Talk:Immigration to the United States/Archive 1

Other Groups
I thought that it is important to note the large numbers of Irish, which came in signifigant number between 1820-1930 (4.5 million.) These article also leaves out the Scandinavians which came in large numbers during this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.84.78 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2005 (UTC)
 * you can found some information about Irish inmigrants searching in Saint Patrick's Battalion around the years 1846-1848.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.221.46.34 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2005 (UTC)

there is also no mention of croatian/yugoslavian immigrants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.52.58 (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

the problems is that they keep deleting all of that information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.25.229 (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

false info [what's false??]
Unfree labor: Slave trade, indentured servitude and convict shipments The majority of African slaves came to the future United States before it gained independence. The numbers remain less than clear, but it is believed that some 300,000 slaves arrived in the British North American colonies before Independence, and some 100,000 were imported in the period between the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. The slave trade was made illegal in 1808, upon the expiration of a constitutional clause prohibiting such a law (Article 1, section 9). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.127.41 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

And they also migrated because of the raul in the South. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.126.241 (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

work visas
I am beginning to edit the work visa section. I will likely update this section further to make it more accurate and to give broader discussion of the various categories of work visas available.

I previously deleted a section from a prior edit that discussed some policy arguments about 21st century H-1B users from India. While the specifics, I think, of that section were not accurate (e.g., H-1b started decades ago and not at beginning of 21st century; it is not limited to Indians; there is no requirement for H-1B employers to show a lack of US workers except where the employer is H-1B dependent), the general policy debate is important to keep and I will try to address it in future posts.

You will also see much discussion about the other work visa categories, as time permits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Baesler (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Significant POV Problem in the Article
Perhaps the main problem is the attempt to discuss the legal immigration which built America in the same context as the present, massive wave of illegal immigration. Supporters of illegal immigration typically tend to conflate the two when they are actually quite different.

The article doesn't even mention that sanctuary cities refused to get local police officers trained to enforce immigration law. This is possible, and many towns do it. The article also neglects to mention that these sanctuary cities receive federal monies in many forms even while they are refusing to enforce, or sometimes even recognize, federal law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.154.103 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration POV problem
I am not an expert by any means in this field, but there seems to be a major point of view problem in this article with regard to illegal immigration. The most glaring problem is that of omission--the fact that there are no arguments in support of reducing illegal immigration, other than racism. Preserving national identity, national security, the undesirability of underground economies, and the heavy toll that mass immigration to border areas takes on local, state, and federal tax bases should not be ignored. Furthermore, characterizing illegal immigrants as "economic refugees" overstates the case. Mexico is relatively poor, but hardly bereft of economic opportunity. Along the same lines, there is very little mention of how many governments to some extent encourage illegal immigration, thus getting rid of extra population and reaping the benefits of dollars sent home from the US. Finally, placing "illegal immigration" within sneer quotes only emphasizes the author's slanted POV.


 * Even with a number of other arguments against illegal immigration present, there is one blatant one missing, and perhaps the most central: it is against the law. The details of this argument would follow that if we're going to have immigrants come over at will, then so be it - but it needs to be changed officially in our laws through due process. The very fact of its illegality and violation of current law in lieu of seeking to get the laws changed officially is reason enough to oppose it and work to minimize it.  This would be true even if every other economic and political argument against illegal immigration were false.--Daniel 12:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I used to live close to I-95 at the state line and can people you that every day thousands of people were speeding--that is they entered Connecticut illegally. It could be stopped by hiring hundreds of extra police and giving out millions of dollars in fines, but in fact it is tolerated. Some of the speeders are listening to talk radio voices denouncing illegal entry into Arizona. The point is that "law-breaking" is a mere rhetorical device and is not the basic issue at all. Rjensen 14:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you on that one. According to the Constitution, there has to be free interstate travel. Therefore, U.S. citizens can enter any state. As for the speeding analogy, I have no idea where you are going with that. Aoeu 05:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Americans tolerate a lot of "illegal" activity every day--crossing the border without papers has the same illegality as speeding. Rjensen 05:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to go in a ten page debate on this ridiculous analogy comparing speeding to illegal immigration. Speeding is against the law, and those who do should be prosecuted. Same goes for any law-breakers, including illegal immigrants. Aoeu 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's keep in mind that many (numbers vary depending on who you Google) illegal immigrants enter the country legally but overstay their visas. So crossing the border without papers is not the only issue.Offshore1 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have toned down the incredible liberal slant on the article. It was obvious that whoever wrote this section fabricated information and injected their own political agenda into an NPOV article. I have cited credible sources and tried my best to ensure that these sources were non-partisan. I will need the support of the community to prevent vandalism (hidden in this case) in order to prevent any further liberal slanted viewpoints from being injected into this section. This goes the same for any extreme conservative agenda as well. Aoeu 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding above comment
As an immigration lawyer, I generally support broadening opportunities for immigration. However, I agree with the above comment that the section on illegal immigration is quite slanted. If we want to educate a 12 year old who is doing a research project on illegal immigration, how do we educate the person? The first part of the current text gives a generally informative overview, but then it falls into advocacy. The section should be more balanced, e.g., "immigration advocates contend a.b.c, while restrictionists contend x,y,z."

Comment regarding above comment
I agree, and some of the information in the illegal immigration section is not only slanted but flat out wrong, specifically the part that reads: "On the other hand, those who would reduce immigration make the point that illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes, social security taxes or other taxes collected only from citizens with social security numbers, yet those illegal immigrants do utilize the services and structures paid for by public money. Much of this argument is based on false information. All employers are required by law to withhold income and payroll taxes." This last sentence is simply not true. Employers do not have to withhold on those they employ as independent contractors/1099s, who have to report and pay taxes on their own prerogative. Moreover, there is no way for the IRS to check (or even be aware of the existence) of undocumented 1099s, since there must be a social security number to file the form. I am going to delete the part of this section which I emphasized by the beginning of the next work week if no one else objects. LoveCoates 10:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tried to clean up the POV in this section...but the issues are very important and timely and have to be covered. Rjensen 10:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding above comment
Also, what is the purpose of characterizing the problem as "dirty Mexicans"? (quote "most notoriously dirty Mexicans in the USA without legal sanction"). There is a link using that title to a nonexistent article. Was this adjective intended as a mention of a stereotypical name often used? If so, it should be marked as such, with quotes or "so called..." Otherwise, with the most open mind available, I see no purpose for such phrasing other than revealing a not-so-subtle racist intent by a biased submitter.


 * Could you all please sign your posts? You can do so by adding four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~ but with no spaces) after your posts. Moncrief 19:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that "dirty Mexicans" has no place in this article and have removed it. Thanks for catching that. -Willmcw 20:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment regarding above comment
I tagged a part of the illegal immigrant section for clean-up. I think it needs to be rewritten from scratch. We should concentrate on the economic impact(wages, social security, taxes, exodus of money to Mexico ect.) and some hard numbers; how many undocumented people have come across the open border with Mexico (and Canada) and how many are here now. We need to stay NPOV in tone, as well as balance too. I'm a little busy, I encourage anyone to do the re-write.

Mytwocents 17:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers don't agree
from the census: (1930 <--  1850)

28; Germany; 1,608,814; 1,686,108; 2,311,237; 2,663,418; 2,784,894; 1,966,742; 1,690,533; 1,276,075; 583,774

looks close to 15 mil, eh?

from right below it:

"Between 1850 and 1930 about 5 million Germans immigrated to the United States with a peak in the years between 1881 and 1885, when a million Germans left Germany and settled mostly in the Midwest." perhaps vandalism?

or maybe i'm just confused... qnaal 21:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In the censuses they'd be counting many of the same people over and over (assuming that immigrants didn't arrive, get counted, then die), so the different censuses shouldn't just be added together. There's a big jump in the 1880s. All in all, the two assertions seem to be roughly in agreement. -Willmcw 22:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am responsible for originally pasting the Giant Chart o' Doom into the article, since the stats are somewhat hard to locate otherwise. The #s are cumulative, and the title is "Region and Country or Area of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population" -- so people are indeed counted many time, I will clarify.  Incidentally, can someone help format the chart?  It seems to have gotten progressively more messed-up.  The original is at this page. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

cleaning up obvious graffiti - m. Kennedy.

