by Jodi L. Miller
In 1958, when former President John F. Kennedy was a U.S. senator, he wrote an essay titled, A Nation of Immigrants, which would later become a book after his death. The title recognized the notion that unless you are the descendant of a Native American or an enslaved person, everyone in the United States can trace their ancestry to an immigrant who came to this country—the land of opportunity—from somewhere else looking for a better life.
The phrase dates back to an 1874 editorial published in The Daily State Journal of Alexandria. The full quote published in the editorial is “We are a nation of immigrants and immigrants’ children.” It was written to support a Virginia Senate bill encouraging European immigration.
In his essay, Kennedy admitted that immigration in America is complicated. He wrote of his four grandparents, all first-generation Americans born to Irish immigrants, who he said confronted “the hostility of an already established group of ‘Americans.’”
“It is not unusual for people to fear and distrust that which they are not familiar with. Every new group coming to America found this fear and suspicion facing them,” Kennedy wrote. “There is no part of America that has not been touched by our immigrant background.”
Immigration at the founding
Seven of the 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution were immigrants, including Alexander Hamilton who hailed from the West Indies, specifically the Caribbean. The other six were from Scotland, England or Ireland. Many of America’s Founding Fathers advocated for robust immigration after the Revolutionary War to increase the population.
In a 1783 letter, George Washington wrote, “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights & privileges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
In the early days of the republic, Thomas Jefferson expressed skepticism about allowing immigrants into the country.
“Suppose 20 million of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson wrote in Notes on Virginia, published in the 1780s. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
By the time he became President in 1801, Jefferson’s views had evolved and he urged Congress to repeal certain immigration laws that made obtaining naturalized citizenship difficult. In his first speech before Congress, President Jefferson said, “Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?”
Ironically, as he was an immigrant himself, Alexander Hamilton was not supportive of immigration to the United States and advocated for restrictions. He voiced concerns over assimilation and threats to American liberty from those born elsewhere, particularly from France, which had undergone its own revolution.
In an 1802 editorial published in the New York Evening Post and written under a pen name, Hamilton wrote, “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”
History of U.S. immigration laws
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” is given to Congress. The first immigration law enacted in the United States was the 1790 Naturalization Act. It dictated who was eligible for U.S. citizenship, limiting that privilege to “free white persons” of “good moral character” who had lived in the country for at least two years.
Essentially, the law reserved citizenship for white, male property owners—women, nonwhite persons and indentured servants were not eligible. Congress also passed the Naturalization Act of 1795, which raised the residency requirement to five years and then the Naturalization Act of 1798, raising the requirement to 14 years. With the Naturalization Act of 1802, after President Jefferson’s speech to Congress, the residency requirement was restored to five years, which is what it is today.
Over the years, Congress has passed many comprehensive immigration laws, including ones that restricted immigration from certain groups. For example, the Page Act (1875) and the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) restricted immigration from China. The Immigration Act of 1917 also restricted Asian immigration, as well as immigration from Mexico and the Mediterranean.
Significant immigration reform came with the passing of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. Both laws prioritized skilled workers and family reunification. In other words, priority would be given to those who already had family living in the U.S., as well as to immigrants that would contribute to society with special skills such as scientists.
Alien Enemies Act of 1798
An old immigration law that has been making headlines recently is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In March 2025, President Donald J. Trump invoked the Act to facilitate the deportation of undocumented Venezuelan migrants suspected of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The proclamation from the White House states the gang’s activities constitute a “foreign-directed invasion” and “predatory incursion.”
The Alien Enemies Act is part of four immigration laws, collectively called the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed during President John Adams term in 1798. When Thomas Jefferson became President, three of the Acts—the Naturalization Act, Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act—were either repealed or allowed to expire. The Alien Enemies Act, however, is still on the books. Essentially, the law allows the President of the United States to detain or deport immigrants from countries that America is at war with.
The Act states: “Whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.”
