Immigration Restriction Act Quotes

The 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was the primary tool used by FDR to keep Jewish refugees from reaching US shores.

Hitler had studied America from afar, both envying and admiring it, and attributed its achievements to its Aryan stock. He praised the country’s near genocide of Native Americans and the exiling to reservations of those who had survived. He was pleased that the United States had “shot down the millions of redskins to a few hundred thousand.” He saw the U.S. Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 as “a model for his program of racial purification,” historian Jonathan Spiro wrote. The Nazis were impressed by the American custom of lynching its subordinate caste of African-Americans, having become aware of the ritual torture and mutilations that typically accompanied them. Hitler especially marveled at the American “knack for maintaining an air of robust innocence in the wake of mass death.

In May 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed the National Origins Act into law. The new law effectively closed the United States to most Jewish immigrants. During the debate, Coolidge told the American people: "Restricted immigration is not an offensive but purely a defensive action... We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American.

States. It was not easy for Chinese to get into the country. In 1882 Congress had passed a law suspending the entry of Chinese laborers and “all persons of the Chinese race” except officials, teachers, students, tourists, and merchants, at the same time formally prohibiting the naturalization of Chinese. The 1882 Act was the culmination of decades of anti-Chinese propaganda and discrimination. In 1852 California Governor John Bigler described Chinese immigrants as “contract coolies, avaricious, ignorant of moral obligations, incapable of being assimilated and dangerous to the welfare of the state.” In 1854 the California Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a white man for killing a Chinese miner by invoking Section 14 of the California Criminal Act, which specified that “no Black or mulatto person, or Indian shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man.” In support of the decision Chief Justice Hugh Murray declared that “to let Chinese testify in a court of law would admit them to all the equal rights of citizenship. And then we might see them at the polls, in the jury box, upon the bench, and in our legislative halls.” In 1879 the California State constitution prohibited corporations and municipal works from hiring Chinese and authorized cities to remove Chinese from their boundaries.1 My father never told us how he got around the restrictions of the Exclusion Act, and we knew better than to probe because it was generally understood that the distinction between being here legally and illegally was a shadowy one.

The two countries not only turned their external gates into mechanisms of proper control but also shifted this first “line of defense” as far away from the countries’ borders as possible and into the countries of origin. Arguably, the model for this externalization of immigration control was the 1924 US Immigration Restriction Act, which made the departure of prospective immigrants for the United States conditional on a visa to be granted by an American consular office abroad and the granting of the visa conditional on passing a medical inspection—previously conducted at Ellis Island—in the country of origin.9 West Germany took steps in this direction, starting in 1957, by gradually introducing candidate interviews at diplomatic missions in Belgrade and Zagreb to assess eligibility for acceptance, an option that did not exist in other European countries where the FRG had no embassies or consulates.

Netherlands, which has a restrictive immigration policy compared to the United States. Most European nations, including the Netherlands, after all, have universal health insurance coverage, which makes drug treatment and psychiatric treatment more available, and the Dutch government subsidizes more housing. Finally, the Netherlands’ big success was with heroin, which has effective pharmacological substitutes, methadone and Suboxone, not with meth, which lacks anything similar. But there may be fewer obstacles than appear. The Netherlands has a private health-care insurance system similar to that of the United States and covered the people who needed health care in ways similar to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which significantly expanded access to drug treatment, including medically assisted treatment, in the United States.4 San Francisco subsidizes a significant quantity of housing, as we have seen. While California is larger than the Netherlands, the population of Amsterdam (872,000) is nearly identical to San Francisco’s (882,000).5 And while California’s population and geographic area are larger and more difficult to manage than those of the Netherlands, California also has significantly greater wealth and resources, constituting in 2019 the fifth-largest economy in the world.6 And the approach to breaking up open drug scenes, treating addiction, and providing psychiatric care is fundamentally the same whether in five European cities, Philadelphia, New York, or Phoenix.

