Talk:Immigration Act of 1924

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:St. John's University/Discover New York 570 (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CT-5597.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just making aware of the edits I am proposing to make.

Under context, the statement relating to Henry Cabot Lodge's proposal in 1909 as the first restrictive bill towards S/E European immigration is incorrect. In fact, Lodge had supported a literacy test bill that was introduced in 1896 as a measure that would restrict S/E European immigration, but this bill was vetoed by President Cleveland.

For the purpose of maintaining a clear, easily digestible narrative, I suggest the reference to the historian Mae Ngai under the 'context' subheading be deleted. Stating 'before WW1, the U.S had virtually open borders', this quote seems contradictory to the rest of the paragraph it is situated in, as the preceding sentences detail the number of exclusionary acts passed against Asian immigration before WW1. If this is referencing European immigration, it needs to be made more clear.

I propose to include some detail concerning the Japanese government's reaction to the act and the repercussions this had on American businesses.

I also propose to include some historiographical views on the legacy of the act under the 'legacy' subheading, as this needs a bit of expansion. I will also include some retrospective views by those who were involved in the formation of the act itself. I shall include sources to be viewed for all amendments. Swicksa (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Immigration Legislation is a distinct phenomena from "Racial Segregation", despite politicizing both of these issues with the same broad brush. Suggest this label be removed. I would agree given it's xenophobic (as opposed to racist) nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.173.107 (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The law had the clear intention of restricting immigration based on race, de jure and de facto. It was both racist and xenophobic.2601:140:8980:106F:14E8:3641:9C09:3CAB (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries in the world restrict immigration on racial and or religious grounds, so that was not unique to the US. It is not "racist and xenophobic" either as again, nations that want to keep their ethnic or religious balance restrict immigration otherwise they may become a minority in their own nation. Nobody has a birth right to move to another country whether you like that or not. So no, immigration restriction does not at all equate to Racial Segregation. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:BC54:6BD2:31DD:67DF (talk)

If I remember correctly, this act played a significant role in further souring the relationship between Japan and the United States, and played into the hands of the militarists. I'd like to see some inclusion on the effect the act has had internationally, and the long term consequences it bought about.Haverberg (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did the 1924 Immigration Act affect attitudes toward Mexican immigrants?

-- Don't believe it was much of an issue at the time due to internal affairs in Mexico; I'm weak on history here, but I think things still hadn't settled down by this point. Again, however, I'm pretty weak on my knowledge here, and this is almost a decade after Pancho Villa ceased being an active revolutionary, correct? --70.144.36.227 02:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, Mexican immigration was not the big issue of the day; the main target of this Act were the Japanese, whose economic success along the West Coast (especially California) consistently provoked retaliatory legislation to slow them down. Chinese immigration had been illegal since 1892. Mexicans were also immigrating in large numbers to the Southwest (especially Arizona, Texas, etc), and they also faced widespread hostility. But because they formed such an integral part of the unskilled workforce in the region and because the West was generally underpopulated, their immigration was tolerated. -- Trivial 04:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mexican immigration at that time compared with European immigration was actually suprisingly small. The wage differential had not grown as large as it was later and there were fewer of them.RichardBond (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date 1892 seems to be a mistake for 1882 in the remark by Trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making this site. It really helps me get the information I need fast! I give it 10/10 and two thumbs up! Thanks!!!

Definitely

This is the same Act as National Origins Quota Act, right?—Markles 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Catholicism needs to be added considering this was major in the 1924 immigration act. Can someone start working on it? I will help. Thanks!

Jerry Jones 21:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone let me know if it needs to be resized. With the resolution on this computer it makes it hard to tell how it would look for different resolutions. Hopefully its not too big.

For some reason, this section keeps getting deleted. Within this section of the article there contains important excerpts that wholly contradict this notion "show the superiority of the founding Northern European races" and show this discussion in its proper context and zeitgeist.

Quotes, such as,

"Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the 'Nordic' race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world." show that this notion of "superiority" to be a red herring.

