Analysis of Stephen Miller’s Remarks on U.S. Immigration History
Stephen Miller’s recent statements on the history of U.S. immigration have sparked attention and debate. By focusing on the period from 1920 to 1970, Miller challenges the dominant narrative that sustained immigration is inherently beneficial to American society. His assertion that this era experienced what he describes as “negative migration” presents an unusual perspective in contemporary discussions about immigration policy.
At the heart of Miller’s argument is the decline in the foreign-born population during the 20th century, a fact confirmed by U.S. Census data. Miller points out that the percentage of foreign-born individuals dropped significantly, from about 13.2% in 1920 to as low as 4.7% by 1970. This decrease, largely resulting from restrictive immigration laws, coincided with a period of national unity and shared achievement, according to Miller. He highlights milestones including the Great Depression, World War II, and the Apollo moon landing as experiences that fostered a cohesive national identity among the predominantly native-born population.
According to Miller, this shared identity was essential for the nation’s successes during this period. He notes, “That was the cauldron in which a unified shared national identity was formed.” The collective experiences of hardship and triumph during the mid-20th century are often discussed in the context of the “greatest generation,” underscoring the importance of a cohesive society in achieving remarkable feats. Critics of mass immigration often cite this era as evidence that lower immigration levels can promote stronger assimilation and unity.
In contrast, Miller raises concerns about the current immigration landscape. Since the mid-1960s, immigration has surged, particularly from Latin America and Asia, leading to a diverse but fragmented society. By 2020, immigrants accounted for over 13.7% of the U.S. population, paralleling figures from the early 20th century. However, Miller argues that unlike previous high-immigration periods, the country today faces challenges such as decreased trust in government and increasing social fragmentation. He cites Pew Research, indicating a significant decline in public trust in government—from over 77% in 1964 to under 20% in 2023.
This breakdown in trust and perception of disunity poses questions about the impact of immigration policy. While some experts argue that economic change and political polarization are more significant factors driving division, Miller and others view mass immigration as a destabilizing force. Their concerns highlight the potential adverse effects of a diverse population on cultural cohesion and wage growth for working-class citizens.
Research by economist George Borjas supports Miller’s perspective, suggesting that an influx of low-skilled immigrants can adversely affect wages for native-born and earlier immigrant workers. This finding aligns with reports from the National Academy of Sciences that acknowledge the complex outcomes of immigration on the economy, identifying both beneficiaries and those left behind.
In crafting his argument, Miller underscores the importance of shared national experiences in defining citizenship and societal bonds. He criticizes the contemporary educational narrative that often presents America solely as a “nation of immigrants,” overlooking the significant periods of low immigration when the country’s character was shaped differently. He argues, “They don’t teach that to our kids in school,” suggesting a need for broader recognition of these historical truths in educational settings.
Miller’s return to historical precedent may resonate with individuals concerned about the effects of mass immigration on cultural identity and economic stability. His remarks contribute to an ongoing conversation about immigration reform that centers not merely on labor demands or diversity but also on national cohesion. As the debate continues, this exploration of past immigration trends may prompt a reevaluation of how history informs current policies.
Overall, Stephen Miller’s insights challenge widely accepted narratives surrounding immigration in America. By highlighting the implications of a largely cohesive period marked by low immigration, he raises fundamental questions about identity, trust, and unity in contemporary society.
"*" indicates required fields
