Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922.

JEWS DEPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES, 1908 - 1922.

[blocks in formation]

Chart No. 6 shows the number of Jews deported. From 1908 to

6 1922 the Jewish deportations averaged about 150 persons per year. By percentage, 5.15 per cent of all persons deported during this 15-year period were Jews.

I did not construct a graph showing the number debarred, but from page 317 of the Jewish Year Book for 1922, the compilation shows that from 1899 to 1921, 22,416 Jews were debarred. During this same period 308,143 persons of all nationalities were denied ad

429—247-SER 5A- -3

[ocr errors]

mission. Thus in the debarring process, 7.27 per cent of all persons refused admission were Jews.

The matter of Jewish immigration has a statistical background, in reference to supply and demand, which is quite unique. The Jew has no home country, and therefore, under the quota law, is accredited to the country in which he is born. The movement of Jewish peoples toward the United States has been very active in recent years. The Jewish Year Book estimates the Jewish population of the world to be 15,393,815, and that in the United States the total Jewish population was about 3,300,000, or, at the time of the estimate (1918), represented approximately 3.2 per cent of the total population. Thus, roughly, about one out of five of the world's Jews lives in the United States, and, before the quota limitation, roughly, about one in one hundred of the Old World Jews was coming to the United States each year.

Mr. Box. Do not most of the Hebrew immigrants go to the cities?

Doctor LAUGHLIN. Yes, sir. The statistics further show that the Jewish immigrants and residents in the United States have a preference for city life rather than rural, and that in business and intellectual occupations they are a group of great ability.

In the analysis of inmates of custodial institutions, I was unable to give the Jews, as a nativity group, a separate quota,

but had to credit them to the nations in which they were born. For

For practical purposes most custodial institutions roughly, classify, their inmates as “Protestants,” “Catholic," "Jewish," or " Negro. This is evidently a plan based partly on race and partly on religion. Following this system, it would be possible to analyze these several groups in reference to relative liability to the several institutionalizing defects, with due regard, of course, for the element of institutional policy.

It would constitute a valuable contribution to national statistics if there were available for each racial group in the United States a statistical yearbook comparable in make-up to the American-Jewish annual volume.

CANADA'S IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned Canada's immigration problems. How do these compare with ours?

Doctor LAUGHLIN. Practically, the Canadian immigration service is ahead of that of the United States, because in Europe the Canadian immigration officers are active and efficient administrators, and are supported by their home Canadian Government in selecting, among would-be immigrants to the New World, only those whom Canada desires and believes would make valuable additions to her future population. She desires a greater population, is not willing to wait long enough to breed this population from her present inhabitants, and therefore seeks immigrants as settlers. But in preference to numbers she has set up a standard which, in recent years, seems to be working well. The Canadian immigration official appears to exercise much more administrative discretion in accepting or rejecting immigrants than is permitted by our policy. The Nation, by statute, should set forth very clearly its immigration policy and admis

1

[ocr errors]

sion standards, and effective executives should apply them intelligently and without fear or favor.

The whole population of Canada in 1821 was given at 8,788,483. Since 1918 immigrant arrivals have run as follows: 1918–19, 57,702; 1919–20, 117,336; 1920-21, 148,477; 1921-22, 89,999. During this last year, namely, 1921–22, 29,345 persons left the United States for Canada, while the British Isles furnished 39,020.

Canada is especially efficient in the selection of immigrants, not only by race but also by occupation, and she takes great care to distribute them properly among the several Canadian Provinces. The Canadian Government maintains in Great Britain a number of offices under the immediate direction of the Canadian Department of Immigration and Colonization. The chief emigration office is at 1 Regent Street, London, S. W. In other cities there are other offices in charge of assistant commissioners. These offices have display rooms, showing the products of the countries and Provinces which desire immigrants, and which also supply information concerning transportation facilities and immigration laws. It is clear that such a connection between the sources of emigration and the immigration demand sets an easy channel for the movement of peoples, and it is therefore all the more necessary for the immigrantreceiving nation to set up high individual and family stock standards in order to prevent the more shiftless and incompetent from taking advantage of the easy movement. Present-day sorting must maintain, by one method or another, the high qualities of the best of the pioneer settlers who displayed more individual initiative than is required of the average immigrant to-day.

The people of Canada and of the United States are very similar in racial stocks and governmental traditions. There is such a great

a and free reciprocity in social and business life between the two nations, and there always has been so great an interchange of residents, that it seems sound to presume that when the United States and Canada have worked out their permanent immigration policies, if such policies set up the same standards, a complete freedom of interchange of travel and migration between Canada and the United States would work to the ultimate benefit of both nations.

During 1923 the records indicate a still greater inter-migration between Canada and the United States, with the Canadian tide flowing toward the United States growing even faster than the United States tide into Canada. This movement seems to be, however, only part

, of the general American movement from the less densely populated rural regions to the great cities, where high wages and city life attract the immigrant. For the first nine months of 1923 it is recorded that 127,000 Canadians came to the United States as immigrants. If there should be an industrial decline and unemployment should be great, we should expect the tide to flow more abundantly from the cities toward the rural districts. This would increase the emigration from the United States to Canada, and probably also decrease the Canadian immigration to American cities. Thus migration between Canada and the United States is taking on more of the nature of interstate and interprovincial than of international migration. The similarity of racial, social, and political conditions, and the economic differential between city and rural life, make this inevitable.

