User:Aasaro4970/Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

Evaluating the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965's Wikipedia Page
I believe that so far that was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965's Wikipedia page has good content and it’s written in a neutral manner but it is still an underdeveloped page. For example, the provisions section should be updated and go into more detail about what the act was, also only one source was used to make the provision section. With the provision section, the history and the legacy sections should be updated with more information. Also, while most of the citations are accurate I think there should be more sources added especially to the provisions section.

Legislative history
 Original Text :

The Hart–Celler Act was widely supported in Congress. Senator Philip Hart introduced the administration-backed immigration bill which was reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee. Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the United States House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the Act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

Sen. Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the possible change in the United States' cultural pattern by an influx of Asians: Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States ... with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population ... Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.

—  Democrat Rep. Michael A. Feighan (OH-20), along with some other Democrats, insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States. In removing racial and national discrimination the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.

On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation into law, saying, "This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country."

Edited Text:

The Hart-Celler Act has a long history of trying to get passed by Congress. This act has been introduced countless times since it was first introduced to the Senate on March 14, 1962, to August 19, 1965, which was the last time it was presented. It was hard to pass this law under Kennedy’s administration because the legislative, Senator James Eastland, Representative Michael Feighan, and Representative France Walter, who were in control of the immigration subcommittees, were against immigration reform. When President Lyndon B Johnson became president, he had pressured Congress to act upon reform in immigration on January 8, 1964. However, this president's support did not stop the debate of the Hart-Celler Act until January 4, 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson focused his inaugural address on the reform of immigration, which created intense pressure for the heads of the congressional immigration subcommittees. During the subcommittee's hearing on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee in the Judiciary United States Senate, many came forward to voice their support or opposition to the bill. Many higher-ranking officials in the executive and legislative branches, like Dean Rusk (Secretary of State) and Abba P. Schwartz (Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State), came forward in the active support. Also, many cultural and civil rights organizations, like the Order Sons of Italy in America, and the Grand Council of Columbia Association in Civil Service, supported the act. Many of the bill supporters believed that this future would outlaw racism and prejudice rhetoric that previous immigration quotas have caused; this prejudice has also caused other nations to feel like the United States did not respect them due to their low rating in the previous immigration quotas. Many also believed that this act would highly benefit the United State’s economy because the act focused on allowing skilled workers to enter the United States.

On the other hand, many lobbyists and organizations, like the Daughters of the American Revolutions and the Baltimore Anti-Communistic League, came to the hearing to explain their opposition. Many of the opposition believe that this bill would be against American welfare. The common argument that they had used was that if the government allowed more immigrants into the United States, more employment opportunities would be taken away from the American workforce.

Once the Hart–Celler Act was passed in the subcommittees and brought to floors of Congress, it was widely supported. Senator Philip Hart introduced the administration-backed immigration bill, which was reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee. Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the United States House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no, and 11 abstained. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for the passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During a debate on the Senate floor, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the Act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

Sen. Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the possible change in the United States' cultural pattern by an influx of Asians: Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States ... With respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population ... Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.

— U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, pp.71, 119. Democrat Rep. Michael A. Feighan (OH-20), along with some other Democrats, insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States. In removing racial and national discrimination the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.

On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson had signed the Immigration and Nationality Act. His administration believed that this was historical legislation because of that he signed the act at the Liberty Island, New York. When he signed the legislation into law, he said, "This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country."

Background
 Original Text :

The Hart–Celler Act of 1965 marked a radical break from U.S. immigration policies of the past. Since Congress restricted naturalized citizenship to "white persons" in 1790, laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to northern and western Europeans over southern and Eastern Europeans. The Immigration Act of 1924 had permanently established the National Origins Formula as the basis of U.S. immigration policy, largely to restrict immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. According to the Office of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State, the purpose of the 1924 Act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity" by limiting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. At the time the U.S. had been recognized by many as the global leader in codified racism. The National Socialist Handbook for Law and Legislation of 1934–35, edited by the lawyer Hans Frank, contains a pivotal essay by Herbert Kier on the recommendations for race legislation which devoted a quarter of its pages to U.S. legislation, including race-based citizenship laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and immigration laws. Adolf Hitler wrote of his admiration of America's immigration laws in Mein Kampf, saying:"The American Union categorically refuses the immigration of physically unhealthy elements, and simply excludes the immigration of certain races."In the 1960s, the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that discriminated based on an individual's place of birth. Abroad, former military allies and new independent nations aimed to delegitimize discriminatory immigration, naturalization and regulations through international organizations like the United Nations. In the United States, the national-based formula had been under scrutiny for a number of years. In 1952, President Truman had directed the Commission on Immigration and Naturalization to conduct an investigation and produce a report on the current immigration regulations. The report, Whom We Shall Welcome, served as the blueprint for the Hart–Celler Act. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement the restrictive immigration laws were seen as an embarrassment. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century.

