Talk:Immigration Act of 1924

message: 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)
thread_title: New edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Racial Segregation

message: 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)
thread_title: Effect on Japan/US relationship and other international consequences

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Influence in Mexico?

message: This is the same Act as National Origins Quota Act, right?—Markles 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anti Catholicism +Anti Semitism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Floor Debates 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[National Origins Quota Act]] forwarded here

message: 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.
:Do you have a cite for Grant being on the sidelines? -Will Beback 02:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -Will Beback 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Link down?

message: That section is quite confusing and really needs to be re-written... 140.233.13.53 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Immigration Stats

message: 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)
replies: text: Done, a few weeks ago. Thanks. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from National Origins Quota of 1924 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Jews as a distinct legal group? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First sentence of the body. 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Latin American immigration paragraph 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Source 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1929 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jbjohnson123 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Immigration to the U.S.