April 19, 2026

By Stephen Stofka

America is built on prejudice and the passionate denial that we are a country built on prejudice. (Source). I wrote that back in 2018. To some degree, the citizens of many nations regard immigrants with some degree of caution, bordering on suspicion. Immigrants present the possibility, the threat, of weakening a country’s cultural, social and political institutions. Each year, most developed countries admit fewer than 1% of their population as permanent residents. From 2013 – 2019, that flow of immigrants was 0.4% in the U.S., far below the 0.8% average of the OECD countries (Source – OECD). The permissive immigration policies of the Biden Administration approximately doubled the immigrant flow and helped Donald Trump win a second term as President (note below). What seemed like an abnormal surge to many Americans was the OECD average of about 0.8% of the U.S. population.

What makes America so unique is both the prejudice and the passionate denial of any prejudice. We convince ourselves that we are a welcoming country and it is true that we have the largest number of foreign-born. But as a percent of our population, we are only average. At 14%, we are tied with the U.K., and 1% higher than France. We are several percent lower than Germany, Spain, Norway, and Belgium (Source – chart). Americans who are antagonistic to immigration insist they welcome immigrants as long as they follow the rules. The target of their animosity is illegal immigration, not legal immigration. However, legal immigration in America presents a high hurdle.

There are several categories of visas with a path to a green card. There are visas which are subject to a numerical cap and those that are not. First, let’s consider the degrees of relation by blood. First degree are children and parents. Second degree are brothers, sisters, grandchildren and grandparents (Source). First degree blood relatives and the spouse of a U.S. citizen are not subject to any numerical cap and have a relatively short waiting time, about twelve to eighteen months.

Second degree family members, like a brother or sister, fall into the family-sponsored preference category “F” and, like employment visas, are subject to a numerical cap. The January 2026 edition of the Visa Bulletin listed only 226,000 “F” slots available for 2026, the same number as in 2025 (Source). The bulletin lists four countries, China, India, Mexico and the Philippines, as over-subscribed, meaning that there are far more applicants than spots available. There is a 7% cap for each country, meaning that only 7% of employment and “F” visas can go to one country like China. The number of applicants far outweighs the number of visas available. What this means is that the line of immigrants waiting for legal admittance to the U.S. continues to grow longer. Family members from over-subscribed countries can wait ten to twenty-five years to have their visa application approved. For “F” applicants from other countries, the wait can be three to seven years.

Once admitted to the U.S., immigrants face other obstacles, one of which is skin color. Centuries of discrimination blocked those with black skin from many housing and job choices to give those with white skin a better chance at success. The prejudice against those with brown skin is more recent and has been amplified since Candidate Trump used the issue of immigration, legal or illegal, in the 2016 campaign to smear those with brown skin or Hispanic surnames. They were “rapists” and “criminals” and “bad hombres” (Source). He made fun of a disabled New York Times reporter by mimicking spastic movements (Source video). By design or luck, Trump tapped into the motherlode of American prejudice to win the White House in 2016.

In 1856, President Millard Fillmore broke with the Whig/Republican Party and ran for re-election as head of the Know-Nothing Party, also known as the American Party (Source). The party viewed the recent surge of immigrants from Ireland and Germany, particularly Catholics, as a threat to Protestant Americans. The party wanted to exclude those not born in the U.S. from voting or being elected to public office, and two decades of residency in the U.S. before being eligible for citizenship (Source). These sentiments and political strategies are similar to those of Trump, his advisor Stephen Miller and media host Steve Bannon. Fillmore’s campaign was unsuccessful, but he won more than 20% of the vote. Douglas Fremont, the Republican candidate, won a third of the vote and together both men captured more than 50% of the vote (Source). Fillmore’s appeal to anti-immigrant sentiments helped throw the race to Democratic candidate James Buchanan and helped strengthen the political power of the southern slave states. Lincoln was wise to avoid anti-immigrant language to help win the favor of immigrant groups. When Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, those states felt emboldened to declare secession from the union, which precipitated the Civil War. Politicians have learned that prejudice can be a powerful political tool of persuasion.