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

From the geographical point of view, there seem to be in the Western Hemisphere, or Pan America, two natural regions which ultimately would make logical human migration control regions. One is North America and the adjacent islands, the other continental South America. Each region would have many problems in continental eugenics, but the sooner each of these regions becomes a unit in human migration control, the sooner can the several States which comprise Pan America attack seriously the matter of their racial and family stock evolution.

IMMIGRANT-RECEIVING NATIONS

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. What, in your opinion, are the common immigration problems and lessons for the Republics of Pan America and the British self-governing dominions!

Doctor LAUGHLIN. The United States and the self-governing dominions of the British Empire, namely, Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, as well as all of the Pan American Republics, have a great problem in common in reference to immigration. These are all new countries, and each can absorb thousands of immigrants. European civilization in each has been founded by seed population from Europe, principally from western Europe, with the British Isles, France, Spain, Holland, Germany, and Scandinavia each contributing a definite qualitative but varying quantitative element to the new national characters. These dominions and newer nations, more than the United States, need immigrants to help build up their populations to numbers commensurate with the ability of their natural resources to support population in comfort. Each of these nations is striving to maintain its fundamental character and to develop and to improve its culture upon its original foundation. To do this, each nation must practice national eugenics in the improvement of the family groups already established in its territories. Their laws and customs must favor fit matings and high fecundity among their best families. By "best" I mean those biologically the fittest, which means the most intelligent, the most courageous, those with the finest natural instincts, emotions, and abilities, with the soundest physiques and the least susceptible to mental and physical disease.

The immigration policies of the British colonies, like those of the United States, are based upon the principles which I have just outlined, and these rules, not necessarily the letter of the laws, for attaining these principles, run as follows: First, the racial group must be white. Second, the numbers of different white races admitted as immigrants must bear a fair proportion to the foundation stocks of the nation. This is illustrated most definitely by the recent quota laws of the United States. Third, within the national quota limitations rigid selection on the basis of individual quality and family stock must be carried out. Whenever a person who is a potential parent is admitted to the country and this person is not a member of the racial groups already established, then this new arrival, in order to compensate for the racial differences, should possess inborn and hereditary traits of most superior value.

With the British dominions, which are rapidly arising to nationhood, the word “ colony” is no longer directly applicable. This

term should, of course, be restricted to a group of people who go from one country to plant themselves in new regions and there build a new and better civilization of the parental type. It is equally incumbent upon the United States as well as upon the younger dominions of the British Empire to develop not only national eugenics in reference to their stocks already established, but also to support their national development by sound immigration laws and administration. They must admit only immigrants who are of assimilable races and of good family stocks, immigrants who will raise the physical, mental, and moral standards, and will help to proliferate the racial types which the nation has established, and to carry on the type of civilization which each nation has set as its ideal. All of the countries of North and South America, Australia, and South Africa are immigrant-receiving regions and are nations still in the making. Intelligent control of their individual immigration policies will, perhaps as much as any other single factor, determine the future material and spiritual prosperity of the several nations now in the making; that is, the nations which are still immigrant-receiving countries,

From the standpoint of the exporting nation, there is something to be said in favor of the exportation of splendid, instead of degenerate, family stocks. A nation may feel that the world is almost without territorial limitation, and that a defective family strain may be deported or exiled as the easiest way to get rid of it. Penal colonies have been a common means for attempting to purify the family stocks of many of the older civilizations. Parenthetically, the law which defined a political crime often exiled splendid individuals of fine stock. Their exile finally damaged the home country and aided the penal colony. But now there are no wild territories to be had for the asking, and any infection—that is, any strain of human degenerates-which may be sent from one nation will not develop harmlessly, but will infect a neighbor, and, in time, possibly work back again to damage its original source.

For both the national and the international good, degeneracy must be destroyed wherever it is found. If Great Britain, for example, instead of sending or permitting the good stock to go to her colonies had, in early days, sent only degenerate individuals, and had kept all of her best at home, so that in the colonies only inferior families could reproduce themselves, what would the colonies have become? No one doubts that the British Empire and the English-speaking group of nations are much stronger to-day because of the proliferation in the colonies of much splendid human stock, exported from the home country, than these nations could have been if they had been peopled from penal colonies only. A nation, in the long run, can better afford to export good human stuff, if it can also retain its own best breeding stock in numbers sufficient to reproduce and improve itself, than to exile degenerates. She must solve her own eugenical problems at home.

The original immigrants establish the fundamental race and institutions of a nation. Subsequent mate selection and differential fecundity, and still later immigration, determine its development. So long as we are an immigrant-receiving nation we can, if we will, cause immigration to recruit our best native blood, or we can, if we are negligent, cause immigration to deteriorate our best inborn national qualities.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »