AP United States History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain why immigration from Latin America and Asia increased so sharply by the 1990s and 2000s
- Identify the major laws that shaped immigration patterns, including **1965**, **1986**, **1990**, and **1996**
- Compare immigration from Latin America with immigration from Asia in terms of causes, legal pathways, and public reactions
- Understand how demographic change affected U.S. politics, culture, and debates over national identity
- Use specific evidence to analyse continuity and change in immigration policy and nativist backlash

## AP United States History Syllabus

For the AP United States History, you are expected to understand immigration from Latin America and Asia in Period 9, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965** ended the national-origins quota system and shifted immigration patterns away from Europe
- Identify Latin America and Asia as the main source regions of immigrants by **2000**
- Understand how **family reunification**, employment opportunities, refugee admissions, and political instability shaped migration flows
- Explain the importance of **Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) 1986**, the **Immigration Act of 1990**, and **IIRIRA 1996**
- Distinguish between legal immigration, undocumented immigration, and refugee migration
- Understand how demographic change contributed to debates over bilingual education, border enforcement, and nativism
- Use examples such as **Mexico**, **El Salvador**, **China**, **India**, **the Philippines**, and **Vietnam**

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why was **1965** a major turning point in U.S. immigration history?
2. How did immigration from Latin America differ from immigration from Asia in the 1990s and 2000s?
3. What did **IRCA (1986)** and **IIRIRA (1996)** do?
4. Why did immigration become a major political issue in states such as California?
5. How can this topic be used in an APUSH essay about continuity and change over time?

## Introduction

Immigration from Latin America and Asia was one of the biggest forces reshaping the United States in the 1990s and 2000s. By **2000**, the foreign-born population had risen to **31.1 million**, and most immigrants were from **Latin America** or **Asia**, not Europe. This was not a sudden break beginning in the 1990s. It was the result of policy changes made earlier, especially in **1965**, combined with labor demand, family networks, refugee movements, and global economic change.

For APUSH, this topic matters because it links several themes at once: **Migration and Settlement**, **American and National Identity**, **Politics and Power**, and **America in the World**. It is also a strong topic for causation and continuity/change arguments. You need to explain not just that immigration changed U.S. demographics, but how law, economics, and backlash interacted.

> **Key Term: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965**
> The federal law that ended the national-origins quota system and helped shift U.S. immigration patterns toward Latin America and Asia.

### Why immigration shifted toward Latin America and Asia

The most important long-run cause was the **1965** immigration law. Earlier quota systems had heavily favored immigrants from Europe. Once those national-origins quotas were removed, immigration patterns changed. That does not mean the 1965 law automatically caused every later increase, but it created the structure that made later migration possible.

The law gave strong preference to **family reunification**. This mattered because migration often grows through networks. One immigrant arrives, gains legal status, then sponsors relatives. Those relatives may later sponsor more family members. This process helps explain why immigration can expand quickly once a community has formed in the United States.

> **Key Term: family reunification**
> An immigration policy giving priority to relatives of U.S. citizens or legal residents, helping migrant communities grow through family sponsorship.

Economic opportunity was another major cause. The U.S. economy demanded workers at both ends of the labor market. Some sectors wanted low-wage labor in agriculture, construction, food processing, and services. Other sectors wanted highly skilled workers in medicine, engineering, and technology. That is why immigration from Latin America and Asia cannot be treated as one single pattern. Different groups often entered through different routes.

Political instability also mattered. Some migrants were fleeing war, revolution, or repression, not just looking for jobs. Cuban refugees after **Fidel Castro’s revolution**, Vietnamese refugees after the Vietnam War, and some Central Americans escaping violence all fit this pattern.

A common mistake is to say that immigration from Latin America and Asia “began” in the 1990s. That is wrong. The safer argument is that the **post-1965 shift** became especially visible by the 1990s and 2000s.

> **Test Tip:** In an LEQ or SAQ, build causation in layers: start with **1965 policy change**, then add **family networks**, **labor demand**, and **instability abroad**. That structure shows stronger reasoning than naming only one cause.

### Immigration from Latin America and immigration from Asia compared

By **2000**, about **52%** of the foreign-born population was from **Latin America** and about **26%** from **Asia**. Latin America was the largest source region, and Asia was second. These figures matter because they show how far the nation had moved from earlier European dominance.

Immigration from **Latin America**, especially from **Mexico**, was strongly shaped by geographic proximity, wage differences, labor demand, and family ties. Important source countries included **Mexico**, **El Salvador**, **Cuba**, and the **Dominican Republic**. Some migrants came legally through family sponsorship or refugee processes. Others entered without authorization. That is why debates over undocumented immigration were so often linked in public discussion to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Immigration from **Asia** often followed somewhat different patterns. Important source countries included **China**, **India**, **the Philippines**, **Korea**, and **Vietnam**. Many Asian immigrants also used family sponsorship, but employment-based visas and student-to-professional routes were especially important. This helps explain why Asian immigration was often associated in public debate with professional fields such as medicine, engineering, and technology.

> **Key Term: undocumented immigration**
> Migration by people living in the United States without legal authorization, often central to political debates in the 1990s and 2000s.

A good comparison does not flatten these groups. Some Latin American immigrants were skilled professionals. Some Asian immigrants were refugees or low-wage workers. But in broad terms, APUSH students should recognise this contrast: Latin American migration was more often connected in politics to border crossings and labor markets, while Asian migration was more often connected to legal family-based and professional pathways.

Settlement patterns also mattered. Latin American immigrants concentrated heavily in **California**, **Texas**, **Florida**, and the Southwest, while many Asian immigrants also settled in **California** and other coastal metropolitan areas. Over time, both groups increasingly moved beyond traditional gateway cities into the South and Midwest. That shift helps explain why immigration politics became national rather than remaining a coastal issue.