The immigration into the country of "sexual deviants", including homosexuals, was still prohibited under the legislation. The INS continued to deny entry to homosexual prospective immigrants on the grounds that they were "mentally defective", or had a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority" until the Immigration Act of 1990 rescinded the provision discriminating against gay people.

 Edit Section: 

The Hart–Celler Act of 1965 marked a radical break from U.S. immigration policies of the past. Since Congress restricted naturalized citizenship to "white persons" in 1790, laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to northern and western Europeans over southern and Eastern Europeans. During this time, most of those immigrating to the U.S. were North-Eastern Europeans of Protestant faith and Western Africans who were forced to immigrate because of slavery. This pattern shifted in the mid to late 19th century for both the Western and Eastern regions of the United States. There was a large influx of immigration from Asia in the Western region, while Eastern and Southern European immigrants settled more in the Eastern United States.

Once the demographics of immigration were changing, there were policies put in place to reduce immigration to exclude individuals of certain ethnicities and races. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to stop the inflow of Chinese immigrants. Then in 1917, Congress passed the Literacy Act; this act had prevented most immigration of non-north western Europeans because it tested language understanding. This act was followed by the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, that placed a quota on immigration which used the rate of immigration in 1910 to mirror the immigration rate of all countries. The Emergency Immigration Act of 1921 had helped bring along the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Immigration Act of 1929, which both permanently established the National Origins Formula as the basis of U.S. immigration policy, largely to restrict immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. According to the Office of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State, the purpose of the 1924 Act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity" by limiting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. At the time the U.S. had been recognized by many as the global leader in codified racism. The National Socialist Handbook for Law and Legislation of 1934–35, edited by the lawyer Hans Frank, contains a pivotal essay by Herbert Kier on the recommendations for race legislation which devoted a quarter of its pages to U.S. legislation, including race-based citizenship laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and immigration laws. Adolf Hitler wrote of his admiration of America's immigration laws in Mein Kampf, saying:"The American Union categorically refuses the immigration of physically unhealthy elements, and simply excludes the immigration of certain races."In the 1960s, the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that discriminated based on an individual's place of birth. Abroad, former military allies and new independent nations aimed to de-legitimize discriminatory immigration, naturalization and regulations through international organizations like the United Nations. In the United States, the national-based formula had been under scrutiny for a number of years. In 1952, President Truman had directed the Commission on Immigration and Naturalization to conduct an investigation and produce a report on the current immigration regulations. The report, Whom We Shall Welcome, served as the blueprint for the Hart–Celler Act. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement the restrictive immigration laws were seen as an embarrassment. At the time of the act's passing, many high-ranking politicians favored this bill to be passed, including President Lyndon B. Johnson. However, the public did not reciprocate these feelings, which can be seen in a Gallup Organization poll in 1965 asking if they were in favor of getting rid of the national quota act, and only 51 percent were in favor. The act was pressured by high-ranking officials and interest groups to be passed, which it was on on October 3, 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 did not make it fully legal for the United States government to discriminate individuals, which includes members of the LGBTQ+ community making them prohibited under the legislation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service continued to deny entry to prospective immigrants who are in the LGBTQ+ community on the grounds that they were "mentally defective", or had a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority" until the Immigration Act of 1990 rescinded the provision discriminating against members of the LGBT+.

Provisions
 Original Text :

The Hart–Celler Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, or McCarran–Walter Act, while it upheld many provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924. It maintained per-country limits, which had been a feature of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s, and it developed preference categories.


 * One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.
 * It created a seven-category preference system, which gave priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and to professionals and other individuals with specialized skills.
 * Immediate relatives and "special immigrants" were not subject to numerical restrictions. Some of the "special immigrants" include ministers, former employees of the U.S. government, foreign medical graduates, among others.
 * It substituted hemispheric limits for the earlier national quota system; for the first time, immigration from the Western Hemisphere was limited, while the Eastern Hemisphere saw an increase in the number of visas granted.
 * It added a labor certification requirement, which dictated that the Secretary of Labor needed to certify labor shortages.
 * Refugees were given the seventh and last category preference with the possibility of adjusting their status. However, refugees could enter the United States by other means as well, such as through seeking temporary asylum.

