Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

of the law to put an end, once and for all, to the immigration of those elements of foreign populations who may be classified as socially inadequate, criminal, anarchists, or agents of revolutionary organizations, be this immigration voluntary or stimulated by public or private agencies.16

NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS

(Sections 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12)

It is safe to say that few people realize that in spite of the fact that the so-called emergency legislation restricting immigration imposing a limitation of 357,803 as the maximum total number of persons admissible as immigrants into the United States, is still in force," there has been a total net increase of population by arrivals on our shores of 667,221 between July, 1923, and April, 1924, inclusive; that is to say, 1,060,432 passengers arrived and 393,211 departed from the United States. Of the net increase of 667,221, 600,285 are classified as aliens, or to put the matter in another way, if the statistics are confined strictly to aliens who may be classified as immigrants, there has been a net increase of this element in our population amounting to 574,278. Now, if the reader will bear in mind that these statistics cover only a period of 10 months, and that the average net increase of population by immigration during the five years preceding the war when a flood of aliens descended upon the United States amounted to 663,268 annually, 18 the reason for a revision downward for the quotas of aliens admissible will be apparent to any dispassionate student of this question. However, one of the results of the quota law of 1921 which may be expected to continue after the new act comes into effect, is the stimulation of immigration from Canada, Newfoundland, and Mexico. For example, statistics from July, 1923, to and including April, 1924, show a net increase of immigration from Canada and Newfoundland amounting to 162,170, there being 164,290 arrivals as against 2,127 departures. In the case of Mexico, there is a net increase of 74,130, there being 76,800 arrivals as against 1,670 departures.

In order, therefore, to secure a reduction in the totals and also a redistribution of immigrants to correspond as nearly as may be with the present composition of our population, section 11 of the immigration act of 1924 provides for the adoption of two methods of establishing quotas. The first prescribed under subsection (a) of section 11 permits the admission as immigrants up to 2 per cent of the number of foreign born individuals of any nationality resident in continental United States, as determined by the census of 1890, with a minimum quota of 100, subject to certain exceptions provided for in section 4 of the act, which exempts immigrants born in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, etc., from classification as quota immigrants. This provision is to take effect on July 1, 1924.

The second method provides that the annual quota of any nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1927, and for each fiscal year thereafter, shall be the number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of individuals of continental United States in 1920, having that national origin, bears to the

16 "If real selective immigration could be had this problem would not be of such serious nature, but when Bulgaria sends 200 convicts in one shipment it is high time for America to protect herself from being a dumping ground for Europe. Two hundred Bulgarians were convicted of crime and were sentenced to prison. The prisons were overflowing and these convicts were given, as an alternative to their prison confinement, the right to leave Bulgaria and emigrate to America. To escape their sentence to imprisonment they came en bloc to America." (From remarks by Congressman Fred M. Vinson, of Kentucky, printed in Congressional Record of Apr. 11, 1924, p. 6319.)

It has been a practice in the past for families of which one or more members are mentally unsound or diseased to leave these dependents in the care of relatives in the country of origin until the family shall have established itself in the United States. Sufficient means being then available, these dependents are sent for and through the exercise of political influence possessed by the racial group to which they belong in the United States, special exemptions by the Department of Labor, or even legislation is sought by which the dependents may be allowed to enter. The writer has seen passports issued by foreign States to immigrants indorsed "Not valid for return." These immigrants were obviously cases of undesirables dumped upon the United States.

The first effort to control the entry of undesirables by law, according to Beveridge in his Life of John Marshall, Vol. IV, pp. 583-584, was through the passage of a law by the Legislature of the State of New York requiring masters of all ships entering the port of New York to report all facts concerning their passengers to the mayor. References: Mayor, Alderman, Commonalty of the City of New York r. Miln, 8 Peters 121, etc., and 11 Peters 104, cases decided in 1837.

