Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 also known as the Hart–Celler Act, is a federal law passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been the basis of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s.

Largely to restrict immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe, the Immigration Act of 1925 had not permanently established the National Origins Formula as the basis of U.S. immigration policy. By broadening immigration of non-Northern Europeans, according to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the 1924 act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[1] During the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the National Origins Formula increasingly came under attack for being racially discriminatory. With the support of the Johnson administration, Senator Philip Hart and Congressman Emanuel Keller introduced a bill to repeal the formula. The bill received wide support from both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, and Johnson signed the Hart-Cellar Act into law on October 3, 1965. In opening entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional Northern European and Germanic groups, the act would significantly, and unintentionally, alter the demographic mix in the U.S.[2]

The Hart-Celler Act created a seven-category preference system that gives priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, as well as to professionals and other individuals with specialized skills. The act maintained per-country and total immigration limits, but included a provision exempting immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from numerical restrictions. The act also set a numerical limit on immigration from the Western Hemisphere for the first time in U.S. history. Though proponents of the bill had argued that it would not have a major effect on the total level of immigration or the demographic mix of the United States, the act greatly increased the total number of immigrants coming to the United States, as well as the share of immigrants coming to the United States from Asia and Africa.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Great Seal of the United States (obverse)
Long titleAn Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
Acronyms (colloquial)INA of 1965
Enacted bythe 89th United States Congress
EffectiveJune 30, 1968
Public lawPub.L. 89–236
Statutes at Large79 Stat. 911
Acts amendedImmigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Titles amended8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality
U.S.C. sections amended8 U.S.C. ch. 12 (§§ 1101, 1151–1157, 1181–1182, 1201, 1254–1255, 1259, 1322, 1351)
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2580 by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY)
  • Committee consideration by Judiciary
  • Passed the House on August 25, 1965 (318–95)
  • Passed the Senate on September 22, 1965 (76–18) with amendment
  • House agreed to Senate amendment on September 30, 1965 (320–70)
  • Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 3, 1965


The Hart–Celler Act of 1965 marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. Previous laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] 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.

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.[6]


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.[7]

  • 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.
  • For the first time, immigration from the Western Hemisphere was limited.
  • 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 through other means as well like those seeking temporary asylum.

Wages under Foreign Certification

As per the rules under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), U.S. organizations are permitted to employ foreign workers either temporarily or permanently to fulfill certain types of job requirement. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) under the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is the body that usually provides certification to employers allowing them to hire foreign workers in order to bridge qualified and skilled labor gaps in certain business areas. Employers must confirm that they are unable to hire American workers willing to perform the job for wages paid by employers for the same occupation in the intended area of employment. However, some unique rules are applied to each category of visas. They are as follows:

  • H-1B and H-1B1 Specialty (Professional) Workers should have a pay, as per the prevailing wage – an average wage that is paid to a person employed in the same occupation in the area of employment; or that the employer pays its workers the actual wage paid to people having similar skills and qualifications.
  • H-2A Agricultural Workers should have the highest pay in accordance to the (a) Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), (b) the present rate for a particular crop or area, or (c) the state or federal minimum wage. The law also stipulates requirements like employer-sponsored meals and transportation of the employees as well as restrictions on deducting from the workers' wages.
  • H-2B Non-agricultural Workers should receive a pay that is in accordance with the prevailing wage (mean wage paid to a worker employed in a similar occupation in the concerned area of employment).
  • D-1 Crewmembers (longshore work) should be paid the current wage (mean wage paid to a person employed in a similar occupation in the respective area of employment).
  • Permanent Employment of Aliens should be employed after the employer has agreed to provide and pay as per the prevailing wage trends and that it should be decided on the basis of one of the many alternatives provisioned under the said Act. This rule has to be followed the moment the Alien has been granted with permanent residency or the Alien has been admitted in the United States so as to take the required position.[8]

Legislative history

October 3, 1965: President Lyndon B. Johnson visits the Statue of Liberty to sign the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

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.[9] 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.[9] In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[10] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained.[11] 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 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".[12]

Senator 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.[13]

It is noteworthy that from 1966 to 1970, 19,399 immigrants came from Japan, more than three times Senator Fong's estimate. Immigration from Asia as a whole has totaled 5,627,576 from 1966 to 1993. 6.8% of the American population is currently of Asian birth or heritage.