Immediate impact on quota immigrant admissions
The Act of October 3, 1965 phased out the National Origins Formula quota system set by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 in two stages:


 * Effective December 1, 1965, the number of quota preference categories for relatives and occupational skills grew from four to seven. During a transition period covering fiscal years ending June 30 of 1966-1968, national quotas continued, but any unused quota spots were pooled and made available to other countries that had exhausted their quota, on a first-come, first-serve basis. While still granting first priority to European countries according to the National Origins Formula, immigration from countries with high quotas had slowed to far below maximum allotments. In 1965, only 99,381 immigrants were admitted out of a total quota of 158,561. In 1966, 78,023 immigrants were admitted under the regular quotas; an additional 48,287 were admitted from the new pool, in excess of national quotas. While there was some growth in immigration from Southern Europe, overall the effect was to drop the European share of immigrants from 94.7% in 1965 to 80.9% in 1966, falling to 74.4% in 1968. The transition period ended June 30, 1968.
 * Effective July 1, 1968, the national quota system was fully abolished, and the broad hemispheric numerical limitations took effect. All nation-level quotas were dropped and replaced by a limit of 170,000 immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere on a first-come, first-serve basis, with no more than 20,000 from any one country. For the first time, immigration from within the Western Hemisphere was also restricted, legally capped at 120,000 annually. The effect of total abolition of national origins quota preferences was an immediate sharp decline in the European share of immigrants, plummeting to 62.6% of immigrants admitted from the Eastern Hemisphere in 1969, dropping further to 57.3% in 1970—a steep downward trend that would continue in the subsequent years.Listed below are quota immigrants admitted from the Eastern Hemisphere, by country, in given fiscal years ended June 30, for the final National Origins Formula quota year of 1965, the pool transition period 1966-1968, and for 1969-1970, the first two fiscal years in which national quotas were fully abolished.

 Edit Text: 

The Hart–Celler Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (known as the McCarran–Walter Act),. It it upheld some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924, while at the same time creating new and more inclusive immigration regulations. It maintained per-country limits, which had been a feature of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s, and it developed preference categories.


 * One of the main components of the act was aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. . This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as a basis for immigration, making discriminating against obtaining visas illegal.
 * It created a seven-category preference system. In this system, it explains how visas should be given out in order of most importance. This system prioritized individuals who were relatives of U.S. citizens, legal permanent resident, professionals, and/or other individuals with specialized skills.
 * The seven-category preference system is divided by family preferences and skill-based preferences. The family preferences include unmarried children of United States citizens, unmarried children and spouses of permanent residents, married children and their dependents of United States citizens, and siblings and their dependents of United States citizens. At the same time, the skilled preferences include individuals and their dependents who have extreme knowledge in arts and science, individuals and their dependents workers if there is a labor shortage. Lastly, skilled-based preferences include the preferences for refugees.
 * Immediate relatives and "special immigrants" were not subject to numerical restrictions. It defined immediate relatives as children and spouses of United States citizens while also parents of United States citizens who are 21 years or older. While also defining "special immigrants" in six different categories, which includes:
 * An immigrant and dependent of the immigrant from the Western Hemisphere if the approved.
 * An immigrant who traveled abroad for a short period of time.
 * An immigrant who was considered an United States citizen or applying for citizenship.
 * An immigrant and dependents of the immigrant who is conducting religious practices and are needed by a religion sector to be in the United States.
 * An immigrant and their dependent who is/was a United States government employee abroad. They must have served 15 or more years to be considered a special immigrant. This category is only given if the Foreign Service office recommended this specific immigrant to be qualified for this categorization.
 * An immigrant who is 14 years or younger has been considered an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen. However, their parent(s) cannot take care of them for multiple reasons, including death, abandonment, and so on.
 * It added a quota system for immigration from the Western Hemisphere, which was not included in the earlier national quota system. This was ; for the first time, immigration from the Western Hemisphere was limited, while the Eastern Hemisphere saw an increase in the number of visas granted.
 * It added a labor certification requirement, which dictated that the Secretary of Labor needed to certify labor shortages.
 * It explained how immigrants who are not immediate relatives of citizens and are considered special immigrants would apply and get approved to immigrate into the United States. Most approval will need to be approved by the Attorney General, Congress, and Secretary of Labor.
 * Refugees were given the seventh and last category preference with the possibility of adjusting their status. However, refugees could enter the United States by other means, such ash seeking temporary asylum.

