Imagini ale paginilor

Our first major legislative experience on this basis was shown in the Chinese exclusion act in 1882. That was a generation ago.. Then in 1885 we enacted the contract labor law to protect American labor. The economic idea continued to develop and finally reached its height in 1907. About this time there was a steamship war between England and Germany, so that emigrants came easily to the United States from Europe for about $10 a head. Our emigration curve rose and crossed the one million and a quarter mark (1,285,344) for the year 1907. Energy, initiative, love of liberty, and fine spiritual quality were no longer the principal springs to emigration. The lure of an easy job was dominant. Things did not go well. The Nation decided to investigate the matter. The result was that the last serious effort to control immigration to the United States on the economic basis was made in the year 1907, when the Dillingham Commission of the Senate was authorized to spend $1,000,000 in its study. Its researches were wide, but they were conducted almost exclusively as an economic problem; the biology of the task received. relatively little attention.

The situation, in so far as the development of the American people was concerned, grew worse instead of better. It was apparent that the economic ideal was not working out in the way we should like to have had it work; it was not promoting great benefit to future America. There was much splendid material, but as a whole it was a poor investment in humanity. We were getting too many immigrants of unassimilable races, but especially too many individuals, regardless of race, who lacked inborn the intellectual and spiritual qualities of the founders of the Nation.

In meeting the situation squarely and in seeking the highest national good, our dominant national attitude is now changed to its third ideal. There was first the asylum theory, then, second, the economic basis, and now, as the third ideal, the Nation is developing the biological or eugenical basis for the dominant factor in immigration control. The first eugenical statute was in 1917, when the immigration law sought to cut out more radically than ever persons likely to become public charges, and laid down rules to enable our immigration officers to diagnose pathogenic and potentially inadequate individuals. The next step was the 3 per cent quota law in 1921. This established a method by which the United States could regulate immigration by nationalities, roughly in proportion to assimilability. But its greatest value was in establishing a selective principle which has been demonstrated to be legal from the standpoint of international law and is fair to all nations; no nation can complain that the "most favored nation" rule is not observed.

But selection based on family stock quality must be made inside of the numerical allotments of the nationality per cent quotas, whatever formula may ultimately become the basis of the latter. Along with the early dominating asylum ideal, there was always an underlying sense of economic needs and of race and family stock. Later, although the economic ideal dominated, the asylum ideal did not disappear entirely but merely became secondary, while the biological or eugenical principle of maintaining the superior qualities of the American foundation family stocks began to carry more weight. The economic and asylum factors have not disappeared but are relatively unimportant compared with the dominating biological principle.

History shows, also, that in the development of American immigration policy several basic rules have held. These are, first, that the door is always open as wide and as freely as conditions will permit. Second, we have never anticipated danger, but have always waited until symptoms of injury were apparent, then tardily legislated to meet further development of the impending ill. Conditions and not theories have always forced our immigration laws and regulations. Third, we have never exercised our full sovereign rights in rigidly filtering the immigrant stream in our own interests. Thus far our policy has been largely negatively restrictive rather than actively selective.

If "America is to remain American," we shall have to perfect the principle of selective immigration based upon high family stock standards. By national eugenics we shall have to correct the errors of past national policies of immigration, but by new statutes which are sound biologically we can cause future immigration to improve our native family stocks.



In examining the reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration we are able to compare the number of immigrant aliens admitted with the emigrant aliens departed for the 16 years between 1908 and 1923. During this interval there were 9,949,740 aliens admitted, while 3,498,185 departed, leaving an excess of arrivals over departures of 6,451,555-roughly, about three admissions to one departure. We are thus, and always have been primarily an importer of immigrants. For many decades to come our immigration will, no doubt, greatly exceed in numbers our emigration.

The primary causes of present-day human migration are generally economic-that is, a movement on the part of the individual from poorer to better wages and their accompanying freedom and better social opportunities. Religion and race play secondary rôles. The principal causes or springs of migration are economic, but the principal consequences are biological or racial; economic consequences are only secondary. If we contrast the present population and economic situations in Europe as a whole with those of the United States, we shall see why the economic pressure of a certain type is working strongly for the open door for emigration to America. Table No. 1 (p. 1239) sets forth these fundamental facts in parallel columns for ready comparison.

The ease and cheapness of transportation facilities also must be considered as important factors. We have under way a research showing the relation between the cost of trans-Atlantic passage and the number of immigrants who have come to America in different periods.

TABLE 1.-Europe as an exporter of emigrants and the United States as an importer of immigrants

1. Area.

2. Population.

3. Population per square mile.

4. Natural resources-Potential development in reference to ultimate capacity for maintaining population.

5. Labor supply..

6. Capital supply.

7. The present economic "push and pull" in reference to human migration.

8. Future populations..

Europe as a whole

The United States as a whole

3,879,000 square miles..

3,026,789 square miles.

Europe and the United States approximately equal.

Abundant; much unemployment;
wages low.

Very low; most national moneys be-
low gold par value.
Relatively to the United States, Eu-
rope presents a great racial and eco-
nomic emigrant pressure.

From the viewpoint of national eco-
nomics and race conservation each
nation of Europe, individually, also
all Europe as a unit, faces population
problems which involve:

1. (a) Further industrializing the agri-
cultural regions of Europe, and main-
taining a commercial balance with all
non-European agriculture and the
production of raw materials, or (b)
overpopulated European regions re-
ducing their own populations and
more nearly balancing their own in-
dustrial and agricultural resources,
or (c) exporting temporarily her sur-
plus labor which will maintain senti-
mental contact with the mother
countries sufficient to assure the re-
turn of wages earned in foreign coun-

2. Working toward a population of
number, quality, and racial charac-
teristics approximating her national
economic needs and racial ideals.
This can be done by practicing na-
tional eugenics. She must repro-
duce principally from her best family
stocks, and must cut off her supply
of human defectives and low pro-
ducers. To do the latter, she must
either assist the permanent emigra-
tion of her undesirables, or prevent
reproduction on the part of her bio-
logically most defective families.

