Return of the Know Nothings

America is for Americans only? Narratives and reality on immigration.

A Know Nothing Party flag from the 1850s (image via Wikimedia Commons).

Well, we just had two posts that were largely free of politics, but it’s time to dive back in. Combined with some history. Let’s take a look at some similarities and differences between two American nativist movements. From 1856 … and 2025.

The Know Nothings of 1856

In 1856, the U.S. presidential election was thrown into turmoil when the Whigs collapsed and two new political parties arose to compete with the Democrats. One of these was the new Republican Party, made up mostly of anti-slavery northerners. At the time, though, it seemed that the most formidable of the new political movements was not going to be the Republicans but rather the American Party.

The American Party was a nativist movement propelled by disenchantment with the immigrants who were then flooding into the U.S. Many of these were Irish Catholics fleeing famine and poverty, but they ignited a backlash from voters who thought the migrants would change the country’s culture and take jobs away from other Americans. While nativist gangs attacked Catholic communities (going so far as to kill Catholics and burn their homes and churches), the American Party called for barring Catholics from political office and for making it considerably more difficult for all immigrants to become citizens.

With this platform, the American Party won several dozen seats in Congress and numerous statewide offices. The New York Herald predicted the party would win the 1856 presidential election, a forecast that didn’t seem so crazy when former Whig President Millard Fillmore agreed to be its nominee in 1856, under the slogan of “Americans to rule America.”

Today, a lot of people are aware of the history of the American Party but they’re mostly familiar with the party’s popular nickname: The Know Nothings.

This name came about because members of anti-Catholic secret societies were told to say “I know nothing” if questioned. The term stuck and became attached to the party when nativism grew into a political movement.

In the 1856 election, meanwhile, Fillmore and the Know Nothings attracted 22% of the vote. Although it didn’t result in a victory, this is still one of the best third-party performances ever and it showed the potency of nativism in American politics.

A campaign banner for Millard Fillmore of the 1856 American Party (image via Wikimedia Commons).

And all of it came about was because the Know Nothings and their supporters were convinced that Catholics were going to destroy America.

Abraham Lincoln, who had the ability to see past the hysterias of the moment and to understand the meaning undergirding American democracy, had this to say about the Know Nothings at the time: “As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘All men are created equal’ … When the Know Nothings get control, it will read ‘All men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’”

Interestingly, there was another backlash against Catholics in the 1920s after a wave of immigration from southern Europe, particularly Italy. It even resulted in a revived KKK that came out in opposition to Blacks and Catholics and Jews. The 1928 Democratic presidential nominee, Gov. Al Smith of New York, who was Catholic, was met with burning crosses in various states during that year’s campaign.

Despite all this, Catholics eventually made quite an imprint on U.S. politics. Two American presidents have been Catholic (John Kennedy and Joe Biden), as well as three recent Speakers of the House (Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, and John Boehner) and six current justices of the Supreme Court, not to mention various other federal and state officeholders.

It’s entirely possible that some decades from now the country will have had Hispanic presidents and Speakers of the House. Americans then may look back on our own time and wonder what the fuss was all about.

The 2025 return of the Know Nothings?

Seen from this perspective, it’s easy to pass off the current anti-immigrant moment as similar to other eras and assume it too will pass into the history books. But there is still something different about the present time we’re living through. That’s because, while the U.S. has had its share of nativist movements, none of them has ever before managed to take control of the federal government.

Until now.

The sentiments behind nativist movements past and present are eerily similar. Last fall, for instance, one week before the 2024 election, Stephen Miller (one of Donald Trump’s closest advisors) said at a campaign rally: “America is for Americans and Americans only.”

Sounds an awful lot like “Americans to rule America,” the 1856 slogan of the Know Nothings, doesn’t it? But it was in line with what Trump himself was saying during the 2024 campaign.

Then, last week, Miller posted a tweet that declared:

“We were invaded and occupied. Entire neighborhoods were conquered. Entire towns were subjugated. Our treasury was in the plundered. Our democracy was torn apart piece by piece. A national referendum was held on whether to surrender to the invasion or repel it. America voted for liberation … The invading armies and foreign trespassers will be expelled."

