SRS,

My points above are not contingent on an Ellis Island scenario. Let's put it this way: people often change their names from something that sounds foreign in their new country to something that sounds familiar. In this case, a more familiar place name like London is going to work better than a less familiar one like Longfathom.

On the Ellis Island issue, it isn't necessarily a question of a policy. Let me give you an alternate scenario. You're not an idiot, but a very smart European coming over to the US, named Lodznik. You have learned a few words of English already in preparation for your journey. At Ellis island, they ask your name. "whoah!" they say, "that's tough. How about something like 'London?'" As a very smart European who wants to set up a business, maybe blend in as best you can, you say "I'll try this London! Why not?" There's no paper trail, no malice intended, no ill-feeling engendered, no mandatory new name assigned. But the name changes.

Also, why would one assume there would be a "name change" form? Why would they have to keep track of "new names?" Why wouldn't the original immigration papers have the new name? If it's the only name they have in the records for someone, how would we know if it's their original name or not? Many of the "new" Irish names, for example, were Anglicized spellings of Gaelic names. In those cases, the "new" name would be the only one in the records.

I personally know a person whose father's name was changed from Mann to Goldstein because the staff at Ellis Island did not understand that Mann was his name. They kept asking for his surname, he kept saying "Mann," and they would not accept it as his name, until he gave his mother's maiden name, which was Goldstein. Why this was hard for them, I don't know.

By the way, many anecdotal stories from people with no reason to lie and no axe to grind sometimes beat a party line given out by employees, methinks.