Michael A. Feighan, along with some 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.[14][15] In removing racial and national discrimination the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.[16]

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".[17]

Long-term effect

Chart of foreign born in the US labor force 1900 to 2007
Foreign-born in US labor force 1900-2015

The proponents of the Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[18] Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[19] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[20][21] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marks the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico.[22]

Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada. However, in the years 1971–1991, immigrants from Hispanic and Latin American countries made 47.9 percent of immigrants (with Mexico accounting for 23.7 percent) and immigrants from Asia 35.2 percent. Not only did it change the ethnic makeup of immigration, but it also greatly increased the number of immigrants — immigration constituted 11 percent of the total U.S. population growth between 1960 and 1970, growing to 33 percent from 1970 to 1980, and to 39 percent from 1980 to 1990.[23] The percentage of foreign-born in the United States increased from 5 percent in 1965 to 14 percent in 2016.[24]

The elimination of the National Origins Formula and the introduction of numeric limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, along with the strong demand for immigrant workers by U.S. employers, led to rising numbers of illegal immigrants in the U.S. in the decades after 1965, especially in the Southwest.[25] Policies in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that were designed to curtail migration across the Mexican-U.S. border led many unauthorized workers to settle permanently in the U.S.[26] These demographic trends became a central part of anti-immigrant activism from the 1980s leading to greater border militarization, rising apprehension of migrants by the Border Patrol, and a focus in the media on the criminality of immigrants.[27]

The INA's elimination of national and ethnic quotas has limited recent efforts at immigration restriction. In January, 2017, president Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769 temporarily halted immigration from seven majority-Muslim nations.[28] However, lower federal courts ruled that the Executive Order violated the INA's prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion. In June, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court overrode both appeals courts and allowed the second ban to go into effect, but carved out an exemption for persons with "bona fide relationships" in the U.S. In December, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the full travel ban to take effect, which excludes people who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.[29] In June 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban, saying that the president's power to secure the country's borders, delegated by Congress over decades of immigration lawmaking, was not undermined by the president's history of incendiary statements about the dangers he said Muslims pose to the United States.[30]