By invading armies and foreign trespassers, of course, he means immigrants.

And, well, it’s apparently a strong narrative, just as it was in 1856 for the Know Nothings.

We know this because Americans are souring on Trump’s handling of the economy and consumer confidence is plummeting, but the president’s poll numbers are being kept afloat because many voters still approve of his immigration policies.

Immigration politics: Grounded in reality or a false narrative?

So this naturally brings up a question, which is: How much of this anti-immigrant politics is based in reality, and how much of it is a false narrative grounded in fear (as it no doubt was in both the 1850s and 1920s)?

I heard David Rohde of NBC News speak at the recent Tucson Festival of Books and he discussed the difficulties that journalists have in trying to cover the president because of Trump’s frequent success in driving false narratives. One example he used was the administration’s story about ridding the country of immigrant criminals, notably the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. This narrative, Rohde said, is immensely popular but doesn’t necessarily match the reality on the ground, not least because that gang had no more than 100 or so members in the country.

Well, my ears perked up when I heard those alleged numbers from Rohde because I wasn’t sure even the Trump administration could go quite that far … to essentially declare war on immigrants based on the actions of a few dozen people. After all, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act specifically to give his administration powers to go after Tren de Aragua, which he accused of engaging in “warfare and … hostile actions against the United States.” The Alien Enemies Act is a big deal, something meant to be used primarily during wartime, because it gives a president authority to deport immigrants without a hearing.

So I thought it was worth researching the topic and unpacking it a bit.

What I found was that, according to the U.S. government’s own Department of Homeland Security (just last year!) while Tren de Aragua is a legitimate problem and has a few thousand gang members across the Americas, there were reported to be about 600 individuals in this country with some level of connection, but only about 100 actual gang members in the U.S. (out of a total Venezuelan immigrant population of 770,000). Which are, well, the same numbers Rohde noted. So, if true (as it sure seems) the Alien Enemies Act is an awfully big stick to use for a small number of criminals.

Now, obviously, if the administration is deporting actual gang members who’ve been wreaking havoc on the U.S., there’s still not reason for sympathy, right?

Sure. But, we have to ask, is it necessary to invoke wartime powers for 100, or even a few hundred people? There was seriously no other way to arrest and deport these individuals? And then, when you delve into the story, it becomes apparent that there are many layers to what’s happening with immigration and the Alien Enemies Act beyond the original justification for wanting to deport gang members. Starting with the fact that hundreds of Venezuelans haven’t actually been deported to their home country but rather were sent to a prison in El Salvador where they’re subjected to degrading conditions while being largely cut off from communication with their families.

Moreover — and more importantly — it’s not entirely clear that the individuals being sent to a Salvadoran prison are all gang members, or even individuals with any sort of criminal record at all! On top of this, the Trump deportation machine has ensnared even legal immigrants to the U.S. who also have no hint whatsoever of a criminal past.

What actually seems to be happening is that the administration is using its new “wartime” authority to round up all sorts of immigrants, often without hearings or the presentation of any evidence in a courtroom. Some are being sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador, some to Guantanamo Bay, and others (even those who are here legally and haven’t committed any crime) are simply being sent back to their home countries.

A few of the stories

Jerce Reyes Barrios was a professional soccer player in Venezuela. After protesting against the autocratic Maduro government there, he was arrested and tortured. He then fled to the United States, seeking asylum. On the day he showed up for his scheduled asylum hearing (trying to follow the law, which is what MAGA has always claimed it wanted), he was arrested by U.S. authorities. He was later sent to the Salvadoran prison because of a tattoo the U.S. government said was proof of his gang membership. But Barrios has no criminal record and it turns out the tattoo was a tribute to his favorite soccer team, Real Madrid. His family (including young children) has had no contact with him since his disappearance.

Neri Alvarado, a Venezuelan immigrant who worked at a bakery in Texas, was detained by ICE, apparently because of an Autism Awareness tattoo that honored his autistic brother. Alvarado also has no criminal record nor any known gang ties, yet instead of simply being deported he also was sent to the same prison in El Salvador.

