ABOUT ME
Cody Nager is a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover History Lab and teaches courses to undergraduate and graduate students. His scholarship and teaching focus on how interactions between Americans and the broader Atlantic world shaped domestic debates over legal structures, political rights, economic development and national identity from colonial times to the present. He received his doctorate in history from the Graduate Center, City University of New York and his BA from Columbia University. Prior to Stanford, he was a dissertation fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s McNeil Center for Early American Studies. In addition to Stanford, he has taught at the City College of New York, Texas Tech University, University of Pennsylvania, and the CUNY School of Law.
His manuscript, Determined to be American: Regulating Migration and Citizenship in the Early American Republic, 1783–1815, investigates how the new nation’s precarious international and domestic position shaped immigration debates, dividing Americans into political parties with different visions for the nation’s future. Internationally, the turmoil of the Atlantic world, such as the French and Haitian Revolutions, ongoing slave resistance, and the Napoleonic Wars buffeted the nation. Domestically, indigenous resistance, European colonial designs, and perceived risk of slave revolts heightened tensions. These threatening circumstances forced Americans to determine who could reside in the nation, how they would be integrated, and who would be excluded. Immigrants forced Americans to confront a panoply of political leanings, economic circumstances, and ideologies. Americans thought selecting the “right” immigrants would bring economic success, while picking the “wrong” ones would take the jobs of hardworking residents, occupy fertile western lands with unproductive populations, and expand slavery. The continuous reassessment of immigration regulations shaped law and politics, divided Americans into parties, escalated the conflict between their visions for the nation’s future, and formed battle lines in clashes over immigration that continue to this day.
His next project investigates how the complexities of federalism, governance, and civic life shaped the development and enforcement of American immigration and naturalization policies. While the Naturalization Act of 1790 established a national immigration and citizenship framework, it delegated significant authority to local courts to interpret and enforce its provisions, resulting in varied patterns of inclusion and exclusion within the broader federal structure. During the incorporation of the Louisiana Purchase, legal disputes arose over whether to grant citizenship to new populations under the terms of the Purchase Treaty or through individual naturalization procedure. In the 1840s, immigrants presented local courts with challenges to interpreting eligibility for naturalization and applying federal policies consistently across jurisdictions. Despite federal control over immigration post-Reconstruction, gaps remained. Twentieth-century developments, such as the 1924 National Origins Act’s restrictions on Old World immigration and the 1965 Hart-Celler Act’s development of new immigration flows from Africa, Asia, and South America, further redefined the balance between federal authority and local discretion, complicating the enforcement of immigration laws. By tracing the historical roots of these policies and their modern implications, this project illuminates how legal precedents inform ongoing debates over immigration, governance, and national identity.