This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Immigration to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 19, 2004 and May 19, 2005.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{ WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Globalization High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Immigration to the United States (39 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 16,517 16,517 History 519 73,156 Colonial period 2,728 2,728 Origins of immigrant stock in 1790 19,245 19,245 Early United States era 2,919 2,919 Exclusion Era 2,572 2,572 Origins of immigrant stock in 1920 18,873 18,873 Since 1965 8,216 8,216 Modern reform attempts 1,962 9,973 Trump administration policies 6,969 6,969 Biden administration policies 1,042 1,042 Origins of the U.S. immigrant population, 1960–2016 8,111 8,111 Contemporary immigration 10,619 17,667 Origin countries 5,774 5,774 Charts 1,274 1,274 Demography 17 58,764 Extent and destinations 7,238 7,238 Origin 51,509 51,509 Effects of immigration 17,690 36,528 Economic impact 18,838 18,838 Public opinion 12,723 15,356 Religious responses 2,633 2,633 Legal issues 8,997 8,997 Immigration in popular culture 2,970 6,896 Immigration in literature 3,926 3,926 Documentary films 1,440 1,440 Overall approach to regulation 2,698 2,698 See also 637 637 Notes 36 36 References 49,534 49,534 Further reading 23 9,924 Surveys 2,532 2,532 Before 1920 2,968 2,968 Recent: post 1965 4,401 4,401 External links 106 3,047 History 746 746 Immigration policy 676 676 Current immigration 820 820 Economic impact 699 699 Total 301,197 301,197

Hello,

This article is over 300,000 bytes. The splitting guidelines suggest to split an article when it reaches or surpasses 100,000 bytes. Therefore, I think it is a good idea to split it at this time. If you oppose this, please add a comment with your rationale. Thanks, DesertPipeline ( talk) 07:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree with you, so I support the split. deisenbe ( talk) 02:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC) reply

i think we should split it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.81.85 ( talk) 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC) reply

This is the proposal as presently described on the article page:

It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled Demographics of immigration to the United States, Effects of immigration to the United States, Legal issues of immigration to the United States, Public opinion of immigration to the United States and United States immigration policy.

I agree that the present article is cumbersome and could benefit from being divided. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to keep law and policy in a single article, as law and policy intersect. I also wonder if effects and public opinion should be kept within a single article. Arllaw ( talk) 13:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Arllaw: Sorry for my late response. If effects and public opinion are to be in a single article, what should that article's title be? "Effects and public opinion of immigration to the United States"? If you have any suggestions, please feel free to state them; this goes for anyone else as well. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 22:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Perhaps something simpler, like "Impact of Immigration to the United States". Arllaw ( talk) 23:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Arllaw: It might be necessary to do without conciseness in favour of clarity. I'm not sure if "impact" communicates the intended message, and I'm also concerned that it could be a colloquialism in this context. I'd like to hear what others think about this, though – perhaps there's a better title someone else could come up with, or perhaps the title you suggested is fine and I'm just overthinking it. I posted about this split discussion on the United States wikiproject talk page once before, but that didn't seem to attract much attention. Do you have any suggestions for how we can get more input here? Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 01:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

"Impact of..." seems to be a common approach to titling articles, but you may find other common approaches. Even though less specific, a concise title can provide advantages to end-users over a "more precise" title that is excessively long. Arllaw ( talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Arllaw: We can go with that then. So what is the list of proposed sub-articles now? I'll update the template on the article page accordingly. DesertPipeline ( talk) 14:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

How about just "Effects of immigration"? Public opinion to it would be a section. deisenbe ( talk) 11:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Deisenbe: That was my first suggestion. Depending on the merit of the points for and against such titles, and any other options that exist, we can decide which to use. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I doubt that's gonna do anything, the public opinion part is barely much to change, the article would still be too long to navigate comfortably. I suggest an alternative message: This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Cleter ( talk) 02:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

As anybody who's ever tried it knows, splitting an article is not as simple as it sounds. X-References may fail, so notes have to be copied and pasted. Plus there need to be new links associating the new articles. All the links to the present article—there are hundreds—need to be revised multiple times. To which new articles would the existing illustrations be moved? What new illustrations are available for the new articles? There is also the question of whether everything in the current article would properly fit into one of the new articles, and what to do if some of it doesn't. And there is also the not insignificant question of who would do what, and who would coordinate things. In my view, there has to be one person at least keeping track of all the parts of each revision.

Perhaps someone could explain to me what section(s) of the present article would properly be turned into an article on "United Ststes Immigration Policy", as suggested above. The history?

