Talk:Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Martinthelee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aasaro4970. Peer reviewers: Nemerson4970, Sjmiatech, Emilycs4970, AEK7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AngelMarieSimmons.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marivvg.

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

A definite POV

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 [1]

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)

THe statement that the white population has been in decline is a white supremacist lie. The white population in America is still growing.

---

Please note that for statistical purposes US gov is including some hispanics as “white”, as well as mixed-white population. Overal the actual white population has been decreasing in absolute numbers too. Percentagewise whites have also decreased. Lastly they were never consulted on this fundamental topic. (I’m asian btw)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.219.166.30 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

Did this act also increase Latino immigration? no

---

Agreed. This article reads like a post on a white-supremacist forum. While this law's after effects are discussed at great length, there is very little attention paid to the details of law itself. On the supposed effects of this law, not enough references are cited--I don't mean to say that what's stated is flat out false, but if this law caused such a "huge change" in America, there ought to be certainly more published material (in addition to a David Frum book and a Boston Globe article) discussing this law's after effects, right? Deye8119 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

are you joking?

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)

It may be factually accurate, but the text implies that the white population of the U.S. is not growing at all, which is not true. It may not be growing as fast as other populations, but that is not the same thing. It should be altered.

NYPapo 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper Act name in this article dubious / Alert to wikipedia administrators, please wikify

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)

Correct title and full text

• 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)
  • P.S. - Most current immigration law is apparently at 8 USC Ch. 12; given the large number of sections that have been repealed, it was not trivial to find. -- Beland 21:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The title used most often on U.S. government web sites for P.L. 89-236 seems to be "Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965." I'm guessing that if we found the actual text of the law, it would begin "An Act to Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952." At any rate, that would seem to be the official title. I changed the title in the body of the entry--those with the power to do so should change the title of the entry.
  • There's a Lyndon B. Johnson site with a list of all legislation passed by the 89th Congress here. The title of H.R. 2580 is Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other Purposes signed by Lyndon Johnson on 10/03/65. You can also view the primary source of "Immigration : hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Eighty-ninth Congress, first session on H.R. 2580 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes" via any of the resources listed here. There's also a Harvard paper that calls it "Immigration and Nationality Act amendments (HR 2580)" and dates the House bill 9/22/65 here. And there's a primary source (scanned image of a paper written by Ed Kennedy) calling it "The Immigration Act of 1965" here. And there's yet another compilation of 89th congress legislation calling it "HR 2580 Amendment Concerning Cuban Refugees, 1965" here. You can read a transcript of Lyndon Johnson's speech after signing the bill on October 3, 1965 here, in which he devotes half his speech to addressing asylum for Cubans -- Thoreaulylazy 03:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Moved page to Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 because Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 was occupied. Hopefully someone who knows how to move to a page that already exists will fix that. -- Thoreaulylazy 03:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Explain the purpose of the act and what it did more directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.38.187 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This act is the most discrimanatory act in history

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).

I think the answer has to do with consequences resulting from the Monroe Doctrine, that migration to the U.S. from the Western Hemisphere was not greatly restricted until the 1920's. Moreover, for the purposes of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, all Mexican citizens were declared "white" for purposes of the law, even though socially and judicially they were not given all the rights of "white" people. NYPapo 06:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your standpoint is predominately invalid, as this article is to have an impartial tone unless otherwise connotated by the article's intention to address such standpoints. To answer your question, however, it is a discrimanatory act in sofar as it does in fact single out a particular group of people, but this is justifiable due to the way in which this particular group is acting and moreover entering the country illegally. 21:57, 13 February (EST).

INA as amended mergers

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)

POV Concerns

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)

This article is HIDEOUS

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)

Apostrophes do not plurals make. 14.203.77.97 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Major edit of 06 May 2008

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)

POV discussion initiated by User:Bruxism

Bruxism posted a {{pov}} 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)

I've removed the tag. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag is back WhisperToMe (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Kennedy who?

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)

• It's Ted Kennedy, stated in the beginning of the article WhisperToMe (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. The quote by him is repeated in the "Results" section though. Ken (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

POV

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)

El Tipping Pointo

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)

Bureaucrats redefining motherhood as it applies to this law

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)

Did this act abolish quotas or not? This article is equivocal on that point.

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)

• The 1965 act ended the national origins quotas established in the 1924 act, and applied numerical quotas to all countries. For the first time, quotas applied to countries in the western hemisphere. Previously there had been no quotas for the western hemisphere (with Mexico and Canada being the main sources of immigrants). For a source on this see Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton University Press, 2004), chapter 7. Toby Higbie (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

New Changes - March 1, 2016

I have restructured the article in various ways. The article still needs many major changes, especially the "Long-Term Impact" section. Various of the references are questionable or sometimes there are no references listed.

