Perhaps the most common type of argument put forward to defend the state's right to restrict immigration hinges on the putative importance of shared national identity. Historically such concerns have played an important role in public discourse surrounding immigration policy. Although, as noted above, the country's early years saw little restriction of immigration, this lack of legislation was not a reflection of the public's lack of interest. Instead, concerns about the identity of the fledgling nation were of immediate significance. Several anti-immigration and anti-Catholic riots took place in New England during the 1830s and 1840s (Daniels 2004, 10). Likewise, the infamous Know-Nothings built a strong following, even entering Millard Fillmore into the 1856 presidential election and holding forty-three House seats between 1855 and 1857 (Tichenor 2002, 62).

About a century after independence, the first major piece of immigration legislation, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, banned the entry of Chinese laborers (but not merchants) for ten years. President Cleveland justified such restrictions by insisting that the

Likewise, in Senate debate Chinese migrants were described as “hordes of heathens that swarm like rats in a cellar” and “aliens in blood, aliens in faith, and clogs to the free movement of the wheels of Christian civilization and enlightened progress … A degraded people” with “nothing in their civilization that has an elevating tendency” (quoted in Calavita 2000, 11).