On looking at the existing article, it says absolutely nothing, and says that it is saying nothing, about the forced immigration of enslaved Africans until 1808, and clandestinely afterwards. They were not being counted as immigrants at the time, but in every sense I can think of, they were still immigrants. They came from foreign countries to the United States, where almost all of them remained. They were immigrants. And their numbers were substantial. They belong in the statistics. deisenbe ( talk) 05:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

This discussion has been dormant for several months, so I've begun the process of splitting the article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose: The opinion about the topic is a component of the topic itself and belongs within the primary article. Also, this proposal was made almost a year ago and should now be settled one way or the other. Keystone18 ( talk) 18:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Israeli immigration to South Florida and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 27 § Israeli immigration to South Florida until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Fram ( talk) 09:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There number and rank of immigrants are not right Jaulesmckinsky ( talk) 16:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jaulesmckinsky:  Not done: please be specific and provide reliable sources for you claims. What exactly are the right number and rank of immigrants? According to who? small jars t c 17:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Why do editors keep citing the ACLS results as the final word on the 1790 population? Scholars have determined ACLS data inaccurate and unreliable for many decades now [1]. There are other sources that have revised these estimates. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 08:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

There is repeating text under the heading "Exclusion Era" Calliope777 ( talk) 19:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Contemporary immigration numbers of lawful permanent residents should be updated with data from 2021 and 2022. 2021 data is here https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/2022_0405_plcy_lawful_permanent_residents_fy2021v2.pdf 2022 data is here https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration (there's a xlsx file that contains statistics for all 4 quarters of 2022. Abramprice87 ( talk) 23:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change table titled "Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015–2021:" to include 2022 data released on 03/08/2023. That data can be found here: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration/year-end Abramprice87 ( talk) 17:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: Abramprice87, may I suggest you copy the existing table over to your own userspace and update it yourself? Then when you're finished, reopen the edit request and point whoever answers to the updated table. Thanks, Xan747 ( talk) 00:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there! finally got the updated table put together (pasted below). please change the table entitled "Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015-2021" to include 2022 data posted here ( https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration/year-end). Note that the top 15 countries for 2022 have changed. Canada, Honduras, and Guatemala are now in the Top 15 and South Korea, Haiti, and Nigeria are not. I have retrieved the 2015-2021 data for Canada, Honduras, and Guatemala and removed the rows for South Korea, Haiti, and Nigeria.

Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015–2022: [1]
Country	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Mexico	158,619	174,534	170,581	161,858	156,052	100,325	107,230	138,723
India	64,116	64,687	60,394	59,821	54,495	46,363	93,450	125,130
China	74,558	81,772	71,565	65,214	62,248	41,483	49,847	68,100
Dominican Republic	50,610	61,161	58,520	57,413	49,911	30,005	24,553	39,472
Philippines	56,478	53,287	49,147	47,258	45,920	25,491	27,511	36,313
Cuba	54,396	66,516	65,028	76,486	41,641	16,367	23,077	31,347
El Salvador	19,487	23,449	25,109	28,326	27,656	17,907	18,668	30,478
Vietnam	30,832	41,451	38,231	33,834	39,712	29,995	16,312	23,804
Brazil	11,424	13,812	14,989	15,394	19,825	16,746	18,351	23,596
Colombia	17,316	18,610	17,956	17,545	19,841	11,989	15,293	21,433
Venezuela	9,144	10,772	11,809	11,762	15,720	12,136	14,412	19,956
Canada	19,309	19,349	18,469	14,337	14,723	11,297	12,053	19,313
Honduras	9,071	12,996	12,792	13,492	15,901	7,843	9,425	16,936
Guatemala	11,466	12,547	11,147	15,172	13,111	7,369	8,199	16,814
Jamaica	17,642	23,350	21,905	20,347	21,689	12,826	13,357	16,300
South Korea	17,138	21,801	19,194	17,676	18,479	16,244	12,351	16,058
Total	1,051,031	1,183,505	1,127,167	1,096,611	1,031,765	707,362	740,002	1,018,004

Abramprice87 ( talk) 21:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Table markup edited so that table displays as I believe Abramprice87 intended. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 06:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The debate has gone nowhere these past years since July 2021. On resolving the issue, in accordance to rule number 8 on when to remove the template, it clearly states (ahem):

"You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). Please note there is currently no consensus for general age-related removal of maintenance templates – that is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old is not considered a sufficient argument. Exception: removing POV-related templates whose discussions have gone dormant is encouraged, as addressed in the bullet point immediately above;"

Unless anyone has anything to say or anyone to introduce into the discussion, I will be bold and remove the template within 2 weeks. Thank you. Cleter ( talk) 01:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Also number 4

"When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);" Cleter ( talk) 14:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I will be true to my word. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 ( a word) 01:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Flags are excessively overused in this article. A lot of the immigrants left their original countries because they want to disassociate themselves with the regimes associated with those flags in the first place, and using those flags to represent them is not only inappropriate, but can be offensive. Furthermore, a lot of those flags are anachronistic, representing regimes or countries that didn't exist at the time the immigrants left. DHN ( talk) 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and removed them. DHN ( talk) 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abbyroman, IG270 ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Abbyroman ( talk) 18:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply