Part 1:

I'm not familiar with the movie, and there's a lot to unpack in your question. But I'm going to do my best to lay out the history of nativism in the United States.

In articles and classes that cover nativism this quote from Franklin is often presented to demonstrate that immigrants have faced suspiscion from very early on:

"Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."

See more here: https://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2008/02/ben-franklin-on.html

Less well known but along similar lines is this quote from Jefferson (regarding immigrants from absolutist monarchies):

“They will bring with them, the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their members, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse in their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” Franklin's sentiment is one that reoccurs throughout American history - a basic fear that new arrivals with a different culutral background (and language) will replace the existing institutions and culture, or be incompatible with it so as to create a permenant separate group outside of mainstream society. However, while nativist sentiments existed in the colonial and revolutionary period, they were not particularly organized or expressed in the legislatures.

In the early republic (1790-1830) immigration was low (by American standards). There was some hostility from Federalists towards (mainly) French immigrants during the 1790s due to fears that they were spreading and encouraging radical political ideas. The Federalists were hostile to the French Revolution, and although many of the immigrants were actually refugees from the extremes of that revolution, many of them sympathized with the revolutionary ideals and associated with the Republicans (or Democratic-Republicans) in opposition to the Federalist party. I wouldn't necessarily say that Federalists were deeply nativist as a principle, this had more to do with the particular situation with France.

The first great wave of immigration to America began around the 1830s and accelerated in the following decades. It was in part driven by the Irish famine, but also included many German and British immigrants. In this period there was a significant nativist backlash, including as you mention the "Know-Nothing" party. Some of this opposition surely related to simple prejudices of the "other", and sometimes related to economic concerns or an impression that peasant immigrants were backwards, dirty, ignorant and dangerous. However, among the more nativist leaders the main issue was tha Catholic faith of many of the immigrants (there were in fact many protestant immigrants too, but thee were often ignored).

In this period many American still considered the nation to be a protestant country. Although religious pluralism was tolerated, many considered the institutions in America and its democratic values to be a fundamental outgrowth of protestant Christianity. Catholicism was associated with European conservatism, tyranical monarchs (especially the Austrian Emperors) and a church that kept people enslaved in superstition and feudal subservience.

As you mention, this was partly related to the revolutions in 1848 (the refugees from these revolutions were generally anti-clerical and wren't usually a concern for nativists, in many cases they might even be welcomed). These revolutions were opposed by the conservative forces in Europe, including the Pope, but were generally seen by Americans as being part of a great historical progress towards republican and enlightened societies.

Samuel Morse is a good representative of the prevailing view among nativists leaders:

“Emigrants… have nurtured their foreign feelings and their foreign nationality to such a degree, and manifested such a determination to create and strengthen a separate and a foreign interest, that the American people can endure it no longer, and a direct hostile interest is now in array against them.”

He (and others) at times went so far as to suggest that the Catholic immigration was a plot by the conservative/Catholic powers to destroy American democracy:

“The arbitrary governments of Europe – those governments who keep the people in the most abject obedience at the point of the bayonet, with Austria at their head, have combined to attack us in every vulnerable point that the nation exposes to their assault. They are compelled by self-preservation to attempt our destruction – they must destroy democracy.”

...

“Now emigrants are selected for a service to their tyrants, and by their tyrants; not for their affinity to liberty, but for their mental servitude, and their docility in obeying the orders of their priests.”

Despite a quite strong nativist movement in this period (peaking around the 1850s), there was not really much legislative action to restrict migration. Perhaps because other questions like slavery and westward exapansion dominated the politics of the time.

The hostility towards Catholicism would remain a somewhat important part of American society well into the 20th century. Al Smith (the first Catholic candidate for President) did notably poorly in some Southern states at a time these states were solidly Democratic. Anti-Catholicism was also a very important part of the ideology of the KKK. However, gradually Catholicism came into the mainstream, and Americans came to think of their country as Christian or Judeo-Christian rather than Protestant.

Continued in comments...

u/epictortoise has given a great overview of the history of American nativism. For a micro-view on what nativism looked like, specifically in the pre-Civil War period in Massachusetts, you might want to check out my answer here. I note this because the idea that anti-immigrant nativism, especially before the Civil War, was "right wing" or in some sense reactionary isn't totally accurate - it was often closely connected with reform movements.