It’s not just skin color, religion and nationality that drives prejudice in America. In 1870, the ratification of the 15^th Amendment gave black males the right to vote. Women suffragettes lobbied hard to be included in the Amendment and win their right to vote. It was just too crazy, they were told. Women were too guided by their emotions, and too irrational, particularly during their menses, to be trusted with the vote. They would likely vote as their husband dictated, giving married men two votes. Was that fair? Today, we wince at these sentiments.

In 1920, exactly fifty years later, the ratification of the 19^th Amendment gave women the right to vote. The suffragette movement had allied with the Prohibition movement to press each of their causes in a joint effort. The Volstead Act, the implementation of the 18^th Amendment prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor, was passed a few months before the ratification of the 19^th Amendment. They were a package. Had women been granted the right to vote in 1870, the Prohibition movement would have lacked a critical partner to win passage of the Amendment. Without Prohibition, the rise of organized crime might not have occurred.

In America, Jews encountered less discrimination than in Europe but housing, job and social discrimination against those of the Jewish faith were prevalent in the first half of the 20^th Century. In the 19^th Century, those of the Mormon faith were driven out of Ohio, then Missouri, and Illinois by Protestant sects who regarded Mormons as non-Christians. Mormons escaped across the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains to settle in a valley in Utah. After World War 2, there was a proposal to settle many European Jewish refugees in Utah, but Mormons nixed the idea. Even those who suffer persecution for their religious beliefs are not immune to bias.

Whenever there is a war, or any act of aggression with another country, Americans single out those nationalities or races for discrimination. In the 19^th Century, those of Mexican descent were vilified after the Mexican-American War. Many Germans were denied jobs and housing following the start of WW1. Historical prejudices were resurrected. German soldiers, known as Hessians, had fought with the British against American colonists in the War for Independence. Americans began to see that there was something wrong with the German character. Political cartoons pictured Germans as Huns, a mongrel and violent race of uncivilized people always lusting for battle.

Following Japan’s 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were forced to sell their homes and businesses at cheap prices, then were moved to internment camps away from the west coast. The 9-11 catastrophe was an attack by multiple suicide squads. Most were from Saudi Arabia, but we did not single out Saudi nationals in the U.S. Unlike the targets of previous war discrimination, Saudis have no unique language. Instead we singled out all Muslims, and all Arab speakers as potential threats.

In 1921, as Vice-President under President Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge wrote an article in Good Housekeeping magazine in which he argued that “America must be kept American.” He wrote “Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend” and supported the restriction of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe in the 1924 Immigration Act (Source). Unlike Trump’s vulgar and profane comments a century later, Coolidge employed a more formal language to describe the sentiments of the eugenics movement. As with the Irish and German Catholics in the 19^th century, Coolidge also appealed to anti-Catholic feelings toward Italians (Source). Like the Irish, many Italians were Catholic and not to be trusted. To this day, no Italian has been elected President. JFK was the first successful Catholic candidate for the Presidency. During his campaign he had to overcome objections that he would turn to the Pope for advice on national policy. Joe Biden was the second Catholic president and Trump has made it his mission to undo everything Joe Biden did during his four years in the White House.

Most Hispanics are Catholic. Biden was Catholic. Is Trump’s anti-Hispanic and anti-Biden rhetoric simply an evocation of anti-Catholic animosity? Maybe so, maybe not. Trump’s thoughts bounce around in his head like a steel pinball in a pinball machine. I hope to see you next week.

//////////////////

Photo by Michaela Filipcikova on Unsplash

Note: Permanent residents are those receiving green cards. The surge during the Biden years also included a lot of asylum seekers and those granted temporary protected status. These immigrants doubled the usual immigrant flow.