The effect of these practices upon our population is well demonstrated by the researches of Dr. H. H. Laughlin, Assistant Director of the Eugenics Record Office, Department of Genetics, Carnegie Institute of Washington, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, printed in the hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty-seventh Congress, third session, serial 7-C. "This paragraph was written before the act of 1924 took effect.

18 Annual report of Commissioner General of Immigration, 1923, p. 125.

429-24-SER5A-13

"

number of inhabitants of continental United States in 1920. Subsection (b) which embodies this provision also carries with it a minimum quota of 100. The act further provides that the term "continental United States in 1920" does not include (1) inhabitants from the geographical areas specified in subsection (c) of section 4, or their descendants, and (2) aliens ineligible for citizenship or their descendants, and (3) descendants of slave immigrants, or (4) the descendants of American aborigines.

Under subsection (a) the number of immigrants admissible from the foreign states subject to the provisions of the act will amount to 161,184,10 whereas, as indicated when the national origin plan has come into force, the quota will be 150,000.

Under both methods the act provides that no more immigration visas shall be issued in any fiscal year than the quota for such nationality, and that no more shall be issued in any calendar month than 10 per cent of the quota for such nationality, with an exception to be governed by regulation in the case of quotas amounting to less than 300 persons. The purpose of this provision is to eliminate the so-called hardship cases, which have arisen through immigrants starting from various parts of the world and racing to an American port in the hope that they may enter before the quota under which they are classified shall have been exhausted. When a determination has been made by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor jointly, assisted by the Bureau of the Census, they are directed under subsection (e) of section 11 to report to the President the quota of each nationality determined as provided for in subsection (b). It is further provided that the President shall proclaim the quotas so reported, such proclamation to be made before April 1, 1927, but if the proclamation is not made on or before that date, the quotas proclaimed shall not be in effect for any fiscal year beginning before the expiration of 90 days after the date of the proclamation.

Section 12 of the act provides in detail as to the method by which a nationality shall be determined, and in what way provision may be made for cessions and accretions of territory resulting from a redistribution of the map of the world. It is the purpose of the act that the nationality shall be determined by the country of birth with necessary exceptions being made to cover cases which otherwise might result in hardship; that is to say, the nationality of a child under 21 years of age, not born in the United States, accompanied by its alien parent shall be determined by the country of birth of such parent, if such parent is entitled to an immigration visa, or, if the wife, of a different nationality than her alien husband and the number of immigration visas which may be issued to quota immigrants of her nationality having already been issued, her nationality may be determined by the country of birth of her husband, if he is accompanying her and is entitled to an immigration visa, unless the total number of immigration visas which may be issued to quota immigrants of the nationality of the husband in the calendar month has already been issued.20

While there are no official figures yet available covering the provisions of the section relating to national origins, a table prepared by the writer was utilized by the Immigration Committees of the Senate and House, as well as being incorporated in the remarks of certain members of Congress in the course of the debate upon the bill," therefore, it may not be inappropriate to print a revision of this table, based on a restudy of the data from which the table was

19 H. Rept. No. 350, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, p. 17. This estimate is now superseded by the quotas designated in the President's proclamation of June 30, 1924.

20 In accordance with the President's proclamation of June 30, 1924, nominal quotas are established for certain Asiatic states which are only available for persons eligible to citizenship in the United States, born within those countries.

"1. (a) Persons born in the portions of Persia, Russia, or the Arabian Peninsula within the barred zone, and who are admissible under the immigration laws of the United States as quota immigrants, will be charged to the quotas of these countries; and (b) persons born in the colonies, dependencies, or protectorates, or portions thereof, within the barred zone, of France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, or Portugal, who are admissible under the immigration laws of the United States as quota immigrants, will be charged to the quota of the country to which such colony or dependency belongs or by which it is administered as a protectorate.

*

"5. Quota immigrants eligible to citizenship in the United States, born in a colony, dependency, or protectorate of any country to which a quota applies will be charged to the quota of that country, 6. In contrast with the law of 1921, the immigration act of 1924 provides that persons born in the colonies or dependencies of European countries situated in Central America, South America, or the islands adjacent to the American continents (except Newfoundland and islands pertaining to Newfoundland, Labrador, and Canada) will be charged to the quota of the country to which such colony or dependency belongs." (Printed in New York Times, issue of July 1, 1924.)