There is also a huge discrepency when it comes to the amount of people who came from the Netherlands. The Article itself claims that 8,000 came with the founding of New Netherlands, yet the table holds only 6,000 dutch were here before 1790. This needs to be fixed.--69.21.147.67 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * a lot of Dutch went back and forth -- and they are hard to count. Rjensen 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the usage of the word 'Jews'
I changed the entry for "Jews" in the pre-1790 immigration table to 'Israel', as the table is meant to catagorize by nationality, not cultural or religious background (however you want to interpret the usage of the word 'Jew'). Perhaps it would be of further help to break things into statistics for both Israel and Palestine. Jehar 21:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this back - my (very) strong suspicion is that the original source cited would say "Jews" not "Israel" - given that the nation of Israel did not exist prior to 1790 and that I've never run across any migrants from this region (which was Ottoman controlled during the era) in any of my colonial-era researches. Plenty of Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, and other western and mediterranean Jews show up, on the other hand (cf. the Newport, Rhode Island Touro Synagogue). During this era, European notions of nationality weren't like ours, anyway, and Jews were in most places excluded from civil rights and sometimes considered a separate nationality. A check of the original would be useful in any event. Gary 21:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This leads me to the question of why Jews are included in this list, as it's focus is on nationality. I would be willing to cecede this if the source indeed could be verified. Jehar 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I share your question about nationality, though the cause is fundamentally historical. In most European societies in this era, Jews suffered legal disabilities, most of which were not removed until well into the 19th century. Jews weren't considered part of the nation - expulsions of Jews (and Protestants and Catholics, for that matter) occur throughout Europe throughout this period - thus all the "Portuguese Jews" who lived in the Netherlands. What nationality is the Portuguese-descended Jew who emigrated from the Netherlands to Newport? What if he were (I found one) born in Palestine? For us, I don't know. But at the time, the typical answer would have been "Jewish" or "Hebrew." Gary 12:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I put the original chart in the article a year or so ago, and it did indeed list "Jews" as a group. I can try to track this down, of course. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jews, which is different from Israeli was a major immigrant group, whither it is a nationality depends are you definition of nation. Rds865 (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

table 4
I suppose there is something wrong with table 4 that needs to be repaired. Thanks Hmains 21:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Table 4 is wonderful. I put it at the end. That way people who print out Wiki articles will get the text first and if they wish the table too. Rjensen 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Split This Article!
This article really should be split into several different articles. It's far too long and several topics deserve their own articles anyway, such as Illegal Immigration in the United States and perhaps an even more specific one covering the whole Mexican Immigration issue. Lantoka 10:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will try to do something also. Thanks for the suggestion. Wallie 10:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's there now. Thanks again. Wallie 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This article still seems somewhat long. May I propose splitting it roughly as follows: 1)	An article to contain FACTS—such as the current sections Contemporary immigration, Demography, Legal issues (perhaps better titled “immigration law” or “legalities” or “regulations”?), and possibly Effects of immigration. Possible article title: “Modern...” OR “Contemporary...” OR “Statistics on Immigration to the United States.”

2)	An article to contain OPINION—such as the sections on Public opinion, and possibly Effects of immigration (as they influence or have been influenced by public opinion and issues). Possible article title: “Issues with Immigration to the United States.” The articles could still be linked, as the current article is linked with the articles "History of..." and "Illegal immigration." Also: the current sections “Immigration in popular culture” and “Interpretive perspective” seem as though they might fit better with “History of Immigration to the United States.”

68.225.152.253 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)25 Jan 2008 Lee

That's right - this article is way too long. Looks like it is quite some time since anyone worked on it, but it still needs to be done. Maybe some of the people who wrote 20+ pages can take some responsibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.147.247 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Violent street gangs
What about the westies? and the hells kitchen area? arent you guys suposeed to be neutral? i see alot of racism in here against hispanic, btw most of the illegals in the us are mexicans about 90%, and they arent seen as hispanics by the rest of the hispanic world, they are seen as indians, btw all of those gangs are either mexicans and/or puerto ricans, but never from any of the south american countries, so it should be posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.25.229 (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MS-13 Violent gang of illegal immagrants estimated to have 8,000 to 10,000 members in the U.S.[] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.138.156 (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 18th Street gang (18th St) (over 20,000 members in LA county) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.191.17.38 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration
According to US law and jurisdiction, illegal immigration *is* a crime. Although not a felony like how The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 describes it to be, it is currently recognized as a civil offense. I have put that in my original revision of the illegal immigration section, but it appears somebody has taken this out. I would like to add that section back into there. Also, to make another clarification, illegal immigrants do not have any citizen rights in the United States. Therefore, I do not want another liberal slanted viewpoint on how the illegal immigrants' so-called "civil rights" have been taken away. Fact is, illegal immigrants *don't* have civil rights or voice in the United States government to begin with. Discussions will be welcome. Aoeu 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct that they have no voice in government; they also cannot vote, cannot hold federal jobs, and cannot run for office. But all persons on US soil have civil rights under the Constitution. Nonetheless, they can be deported under the normal process since they have violated the law.Offshore1 00:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is against the law to immigrate and not go through the official procedure to do so. However it is not a crime. If you take a look on this video: Drug war is a scam - Marc Stevens you will see quotes from courts defining what a crime is. A crime constitutes of two elements; A person's property or rights being violated by a second party which had causation was to do so. This because the United States Government was instituted for the purpose of protecting a person's rights and property and this is the only thing it can do. If someone crosses a line on the map no one individual's rights nor property has been violated. Hence not a crime. I noticed in the USA laws constantly contradicts other laws. But whatever it is, immigrating however done can not be a crime as it lacks the characteristics of a crime it lacks the necessary facts that a constitutes a crime. By facts I mean it lacks the action of actually hurting someone, say if you hit someone with a chair that is the fact that the crime consist of but you will be charged for 'assault and battering'. The 'assault and battering' is a legal opinion but it is not the crime. Likewise 'illegal immigration' is a legal opinion. But that is all it is... You see me point? Lord Metroid 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So it's against the law, but it's not a crime. That makes a lot of sense. I suggest you use more generally accepted definitions of "crime", rather than certain obscure legal theories. Not all crimes are property crimes (speeding, drunk driving, etc). Moreover, since the land of the United States belongs to its citizens, I could argue that trespassing in its territory uninvited is a property crime after all. BuboTitan 09:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Arguing about the definition of "crime" and "against the law" isn't going to get anywhere to improve this article. For what it's worth, though, there are numerous instances in the law where something is "against the law" (not-for-profit copyright violations, for example) but aren't punished by the government (rather, they might open the individual to other liability, such as a civil suit).  Take speeding tickets--you are breaking the law when you speed, but if you told an judge that you have committed a "crime" they would probably laugh, given that speeding tickets are generally merely citations, not misdemeanors or felonies.  Finally, and perhaps most important for this article, ask any immigration judge whether immigration proceedings are criminal proceedings, and you will get a "no" answer.  If they were, the immigrants would be afforded more rights, such as the right to an attorney, which they do not have. ·  jersyko   talk  13:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to have immigration to the US before the US existed?
I think one way to resolve the colonization vs. immigration controversy is to note that the article is entitled "immigration to the *United States*". Any movement before the United States was established cannot be immigration to the United States, and the question of whether they were immigrants or colonists cannot be relevant. Let's make it clear that this article is only about events that occured once the USA became a sovereign nation.


 * It's not possible to immigrate to a country that doesn't even exist yet. Aoeu 03:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No mystery here. People emigrated to New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia etc, which are now collectively known as "the United States". If in 3006 that area changes the name to XYZland, then historians will say that in the 18th century people migrated to XYZland. Rjensen 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So I guess the Native Americans moved to the United States back in the Stone Age. Aoeu 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We know from letters that the immigrants of 1700 knew that they were going to Pennsylvania--the same Pennsylvania we have today and part of USA. We do not know what migrants were thinking 15,000 years ago. Rjensen 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Emma Lazarus
I thought I'd add this verse including the bit about the "huddled masses" as it sums up the American attitude to immigration. Great isn't it? I am not an American myself. But whatever anyone might say about the United States, you can't argue with the decency and humanity of their attitude towards migration. Anyone can go there and get a fair go. In this respect, I think that the United States is a fine example for all other countries. Wallie 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

POV in article or just facts??
I came here looking for some general information and was surprised at the amount of POV phrasing and editorializing that seems to litter the article, especially in the section Historical Origins of U.S. Population. One random example I found skimming the text: "The Congress passed one of its smartest bills –the GI Bill of Rights of 1944--which gave nearly all its returning servicemen (the officers and men of the U.S. Merchant Marine were excluded for 44 years) the right to a government financed education. It had all the attributes of a good bill, the people had earned it, it was not considered a gift;". Who says it's one of the msartest bills Congress passed? In what way is it a "good" bill, and according to who? Shouldn't the reader decide these sorts of things? Another example: "The system is patently unfair to most American citizens most of whom do not want to be inundated and taxed to support an ever increasing number of new unassimilated and often poor immigrants." Excuse me? This is an encyclopedia, not a political soapbox. Unless I'm missing somethnig large portions of this article are in clear violation of the Neutral point of view policy.Dinoguy2 03:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * well the POV was pretty bad--I scraped off a lot. Rjensen 04:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well in 5 minutes time The following were found on the G.I. Bill. Do facts have a POV? I'm sure there are dozens of articles and literally millioins of people more who agree with this article including most history books--those that are allowed to talk about facts that is.

