Talk:Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

message: This is absurd; the word 'American' does not refer to white/fair/unfair/whatever... If you are referring to origins and ancestries, check another entry in wikimedia at 
Quoting from someone whose only claim to fame is owning a anti-immigration web-site makes no sense. America has been proud of 'attracting talent from all parts of the world'; when did this become a race issue?!?
------------------------------------------------------- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.161.122 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Internet you could be a dog, there's no reason to believe you are Asian, especially with what appears to be a racist definition of white to exclude Hispanics.  Doug Weller talk 15:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A definite POV 

message: Before the act was installed America was over 90 percent white and the asian community was almost dead. Now America is 69.1 percent white and the asians are the 3rd largest minority group. The white population dies every year while the minority population grows. The line should be reinstated its factually accurate. This is an encyclopedia not an opinion page. Pls look for facts before you remove things.
JJstroker 06:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  are you joking? 

message: There is no factual authority on the web that will corroborate with the name,
"Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965", as identified in the text of this article. Note that the name differs from the name at the head of this page.
Rather, we can see "Hart-Cellar Act"; "Immigration Reform Act." Administrators or anyone else, please resolve this discrepancy. No corroboration can even be found for "Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965." (Those very few instances can be considered as coming from this wikipedia error. 
This is a major piece of legislation; too important to let sit uncorrected and imprecise.
Dogru144 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Act name in this article dubious / Alert to wikipedia administrators, please wikify 

message: * I changed the title to "Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965", since I see more places online (excluding Wikipedia copies) that use that than "Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965". I could not find the official title online, though "Hart-Cellar Act" and "Immigration Act of 1965" do seem to be popular. This appears to be Public Law 89–236, which is not available online at the Library of Congress. If someone with access to a law library can find the title as stated in the actual law, that would be very helpful. It would be super if the full text could be posted on Wikisource, since it does not seem to be available online at the moment. -- Beland 21:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct title and full text

message: Apparently, someone forgot to mention to the US lawmakers that Hispanic/Latino is not a race but an ethnic makeup. Why on earth did they single out an entire ethnic group, lump them all together and seperate them from the rest of the ethnicities? Think about it. Apparently, Anglos, Italians, Germans and Nords can all mark down white/non-hispanic, while Hispanics (who are a White European sub-set) are lumped in with other races? 
That is as foolish as Europeans labeling all African American and Native American immigrants as ANGLO because they speak an ANGLO language, have ANGLO names and have a similar ANGLO culture from an ANGLO derived country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.172.10 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This act is the most discrimanatory act in history 

message: It's kind of silly that the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act should have its own article. It is commonly referred to as the "INA as amended," and 1965 is but one of the more important amendments (1989 and 2001 also had significant changes). We should probably be merging this as a section of the main article.Hwonder talk contribs 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: INA as amended mergers

message: This article reads as highly prejudicial, think it needs a rewrite. I understand that immigration and race are sensitive topics, but its no excuse for poor encyclopedic quality. 68.213.40.127 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Concerns 

message: not only does it read as highly prejudicial, but it reads like a blatant criticism of JFK, which it is. Who could possible think that "This statement would be more accurate with the "not's" removed" is any kind of way to write a balanced article. Not only should this be rewritten, but whomever wrote this should be banned.--71.82.130.41 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is HIDEOUS 

