I am fascinated by the assumption in many of these responses that I haven't done my homework. No-one, including in a flurry of personal contacts, has mentioned an item that I hadn't seen already in my study. I read each of them and then back-checked it; how many of you who cite these items have done so?
Jules, have you ever actually bothered to look at the data or think about your claims? Do you know anyone who can speak 40 languages? Does any of them work for the amount paid the immigration inspectors? Has it ever occurred to you that there might be errors in government documents?
I started my study looking for the reasoning behind the meme, not to reject it, but as one claim after another proved to be wrong, based on faulty logic, or on methodological errors, I started wondering how it came about. Then I heard from the USCIS Historians' Office that they didn't know where the meme came from. I'm still working on that.
Unless there is an actual proof that involuntary name-changes weren't possible, you cannot reject the name-change narratives out of hand. Given the number of potential cases, around 37 million, and what is known about the operation of the immigration stations (it's discussed in the Congressional Record), the notion that involuntary name-changes were impossible because the immigration process operated flawlessly is simply absurd.