"The GI Bill, in both its versions, is widely regarded as a success. Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-Haw.) has called it the most significant legislation passed by Congress in the twentieth century. Over the years the program has cost $70 billion; Senator Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) considers it to be the best single investment the federal government has ever made. Military recruiters routinely promote its benefits as a way to attract and enlist the best and brightest young adults: in 1996, 95 percent of new armed services recruits were high school graduates, and in 1995, 95 percent of eligible recruits chose to enroll in the education program. And the GI Bill more than pays for itself: a 1986 Congressional Research Office study indicated that for every dollar invested in the GI Bill, the country recoups between $5.00 and $12.50, the result of increased taxes paid by veterans who have achieved higher incomes made possible by a college education. Beneficiaries of the GI Bill include Presidents George Bush and Gerald R. Ford; Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens, both of the Supreme Court; Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher; journalists David Brinkley and John Chancellor; actors Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman, and Jason Robards, Jr.; and former Dallas Cowboys football coach Tom Landry.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gi-bill

Congress in 1944 enacted what is arguably the greatest economic-development legislation of all time. It was the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, popularly known as the GI Bill of Rights.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20050928/OPINION03/509280332Fifteen

The GI Bill was great for WW II veterans, who could go to school full-time, get married, and rent an apartment. For Vietnam veterans such as myself, the GI Bill was a joke which had become eroded by inflation. If memory serves, I got about $140 per month, which was enough to pay for books and parking, but that small amount wouldn't even remotely approach an amount sufficient to live on and attend college full-time. Besides that, the GI Bill is for legal American citizens and has nothing whatever to do with the topic of illegal immigration.

--

Numerous studies show that low skilled immigrants cost the taxpayers a lot of money. Five minutes work with a calculator will show that the cost of providing all our social services can never be paid by any worker, legal or illegal, making the types of salaries most illegals make. In California the state and local government pays on average $8600/person in services and fees [Calif. Statistical Abstract] and the Federal government pays $6200/person [US Statistical Abstract] Since illegal immigrants have false social security cards and most do not get full Social Security benefits which is roughly half the $6200 federal payment they only get about $3100/ federal benefits. The taxpayer cost of every illegal is about $11,700 dollars against which they pay at most 10% state tax and 10% federal tax or less than $4000 tax on an average $20,000 houshold income for someone without a high school education. The cost of each illegal is $5,000 to $10,000/ea. per year even if they paid all of their taxes. Running a welfare state ain't cheap. Actually this estimate is probably low since low income people use a lot more resources than the average taxpayer.

The other major concern is if you have low skilled workers sponsoring their family they also will most likely be low skilled and a new taxpayer burden. Immigration could just as well be designed to where the country and the taxpayers at least break even in the costs/immigrant. There are literally 10s of millions of immigrants waiting to get a chance to live in America D&#39;lin


 * the GI Bill was a success but it had zero connection with immigration and so the passage was deleted. Low skilled workers pay taxes like everyone else--the difference is they collect very few welfare benefits. Most welfare in USA goes to people over 65-- and very few are illegal immigrants. The statistics that the anti-s use count the American born children as "products of the illegals" -- which I guess they are, but they are also full citizens with full rights to schooling. Rjensen 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The GI Bill had zero to do with immigration??--who do you think invented, designed and built all the marvelous new industries, put a man on moon etc. except those GI Bill trained men and women? A large part of the jobs as well as the work that we and immigrants do today was developed directly as result of this GI Bill training.

"Low skilled workers pay taxes like everyone else--the difference is they collect very few welfare benefits." The taxes they pay, all or only part, are only a minor part of a big "benefit" package they collect—that’s the whole point. They ( and us) collect a lot of other "benefits" just by being here. The vast majority of the costs the state local feds spends go to running governments, schools, hospitals, emergency rooms, highways, police, firemen, prisons, paying for bonds, debt, construction, garbage collection etc. etc.--all expensive benefits. All these services are heavily subsidized for low salary workers illegal or not. To pay enough taxes to pay for all the benefits you receive you need to make at least $50k/yr. Without the presence of illegals these funds they now use could be spent on increased benefits to the legal residents of all salary groups or even, heaven forbid, go towards fixing the highway, paying down debt or lowering taxes.

"Most welfare in USA goes to people over 65-- and very few are illegal immigrants." These are all half true statements, Social security and Medical are indeed very expensive, about half the federal payments per individual, but most seniors have supposedly already paid for them through their social security tax and medical tax they've been paying for the last 40 years and is normally not considered welfare. Some very poor or very sick seniors do indeed get healthy welfare equivalent payments. If an illegal is granted amnesty then indeed he will start picking up a new source of welfare as his contributions as a low salaried worker will not pay for his Social Security, Medical, EIC, disability benefits etc.

You seem to assume that all the kids here were born here--not true. The break down is somewhat uncertain but its a safe bet that at least half the children of illegals were not born here and it costs us over $10,000/yr. ea. to try and educate them. By the way who do you think pays for the maternity ward a lot of these kids are born in--you in higher hospital insurance or state and federal taxes. Who has to pay extra for un-insured motorist protection--you. Lets see there are about 16,000 illegals in our California prisons where they cost us about $25,000/yr. ea. The list goes on and on.

I stick with my original calculation that an illegal costs taxpayers $5,000 to $10,000/year ea. D&#39;lin 10:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Topic: Immigration to the United States
Let's try and stick to the subject matter

The topic of this article is to my mind primarily the history up to the current day about who immigrated to the United States. There seems to have been a lot of debate in the discussion page about POV and illegal immigrants. To my mind, the Illegal Immgrant debate, although current should represent only a small part of this article. If there is mention of this aspect, it should be brief, and covered fully in another article. Other topical questions such as the effects on the original inhabitants (the Indians), the slave trade, racism, religion, etc while all important, should also only be mentioned briefly in this article, and covered fully in separate articles, of which there are quite a few. I still believe that the overriding theme for immigation to the United States is that all people were and still are welcome whatever their background, and that this is what has made the United States great. Even though some would strongly disagree with parts of this sentence, they would recognise there is at least some truth in it. Wallie 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ---

"Other topical questions such as the effects on the original inhabitants (the Indians), the slave trade, racism, religion, etc while all important, should also only be mentioned briefly in this article, and covered fully in separate articles, of which there are quite a few."

Good luck--there is enough there for several books and 40 years of reading and experience may even, heaven forbid, give you a POV.

"I still believe that the overriding theme for immigation to the United States is that all people were and still are welcome whatever their background, and that this is what has made the United States great."

Idealistic, but much too broad a generalization. All people now would include approximately 5,000,000,000 people living else where who presumably wouldn't mind living here. Your standard of living would have to be adjusted significantly down to find the lowest common denominator. One could also round up a bunch from the mideast or several other locations who would happily cut your throat or rape your wife or daughter just for the fun of it--do you want them here? The U.S. has always placed limits on the number and type of people we allowed to immigrate. Even if you didn't believe in these limits it is more than a bit presumptuous to impose your beliefs on the others who live here too. There are real costs and benefits to a good immigration policy. The trick is to figure out what makes sense and is acceptable to as many as possible of your fellow citizens. Not always an easy task as our present immigration policy demonstrates. Charitably it can be called a mess. D&#39;lin


 * It probably is idealistic. It is difficult to express things in a very few words. Of course I agree with what you are saying too about limitations etc. Wallie 11:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

New section - Illegal immigration to the United States
I have started this section. It contains lots of stuff from the article. I have not at this stage removed anything form this article that maybe should be in the new article, until things settle down. Please please correct/edit/add nice things to the new article. Thank you very much. Wallie 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC) what is immmagration many people may ask in a few words immigration is like when humans mmigrtae they in our case go from one country to another they travel for many differnt reasons .such as lets say their country is under attak or their country is a very poor country and that person might go to another country to make it their new home a new place to llive for new technology and civilization so immagration can be a very important thing in many countries but or final question is do we really want our country to have even MORE people think aboout it would you like it think about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.143.108 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Letting off POV steam

 * Some POV from a historian's perspective. Since the illegals have come in large numbers incomes have gone up, unemployment has fallen, construction has boomed, and crime has fallen sharply. Regions with the heaviest influx have boomed most.  When dirty work is needed to repair New Orleans, the natives fled and the illegals poured in to get the job done. Many small towns discover that the come to work and so factories are reopening and the towns become alive again.