Trump's temporary travel ban

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)

Family reunification vs. chain migration and impact on ethnic diversity

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)

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)

Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit without explanation

Snooganssnoogans nearly instantly reverted my March 3 edit without explanation. I posted on his talk page the same day, and it is now March 8th and he has not responded (nor has he responded to any of the other editors' posts on his talk page). So I'm posting here as a step before requesting a third opinion. I'm new to this dispute thing, and I'm trying to do it right.

My edit replaced "and unintentionally" with direct quotes from the already-cited NPR article. The article did not conclude that the demographic change was unintentional; at best, it presented multiple viewpoints on that question.

My new sentence with its direct quotes was: The change "was not popular," so "many in Congress had argued that little would change," but a Customs and Immigration Services booklet predicted "rapid" chain migration of "foreign-born minorities."

If he didn't like my edit, I welcomed him to improve it. But to simply revert it without even a comment is unfair. I edited the Wikipedia article because the language was misleading and inaccurate. If we disagree, we should be able to come up with wording that reflects the complexity of the topic by quoting and citing sources and not stating our own personal conclusions.

Exmartian

I would recommend a different revision based on the consensus among researchers. If you can get access to this article, I recommend a read: Daniel Tichenor, "Lyndon Johnson's Ambivalent Reform: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965," Presidential Studies Quarterly, volume 46, pp. 691-705. Citing a number of published studies, the author describes how reform advocates compromised from their initial bill (replacing the national origins system with a skill-based system) to a system of family reunification advocated by Ohio Democrat Michael Feighan (chair of a key House subcommittee): "Feighan was convinced (incorrectly, as he later discovered) that reserving most visas for immigrants with family ties to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents would decidedly favor European applicants and thus maintain the nation's ethnic and racial makeup." Most likely the pamphlet cited in the NPR story reflects the position of those who were against eliminating the "Asiatic Barred Zone," which prohibited most immigration from Asia and dated back to 1917. Toby Higbie (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Toby. What I'd like to get into the Wikipedia article is the raw fact from the cited NPR article at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5391395 that an official publication of Customs and Immigration Services accurately predicted "rapid" chain migration of "foreign-born minorities." The reason I read the article was because it was cited as the source of the statement in the Wikipedia article that the demographic change was unintentional, which surprised me, and yet the article reaches no such conclusion. It doesn't indicate a consensus either. In any case, even if there were a consensus, it's still just a matter of opinion, which can never be a matter of fact, whether Feighan believed what he said or knew better. But what Customs and Immigration Services knew, based on their detailed data and models, is not a matter of opinion, but of hard fact on paper. Also, the article doesn't mention Asia, and the booklet predicts immigration based on foreign-born minorities already in the US, so if Asia were barred before then Asians would not be part of the predicted migration. Could you suggest a non-partisan way to summarize the following paragraph from the NPR article into a sentence in the Wikipedia article:

"In 1965, the political elite on Capitol Hill may not have predicted a mass increase in immigration. But Marian Smith, the historian for Customs and Immigration Services, showed me a small agency booklet from 1966 that certainly did. It explains how each provision in the new law would lead to a rapid increase in applications and a big jump in workload -- more and more so as word trickled out to those newly eligible to come. Smith says a lifetime of immigration backlogs had built up among America's foreign-born minorities. These immigrants would petition for relatives to come to the United States, and those relatives in turn would petition for other family members. Demand from post-colonial countries in Asia and Africa, she notes, jumped after World War II."

Exmartian (talk) 14 March 2018

The problem is that there are two separate ideas embedded in that quote. First, that by 1965 there was a backlog of demand for family reunification among naturalized immigrants; and second, that migration from Asia and Africa rose after 1965. The vast majority of naturalized immigrants in the U.S. in 1965 were from European countries (due to provisions of the the 1924 law). So the backlog would have been from Europeans. By 1965, however, Europeans were not as eager to move to the U.S. as they had been decades earlier. The new sources of migration came from Latin America and Asia (and then decades later from Africa). Eventually, many of these new immigrants used the family reunificaiton provisions to bring their families to the U.S.--but not immediately as a cause of the 1965 law. Toby Higbie (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The article seems to disagree with you. You write, "the backlog would have been from Europeans." The article says, "a lifetime of immigration backlogs had built up among America's foreign-born minorities." The Europeans aren't minorities. The paragraph also says, "as word trickled out to those newly eligible to come", so it's talking about non-Europeans who weren't allowed to come before, since the Europeans were allowed to come before. Also, I think you might be implying that the "rapid" migration of "foreign-born minorities" was unexpected, when that's literally what the booklet predicted, regardless of what you think of the booklet's reasoning. That prediction is the one fact I'm trying to add to the Wikipedia article.