The actual debate was on

"preserve as nearly as possible, the racial status quo of the United States. It is hoped to guarantee as best we can at this late date, racial homogeneity in the United States. The use of a later census would discriminate against those who founded the Nation and perpetuated its institutions.”

Moreover, if an act to maintain ancestry and maintain the ethnic character of a nation is indicative somehow of "superiority," then might we add this ridiculous conflation into the current efforts of Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, as also an indicator of "superiority."

"For some reason", most of this article has been copied from Kevin B. MacDonald. For that reason, most of this article has been reverted back to an older version. -Will Beback 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you feel a need to maintain the ethnic character of a nation, if not because that ethnic character was seen as superior to others? Certainly if someone's ethnic character is equal or superior to yours, there is no reason to exclude them, as they're joining the nation would make it stronger. The United States has never been an ethnic nation state regardless.173.67.19.243 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not see anything to "merge" that isn't already in this article, so National Origins Quota Act now forwards to this one. Feel free to let me know if there's anything that's been missed in the process. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only an anti restrictionist POV was presented, Grant was sideline in the reform, except, of course in the speeches of ultraliberals who hated the law. White americans have the same right as anybody else to preserve themselves and their country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.231.161.9 (talk • contribs) .

One reference says:

During congressional debate over the 1924 Act, Senator Ellison DuRant Smith of South Carolina drew on the racist theories of Madison Grant to argue that immigration restriction was the only way to preserve existing American resources. Although blatant racists like Smith were in the minority in the Senate, almost all senators supported restriction, and the Johnson-Reed bill passed with only six dissenting votes.[1]

Do you have a cite for Grant being on the sidelines? -Will Beback 02:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was going to post the same thing you did from the same site when I saw it. You said it yourself, they are in the minority. Its not representative to post the most extreme quote from the most extreme senator to display a feeling you believe widespread. The argument that the law was supported by believers of racial superiority was used rather by the opposition with restrictionists having usually to be on the defense and disassociate from Grant. --201.231.161.9 12:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that the Vaile quote is representative of the majority? And what's your source for the quotation? As for the Smith quote, it's frequently referenced by historians.[2][3][4][5] -Will Beback 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are answering doesnt mean DuRant is representative at all. The quote is from the records of the discussions. The whole climate back then with the labor unions, unemployment, as well as Vaile's position and reputation together with the rest of the transcripts I read point towards "defend the american interest" being the main force behind the law; instead of a sole senator with ideas that were regarded as unusual at best. I invite you to read the debates and you will see that the position of restrictionists is nearly always taking distance from racial considerations and arguing in economic and demographic terms.

May I ask what book or link you are using to read the debates? I'd be interested to see them myself. Nonetheless, they are primary sources and are susceptible to misunderstanding. Madison Grant is usually included in modern histories of the Act, so he should be mentioned here too. We're not writing history, we're summarizing the histories written by others. Thanks, -Will Beback 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be remembered that the Act came before the growth of the Welfare Society and that any indigent cases had to be supported from voluntary agencies which were typically formed along religious and ethnic lines. If quotas were not set along ethnic national origin lines indigents would have had to be taken care of by the general public and Public Welfare programs were not generally accepted yet. RichardBond (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US Citizenship and Immigration site link, when you click on it, puts you on the website, but the website gives you an error message saying (slight paraphrase) The page you requested was not found on our website. It may have been available before our October 2006 redesign.

So, is it possible the link got broken by said redesign? Could someone please look into this? 169.229.121.94 01:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it may be gone. However the Google cache is still available so I've linked there. -Will Beback · † · 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section is quite confusing and really needs to be re-written... 140.233.13.53 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) User:Yuletide[reply]

