THE RESTRICTION OF IMMIGRATION HENRY PRATT FAIRCHILD There are enough people in the United States who believe that there is something wrong with our present method of handling immigration, to furnish an audience, ready made, to one who has a remedy to propose. It is no longer necessary to go over the long line of argument to prove that evils exist. For this very reason, perhaps, there has been a wide variety of schemes of reform presented, each with its followers. Nevertheless, the student of social affairs who is accustomed to regard public problems in the light of established laws and fundamental principles, approaches such a question as the regulation of immigration with extreme reluctance. It is such a tremendous movement, and cuts straight across all social relations with such an unsparing inclusiveness, as to inspire him with a feeling of reverential awe, rather than a desire to intermeddle. In a human problem of such complexity, one can never foresee with accuracy what the unknown factors will be, nor be certain that some of the latent springs of human conduct will not break out to upset his best laid plans. Yet the immigration problem is not one which can be let alone. It is a dynamic question, which demands attention and decision. If we settle the matter by determining to do nothing, we thereby make a decision, for which we may be more accountable than if we took some positive stand. And in this country, immigration will not be let alone. Somebody must make decisions, and frame policies, and if the social scientists hold aloof, it will be done by selfish interests and quack politicians. More than this, it is an immediate problem. Things are happening with alarming rapidity, and what is to be done must be done speedily. These are the reasons which justify the presentation of this paper, in which it is proposed to suggest certain improvements in our method of handling the immigration situation in this country. One thing we may be sure of-any remedy ought to bear some immediate relation to the evils which it contemplates remedying. Before proceeding to the outline of the proposed new scheme, it will be profitable to glance hastily over the most important of the evils charged against immigration, and the foremost remedies which have been suggested, with a view to determining to what extent the latter promise direct relief from the former. The chief objections to the present immigration situation may be summarized under eight heads, each with a convenient catch-word to fix it in memory, as follows: 1. We have too many immigrants. A million a year of the peasants of Europe is more than this country can safely undertake to look after. This may be called the "numbers" objection. 2. The immigrants are poorly distributed. The great majority of them settle in the most densely populated states, and in the most congested sections of the largest cities of those states. The agricultural regions, which particularly want them, get very few of them. This is the "distribution" objection. 3. The immigrants are poorly assimilated, or not assimilated at all. This is in large measure due to the faulty distribution, and to the excessive numbers. There is great danger to the country in the growing heterogeneity of population, which results from ever increasing numbers of immigrants, of widely diverse races, who form compact colonies in our great cities, and come in slight touch with American life. The "assimilation" objection. 4. The competition of alien laborers, accustomed to a low standard of living, is lowering the wages and standard of living of the American workman-at the very least, it is preventing them from rising. The "standard of living" objection. 5. Immigration seriously increases the amount of pauperism and crime in the United States, through the admission of large numbers of aliens of bad moral character, or low economic ability. The "pauperism and crime" objection. 6. The present immigration movement is not a natural one, but is stimulated and fostered by transportation companies, labor agents, and other interested parties. Immigrants come with misconceptions and delusions, and without any natural fitness for American life, and as a result many of them suffer bitter hardships, and add nothing to the life of this country. The "stimulation” objection. 7. Many perhaps most-of the immigrants enter the country as conscious law-breakers, since a very large proportion of them knowingly evade the contract-labor provision of the law. Thus they begin their American life with a spirit of indifference or hostility to law, which augurs ill for their future usefulness to the country. The "illegal entrance" objection. 