Talk:History of immigration to the United States

message: Let's not neglect the colonial era Spanish and French settlements. Rmhermen 21:22, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Something to consider:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States
I love all the Sources but None do 1 thing.  The numbers go up and down and never Total.
Its asif we killed all those before and they are no longer immigrants.  Nationalized yes.  But did we EAT them or what?
Its a point that I make to others about this.  That Without Immigrants the USA population would be BELOW 200 million, and probably Allot lower.
Its an aside, to add to the data you have received.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdCAsh0 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonial era Spanish and French settlements

message: Among various edits, I removed this bit: The British crown tried to prevent Spanish immigration in Florida, and San Agustín was destroyed or plundered several times by pirates at the service of the crown or by the British army, though it was located in territory belonging to the Spanish Crown. The English/Briish attacks on Spanish Florida were not an attempt "to prevent Spanish immigration", which never amounted to much anyway. They were done during times of war because Spanish Florida was enemy territory weakly held and within reach. A larger concern than Spanish immigration to Florida was Spanish-allied Indian tribes with the power to threaten English colonies. Another reason was that Indians captured in "just war" could be enslaved, which is what happened to nearly all of Spanish Florida's Indians by 1720 or so.
The section titled "Population and immigration AD 1600-1790" is very long and seems to jump from topic to topic in a confusing way. Perhaps it would be useful to use subsections to address the various topics? Pfly (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some edits

message: I am looking for good info here63.226.130.156 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking for info

message: I think the article should mention the issue of so-called White ethnics. Even Catholics who were very Caucasian such as the Flemish, French, Irish  and Hungarian were stereotyped along ethnic lines because it was presumed that only WASPs were truly white. This is one of the chief causes of the nativism phenomenon, where only the Dutch, German, Scandinavian and British were fully qualified for immigration because of ethnic quotas. ADM (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "it was presumed" ?? I think not. let's name an actual person who presumed this. Note that 30-50% of the Dutch and Gemran immigrants were Catholic. Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: White ethnic

message: It seems strange to me that the "History of immigration to the United States" article contains information dating back to 15,000 BC. Would it not be appropriate to relegate all immigration history before 1776 AD to a "History of immigration to North America" article, with a small paragraph at the top of the US-centric article linking to that one? —h3h (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into multiple articles? 

message: The melting pot metaphor was in use in 1875, as this quote proves. "The fusing process goes on as in a blast-furnace; one generation, a single year even-- transforms the English, the German, the Irish emigrant into an American. Uniform institutions, ideas, language, the influence of the majority, bring us soon to a similar complexion; the individuality of the immigrant, almost even his traits of race and religion, fuse down in the democratic alembic like chips of brass thrown into the melting pot." (nb "alembic" = glass jar) source: article by Titus Munson Coan, " A New Country" The Galaxy Volume 0019 Issue 4 (April 1875) p. 463 online Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Melting pot metaphor used in 1875

message: The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 was the first law trying to regulate immigrants. The new Arizona law regulates immigrants (after they arrive), but NOT immigration (= process of arrival) --subtle difference but legally important since only Feds can pass law on immigration. Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the important part of what you are saying - about Arizona. I respectfully differ about the Acts of 1798 regulating immigration per se. The country's borders, personnel, etc. just weren't set up for that. People just walked over the border whenever they felt like it. And yes, the laws regulated them, once they were located. If they were located. And essentially those laws were eventually nullified. While this was not the gist of your argument, it did apply to other, otherwise unrelated material in the article. Which is why I am answering!  :)  Student7 (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 (there were four of them and one is still in effect) regulated immigrants inside the US, just as the Arizona law does. In 1798 the only way to get to the US was to come by ship, and that was controlled by the customs system in effect. (walking in from Canada or Florida was possible but very difficult). Rjensen (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with what you are saying. However, regulating aliens inside the country is different than regulating actual immigration, per se. A bit harder to do BTW which is why actual laws regulating immigration were passed. But much later. Student7 (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Law was in 1798 

message: I removed text which implied that the US had "heavy" immigration from China and India in the 21st century. The numbers given were 1 million each, not really a large number. Secondly, these numbers are pretty well eclipsed by Central American immigration, legal and illegal of 10s of millions. Another editor had cited "bias" in the text. It's much worse than that! It contradicts all logic! Even worse, it was uncited. Student7 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian and Chinese

