The most useful lesson in American immigration policy starts with a number today's debate ignores. In 1907, the United States admitted 1.3 million immigrants into a country of 87 million people - about 15 new arrivals for every 1,000 residents. A million immigrants today, spread across 335 million Americans, works out to roughly 3 per 1,000. Measured against the size of the country, the wave that broke over America in the early 1900s ran four to five times heavier than anything now. The country absorbed it, decided it was too much, and cut it by roughly 80%. What followed was four decades of rising wages, expanding homeownership, and the full assimilation of the immigrants already here.
Immigrants per 1,000 U.S. residents, by year
A million arrivals in 1907 hit far harder than a million today
In 1907 the country took in 1.3 million immigrants - about 15 for every 1,000 residents. Today roughly a million arrivals work out to about 3 per 1,000. The 1924 Act cut the rate to a trickle, and it stayed low for four decades.
Source: DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (annual admissions); U.S. Census Bureau (population). Rate = legal admissions per 1,000 residents.
On May 26, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed the Johnson-Reed Act. The law capped annual quota immigration at ~165,000 and set per-country limits at 2% of each nationality's presence in the 1890 census.[1] Combined with non-quota Western Hemisphere admissions, total annual immigration fell from roughly 900,000 in 1914 to about 300,000 by the late 1920s. The foreign-born share dropped from 14.7% in 1910 to 4.7% by 1970.[2]
The 1924 Act ended a thirty-year argument over immigration volume. Between 1890 and 1924, the United States admitted roughly 20 million immigrants.[7] The country held just 63 million people in 1890.[8] Cities could not absorb the arrivals. Wages could not rise against the flow. Assimilation could not keep pace. The Act addressed all three problems with a single instrument: a quota.
The Problem the Act Fixed
The wave broke three things at once. When a country takes in more people than its labor market, its housing, and its schools and neighborhoods can absorb in real time, the result is predictable: wages stop rising, housing grows scarce and expensive, and new arrivals cluster together instead of integrating. The 1890-1924 surge did all three, and it did them in a handful of industrial cities.
Foreign-born share of city population, 1910
The industrial cities carried the wave
In 1910, immigrants alone were a third to nearly half of every major industrial city. In New York, a further 40% were the children of immigrants - three of every four residents had immigrant ties. The national foreign-born share today, for comparison, is 15.8%.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1910 decennial census (foreign-born share by city); 2024 national figure from the American Community Survey.
Labor Market Saturation
Real wages for unskilled workers stayed flat from 1890 to 1915 while industrial output more than doubled. The Dillingham Commission documented the mechanism across 41 volumes published in 1911. Immigrant labor concentrated in mining, textiles, meatpacking, and construction, and depressed wages in those sectors. Economist Claudia Goldin's later research quantified the effect: each one percent increase in the labor force from immigration cut native wages by roughly one to one and a half percent.[3]
The economy grew, but the workers did not capture the growth.
Housing Strain
New York's Lower East Side reached a population density of approximately 334,000 people per square mile by 1900. Jacob Riis documented the conditions in How the Other Half Lives: six to eight people per room, no ventilation, shared privies, tuberculosis rates above the citywide average. The Tenement House Act of 1901 was a direct response. Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia faced the same overcrowding pattern.
Demand for housing rose faster than supply. Rents climbed and quality collapsed.
Assimilation Failure
Entire neighborhoods in the largest American cities operated in Italian, Yiddish, Polish, or Greek. English was unnecessary for daily life. Tammany Hall and other political machines organized arrivals by ethnicity, providing housing and jobs in exchange for bloc votes. Immigrants were mobilized politically before they were assimilated culturally.
A population that arrives in concentrated waves clusters by language and origin, and the cluster removes the daily pressure to integrate. The faster the arrivals came, the larger and more self-contained the enclave grew.
What the Act Did
The Johnson-Reed Act set sustained numerical caps for the first time.
| Provision | Effect |
|---|---|
| 2% quota per nationality, 1890 census base | Cut Southern and Eastern European admissions by ~95% |
| Annual cap of ~165,000 quota immigrants | Down from ~900,000 peak in 1914 |
| Consular processing required | Ended uncontrolled arrival at ports |
| Asian exclusion (with limited exceptions) | Extended 1882 Chinese Exclusion principles |
| Western Hemisphere unrestricted | Maintained Canadian and Mexican labor pipelines |
The 1890 census base was the most consequential provision. The earlier Emergency Quota Act of 1921 had used the 1910 census, which already reflected the post-1890 Southern and Eastern European surge. Moving the base year to 1890 reset the per-country composition to the pre-surge mix.
Annual immigration averaged approximately 178,000 per year from 1925 to 1929. During the Depression, the figure fell below 100,000. The foreign-born population shrank by 31% between 1920 and 1970, from 13.9 million to 9.6 million, while the total U.S. population nearly doubled.[2]
Assimilation Caught Up
The roughly 14 million immigrants already present in 1920 had four decades without competing waves. Their children attended American schools without ethnic enclaves expanding around them. By 1970, the descendants of Italian, Polish, Jewish, Irish, and Greek arrivals had merged into a common American identity. Intermarriage rates across these groups climbed throughout the 1940s and 1950s.