21 See Senate Committee print, H. Rept. No. 350, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session; the Congressional Record, pp. 5674-5675 and 6083-6084; and also, hearings before Committee on Immigration, United States Senate on S. 2305 and S. 2576, p. 89.

e

constructed.22 This analysis of the population of the United States has been reduced to a diagrammatic form as shown in Appendix B. An examination of the first diagram demonstrates that according to this table, the northwestern European stock derived from all sources amounts to 75.4 per cent of the total population; 13.2 per cent of our population is derived from national strains originating in southern and eastern Europe; all other elements of our population which include American aborgines, negroes, and Asiatics, amount to 11.4 per cent. Although it is possible to present in diagrammatic form the relative proportion of quotas assigned to northwestern Europe and southern and eastern Europe, respectively, under both methods of computation, that is the census of 1890 and national origins, as shown in plates 2 and 3, it would be misleading to assume that these diagrams will represent correctly the proportion of immigrants properly to be credited to the two sources of supply indicated, the reason being that the great preponderance of immigration_rising to approximately 70 per cent of the total prior to the outbreak of the European War originated in southern and eastern Europe, consequently, it is this element which will benefit principally by the exemptions and preferences accorded to relatives under the provisions of the act. While it is not possible to make an accurate estimate as to what proportion of immigration in the future will be derived from relatives, it is probable that the proportion will be nearer 70 to 30, rather than 85 to 15, for the respective classes. In any event, since the minimum number of immigrants allotted to southern and eastern Europe amounts to 15.5 per cent of the quota, on the basis of the census of 1890, and 16.3 per cent on the basis of national origin, it will be observed that the so-called new immigration is accorded a minimum allotment considerably greater than that to which it is entitled in accordance with the proportion which that element bears to the population as a whole. However, leaving quite to one side the arguments brought forward in the course of the debate respecting the relative merits of immigrants from northwestern Europe and southern and eastern sections of that continent, there can be no doubt in the minds of any student of the immigration question that had not some such provisions as those embodied in section 11 of the act of 1924 been adopted by Congress, a few generations would have seen a complete change in the racial structure of the people inhabiting the United States.23

EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES

(Sections 3, 4, 13, and 28)

24.

The protest of the Japanese Government by its ambassador, Mr. Hanihara, against the incorporation of section 13, subsection (c) providing for the exclusion of aliens ineligible for citizenship, has focused the attention not only of Asia but of the world upon the problem of oriental immigration. This protest on the part of Japan and the reply thereto by the Secretary of State are printed as an appendix of this pamphlet. While these documents are illuminating, particuarly the letter of Mr. Hughes, embodying corrrespondence relating to the negotiation of the treaty of 1911, an accurate understanding of the exclusion provisions of the act demands at least a brief presentation of the underlying facts. It must be accepted as axiomatic that where the white and yellow races live side by side, in direct economic competition, the white succumbs. It is not necessary that we should discuss the reasons for this condition, but it is a fact. We may even go so far as to say that in entering upon the gentlemen's agreement, Japan recognized the reasonableness of the American contention, that subjects of that Empire be excluded, both as a matter of right, and as an economic necessity. As the Secretary of State points out in his reply to Mr. Hanihara, the Japanese Government itself has not failed to exercise a similar authority "in its own discretion with respect to the admission of aliens and the conditions and location of their settlement within its borders."25

The following figures taken from Volume II of the Census of 1920, will illustrate some phases of the situation which have been developing in the United

22 Appendix B. (In the present series Appendix B of the Trevor pamphlet appears as Appendix D. p. 1361.)

28 Mr. Speaker, with this new immigration act the United States is undertaking to regulate and controthe great problem of the commingling of races. Our hope is in a homogeneous Nation. At one time we well comed all, and all helped to build the Nation. But now asylum ends. The melting pot is to have a rest. This Nation must be as completely unified as any nation in Europe or in Asia. Self-preservation demands it. I believe the new act to be of vital importance to the future of the United States." (Remarks of Hon. Albert Johnson, printed in Congressional Record of June 24, 1924, p. 11744.)

