National Security and U.S. Immigration Policy, 1776–1790

Abstract

An examination of U.S. immigration policy during the early Republic from a security perspective—a common analytical focus within the field of international relations—reveals the inadequacy of traditional economic and ideological interpretations. Security concerns, based on actual threats from Great Britain and Spain, permeated the arguments both for and against immigration. Those in favor of immigration hoped to strengthen the nation, primarily by providing soldiers and money for the military; those opposed to immigration feared that it would compromise national security by causing domestic unrest and exposing the new nation to espionage and terrorism. These issues are not unlike those that beset contemporary policymakers.

Migration and Security

“…For example, as a country built through migration, the US has a long history of instrumentalizing migration policy to enhance its security; migration has been used to strengthen its work force, increase its population, and bolster its military capabilities. In the early days of the Republic, the US government encouraged migration as a way to establish itself and to assert itself against competing European powers and pre-existing indigenous populations (Totten 2008). During the Civil War period, both Union and Confederate officials recruited immigrants in Europe to enroll in the two respective armies.…”

“…Strategic interests continued to play an important role in shaping US immigration policy and extended to US refugee admissions policy in the twentieth century (Loescher and Scanlan 1986). For example, the US Refugee Relief Act of 1953 was "packaged to the public as a humanitarian gesture" but was more obviously motivated by US Cold War interests, since it was in large part intended to encourage defections from the USSR and "inflict a psychological blow on communism" (Rudolph 2006, 48;Totten 2008). The US has also selectively encouraged some forms of immigration to the United States (such as from Cuba) for political reasons (Teitelbaum 1984).…”