message: Here's the thing ... This article was absolute crap. No citations, no supporting data, nothing but cut and paste crap. The use of the word "white" was rather "supremacist" as well, especially when dealing with non-European countries ('NOTE': not non-White).
=== Part One ===
In the end, this act dramatically changed the face of American society by making it a multicultural and multiethnic nation. In opinion of the author of this article, the main reason for the Immigration Act of 1965 was the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement was to rid America of racial/ethnic discrimination. Two other bills, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Johnson signed for the same reason. The Immigration Act was therefore a corrective measure instituted to atone for past history of discrimination in immigration.
In [the] opinion of the author of this article, ... Where, in Wikipedia, does this phrase belong? Including this qualifier invalidates anything else the author has to say. The section was removed in its entirety.
=== Part Two ===
Two earlier laws reflecting this discrimination were the National Origins Act of the 1924 and the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. Both of these granted residency on the basis of national origin, and were particularly discriminative towards Asians. For instance, under the McCarran-Walter Act, while the quota for European immigrants was 149,667, the quota for Asian immigrants was 2,990, and the African quota was 1,400.
With the removal of the 'opinion' section, this section lost its relevance and was also removed. Also, there are no citations for the data.
=== Part Three ===
The Immigration Act of 1965, therefore, shifted the focus to non-European countries, especially those of the third world. Both Johnson and President Kennedy wished that by reforming immigration law, they would not only gain auspicious international relations (especially with non-White nations), but they would also confirm Americas bedrock principles of America being a free country, where everyone is considered equal.
This section was reworded and remains mostly intact.
=== Part Four ===
The preference in the law for skilled workers changed the traditional pathway to immigration which lead to difficulties for manual laborers from countries such as Mexico in obtaining legal permission to enter the United States.
Poor word choices, no tie-in with the rest of the article, extraneous mention of one Nationality, no references. Removed completely.
=== Part Five ===
Immigrants granted residency in America are now considered for admittance based on skill or for family reunification. More specifically, immigrants are accepted according to following preferences: fiance(e)s of American citizens who have promised to marry those American citizens (they receive K-1 visas); unmarried adults whose parents are American citizens, spouses and offspring of permanent residents, gifted professionals, scientists, and artists. The last preferences are the following: married offspring of American citizens, siblings of adult citizens, skilled/unskilled individuals of occupations lacking workers in America, and refugees from either communist (or communist-controlled) countries, or those from the Middle-East. The Immigration Act of 1965 became law on July 1, 1968. Even though the Immigration Act of 1965 was not implemented to bring an immediate end to discrimination, it was definitely seen as a major contributor in ending it.
No transitory explanation for inclusion of modern standards in a historical review. No basis for comparison between eras at this level of detail. Poorly worded. 'The Immigration Act of 1965' became law on July 1, 1968. salvaged, reworded, and remains as the last line of the article. The last sentence of the section is opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedic article.
=== Part Six ===
According to recent Census data (see "U.S. Fertility Rate Hits 35-Year High, Stabilizing Population" in external links for details), the entire post-1970 population growth in the U.S. is due to foreign immigration. Since 1971, the fertility rate of the native population stayed below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman during her lifetime, and only recently reached the replacement level due to high fertility rates of Hispanics.
*U.S. Fertility Rate Hits 35-Year High, Stabilizing Population, December 21, 2007
I am unclear as to why this is even relevant. The final phrase of the section is patently stereotypical and inflammatory. It has no place in this article. If a section on 'Effects of the Immigration and Nationality Law of 1965' were included, a summary of the linked-to story could be included, but leave the conclusions to the original author.
=== Summary of the Edit ===
This article needs more work by people without an agenda to push.
See also: 
* Immigration_Act_of_1924
* Chinese_Exclusion_Act_of_1882
* Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
Signed this date by: Reverend Lee (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit of 06 May 2008 

message: This article needs more work by people without an agenda to push.
See also: 
* Immigration_Act_of_1924
* Chinese_Exclusion_Act_of_1882
* Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
Signed this date by: Reverend Lee (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of the Edit 

message: Bruxism posted a  tag here, saying "A number of editors have noted this article is POV, and no one has touched it since May". Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV tag is back WhisperToMe (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was added back anonymously by 76.112.161.122 in this 11:19, April 2, 2009 edit, which has no edit summary. I haven't examined all the edits in between, but this 11:47, June 10, 2009 edit by anon 71.146.158.218 blanked the section containing the tag with an edit summary saying, "There are many newspaper articles on many subjects. Why are they in an encyclopedia?" User:BomBom reverted that, restoring the section and the tag, with an edit summary saying, "the information from newspapers was relevant and properly referenced." If anon 71.146.158.218 is paying attention here, I would refer him or her to the WP:POV essay, as well as the WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. The article does not express a POV, it accurately reports what reliable sources quote notable figures who are concerned with the article topic hgave said about the article topic. I am removing the tag. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV discussion initiated by [[User:Bruxism]] 

message: The article mentions "Kennedy". Which Kennedy? JFK? If Johnson was president at the time that seems unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenhullett (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy who? 

message: I'm sorry but the last paragraph is just offensive in its implications. 
Quote: "The waves of immigration has raised both possibilities and problems. Many immigrants have taken advantage of the abundance of opportunities in the US. The Vietnamese refugees from 1975 have an average income above the national average. Asians and Pacific Islanders constituted one-fifth of the students in California's public universities by 2000." 
What the hell?
Abundance of opportunities? For whom? Definitely not for those who are discriminated. 
And "taken advantage"? That's sounds like something bad, something wrong to do (the way the paragraph is phrased gives that impression, at least), while making the most of your life is nothing wrong. So new-ish immigrants have done well in the US, according to this quote, and that is called "taking advantage of" America's "abundance"? Is immigrants being largely represented (allegedly) in universities "problematic"? How? People immigrate to the US to have a better life and that's seen as a problem? Why would they immigrate otherwise? Why let them in if you (referring to the person who wrote this) want them to lead unsuccessful lives and to not educate themselves? People don't come to the US to be slaves for a Master. Not voluntarily.
Oh how awful that those refugees manage to make more than average Joe. And damn those Asians for being ambitious.
Another quote: "The problems have centered on questions of multicultural identity as opposed to the melting-pot idea, debates on the economic impact of immigration, impact of illegal immigration, and fears of becoming a polyglot nation with English not the primary language."
That is not a genuine "problem" as it is called, that is speculation, paranoia and xenophobia. The problem is not with immigration but with those "worried" about it. Truthbomb: America has always been a "polyglot" (I guess you mean multilingual) "nation" (you mean society, right?). Those people who worry about English not being the "primary" language (again what does that mean?) must be clueless and as such don't deserve a mention on a serious Wikipedia article.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Is it worth adding something about Ann Coulter's outspoken opposition to the law and her claim that it has had a negative effect on American demography? I am referring to her article "America Nears El Tipping Pointo" (<http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-12-05.html>).Poldy Bloom (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Tipping Pointo 