The National Origins Quota of 1924 describes the outcome of this Act. I suggest we merge them. -Will Beback · † · 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, a few weeks ago. Thanks. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is act treated Jews as a separate group. Obviously national origins weren't all it took into account, but I don't see anything regarding why so many American Jews (other than Gompers) would object to the act itself (as distinct from the testimony). At the time Germany (with the biggest quota) had a lot of Jews, I think, but perhaps they weren't emigrating in big numbers compared with Poland, Lithuania, etc? Boris B (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The per centage of the German population which was Jewish in 1924 was less than one per cent while it was about twenty per cent in Poland RichardBond (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I know, no, by the Act a Jew was simply a person from Russia (including Poland and Lithuania) or Germany or some other place with a restricted or liberal allowance. On the other hand, much of the propaganda, even some of the motive, in favor of the Act was antisemitic, and American Jews reacted to that. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language in this bill pertained to NATIONAL ORIGINS, not ethnic origins, although there may have been some hidden racial undertones. 184.96.220.172 (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed to opening paragraph to clarify that it was the Eastern European Jews who were affected. From my understanding of what the sources are saying, German Jews weren't seriously affected, in spite of the anti-semitic rhetoric behind the act.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the body of the article (about the ships) looks deeply irrelevant. It's cited, so I won't remove it, but I think someone should do so, or if they want to keep it, find a way to connect it to what follows130.216.234.127 (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2%" - is this referring to the total number of immigrants admitted to the US, from all countries, or the number of immigrants per country admitted to the US? The wording is slightly ambiguous.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immigration Act of 1924. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306093754/http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/lodge_immigration.pdf to http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/lodge_immigration.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immigration Act of 1924. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228084926/http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/immigration1924.htm to http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/immigration1924.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph "Contrary to popular belief [...] Latin American immigration." doesn't have a single citation throughout the entire paragraph. Mae Ngai, cited a paragraph later and someone who's researched the subject quite thoroughly, pretty vehemently disagreed. In her paper "The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924", she actually argues that Latin Americans - specifically she refers to Mexicans - as being excluded from the whiteness articulated by the Immigration Act: "But, while Euro-Americans' ethnic and racial identities became uncoupled, non-European immigrants-among them Japanese, Chinese, Mexicans, and Filipinos-acquired ethnic and racial identities that were one and the same" at Page 70.

I'm new to editing wikipedia and didn't watch to step on any toes, so I didn't fix the paragraph beyond adding a 'citation needed', but I do think the paragraph should either be significantly revised or have some pretty strong counterfactual evidence presented. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.77.234 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to this diff here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_Act_of_1924&diff=880689360&oldid=880685490

The version I restored was more in-line with the citations than this new version, which contains a number of problems and even went as far as to remove a citation I added. One, the phrasing is highly awkward. Two, at no point in the given citations are Jewish immigrants referred to as "Slavs" or "Poles", planting it firmly in the "original research" category. In fact, the citation I included more or less directly rebuts this claim. Three, it is a WP:POINTY passage. And four, it broaches the topic of Jewish identity which is highly contentious, especially on here. I propose restoring the older version, or at least amending this current one to something more palatable.2601:84:4502:61EA:456F:E528:DD7:CF11 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only content you added (versus removed) was this, which completely lacked any source (and hence was removed):

Contrary to popular belief, Latin Americans were not prohibited or limited from immigrating under the law. In most states and under federal law, persons of mixed white and Native American ancestry were considered white if they did not have black ancestry; this principle was interpreted under the Act to allow Latin Americans to immigrate as "white persons." Moreover, unlike Eastern and Southern Europe, no nationality-based quotas were placed on Latin American immigrants. Thus, the law allowed unlimited Latin American immigration, just as it allowed unlimited northwestern European immigration. Ironically, the 1965 immigration law that replaced the 1924 Act, though abolishing racial preferences and national quotas, would effectively place greater restriction on Latin American immigration.

