18. Native-born citizens permanently departed, by race or people, sex, age, conjugal condition, and length of residence in the United States. 19. Aliens admitted and departed, and United States citizens permanently departed, by classes, age, sex, and conjugal condition_ 20. Immigrant aliens admitted, by race or people, and countries of last permanent residence.. 21. Emigrant aliens departed, by race or people, and countries of intended future permanent residence... 22. Naturalized citizens permanently departed, by race or people, and countries of intended future permanent residence.... 23. Native-born citizens permanently departed, by race or people, and countries of intended future permanent residence.-- Page 54 54 56 60 64 67 24. Immigrant aliens admitted, by race or people, and States of intended future permanent residence.. 68 25. Emigrant aliens departed, by race or people, and States of last permanent residence.. 26. Naturalized citizens permanently departed, by race or people, and States of last permanent residence... 74 27. Native-born citizens permanently departed, by race or people, and States of last permanent residence... 28. Immigrant aliens admitted, by ports of entry and States of intended future permanent residence... 29. Immigrant aliens admitted, by occupations and race or people.. 30. Emigrant aliens departed, by occupations and race or people.. 31. Naturalized citizens permanently departed, by occupations and race or people... 32. Native-born citizens permanently departed, by occupations and race or people.... 33. Immigrant aliens admitted, by occupations and countries of last permanent residence. 34. Emigrant aliens departed, by occupations and countries of intended future permanent residence.. 35. Immigrant aliens admitted, by occupations and States of intended future permanent residence__ 36. Emigrant aliens departed, by occupations and States of last permanent residence.. 37. Immigrant aliens admitted during specified periods, January 1, 1925, to June 30, 1926, by race or people and sex 98 104 110 43. Aliens admitted under the immigration act of 1924, by classes and race or people. - 42. Aliens admitted under the immigration act of 1924, by classes and country or area of birth... 38. Nonimmigrant aliens admitted during specified periods, January 1, 116 117 118 119 120 122 127 44. Immigration quotas allotted under the immigration act of 1924, by nationality, showing number of aliens admitted and charged against such quotas, by country or area of birth_ 45. Aliens debarred from entering the United States, by race or people, causes, and sex. 46. Aliens debarred from entering the United States, showing number rejected at the land border stations and at the seaports of entry, by causes and sex.. 47. Permanent residents of contiguous foreign territory applying for temporary sojourn in the United States, refused admission, by causes. 48. Aliens deported after entering the United States, by race or people, and causes. 129 134 138 138 49. Aliens deported after entering the United States, by race or people, and countries to which deported_ 139 143 50. Aliens certified by surgeons as physically or mentally defective, showing sex, age, class of defect, and disposition, by race or people 51. Aliens certified by surgeons as physically or mentally defective, showing sex, age, class of defect, and disposition, by diseases or 52. Aliens certified by surgeons as physically or mentally defective, showing organ or portion of body affected, by diseases or defects. 53. Aliens certified by surgeons as physically or mentally defective, by diseases or defects, and race or people.. 54. Appeals from decisions under immigration law, applications for admission on bond without appeal, applications for hospital treat- ment, and applications for transit, by causes.- 55. Appeals from decisions under immigration law, applications for admission on bond without appeal, applications for hospital treat- 60. Comparison between alien arrivals and head-tax settlements 61. Japanese aliens applied for admission, admitted, debarred, deported, and departed, fiscal years ended June 30, 1925 and 1926- 62. Increase or decrease of Japanese population by alien admissions and departures, fiscal years ended June 30, 1925 and 1926, by months. 65. Aliens admitted to continental United States from insular United States, fiscal years ended June 30, 1908 to 1926, by ports___ 66. Arrivals in and departures from the Philippine Islands, by classes, as COMPARATIVE STATISTICS 69. Nonimmigrant aliens admitted, fiscal years ended June 30, 1908 to 1926, by principal countries of last permanent residence. 70. Nonemigrant aliens departed, fiscal years ended June 30, 1908 to 1926, by principal countries of intended future permanent resi- 71. United States citizens permanently departed, fiscal years ended June 30, 1918 to 1926, by principal countries of intended future 72. Immigration to the United States from northern and western Europe, southern and eastern Europe, Asia, Canada and Newfoundland, Mexico, West Indies, and other countries, during specified periods 79. Immigrant aliens admitted and emigrant aliens departed, with excess 80. Immigrant aliens admitted, fiscal years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, 83. Immigrant aliens admitted, fiscal years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, Page 188 190 193 196 198 202 207 86. Immigrant aliens admitted, fiscal years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, by race or people and sex. 209 87. Emigrant aliens departed, fiscal years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, by race or people and sex. 212 88. Comparative per cent of sex of immigrant aliens admitted and emigrant aliens departed during specified periods, fiscal years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, by race or people. 