permit it. The people of the United States want restriction-strict, severe restric. tion and to this sort of task we must gird our loins, In a letter of March 16, 1922, to Senator William J. Harris, President Samuel Gompers, of the American Federation of Labor, pleads for a law stricter than the 3 per cent act, his plan being virtually equivalent to absolute restriction. He writes thus, in the name of the American Federation of Labor, to Senator Harris: "SIR: In the name of the workers and the would-be workers now unemployed we protest against the adoption of House joint resolution No. 268, as passed by the House of Representatives. "At the hearings before the House committee the representatives of the American Federation of Labor urged that immigration be restricted, except for the dependent immediate relatives of aliens now here who have established themselves and are able to support such dependent relatives, on the ground that every effective immigrant admitted under present industrial conditions must result in throwing out of employment a worker now in our country. We repeat that assertion; we point to the millions of workers walking the streets of our cities and industrial towns or tramping the roads because they can find no employment. We hold that to admit more potential workers at this time is an injustice not only to those now here but to those aliens who might be admitted * * We ask, first, for restriction of immigration to the immediate dependent relatives of foreigners now here. **Or, second, that the present 3 per cent limitation law shall be the law until further action of the Congress of the United States. “Or, third, that the present limitation law shall continue in force until June 30, 1924, thus safeguarding the country from a flood of immigration, until Congress shall have opportunity to adopt permanent legislation dealing with this problem.” The late Mrs. Alexander P. Moore (Lillian Russell) returned not long ago from a special mission to Europe, commissioned by President Harding to investigate and report upon the immigration problem to the Department of Labor, proposed a five-year **immigration holiday" or "a system for selecting and sifting immigrants abroad." Citing France and Italy as illustrations of countries where every able-bodied man is at work, Mrs. Moore declared that "only those useless in the reconstruction of their countries are seeking to come to the United States." She said, also, that “our America has passed the transition stage. It is to-day a world power. An intelligent, cohesive loyal citizenship is its propulsive force. The melting pot has been overcrowded. It has boiled too quickly and is running over. It were better to put out the fires under it and allow its contents to solidify before adding any more raw material * of If we don't put up the bars and make them higher and stronger, there no longer will be an America for Americans * * One particular fact is that no good immigration is turning our way. The good inhabitants of every foreign country are needed there, and can possibly be happier and more contented there than in America." * Neither President Gompers's plan nor Mrs. Moore's "immigration holiday" could be accepted as a permanent policy, for thereby we would indeed become a "hermit nation.' Both propose to delay the solution to the problem for two or more years. Mrs. Moore's other suggestion, "a system for selecting and sifting immigrants abroad," has found various advocates, both in and outside of Congress. She sug gested that American consuls be given authority to put applicants through rigid mental tests and that American physicians be employed abroad to make physical tests. Such a plan of inspection at foreign ports has been considered carefully by Congress and dropped, due not only to the red tape" that would be involved but also to informal objections against such legislation communicated through the Secretary of State from various foreign countries. Two other suggestions have been made, first, a law to the effect that 50 per cent of what immigration we do receive shall come to us in American ships, and, second, a law to require the registration of all aliens, including newcomers and those now here. But these proposals are of minor significance as a solution to the problem. What, then, should be our permanent immigration policy? A brief historical review will reveal to us a practical American solution which would receive nationwide approval. The arrival of passengers from abroad was first officially recorded in 1819, and since that date more or less accurate records have been kept of immigration. During the whole period from 1776 to 1820 the average annual immigration amounted to a little more than 7,700. Between 1820-1860 a total of 6,062,414 immigrants came into the United States. The British Islands contributed 54 per cent of the total and Germany sent the next largest number, amounting to nearly 30 per cent. The total immigration into the United States from 1861 to 1916 was 27,772,000, and of this number 17,398,000 have come since 1880, which indicates that immigration has been increasing in recent years. In fact, in the decade from 1901 to 1910 the total was 8,795,386, which is the largest for any 10 years in our history. However, these are not the net gains, for many immigrants have no intention of staying here permanently, but are part of that floating population so characteristic of present migrations. It has been pointed out that the general tendency of opinion is to favor more and more restrictions to check this great flood of aliens, for very few persons now maintain the doctrine that America should be kept open as the "haven for the oppressed of all nations." The causes are not hard to