Prior to President Trump’s invoking it, the Alien Enemies Act had only been used three times and always during a declared war—the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. During the War of 1812, President James Madison invoked the Act to require all British nationals living in the U.S. to register with the government. President Woodrow Wilson used it during World War I to arrest or detain more than 10,000 German nationals that the administration considered “dangerous.”
During World War II, immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt used the Act to issue proclamations authorizing the internment of non-citizens of Japanese, German and Italian descent. By the end of the war, approximately 11,500 people of German ancestry were interned and labeled “alien enemies.”
According to the National World War II museum, due to their “alien enemy” status in the U.S., thousands of Italian Americans were interned in other Allied nations during the war. In the United States, more than 3,000 Italians were interned in camps, while approximately 600,000 Italian Americans faced restrictions, such as travel bans and forced curfews.
In 1942, approximately 122,000 men, women and children of Japanese descent were forcibly removed to internment camps for the duration of the war. According to the National Archives, it is estimated that nearly 70,000 of those imprisoned were American citizens.
Supreme Court weighs in
The first time the U.S. Supreme Court considered a challenge to the Alien Enemies Act was in the 1948 case of Ludecke v. Watkins. The case involved the deportation of Frank Ludecke, a German national. Ludecke argued that the war was over so the Alien Enemies Act did not apply, and he was entitled to a hearing to prove he was not a threat to the United States.
The Court upheld Ludecke’s deportation, concluding in a 5-4 decision that the definition of “wartime” was too political and it was not the place of the judiciary to second guess the president.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice William Douglas wrote, “The notion that the discretion of any officer of government can override due process is foreign to our system. Due process does not perish when war comes.”
Lower courts weigh in
There have been several challenges to the Trump administrations invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. Federal district courts in New York, Colorado, Texas and Washington, DC ruled that the actions of the Tren de Aragua gang did not constitute a “foreign invasion” or “predatory incursion.” A federal judge in Pennsylvania, however, decided in the administration’s favor, ruling that the President has the authority to use the Act against the Tren de Aragua gang.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits of using the Alien Enemies Act but has issued two unsigned orders related to the issue. The first, issued on April 7, 2025, allowed the continued deportation of Venezuelan migrants, but stipulated that the detainees must receive notice before they are deported and must be allowed to seek a hearing. The second, issued on April 19, 2025, blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants being held at a Texas facility “until further order of this court.”
In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to examine the migrants’ claims from that Texas facility that their deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are illegal. The Court stayed any deportations until the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case and the U.S. Supreme Court considered any appeals of that decision.
On September 3, 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling blocking the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport the Venezuelan migrants being held at the facility in Texas. The court found that the administration failed to prove a “predatory incursion” or “invasion by a foreign nation.”
“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt or to otherwise harm the United States,” Judge Leslie H. Southwick wrote for the Fifth Circuit’s three-judge panel.
Following the ruling, the Trump administration filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit for an en banc rehearing, which was granted on September 30, 2025. En banc just means that the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals consisting of 17 judges will reconsider the three-judge panel’s decision. The full Fifth Circuit Court heard oral arguments in the case in January 2026.
At press time, no ruling has been issued. In the meantime, the hold issued by the U.S. Supreme Court is still in effect.
Discussion Questions
- Do you agree or disagree with the notion that the United States is “a nation of immigrants.” Why?
- What do you think of the use of the Alien Enemies Act during the War of 1812 and World Wars I and II? Was it justified? Explain your answer.
Glossary Words
assimilation—the process of becoming part of a community.
dissenting opinion—a statement written by a judge or justice that disagrees with the opinion reached by the majority of his or her colleagues.
due process—legal safeguards that a citizen may claim if a state or court makes a decision that could affect any right of that citizen.
incursion—a sudden, brief invasion or attack.
internment—to confine, especially in times of war.
repealed—revoked. A law that is repealed has been withdrawn or cancelled and is no longer a law.
upheld—supported; kept the same.
This article originally appeared in the spring 2026 edition of Respect, NJSBF’s diversity and inclusion newsletter.