. Baynes
Meanwhile, Stone shared insights about Jewish immigration, and the “Galveston Movement,” which involved the relocation of Jewish immigrants from overcrowded East Coast cities to Texas during the early 20th century.
“It [was] an organized national effort in regard to immigration,” Stone said. “It was a community of people already in the United States seeking not only to facilitate immigration for their particular cultural group but to try to influence legislation. “
He added that the Galveston movement “provides thousands of case studies of immigration done right.”
Baynes discussed Black immigration to the U.S., as part of The First Great Migration (1910-1940), drawing on both personal and historical perspectives. “Black migrants during this era came for the same reasons that people from other parts of the world came,” he said, citing natural disasters, economic downturns, and more. “There were just more economic opportunities in the United States.”
UH Law’s Professor Morales noted the critical role Mexican immigrants played in shaping U.S. immigration policy during the early 20th century. While nativists pushed for strict limits on non-European immigration, business leaders in the West resisted due to their reliance on Mexican labor. With the Western Hemisphere exempt from national quotas, immigration from Mexico surged — making it a top source of U.S. immigration by the late 1920s.
He underscored the economic stakes with a quote from the then president of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce: “We are totally dependent on Mexico for agriculture and industrial common or casual labor. It is our only source of supply.”
Morales also stressed the role of historical context in shaping legal thought. “Law tends to preserve the status quo. Reading good history helps challenge that bias,” Morales said. “It reminds us that the current system wasn’t inevitable—it was created by people who made choices, and we can make new ones.”
The panel made clear the enduring impact of immigration policy on American identity and highlighted the need for historical awareness when considering future legislation and policy.
