Humanities desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 12

Being "sponsored"?

Recently, I was rummaging through my family archives and discovered some portraits, of my great-great-great grandmother (and her sister, they were twins) as children. A letter included with the portraits told how they were among the first of my family to immigrate to America, and that they had been "sponsored" by their uncle. What does "sponsored" mean in this context? Any articles about this? They came from main-land Italy if it makes a difference. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It typically means that somebody already here vouched for them with immigration, giving them priority over those who wanted to immigrate with nobody to vouch for them. It may also mean he let them live with him, got them jobs, etc., to get them started. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can read a bit about how this works today at "Permanent residence (United States)#Application process for family-sponsored visas". Admittedly, this has changed somewhat since the days of your great-great-great grandmother's youth. Gabbe (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the Immigration Act of 1917 and the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, immigration of "free white persons" had never been restricted during the history of the United States (except for those who were criminal or diseased), so formal family sponsorship was unnecessary. The system of formal family "sponsorship" of immigrants dates back to the Immigration Act of 1924, which created preferences for the spouses or children of U.S. citizens. Family sponsorship of more distant relatives wasn't possible until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Between the passage of the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and 1952, immigration was regulated under a strict quota system, with no provision for family sponsorship except for spouses and offspring. If the questioner's great-great-grandmother immigrated as a child, then I'm guessing this happened before 1952 and very likely before 1924, in which case her uncle's sponsorship would have been a personal offer to help with housing and other kinds of support until the child or her parents were able to support themselves, rather than a formal legal relationship needed for immigration. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't "sponsorship" constitute a guarantee by the sponsor that the immigrant would not become a burden (i.e, go on welfare or need institutionalization or be a pauper)?

You may have a point there. I wasn't focusing on the fact that this person's ancestor arrived as a child. According to the Immigration Act of 1882, the authorities could exclude would-be immigrants "likely to become public charges". That category would obviously apply to unaccompanied children. In that case, I could imagine that an uncle could identify himself as a sponsor guaranteeing that they would not become public charges if they weren't accompanied by their parents. Remember though, that at the time there was no such thing as welfare, just poorhouses. Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But beggars in the streets are also a "burden". 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If your distant relative "sponsored" you, he had an incentive to make sure you became a productive member of society, so that it did not cost him for your support. "Will you please sponsor me, Great Uncle Stash?" "(Sigh), Sure little Mehetibel, I would be PROUD to sponsor you!" (while calculating the possible cost of the act). Edison (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

date discrepancy between two articles concerning Glossolalia

I have read two Wikipedia articles that do not appear connected except for a hyperlink "Glossolalia" in the Cane Ridge article.

[1] and [2].

I was particularly interested in the date of the advent of this "phenomenon" in America. The Cane Ridge article is the first I've read of this pre-dating the Azusa Street Revival of 1906 in Los Angeles.

The glossolalia article is much longer. I assumed it was correspondingly more complete, yet it omits any reference to the Cane Ridge revival. I find it fascinating that the events are 105 years apart. 76.235.198.39 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Joyce D in Michigan[reply]

I've taken the liberty of reformatting the 2 articles as links, as you were trying to make them footnote references. You could also just as easily have used double square brackets thus: Cane Ridge and Glossolalia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]