Look, as Wikipedia editors, it's not our job to analyze history, but to state the facts as given by outside sources. In fact, it's against Wikipedia policy to do our own analysis. I believe my original edit is directly supported by the article, particularly since most of it consists of direct quotes from the article:

The change "was not popular," so "many in Congress had argued that little would change," but a Customs and Immigration Services booklet predicted "rapid" chain migration of "foreign-born minorities."

But I'm willing to change my edit in any way that preserves the one fact that I'm trying to get in there, the prediction made by the official Customs and Immigration booklet at the time (which, even if some in Congress hadn't read, surely LBJ was informed of by his own Immigration department). But I don't mention LBJ, since we can at most speculate. I'm just focused on a single fact which most people don't know. I'm guessing that, even as a history professor, you didn't know about the Customs & Immigration publication either.

Exmartian (talk) 14 March 2018

Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources says in part: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (see: [Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources]). My interpretation is based on several academic articles/books. It would be fascinating to see the pamphlet mentioned in the NPR article (although that would be primary research, and generally discouraged for Wikipedia). As for the what is meant by "minorities" in the NPR article, that isn't clear, nor is it clear that the phrase is from the pamphlet or if it is the author's phrasing. There was very little immigration from Africa until after the 1965 law, for instance, so very little pent up demand. If you feel compelled to add this idea, I think you need to be clear that there is evidence that, after passage of the new law some in the federal immigration agency recognized that the family unification measures would lead to increased migration by non-Europeans (with the reference to the NPR article). That does not support the idea that the framers of the bill understood that would happen, which historians say was not the case because it was opponents of immigration who added the family reunification provisions hoping it would maintain the existing demographic mix. Another approach would be to write on the page for Chain_migration where there is an undeveloped section on the current controversy. Toby Higbie (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure any change I make will be immediately reverted by Snooganssnoogans. Toby, do you have experience in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process? The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page refers to getting a third opinion "for small disputes involving only two editors, but the Wikipedia:Third opinion page says to discuss on the article's talk page first, by which point there are more than 2 opinions. Another option it lists is the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process.

Would you support my edit if I simply add this sentence (followed by the existing link to the NPR article):

Right after the law passed, a 1966 Customs and Immigration Services booklet predicted "rapid" chain migration of "foreign-born minorities."

My preference is also to get in the NPR article's quote about the law being unpopular, so would you support:

The new law "was not popular," and a 1966 Customs and Immigration Services booklet predicted "rapid" chain migration of "foreign-born minorities."

Hey! I spent a few months working on research into this topic and I have a small library of peer reviewed articles on the topic that might be very relevant or your work on the article. I think the approach you're taking that takes a more critical view of the motivations of the act is very much in line with the academic research. I'm happy to share these with you if you contact my talk page I can get you contact info!Paolorausch (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The travel ban was for just 4 months

it should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.41 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Illegal entry classified a misdemeanor

per Illegal_entry#United_States

The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

There is no explanation of this here that I can see. It deserves an entire section. What was the treatment of illegal entry in 1964 and earlier? Was it still a misdemeanor? A lesser crime? A greater one? Whether it made a change or maintained a policy, as the most recent law still in effect, an explanation on this important issue would be valuable. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

interesting, i wonder if anyone has a citationPaolorausch (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but

• Misdemeanor#United States says: "In the United States, misdemeanors are typically crimes with a maximum punishment of 12 months of incarceration, ...". I have not bothered chasing down a cite for that.
• https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9025.html says:

Sec. 275. [8 U.S.C. 1325] (a) Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. [...]

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Demographic change

Some sources assert that this alteration was intentional; others assert that it was unintentional.

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)

Preceding jus sanguinis policy

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)

Section 235/Remain in Mexico policy?

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)

• There is a Wikipedia entry for Remain in Mexico: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remain_in_Mexico that includes a short section on the policy during the Biden administration. There is another entry on the immigration policy of the Trump administration that includes a section on "Remain in Mexico" and links to the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyhigbie (talk • contribs) 17:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Center for Immigration Studies is not a reliable source. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

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)

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, signed into law by President LBJ on October 3, 1965.

Photograph credit: Yoichi Okamoto

Recently featured:

"Effective1 December 1965; 57 years ago 1 July 1968; 55 years ago" This is unclear. When did it become effective? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarity?

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)