No federal program forced assimilation. The pace of arrivals fell by roughly 80% after 1924, which gave the existing immigrant population four decades to integrate by default. Workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, and military service produced common American experience. Foreign-language newspapers in New York fell from 138 in 1910 to fewer than 40 by 1960.
Wages Rose for Four Decades
With the labor supply restricted, employers had to compete for workers. Real wages for production workers rose steadily from the mid-1920s through 1970, with the largest gains between 1940 and 1965. Median family income approximately doubled from 1947 to 1973, and the gains were distributed across the income distribution rather than concentrated at the top.[4]
The Princeton Industrial Relations Section's analysis of the 1920s border closure isolated the immigration effect. Counties more exposed to the pre-1924 immigration flow saw the largest wage gains after the cutoff. The wage premium was concentrated in low-skill sectors where immigrant labor had been most concentrated.[3]
The labor economics are straightforward: when the supply of workers falls and demand holds steady, wages rise.
Housing Became Affordable
Homeownership had been stuck near 46% from 1900 through 1930, straight through the peak-immigration decades. It slipped to 44% in the Depression, then broke out: 55% by 1950 and 62% by 1960 - the fastest sustained rise in American history.[5] A working family with a single income could buy a house in most American cities. The Federal Housing Administration's mortgage program and postwar suburban construction helped, but they were not enough on their own. Without restrained demand, new housing could not have outpaced household formation.
Tenement densities fell. The Lower East Side's population dropped from roughly 540,000 in 1910 to under 200,000 by 1950. Apartments were combined. New plumbing was installed. The worst overcrowding documented by Riis ceased to exist.
The 1965 Reversal
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 replaced the national-origins quota system with a family-reunification framework. The Immigration Act of 1990 raised annual caps from 270,000 to 675,000 and created the H-1B program. Annual immigration rose from approximately 297,000 in 1965 to over one million per year by the 1990s.
The foreign-born share began climbing in the 1970s and reached 15.8% in 2024, exceeding the 1910 peak for the first time.[2] The three conditions the 1924 Act had fixed returned.
| Metric | 1970 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Foreign-born share | 4.7% | 15.8% |
| Annual immigration (legal) | ~370,000 | ~1.1M |
| Homeownership rate | 64.2% | 65.6% |
| Median home price / median household income | 2.4x | 5.6x |
Wages stagnated for the bottom half of the distribution. Housing prices outpaced income growth for four decades. Foreign-language enclaves formed in the same coastal cities, in different languages.
What the Act Proves
The 1924 Act answered a specific question: what happens to wages, housing, and assimilation when a country cuts immigration volume by roughly 80%?
The 1924 framework held from 1924 to 1965, four decades in which real wages for production workers rose continuously and homeownership expanded by twenty percentage points. The 14 million pre-1924 arrivals and their descendants integrated into a single American population.
The Act did not improve immigrant character. The arrivals of 1890-1924 were the same people in 1925 as they had been in 1923. What changed was the pace of new admissions, which determined whether the immigrants already here could be absorbed by the labor market, the housing stock, and the surrounding culture.
Recommendations
The conditions that produced the 1924 Act are present again, at greater scale, and the instrument that worked is available again:
- Replace the 1990 Immigration Act and set the annual cap near 200,000, the pre-1965 level and an 80% cut from today.
- Write the numbers into law, as the 1924 Act did, so they hold across both parties rather than reverse with a proclamation.
- Pair the cap with real enforcement against illegal entry.
Sources
- Library of Congress, Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act) - Full statute text and quota provisions
- Census Bureau, Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population, 1850-2000 - Foreign-born share data, decennial
- Princeton Economics, "The Effects of Immigration on the Economy: Lessons from the 1920s Border Closure" - County-level wage effects of the 1924 cutoff
- Pew Research Center, Trends in Income and Wealth Inequality - Postwar family income distribution
- U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Census of Housing: Homeownership Rates - homeownership rates by decade, 1900-2000
- Migration Policy Institute, A Century Later, the 1924 Immigration Law - Analysis of the Act's quota mechanics
- DHS Office of Homeland Security Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 1 (immigrants by decade) - Decade arrivals 1891-1924 total roughly 20 million
- U.S. Census Bureau, 1890 Fast Facts - 1890 resident population of 62,979,766
- Dillingham Commission, Reports of the Immigration Commission, 41 volumes, 1911 - Pre-1924 labor-market findings
- Riis, Jacob, How the Other Half Lives, 1890 - Lower East Side tenement conditions
- Goldin, Claudia, "The Political Economy of Immigration Restriction in the United States, 1890 to 1921," in The Regulated Economy, University of Chicago Press, 1994 - Wage suppression quantification