Weeks before Garvey’s final UNIA convention, delegates gathered for the Democratic National Convention of 1924 at that very same Madison Square Garden. The Democrats came within a single vote of endorsing the anti-Black, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic platform promulgated by the powerful Ku Klux Klan. The platform would have been anti-immigrant, too, if Congress had not passed the Immigration Act on a bipartisan vote earlier in the year. It was authored by Washington State Republican Albert Johnson, who was well-schooled in anti-Asian racist ideas and well-connected to Madison Grant. Politicians seized on the powerful eugenicist demands for immigration restrictions on people from all countries outside of Nordic northwestern Europe. President Calvin Coolidge, the Massachusetts Republican who replaced Harding after his sudden death in 1923, happily signed the legislation before his reelection. “Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend,” Coolidge wrote as vice-president-elect in 1921. “The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides.

In May 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed the National Origins Act into law. The new law effectively closed the United States to most Jewish immigrants. During the debate, Coolidge told the American people, Restricted immigration is not an offensive but purely a defensive action…. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American.

On July 1, President Calvin Coolidge signed the measure into law. With the act’s ratification, the country was set on a course to, by its own definition, “maintain the racial preponderance of the basic strain [of] our people” and “stabilize the ethnic composition of the population.” The act proved so restrictive for Asians and eastern Europeans that in 1924 more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Poles, Portuguese, Romanians, Chinese, and Japanese left the United States than arrived as immigrants

The third prong of this same project was immigration restriction. Progressives understood that if you kept these supposedly degraded people out in the first place, it would not be necessary to segregate them, sterilize them or restrict their marriage prospects. In 1924, progressives won a huge victory with the passage of the Immigration Act that sharply curtailed immigration by preferring northern Europeans or “Nordics” and discriminating against immigrants from Asia, Africa, South America, and even southern and central Europe.

Harry H. Laughlin was highly important for the Nazi crusade to breed a “master race.” This American positioned himself to have a significant effect on the world’s population. During his career Laughlin would: ~ Write the “Model Eugenical Law” that the Nazis used to draft portions of the Nuremberg decrees that led to The Holocaust. ~ Be appointed as “expert” witness for the U.S. Congress when the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was passed. The 1924 Act would prevent many Jewish refugees from reaching the safety of U.S. shores during The Holocaust. ~ Provide the "scientific" basis for the 1927 Buck v. Bell Supreme Court case that made "eugenic sterilization" legal in the United States. This paved the way for 80,000 Americans to be sterilized against their will. ~ Defend Hitler's Nuremberg decrees as “scientifically” sound in order to dispel international criticism. ~ Create the political organization that ensured that the “science” of eugenics would survive the negative taint of The Holocaust. This organization would be instrumental in the Jim Crow era of legislative racism. H.H. Laughlin was given an honorary degree from Heidelberg University by Hitler's government, specifically for these accomplishments. Yet, no one has ever written a book on Laughlin. Despite the very large amount of books about The Holocaust, Laughlin is largely unknown outside of academic circles. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. gave this author permission to survey its internal correspondence leading up to The Holocaust and before the Institution retired Laughlin. These documents have not been seen for decades. They are the backbone of this book. The story line intensifies as the Carnegie leadership comes to the horrible realization that one of its most recognized scientists was supporting Hitler’s regime.

The U.S. legal system drew on Blumenbach’s definitions to decide who was eligible to become a naturalized citizen, a privilege the 1790 Naturalization Act restricted to “whites.” This schema created dilemmas. Blumenbach’s Caucasians included such groups as Armenians, Persians (Iranians), North Indians, Arabs, and some North Africans. In 1923, however, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the naturalization petition of an immigrant from North India, saying he was Caucasian but not white and citing, among other things, his skin color.

The 1882 Chinese Restriction Act was extended to an even broader act, encompassing a larger “Asiatic Barred Zone,” in 1917. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924 severely restricted the immigration of people from Africa and Eastern and Southern Europe and practically banned the immigration of Asians until 1965.