Immediate impact on quota immigrant admissions
Quota Immigrants to the U.S. from the Eastern Hemisphere, by Country, for Fiscal Years ended June 30, 1964-1966.

Quota Immigrants to the U.S. from the Eastern Hemisphere, by Country, for Fiscal Years ended June 30, 1968-1970.

The Act of October 3, 1965 phased out the National Origins Formula quota system set by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 in two stages:


 * Effective December 1, 1965, during a transition period covering fiscal years ending June 30 of 1966-1968, national quotas continued, but any unused quota spots were pooled and made available to other countries that had exhausted their quota, on a first-come, first-serve basis. While still granting first priority to European countries according to the National Origins Formula, immigration from countries with high quotas had slowed to far below maximum allotments. In 1965, 296,697 immigrants were admitted out of a total quota of 158,561.
 * Effective July 1, 1968, the national quota system was fully abolished, and the broad hemispheric numerical limitations took effect. All nation-level quotas were dropped and replaced by a limit of 170,000 immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere on a first-come, first-serve basis, but while setting cap of no more than 20,000 from any one country. For the first time, immigration from within the Western Hemisphere was also restricted, legally capped at 120,000 annually.

Listed below are quota immigrants admitted from the Eastern Hemisphere, by country, in given fiscal years ended June 30, for the final National Origins Formula quota year of 1965, the pool transition period 1966-1968, and for 1969-1970, the first two fiscal years in which national quotas were fully abolished.

Legislative History
 Original Text: 

The Hart-Celler Act has a long history of trying to get passed by Congress. This act has been introduced countless times from when it was first introduced to the Senate on March 14, 1962, to the last time it was presented on August 19, 1965. It was hard to pass this law under Kennedy’s administration because the legislators, Senator James Eastland, Representative Michael Feighan, and Representative France Walter, who were in control of the immigration subcommittees, were against immigration reform. When President Lyndon B Johnson became president, he had pressured Congress to act upon reform in immigration on January 8, 1964. However, this president's support did not stop the debate of the Hart-Celler Act until January 4, 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson focused his inaugural address on the reform of immigration, which created intense pressure for the heads of the congressional immigration subcommittees. During the subcommittee's hearing on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee in the Judiciary United States Senate, many came forward to voice their support or opposition to the bill. Many higher-ranking officials in the executive and legislative branches, like Dean Rusk (Secretary of State) and Abba P. Schwartz (Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State), came forward in the active support. Also, many cultural and civil rights organizations, like the Order Sons of Italy in America, and the Grand Council of Columbia Association in Civil Service, supported the act. Many of the bill supporters believed that this future would outlaw racism and prejudice rhetoric that previous immigration quotas have caused; this prejudice has also caused other nations to feel like the United States did not respect them due to their low rating in the previous immigration quotas. Many also believed that this act would highly benefit the United States’ economy because the act focused on allowing skilled workers to enter the United States.

On the other hand, many lobbyists and organizations, like the Daughters of the American Revolutions and the Baltimore Anti-Communistic League, came to the hearing to explain their opposition. Many of the opposition believe that this bill would be against American welfare. The common argument that they had used was that if the government allowed more immigrants into the United States, more employment opportunities would be taken away from the American workforce.

Once the Hart–Celler Act was passed in the subcommittees and brought to floors of Congress, it was widely supported. Senator Philip Hart introduced the administration-backed immigration bill, which was reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee. Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the United States House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the Act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

Sen. Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the possible change in the United States' cultural pattern by an influx of Asians: Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States ... with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population ... Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.

—  Democrat Rep. Michael A. Feighan (OH-20), along with some other Democrats, insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States. In removing racial and national discrimination the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.

On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because his administration believed that this was historic legislation, he signed the act at the Liberty Island, New York. Upon signing the legislation into law, Johnson said, "this [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country."