See also


  1. ^ "The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)". U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian. Retrieved May 15, 2019.
  2. ^ Jennifer Ludden. "1965 immigration law changed face of America". NPR. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
  3. ^ "U.S. Immigration Before 1965". Retrieved September 3, 2016.
  4. ^ "The Geopolitical Origins of the U.S. Immigration Acts of 1965". Retrieved March 1, 2016.
  5. ^ "Whom we shall welcome; report". Retrieved March 1, 2016.
  6. ^ Tracy J. Davis. "Opening the Doors of Immigration: Sexual Orientation and Asylum in the United States". Human Rights Brief. 6 (3). Archived from the original on August 22, 2002.
  7. ^ Keely, Charles B. (Winter 1979). "The Development of U.S. Immigration Policy Since 1965". Journal of International Affairs. 33 (2).
  8. ^ "Wages under Foreign Labor Certification". U.S. Department of Labor. Archived from the original on September 25, 2005. Retrieved December 3, 2015.
  9. ^ a b Association of Centers for the Study of Congress. "Immigration and Nationalization Act". The Great Society Congress. Association of Centers for the Study of Congress. Retrieved April 6, 2016.
  10. ^ Keith Poole. "Senate Vote #232 (Sep 22, 1965)". Civic Impulse, LLC.
  11. ^ Keith Poole. "House Vote #177 (Sep 30, 1965)". Civic Impulse, LLC.
  12. ^ Bill Ong Hing (2012), Defining America: Through Immigration Policy, Temple University Press, p. 95, ISBN 978-1-59213-848-7
  13. ^ "The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act".
  14. ^ Tom Gjelten, Laura Knoy (January 21, 2016). NPR's Tom Gjelten on America's Immigration Story (Radio broadcast). The Exchange. New Hampshire Public Radio. Retrieved June 7, 2016.
  15. ^ Gjelten, Tom (August 12, 2015). "Michael Feighan and LBJ". Archived from the original on May 6, 2016. Retrieved June 7, 2016.
  16. ^ Jennifer Ludden. "1965 immigration law changed face of America". NPR.
  17. ^ "Remarks at the Signing of the Immigration Bill, Liberty Island, New York". October 3, 1965. Archived from the original on May 16, 2016. Retrieved January 1, 2012.
  18. ^ Johnson, L.B., (1965). President Lyndon B. Johnson's Remarks at the Signing of the Immigration Bill. Liberty Island, New York October 3, 1965 transcript at lbjlibrary.
  19. ^ Jennifer Ludden. "1965 immigration law changed face of America". NPR.
  20. ^ Ngai, Mae M. (2004). Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princenton: Princeton University Press. pp. 266–268. ISBN 978-0-691-16082-5.
  21. ^ Law, Anna O. (Summer 2002). "The Diversity Visa Lottery – A Cycle of Unintended Consequences in United States Immigration Policy". Journal of American Ethnic History. 21 (4).
  22. ^ Wolgin, Philip (October 16, 2015). "The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 Turns 50". Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  23. ^ Lind, Michael (1995). The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution. New York: The Free Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-684-82503-8.
  24. ^ "Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065". Pew Research Center. September 28, 2015. Retrieved August 24, 2016.
  25. ^ Massey, Douglas S. (September 25, 2015). "How a 1965 immigration reform created illegal immigration". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
  26. ^ Massey, Douglas S.; Durand, Jorge; Pren, Karen A. (March 1, 2016). "Why Border Enforcement Backfired". American Journal of Sociology. 121 (5): 1557–1600. doi:10.1086/684200. ISSN 0002-9602. PMC 5049707.
  27. ^ Chavez, Leo (2013). The Latino threat : constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford University Press.
  28. ^ See Wikisource:Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
  29. ^ Lydia Wheeler (4 December 2017). "Supreme Court allows full Trump travel ban to take effect". The Hill.
  30. ^ "Trump's Travel Ban is Upheld by Supreme Court". The New York Times. June 26, 2018.

External links

1991 Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act

The Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act 1991, also known as the Six and Six Program, was enacted on October 1, 1991. The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act.The Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act allows aliens who have served in the United States Armed Forces for at least period of 12 years to be granted special immigrant status. Immigrants who have served for 6 years may also obtain special immigrant status if they re-enlist so their total service commitment is 12 years. Special immigration status may also be awarded to those who have a "recommendation by the executive department under which such alien served or is serving."There are no numerical limits on how many special immigrant status visas can be issued. Special immigrant status visa holders are able to obtain permanent resident status, and the same applies to their spouses and children.Some applicants for special immigrant status are also immediately eligible for naturalization as US citizens.

Alien Fiancées and Fiancés Act of 1946

The Alien Fiancées and Fiancés Act of 1946 (Pub. L. 79-471; 60 stat. 339, enacted June 29, 1946), also known as G.I. Fiancée Act, was an extension of the War Brides Act that eliminated barriers for Filipino and Indian war brides. The barriers for Korean and Japanese war brides were removed by a 1947 amendment.According to Aaron D. Horton, nearly 45,000 foreign-born women entered the United States under the act.. Fiancés who did not marry after arriving in the United States were subject to deportation. Furthermore, most women who immigrated were of European descent. But many Asian women, especially large numbers of Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino women, also entered the United States under the act, who previously were unable to immigrate due to strict quotas on Asian immigration.

Under the act, women who entered the United States and married within three months of entering received permanent immigrant status. According to Emily Alward, admission of Asian women into the United States ultimately made the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 possible.The act was scheduled to expire on July 1, 1947, but was extended to December 31, 1948, the same expiry date as the War Brides Act.