find, viz, “the fear that the competition of the newcomers reduces wages and lowers the American standard of living, and that it is impossible to absorb and Americanize foreigners as rapidly as they have been coming. Furthermore, it is argued that industrial advantages are not as great as formerly, that most of the desirable land is now claimed by settlers, that the lot of those who come can scarcely be better than that of menial laborers, and that existing opportunities should be more and more protected for the benefit of present inhabitants." But the fundamental and vital reason is that the present stream of immigrants flows largely from portions of Europe where the institutions and people are so different from our own that great social damage would result without careful restriction. It is to the problem of the proper restriction of this type of aliens that this article is directed. The author believes that if we can solve this difficulty the problem itself is largely solved and we shall have an effective permanent American policy, for, as President Lowell, of Harvard, says, "it is, indeed, largely a perception of the need of homogeneity, as a basis for pouplar government and the public opinion on which it rests, that justifies democracies in resisting the influx in great numbers of a widely different race." The total number of immigrants into the United States from western Europe between 1871 and 1880 was 2,080,266, while the total from southern and eastern Europe was only 181,638. But between 1901 and 1910 the total from the former was 2,007,119, while the number from southern and eastern Europe increased to 6,128,897. Thus, while immigration from western Europe was almost the same for the two decades, that from southern and eastern Europe increased from 181,000 to over 6,000,000. During the former period immigration from the latter portion constituted only 9 per cent of the total from Europe, while in the period from 1901 to 1910 it was about 75 per cent. The following table will illustrate the point still further, showing the gradual decrease of the old and the rapid increase of the new-and undesirable-immigration: Eight years (1882-1889): Old immigration.. Total..... Seven years (1890–1896): Total..... Eighteen years (1897-1914): Old immigration.. New immigration.. Total...... Total old immigration (1882-1914). Total immigration from Europe, old and new (1882-1914). It is this new immigration that we fear and desire to restrict and, if possible, even to eliminate. It is this new immigration that has already exhausted its quotas long before the fiscal year is out. What is the solution acceptable to us and to the nations of Europe? The logical answer seems to be to keep the 3 per cent clause as a permanent ratio, but let it be 3 per cent of the number of foreign-born persons of each nationality resident in the United States as determined by the United States census of 1890 instead of 1910 or 1920. This is a simple yet a practical solution based on historical facts. The machinery is already in operation and the nations of Europe have expressed their willingness to cooperate with us when we make known our policy. On January 3, 1921, the Secretary of State notified the House Committee on Immigration that "the Italian Government has suspended the issuance of passports to subjects emigrat ing to the United States, and will refrain from issuing such passports until informed as to the classes of immigrants desired in this country.' Such a plan would reduce the immigrants from southern and eastern Europe to a few thousands each year, while it would admit virtually all of those from western Europe who might desire to come, yet the total from Europe would be very small. Provision could be made to admit students, just as exceptions are made in favor of such persons from China and Japan. Such a law would certainly meet with public approval, and would be free from practically all the objections to our former and present policies. It would be stricter restriction, yet short of absolute restriction, and it would eliminate the need for an “immigration holiday.' It is a plan which we can adopt to-day for our permanent immigration policy-a plan which will meet the present emergency, secure our desired ends, enable us to Americanize those aliens now here, and to save America for Americans without doing injustice to or working undue hardships against those who may desire to come to us in the future. (The following article is reprinted from the North American Review for May, 1922:) MENTAL TESTS FOR IMMIGRANTS. [By Arthur Sweeney, M. D.] Restriction of immigration has always been a fruitful source of controversy. It has many angles, and opinions differ, largely because of the lack of a common viewpoint. All opinions agree upon certain basal facts. These are, that we need immigrants to develop our resources, and that some means must be found to keep out those who are manifestly undesirable. Controversy centers about the latter, and although various expedients have been tried, none have been wholly successful. As a consequence we have been overrun with a horde of the unfit. The principal trouble with our restrictions has been that we have had no adequate means of determining who are the unfit. While we can measure objectively the physical qualifications of the immigrant, we have had no yardstick with which to form an accurate estimate of his intellectual and moral side, as well as of those other intangible qualities which are essential to good citizenship. The psychological tests, which in the Army developed heterogeneous millions of men of all grades of intelligence, education, and social qualities into the greatest fighting machine the world has ever seen, has furnished us with the necessary yardstick to measure the desirability of the immigrant. The same test will reveal to us, with relative precision, those hidden qualities which will demonstrate the fitness of the intending immigrant for citizenship in this country, and will exclude those who are unfit. The Army tests rated men according to their mental age, and classified them into groups. The educational and industrial capacity of these groups was determined, and they were assigned to positions according to their ability. The performance of these men during their months of service in their various duties corresponded very nearly to their psychological ratings, and confirmed the accuracy and value of the tests. The tests revealed the intellectual endowment of the men, and also, to a large degree, determined the other qualities of a soldier, such as initiative, reliability, adaptability, and obedience. The tests are equally applicable to immigrants. It is feasible to determine the value of the immigrant by his intelligence, for all other faculties and qualities hinge upon this. If he does not possess a certain minimum of mentality it is safe to predict that he will not be adaptable to the conditions of his new environment and will not possess those qualities which are essential to good citizenship. If he can not comprehend, by reason of his mental limitations, the obligations and duties which citizenship imposes, he can not be other than a burden upon society. Fitness for citizenship is determined best by ability to comprehend its meaning, as well as the advantages that come from it. The examination of immigrants at the port of embarkation is feasible, inexpensive, and simple, and will give results much more accurate than any other method. It is practical to examine groups of two or three hundred at one sitting, in less than one hour. All that is required is a staff of two or three trained psychologists at each port at which large numbers embark. The fact that the immigrants are illiterate or unable to understand the English language is not an obstacle, as the form of test known as "Beta" is designed to meet such conditions and requires neither education nor knowledge of language for its comprehension. It is entirely objective. In this test the immigrant is asked to supply the missing parts of pictures, to trace his way through mazes, to count cubes variously arranged, and other simple tests that do not require verbal directions, but call only for observation. This is not easier than the "Alpha' test for those who can read and write, and gives results of equal value. Those examined for the Army were grouped according to their mental age as follows: D-, very inferior, 7 to 9 years; D, inferior, 9 to 11 years; C-, low average, 11 to 13 years; C, average, 13 to 14.5 years; C+, high average, 14.5 to 16 years; B, superior, 16 to 18 years; A, very superior, 18+ years. The need of some means of excluding the unfit that shall be more effective than past measures is forced upon us by the revelations of the Army examinations. In our Army 360,000 men of foreign birth were put through the test, with the startling result that 45 per cent were found to be below 11 years of mental age and were grouped in the inferior and very inferior classes. This fact is startling enough, but fades into insignificance when we interpret it as relating to the countries from which most of our immigrants come. The table given below is self-explanatory. (See Memoirs of National Academy of Sciences, Vol. XV). It will be seen that the percentage of foreign born who are found to be in the D and D minus classes, with a mental age of less than 11 years, is 45.6 per cent. Of the 360,000 recruits of foreign birth upon whose examination the above figures are based, 164,160 were of such low intelligence that they graded in occupation lower than the common laborer, and were those whose work required continual supervision. In the Army they were not considered to be good soldier material, but were largely assigned to pioneer battalions for work that required muscular rather than mental strength. Equally interesting and suggestive is the low percentage of the higher intelligence group of A and B, reaching only 4 per cent. This group shows the small percentage of intelligent people of foreign birth as compared with the percentage of 12.1 found in the general white draft, composed of all recruits in the Army except the colored races. Certainly it is evident that the number of immigrants capable of understanding the duties and obligations, as well as the opportunity for progress, which our citizenship entails is alarmingly small. It will also be found that immigration from eastern and southern Europe is more undesirable than from other parts of that continent. We can gauge the desirability of immigrants by the relative proportion of those in A and B classes, and by the number in D and D minus. We can not seriously be opposed to immigrants from Great Britain, Holland, Canada, Germany, Denmark, and Scandinavia, where the proportion of the higher groups is above 4 per cent and reaching a maximum of 19 per cent, as in the case of England. We can, however, strenuously object to immigration from Italy, with its proportion at the lower end of the scale of 63.4 per cent; of Russia with 60.4; of Poland with 69.9; of Greece with 43.6; and of Turkey with 41.6 per cent. The Slavic and Latin countries show a marked contrast in intelligence with the western and northern European group. It is largely from this source that the stream of intelligent citizenship is polluted. So long as this emptying of undesirables into this country continues there is decreasing hope of improving the standard of our citizens. As a result of our previous