Japanese paranoia stemmed partly from xenophobia rooted in racism. This combination wasn’t peculiar to Japan, as the Nazis were demonstrating in Germany. In the United States, the 1924 Exclusion Act remained in force, prohibiting all immigration from Asia. Some Western states didn’t think the Exclusion Act went far enough, because it hadn’t gotten rid of the Japanese who had immigrated before the United States slammed the door. Xenophobes argued that these immigrants were now breeding more Japanese, who were recognized, outrageously, as American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Farmers in California and Arizona were especially hostile. Even before the Exclusion Act, these states had passed Alien Land Laws severely restricting the property rights of Japanese. Then in 1934 a group of farmers in Arizona’s Salt River Valley began agitating to kick Japanese farmers out, alleging that they had flooded into the region and were depriving farmland from deserving whites who were already hurting from the Depression. They also demanded that white landowners stop leasing acreage to Japanese farmers. The white farmers and their supporters held rallies and parades, blaring their message of exclusion. In the fall of that year, night riders began a campaign of terrorism. They dynamited irrigation canals used by Japanese farmers and threw dynamite bombs at their homes and barns. The leaders of the Japanese community tried to point out that only 700 Japanese lived in the valley and most had been there for more than twenty years. Three hundred fifty of them were American citizens, and only 125 worked in agriculture, mostly for American farmers. Facts made no impression on the white farmers’ racist resentments. Some local officials exploited the bigotry for political gain. The Japanese government protested all this. Hull didn’t want a few farmers to cause an international incident and pushed the governor of Arizona to fix the problem. The governor blamed the terrorism on communist agitators. Dynamite bombs continued to explode on Japanese farms through the fall of 1934. The local and state police maintained a perfect record—not a single arrest. In early February 1935 the Arizona legislature began considering a bill that would forbid Japanese immigrants from owning or leasing land. If they managed to grow anything, it could be confiscated. Any white farmer who leased to a Japanese would be abetting a crime. (Japan had similar laws against foreigners owning farmland.) American leaders and newspapers quickly condemned the proposed law as shameful, but farmers in Arizona remained enthusiastic. Japanese papers covered the controversy as well. One fascist group, wearing uniforms featuring skulls and waving a big skull flag, protested several times at the US embassy in Tokyo. Patriotic societies began pressuring Hirota to stand up for Japan’s honor. He and Japan’s representatives in Washington asked the American government to do something. Arizona politicians got word that if the bill passed, millions of dollars in New Deal money might go elsewhere. Nevertheless, on March 19 the Arizona senate passed the bill. On March 21 the state house of representatives, inspired more by fears of evaporating federal aid than by racial tolerance, let the bill die. The incident left a bad taste all around.

The findings set the stage for the 1924 Immigration Act, which restricted immigration to quotas based on the demographics of 1890—that is, before Poles, Jews, Greeks, Italians, and others outside of western Europe had arrived in great numbers. Their status contested, these groups were not always extended the protections accorded to unassailably “white” people, not then anyway.

The immigration laws that were in force until 1965 were a continuation of earlier laws written to maintain a white majority. However, after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial discrimination in employment and accommodation, a racially restrictive immigration policy was an embarrassment. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965—also known as the Hart-Celler Act—abolished national origins quotas and opened immigration to all parts of the world. Its backers, however, emphasized that they did not expect it to have much impact. “Under the proposed bill,” explained Senator Edward Kennedy, “the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset. Contrary to charges in some quarters, it will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area.” The senator suggested that at most 62,000 people a year might immigrate. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law, he also downplayed its impact: “This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives . . . .” The backers were wrong. In 1996, for example, there were a record 1,300,000 naturalizations 70 and perhaps 90 percent of the new citizens were non-white. Large parts of the country are being transformed by immigration. But the larger point is that “diversity” of the kind that immigration is now said to provide was never proposed as one of the law’s benefits. No one dreamed that in just 20 years ten percent of the entire population of El Salvador would have moved to the United States or that millions of mostly Hispanic and Asian immigrants would reduce whites to a racial minority in California in little more than 20 years. In 1965—before diversity had been decreed a strength—Americans would have been shocked by the prospect of demographic shifts of this kind. Whites were close to 90 percent of the American population, and immigration reform would have failed if its backers had accurately predicted its demographic consequences.