That is called a success story--not just for the immigrants who are escaping hopeless poverty and their children who are becoming true Americans, but for all the rest of us who arrived earlier when the laws were looser (like my grandparents, who never would have made it to the USA under proposed laws.)

The illegals are paid low wages but produce far more value to the economy than $7 an hour, which is why business is clamoring to get them. In the long run they are stable citizens, religious, devoted to family values and hard working. They do indeed stir up hatred and fears on the part of people who listen to talk radio. I suggest NONE of the nativists would change their hatred if they became convinced the immigrants raised everyone's incomes. Their fears are not based on facts. Their tears shed for other immigrants who "had to wait in line" are crocodile tears. Politically the nativists are threatening to rip apart the GOP. Yes, each illegal crossed the border once (years ago), but this year each employers hires 5 to 100 a month: Felony. The nativists want to put 100,000-500,000 businessmen in prison with no amnesty? the businessmen are mostly Republicans and that is why the GOP will be so badly hurt. Enough of my polemics--I will try to minimize my own POV in the article (and minimize other POV's I spot) :)  People who want to have an advanced academic discussion are invited to subscribe to H-ETHNIC@h-net.msu.edu  for a daily dose of nonpolitical scholarship on immigration and ethnic issues. Rjensen 12:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good for you! But I think that your grandparents would make it OK to the US today too. It appears to me that if you are OK and have half a brain, you can get in from almost anywhere, and legally too. But could they go back the other way again? The immigration policies of the EU are far fiercer than that of the US. The point you were making about states with high immigration booming, probably could apply to countries too.
 * Debates about immigration are interesting, as we can all learn, whatever side of the issue we are on. Wallie 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)



Pardon me but your prejudices and lack of perspective are showing.

Cheers, D&#39;lin
 * 1) You are confusing several things here. Number one is that correlation does not mean causation. The fact that things "boomed" may or may not have had a thing to do with the presence or absence of immigrants illegal or not. The U.S. has managed to “boom” for centuries without any significant immigrant inputs. The other thing is that “booming” may not be what many people want. “Booming” often causes significant degradation to the environment or esthetics of living. Many people just want to go on living their life as they always have—surely not a sin or a morally degenerate position.
 * 2) “... their children who are becoming true Americans” Others who are born, live and die here with a different point of view than yours obviously are not “true” Americans.
 * 3) Nativists are full of hatred? It could very well be that they hate no one but do think that the country as a whole is better off without an large influx of immigrants. Maybe when you make accusations like that you should look in the mirror to see where that attitude is coming from.
 * 4) “Business is clamoring to get immigrants”--illegal or otherwise because they work cheap—period.
 * 5) In the long run they are stable citizens, religious, devoted to family values and hard working. Probably true for the majority of them but so what. The same could be said for most Americans and the world is full of millions of others that this is also true. The ‘’real’’ question is how many illegal immigrants can we afford? Nearly all illegal immigrants do not earn enough or pay enough taxes to pay their own way in our expensive country.
 * 6) “immigrants raised everyone's incomes”—wow if it were only true. The incomes they raise are their own and the man or woman who hired them. The taxpayer gets to make up the difference. Indeed some things cost less because of immigrants but not much less. The business man is going to keep as much of his savings in labor as possible and only pass on a fraction to the consumer. The other real costs of living in the U.S. cost real money which is heavily subsidized for low income workers. Extra taxes – small savings = net loss to nearly all taxpayers.
 * 7) “The nativists want to put 100,000-500,000 businessmen in prison with no amnesty”—wow a foul ball to left field.  I’ve only heard that opinion from a very few fringe people (who are also entitled to their opinion). Most would believe that if you break the law you should pay the penalty for it—usually in the form of a fine or a stint of community service. Its unclear why hiring illegals should be any different.


 * I think D'lin has put the finger on the problem: he proposes that the 200,000 (or so) businessmen who repeatedly hired illegals should get "fine or a stint of community service" -- plus of course a felony conviction -- a criminal record. Threats to the business community are the fatal weakness in the nativist plan. They can plot to hurt and punish illegals and their American children but the nativists self destruct when they plot to make felons of so many businessmen. I note that the nativists patronize the restaurants and hotels that hire the illegals--maybe we should make it a crime to buy a hamburger from an illegal. Rjensen 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)



Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not propose that 200,000 (or so) get a fine and a felony conviction--those are your numbers and suppositions. Lawyers being what they are I'm sure that the vast majority even if caught could plead no contest, pay the fine and never get anything on their record. Most would simply start complying and that would be the end of that. I also believe that it would be a very good idea for some of the worse offenders, it need only be a few, get all of it--the felony conviction, fine and all. Tyson Food, and Mohawk Carpet come immediately to mind. A few good examples would do wonders to bring nearly all the rest into line. So called nativists do not self destruct, its usually others who try to defend the indefensible that resort to calling people names and attempting to categorize them in perjorative terms. Categorizing people as child abusers etc. --very bad form and fortunately a phony claim. As far as patronizing resturants, hotels etc. -- what's the alternative? Run an INS inspection on every place you go--they're all on the border. The wide spread violations of the law prevalent in the restaurant and hotel industry is precisely because there is no enforcement.

Cheers, D&#39;lin -)


 * Le'ts remember that this is not a forum for opinions. This page is only for discussions of this article and how to improve it. -Will Beback 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As with this article or any other, there are two (maybe more) sides. Having a discussion like this I think is good, as long as the participants listen to each other's opinions, and try to learn from each other. If we shut down these little debates on these pages, it would became very boring, would it not? I do think these discussions actually make the article more NPOV, in that material has been checked prior to it's going in. Far worse to get into edit wars over minor points as so often happens. I guess Will, you would like to set a boundary as to what is a discussion, and what is a forum. I agree with you that these discussions should be brief. I don't believe that we have reached the forum stage yet... we are still discussing the article, hopefully. Wallie 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)



Let's see now we are not supposed to discuss the opinions of the critics of the article in the discussion area? I think the subject is very germaine to this and most other articles.
 * 1) "Let's remember that this is not a forum for opinions."
 * 1) And by the way who appointed you warden or censor? I sure don't remember any vote

Cheers, D&#39;lin

Comment on hiring illegals
Assumming that your numbers are approximately correct that 30 million illegal hirings go on per year just suppose that some enforcement and improved document control puts enough fear in people that this is cut in half--a reaonable guesstimate. That means that 5 million illegals now have to go home or at least there is enormously less pressure for more to cross the border illegally--there may well not be a job here. That may just give us enough time to assimilate the immigrants we already have. Most would consider that an enourmous gain. Comparing it to prohibition is also a false comparison--very few are addicted to low cost illegals like many were to liquor. A better comparison is to the income tax law--its a bad law but most of us voluntarily comply because its not worth the possible hassle to break it. Most laws are enforced volutarily not because the government is there to watch every move but just because most people are law abiding. Felons can only be created if people are caught and convicted of a felony--highly unlikely now.

Cheers, D&#39;lin -)


 * Hey everybody, please do not offer opinions, calculations, or other orginal research unrelated to how we are going to write this article. There are many opinion forums elsewhere onthe net. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Using numbers to do calculations is original research??? Hey that’s a new POV that’s not even remotely credible. Basic arithmetic is essential to basic literacy, particularly in some areas like this one. Many so called reliable verifiable sources speak with forked tounge which can only be demonstrated by applying some elementary arthmetic.