Asian immigration to the United States

Asian immigration to the United States refers to immigration to the United States from part of the continent of Asia, which including East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. Asian-origin populations have historically been in the territory that would become the United States since the 16th century. A first major wave of Asian immigration occurred in the late 19th century, primarily in Hawaii and the West Coast. Asian Americans experienced exclusion, and limitations to immigration, by law from the United States between 1875 and 1965, and were largely prohibited from naturalization until the 1940s. Since the elimination of Asian exclusion laws and the reform of the immigration system in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, there has been a large increase in the number of immigrants to the United States from Asia.

Birthright generation

Birthright generation is a term used by immigrant advocates to identify U.S. born citizens; citizens are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants American citizenship to all babies born on American soil whether the child is born to one or both undocumented parents. Birthright citizenship may be also conferred either by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under the United States Law, any person born within the U.S. including the territories of: Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted US citizenship.

The alternative term is Anchor Baby; a term used by immigration reductionists in the United States to identify a child born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. It is generally used as a reference to the supposed role of the child, who as a US citizen through the legal principle of jus soli, may facilitate immigration for relatives through family reunification. Family reunification, or family-based immigration, in the USA is a lengthy process and limited to categories prescribed by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

This misconception has led those that oppose citizenship rights for children of immigrants, that newborns would facilitate residency and citizenship rights for their parents. However, an American child cannot claim a parent until the age of 21.

Chinese Exclusion Act

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. Building on the 1875 Page Act, which banned Chinese women from immigrating to the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating.

The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the U.S.–China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was renewed in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943, which allowed 105 Chinese to enter per year. Chinese immigration later increased with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.

Demographic history of New York City

The racial and ethnic history of New York City has varied widely; from its sale to the Dutch by Native American residents, to the modern multi-cultural period.

New York City has had a largely white population, and most foreign born immigrants to the city before the end of World War II were from Europe. However, this changed in the decades after World War II, when all of the boroughs became more diverse, and when immigration from places outside Europe was increased largely due to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 .

Emergency Quota Act

The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, the Per Centum Law, and the Johnson Quota Act (ch. 8, 42 Stat. 5 of May 19, 1921) was actually formulated mainly in response to the large influx of Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe and thus successfully restricted their immigration and that of other "undesirables" into the United States. Although intended as temporary legislation, the Act "proved in the long run the most important turning-point in American immigration policy" because it added two new features to American immigration law: numerical limits on immigration and the use of a quota system for establishing those limits. These limits came to be known as the National Origins Formula.

The Emergency Quota Act restricted the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of residents from that same country living in the United States as of the U.S. Census of 1910. This meant that people from northern European countries had a higher quota and were more likely to be admitted to the U.S. than people from eastern Europe, southern Europe, or other, non-European countries. Professionals were to be admitted without regard to their country of origin. The Act set no limits on immigration from Latin America. The act did not apply to countries with bilateral agreements with the US, or to Asian countries listed in the Immigration Act of 1917, known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act. However, the Act was not seen as restrictive enough since millions of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe had come into the USA since 1890. The Immigration Act of 1924 reduced the Quota to 2% per the Census of 1890 when a fairly small percentage of the population was from the regions regarded as less than desirable.

Based on that formula, the number of new immigrants admitted fell from 805,228 in 1920 to 309,556 in 1921-22. The average annual inflow of immigrants prior to 1921 was 175,983 from Northern and Western Europe, and 685,531 from other countries, principally Southern and Eastern Europe. In 1921, there was a drastic reduction in immigration levels from other countries, principally Southern and Eastern Europe.Following the end of World War I, both Europe and the United States were experiencing economic and social upheaval. In Europe, the destruction of the war, the Russian Revolution, and the dissolutions of both the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires led to greater immigration to the United States; while in the United States, an economic downturn following post-war demobilization increased unemployment. The combination of increased immigration from Europe at the time of higher American unemployment strengthened the anti-immigrant movement.

The act, sponsored by Rep. Albert Johnson (R-Washington), was passed without a recorded vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and by a vote of 90-2-4 in the U.S. Senate.The Act was revised by the Immigration Act of 1924.

