Immigration and Nationality Act Abolishes National Origins Quota System After Defeating Conservative Opposition

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) into law at the base of the Statue of Liberty, abolishing the National Origins Formula that has governed U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s. The legislation dismantles the racist quota system that heavily favored Northern and Western European immigrants while severely restricting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The bill passes with strong bipartisan support despite fierce resistance from Southern conservatives. The House approves the legislation 320-70, with 202 Democrats and 117 Republicans supporting it. The Senate passes the bill 76-18. Notably, more Democrats oppose the bill than Republicans in both chambers, reflecting Southern Democratic resistance to changing the racial composition of immigration.

Conservative opposition delays the legislation for years. Senator James Eastland (D-MS), Representative Michael Feighan (D-OH), and Representative Francis Walter (D-PA)—who control immigration subcommittees—block reform efforts throughout the early 1960s. One Justice Department official assigned to draft and promote the bill describes the task as initially “almost hopeless” because of entrenched congressional opposition. Representative Walter’s death from leukemia in mid-1963 finally enables President Kennedy to advance immigration reform, though Kennedy’s assassination prevents him from seeing the bill’s passage.

During congressional consideration, opposition from North Carolina Senator Samuel Ervin and Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen requires compromises, particularly regarding Western Hemisphere immigration. Representative William Miller (R) argues that the Act will “exacerbate existing unemployment issues by encouraging an influx of immigrants to the United States.” The legislation sparks intense debate about national identity and racial composition.

Representative Michael Feighan, chair of the House immigration subcommittee and an opponent of reform, demands a compromise that prioritizes family reunification over skills-based immigration. The administration acquiesces, viewing family reunification as a supplement to employment-based immigration rather than its replacement. This compromise fundamentally shapes American immigration patterns for the next six decades.

The Act establishes a preference system prioritizing: (1) unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens; (2) spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents; (3) professionals, scientists, and artists; (4) married children of U.S. citizens; (5) siblings of U.S. citizens; (6) skilled and unskilled workers in short supply; and (7) refugees. It sets an annual ceiling of 170,000 visas for Eastern Hemisphere countries with no more than 20,000 per country, and 120,000 for the Western Hemisphere without per-country limits.

The legislation produces dramatic demographic changes. Immigration from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean increases substantially while European immigration declines. Between 1965 and 2015, the percentage of foreign-born Americans increases from 5% to 14%, with the composition shifting from predominantly European to predominantly Asian and Latin American.

Proponents in 1965 downplay the potential demographic impact, assuring opponents that the bill will not significantly change America’s ethnic composition. These assurances prove incorrect as family reunification provisions create chain migration patterns that enable substantial increases in immigration from previously restricted regions.

The Act represents the final major piece of Great Society civil rights legislation, addressing discrimination embedded in immigration law alongside discrimination in voting, employment, housing, and public accommodations. However, by prioritizing family reunification over skills-based immigration through the Feighan compromise, the legislation creates an immigration system that later becomes a target for restrictionist campaigns.

Conservative opposition to the Act’s demographic consequences grows over subsequent decades, culminating in increased immigration restrictionism in the Republican Party platform and contributing to the racialized political realignment that transforms both parties. The Act demonstrates how civil rights advances that challenge racial hierarchy generate long-term conservative backlash, even when achieving bipartisan passage at the time of enactment.