This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
The actual debate was on
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."
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)
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) .
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)
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.
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)
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)
That section is quite confusing and really needs to be re-written... 140.233.13.53 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) User:Yuletide
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)
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)
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)
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 follows 130.216.234.127 ( talk) 03:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
"...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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
I am referring to this diff here. https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
"Guisepi, Robert A. (January 29, 2007). "Asian Americans". World History International."
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)
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)
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)
The word "quota" seems to mean "annual quota". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 ( talk) 13:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
The actual debate was on
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."
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)
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) .
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)
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.
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)
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)
That section is quite confusing and really needs to be re-written... 140.233.13.53 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) User:Yuletide
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)
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)
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)
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 follows 130.216.234.127 ( talk) 03:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
"...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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
I am referring to this diff here. https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
"Guisepi, Robert A. (January 29, 2007). "Asian Americans". World History International."
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)
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)
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)
The word "quota" seems to mean "annual quota". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 ( talk) 13:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)