This roundtable takes the occasion of the centennial of the Immigration Act of 1924—the culmination of years of rising xenophobia and white supremacy and the capstone of a series of anti-immigrant enactments in the United States—to engage in a discussion with each other and the audience on various aspects of migration history: historiography, conceptualization, public engagement, and political valence.

There are two aspects of im/migration studies that we would like to discuss at this session: one about transnational methods and historiography; the other about public interpretation of im/migration in history.

The first subject centers traditional immigration historiography and basically asks, “How have newer interpretations of the history of migration changed the field, especially with regard to chronology and conceptualization?” Thirty years ago scholars in the field of immigration history were busy deconstructing some of the old paradigms of the field: presumptive unidirectionality, receiving-country-centered narration, the assimilation paradigm, and many others. We propose to use a discussion of more recent developments in migration studies to talk about the new round of rethinking since the millennium, especially as narratives of globalization and the transnational turn have become more prominent.

The second subject matter turns toward the public and essentially asks, “What can we add to public discussion of migration-related issues?” This year’s Johnson-Reed Act centennial stands in particular contrast with the 2015 semicentennial observance of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. The various commemorations that marked that milestone were undergirded by the assumption that the political issue of immigration and citizenship had been essentially settled in favor of pluralism, and that the Act had indeed marked the birth of a truly multicultural democracy.

But it seems like we live in a very different world now, and we find ourselves looking at the 2024 centennial of the Johnson-Reed Act in a very different frame: the rampant xenophobia of the early twentieth century is echoing quite loudly a hundred years later.

It thus seems like a good time to ask exactly what happened, and how we’ve responded. What (beyond the obvious) has changed about our broad view of im/migration history? How have we adjusted our teaching and public-facing work in order to accommodate this new reality? How can we make immigration history relevant beyond these anniversaries? And does history teach us anything about where the immigration debate might be headed next?

This panel will bring together historians of migration between different parts of the world, in varying eras, and representing different scholarly approaches and generations for a highly participatory session that asks big questions about the field. Each participant will give a six- to eight-minute opening reflection, after which the chair will open the floor to questions. If possible, given the broad public importance of this subject matter and the presence of the centennial, this could be the kind of session that is web- or broadcast to a wide audience.