This is the first essay in a series highlighting the important and especially significant work of Dr. Julia Rose Kraut in Threat of Dissent.

---

Before the start of the second Trump Administration, I wrote somewhere that when people pictured the MAGA notion of “restoring American values,” broadcast images of the 1950s came to mind, but MAGA actually meant more like the 1750s or 1850s.

I wrote that when I became aware of Project 2025 and its content, combined with certain events occurring in the United States at the time. It was obvious to me that conservatives envisioned a return to a time when white privilege was overt, and white wealth was preferred.

---

It turns out the United States has a long history of excluding undesirable persons from visiting and from citizenship. A very long history, writes Julia Rose Kraut. ¹

Immigration vs First Amendment

Kraut first points out there’s a fundamental difference how deportation and exclusion are perceived: from a legal perspective, deportation and exclusion are immigration issues. The public and press, however, tend to perceive them as violations of the First Amendment, arguing that barring foreigners from entry and expelling foreigners restrict Americans’ free speech and exchange, including the right to hear and receive information protected by the First Amendment. These opposing points of view have been expressed in litigation since the start of the 19th century. ²

---

Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans

Another factor was the philosophical tug-of-war between the Federalists, who favored a centralized concentration of powers in the federal government, and the Democratic-Republicans who favored the rights of states over the federal government. The difference in views extended to international relations. When France declared war on Great Britain in 1793, the Federalists sided with Britain, while theDemocratic-Republicans sided with France — despite the U.S.’ declaration of neutrality. By 1798, the Federalists, who controlled both Congress and the White House, pressed their advantage, passing xenophobic legislation which changed naturalization requirements, criminalized criticism of the government, and gave the president absolute discretion to deport any foreigner deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” ³

Let me know if this rings any bells.

---

Federalists vs. The World

Also by 1798, the U.S. had received hundreds of thousands of refugees from other countries, with French/Haitian planters escaping the Haitian Revolution, and Irish escaping British persecution among them. The Democratic-Republicans feared the Haitians would support the Federalists and promote insurrection in the slave-holding states in the South. The Federalists feared the Irish would become Democratic-Republicans. Moreover, they were also concerned the Irish and the French immigrants would unite and rebel against the U.S. federal government. The Federalists (again, controlling both Congress and the White House) made sure to increase the time to receive U.S. citizenship to 2 years (1790) — then 5 years (1795) — then to 14 years (1798) AND required all foreigners over the age of 21 to register with a U.S. District Court. Later that same year, the Federalists passed “An Act Respecting Alien Enemies,” which declared “all natives, citizens, denizens or subjects of [a nation hostile to the United States], being males of the age of 14 years and upwards… shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.” ⁴

---

States’ Sovereignty

States expressed their sovereignty through restrictions as functions of self-preservation and labor competition (e.g., the “Oleo Wars,” which prohibited the sale of yellow margarine in certain states to protect their dairy industries), but also reflected their prejudices against certain races or populations in this way. By the mid-1850s, 1.8 million Irish had immigrated to North America, many as a function of the potato blight and famine (helping the United States to form its identity as “a nation of immigrants”). Many of these immigrants arrived with nothing, and Americans became concerned that the newcomers would become a burden to the states. Some states began taxing the boats that brought them to our shores. ⁵

Blacks

States were also keenly sensitive to the presence of Black slaves and free Blacks within their borders. Although northern states generally opposed slavery, they also didn’t want Blacks to migrate there en masse — this is how Liberia was established. In the South, the concern was that free Blacks represented an unacceptable risk to slavery, which could encourage escapes and revolts. For example, several coastal states passed laws requiring Black seamen to remain on their boats when in port as to prevent exposure of free blacks to Southern slaves. ⁶

Chinese

At the start of the Gold Rush in 1848, many Chinese laborers arrived on the Pacific coast and worked alongside the Irish in the mines. Unlike the Irish, the Chinese entered a contract labor system which paid their way to the States; the debt was repaid through the labor. The Chinese earned the resentment of the Irish and others because they were typically paid far less than the others (with families to support) and lived cheaply. California legislators began passing discriminatory laws targeting the Chinese. ⁷

---

Federal vs. State Powers

Federal courts struck down most of these state laws, reasoning that because these immigrants arrived as a function of commerce, the power to regulate commerce is strictly a federal matter.