If you have a source for those statements, please cite it along with the content; otherwise the content stays out as unsourced WP:OR. General Ization ^Talk 22:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_Act_of_1924&diff=880683962&oldid=880683831

You reverted me before I had a chance to add it.2601:84:4502:61EA:456F:E528:DD7:CF11 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the aforementioned citation. Luckily, I had the book lying around. The citation mentions that Jews were considered 'Asiatic' back then, and were targeted by the Asiatic Exclusion League. Listing Jews as Europeans here is, in my opinion, unhelpful and unnecessary.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. And what book are you referring to? As to the latter comment, that's what the sources say; Jews weren't singled out specifically for their race, it just happens to be one of the major groups of Europeans that were effected. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jews were not seen as European. If you need me to I can pull up several very horrible sources showing how Europeans viewed Jews. Also Jewish immigration has never been limited to European Jews anyway. Now UpdateNerd I do not think it will negatively affect this article to list Jews after Europeans. Also one of the sources you deleted "White By Law" clearly did point out that people from Arabia were not usually seen as white by courts.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the sources being cited here say. You can be Eastern European if you're Jewish if that's where you're from. We shouldn't reflect the anti-Semitism of "very horrible sources" of how some in Europe previously thought. That "people from Arabia were not usually seen as white by courts" is not the point being made; it's the sentence defining what changes the Immigration Act of 1924 specifically made. Be wary of WP:SYNTH. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

""Proceedings of the Asiatic Exclusion League" Asiatic Exclusion League. San Francisco: April 1910. Pg. 7. "To amend section twenty-one hundred and sixty-nine of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that section twenty-one hundred and sixty-nine of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby, amended by adding thereto the following: And Mongolians, Malays, and other Asiatics, except Armenians, Assyrians, and Jews, shall not be naturalized in the United States."" This clearly calls Jews Asiatics. Jews should be separated. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source likewise lists Jews separately from East Europeans. "Bill Ong Hing, Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy, 1850-1990 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), 32-33."The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Eric Goldstein's book "The Price of Whiteness", in the section pertaining to the US immigration act, page 102. "Yet many Jews feared that the government's adoption of the "Hebrew" classification might be a first step toward their eventual exclusion from the rights of Americans. Not only was a congressional commission gathering racial statistics on incoming Southern and Eastern Europeans in order to bolster their case for immigration restriction, but the Census Bureau was planning to expand the racial classification on the census to include immigrant "races" such as the Jews."

There are also paragraphs on page 103 pertaining to the classification of Jews as 'Asiatic'. If the reason for including UpdateNerd's proposal is a single passage in that WaPo article (which is currently being challenged in the RS board), then there's really no reason to include it at all.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as this citation. The sources mention no Jews not from Eastern Europe, so I don't see the problem with "Eastern European Jews", unless your point is that we should reword it to "Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe", which is unnecessarily complicated. The wording doesn't assert that all Jews came from Eastern Europe. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument over whether Jews from Europe are white or European is a sticky one in sociology. I really don't understand what the problem is with labeling them separately. Jews should be listed as Jews we shouldn't be imposing our ideas on how Jews should be viewed into a wikipedia article. The sources don't even seem to agree on how to label Jews.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing about whether Jews are white or not. Perhaps you and The Human Trumpet Solo are, but I fail to see the relevance. Sources agree that Jews from southern Europe were significantly effected in the 1924 act, not because of their lack of whiteness, but because of the U.S. population of people from the countries they lived in based on the 1890 census. Jews outside Southern Europe evidently weren't negatively effected. Older versions of the article didn't make that point very clear, and had a bunch of misinformation about race being the reason for the act. That is false, except for the Asian Exclusion Act portion, which has nothing to do with Jewish-majority countries that I'm aware of. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing that the current phrasing is 1) unnecessary, 2) controversial, 3) contradicted by other relevant sources. The source used to support that phrasing is currently under review, and may have to be taken out soon. Moreover, there's no evidence within the sources, or elsewhere, that Jews in Southern Europe or Eastern Europe were specifically targeted, to the exclusion of Jews migrating from elsewhere.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are Jews even mentioned in the act itself. The sources at least seem to disagree on how Jews were affected by the act. Didn't at least one of the sources mention them as Asiatics? Weren't Jews included in the "Yellow Peril" that racists used as an excuse for the act in the first place?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that WaPo is currently under review is no reason to remove it; until a decision has been, that's putting the cart before the horse. The wording of the article never asserted that Jews were targeted in the language of the act, only that they were significantly effected. Also, in a recent change, it was claimed that bans were only placed on South and East Asia, when a cited government source states otherwise.

