In the annals of U.S. immigration history, few figures have sparked as much divisiveness and notoriety as Harold Ezell, who became a prominent name in the 1980s for his aggressive deportation policies during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
Ezell, a mid-level manager within the federal immigration bureaucracy, was the regional commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time.
Under his leadership, California experienced one of the largest deportation operations in its history, solidifying his reputation as an enforcement zealot.
His commitment to driving ‘illegal aliens’ back across the border saw federal immigration agents conducting raids across Southern California, with daily arrests frequently numbering in the hundreds.
Once, he boasted about apprehending 70,000 people in a single month in San Diego County alone, demonstrating the scale of his operations.
Ezell’s notoriety grew further when Los Angeles declared itself a ‘sanctuary city’ for Central American migrants; he vowed to retaliate by having Washington cut off the city’s federal funding.
His tactics included arresting undocumented workers seeking to claim their lottery winnings, underscoring the controversial and aggressive nature of his approach toward immigration enforcement.
In an episode reported by Time, he was seen reveling in a large-scale border crackdown that resulted in nearly 2,800 arrests within a 24-hour period, exclaiming, ‘Isn’t this fun!’
This enthusiastic embrace of deportation contrasts sharply with the more restrained policies observed in later administrations.
Ezell is often referred to as the original ‘deporter-in-chief,’ pre-dating figures like President Donald Trump and his advisors Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, who would later adopt similar hardline stances.
The backlash against Ezell’s policies came as the public gradually shifted its views on immigration, particularly as a powerful immigrant rights movement began to gain traction.
Despite dreams of controlling immigration, Ezell’s tenure was marked by a recognition of the futility of his raids.
In 1986, he acknowledged that the number of daily arrests was not keeping up with the estimated 2,000 new border crossings happening each day.
He argued that the raids were meant to convey a message rather than reduce illegal immigration.
That same year, the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, providing pathways to citizenship for over three million undocumented immigrants already in the country, effectively undermining some of the goals of Ezell’s stringent policies.
Ezell’s support for Proposition 187, a controversial measure aimed at denying undocumented workers access to public assistance, marked a further chapter in his anti-immigration stance.
Although Proposition 187 passed initially, it ignited a political backlash that gradually reshaped attitudes toward immigration in California.
As demographics shifted, California’s electorate began to view immigration more favorably—as an economic benefit rather than a liability—highlighting a significant cultural transformation in the state.
By the time Ezell died in 1998, he had not witnessed this remarkable change, nor the growing acceptance of immigrants as an integral part of the Californian identity.
According to journalist Gustavo Arellano, Ezell’s legacy offers lessons for current anti-immigration proponents like Miller.
He argues that history has not been kind to figures like Ezell and suggests that it may not be too late for Miller to change the course of his own legacy.
Ezell’s era of immigration enforcement serves as a historical touchstone, revealing both the penalties of hardline immigration policies and the potential for societal shifts toward inclusivity.
Despite the current waves of arrests under President Trump’s administration, Ezell’s peak crackdown numbers dwarf these figures, putting into perspective the ongoing struggle over immigration policy in America.
The fervor of Ezell’s actions reflects a time that many considered more xenophobic, where attitudes toward immigration were largely negative.
Polling from the early 1990s revealed that a staggering 86% of respondents viewed illegal immigration as a significant problem, contrasting sharply with today’s more diverse views.
Much has changed since Ezell’s campaigns; California now showcases a multilayered relationship with its immigrant population that recognizes their contributions to society and the economy.
As we continue to analyze current immigration debates through the lens of Ezell’s tenure, it becomes apparent that critical historiographies of past policies can illuminate the path forward.
The imprints left by figures like Ezell remind us that while tides of immigration policy have ebbed and flowed throughout U.S. history, the need for humane and just treatment of immigrants remains essential to the American ethos.
In the face of fluctuating immigration policies, it is vital to understand the outcomes of previous harsh measures and the transformation of public opinion that followed, ultimately leading to a more inclusive narrative surrounding immigration in California and beyond.
Thus, as we analyze contemporary immigration challenges, we should remember the harsh lessons from Harold Ezell’s regime, reflecting on how history shapes our perception of present-day policy.”
image source from：latimes