215 89. Immigrant aliens admitted, fiscal years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, 217 218 91. Aliens debarred and deported, by causes, 1892 to 1926- 219 221 SIR: The past year in immigration activities has been a notable one both in contributing to the better enforcement of our laws and in arousing public interest in what has frequently been referred to as "the world-old problem of immigration." Never has the pulse of migration to the New World been so well regulated as under the present laws, not only from the standpoint of our own country's welfare but also with due regard to the alien applicant. The Immigration Service, under your humane and intelligent administration of the department, has achieved a degree of popular esteem hitherto unattained. Realizing, as immigration officials have in times past been compelled to realize, that strict enforcement of the immigration measures was generally met with hostility from certain elements of the population and accompanied oftentimes by unfavorable press comments, administrative officers have felt the duties imposed upon them by law to be of a peculiarly difficult nature. But to-day, with the socalled "hardship" cases greatly reduced in number and for the most part kept away from our ports of entry through the efforts of American consular officers abroad, assisted by immigration technical advisers and Public Health Service medical examiners, the difficulties of administration have appreciably lessened. As the foreign inspection is further extended and coordinated, there will be a still greater reduction in the number of aliens found inadmissible on arrival in the United States and a corresponding decrease in causes for complaint by the alien applicant and his friends. It has seemed heretofore that too seldom has the Government's side of the case. been set forth in answer to the complaint in the press of a rejected alien, and that administrative steps have not been taken to lessen such complaints; and it is, therefore, gratifying to observe the much fairer public attitude toward immigration matters that is the rule to-day. With your continued support, it is my aim to still further promote measures that will minimize the necessity for detentions and exclusions at ports of arrival in the United States. This can be done without any lessening in the enforcement of the laws which Congress has passed, and which it is our duty to enforce. Indicative of the wide public interest in the immigration problem the past year have been the news and editorial comment in the daily press, and the numerous articles, many of them decidedly interesting, appearing in the popular magazines. The news services recognize the value of immigration material and display a growing friendliness toward officials charged with the responsibility of administering the immigration laws. Unfair newspaper comment has seldom appeared, as compared with former times, and when such misrepresentations have appeared there has generally been a willingness on the part of the publishers to correct erroneous statements. All this points to a better public appreciation of the problems of administration, as well as to a better handling of such problems by the administrative machinery. But there is also observable in the thought of the country, as set forth in the press, a significant demand for continued enforcement and strengthening of the immigration machinery, and even for further legislative safeguards in this connection. In fact, indications are not lacking of a desire on the part of the representative American public for an extension of existing quota restrictions to certain countries of this hemisphere which have not heretofore been limited by quotas. Apparently the thought of the country at large has crystallized upon the proposition of limited immigration and has reached a conclusion that restricted immigration, admittedly good in some directions, would likewise prove beneficial in other directions and should be more broadly extended than at present. Indeed, it seems strange that it should have taken so long for such a selfevident policy of fostering American institutions and protecting the welfare of the American public to have recommended itself to a people that has always prospered under a wise doctrine of tariff regulation and other measures designed to preserve American standards of living. When the widespread general prosperity that exists throughout this country to-day is considered and compared with the unfavorable industrial and economic condition of many foreign peoples, Americans should be grateful to the Providence that has guided them in protecting the American wage standard from the unfair, not to say impossible, standard that would be the outcome of the leveling process resulting from unrestricted introduction of foreign peoples. It is something like this that Americans have seen and realized, and is responsible for the general public attitude toward immigration regulation. It is, in other words, becoming clear in this country that our prosperity is not merely a general prosperity, but a general prosperity of individuals, making the great mass of the people the recipients of good wages and thus conferring upon them the ability to themselves absorb the vast output of American industries which thus do not have to depend upon a foreign market. We are, therefore, all committed to upholding American wage standards, and to this end the Immigration Service of the Department of Labor in enforcing the acts of Congress has made a wonderful contribution to our present-day prosperity. It would seem that any future legislation that may be advocated must necessarily be considered by the Congress in the light of such satisfactory results as have already been attained. I fail to see anything in these results to justify a departure from the present restrictive policy toward any larger quotas. In fact, while strongly advocating that there be no enlargement of the existing quota limitations, thought might well be given to curtailing the numbers that now may come in annually without quota restriction from certain countries of the New World. From an administrative point of view, there are no difficulties in the way of such further quota restriction that could not be overcome, and the results appear altogether desirable. |