A decades-old civil rights law is once again at the heart of a heated national debate, as senior figures in President Donald Trump’s administration openly criticize the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 — legislation that fundamentally reshaped who is allowed to come to the United States.
At recent rallies and media appearances, Trump and his close adviser Stephen Miller have used harsh rhetoric to describe immigrants from countries such as Somalia, including people who entered the U.S. legally and even those who are American citizens. Their language has reignited controversy over whether legal immigration itself has harmed the country.
Miller, who holds significant influence over Trump’s immigration agenda, argues that the U.S. was stronger before the 1965 law eliminated race-based immigration quotas. Those earlier policies heavily favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe and were designed to preserve the country’s existing demographic makeup.
According to Miller, that earlier era produced a more unified national identity. He claims that modern immigration — particularly from poorer, non-European countries — has led to social fragmentation, economic strain and a failure to assimilate. These arguments echo themes long criticized by historians and civil rights advocates as exclusionary and rooted in racial hierarchy.
The 1965 law, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson at the Statue of Liberty, marked a turning point. It replaced nationality-based quotas with a system focused on family reunification and skills, opening the door to immigrants from Asia, Latin America and Africa. Johnson framed the change as a moral correction, arguing that America should judge people by ability and character, not by birthplace or ethnicity.
Historians widely regard the law as a cornerstone of the modern civil rights era, alongside landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It helped transform the U.S. into one of the most diverse nations in the world and contributed significantly to population growth, economic expansion and cultural change.
Critics of Miller’s position point out that research consistently contradicts claims that modern immigrants fail to assimilate. Numerous studies show that immigrants today learn English faster, commit fewer crimes, contribute more in taxes, and integrate politically and socially at rates equal to or higher than earlier immigrant waves.
Despite this, immigration remains a central organizing principle of Trump-era policy. Administration officials frequently link immigration — including legal immigration — to problems ranging from education and health care to crime and budget deficits, often without clear evidence.
That worldview is increasingly reflected not only in domestic policy but also in foreign policy. A newly released National Security Strategy frames migration as a threat to U.S. sovereignty and warns of “civilizational erosion” in Western nations experiencing demographic change — language that mirrors fears promoted by nationalist movements on both sides of the Atlantic.
At its core, the debate is about more than immigration numbers or policy mechanics. It reflects competing visions of what America is and who it is for: a nation defined by shared civic values and opportunity, or one rooted in ethnic and cultural continuity.
As political leaders revisit the legacy of the 1965 immigration law, they are also reopening a deeper argument about civil rights, national identity and the meaning of equality in a changing America.