 Edit Text: 

The Hart-Celler Act has a long history of trying to get passed by Congress. This act has been introduced countless times to the Senate between March 14, 1960 when it was first introduced, to August 19, 1965, which was the last time it was presented. It was hard to pass this law under Kennedy’s administration because Senator James Eastland, Representative Michael Feighan, and Representative France Walter, who were in control of the immigration subcommittees, were against immigration reform. When President Lyndon B. Johnson became president on January 8, 1964, he pressured Congress to act upon reform in immigration. However, this president's support did not stop the debate of the Hart-Celler Act until January 4, 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson focused his inaugural address on the reform of immigration, which created intense pressure for the heads of the congressional immigration subcommittees. During the subcommittee's hearing on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee in the Judiciary United States Senate, many came forward to voice their support or opposition to the bill. Many higher-ranking officials in the executive and legislative branches, like Dean Rusk (Secretary of State) and Abba P. Schwartz (Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State), came forward with active support. Also, many cultural and civil rights organizations, like the Order Sons of Italy in America, and the Grand Council of Columbia Association in Civil Service, supported the act. Many of the bill’s supporters believed that this future would outlaw racism and prejudice rhetic that previous immigration quotas have caused; this prejudice has also caused other nations to feel like the United States did not respect them due to their low rating in the previous immigration quotas. Many also believed that this act would highly benefit the United State’s economy because the act focused on allowing skilled workers to enter the United States.

On the other hand, many lobbyists and organizations, like the Daughters of the American Revolutions and the Baltimore Anti-Communistic League, came to the hearing to explain their opposition. Many of the opposition believed that this bill would be against American welfare. The common argument that they used was that if the government allowed more immigrants into the United States, more employment opportunities would be taken away from the American workforce.

The voting of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Once the Hart–Celler Act was passed in the subcommittees and brought to floors of Congress, it was widely supported. Senator Philip Hart introduced the administration-backed immigration bill, which was reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee. Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the United States House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no, and 11 abstained. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for the passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During a debate on the Senate floor, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the Act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

Sen. Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the possible change in the United States' cultural pattern by an influx of Asians:"Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States ... With respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population ... Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned."— U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, pp.71, 119.

Democrat Rep. Michael A. Feighan (OH-20), along with some other Democrats, insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States. In removing racial and national discrimination the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.

When the act was on the floor, two amendments had come up that were designed to impact the Western Hemisphere aspect of the legislation. In the House, the MacGregor Amendment was debated; this amendment called for the Western Hemisphere limit to be 115,000 immigrants annually. This amendment was rejected in a 189-218 record vote. Then the act was pushed to the Senate, where a similar amendment was proposed (possible creating a cap of 115,000 immigrants annually from the Western Hemisphere), but this was also never passed.

On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act. His administration believed that this was historical legislation because of that he signed the act at the Liberty Island, New York. When he signed the legislation into law, he said, "This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country."

Updating the Legislative history section
 Original Text: 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 has a long history of trying to get passed by Congress. This act has been introduced countless times to the Senate between March 14, 1960 when it was first introduced, to August 19, 1965, which was the last time it was presented. It was hard to pass this law under Kennedy’s administration because Senator James Eastland, Representative Michael Feighan, and Representative France Walter, who were in control of the immigration subcommittees, were against immigration reform. When President Lyndon B Johnson became president on January 8, 1964, he pressured Congress to act upon reform in immigration. However, this president's support did not stop the debate of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 until January 4, 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson focused his inaugural address on the reform of immigration, which created intense pressure for the heads of the congressional immigration subcommittees. During the subcommittee's hearing on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee in the Judiciary United States Senate, many came forward to voice their support or opposition to the bill. Many higher-ranking officials in the executive and legislative branches, like Dean Rusk (Secretary of State) and Abba P. Schwartz (Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State), came forward with active support. Also, many cultural and civil rights organizations, like the Order Sons of Italy in America, and the Grand Council of Columbia Association in Civil Service, supported the act. Many of the bill's supporters believed that this future would outlaw racism and prejudice rhetoric that previous immigration quotas have caused; this prejudice has also caused other nations to feel like the United States did not respect them due to their low rating in the previous immigration quotas. Many also believed that this act would highly benefit the United States’ economy because the act focused on allowing skilled workers to enter the United States.

On the other hand, many lobbyists and organizations, like the Daughters of the American Revolutions and the Baltimore Anti-Communistic League, came to the hearing to explain their opposition. Many of the opposition believed that this bill would be against American welfare. The common argument that they used was that if the government allowed more immigrants into the United States, more employment opportunities would be taken away from the American workforce.

The voting of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Once the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed in the subcommittees and brought to floors of Congress, it was widely supported. Senator Philip Hart introduced the administration-backed immigration bill, which was reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee. Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the United States House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the Act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

Sen. Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the possible change in the United States' cultural pattern by an influx of Asians: Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States ... with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population ... Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.