Or, take a minute to read this account in Time magazine from a reporter who witnessed the arrival of some Venezuelans in El Salvador, including one man in particular who tearfully insisted he had nothing to do with any gangs:

One young man sobbed when a guard pushed him to the floor. He said, “I’m not a gang member. I’m gay. I’m a barber.” …

The men were pulled from the buses so fast the guards couldn’t keep pace. Chained at their ankles and wrists, they stumbled and fell, some guards falling to the ground with them. With each fall came a kick, a slap, a shove. …

Inside the intake room, a sea of trustees descended on the men with electric shavers, stripping heads of hair with haste. The guy who claimed to be a barber began to whimper, folding his hands in prayer as his hair fell. He was slapped. The man asked for his mother, then buried his face in his chained hands and cried as he was slapped again.

The Trump administration has, in at least one case, admitted sending an individual to El Salvador because of an administrative error, but claims there is now nothing to be done about it because the person in question is under Salvadoran authority and beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Well, that’s one way to play “oops!” with someone’s life.

And it’s not just Venezuelans who are caught up in all of this, either.

Consider the case of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a transplant specialist and a professor at Brown University’s medical school who had gone to visit family in Lebanon and, when she returned to the U.S., was detained for 36 hours at Boston’s Logan Airport without access to an attorney. She was then deported back to Lebanon because authorities claimed that photos on her phone showed ties to terrorists. Again, without presenting evidence in a court hearing.

Or Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia graduate student who is a legal U.S. resident and green card holder (and married to an American woman who is eight months pregnant with their child). He was arrested because of his involvement with campus protests against the Israeli-Palestinian war. Khalil was transferred to a detention center in Louisiana, with no word to his wife about where he’d been sent. The government is now trying to deport him, despite his legal residency and his marriage to an American, for exercising free speech rights.

Or this story: Here is a video of a terrified woman being apprehended by masked officers on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. The woman being arrested (without being told why) is Rumeysa Ozturk, a Ph.D. student at Tufts University and Fulbright scholar from Turkey who had a valid student visa. Her offense? Last year, she co-wrote an editorial in the school newspaper asking the university to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide.” For that simple exercise of her free speech rights, the Trump administration is claiming she is a supporter of terrorists. After her arrest, a judge ordered her to be held in Massachusetts while the case was adjudicated. In defiance of the order, she was also transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana.

So is this all about Latin Americans and Arabs, then? Well …

Then there is the case of Lucas Sielaff, a German visiting his fiancé in the U.S. on a legitimate tourist visa. While he was here, the couple drove to Mexico for a short getaway. When they returned to the U.S. they were detained at the border crossing. Sielaff’s fiancé (an American citizen) was handcuffed and chained to a bench while her partner was interrogated. She was then allowed to return to the U.S. — but without her fiancé or without being given any information about his whereabouts. He was sent to a detention center where he spent 16 days in a cell with eight other men without ever being given a reason for his imprisonment. He was then ordered to buy himself a plane ticket back to Germany and was sent home.

This isn’t an isolated event either. The same story notes:

[Other incidents] include another German tourist who was stopped at the Tijuana crossing Jan. 25. Jessica Brösche spent more than six weeks locked up, including over a week in solitary confinement, a friend said.

On the Canadian border, a backpacker from Wales spent nearly three weeks at a detention center before flying home this week. And a Canadian woman on a work visa detained at the Tijuana border spent 12 days in detention before returning home.

Again, these are Europeans and Canadians who were legally visiting the U.S.

These stories are happening nearly daily now across the country. A tiny bit of the news about the most controversial incidents is breaking through, as are reports of the Trump administration’s defiance of judicial orders. But mostly it’s being drowned out, especially in conservative media, by a narrative about how the administration is rounding up and deporting hundreds of dangerous criminals. That is a small part of what’s happening, but the truth is that many others are being swept up in what is in fact an effort to remove as many non-Americans as possible from the country.

Remember Miller’s words? “America is for Americans and Americans only.” It’s more than a slogan that harkens back to the Know Nothings … now it’s pretty darn close to official U.S. policy.

---