Cheers, D&#39;lin -)


 * yes but there is a raging dispute over what is POV and what is factual. Rjensen 08:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list
Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

terminology
Usage within this article and in Wikipedia generally is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article
From Rosenzweig's article, a harsh critique of this article: "The 4,000-word essay on the history of U.S. immigration verges on incoherence and mentions famine-era Irish immigration only in a one-line picture caption."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

present tense/past tense
I just copyedited about the first half of this long article. Something I noticed, but did not correct is that much of this article is written in present tense (as though it is happening now), even though the law or event being discussed happened 50 or 100 years ago. Why should this be this way? Is there some benefit to 'present tense' history? Thanks Hmains 03:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

-- I think what you are referring to is the "historical present", which I do believe is fairly common in discussions of history. We understand from the context that this happened in the past; the present tense narrative is just an arbitrary convention. Watch the History channel and you'll hear a lot of historical present used Ollock 23:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

move parts to new article
It's long so let's move Nonimmigrant visas (including but not restricted to work visas) to new article. Rjensen 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, merge it in with United States visas with the different visas as separate entries.Terjen 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Terjen has a better idea. Rjensen 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I moved the details on visas to the appropriate article. Next somes moving lot of social and democraphic details from the colonial section that do not deal with immigration directly. (It will go the colonial America article) Rjensen 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Population and immigration 1600-1790
I added Main article entries in the subsection for Population and immigration 1600-1790. Some or most of the content in the subsection can be moved into the main articles, if not there already.Terjen 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Besides, most of this period is before United States was founded, so it makes sense to move the content to other articles and keep this entry focused on its subject.Terjen 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This section states, "The rapid growth of the New England colonies (~700,000 by 1790) was almost entirely due to the high birth rate (>3%) and low death rate (<1%) per year." According to the U.S. Census Bureau (1790), 1,306,677 caucasions inhabited the New England states of Maine through New York.

Reference

U.S. Census Bureau. (1790, March 1). Schedule of the Whole Number of Persons within the Several Districts of the United States. Retrieved September 30,    2007 from http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790a-02.pdf

Richard J. Rothery Jr. 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Immigration 1850-1930: Crime?
"As a result, tensions became downright hostile, with a lot of Americans becoming anti-immigrant, fearing the customs, religion, and poverty of the new immigrants, considering them less desirable than old immigrants. In reality, this perceived difference did not exist; the new immigrants although looking different brought the same sort of values as old ones did. Statistically, they did not commit any more crime or contribute to any more of the misfortunes as anyone else did." I wonder what the Mafia would say. :P Where is the source for this? I am pretty sure that immigration did bring an increase in crime. Immigrants tend to be poor, and thus as a group to commit more crimes, regardless of ethnicity. That should be just as true then as now. --207.64.85.1 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that it is not true now either. For example, or  --86.129.7.144 02:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

of course is true, or you forgot about cosa noustra? and the westies? european inmigrants increased the crimes in america too, dont forget the st valentine massacre!!!!! and the italians, jews and irish mobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.25.229 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trading asylum seekers with Australia
Could somebody more familiar with this article add in info regarding this deal? Murderbike 18:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Immigrants
The section describes Older Immigrants to this country (Germans, Irishmen, Scandinavians etc.) as being better recieved due to their Anglo-Saxon roots. As Anglo-Saxon is generally accepted to be a term for Englishmen (Anglo-Saxon on the page links to a page on the English race) I'd like to removed the term unless there are objections. - Schrandit 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * are you crazy lmao, the americans from that time didnt like the european inmigrants (irish, italians, jews, etc...) if you dont believe it just google it.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.25.229 (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

trivia? not
someone tagged a "trivia" tag on the popular culture section, which is serious, well sourced and important--and not trivial. Rjensen 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
Regarding my addition of a POV template, I have expressed my concerns to the author of the relevant recent edits here. · jersyko   talk  19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Immigration today
For today's standards of immigration, what do residents have to do to enter the US? Is there like a test or something to take for residency? (Murchy 09:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC))


 * There is no test for permanent residence, only for citizenship. There are a variety of ways to get a green card (i.e. permanent residence), some of which take longer than others.  Perhaps the most common ways are employment petitions (I-140) and family petitions (I-130).  These make visas available (eventually) to the beneficiaries of the petitions, which may give you access to a green card in the right circumstances.  In any event, it can get complex, and an attorney is the best person to ask about the details. ·  jersyko   talk  12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Netrual NOT
This is not netrual in my opion, and should be a little rewritten


 * What is not neutral? It's hard to rewrite an article without knowing what to rewrite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.23.58 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

about crime in america, they all are posting about hispanics being gangsters and s@@@ like that, but nobody say anything about the westies and the italian mafia, japanisse mafia, russian mafia, etc... yes and all of that happens in america even in the present days

Well, it does point out that White crime rates are lower than Hispanic crime rates; I believe that a link to another article which discusses European/European American crime rates will fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

effects of immigration section
I think that the effects of immigration section should be split up a bit. Perhaps sub-sub-sections on crime, health, economic, and political effects. What do you think? Also, the NSF charts seem out of place, and add a lot of length. They are available online elsewhere, right now they can be found at The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, and I'm not sure how they summarize the results of the NSF report, as they seem to emphasize the cost in terms of tax returns, but the study found immigration to be an economics gain (read page 4 and 5). Shouldn't we summarize the report in one or two sentences, rather than extensive charts, anyway? Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need: the "effects" section is only a few paragraphs long (plus the large charts). The table of contents is pretty long, so more section divisions shouldn't be added unless they are urgently needed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The advantage of subsections is that it would allow things to organize a bit more. Right now there isn't any structure, so the first and last paragraph are about economics, but the middle isn't. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right that the section could use some editing. Go for it. If you want to label parts you can add a non-section headers like these (that use a semi-colon to handle the line break):
 * Economic
 * Social
 * Those won't show up in the TOC. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I made a start, I'll try to do a little more in the next few days. I have some problems with the charts, which are from The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, so I removed them.  If you are interested, please see the discussion I brought up there (or if I'm totally wrong, just put it back and tell me why I'm wrong).  For the economic section, I've added a opening paragraph, but I didn't change anything else, except to put two mentions of the same report together.  I'll definitely focus on that section.  Let me know what you think.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I made a few small changes to the headings. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did the economics stuff I promised and added some to the health section. Verdadero added a subsection about the environment, I think this could probably be combined with the health section.  What do you think?  By the way, I'm indifferent whether we use ==== subsection title ==== or subsection title .  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased Source Economic Information
Some commentators and policy advocacy groups see a massive influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, as "importing poverty". Conservative editorialist Robert Samuelson points out that poor immigrants strains public services such as local schools and health care. He points out that "from 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics." According to the immigration reduction advocacy group Center for Immigration Studies, 25.8% of Mexican immigrants lived in poverty — more than double the rate for natives in 1999. In another report, The Heritage Foundation notes that from 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. These claims have been disputed, however, by those who point to the illegal immigrants whose payroll taxes fund social security and Medicare benefits which they will never receive. These claims are largely ignored, however, as the ineligibility of the vast majority of illegal immigrants to be regularly employed prevents them from paying into these programs.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwishbonetoy (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Info on Public Opionion
if someone wants to add a public opinion section One of the most important factors regarding public opinion about immigration is the level of unemployment; anti-immigrant sentiment is highest where unemployment is highest and vice-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwishbonetoy (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to find academic journals to reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwishbonetoy (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Crime
The crime section was contradicting itself. It said that "The bulk of empirical studies the last century have found that immigrants typically are underrepresented in criminal statistics.", but then: "According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of 2001, 4% of Hispanic males in their twenties and thirties were in prison or jail - as compared to 1.8% of white males. These statements don't jibe together. There is actually a huge amount of evidence both ways, and I changed the section to reflect that. These studies usually go either way depending on how you count the subjects. The field is murky since the police don't always ask about immigration status when they arrest someone, and the legal system makes no distinction between a native born and a naturalized citizen anyway.BuboTitan 09:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

how many references do i need??? omg stop deleting my post in the crime section, goddddddddddddd i have put as many references as needed and somebody keep deleting everything but racist post here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.25.229 (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

New Immigrants
i am doing an essay on immigration and i need to define new immigrant s but i can't find the definition anywhere and the article is way to long to read all of it and sumarize it. doez anyone have a quick paragraph that i can summarize into a sentence or two and put in my essay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.201.217 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you need a definition, I would recommend a dictionary--they're much more concise than an encyclopedia.68.225.152.253 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of Immigrants in America
In the beginning of the passage it is stated that in 2006 there were 37 million immigrants in America. Trying to go to the link that is referenced at http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070912/NEWS01/709120328/1002/rss0, (aka source 2), there was no webpage. I was not sure about the wording of this or the numbers, did it refer to legal and illegal immigrants or just one or the other? I also find it hard to believe that over 1 in 10 people in America are immigrants, though I may be wrong. Polyspork (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you find that hard to believe?--18.127.1.9 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Section
I've noticed that the introductory section to this article is very lengthy, and most of it after the third paragraph is statistical and demographical. MIght it be better to end the introductory section after the second paragraph and work the remaining information into the section on demography? 63.110.56.253 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

500,000 Hispanics in 1900 is Not Correct
The Statement under the "Demographics" section that in 1900 there were 500,000 Hispanics in the U.S. is not correct, and for the sake of factual accuracy I have removed it.