I also noticed the removal of information from a source I don't have access to, and can only guess that you might have confused it with another. Please reinstate that edit if you indeed checked Contemporary Ethnic Geographies in America, p. 39. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The US definition of Asia = East and South Asia. It has been that way since the 1910s, at least. Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Russians were not included in this.

And yes, I did check that book. I wouldn't have deleted it otherwise.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for that being the US definition of Asia? And just to be clear, did you actually check that book's page, or are you relying on the lack of search results on Google Books or Amazon? Because that's what I tried, and that page didn't appear (which isn't the same thing as actually looking at the page). That said, the claim sounds somewhat far-fetched, and I support removing it if you confirm that you truly checked the source. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have the book at home. It's not in there.

It also says here that in the US, an Asian is ""A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Other Asian." https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The countries defined by "Asia" and the "Asia–Pacific Triangle" aren't necessarily the same thing, so that link is irrelevant. But if you really have the book and it doesn't mention "the Middle East, the 'Asiatic' Soviet Union (Georgia, Azerbaijan and Central Asia)" on p. 39, then I will assume good faith and not revert it if you remove said info from the 'Provisions' section. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As for the lede, I'll see if I can find something that is more specific. Statistics from that period show there wasn't a complete ban on Jews, Armenians, or Arabs, and that Middle Easterners were considered White by that point.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for clarity would be welcome. Although just to be clear, the article doesn't assert that there was a racial ban, only that specific countries were banned and others reduced to a 2% quota based on the 1890 census, and the end result was that specific groups were effected more than others. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did the act really ban all immigration from Asia or only East Asia and South Asia? Were Soviet countries and Middle Eastern countries included? If not this really should be changed to state that it meant East Asian and South Asian people and not all immigration from Asia?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the act says the entire continent of Asia. Since many modern Middle-Eastern countries were nonextant prior to World War I, they officially had no representation in the states. As long as it could be argued that a potential immigrant was Asian, they wouldn't have been considered.

The Immigration Act of 1917's barred zone included Arabia and the Soviet Union east of the Urals, so presumably that division carried over. History-world.org also defines people from Middle-Eastern countries as Asians. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Guisepi, Robert A. (January 29, 2007). "Asian Americans". World History International."

Link

World History Association is an academic source, one that had already been used within this same article no less. Why it's being removed only in this instance is beyond me.

Furthermore, it describes the 1924 Act as pertaining exclusively to immigrants from within the Asian-Pacific Triangle. See here:

"The Immigration Act of 1924, which became known as the Asian Exclusion Act and the National Origins Act, prohibited the entry into the United States for permanent residence of all persons whose national origin sprang from nations within what was called the Asia Pacific Triangle. These countries included Japan, China, the Philippines, Laos, Siam (Thailand), Cambodia, Singapore (then a British colony), Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Malaysia." The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:UpdateNerd used this same source in his last post on this same talk page, simultaneously alleging that it classifies to Middle Easterners as Asian, which it never does. In fact, it doesn't even mention Middle Easterners at all. See here

For the above reasons, I have restored the source and earlier phrasing.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're overdoing it with this single self-published source. See WP:RSSELF. While I'll admit this is one of the better self-published (even semi-academic) sources, it's still prone to errors. It's not as good as published books or the language of the government act itself, which both say Asia and never the "Asia-Pacific Triangle" regarding the 1924 act. That's why I'm inclined to believe it's an error, and unless you can provide another source, I'd advise against giving this one undue weight. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can promise you that User:The Human Trumpet Solo is not named Guisepi. Asia is a really big continent that streches from Japan and Indonesia and even Russia all the way to part of Egypt and Turkey. I'm shocked that you would want to use wording that is that inclusive. If it really does include all of Asia this entire article needs to be rewritten.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not share your doubts about the source. But if it is genuinely not usable, it should be removed from the article entirely. We can't just deem it credible in one passage and then non-credible in another.

