Desired” and “Undesired”: The Immigration Restriction League and the Pseudo-Science of Exclusion
Grade Levels: Middle School, High School
Subject Areas: Social Studies, U.S. History
Questions: How have claims of “science” been used to justify exclusion? How did ideas about racial hierarchy shape immigration policy?
By Erin Suh
Overview
Today, we often think of European immigrants as having been welcomed into American society. Those assumptions are, in part, based on beliefs, often subconscious, about race. However, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the boundaries of whiteness were fiercely contested—and immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were frequently cast as racially inferior and unfit for American citizenship.
The Immigration Restriction League, founded in 1894, helped construct and spread these ideas. Using the pseudo-science of eugenics, the League argued that certain groups were biologically unsuited for democracy. Their campaigns shaped decades of immigration policy, culminating in literacy tests and, eventually, the restrictive quota systems of the 1920s.
This lesson examines primary sources from the League’s advocacy efforts to understand how racial categories were constructed, how “science” was weaponized to justify exclusion, and how these ideas shaped who could become American.
Historical Context
Between 1880 and 1920, approximately 20 million immigrants arrived in the United States—more than in any previous period. Many came from southern and eastern Europe: Italians, Poles, Russian Jews, Greeks, and others fleeing poverty, persecution, and limited opportunity.
Their arrival alarmed many native-born Americans, particularly those of northern European descent. Critics claimed these “new immigrants” were racially distinct from—and inferior to—earlier arrivals from Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia. They worried these newcomers could not assimilate, would depress wages, and would pollute the nation’s racial stock.
Into this climate stepped the Immigration Restriction League. Founded by three Harvard graduates—Prescott Farnsworth Hall, Charles Warren, and Robert DeCourcy Ward—the League brought intellectual respectability to nativist politics. They gathered data, published research, and lobbied Congress relentlessly.
Their preferred tool was the literacy test: a requirement that immigrants demonstrate the ability to read. This seemed race-neutral on its surface, but the League knew exactly what it would accomplish. Immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, who often came from regions with limited access to formal education, would be disproportionately excluded.
Congress passed literacy test legislation multiple times, only to see it vetoed by Presidents Cleveland, Taft, and Wilson. But the League persisted. In 1917, Congress finally overrode Wilson’s veto, and the literacy test became law.
The Sources
The documents below come from the Immigration Restriction League’s records. They are responses to a survey the League sent to organizations across the country—many of them state Granges (agricultural associations)—asking which immigrants they wanted and which they wished to exclude.
To view additional sources, follow this link.
The responses reveal the racial thinking of the era. “Desired” immigrants included native-born Americans, northern Europeans, skilled workers, and families. “Undesired” immigrants included southern and eastern Europeans, “Asiatics,” and those deemed illiterate.
These categories were not natural or inevitable. They were constructed—built through decades of pseudo-scientific argument and political organizing.
Key Vocabulary
Eugenics: A pseudo-science claiming that human populations could be “improved” through selective breeding. Eugenicists ranked racial and ethnic groups in hierarchies and advocated policies—including immigration restriction, forced sterilization, and marriage prohibitions—to limit reproduction by those deemed “unfit.” These ideas were later embraced by Nazi Germany.
Nativism: Policies and attitudes favoring native-born inhabitants over immigrants. In the U.S. context, nativism has typically meant favoring white Protestant Americans of northern European descent.
Pseudo-science: Claims presented as scientific that lack the evidence, methodology, or rigor of actual science. Eugenics is a prime example—it dressed prejudice in the language of biology.
Literacy test: A requirement that immigrants demonstrate reading ability before being admitted to the United States. Though framed as a neutral measure of fitness, literacy tests were designed to exclude specific groups.
Discussion Questions
Analyzing the Sources
- Examine the survey responses carefully. What categories do respondents use to sort immigrants into “desired” and “undesired”? What assumptions underlie these categories?
- Why might agricultural organizations (Granges) have been particularly interested in immigration policy? What economic interests might have shaped their responses?
- The League framed its work as scientific research. How might presenting these surveys as “data” have made their conclusions seem more legitimate? What’s actually being measured here?
Understanding the Ideology
- The Immigration Restriction League targeted both non-white immigrants (such as Chinese immigrants) and certain European immigrants. What does this tell us about how “whiteness” was understood in this period? How were southern and eastern Europeans positioned in American racial hierarchies?
- Why might the League have chosen literacy tests as their primary policy goal rather than explicit racial quotas? What made literacy tests appealing as a restriction mechanism?
- The League was founded by Harvard graduates and presented itself as a respectable intellectual organization. How did this shape the influence of their ideas? What role do elite institutions play in legitimizing certain viewpoints?
Connecting to Larger Patterns
- Historian Mae Ngai describes the immigration restrictions of this era as creating “impossible subjects”—people present in the country but legally excluded from belonging. How might these policies have affected immigrants already living in the United States?
- Some groups that were considered racially inferior in 1900—Italians, Jews, Poles—are generally considered “white” in America today. What does this tell us about racial categories? Are they fixed or constructed?
- Are there echoes of these arguments in contemporary debates about immigration? What has changed, and what remains similar?
Extension Activities
For Middle School:
- Research the immigration journey of one group targeted by the Immigration Restriction League (Italian, Polish, Jewish, Greek, or others). What were they fleeing? What did they find when they arrived? How did they respond to nativist hostility?
- Create a timeline showing the League’s advocacy efforts alongside major immigration legislation from 1894 to 1924. How did their campaigns shape policy over time?
For High School:
- Read excerpts from Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race (1916), a foundational eugenics text that influenced immigration policy. Analyze Grant’s arguments and their relationship to the League’s positions. How did eugenics provide a “scientific” framework for exclusion?
- Compare the Immigration Restriction League’s survey methodology to legitimate social science research. What standards does real research meet that this advocacy fails to achieve? How can we evaluate claims that present themselves as scientific?
- Research the Immigration Act of 1924, which established national origin quotas. How did the League’s decades of advocacy contribute to this legislation? What were the quotas designed to accomplish?
- Investigate how eugenics was taught in American universities and applied in American law (including forced sterilization programs). How did institutional legitimacy shape the spread of these ideas?
Primary Source Set
These documents offer further examples of how organizations across the country categorized immigrants. Consider:
- What regional patterns emerge in the responses?
- How do respondents describe the immigrants they want versus those they reject?
- What language do they use, and what does it reveal about their assumptions?
For Educators
This lesson addresses the constructed nature of racial categories—an essential concept for understanding both historical and contemporary debates about immigration. Students may be surprised to learn that groups now considered unambiguously “white” were once targets of racialized exclusion.
Some key teaching considerations:
On eugenics: Students need to understand that eugenics was not fringe—it was mainstream science taught at major universities and embraced by prominent figures. This history helps students think critically about how “science” can be shaped by social prejudice and how ideas gain legitimacy through institutional support.
On the construction of whiteness: The boundaries of whiteness have shifted dramatically over American history. Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Slavic immigrants were all, at various points, considered racially distinct from and inferior to Anglo-Saxon Americans. Understanding this history helps students see race as a social and political construction rather than a fixed biological reality.
On connecting past and present: Students may draw connections to contemporary immigration debates. Encourage careful analysis rather than simple equivalence—contexts differ, but patterns of argument often recur.
Resources for Further Learning
Facing History and Ourselves, “Race and Membership in American History: The Eugenics Movement”: https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/race-membership-american-history-eugenics-movement See more of the filled out forms here.
Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (2004)
Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (1998)
Daniel Okrent, The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics, and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians, and Other European Immigrants Out of America (2019)