Simply put, Hispanics were not counted in the U.S. until 1970. This can be check at the Census Bureau main site (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/index.htm) and, for year 1900, (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1900.htm), see the 222.1MB zip file next to "Volume 1: Population: Population of States and Territories."

If you prefer the Reader's Digest version of this see "U.S. Census Timeline" at Info-Please, and read under year 1970, at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0905361.html. BornintheUSA (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored it because the source looks appropriate. Based on the footnote, it looks like original source is :Brian Gratton and Myron P. Gutmann, "Hispanics in the United States, 1850-1990: Estimates of Population Size and National Origin," Historical Methods 33, no. 3 (2000): 137-53.
 * Is there any reason to think that this paper is incorrect? Do we have a better source with a different number? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The 76 million figure comes from the US Census Bureau, while the 500k is an estimate by a third party 100 years later. Since about and estimated are not the same thing, I have added estimated which seems reasonable unless there is a different suggestion. BornintheUSA (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Estimated" is appropriate. Thanks for fixing it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Demographics and Their Use to Mislead or Manipulate Opinion
Some of the demographics in this section, whether they are accurate or not, can be used so easily to try to sway opinion. For example, one statistical estimate in this section states that in 60-70 years, there are estimates that the population could reach 600 million (in effect, doubling it) and another gives a total of 1 billion possible by 2100. This seems very startling.

However, another statistic given is that the population at the turn of the 20th century was, if I remember correctly, 78 million. Since the population was nearing or had hit the 300 million mark around 2000, that means that in the last century our population quadrupled.

So, in actuality, these two statistical categories, one looking back and one looking forward, actually show that expert predictions show a significant slowdown in the future. True, a 300 million net increase in 60 years is a larger number than the 230 million (app.) increase from 1900-2000. But in terms of percentage growth, it definitely shows that using raw numbers, at least in this case, presents a more startling graph than to use a rate, or percentage, on that same graph.

Dmodlin71 (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

50 largest what?
The link for the 50 largest cities in the country is to a table showing the 50 largest cities in the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmth (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect wording of number of illegal immigrants
In section 6.5, it says "and immigration officials estimate that the illegal immigrant population grows by at least 500,000 every year." I checked the source that this number was obtained from and it said "the illegal immigrant population grows by up to 500,000 ever year. Just thought that should be corrected. 76.241.143.142 (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"but migration remains difficult, expensive and dangerous for those who cross the United States–Mexico border illegally."
This line seems to imply that conditions are only hard for those who immigrate illegally. This phrase should be changed to a more acceptable statement (e.g. "but migration remains a difficult task for many -- considerably so for those who cross the United States-Mexico border illegally.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.29.91.1 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Immigration
This article doesn't seem to have any real historical immigration into the united states, but seems to be focused on modern immigration. Shouldn't there be sections on historical immigration? (i.e. when there were waves of Chinese coming over, etc.) 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)virLudens


 * Look under the "History" section - it says the main artilce on that topic is at History of Immigration to the United States. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Gallop Poll?
Thats just an un-scientific poll that could have polled nothing more than 5,000 americans & yet this is being somehow credited with a huge portion of the american population? If anybody has an objection from removing it, lets here it now otherwise this will be gone soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Objection. Gallup is a credible polling organization.  Unless you have a reliable source documenting the unreliability of the Gallup poll, I'd suggest not removing it (even if you did have such a source, the appropriate way to handle it would be to discuss it here first). Interwebs (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

what would you do
in 1995 i enter the united states of america illlegaly in 2007 because i was inform that my old mother was very sick and wanted to see me after 12 years knowing that i was taking a risk because of my situation to come back i come to senegal anyway i was optimistic because my wife of 4years and my clean report in my 12 years in america my wife come to my country went to the american ambassy to get me a visa to go home with her but deny we dont wanna be away pleace somebody help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.203.221 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, this place is for the discussion of the article. And, yeah, you shouldn't have come in illegally. But you do sound like you need help with immigration and visas. Why not just Google "immigration questions America" or something? 68.32.48.59 (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed claim about colonial populations with five month old fact tag
Took out this bit from the intro: Even though the foreign born have never composed more than 16% of the U.S. population since 1675. The claim's "citation needed" tag is five months old now and in any case there was no United States in 1675. Even if this is supposed to mean "what later became the United States", does it take into account Spanish Florida? Should be written more clearly and sourced. Pfly (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

False Premise
In this article's opening, it is stated that "The United States has a long history of immigration, from 1600 to the present." Actually, the United States has a long history of immigration since its constitution was established in 1789. That was the very year in which the term immigrant was first used  by the former colonists and first citizens of a new nation searched for a means to describe those who arrived after the war was won. As someone who traces his roots back to 1608 here, I've learned from stories passed down that lumping Colonists in with Immigrants was, until very recently, a very offensive slur. Could we perhaps re-word this to make it accurate? An immigrant and a colonist are two very different things. R.E. Finch 09:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

'Slur', my good sire!, is when you take offence at being called an immigrant when the majority of this country are from   immigrant ancestry.74.122.170.96 22:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The salient difference seems to be that the colonists invaded America very much on their own terms, whereas immigrants come under terms set by the pre-existing colony. Considering that most of the article is about the "United States", an entity only existing after 1776 in legal terms and prior to that formally a colony, we might as well focus the article after 1776.  Otherwise we end up with ridiculous items like trying to compare the 1M or so on the eastern seaboard in 1700 with the 600M or so expected across the modern USA by 2100 - why is that useful or relevant?  Sticking to the U.S.A. timeframe makes a better focus. TanjBennett (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is either unclear or misleading in a few places.
 * The article clearly says the British settlers were not immigrants. But others were, like the Germans. The OED dates the word "immigrate" to before 1623. "immigrant" is a new American word, first reported in 1790s. Rjensen 09:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I take issue with the wording under the main heading. Those who arrived during the colonial period, regardless of their origin, were colonists. They formed and joined colonies that consisted of their countrymen. Some were subjects of the Dutch, while most were subjects of the British Crown. All were colonists, not immigrants. This is especially so since the term had yet to be coined. It is disingenous to label people from an historical perspective in a way other than how they saw themselves, and that way was surely not "immigrants."

Under the "Historical Immigration Section," none of those who came here prior to 1790 were "immigrants." If this is an Encyclopoedic medium, lets be exact. They were colonists and slaves. Perhaps the word "Immigrants" in the table could be changed to "U.S. Origins." That is exact.

America's first citizens saw fit to adopt a term to distinguish themselves from "newcomers" and did chafe at being lumped in with them. Does it not make sense to assure that the issue both acknowledged and handled with clarity in Wikipedia?

This article, as it currently stands, is about as exact as that "nation of immigrants" nonsense that has about as much attachment to the facts as the story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree. Just because something is widely and often repeated does not render it necessarily correct.R.E. Finch 20:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your contention that colonists are not immigrants. I believe that anyone who migrates is an emmigrant or immigrant. Also, the date of the coining of the word "immigrant" is irrelevant. The term African American was not used in 1800, but that does not mean we have to use the terms then in general use for such people. -Will Beback 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you move from Florida to Alaska, you are NOT called an immigrant. You migrate a very long distance, true, and conditions in Alaska are very different, but you stay in the same country, same language, laws, same ruler. Rjensen 02:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rjensen is correct. The original colonists moved from one part of Britain to another.  They did not change nations or allegiances. As a descendant of many early colonists, it is my family tradition (and that of many other Sons of the American Revolution members) that those who came here prior to the revolution were British subjects who moved to a new part of Britain. To label these pre-revolution British citizens "immigrants" is simply a subtle tool of revisionism. Your point about the term "African American" is good.  Surely we would not use terms that were derogatory to blacks in 1800.  Then why is it OK for us to use a term that would have been viewed as offensive by my ancestor? I take similar offense.  I am not a "descendant of immigrants."  I'm a descendant of British Colonists, revoutionaries and Americans - and not one of my ancestors was an immigrant.  You might as well call me an ethnic slur as call me a "descendant of immigrants" for it carries the same sting.  It diminishes my ancestors efforts.