I have some books laying around that should sort this out, assuming I can still find them. Because I know for a fact that the Immigration Act did not include the entire Asian continent, only those listed within the "Barred Zone". If I can't find it, then an RFC should help.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a problem to remove the source entirely from the article, because the only other points it's cited for regard immigration history in general, and can be swapped for another. However, I see nothing controversial about temporarily using the source for those points until better ones are located. If you know of other sources which contradict those currrently cited, please share them and make your case, but we will have to present both possibilities for balance, not just an outlying one. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "quota" seems to mean "annual quota". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/70th-congress/session-2/c70s2ch690.pdf . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.192.125 (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no WP article on the 1929 law in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.192.125 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a mention on History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States#1920s. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it looks like some of these additions are sourced and valuable. I think a table is a great idea, but I'm confused why the ones you've added seem to primarily focus on later laws, not the 1924 act which was based on 1890 census data. I also think the comparison table would be more appropriate on History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States. If this article has any tables, it should show the figures from the 1890 census as was originally passed, then another table or two showing how it was modified before other major laws replaced the act altogether. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits to the highly inaccurate opening paragraph that had existed to try to make it clearer for you, but you still deleted everything I wrote...You don't seem to be familiar with the basics of the law, nor the plethora of Dept of Commerce/Census Bureau/INS data, records, and information on immigration policy. I really don't know how to spell it out to make it any clearer... The 1924 Act had multiple provisions. Effective FY 1925, § 11(a) lowered the 1921 Emergency Quota Act quotas per country from being based on 3% of the foreign-born population present in the 1910 Census to 2% of the foreign-born population in the 1890 Census.

More significantly, the 1924 Act at § 11(b) prescribed that beginning July 1, 1927, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the annual quota shall bear the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants in the United States in 1920 having that national origin, i.e. the National Origins Formula. The rest of § 11 describes the complex process by which this new national origins formula based on nationalities among the total U.S. population in 1920 was to be calculated by the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Labor, and reported to the president to proclaim by April 1, 1927. If they failed to report on time, the temporary quotas based on 1890 of subdivision(a) would be used as a fallback, which occurred for 2 years, postponing until 1929 the presidential proclamation that established the 1920 National Origins quota system as law, effective July 1, 1929—thus the first fiscal year under the new formula ending on June 30, 1930, recorded on the table as distinct from 1925 under the same Act of 1924. Foreign-born in the 1890 census was used as basis temporarily 1925-1929 and then never used again.

Inqvisitor (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't doubt your expert familiarity with the law (even though I've never seen you edit this article before). This law is a very important one, and I appreciate your contributions to help make it easier for readers to understand. However, you seem to be relying heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources. Are there any secondary ones you can help to verify your additions? This article has a history of poorly sourced additions, so I'm pretty quick to revert things which are not abundantly self-evident from the source.

2. My main problems with your editing is process, not content. You didn't explain most of the small changes you made in your edit summaries. You also made many small changes in only one or two edits, so this is very hard for other editors to understand your intent. Further, you added information to the lead without putting it in the body. Most offensively, you entirely ignored WP:BRD, which requires discussion before reinstating content. That could result in re-removal, but even if I need to revert questionable material please understand I'm interested in sorting out problematic edits from good ones... not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

3. You didn't answer my objections above about why the table on "Quota calculation formula" uses 1920 data, when the 1924 act was originally based on 1890 data. The 1924 act was modified to use 1920 data in 1927, but that could be made much clearer. Why not have a two-in-one table comparing the versions of the law that used 1890 and 1920 census data? What is the "National Origins of the White Population of the United States in 1920" and why is it italicized? I don't see anything in the cited sources, which are all non-searchable primary PDF sources. Please provide a quote if possible.

4. I'll retract my objection about putting a table about the 1921/1952 immigration acts here, since that seems like a helpful comparison to the 1924 act.

Again, don't doubt the good faith of your additions, but there are i's that need dotting and t's that need crossed.

UpdateNerd (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 6 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bernie1924 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jbjohnson123 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hello37377 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Deomd.

— Assignment last updated by Jeans775 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]