The use of such a National Origins Formula continued until 1965 when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 replaced it with a system of preferences based on immigrants' skills and family relationships with U.S. citizens or U.S. residents.

Gujarati Americans

Gujarati Americans are Americans who trace their ancestry to Gujarat, India. They are a subgroup of Indian Americans.

The highest concentration of the Gujarati American population by a significant margin, with over 100,000 Gujarati individuals, is in the New York City Metropolitan Area, notably in the growing Gujarati diasporic center of India Square, or Little Gujarat, in Jersey City, New Jersey, and Edison in Middlesex County in Central New Jersey. Significant immigration from India to the United States started after the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Early immigrants after 1965 were highly educated professionals. Since US immigration laws allow sponsoring immigration of parents, children and particularly siblings on the basis of family reunion, the numbers rapidly swelled in a phenomenon known as "chain migration". Given the Gujarati propensity for entrepreneurship and business enterprise, a number of them opened shops and motels. Now in the 21st century over 40% of the hospitality industry in the United States is controlled by Gujaratis. Gujaratis, especially the Patidar samaj, also dominate as franchisees of fast food restaurant chains such as Subway and Dunkin' Donuts. The descendants of the Gujarati immigrant generation have also made high levels of advancement into professional fields, including as physicians, engineers and politicians. In August 2016, Air India commenced direct, one-seat flight service between Ahmedabad and Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, via London Heathrow International Airport.Famous Gujarati Americans include Ami Bera (United States Congress), Reshma Saujani (American politician), Sonal Shah (economist to Whitehouse), Rohit Vyas (Indian American journalist),

Bharat Desai (CEO Syntel), Vyomesh Joshi (Forbes), Raj Bhavsar (sports) Halim Dhanidina (first Muslim judge of California), Savan Kotecha (Grammy nominated American songwriter), Mafat and Tulsi Patel (Patel Brothers founders), and Hollywood actresses, Sheetal Sheth and Noureen DeWulf.

Immigration Act of 1924

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants.

The 1924 act supplanted earlier acts to effectively ban all immigration from Asia and set a total immigration quota of 165,000 for countries outside the Western Hemisphere, an 80% reduction from the pre-World War I average. Quotas for specific countries were based on 2% of the U.S. population from that country as recorded in 1890. As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles and other Slavs. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity." Congressional opposition was minimal.

A key element of the act was its provisions for enforcement. The act provided funding and legal instructions to courts of deportation for immigrants whose national quotas were exceeded. The act was revised in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Immigration Act of 1990

The Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub.L. 101–649, 104 Stat. 4978, enacted November 29, 1990) was signed into law by George H. W. Bush on November 29, 1990. It was first introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy in 1989. It was a national reform of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It increased total, overall immigration to allow 700,000 immigrants to come to the U.S. per year for the fiscal years 1992–94, and 675,000 per year after that. It provided family-based immigration visa, created five distinct employment based visas, categorized by occupation, and a diversity visa program that created a lottery to admit immigrants from "low admittance" countries or countries where their citizenry was underrepresented in the U.S.

Besides these immigrant visas there were also changes in nonimmigrant visas like the H-1B visa for highly skilled workers. There were also cutbacks in the allotment of visas available for extended relatives. Congress also created the temporary protected status (TPS visa), which the Attorney General may provide to immigrants who are temporarily unable to safely return to their home country because of ongoing armed conflict, an environmental disaster, or other extraordinary and temporary condition. It specifically benefited citizens of El Salvador.The act also lifted the English testing process for naturalization that had been imposed in the Naturalization Act of 1906 for permanent residents who are over 55 and have been living in the United States for fifteen years as a permanent resident, and eliminated exclusion of homosexuals under the medically unsound classification of "sexual deviant" that was in the 1965 Act. George H. W. Bush is quoted in saying "I am also pleased to note that this Act facilitates immigration not just in numerical terms, but also in terms of basic entry rights of those beyond our borders."