8. Immigration, as at present conducted, is proving of no real and lasting benefit to foreign nations. The stimulus given to the birth rate by the fact of emigration prevents any relief of congestion, and the other apparent benefits of emigration are offset by positive evils. The difference in economic level between the United States and foreign countries is gradually being obliterated, at the expense of the United States, and without bettering the other nations. The "foreign countries" objection. Not all of the foregoing charges have as yet been adequately proved. Some of them perhaps never can be. But they contain the germ of the most important criticisms of the present system, and any proposed remedy ought to promise relief for at least two or three of them. Among the principal remedies suggested for the problem under consideration the following stand out prominently: 1. The literacy test. This has received perhaps more attention than any other single remedy, and has a host of adherents. It would certainly meet the numbers objection. Since more than a quarter of the immigrants over fourteen years of age can neither read nor write, the strict application of the literacy test would probably cut down the total immigration to an approximately equal degree. It is difficult to see how the literacy test would be of any avail in meeting the distribution, standard of living, stimulation, or illegal entrance objections. It might help to a limited degree in securing better assimilation (No. 3), and it is claimed that literate immigrants are somewhat less prone to pauperism and crime than illiterate ones (No. 5). 2. Consular, or other inspection abroad, either at the port of embarkation, or in the native village of the immigrant. This might secure a somewhat better enforcement of the existing law, and obviate some of the hardships of the rejected immigrant. It is hard to see how it could materially affect any one of the foregoing objections. 3. Requiring immigrants to come up to a certain physical standard, such as is required for recruits to the army. This would probably remedy the numbers objection to a considerable extent, but would hardly meet any of the others. Our immigrants are already as free from physical and mental diseases and weaknesses, and abnormalities, as a rigid examination can make them. 4. A minimum wage requirement for aliens, making it illegal to employ any alien for less than a specified wage. This is aimed directly at the standard of living objection. It hardly touches any of the others. It is, furthermore, highly impracticable and unjust, as it would impose an ex post facto basis of admission. No immigrant could possibly know before he left home what wage he might be sure of unless he was under contract, which is legally prohibited, nor could the examining inspectors tell anything about it. It is hard to see what would be done with aliens who could not earn the specified wage, unless they were supported at public expense, which would subject them to deportation, and would multiply the "tragedy of the rejected immigrant" a hundred fold. Other suggested remedies, mentioned in the Report of the Immigration Commission, are as follows: 5. The limitation of the number of immigrants of each race. 6. The exclusion of unskilled laborers unaccompanied by wives or families. 7. The limitation of the number of immigrants arriving annually at any port. 8. The material increase in the amount of money required to be in the possession of the immigrant, or of the head tax. 9. The levy of the head tax so as to make a marked discrimination in favor of men with families. All of these last five remedies, except the very last, are designed primarily to meet the numbers objection, and would be effective to a greater or less extent. Those which aim to discriminate in favor of men with families might also have some effect in meeting the assimilation objection, as families are much more likely to come in touch with americanizing influences than single individuals. They might, however, operate to aggravate the pauperism and crime objection, as men might be induced to bring over their families when they were really not able to do so, and later fall into pauperism, or be led into crime. Looking over this list of remedies it becomes apparent that the only objection which most of them seem likely to meet to any considerable extent is the "numbers" objection. The mere reduction in the number of immigrants is very probably desirable, and might be accomplished in a variety of ways. Most of the remedies, however, fail absolutely to touch directly the great problems of distribution, assimilation, the degrading competition of low standards of living, pauperism and crime, unnatural immigration, and evasion of law, to say nothing of the somewhat idealistic problem of really bettering foreign nations. The scheme of regulation which is now to be discussed aims to touch directly every one of these objections. It will seem to many visionary and impractical, to others too drastic and revolutionary-it at least has the merit of having some connection with the evils which it aims to remedy. The first change involved in the proposed plan is for the government to recognize frankly its responsibility for aliens after they have been admitted and to take charge, officially and authoritatively, of the distribution of immigrants in this country. Hitherto we have tacitly assumed that if sufficient care is exercised in the matter of admission, our duty is done, and the mere fact of residence in this country will bring to the immigrant all of those advantages which he is seeking, and the United States will secure all the benefit possible from his presence. We are tardily learning the utter falsity of this assumption. To promote better distribution, the government should make it its business to ascertain where immigrant labor is actually needed, and where it can be supplied without injuring economic and social conditions-the two ideas are nearly correlative-and should see to it that the immigrants go there, and not elsewhere. To accomplish this, the aid of state and local boards should be enlisted. These agencies should furnish |