In 1870, Congress revised naturalization requirements to keep citizenship out of reach of Chinese immigrants, ironically including “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” The Chinese bore the brunt of blame on foreigners for an economic downturn that created unemployment, poverty, and increased criminality over that decade. In 1875, the Page Act directly barred from entry immigrant participants in contract labor systems and/or indentured servitude. Less than ten years later, Congress explicitly forbid all Chinese from becoming United States citizens, and required all Chinese in the United States to carry a certificate stating their name, age, and occupation in order to remain, leave, and reenter the country. An amendment in 1888 later invalidated all such certificates — so any Chinese who left the states were not allowed to reenter. ⁸

---

Federal Courts and the Plenary Power Doctrine

Every challenge brought by foreign nationals to these laws ended with the same result — the plaintiff remained excluded because the court asserted the federal government had the right to exclude whomever it wished as a function of national interests, and dismissed other Constitutional arguments. This is the plenary power doctrine: the judicial branch simply defers to the legislative and executive branches on immigration issues.

Congress has a long and pronounced history of codifying its prejudices into law. Partisanship, racism, xenophobia, and even philosophy have all been ingredients in legislative grist. The Federalists used their majority in Congress to do exactly what President Washington warned against in his 1796 farewell address. ^{9, 10}

---

Present Day

Congress today — especially the House of Representatives — has become obscenely partisan — to the extent that the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) declares the House in recess for extended periods to avoid votes expected to adversely affect the Trump Administration and/or the GOP. The most conservative among the GOP organized a unique operating theory for the Executive Branch of the federal government, through which every department within it is staffed with sycophants beholden to President Trump — including, most notably, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice.

All three are now operating at the sole discretion of the President and without oversight or input from the Congressional committees to whom they are required to report. Like the Federalists at start of the 19th century, the Republican Party enjoys majorities in both the House and Senate, and so a flood of legislation has been introduced trampling on the rights of individuals and workers for the benefit of industry. The President, meanwhile, has introduced many executive orders rescinding affirmative action and other diversity and inclusion initiatives, affecting not only nonwhites, but also citizens with non-heterosexual preferences. He has also issued “edicts” over social media restricting freedom of speech and threatening violence against other nations. ¹¹

But perhaps the greatest current example of exclusions and deportations must reside with the activities of the recently expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement service, which has been performing raids in particularly “blue” major cities with a certain brutality and complete disregard for basic legal concepts about the rights of the accused. Word of a quota or goal system has been widely reported, as has news of children being taken into custody. The Trump Administration has been using ICE as their primary weapon in thinning the population of diversity AND opposition to ultraconservative rule. ¹²

None of this could have happened had the Judiciary not fallen under ultraconservative sway. By allowing the implementation of the Unitary Executive Theory, President Trump has been allowed to implement his every wish, and Congress is powerless to stop him because key departments report to the Executive, not Legislative, branch of federal government. ¹³

And at least some of this would not have happened had the Speaker of the House and the Committee Chairpersons shown the slightest bit of integrity and respect for the offices they hold. It’s very clear that Republicans are 100% unwilling to do anything that could be perceived as not toeing the GOP line. The behavior of today’s GOP seems highly reminiscent of 19th century Federalists.

---

1. Kraut, J. R. (2023). Threat of dissent: A History of Ideological Exclusion and Deportation in the United States. Harvard University Press. ↩︎
2. Kraut 2023, 6 ↩︎
3. Kraut 2023, 12-13 ↩︎
4. Kraut 2023, 16 ↩︎
5. Kraut 2023, 26 ↩︎
6. Kraut 2023, 25-26 ↩︎
7. Kraut 2023, 26 ↩︎
8. Kraut 2023, 28-31 ↩︎
9. Philisophy: Specifically, anarchy. See Kraut 2023, 36-55. ↩︎
10. Kraut 2023, 11 ↩︎
11. Technically, these posts are considered official government communication, but they are not legally binding. See also: Fisher, D. (2024, July 2). Government use of social media. The Free Speech Center. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-use-of-social-media/ ↩︎
12. Farrell, T. (2026c, January 30). Executive blamestorming: Noem, Miller, and Minneapolis. On Current Events. Retrieved February 3, 2026, from https://currentevents.blog/2026/01/29/noem-miller/ ↩︎
13. Farrell, T. (2026d, January 31). How we got here: The origins of Project 2025. On Current Events. https://currentevents.blog/2026/01/02/project-2025-origins/ ↩︎
14. Washington, G. (1796, September). Farewell address (1796). National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved February 3, 2026, from https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/george-washington-farewell-address-1796 ↩︎