Medium; little unemployment; wages high.

Abundant; all money at par with gold.

Relatively to Europe, The United States presents a small economic immigrant demand.

From the viewpoint of national economics and race conservation, the United States faces problems which involve:

1. Determining her optimum future population number, in regard to a high standard of living for all classes, in balance with (a) the future coordination of agriculture and industries in the whole United States, and also (b) the relation of the United States as a unit producer and consumer to the supply and demand of world


2. Working toward a future population in number, quality, and racial traits in accordance with the ideals of the Nation. This can be done by practicing national eugenics. Like Eu rope, America must demand fit matings and abundant reproduction by her family stocks most highly endowed by nature, and must prevent reproduction by defective and degenerate families. To accomplish these ends, the United States must, among other things (a) admit in number and race only those immigrants whom the American people can assimilate, and (b) must bar the immigration of all persons, regardless of race, who are potential parents, and whose reproduction would not improve the native talents and racial qualities of the American people of the future.

The situation as it exists now places Europe in the position of the exporter of emigrants and America as the importer. If we compare the process of immigration with any other importation, we find America exercising a very unbusinesslike attitude in the matter. In ordinary importation of goods the Old World exporter offers an article, the New World importer passes judgment on its price and quality, and if an agreement is reached, the importation is effected. With immigration, however, the situation is reversed the Old World exporter does the selecting and the New World importer, except for the recent limitations of national quota and individual quality, remains silent. Because of the nature of the situation which demands that the initiative for emigration from Europe must arise in the activities of the home country of the would-be immigrant, the

by sifting the immigrant stream many times, in order to insure that nothing but the most superior strains are admitted. Indeed, these strains should be so highly selected by the United States that they will always add to the virtue of the inborn qualities of character which we prize as the principal possession of the American Nation.


Before I outline the sample case and family histories of would-be immigrants (see p. 1263), permit me to describe the general economic and population conditions in two contrasted European countries, which will throw some light upon the causes and the extent of emigration pressure from the Old World toward America. Let us take Sweden as a typical northern and Italy as a typical southern country.

TABLE 2.-National economic conditions as basic factors in national emigration

[blocks in formation]

TABLE 2.-National economic conditions as basic factors in national emigration policy-Continued

[blocks in formation]

15,348,400,000 699,887,040 18.02 7,903,200,000 360,385,920 9.28 23,251,600,000 1,060,272,960 27.30

8. Imports and ex- Imports.. 1,266,237,485 335,806,185 56.39 Imports ports, 1921. Exports 1,097,273,992 290,996,800 48.87 Exports

9. Emigrant situation, with special reference to the United States as an immigrant receiving country.

Total. 2,363,511,477 626,802,985 105.26

1. Sweden has successfully industrial-
ized her country.

2. She can care for a considerably greater

population by developing her industry
and commerce, but not by agriculture.

3. Many young Swedes still desire to
emigrate to the United States. Those
who do so generally become natural-
ized. 68.98 per cent of those in the
United States in 1920 were citizens.
4. The Swedish Nation seems to desire
to prevent too much emigration, and
in its stead, to develop her industries
in the northern provinces. From
Swedish patriotic societies the young
Swede can borrow money, at a low
rate of interest (4%), for a long term
of years (49 years), for the purpose of
settling in and developing the agricul-
ture and industries in the less densely
populated region of Northern Sweden.

5. There seems to be no national need
for any systematic effort on the part
of the Swedish Nation to follow her
emigrant to the host country nor to
treat him as "exported labor."

6. The typical Swedish emigrant is a
prospective settler.


1. Italy is still largely agricultural, and is greatly overpopulated.

2. Unless she can find capital with which to develop her industries very greatly, she can not continue well to support her rapidly increasing population.

3. Many young Italians desire to come to the United States. Those doing so do not generally become naturalized. 28.12 per cent of those in the United States in 1920 were citizens.

4. The policy of the Italian Nation seems to be to export Italian labor in such a manner as to make this exportation comparable with the exportation of manufactured articles by more industrialized nations. In order to do this a sentimental contact must be maintained between the Italian emigrant and his mother country. The typical Italian emigrant is a physically sound young man (a wage earner) who is married. His wife and family remain at home, and thus maintain the sentimental contact between the emigrant and his mother country. This is a very important factor in preventing naturalization, and is the principal factor in providing the motive necessary to cause the emigrant to return a considerable portion of his wages to his mother country.

5. In 1921 it is estimated by the Association of Italian corporations that 3,668,000,000 lire or $168,218,400 were returned from the United States to Italy by Italian labor. This represents Italian exportation as truly as money paid for manufactured articles, and thus from the United States alone, the value of Italian exports, per capita, was increased $4.33 (i. e., from $9.28 to $13.61).

6. Thus from the Italian point of view, whether official or unofficial, the emigrant must be looked upon as "exported labor."

The working out of this contrast is seen by an examination of the report of the Bureau of Immigration on the quota fulfillment of immigrants by different nationalities for the year beginning July 1, 1923, and representing the status as of March 5, 1924. On this latter date we find that Italy, by the weekly report of December 12, 1923, was shown to have exhausted her annual quota of 42,057 in about five and one-half months, whereas Sweden, with an annual quota of 20,042, still has 739 quota immigrants to her credit.

The CHAIRMAN. Right there, can you give in greater detail for the benefit of the committee the contrasting conditions in Sweden and Italy that seemed to have caused this difference in emigration pressure?

429-24-SER 5A-2

« ÎnapoiContinuă »