Ben Shapiro went live on Tuesday (see my earlier post on the SCOTUS ruling) after the US Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship. On Wednesday on his latest podcast he further breaks down the immigration trends in American history. Let's look at what he said.
Watch the episode here: [VIDEO]
The episode reacts directly to the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2026 decision striking down President Trump’s executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship. Shapiro calls the 6-3 ruling a “legal abomination” on constitutional grounds but refuses to treat it as the end of the story. Instead, he walks through the long arc of U.S. immigration policy to show that America has successfully adjusted course before — and can do so again.
The High-Immigration Era (Roughly 1850–1920s)
For decades the foreign-born share of the U.S. population stayed high — often in the 10–15% range. Major waves included the Irish fleeing famine, Germans, Scandinavians, British, Canadians, and later Italians, Poles, Russians, and other Southern/Eastern Europeans, along with Chinese laborers until restrictions kicked in.
Challenges were real: crowded cities, labor tensions, political machines, and nativist reactions (including the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act). Yet the country absorbed these inflows without collapsing. Shapiro highlights several reasons the earlier system proved more manageable:
- Most arrivals came from Europe and shared broad cultural, religious, and legal traditions with the existing population.
- Strong social expectations favored assimilation — English language acquisition, civic education in schools, and fading of hyphenated identities over a generation or two.
- No expansive welfare state existed to reduce the incentive for rapid self-reliance and integration.
- Many immigrants returned home if America didn’t work out for them.
It wasn’t painless, but the framework encouraged newcomers to join the American project.
The 1920s Policy Reset
Concerned about unassimilated groups, radicalism after World War I, and overall scale, Congress passed the 1921 Emergency Quota Act followed by the stricter 1924 National Origins Act (Johnson-Reed). These measures set country-specific numerical limits that favored Northern and Western Europe while sharply reducing inflows from Southern/Eastern Europe and Asia.
Immigration volumes dropped dramatically. The foreign-born percentage of the population fell to roughly 4.7% by 1970. That pause gave institutions and communities time to integrate earlier arrivals, intermarry, and strengthen a shared national culture. It was a deliberate policy choice that worked on its own terms.
The 1965 Shift and New Realities
Shapiro identifies the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler) as the pivotal change. It replaced the national-origins system with family reunification priorities and a formal end to “discrimination” by country of origin. What followed was a dramatic shift in both volume and sources of immigration — heavily toward Mexico, Central America, Asia, and later other regions — along with expanded chain migration.
Layer on top of that the growth of the welfare state and court rulings that expanded access to public services (such as Plyler v. Doe requiring K-12 education for children of illegal immigrants). Illegal immigration surged in key periods. Births to mothers without legal status became a significant demographic factor, and birth tourism added national-security concerns. The broad interpretation of birthright citizenship turned physical presence at birth into an automatic anchor for families.
The contrast with earlier eras is clear: greater cultural distance on average, reduced pressure to assimilate quickly (sometimes replaced by multicultural framing that celebrates retained separateness), and stronger policy and legal incentives that lowered the costs of unlawful or temporary presence.
The Recent Ruling and Practical Next Steps
In the June 30 decision, the Supreme Court majority (led by Chief Justice Roberts) upheld a broad reading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, extending birthright citizenship even to children of those unlawfully or temporarily present. Dissenters, including Justice Thomas, pushed back on the original understanding tied to full jurisdiction and allegiance.
Shapiro’s core message: This is bad constitutional reasoning, but it is not fatal. The executive and legislative branches have tools available right now — prioritized deportations (starting with criminals), visa reforms, limits on birth tourism, welfare restrictions, and potential legislative clarification around birthright and chain migration. History shows the United States has paused and recalibrated immigration before when the political will existed. The 1920s example remains instructive.
Why This History Still Resonates
America’s story includes many migration chapters — transatlantic arrivals, internal movements like the Great Migration that shaped Chicago, and the deep Southern roots many families trace through census records, church histories, and DNA. The relevant question isn’t whether the nation has immigrants. It’s whether inflows are ordered, legal where required, and oriented toward genuine assimilation into the principles and culture that make the country attractive in the first place.
Uncontrolled scale, weak enforcement, and weakened expectations of integration strain schools, neighborhoods, budgets, and social trust — realities visible in many American cities today. Shapiro avoids both open-borders romanticism and defeatism. He treats immigration as a policy domain where deliberate choices have shaped outcomes in the past and can again.
Relevant Links for Further Reading
- Ben Shapiro’s Wednesday Episode (the main video discussed)
- Full Ben Shapiro Show Episode 2457 (subscription may be required for complete show)
- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler): Key legislation Shapiro highlights as shifting immigration sources and volume
- 1924 National Origins Act (Johnson-Reed): The quota system that created the major pause
- Historical U.S. Immigration Statistics (Census/Pew Research context): Foreign-born population trends 1850–present — Pew Research Center reports and U.S. Census historical data tables
- SCOTUSblog Coverage of the June 30 Ruling:
- AP News Summary of the Decision
What part of Shapiro’s historical walkthrough struck you most? Do the differences between the pre-1965 and post-1965 eras feel decisive to you? How should rule of law, cultural cohesion, and economic realities balance in future policy?
Drop your thoughts — this is exactly the kind of substantive discussion worth continuing on this blog.
"History is a teacher, not a straightjacket. We still have levers to pull." (My A.I. assistant came up with that)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are now moderated because one random commenter chose to get comment happy. What doesn't get published is up to my discretion. Of course moderating policy is subject to change. Thanks!