 * What you "believe" really isn't relevant if it is innacurate. That is, unless the Wikipedia is merely a channel for perpetuating revisionist myths.--R.E. Finch 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Internal migration within countries is a recognized phenomenon. Migrant labor may "migrate" within a country. But that's not the point here, it's whether colonists migrated. The Mayflower Pilgrims had little connection with the "home country" of England that they'd left before their final departure. Certainly not all those who went to to English colonies were English. -Will Beback 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Little connection to England??? Please read the Mayflower Compact. The Pilgrims went to great lengths to attach themselves to Britain.  It does not matter whether those "others" you write of who "went to the English colonies" were English in origin or not.  They "migrated" from whence they came, were relatively small in number, and became subjects of the British Crown. Their children were British subjects and assimilated.  Every person in the colonies was on one day, September 2, 1783, a British Citizen and the next, September 3, 1783, an American citizen.  Prior to that day, there were no "immigrants" to the United States of America, and after there were no "colonists".--R.E. Finch 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The ideosyncratic Wordnet defines "colonist" as:
 *  a person who settles in a new colony or moves into new country.
 * and "immigrant" as
 * a person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there
 * These are very similar definitions. I'm not sure why this is contentious. -Will Beback 04:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * people who moved around inside the British Empire were never called immigrants, so why should we start calling them that now? The Germans who came from a different country were immigrants. The point is changing political allegiance. Rjensen 04:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The American Heritage Dictionary (since we are discussing American heritage) defines "immigrant" as:
 * A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
 * and "colonist" as:
 * ''An original settler or founder of a colony.
 * Based on my family oral and written tradition, the term "immigrant" came into wide use as a term of differentiation between those who were here for the fight and those who came after it was over. Colonists move not only their physical beings, but their mores, ethos, language and culture.  Immigrants generally come to a nation expecting to markedly change these things and adopt that of their new host nation.  Just because, collquially, the phrase "a nation of immigrants" is popular does not make it correct, or even remotely true.


 * OK. let's get something straight, the early settlers fought the British colonists just to reassert their British "colonial" values and "ethos"???!!!
 * Secondly, when immigrants come to a country they bring a whole new set of values and "ethos" that they would deem superior. If the earlier habitants of that land do not oppose to the new set of values and those principles become the de facto way of life in that country, then, for all intents and purposes, we say that the new ways have superceded the old ones. This means that America has now become the land of immigrants. A silent defeat is nonetheless a defeat if nothing more!74.122.170.83 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but for the purposes of this article, I think that calling all people who arrived from Europe "immigrants" is a fair and accurate term. Otherwise we need to change the wording throughout the pre-1776 info to read "colonists and immigrants". That seems uneccessarily wordy without really gaining anything additional meaning. Even worse would be to remove all pre-1776 migrations on the basis that they weren't literally moving to the United States. If editors really care strongly about this then I suggest we have a sentence explaining that those who moved to British colonies from Britain (and to French colonies from France, etc.) were colonists rather than immigrants, but that colonists and immigrants will be treated together for the pruposes of this article. -Will Beback 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, Will, what you are saying is that it would be "unneccesarily wordy" to be accurate? Why not move the whole colonial period out of the Immigration to the United States section entirely and link to it at the top? Including the colonial period in anything under the auspices of the "United States" is historically inaccurate to begin with. The premise, being inaccurate, sets the stage for the likelihood of other inaccuracies.  If we really are striving for accuracy, there should be a "Colonization of the 13 American Colonies" section.


 * If your proposed disclaimer were to appear at the beginning, it would help. But it would still fall short of being accurate for as long as "immigration to the United States" includes a period in which there was no such thing as "The United States."--R.E. Finch 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a line to the effect for statistical purposes everyone who arrived in the colonial period is considered an immigrant. But that's for statistics--it remains an important political issue. Rjensen 05:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wiktionary defines immigrant as Noun immigrant (plural immigrants)


 * 1. A person who comes to a country to permanently settle from another country.
 * 2. A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.

There is also a matter of Florida and the American Southwest having Colonists and settlers from Spain, French colonists in New Orleans, etc., etc. Not to mention the lack of data on Native Americans and thorny issues of their estimated population prior to and after colonization. I believe the whole pre-1776 section should be moved. The important issues of immigration are not "Migration" (there is another word, "migrant," for that) but issues of citizenship and cultural identity which are wrapped up in the term "immigrant" --Cuvtixo 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Correcting misperceptions on a variety of issues:

As an American living as a permenent EU resident who helped foreign citizens in the US maintain F1-visas first, it is a lot easier to gain legal entrance to the EU (depending on which nation you are coming from / going to) than it is to the US and it is actually very easy to get legal residence here if you are from a non-Muslim nation. It is also much, much more difficult to get citizenship (generally) to an EU nation than to the States.

Also, the immigrant/colonist argument should be linguistic, not political: "colonists" (from colere (Latin), to cultivate) were British citizens in British-held territories. An "immigrant" is someone who "migrates out of" somewhere. You CAN say that the colonists (who were English going to American British Colonies) were "immigrants from England", but you CANNOT say that they were "immigrants from Great Britian", as the colonies were part of Great Britian at the time. You can also say, with complete accurracy, that they were "migrants" - people moving a (long) distance from one place to another, just as British colonists in India were "migrants" and the itinerant farmers during the Great Depression were migrants inside America - see the "Grapes of Wrath". For a less touchy example, a Canadian moving to America would be an emmigrant from Canada, and immigrant to the United States, but a migrant within North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMEH (talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

hiring illegals
Let's do some arithmetic. Let's say we have 10 million illegal workers. We know they cluster in unskilled jobs with high turnover (construction, hotels, restaurants, farms, landscaping especially). So let's take a low estimate and say they average 3 jobs a year each. That 30 million times every year American businessmen--owners of small businesses--do one of these hirings. That's a lot of felonies for the fderal government to police. 100 million in 3 years. Say that restrictive new laws reduce illegal hires by 90%. That leaves ten million felonies committed by American businessmen in next three years. (Reduce hiring by 99% by stiff prison terms for the Burger King owner or the housewife who hires someone to mow the lawn and you still get one million new felonies in next 3 years.) Bottom line: it's like prohibition. Bad laws create crimes and create felons. Who wants all those new criminals??? Rjensen 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New criminals??

This is a limitation of the human rights. If you are a supporter of republicans, than I don´t wonder why you think so. The people that you call ,,new criminals" are the people who do the dirty jobs for us; everyday they stay up early and work very hard for few money. They have to live every day with anxiety and they have to think about home. Republicans are the real criminals. I do support democrats, although I´m german. I´m really proud, because Bush will be president only until 2008. Then I hope democrats can normalize this country again. They will do more for the environment, better treatment of new immigrants, teach the police how to treat better the afro-american and other !new! immigrants, jail the republicans (real criminals), bring all soldiers back of Iraq, accept Palestina, etc... The most terrible thing is that, although your ancestors came from Europe, you can be called as american?? Actually americans are the one of the entire american continent (from Argentina up to Canada). And they came from Europe without any problems, like visas,etc...;  and so they were not immediately illegal and came withot any efforts to immigrate, nowadays it´s so difficult for them to come here, firstly they need a visa and then the problems grow and grow. But I really can´t understand how this republicans attract you all. Sure they want to opress everybody, but you idiots will never understand this shit. Wake up, stay up, be a democrat and support the human rights!! yussef90 22:23, June 10 2006 (CET)

Wow, now immigration to the U.S. is a human right. There is a simple answer to that--never was and never will be. Republicans are all to blame and Democrats are our saviors!! Neither party has been enforcing immigration laws for decades so don't get your hopes up. The best solution would probably be a good house cleaning of both parties. The original Americans came from Asia not Europe and that was about 15,000 years ago and they lost their passports. Believe it or not there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans only on the extremes of each side and hopefully we all can sit down and talk out what needs to be done like the good citizens most of us are. You've been reading way too much propoganda and what's worse believing it. As far as I can tell the far left pseudo-intellectuals believe that all morals are only relative; but even though they don't have any morals theirs are superior to everyone elses.

Cheers, D'lin

First Immigration to America is a privilege- not a right. Secondly violating immigration laws of the United states would legally make you a Felon by federal law instantly. Those born inside the border to illegal immigrants however, are not subject to being classified as a criminal under the current laws. Adult foreign nationals however, are. Political party affiliation has nothing to do with current federal laws, you can be a fascist or communist- and the law is still the law.

While we are on the topic, we need to look at the words used to describe illegal immigration- i have seen immigrants, and undocumented workers in the section- both misleading and counteracting the section's title itself- it needs to be cleaned up.

The official designation is "illegal alien"

75.179.163.66 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat

Amnesia
This must be one of the most biased articles I've ever seen in the English Wikipedia. Immigration started in 1600??? What about the Spanish or in general Latin immigration happened since Columbus' arrival to the Americas? Were Texas, New Mexico or Florida never colonized before? Were they empty when the United States took them as war booty from Mexico after invading them? Spanish or Latin immigration to the current territory of the United States predates the English or Irish immigration by one century, like it or not the current mainstream Americans, and this article just seems to overlook it in order to criminalize even more the current Spanish or Latin immigration the US are going through right now. NJS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.204.247 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

so true.

