CONDITIONS OF IMMIGRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES. EFFECTS ON POPULATION.
DISTRIBUTION
The student who turns to the investigation of immigration conditions
within the United States at once finds himself hindered by a serious
lack of material. As has been stated above, the Immigration Bureau
furnishes practically no data concerning our alien residents after it
bids them farewell at the immigration station. The Census Bureau
furnishes certain valuable data, and the Immigration Commission has
recently collected a vast amount of useful information. Occasional
articles appear in the periodicals, and there are a few books touching
on the subject. But there is a great need for more concrete, exhaustive,
and sympathetic studies of single racial groups of immigrants, such as
has been made by Miss Emily G. Balch in regard to the Slavs. There ought
also to be a number of conscientious studies of different phases of
immigrant life in this country—what might be called transverse sections
of the problem, as the other studies are longitudinal sections. A number
of valuable studies of the latter sort have been made by the Immigration
Commission in its reports upon immigrants in industries, immigrants in
cities, immigrants as charity seekers, etc. Other topics which might
well be considered in a similar manner will be suggested by the
following subjects: housing conditions among immigrants, the food of
immigrants, the problem of assimilation, family life of the immigrants,
religious life of the immigrants, etc. Until more work of this sort has
been done most general conclusions must be admittedly tentative and
subject to revision. Nevertheless, knowledge grows from the general to
the particular, as well as in the reverse order, and it will not be
without profit to review the data which are already at hand, and
establish as many conclusions with a fair degree of certainty as may be
possible.
At the time of the census of 1900 the population of the United States
numbered 76,303,387. Of these 10,460,085 were foreign-born. In 1910 out
of a total population of 91,972,266 there were 13,515,886 foreign-born.
Out of about forty-five different groups, designated by the country of
origin, the following are the most important:
FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES
WHOSE BIRTHPLACE WAS IN THE COUNTRY SPECIFIED
BIRTHPLACE 1900 NUMBER 1910 NUMBER
Austria 276,702 1,174,973
Canada (English or other) 787,798 819,554
Canada (French) 395,427 385,083
England 843,491 877,719
Germany 2,669,164 2,501,333
Ireland 1,619,469 1,352,251
Italy 484,703 1,343,125
Norway 338,426 403,877
Poland (all) 383,595 [179]
Russia 424,372 1,602,782
Sweden 574,625 665,207
Footnote 179:
Distributed under Austria, Germany, and Russia.
When we remember the remarkable homogeneity of the inhabitants of the
United States at the time of the Revolution, we seem justified in saying
that one conclusion, at least, is established beyond any doubt, viz.
that immigration to the United States since 1820 has resulted in a
decided mixture of racial stock. For good or ill, the racial unity of
the American people is a thing of the past.
There is another conclusion which might be drawn from the above figures,
and which is in fact assumed by many writers, and in most popular
discussions of the subject, which is not so well supported by facts.
This is, that these foreign-born residents of the country, amounting to
one seventh of the total, constitute a net addition to the population;
in other words, that immigration has increased the total population of
the country by an amount approximately equal to the number of
immigrants, allowing, of course, for removals and deaths.
At first glance this may seem almost a self-evident proposition. That it
is not, however, is evidenced by the strikingly large number of the
deeper thinkers on the subject who hold the opposite view. Of these, the
best known in this connection is General Francis A. Walker. In his
discussion of this problem he says: “Space would not serve for a full
statistical demonstration of the proposition that immigration, during
the period from 1830 to 1860 instead of constituting a net reënforcement
to the population, simply resulted in a replacement of native by foreign
elements; but I believe it would be practicable to prove this to the
satisfaction of every fair-minded man.”[180] Mr. Prescott F. Hall, who
quotes this passage, holds firmly to the same opinion himself, and cites
a number of other writers who are more or less positive in their
statements of the causal relation between immigration and the
diminishing native birth rate.
Mr. F. A. Bushee, whose authority on matters of population is well
recognized, says, “The multiplication of foreign peoples has seriously
checked the growth of the old American stock.”[181] Mr. Robert Hunter is
a pronounced advocate of this view, and says, “The immigrants are not
additional inhabitants. Their coming displaces the native stock.”[182]
Professor John R. Commons supports this position throughout his
discussions of the subject. An extreme but convincing opinion is that
expressed by Mr. S. G. Fisher in the _Popular Science Monthly_ for
December, 1895. After a careful statistical survey of the growth of
population in the United States he states his conviction that
“immigration has not materially increased, but, on the contrary, has
somewhat decreased the American population.... All the immigrants and
all their increase cannot make up for the loss of the old rate of
increase of the natives.”
