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

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 emporter of emigrants and the United States as an importer

of immigrants

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

1. Area
3,879,000 square miles.

3,026,789 square miles.
2. Population.

105,710,620. 3. Population per square 105.3.

35.5. mile. 4. Naturalresources-Po

Europe and the United States approximately equal. tential development in reference to ultimate capacity for maintain

ing population. 5. Labor supply... Abundant; much unemployment; Medium; little unemployment; wages wages low.

high. 6. Capital supply... Very low; most national moneys be- | Abundant; all money at par with gold.

low gold par value. 7. The present economic Relatively to the United States, Eu- Relatively to Europe, The United

“push and pull” in rope presents a great racial and eco- States presents a small economic imreference to human nomic emigrant pressure.

migrant demand. migration. 8. Future populations.. From the viewpoint of national eco- From the viewpoint of national eco

nomics and race conservation each nomics and race conservation, the
nation of Europe, individually, also United States faces problems which
all Europe as a unit, faces population involve:
problems which involve:

1. Determining her optimum future 1. (a) Further industrializing the agri. population number, in regard to a

cultural regions of Europe, and main- high standard of living for all classes,
taining a commercial balance with all in balance with (a) the future coordi-
non-European agriculture and the nation of agriculture and industries in
production of raw materials, or (b) the whole United States, and also
overpopulated European regions re- (6) the relation of the United States
ducing their own populations and as a unit producer and consumer to
more nearly balancing their own in- the supply and demand of world
dustrial and agricultural resources, commerce.
or (c) exporting temporarily her sur- 2. Working toward a future population
plus labor which will maintain senti- in number, quality, and racial traits
mental contact with the mother in accordance with the ideals of the
countries sufficient to assure the re-

Nation. This can be done by practurn of wages earned in foreign coun- ticing national eugenics. Like Eu. tries.

rope, America must demand fit mat2. Working toward a population of ings and abundant reproduction by number, quality, and racial charac- her family stocks most highly enteristics approximating her national dowed by nature, and must prevent economic needs and racial ideals. reproduction by defective and deThis can be done by practicing na- generate families. To accomplish tional eugenics. She must repro- these ends, the United States must, duce principally from her best family among other things (a) admit in numstocks, and must cut off her supply ber and race only those immigrants of human defectives and low pro- whom the American people can asducers. To do the latter, she must similate, and (b) must bar the immi. either assist the permanent emigra- gration of all persons, regardless of tion of her undesirables, or prevent race, who are potential parents, and reproduction on the part of her bio- whose reproduction would not imlogically most defective families. prove the native talent nd 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 condítions 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 TABLE 2.-National economic conditions as basic factors in national emigration




1. Area.
173,035 square miles

110,632 square miles.
(For comparison: British Columbia, (For comparison: California, 155,652 square

353,416 square miles, or 2.04 times miles, or 1.4 times larger.)

larger.) 2. Population..--- 1921: 5,954,316. (Population approxi- 1921: 38,835,941. (Population approxi

mately doubled during the last 100 mately doubled du the last 100 years.)

years.) (For comparison: British Columbia, (For comparison: California, 3,426,861, or

524,582, or 8.81 per cent as many.) 8.83 per cent as many.) 3. Population per 34.4 per square mile. (Varies from 220 336.9 per square mile. square mile. in south to 4 in north.)

(For comparison: California, 22 per square (For comparison: British Columbia, 1.48 mile, or 0.065 as great.)

per square mile, or 0.043 as great.) 4. Population in- Excess of births over deaths:

Excess of births over deaths: crease. 1920 60,363 1920.

459, 926 1921. 53, 310 1921.

461, 013 5. Occupation: 1851: 9.5 per cent of population was de- Still largely agricultural. Urban or rural

Agriculture pendent on industry and commerce; residence does not give a true picture of versus indus- the rest principally on agriculture. per cent of population engaged in agritry and com- 1910: 45.8 per cent of population was de- culture on account of many farmers living merce.

pendent on industry; the rest princi- in villages. 92.1 per cent of all the land pally on agriculture.

is under crops (1921). Industry and commerce are increasing. Labor is abundant, but capital is lacking.


To all


Per cent
of all to


To all


Per cent
of all to

6. Emigration..... 1920


10, 242
8, 950

6, 691
5, 430

65. 33
60. 67


344, 208
255, 166

255, 166
222, 260

74. 13
87. 10


From all
countries From
including United
United States

Per cent

of all who returned

who came from United States

7. Returned, or

temporary emi-


During the 5 years 1916-1920 15,675 per

sons (an average of 3,135 per year) re-
turned from the United States to

77, 369
92, 212

52, 678
71, 974

78. 05


[blocks in formation]

8. Imports and ex- Imports.. 1,266,237,485 335,806,185 56.39 Imports. - 15,348,400,000 699,887,040 18.02 ports, 1921. Exports.. 1,097,273,992 290,996,800 48.87 Exports.- 7,903,200,000 360,385,920 9.28 Total. - 2,363,511,477 626,802,985 105.26 Total... 23,251,600,000 1,060,272,960 27.30


9. Emigrant situa- 1. Sweden has successfully industrialtion, with spe

ized her country. cial reference to 2. She can care for a considerably greater the

United population by developing her industry
States as on and commerce, but not by agriculture.
immigrant - re-
ceiving country. 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.

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 senti. mental 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

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 emi. grant must be looked upon as “exported labor."


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.

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—241-SER 5A-2

« ÎnapoiContinuă »