--76.115.164.255 (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about immigration to the United States so it won't take into account Columbus because the United States wasn't created yet.

Um excuse me NJS! I find it significant and tragic that you so easily, or perhaps deliberately, confuse "Spanish or in general Latin" immigration. The early immigration to Florida and much of the Southwest was SPANISH- i.e. white people from SPAIN, not from Latin America. No pun intended, but there is a world of difference between the true Spanish, who were asked to settle in America by the King of Spain waaay back in the 1500s, and some mestizo peasant from Chiapas. sincerely ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.44.71.195 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the claim that America "invaded" the Southwest or Florida or "took them from Mexico" is pure myth. The Southwest was so sparsely populated when it was Mexican land that it did not even have its own province- it was merged into the state of Coahuila instead. If it had been full of Mexicans at that time, Mexico never would have given it to us. We chose a sparsely populated part of Mexico deliberately, so that we could fill it with English-speaking settlers when it became ours. Also, we did not "invade" the Southwest or Florida- we PAID Mexico millions of dollars for the land! Wonder where the money is now, hmm? Don't believe everything you hear from illegal immigration cheerleaders. sincerely ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.44.71.195 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's why Texas is an original-and-authentic english name and is not derived from the spanish "Tejas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

EB-5 Visa
(Sometimes WikiProjects seem so lame). Normally I would try to put this under the WikiProject, but the project in this case is far too broad. A small article is needed on EB-5 under which an outside investor of $500,000 can get a permanent resident visa if that investment is shown to have produced ten new jobs! That is my some total of knowledge about it. Student7 (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The general rule is that one million dollars must be invested. However, if the investment is made in an area of economic need in the USA, then $500,000 is accepted. The ten new jobs must be for Americans or for lawful permanent residents, and they must be for two full years. The Dept of Homeland Security counts these requirements and others, precisely. If you have nine workers who fulfilled the ten years, and the tenth worker fulfilled only 1 year, 11 months and 2 weeks -- the investment doesn't qualify, and the investor has to go back to square one. Instead, the investor goes to another country.

The program was supposed to pump several billion dollars of foreign investment into the American economy. But the program (like all permanent visa programs based on job skills, business creation, extraordinary attainment in science, art or business) -- all of these visa programs are incredibly difficult to navigate. These visa applications are as big as the phone book in a good-sized city. Since Congress and Homeland Security put so many conditions on this program (and since most legal malpractice insurance carriers, including mine, won't cover these visa applications, so most immigration lawyers won't touch them) very very few investors have taken the opportunity to come here on the EB5 program. Instead a huge number of highly talented researchers, inventors, and entrepreneurs have gone to countries that were all too glad to set up sensible immigration policies to attract them: New Zealand and Ireland, for example. At least these are friendly countries. But in ten or twenty years America will realize the catastropic effect of these restrictive immigration policies on the best and brightest. Ask small businesses who hire H-1Bs how central these foreign professionals are to America's inventiveness and competitive edge; much less the professionals we could have had permanently in our economy and our research labs, instead of in Auckland or Toronto where they got in much easier. Brent Poirier, immigration lawyer 71.232.132.47 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

HIV from Haiti Inaccurate
Most recent research indicates that HIV was NOT brought to the US by a Haitian immigrant. Rather, it seems to have been transmitted from Americans to Haitians in the course of the sex tourism practice of Americans traveling to Haiti to engage in paid sexual behaviors with locals. Please remove this bit of bigoted misinformation until more recent documentation is provided! 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this? - Schrandit (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The cited sources in the article does not support the claim that HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti. The first source discusses research showing that The strain of the HIV virus which predominates in the United States and Europe has been traced back to Haiti, and is based on examining blood samples from five Haitian immigrants, but does not claim that either of these, or Haitian immigrants in general, brought HIV to the US. The second source neither mentions immigrants nor Haiti, and thus does not seem to be relevant. Unless there are better sources, the claim should be removed. Terjen (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a better source for the claim, but note that the part about the carrier being an immigrant is speculative. The alternative hypothesis that a homosexual infected in America brought HIV to Haiti is debunked by the study. Terjen (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Newsweek article states that:
 * [Worobey] has analyzed mutations over time in the virus, constructing a family tree for the different strains. And the tree tells him with "greater than 99 percent certainty" that HIV migrated from Africa to Haiti before it moved on to the United States. One person evidently brought the "subtype B" strain from Haiti to the United States in or around 1969. Almost all the strains found in the West today descend from that lone, unwitting patient.
 * But it does not say who that patient was, nor if he was an immigrant to the U.S. So while the evidence supports the theory that HIV came to the U.S. from Africa via Haiti, that theory is probably irrelevant in an article on U.S. immigration. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How many countries
I seen mention of the top ten countries from which immigrants were granted entry into the U.S., but no mention of how many countries overall are represented. Is it safe to say that America has accepted immigrants from every country in the world, or is that over the line? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is (and even more, if it could be possible). According to United Nations data, "there are currently 192 member states, including nearly every recognized independent state in the world". And the DHS (United States Department of Homeland Security) Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2007 Table 3 compiles data of people born in exactly 200 countries (from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe) who obtained legal permanent resident status in the USA in the 1998-2007 period. That legal immigrants have come from more countries than those officially recognized by the United Nations Organization justifies to answer, "Yes, the USA has granted legal status to immigrants from more than every country in the world". Enjoy, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You still have to crosscheck that every country is indeed represented on the list. For example, has anybody from the sovereign Principality of Sealand immigrated to the USA? ;-) Terjen (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you but no, Terjen. I've just shown you the shovel and the heap, now it's your turn to dig on, fairly. If you please, of course. Enjoy, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There you have it, Loadmaster, the baton is yours. Please let us know what you find out. Terjen (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a quick glance at that spreadsheet shows quite a large number of "countries" listed that are not sovereign, like American Samoa, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, etc etc. And a quick check on some very small countries reveals no immigration to the US listed, including Andorra, Liechtenstein, Nauru, and San Marino. I'm not about to cross-check the entire thing, but this much at least shows it isn't every country, at least 1998-2007. Pfly (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, Pfly, this stuff isn't a piece of cake. Here in the WP "country" —though an ambiguous word as usual— is defined in terms of "frequently a sovereign territory" —but not always—. On the contrary, e.g. my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1983, p.418, offers eight definitions but doesn't mention any sovereignty at all. What's more, sovereignty isn't a formal prerequisite for admission of United Nations member states: non-sovereign countries have sometimes been admitted, and "some entities which may be considered sovereign states... are not members" (for different reasons). I have no idea of what a "country" is for the United States Department of Homeland Security. In my opinion, as far as we don't get to agree an unambiguous definition of "country" before beginning a conversation, the confusion is served. I'm sorry I failed the tongue-in-cheek effect I intended with my first contribution. Cheers, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then, is it also reasonable to state that the U.S.A. has granted legal status to immigrants from more countries [places?] than any other country in the world? — Loadmaster (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as we’re able to tell which nationality the legalized immigrants are, that question just can’t be answered precisely. For different reasons, many immigrants get rid of any papers in order to begin a new life. In this moment, "political correctness" usually intervenes, as it does for example in the UNESCO article entitled “Who goes where” which in flagrant contradition with its own title tells "where" immigrants go, but absolutely nothing about "who" they are. No way to ascertain thus the previous nationality of a number of the immigrants who get a new citizenship. Having to leave factual, “scientific” truth aside, we can only make speculation. Let’s then apply the method attorneys at law do: Is there the least possibility that the USA is not the country that has granted legal status to immigrants from more countries [places?] than any other country in the world? If any, which other country would? Regards, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this inquiry is about adding assertions to this article, or is just to satisfy curiosity. For the article, we should be careful about making our own determinations and calculation because those can cross the border into "no original research". So it'd be better if we had a source which explicitly says, "the U.S. has accepted immigrants from every country" or "the U.S. has immigrants from more countries than any other state." However the former is a straight calculations that we can make from a single source, while the latter would require excluding other countries and would be difficult to prove.   Will Beback    talk    17:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a slightly safer (i.e., more vague) phrase would suffice to make the point, e.g.: "The U.S. has accepted immigrants from almost every other country and nationality in the world". The addition of "almost" would seem to make it immune to disagreement, and probably obviates the need for a citation. It also seems to be a resonably logical conclusion from the rest of the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine-tuned! I vote for.
 * --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)