24 Appendix C of the Trevor pamphlet.

25 Text of note as printed in New York Times, issue of June 19, 1924.

States since 1880. According to the census of that year there were 105,465 Chinese within the borders of our country, and upon the same date the number of Japanese enumerated amounted to only 148; in the following decade the number of Chinese was 107,488, and the number of Japanese 2,039; in 1900, it will be noted that the number of Chinese had fallen to 89,863, whereas the Japanese had increased to 24,336, an increase of say over 1,100 per cent; by 1910, the figure for Chinese was 71,531 and Japanese 72,157; and finally, in 1920, China is credited with 61,639 and Japan with 111,010.

Now, an examination of these figures will make it clear to the reader that since the enactment of the Chinese exclusion act, approved May 6, 1882, there has been not only a steady, but a very heavy fall in the number of Chinese enumerated within the borders of the United States. On the other hand, under an arrangement designed to accomplish in respect to the Japanese a similar result, the latter element has increased by leaps and bounds; for example, if you take the decade 1910-1920, which includes only 10 years of the period in which the gentlemen's agreement was in force, we find a very heavy increase in the Japanese population, computed by the census to be approximately 54 per cent.26 While it is true that the expansion of the Japanese population during these 10 years amounting in all to 38,853, includes increase by birth, the census enumeration of foreign born during that period discloses an addition to our population of 13,758 by immigration; that is to say, the difference between a foreign-born Japanese population of 67,744 in 1910, and 81,502 in 1920.27 On the other hand, the Japanese ambassador, quoting from the reports of the United States Commissioner of Immigration, asserts in his note to the Secretary of State, dated April 10, 1924, that "in the years 1908-1923 the total numbers of Japanese admitted to and departed from the continental United States were, respectively, 120,317 and 111,636. In other words, the excess of those admitted over those departed was in 15 years only 8,681." 28 Against these latter figures, however, must be placed the following table taken from the annual report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1923, page 30:29

[blocks in formation]

Bringing the statistics down to date, we find in the report of the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Immigration, that between July, 1923, and April, 1924, a period of 10 months, 4,362 Japanese immigrant aliens were admitted and 1,896 Japanese emigrant aliens departed, or a net increase to the Japanese population in the United States of 2,466, with the complete record for the fiscal year not yet available. While it may be impossible to reconcile these figures, the reader can be left in no doubt that there has been a substantial increase by immigration of an element which is generally regarded as unassimilable.30

26 Vol. II of the census of 1920, p. 29.

27 Vol. II of the census of 1920, p. 694.

28 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, on S. 2576, p. 168.

29 The situation which has developed in Hawaii as a result of oriental immigration is fraught with political, social, and economic problems of such complexity that consideration of space precludes any detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that out of a population amounting to 255,912 persons, 109,274 are Japanese, of whom 60,888 are foreign born. (United States Census, 1920, Vol. III, page 1173.) While the balance of 48,386 Japanese born in Hawaii may be classified as citizens and, therefore, free to migrate as suits their interest, it is not probable that the alien element will be permitted to land in continental United States. The provisions of sec. 1 of the act of 1917, considered in conjunction with secs. 13, 25, and 28 of the act of 1924, would seem to preclude such a contingency.