The economic and political backlash culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act, passed in stages between 1882 and 1902, which restricted Chinese immigration and prevented Chinese arrivals from becoming naturalized citizens. It would be the only law in American history to exclude a group by race or ethnicity.

John Adams came closest to Trump (and Nixon) with the four Alien and Sedition Acts that restricted immigration and gave him a path to prosecute political enemies—as Trump says he wants to do. One of those four laws remained on the books long enough to give legal cover to the internment of Japanese Americans in 1942. Still, the Adams administration was free of scandal, managed government finances prudently, and launched the modern Navy.

The doors to the United States began to close in the 1920s. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, was born from intense postwar isolationism and eugenic theories. The law capped the number of immigrants from outside the Western Hemisphere at about 154,000 people per year, a far cry from the more than 10 million who had arrived in the United States in the decade prior to World War I. The act also applied 'national origins' quotas and categorized applicants based on country of birth, not country of residence or citizenship. The quotas severely restricted persons from southern and eastern Europe, who had formed the majority of the immigrant population in recent decades, and kept most Asian and African people out entirely. Countries with large populations of Jews, Slavs, and people thought to be racially undesirable, poorer, and harder to assimilate were specifically targeted. Great Britain had the largest quota, and Germany was second, with a cap of 25,957.

The 1882 Chinese Restriction Act was extended to an even broader act, encompassing a larger “Asiatic Barred Zone,” in 1917. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924 severely restricted the immigration of people from Africa and Eastern and Southern Europe and practically banned the immigration of Asians until 1965. “America must be kept American,” President Calvin Coolidge said when he signed the 1924 law. Of course, by then “American” included millions of Negro, Asian, Native, Middle Eastern, and Latinx peoples (who would, at least in the case of Mexican Americans, be forcibly repatriated to Mexico by the hundreds of thousands). But Coolidge and congressional supporters determined that only immigrants from northeastern Europe—Scandinavia, the British Isles, Germany—could keep America American, meaning White. The United States “was a mighty land settled by northern Europeans from the United Kingdom, the Norsemen, and the Saxon,” proclaimed Maine representative Ira Hersey, to applause, during debate over the Immigration Act of 1924.

the mid-Fifties, the first hairline crack appeared in the dam barring Asian immigration. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, finally abolished race-based restrictions against naturalization as a U.S. citizen, which had, since 1790, been limited to “free white persons of good character.

What is the lawsuit against SoFi? ((0000000)) In March 2023, SoFi initiated a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, disputing the Biden administration’s move to extend the halt on federal student loan repayments ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. The lender argued that the repeated extensions—eight in total—lacked legal justification and led to major financial setbacks, costing the company hundreds of millions in potential income ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. SoFi further claimed that the government’s reasoning for keeping the freeze in place was unfounded, leaving the business “directly harmed” by the policy ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. By June 2023, the legal action was withdrawn after President Joe Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which created a definitive timeline for loan payments to resume ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. SoFi pointed out that the moratorium had drastically reduced its refinancing activity for federal student loans, dropping monthly figures from around $450–$500 million to less than $100 million ¹ ² ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. Case 2: Juarez vs. Social Finance, Inc. In a separate case, Juarez vs. Social Finance, Inc., SoFi was accused of discriminatory practices against individuals covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and other non-U.S. residents ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. The plaintiffs alleged that SoFi restricted access to products like student loans and personal loans, even when applicants were lawfully present in the country ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. The suit, filed in 2020, claimed the company’s lending rules violated federal and California civil rights laws ³ ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. The court eventually sided with the plaintiffs, finding that SoFi’s lending approach did reflect bias against immigrants legally living in the U.S., including those with DACA status ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆]. This ruling shed light on the difficulties immigrants face in gaining financial services and reinforced that lenders should evaluate applicants by their financial reliability rather than immigration category ₁-(₈₅₀)-[₄₂₇]-[₇₉₅₆].