message: We seem to have a rewritten article by an IP editor without any editorial summaries. It is okay to revert over my later edits BTW. I did not notice the preceding ones. Student7 (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewritten article

message: Massive sections of this article (including the majority of the "Immigration 1790 to 1849" section) have been taken word-for-word from a 2008 post on america.gov. Could someone address this, I am not able to? Icefall5 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes were introduced Nov 22, 2010 by an anonymous editor. The fact that it appears to have come from a U.S. government website may have led to the assumption that it was public domain material but the named author may argue against that. Rmhermen (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the essay was written by a leading scholar (Hasia Diner) and published by the US government, with no copyright notice. Normally that means public domain/no copyright. (it appears to be work for hire by the US government). In any case I have rewritten much of it and it now appears that little of Diner's original text survives. Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Plagiarism 

message: these statements seem to disagree. anyone know more?
Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility.[29]
Prior to 1890, the individual states, rather than the Federal government, regulated immigration into the United States.[31]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.106.80 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's useful to point it out. The Supreme Court can say anything it wants. It may or may not be enforced by the executive branch(es). Apparently that was done in 1875. Congress finally came to grips with it in 1890, 15 years later. In the meantime, the Supreme Court had the states on notice that their own immigration laws would probably be overturned. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to be explained clearly in the article.Rscragun (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information? 

message: The way you are using quotes here is unnatural and close to being weasel-words:
:much of the latter "illegal."
If you must qualify illegal, you could use words like "illegal at the time" or "deemed illegal." --139.78.253.106 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary quotation marks in lead 

message: This article doesn't even mention a region from which about a million people came to America. Read more at Poverty_in_Austrian_Galicia#Results. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galicia 

message: Took out words, "stupid people' and "monkey butts" in section discussing 1600 immigrants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.120.90 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed vandalism 

message: In the table of immigration compiled from census data, Korean immigration says zero, but I think this is obviously wrong.  Could somebody provide the correct data?  The source link is out of date, and one can retrieve old data from Internet Archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602183103/http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/ but, these data show numbers up until 1960.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buverf (talk • contribs) 12:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. It was some very old vandalism. Rmhermen (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics of modern Korean immigration = zero?   

message: The Immigration 1790 to 1849 section has a paragraph that is extremely unclear. It says
:...immigration totaled 8,385 in 1820, with immigration totals gradually increasing to 23,322 by the year 1830; for the 1820s decade immigration more than doubled to 143,000.
Is this comparing 1820 to 1830 and then comparing 1810--1820 (a period for which data are not reported) to 1820--1830? Rscragun (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting/unclear information in 1820-1830 paragraph?  

message: A section focused on Immigration Law would be intensely relevant and helpful.  Currently the section "Destinations" has much of this information.  But a Destination is irrelevant to questions such as (1) when were immigration laws first instituted?  (2) did immigration laws relate to the addition of new territories?  (2) how did immigration laws change over time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karin D. E. Everett (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration Law 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of immigration to the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060417075827/http://www.cbp.gov:80/xp/cgov/toolbox/about/history/ins_history.xml to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/about/history/ins_history.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful link. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of immigration to the United States. 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/20091206001455/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/ to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of immigration to the United States. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/nai_cilh/servitude.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012012108/http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0161940-0&templatename=%2Farti to http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0161940-0&templatename=%2Farti
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810221611/http://www.missouricivilwarmuseum.org/germancause.htm to http://www.missouricivilwarmuseum.org/germancause.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all. I added this new section after the section titled "1980s". I felt it was necessary to provide some information into IIRIRA which was a major piece of immigration legislation in the later half of the 20th century. Wikipedia does have a start level class page dedicated to this piece of legislation; however, I felt that it would be beneficial to add it to this page since it encompasses the history of US immigration. I specifically focused on IIRIRA's changes to illegal immigration and the asylum process. Scholarly resources were used to support the information. As this is my first Wiki contribution, I am certainly open to feedback. Cheers. Nicoleriver (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section: 1990s... 

message: Why the bloop does this section make it seem like slaves came voluntarily??? Ah yes a period of servitude then freedom!!
This is poor writing at best and mad mad mad historical revision at worst. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern colonies 

message: — Assignment last updated by Queen0527 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

message: — Assignment last updated by GLGaglyport (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why 158.120.147.188 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST3150