Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author traces demographic history of United States with particular reference to immigration and impact of changes in pattern of post-World War II immigrants on cultural, fiscal, and economic condition of United States. Consideration is also given to constitutional implications of privileges extended to U.S. territories in Pacific. Key Words: Demography, Migration, U.S. Immigration Policy, Pacific territories, Bi-lingualism, Multi-Culturalism and Crime During past thirty-two years, Congress has enacted laws on immigration, citizenship, and territorial powers which are deconstructing United States as both a nation and a federal polity. For nearly two hundred after its independence from Great Britain in 1783, United States was demographically a nation with never less than 81 percent of being of European, and overwhelmingly Northern European, ancestry. As recently as 1950, European-Americans still constituted 90 percent of total of United States. The Changed Pattern of Immigration But all this has changed under continuing impact of 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act Amendments. The Congressional sponsors of this legislation publicly and repeatedly told citizens of United States it: (1) would not increase annual levels of immigration, (2) would not lower standards for admission, (3) would not redirect immigration away from Europe, and (4) would not alter demographic make-up of United States. For example, Senator Robert Kennedy declared the new immigration act would not have any significant effect on composition of U.S.1 His brother, Senator Edward Kennedy, floor manager of bill in Senate, asserted bill is not concerned with increasing immigration to this country, nor will it lower any of high standards we apply in selection of immigrants.2 And Representative Emanuel Celler, dean of House in 1965 and a Congressional opponent of U. S. immigration policy since 1924, insisted the effect of bill would be 'quite insignificant' on U. S. population and that bill would not let in 'great numbers of immigrants from anywhere', including Africa and Asia.3 What Senators and Congressman emphatically proclaimed as truth proved to be totally untrue. Between 1968, year when 1965 immigration law fully took effect, and 1996, annual level of legal immigration skyrocketed from approximately 300,000 to nearly one million. During 147 years between 1820 and 1967, of 44 million immigrants legally admitted to United States 80 percent came from Europe while another 9 percent came from Canada.4 As a result of 1965 immigration act, of more than 19 million immigrants legally admitted to United States in 28 years between 1968 and 1996 approximately 83 percent came from somewhere other than Europe or Canada. Asia and Pacific islands accounted for more than six million or 34 percent of total; Latin America and Caribbean islands accounted for almost nine million or 46 percent, and Africa accounted for nearly half a million or about 3 percent.5 During last 28 years, immigration from Europe totaled less than 3 million or barely 15 percent of all legal immigration while immigration from Canada amounted to less than half a million or less than 3 percent of total. This decline from 1820-1967 levels is more pronounced than these statistics reveal. While immigration from Asia means Asian immigrants, and immigration from Latin America means, with exception of Brazil and Haiti, ethnic Hispanic immigrants, immigration from Europe and Canada does not mean European immigrants. Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans are able to immigrate to various European countries, as well as to Canada, then remigrate to United States under quotas for those countries. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".