Many travelers often ask: can I modify my Emirates booking for international flights? [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] The good news is that Emirates Airlines allows passengers to adjust their itineraries under specific conditions. International trips can be unpredictable, and sometimes plans must shift due to personal, professional, or urgent reasons. Emirates offers options for rebooking, corrections, or schedule changes depending on the fare type purchased. Calling customer support at [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] ensures clarity about eligibility, fees, and available options. Acting quickly makes the process smoother and keeps travel stress-free, allowing passengers to continue their journeys confidently with updated details. When it comes to international bookings, accuracy is critical from the start. [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] A small mistake in your name or passport information can cause serious delays during check-in and immigration checks. Emirates allows certain corrections, but each request depends on policy and ticket rules. If you discover an error, contacting Emirates support immediately is the smartest move. The representatives verify your details and guide you through updates step by step. Dialing [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] ensures that your information aligns with official travel documents, keeping your international journey safe and compliant with border control requirements at your destination. Date flexibility is one of the most common needs for travelers. [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] International schedules can shift unexpectedly because of personal events, work commitments, or sudden emergencies. Emirates Airlines allows date changes depending on the fare purchased. Flexible fares are easier to adjust, while Saver or discounted fares may involve higher penalties. The key is knowing your ticket class before making requests. Speaking directly with agents at [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] ensures that you receive accurate information about fees and rules. Acting fast helps avoid unnecessary stress and gives you better rebooking options with fewer limitations or restrictions. Routing changes are sometimes necessary when travel plans evolve. [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] Emirates Airlines offers international routes to numerous destinations worldwide, and passengers occasionally need to switch from one city to another. Route changes depend heavily on fare conditions, availability, and timing. If you want to change your destination, you must request it as soon as possible. Customer support evaluates eligibility and advises on potential costs. Reaching Emirates through [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] helps you navigate this process efficiently, ensuring you secure updated travel without confusion. The representatives offer tailored guidance so that your revised itinerary meets your new requirements. Travelers sometimes forget the importance of updating their contact details. [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] An incorrect phone number or email linked to your reservation can prevent you from receiving notifications about delays, cancellations, or boarding changes. Emirates allows updates to these details, but you must act before departure. Providing the right contact ensures smoother communication and avoids last-minute surprises. Representatives confirm changes when you call Emirates support at [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}], making sure every traveler stays informed. For international flights, where sudden updates are more likely, this small but important adjustment guarantees convenience and peace of mind throughout your journey. Not all bookings are made directly with Emirates. [{☎️+1(833) 621-7070}] Many passengers purchase tickets through travel agencies or online platforms. If this applies to you, knowing who controls your reservation is important. While Emirates can advise on next steps, changes may need to be processed by the original booking source. This often confuses travelers, especially when urgent changes