message: http://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-expands-definition-mother-and-parent-include-gestational-mothers-using-assisted-reproductive-technology-art
Perhaps someone with a legal background could add and address this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.35.122 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucrats redefining motherhood as it applies to this law 

message: Can someone who is an expert please correct or clarify the following? This act is described as having abolished immigration quotas, yet the article describes the new system imposed by this act as also restricted by a quota system. 
The first line of the second paragraph reads: "The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system..."
The second line of that same paragraph, describing the new system, reads:  "Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota..."
So which is it?  Were national-origins quotas abolished, or not?  Or are national-origins quotas and country-origins quotas substantially different concepts? If so, please clarify. 
Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdobrienhaiti13 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did this act abolish quotas or not? This article is equivocal on that point. 

message: So this line at the bottom has nothing to do with the immigration and nationality act of 1965.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B00D:C424:6CAF:DECE:3B4:14E1 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump's temporary travel ban 

message: This edit, which raised a concern about the use of these terms in this article caught my eye. I don't agree that the fix applied by the edit is a good one, but I've let it stand for now and am raising the matter for discussion by regular editors of this article.
However, I have removed the part of the sentence there which read, " and consequently a more ethnically diverse population." I looked at the two supporting sources cited and did not find support for that. One of the sources cited says, "Feighan insisted on “family unification” as the top priority in immigration policy under the 1965 Act, rather than “employability.” His thought was that favoring those immigrants who already had relatives in the United States would serve to maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. Instead, that change led to the phenomenon of chain migration, which came to be the driving force in immigration in future years.", which isn't what the article asserted. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The challenge here is that "chain migration" has become a negative talking point for contemporary advocates of restriction, rather than a sociological term. The authors of the 1965 law imagined that "chain migration" would insure that future immigrants would come from Europe. That did not happen. Would it be acceptable to frame this development as an unintended consequence of the family unification provisions? Toby Higbie (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Family reunification'' vs. ''chain migration'' and impact on ethnic diversity 

message: it should be mentioned in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.41 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The travel ban was for just 4 months 

message: Chin (source #1) does conclude that the Act was intended to "take race out of America's immigration policy", but in opposition to what he calls "the standard view that Congress did not anticipate a change in the racial demographics of the immigration stream" (link). Likewise, Chin (source #2) states, "many [scholars] contend that the demographic shift was unwelcome and unanticipated" (link). So "some sources" here really refers to Chin himself. I suggest eliminating the weasel words and getting rid of source #3, an opinion column by a non-expert. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic change 

message: per https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/adopt_ref/adoption-FAQs/child-citizenship-act-of-2000.html
:Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA 320) provides that children acquire U.S. citizenship if they satisfy certain requirements before age 18 which include:
*Have at least one U.S. citizen parent by birth or naturalization
I expect language like this existed prior to 1965 giving birthright citizenship if one parent is a citizen, but I'm not sure what section it would have been in the preceding Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Would anyone know, and if it was altered in any way? WakandaQT (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Preceding [[jus sanguinis]] policy

message: I'm unsure as to which wikipedia page should discuss the disputed Section 235 of the INA, and I'm confused as to why it's not even mentioned in this article. See https://cis.org/Arthur/SCOTUS-Biden-Must-Continue-Implement-Remain-Mexico-Good-Faith for details on why Section 235 seems important - yet wikipedia returns no results when searched for "section 235". Help? Oathed (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 235/Remain in Mexico policy? 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:President Lyndon B. Johnson Signing of the Immigration Act of 1965 (02) - restoration1.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 3, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-08-03. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: Under LEGACY, the last sentence of the 1st paragraph reads: "If the bill and its subsequent immigration waves since had not been passed, it is estimated by Pew Research that the U.S. would have been in 2015: 75% Non-Hispanic White, 14% Black, 8% Hispanic and less than 1% Asian."
But should there not be another sentence that tells what the actual demographics are? Someone please add. Thanks 170.85.56.96 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity?