For some strange reason, I've been getting a few pieces on my Medium feed from writers who are trying to understand why people voted and will vote for Mr. Trump. This is a nice suprise. This essay is well done! Unfortunately it is not likely to go far in Medium.
I can't really comment on the effects of the 1924 immigration act in the USA. I just don't have enough information to comment somewhat wisely. I will just say that the "elite" of the USA benefit from illegal immigrant labor. So too do the masses with some things being much cheaper with $4/hour labor as apposed to $10/hr (or whatever the minimum wage is). Until this convenience is seriously addressed, USA is going to have illegal immigration problems.
Canada does send illegal immigrants away. And it prosecutes businesses who hire them illegally. While there is still opportunity for this illegal activity, players do feel that they are not far from being exposed to the law. Hence, we don't have a lot of underground immigration. So things are fairly under control (relatively speaking).
Another tidbit I have that you might find interesting is that 30 years ago, welfare was a hot political topic in Alberta and other Canadian provinces. These days, we seldom hear about it--even from conservative Albertans who would like to suspend this social program for "slackers and deadbeats." I think what has happened is that Canadian social assitance programs have evolved over the decades such that we are better at finding the truly needy and convincing others to find a job. The proof is that most people in Canada would prefer taking on a minimum wage job--if jobs are available and they are physically/mentally able--than going on welfare. Rallying agaisnt welfare no longer gets votes.
To get to this stage required a revamp of legislation every five years or so. It seems we Canadians, we are able to effect these kinds of changes, whereas the USA cannot. The fact that you quoted a 1924 document shows the inability to legislatively move with the times. And I got some tidbits from the impeachment hearings, where the Democrats based their charges on legislation written decades and decades ago. And--as your article so blatantly pointed out, your politicians really can't sit down and discuss what they have learned from Obamacare let alone find ways to improve it. This leaves retention or repeal as the only two legislation options.
I believe we have talked before. If so, you might remember that I am advocating a new version of democracy. This version will provide a more robust process to deal with societal changes (even better than Canada's Westminster model or Northern Europes social democracies). The USA can lead the way. I invite you and your readers to take a look.
Tiered Democratic Governance