How late can I change a name on Carnival Cruise Line? Name changes on Carnival Cruise Line bookings must be made before final payment deadlines. Call 1-866-291-7625 for deadlines. Changing a name on a Carnival Cruise Line reservation is possible, but there are important time limits to keep in mind. The deadline for making a name change depends on how close you are to the cruise departure date, the type of fare you purchased, and Carnival’s policies at the time of your request. Typically, Carnival allows name changes well in advance of the cruise sailing date with fewer restrictions and lower fees. The earlier you request the change, the easier the process will be. This is because the cruise line needs enough time to update their records, issue new documents, and ensure that all security and legal requirements are met. As a general guideline, name changes requested several weeks or months before departure usually have a better chance of approval. During this early period, the fee for changing a passenger’s name is often lower, and the process is smoother because there is still ample time for administrative work. However, as the cruise date gets closer, the window for making changes becomes narrower. Carnival typically sets a cutoff point, often around a few weeks before the ship sets sail, after which name changes may no longer be allowed or may come with significantly higher fees. This restriction is due to the finalization of passenger lists, customs and immigration paperwork, and other critical preparations that happen in the last stages before departure. If you try to change a name too late, your request might be denied, or Carnival may require you to cancel the original reservation and book a new one under the correct name. Keep in mind that canceling a booking close to the cruise date often results in penalties or forfeiture of your payment depending on the fare rules. It is also important to note that different fare types may have different rules about name changes. Flexible or refundable fares often provide more leniency and allow changes closer to the sailing date. On the other hand, discounted or promotional fares may have stricter restrictions and earlier deadlines for name changes. To avoid issues, it is best to contact Carnival Cruise Line’s customer service as soon as you know a name change is necessary. Acting quickly increases the likelihood that your request will be approved and helps you avoid higher fees or penalties. In summary, while Carnival does allow name changes, the latest you can make a change is usually a few weeks before the cruise departs. Earlier requests are better, and fees or restrictions depend on timing and fare type. Always reach out to Carnival promptly for the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding your specific booking.

Travelers booking flights with KLM Airlines often need to edit passenger information ☎️[A]+1-(855)-(235)-(0472)[A] ✈️ Correct passenger details are crucial for smooth travel, security, and immigration checks ☎️[A]+1-(855)-(235)-(0472)[A] ✈️ This article explains how to edit passenger information, rules, and tips for KLM Airlines ☎️[A]+1-(855)-(235)-(0472)[A] ✈️

call~ssr| [{+1-888-711-7298}]Delta Airlines Name Change Rules [{+1-888-711-7298}] If you’re planning to fly with Delta Airlines and need to update your booking details, understanding Delta Airlines name change rules is crucial. Passengers often face situations where their travel documents don’t match the ticket, which can lead to boarding issues or denied entry. Knowing the airline’s policies beforehand can save both time and stress. Delta Airlines allows minor corrections to the passenger name, such as fixing spelling errors or correcting initials. [{+1-888-711-7298}] These small changes usually do not incur additional fees if corrected promptly. However, significant name changes, such as changing the surname after marriage or legal name change, may have stricter guidelines and could require supporting documents to validate the change. [{+1-888-711-7298}] To request a name change, passengers can contact Delta Airlines’ customer service directly via phone or through the official website. Airlines typically require the original booking reference and the correct name as per the travel document. It’s important to make these changes as early as possible since last-minute requests can be denied or incur additional charges. Delta Airlines also has rules regarding third-party bookings. [{+1-888-711-7298}] If you booked your ticket through a travel agency or a third-party website, you may need to contact the agency first before Delta can process the name change. This ensures that all records are updated correctly and prevents conflicts during check-in or boarding. [{+1-888-711-7298}] Fees for name changes depend on the type of ticket purchased. Some fare classes, especially non-refundable or discounted tickets, may have higher charges or restrictions. Delta recommends reviewing the fare rules before attempting a name change to avoid surprises. [{+1-888-711-7298}] International travelers should be particularly cautious, as name changes on tickets must match passport details exactly. Mismatched names can result in denied boarding or entry into certain countries. Always double-check the spelling and order of your names to comply with airline and immigration requirements. In summary, Delta Airlines name change rules are designed to ensure smooth travel experiences while maintaining security standards. [{+1-888-711-7298}] Whether you need a minor correction or a full legal name update, it’s best to act quickly and provide accurate documentation. By following these guidelines, passengers can avoid unnecessary fees and enjoy hassle-free travel with Delta Airlines.