30 Letter written by L. E. Ross, State registrar of vital statistics of California, printed in the hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, on S. 2576, p. 165; also, letter to the chairman of the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, from V. S. McClatchy, to be found on page 164 of the same publication; also, Statesman's Yearbook for 1924, p. 1054, from which the following is quoted: "Up to Oct. 1, 1920, 581,647 Japanese emigrated, and of these

31

The situation is complicated by some considerations of a political nature which must be considered owing to the fact that they have a distinct bearing upon certain provisions of the immigration act of 1924. For example, the gentlemen's agreement was an understanding between the United States Government and that of Japan, by which the latter voluntarily undertook to adopt and enforce administrative methods designed to check immigration to the United States from Japan. Yet, it was only after prolonged negotiation and continued pressure that the Japanese Government since March 1, 1920, has discontinued the issuance of passports to the so-called picture brides. Now, a picture bride has been regarded by the people on the Pacific slope as not merely a prospective wife and potential mother of large families of Japanese children, but also she was in fact a field laborer. Obviously, therefore, the entry of an indefinite number of picture brides tended to render null and void the effect which was unquestionably intended on the part of the United States, in entering upon the gentlemen's agreement, even if in fact there was no technical violation of the understanding. Unfortunately so far as reaching an ultimate solution of the immigration problem was concerned, the Japanese Government introduced the system of Kankodan brides; that is to say, "In order to assist the Japanese laborers and colonists in this country to get a Kankodan bride instead of a picture bride, the Japanese Government officially made this change in the law, that where visitors from California and the coast going back to Japan had only 30 days in which to stay there, unless they were prepared to do their conscription duty, that period was extended to 90 days in the event that they came for the purpose of getting a bride, and financial interests so arranged matters that the laborer desiring a bride could enter into a Kankodan party and secure his bride from Japan at a cost which was not much, if any, in excess of the price which would have been paid by him under the picture-bride system."32 Furthermore, there is the question of dual allegiance. "There have been," said Mr. McClatchy, "in the neighborhood of 90,000 Japanese born under the American flag in continental United States and in Hawaii. Three years ago I had an official report from, I think it was, the department of justice in Tokyo, and there was exactly 64 of that entire number who had been permitted to expatriate under the laws of Japan. They were claiming and exercising the rights of American citizenship, and all but 64 of those 90,000 were tied up to Japan and compelled to do her will in peace and in war." 33

Finally, a curious situation has resulted from the fact that "Section 3 of the immigration law, describing and defining the barred zone, specifically provides that the exempts of that zone must, while in the United States, maintain their status and that their wives and minor children must similarly maintain while in the United States a status placing them within the excepted classes, and that failure to maintain such a status shall subject them to deportation. In the case of the Chinese exclusion law and the Japanese gentlemen's agreement that requirement does not appear, although it would seem that the clear intent of Congress was that the exempts of these countries and races shall maintain their exempt status and be subject to deportation when that status is lost. By the

75,985 men and 39,539 women were living in the United States (including Hawaii)," or a total amounting to 115,524. Also see p. 20 of the record of hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, on S. 2576, from which the following is quoted:

"Senator Shortridge. The Japanese admitted 13,000 more than those figures showed.

Mr. McClatchy. Since you ask the question, I will say that the Japanese, under authority of their Government, had a census, and you will find in the proceedings of the House committee a statement of the secretary of the Japanese Association of America in which he acknowledges that they found by this census in California 83,000 Japanese, and they found them under a most incomplete system of census, which he explained. They sent out postal cards which had to come back, and they charged every man who sent his return 25 cents. And yet, under that system, incomplete as they acknowledge it to have been, they counted 13,000 in California in excess of the United States census.'

[ocr errors]

cf. Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, on S. 2576, p. 167, note of Ambassador Hanihara. "Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, on S. 2576, p. 27, testimony of Mr. McClatchy.

33 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, on 8. 2576, p. 7. Mr. McClatchy's testimony is substantiated by the following paragraph appearing in a dispatch to the New York Times, dated Tokyo, July 8, 1924:

The Japanese Cabinet to-day approved an important bill to permit Japanese citizens residing abroad who have not taken the oath of allegiance by serving the Japanese Army to relinquish their native citizenship.

"This will allow the children born of Japanese parentage in the United States who have so far had both American and Japanese citizenship to discard the latter." (New York Times, July 9, 1924.)

« ÎnapoiContinuă »