negligence in selection of immigrants we have populated this country with hordes of the unfit, who are unadaptable to our requirements of citizenship. The census of 1920 reveals that out of a total white population of 94,820,915 the number born in foreign countries was 13,712,754. If we apply to this latter number the ratings as to intelligence found by the psychological test in the Army, 14.8 per cent of foreign-born being in D minus class, the number would be 2,029,484. Those rated as Class D (30.1 per cent) would number 3,927,538. This brings the total of these two classes, who are rated as having a mental age of 11 years or less, to 5,957,026. It would be interesting if there were some figures showing what proportion of this large number took some part in industry and production, and what proportion were dependent, criminal, or worthless; but there are no present adequate means of determining these facts. The presumptions being that the higher the intellectual status the more efficient the human machine, the inference follows that this large portion of our population are little fitted to work or vote, and tend to become burdens upon society, either as dependents or misdemeanants. A significant fact in the report of distribution of our immigrant population is the tendency for the larger portion, although mainly rural in their foreign homes, to become urban in this country. This is shown by the fact that over one-third of foreign-born immigrants have settled in the three States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, States that are industrial rather than agricultural. The herding together of a large foreign population in cities can not but tend to racial grouping in which the language and customs of the race are preserved, and to make Americanization a slow and difficult process. It is not hard to find communities in this country in which the English language is to the inhabitants a foreign tongue, and in which habits of thought and conduct are widely variant from those of neighboring communities. This is a condition which militates against the development of those characteristics which are requisite for citizenship. They are dwelling in this country, but are by no means a part of it. They can not understand our high purposes and they can neither vote with discrimination nor properly conform to our laws. It is apparent that there is a startling discrepancy in the number of immigrants who are of high intellectual capacity. This may be due to the fact that their mental gifts enable them to succeed in the competition of life in the old country. It is not wholly because conditions in Europe are so unfavorable that the lower groups can not make a living, but rather because their mental unfitness prevents them from prospering in the old country as it does in the United States. Who are unfit? The groups at the lower end of the psychological scale are the undesirable. They are distinctly subnormal, and as such can not react favorably in their new environment. They are wholly unadaptable. It is impossible without a psychological test to determine who belong to these groups. One can not recognize the high-grade imbecile at sight. Many of them are physically perfect and show upon their faces no trace of the stigmata usually associated with feeble mentality. Notwithstanding the popular impression that the physiognomy reflects the condition of the mind, it is seldom possible to make a correct diagnosis of mental defect from the facial expression. It is poetic to talk of the eye as the window of the soul, but it is by no means to be relied upon as a practical test. The group classified as D minus, representing a mental age under 9 years, is dis tinctly feeble-minded. The three recognized grades of imbecility are: The low grade, with a mental age of 3 to 5 years; the middle grade, 5 to 7 years; and the high grade, 7 to 9 years. In the Army classification D minus may include some men as low as 4 or 5 years of mentality. The percentage of the D minus group in the general draft was 7.1 per cent. The percentage of this class among the recruits of foreign birth was 14.8, a little more than twice as many. Calculating the number of foreign birth in the Army as 360.000, the number of D minus men was 25,200, a rather large handicap to the efficiency of an army. These figures do not, however, represent the average for the country at large, because the local examining boards were able to recognize and exclude from the draft many individuals who were obviously deficient. It is fair to assume that the proportion of high-grade imbeciles of foreign birth among the general population far exceeds the 15 per cent that passed the local boards and were sent to cantonments. This group is wholly illiterate. The test of illiteracy in the Army was ability to read a newspaper or to write a letter home. The amount of schooling obtained by D minus men was extremely limited. Only 11 per cent were able to go beyond the second grade. Of this small number many were promoted to higher grades because of the despair of the teacher, or because their age and physical development demanded their advancement. Most of them could get no further than the first grade, and a few passed to the second grade, at which point reading or writing can not be said to be a practical accomplishment. Adaptation to environment being accomplished by correct judgments of large and small problems of life, it can scarcely be said that the D minus class have any capacity in this direction. The formation of a judgment being dependent upon active perception, sustained power of attention, and competent associative memory, it is impossible when these three faculties are deficient or absent to expect a correct judgment |