—  Democrat Rep. Michael A. Feighan (OH-20), along with some other Democrats, insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States. In removing racial and national discrimination the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.

When the act was on the floor, two possible amendments was created in order to impact the Western Hemisphere aspect of the legislation. In the House, the MacGregor Amendment was debated; this amendment called for the Western Hemisphere limit to be 115,000 immigrants annually. This amendment was rejected in a 189-218 record vote. Then the act was pushed to the Senate, where a similar amendment was proposed (possible creating a cap of 115,000 immigrants annually from the Western Hemisphere), but this was also never passed.

On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because his administration believed that this was historic legislation, he signed the act at the Liberty Island, New York. Upon signing the legislation into law, Johnson said, "this [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country."

 Edit Text: 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 has a long history of trying to get passed by Congress. This act has been introduced countless times to the Senate between March 14, 1960 when it was first introduced, to August 19, 1965, which was the last time it was presented. It was hard to pass this law under Kennedy’s administration because Senator James Eastland, Representative Michael Feighan, and Representative France Walter, who were in control of the immigration subcommittees, were against immigration reform. When President Lyndon B Johnson became president on January 8, 1964, he pressured Congress to act upon reform in immigration. However, this president's support did not stop the debate of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 until January 4, 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson focused his inaugural address on the reform of immigration, which created intense pressure for the heads of the congressional immigration subcommittees.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 in the 89th Congress
With the support of President Johnson's Administration, Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the Immigration and Nationality bill, H.R. 2580. Emanuel Celler was a senior representative, as well as the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. When Celler introduced the bill, he knew that it would be hard for this bill to move from the committee to the floor successfully; the bill's committee was the Immigration and Nationality subcommittee. The chair of the subcommittee was Representative Feighan, who was against immigration reform. In the end, a compromise was made where immigration based on familial reunification is more critical than immigration based on labor and skilled workers. Later, Senator Philip Hart introduced the Immigration and Nationality bill, S.500, to the Senate.

Congressional Hearings
During the subcommittee's hearing on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee in the Judiciary United States Senate, many came forward to voice their support or opposition to the bill. Many higher-ranking officials in the executive and legislative branches, like Dean Rusk (Secretary of State) and Abba P. Schwartz (Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State), came forward with active support. Also, many cultural and civil rights organizations, like the Order Sons of Italy in America, and the Grand Council of Columbia Association in Civil Service, supported the act. Many of the bill's supporters believed that this future would outlaw racism and prejudice rhetoric that previous immigration quotas have caused; this prejudice has also caused other nations to feel like the United States did not respect them due to their low rating in the previous immigration quotas. Many also believed that this act would highly benefit the United States’ economy because the act focused on allowing skilled workers to enter the United States.

On the other hand, many lobbyists and organizations, like the Daughters of the American Revolutions and the Baltimore Anti-Communistic League, came to the hearing to explain their opposition. Many of the opposition believed that this bill would be against American welfare. The common argument that they used was that if the government allowed more immigrants into the United States, more employment opportunities would be taken away from the American workforce. While the farmers' organizations, like the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Council of Agricultural, argued that this legislation would be hazardous for the agricultural industry due to the section regarding a limit of immigration of the Western Hemisphere. Before this act, there was no limitation with the immigration of the Western Hemisphere, which allowed many migrant workers in the agricultural industry to easily move from countries in the Western Hemisphere to farms in the United States during critical farming seasons. These agricultural organizations believed that this act could cause issues for migrant workers to enter the United States.

The Voting of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Once the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed in the subcommittees and brought to floors of Congress, it was widely supported. Senator Philip Hart introduced the administration-backed immigration bill, which was reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee. Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the United States House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the Act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

Sen. Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the possible change in the United States' cultural pattern by an influx of Asians: Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States ... with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population ... Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.

—  Democrat Rep. Michael A. Feighan (OH-20), along with some other Democrats, insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States. In removing racial and national discrimination the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.

When the act was on the floor, two possible amendments was created in order to impact the Western Hemisphere aspect of the legislation. In the House, the MacGregor Amendment was debated; this amendment called for the Western Hemisphere limit to be 115,000 immigrants annually. This amendment was rejected in a 189-218 record vote. Then the act was pushed to the Senate, where a similar amendment was proposed (possible creating a cap of 115,000 immigrants annually from the Western Hemisphere), but this was also never passed.

Enactment
On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because his administration believed that this was historic legislation, he signed the act at the Liberty Island, New York. Upon signing the legislation into law, Johnson said, "this [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country."