Immigration Innovation Act of 2015

Immigration Innovation Act of 2015 or the I-Squared Act of 2015 ("Orrin Bill," S. 153) was an immigration reform bill introduced in the United States Senate on January 13, 2015, by Senator Orrin G. Hatch. The bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to establish an annual cap on H-1B nonimmigrant visas (specialty occupations) at between 115,000 and 195,000 visas depending upon market conditions and existing demand. (The current annual H-1B cap is 65,000.)

Immigration and Nationality Act

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act may refer to one of several acts including:

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

Immigration Act of 1990

Ma-Tsu Temple (San Francisco, California)

The Ma-Tsu Temple is a Taoist temple in San Francisco's Chinatown. Founded in 1986, it is dedicated to Mazu and has foundational ties to the Chaotian Temple in Beigang, Yunlin, Taiwan.Its founding has been described as reflective of both a change in Chinese American demographics following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and the rise of a transnational Taiwanese-American community economically enabled by the Taiwan Miracle of the 1980s.The temple was originally located on Grant Avenue before moving to its present location on Becket Street in 1996. It is not to be confused with the Tin How Temple two blocks to the South, which is likewise dedicated to Mazu (carrying one of her popular names in Cantonese), but was founded in 1910 and is the oldest extant Taoist temple in Chinatown.

Magnuson Act

The Magnuson Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, was an immigration legislation proposed by U.S. Representative (later Senator) Warren G. Magnuson of Washington and signed into law on December 17, 1943 in the United States. It allowed Chinese immigration for the first time since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and permitted some Chinese immigrants already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens. However, the Magnuson Act provided for the continuation of the ban against the ownership of property and businesses by ethnic Chinese. In many states, Chinese Americans (including US citizens) were denied property-ownership rights either by law or de facto until the Magnuson Act itself was fully repealed in 1965.This act is first legislation since 1870, which relaxed racial and national immigration barriers in the United States and started the way to the completely non-racial immigration legislation and policy of the late 1960s.

The Magnuson Act was passed on December 17, 1943, two years after China became an official allied nation of the United States in World War II. Although considered a positive development by many, it was particularly restrictive of Chinese immigrants, limiting them to an annual quota of 105 new entry visas. The quota was supposedly determined by the Immigration Act of 1924, which set immigration from qualifying countries at 2% of the number of people who were already living in the United States in 1890 of that nationality. However, the arrived-at number of 105 per annum granted to the Chinese was disproportionately low. (The quota should have been 2,150 per annum, as official census figures place the population of ethnic Chinese living in the USA in 1890 at 107,488 persons.) Regardless of the method of calculation, the number of Chinese immigrants allowed into the USA was disproportionately low in ratio to the sanctioned immigration of other nationalities and ethnicities. Chinese immigration later increased with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers and later by Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.

Michael A. Feighan

Michael Aloysius Feighan (February 16, 1905 – March 19, 1992) was an American politician from Lakewood, Ohio, near Cleveland. He served as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives, and as a Democratic Party U.S. Representative from 1943 to 1971, serving Ohio's 20th congressional district.

Originally, he was recruited by national Democrats who wanted to replace Congressman Martin L. Sweeney (D-OH), who had for eleven years held the seat representing the west side of Cleveland. They considered Sweeney to be too isolationist; for example, he had argued against enacting Lend-Lease to the United Kingdom.

After Feighan had served almost three decades in the House of Representatives, some local Democratic officials, led by Cleveland City Council President James V. Stanton, had grown tired of his leadership. Sensing that they could not beat Feighan in one election, they set up a stalking horse running a Michael Sweeney, a local lawyer with a good political name. Sweeney lost, but his vote total showed that Feighan could be vulnerable in a rematch. Two years later, in 1970, Stanton himself ran and defeated Feighan in the Democratic primary, concluding Feighan's political career.

During the legislation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 Feighan insisted that "family unification" should take priority in immigration policy over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States and consequently a more ethnically diverse population.

Oscar Handlin

Oscar Handlin (September 29, 1915 – September 20, 2011) was an American historian. As a professor of history at Harvard University for over 50 years, he directed 80 PhD dissertations and helped promote social and ethnic history, virtually inventing the field of immigration history in the 1950s. Handlin won the 1952 Pulitzer Prize for History for The Uprooted (1951). Handlin's 1965 testimony before Congress was said to "have played an important role" in passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that abolished the discriminatory immigration quota system in the U.S.

