Staff Reports
Benny Johnson’s recent push to “REPEAL The Hart-Celler Act” is not idle theater — it’s a rallying cry that reflects a growing, legitimate anger among patriotic Americans who see their jobs, neighborhoods, and national identity under pressure. Johnson and other conservative voices are arguing that the 1965 law unleashed a wave of mass migration that must be reversed to restore order and fairness for working families. Many viewers tuned in because the argument hits where it hurts: ordinary people are struggling while the political class pretends business as usual is sustainable.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, commonly called the Hart-Celler Act, scrapped the old national‑origins quota system and shifted U.S. policy to a system emphasizing family reunification and new regional caps. That change, signed into law in October 1965, fundamentally rewrote who could come here and how many could arrive from each part of the world. Conservatives rightly note that when you redesign immigration policy, you redesign the country—and that should be a discussion for the American people, not a fait accompli imposed by elites.
The numbers tell the story that the establishment won’t face: roughly 59 million immigrants arrived in the United States between 1965 and 2015, and the foreign‑born share of the population rose from about 5 percent in 1965 to roughly 14 percent by 2015. Those arrivals and their descendants have been the main driver of population growth, reshaping communities and public services nationwide. When policymakers refuse to acknowledge these realities, they show contempt for citizens who must live with the consequences of unlimited population growth and strain on infrastructure.
Conservatives are not merely nostalgic; they point to modern mechanisms — chain migration, the visa lottery, and guest‑worker programs like H‑1B — that amplify the effects of the 1965 framework and displace American workers. Voices on the right, including prominent podcasters and commentators, have demanded hard limits on H‑1B and chain categories because the system too often rewards cheap labor and corporate shortcuts at the expense of middle‑class families. If Washington refuses to prioritize Americans first, then grassroots pressure will, and that pressure is only going to grow louder.
The political movement to repeal or substantially amend Hart‑Celler is no fringe fantasy; there are petitions, commentary, and policy campaigns arguing for a reset of immigration rules to restore control and cultural cohesion. Conservative outlets and citizen petitions have amplified calls to return to a merit‑based system and to give Congress the final say on levels and categories of immigration. This is about sovereignty: nations that do not control their borders and their flows of people do not remain nations for long.
Repeal would not mean chaos if it is handled responsibly; it would be an opportunity to replace an outdated 1965 framework with a modern, merit‑based, and numerically controlled system that protects wages, housing availability, and national security. Thoughtful reformers, including some bipartisan policy analysts, have outlined how changes to preference categories and numerical caps can be implemented without violating fundamental rights. Conservatives should press for a clear plan: repeal the parts that incentivize mass family chain migration and restore preferential treatment for skills Americans need.
Hardworking Americans are entitled to a country that puts them first, not one that treats immigration policy as a permanent experiment in social engineering. Repealing Hart‑Celler and replacing it with an immigration system that values skills, enforces the law, and preserves cultural cohesion is a patriotic duty, not a grievance. If Washington refuses to act, the people must demand leaders who will finally secure the border, protect jobs, and save the American dream for the next generation.
