User:Elaguaeslavida/sandbox

Week 7- Improving a Wikipedia Article

African immigration to the United States

Completed with Gabrielle Thomas (WikiID: gabrielle.thomas)

Underlined Sections are our additions! Italicized sections are where we updated grammar, etc.

Citizenship
In the 1870s, the Naturalization Act was extended to allow "aliens, being free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent" to acquire citizenship. Immigration from Africa was theoretically permitted, unlike non-white immigration from Asia.

Quotas enacted between 1921 and 1924
Several laws enforcing national origins quotas on American immigration were enacted between 1921 and 1924 and were in effect until they were repealed in 1965. While the laws were aimed at restricting the immigration of Jews and Catholics from Central and Eastern Europe and immigration from Asia, they also impacted African immigrants. The legislation effectively excluded Africans from entering the country.

The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 restricted immigration from a given country to 3% of the number of people from that country living in the US according to the census of 1910. The Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act, reduced that to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the US in 1890. Under the system, the quota for immigrants from Africa (excluding Egypt) totaled 1,100. (The number was increased to 1,400 under the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act.) That contrasted to immigrants from Germany, which had a limit of 51,227.

Repeal of quotas
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Cellar Act) repealed the national quotas and subsequently there was a substantial increase in the number of immigrants from "developing" countries, particularly in Africa and Asia. This act also provided a separate category for refugees. The act also provided greater opportunity for family reunification.

Diversity Immigrant Visa
The Diversity Visa Program, or green card lottery, is a program created by the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows people born in countries with low rates of immigration to the United States to obtain a lawful permanent resident status. Each year, 50 000 of those visas are distributed at random. Almost 38% of those visas were attributed to African born immigrants in 2016. African born persons also represent the most numerous group among the applicants since 2013. The application is free of charge, and the requirements in terms of education are either a high school diploma or two years of a professional experience requiring at least two years of training.

President Trump has declared his desire to end this program. This would strongly change the migration patterns of African born to the United States.

Recent Migration Trends and Factors
The continent of Africa has seen many changes in migrations patterns over the course of history. T he graph below shows African immigration to the United States in 2016 based on class of admission with numbers from the Department of Homeland Security’s Yearbook. The influx of African immigrants began in the latter part of the 20th century and is often referred to as the "fourth great migration." ''About three-fourths of all out-migration from Africa went to the United States after 1990.[7] This trend began after decolonization, as many Africans came to the US seeking an education and to escape poverty, and has risen steadily over time. Originally, these immigrants came with the sole purpose of advancing themselves before returning to their respective countries. Nevertheless, many immigrants never return. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of African immigrants interested in gaining permanent residence in the US. This has led to a severe brain drain on the economies of African countries due to many skilled hard working Africans leaving Africa to seek their economic fortunes in the US mainly and elsewhere.''

''One major factor that contributes to migration from Africa to the United States is labor opportunities. It has been relatively easier for African immigrants for Africans with advanced education to leave and enter international labor markets. In addition, many Africans come to the United States for advanced training. For example, doctors from different African nations would come to America in order to gain more economic opportunities compared to their home country.[14] However, as more Africans emigrate to the United States, their reasoning and factors tend to become more complex.[15]''

Many Africans who migrate to the United States return their income to Africa in the source of remittances. In Nigeria, for example, remittances (link) from Nigerian immigrants in the United States to Nigeria totaled to $6.1 billion in 2012, approximately 3% of Nigeria’s GDP. The important role of remittances in improving the lives of family members in the United States has led to both migration and migrants remaining in the United States.

Following educational and economic trends of migration, family reunification has driven recent trends of migration. Family reunification refers to the ability of U.S. Citizens to sponsor family members for immigration. Sponsoring immediate family members and other family preferences  led to 45% and 10% of all African immigration in 2016 respectively. Legal service organizations such as the African Advocacy Network aid in family members sponsoring new immigrants to the United States.

Additionally, refugees make up a large class of admission to the United States. Recent crises in the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Nigeria, Burundi, and Yemen have been sources of migrants in recent years. With recent restrictions on refugee entrance to the United States, refugees may face a harder time entering the United States.

Week 3-Evaluating Articles and Sources
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * For the most part, yes. This osmosis theory thing seems pretty weird.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear biased toward a particular position?
 * The discussion of osmosis theory seems biased towards that theory's explanatory power and relevance. The idea of a single unifying theory is not novel nor does there seem to be strong support for this theory.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Compared to what we've discussed more recently, economic models of human migration are overrepresented here compared to other things we've discussed like social networks, or cumulative causation.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * In general the sources support the claims made. The problem with this article seems to be more the lack of sources for some claims.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Again, osmosis theory's citations are just citations of the author's work, no independent sources are available, undermining the relevance of this topic in the field. The author only has two publications, both of which on this topic which seems suspect. For the other theories, they mostly rely on one article by Jenissen so more sources would improve the quality.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I know some statistics are wrong or incorrectly defined, such as the list of immigration countries (not quite sure what that means, most immigrants? most flow?). More social and cultural theories of migration could be added to this article to provide more context. Additionally, synthesis theories (Massey vs. Garup) could be helpful to a wikipedian trying to make sense of the information.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are significant concerns about whether or not to just summarize trends of historical migration, whether or not to discuss modern migration, as well as discussion of an appropriate scope of the article. There also some discussion on the accuracy of certain assertions about historical migration timelines.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated Level 3, vital article. It is part of the Archaeology, Anthropology, Human Genetic History, History, Ethnic Groups, Economics, and Human Rights.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Like I said above, there is an overrepresentation of economic theory, as well as a lack of synthesis theories.