Stipulated removal

Stipulated removal is a summary deportation procedure used in immigration enforcement in the United States. Stipulated removal occurs when a noncitizen who is facing removal proceedings and is scheduled for a hearing with an immigration judge signs a document stipulating that he/she is waiving the right to trial and to appeal, and is prepared to be removed immediately. The stipulation of removal must still be signed off by the judge before whom the hearing is to take place, but the noncitizen need not be physically presented to the judge. It is authorized under Section 240(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 According to the United States Code of Federal Regulations: "A stipulated order shall constitute a conclusive determination of the alien’s removability from the United States." Stipulated removal applies only to those who are scheduled for regular removal proceedings, and does not apply to people who are being removed through other summary procedures such as expedited removal, reinstatement of removal, or administrative removal for aggravated felons.

United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations

"Foreign Terrorist Organization" (FTO) is a designation for non-United States-based organizations deemed by the United States Secretary of State, in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA), to be involved in what US authorities define as terrorist activities. Most of the organizations on the list are Islamist extremist groups, nationalist/separatist groups, or Marxist militant groups.

The Department of State, along with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, also has the authority to designate individuals and entities as subject to counter-terrorism sanctions according to Executive Order 13224. The Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains a separate list of such individuals and entities.

William N. Vaile

William Newell Vaile (June 22, 1876 – July 2, 1927) was a U.S. Representative from Colorado.

Born in Kokomo, Indiana, Vaile moved with his parents to Denver, Colorado, in 1881. Vaile was of English descent. He attended the public schools and graduated from Yale University in 1898. During the Spanish–American War, he served as a private in the First Regiment of the Connecticut Volunteer Field Artillery from May 19, 1898, to October 25, 1898.

Vaile studied law at the University of Colorado in 1899 and Harvard Law School in 1900–01. He was admitted to the bar in 1901 and began his practice in Denver. He was counsel for the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, 1901–16, and he served as County Attorney for Jefferson County from 1911 to 1914. He married Kate Rothwell Varrell on June 14, 1914. Valie was a Republican candidate for Congress in 1916. He served on the Mexican border from June 28 to December 1, 1916, as a second lieutenant in the First Separate Battalion, National Guard of Colorado.

Vaile was elected as a Republican to the Sixty-sixth and to the four succeeding Congresses, serving from March 4, 1919, until his death on July 2, 1927. He served as chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of the Treasury (Sixty-eighth Congress, March 4, 1923 to March 3, 1925).

Congressman Vaile co-sponsored the Cummins-Vaile Bill which was introduced on April 8, 1924. It was the first birth control bill to reach debate in Congress of the United States.Congressman Vaile was a noted restrictionist. He was a prominent supporter of the United States Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act, Johnson-Reed Act, or the Immigration Quota Act of 1924. This legislation limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890 according to the census of 1890. These quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. They had the intended effect of shifting immigration dramatically from Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe to Northern and Western Europe with the foreseeable ethnic results.On the issue of immigration Vaile said:

Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the "Nordic" race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer … that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has … a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But … [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

We are determined that they shall not … It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves."

-Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922

In the Fall of 1925, Vaile published a novel, The Mystery of Golconda, which dealt with life in the mining camps of the Rocky Mountains.During his life, Vaile was a member of the University Club (Denver), the Cactus Club, Masonic orders, the Spanish War Veterans, the Denver Civic and Commercial Association, and the Denver School League.On July 2, 1927, Congressman Vaile died of a sudden heart attack as he was traveling by car with friends and family to Grand Lake near Rocky Mountain National Park for the Fourth of July. He was interred in Fairmount Cemetery in Denver, Colorado.

Relevant colonial era,
United States and
international laws
Visas and policies
Supreme Court cases
Related issues
and events
Proposed legislation
Immigration stations
and points of entry
State legislation
Legacy and
Popular culture

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.