NAFTA, which took effect in **1994**, is sometimes mentioned here. Use it carefully. A defensible claim is that increased economic integration with Mexico may have contributed indirectly to migration, especially where economic disruption hurt some Mexican farmers. But do not overstate it as a simple “open border” cause, because it was not that.

### Law, enforcement, and backlash in the 1990s and 2000s

U.S. immigration policy in this period moved in two directions at once. On one side, legal immigration channels remained open and even expanded. On the other, enforcement against unauthorized immigration became harsher.

The first important background law here is **IRCA**, the **Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986**, also called the **Simpson-Mazzoli Act**. It legalized about **3 million** undocumented immigrants already in the country, while also penalising employers for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. This combination reveals a major contradiction in U.S. policy: the government wanted labor controls and enforcement, but it also recognised that millions of people were already deeply rooted in American society.

> **Key Term: IRCA**
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which legalized millions of undocumented immigrants while increasing employer sanctions and enforcement.

Then came the **Immigration Act of 1990**, which expanded legal immigration and reorganized admissions into family-sponsored, employment-based, and diversity categories. This law is especially relevant for explaining continued immigration from Asia because it widened employment-based routes while keeping family reunification central.

Later in the decade, Congress passed the **Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996**. This law hardened enforcement through expanded deportation grounds, stricter removal procedures, and penalties tied to unlawful presence.

> **Key Term: IIRIRA**
> The 1996 law that strengthened immigration enforcement, expanded deportation rules, and helped create a more punitive immigration system.

Students often miss the bigger point: the 1990s were not simply “pro-immigration” or “anti-immigration.” They were both. Legal immigration remained significant, while the state became more punitive toward unauthorized migration.

State-level backlash mattered too. **California Proposition 187** in **1994** aimed to deny many public services to undocumented immigrants. Courts blocked much of it, but the measure became a symbol of anti-immigrant politics. It showed how demographic change could trigger political reaction, especially in states where population shifts were fast and highly visible.

Federal border policy intensified as well. **Operation Gatekeeper** began in **1994** in the San Diego sector, using more fencing, surveillance, and agents. It did not stop migration, but it redirected crossings into more dangerous desert areas. In the 2000s, the **Secure Fence Act of 2006** continued this turn toward border fortification.

After **9/11**, immigration politics became even more entangled with security language. That did not create the immigration debate, but it did make enforcement easier to justify politically.

> **Test Tip:** For APUSH essays, separate **federal policy** from **state backlash**. IRCA, the 1990 law, and IIRIRA were federal. Proposition 187 was state-level. That distinction often earns stronger analysis.

### Historical significance and how to write about it

Immigration from Latin America and Asia reshaped the United States economically, politically, and culturally. Demographically, it increased the size of the foreign-born population and changed the ethnic makeup of the country. By **2000**, **Hispanics** had surpassed **African Americans** as the largest minority group. That is a major shift in American and National Identity.

Economically, immigrants filled major labor needs. Latin American migrants often entered sectors needing low-wage labor. Asian immigrants were heavily represented in family businesses, professional work, and high-skill sectors, though not exclusively. The key APUSH point is that immigration was linked to **globalization** and the changing U.S. economy.

Culturally, immigration accelerated debates over bilingual education, multiculturalism, assimilation, and English-only politics. The rise of communities such as **Little Havana** and **Little Saigon** reflected both continuity and change: like earlier immigrant enclaves such as Little Italy, they showed that new arrivals often built institutions in clusters rather than blending in instantly.

Politically, immigration became a major source of conflict. Nativism did not disappear after the 1920s. It continued, but with different targets. Earlier nativism often focused on Southern and Eastern Europeans. In the 1990s and 2000s, much of the backlash focused on Latin American migrants, especially the undocumented, while broader demographic change also shaped reactions to Asian immigration.

> **Key Term: nativism**
> Political or social hostility toward immigrants, often expressed through restrictionist laws or claims that newcomers threaten national identity.

A strong APUSH argument about continuity and change might say: immigration policy changed after **1965** by opening the door more fully to non-European immigrants, but continuity remained in the form of repeated nativist backlash and restrictionist politics. That gives you both sides of the historical thinking skill.

For an LEQ, make sure you do more than describe laws. Show the chain:
**1965 reform** -> more family-based immigration from Latin America and Asia -> demographic change by 2000 -> political backlash and stricter enforcement.

That is the kind of causation AP readers reward.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The **Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965** ended the national-origins quota system and helped shift immigration toward Latin America and Asia
- By **2000**, the U.S. foreign-born population had reached **31.1 million**
- By **2000**, about **52%** of the foreign-born population was from Latin America and about **26%** from Asia
- Immigration from Latin America was strongly linked to labor demand, proximity, family networks, and in some cases political instability
- Immigration from Asia was strongly linked to family sponsorship, refugee movements, and employment or educational pathways
- Important Latin American source countries included **Mexico**, **El Salvador**, **Cuba**, and the **Dominican Republic**
- Important Asian source countries included **China**, **India**, **the Philippines**, **Korea**, and **Vietnam**
- **IRCA (1986)** legalized millions of undocumented immigrants while increasing employer sanctions
- The **Immigration Act of 1990** expanded legal immigration, including employment-based categories
- **IIRIRA (1996)** marked a tougher enforcement turn in federal immigration policy
- **Proposition 187** and **Operation Gatekeeper** showed how demographic change led to political backlash
- This topic is best analysed through continuity and change, causation, and links to globalization and national identity

## Key Terms and Concepts

- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
- family reunification
- undocumented immigration
- IRCA
- IIRIRA
- nativism


Migration and Immigration in the 1990s and 2000s - Immigration from Latin America and Asia