In view of this imposing weight of authoritative opinion, it is perhaps
surprising that the popular mind still holds so tenaciously and
universally to the belief that immigration directly increases
population. The explanation probably lies in ignorance of the facts of
the case and of the fundamental laws of population and in the somewhat
abstruse nature of the reasoning by which the expert conclusions are
reached. For it must be admitted frankly that this is not a proposition
which can be demonstrated in an absolutely conclusive mathematical way,
which will leave no further ground for argument. The factors affecting
population are many and complicated, including not only immigration, but
war, vice, hard times, marriage customs, the growth of cities, and a
host of other things. It is far beyond the present power of social
science to define positively the relative importance of each of the
forces involved in producing a certain phenomenon.
The line of argument by which, in general, all writers such as those to
whom reference was made above have reached their conclusions is as
follows. The population of the United States at the time it became a
nation was almost wholly of native origin. It was a homogeneous people,
of one stock, one language, and one set of traditions, customs, and
beliefs. For the first forty years of our national life the increase of
population was phenomenal, doubling every twenty-two or twenty-three
years. Malthus chose the North American colonies as an example of the
extreme possibilities of increase under favorable conditions, and the
rate continued for many years after they ceased to be colonies. Between
1790 and 1830 the population increased from less than 4,000,000 to
nearly 13,000,000, or 227 per cent in forty years. An estimate made in
1815, based on the first three censuses, reckoned the probable
population of the United States in 1900 at 100,235,985. The fact that it
was, instead, only 76,303,387, in spite of the incoming of 19,115,221
aliens since 1820, shows that there must have been a tremendous
falling-off in the native birth rate. Careful study reveals the fact
that the birth rate first began to decline appreciably about 1830, just
the period when the effects of immigration first began to be strongly
felt in this country, and that it diminished progressively with the
swelling volume of the immigration current. Moreover, it was in just
those sections where the immigrants congregated most thickly that the
fall in the native birth rate was most pronounced, even down to such
minor divisions as counties. New England, which, at the time of the
Revolution, held the most homogeneous population in the country, and had
the highest birth rate, has now the greatest proportion of foreigners
and, as far as the natives at least are concerned, the lowest birth
rate. To such an extent has this decline gone, that at the present time
the native stock in large sections of New England is not even
maintaining itself. Coincidences of time and place between the phenomena
of immigration and those of the declining birth rate are so numerous and
so striking that, in the words of General Walker, they “constitute a
statistical demonstration such as is rarely attained in regard to the
operation of any social or economic force.”
This line of argument has been so thoroughly and convincingly expounded
by a number of writers that it need not be dwelt upon further here. Its
great weakness is that which has been anticipated—it lacks mathematical
positiveness. An opponent might readily claim that the appalling decline
in the native birth rate (the existence of which no one would care to
deny) was due to some one or other of a variety of different causes, or
to several operating together. The sections where the birth rate is the
lowest are not only those where immigration has been the heaviest. They
are also to a large extent those which are characterized most
distinctively by manufacturing industry, or where the population is the
densest. Why not assign the falling birth rate to one of these
causes?[183]
The best answer to this counterargument is to strengthen the original
position by another and wholly different course of reasoning. This may
be done very effectively by applying the fundamental and accepted laws
of population to the question in hand, and seeing how they would work
out in such a case. If the conclusion thus reached coincides with that
resulting from the other method of proof, it will furnish a
demonstration amounting almost to a certainty.
For this purpose we must go back to the set of doctrines first
consistently expounded by Malthus, and known by his name. Though they
are now more than a century old, they still stand as one of the
profoundest contributions to human knowledge. These doctrines are so
familiar to all students of social subjects that the merest summary will
serve the present purpose. This may be given in the following words.
Under favorable circumstances, the reproductive power of the human
species is very great.[184] Actual cases of doubling of population in
from twenty to twenty-five years have been known, and this may be taken
as a maximum standard. But man is dependent for his existence on the
food supply, and, owing to the actual conditions of production, there is
no ground for the hope that the amount of subsistence of the world or of
any nation can ever be increased at a rate corresponding to the possible
increase of mankind. Consequently, the growth of the species is always
limited by the possibilities of the increase of the food supply, and as
the strength of the reproductive instinct is very great, population will
always be pressing hard on the limits of subsistence. The only means of
providing for a greater population is by increasing the amount of
productive land, or, by improvements in the arts, by making the land
already under cultivation produce more food. Briefly stated, in any
society, population tends to increase up to the supporting power of the
soil. The forces which retard the growth of population, however, are
something more than starvation in the strictest sense of the word. They
are enumerated by Malthus in a list of what he calls checks. These
naturally fall under two heads: First, the positive checks, which
increase the death rate, viz. war, famine, pestilence, vice, etc.; these
all produce misery and arise whenever population becomes too dense.
Second, the preventive checks, which limit the birth rate, such as
deferred marriage, celibacy, and voluntary restriction of births,
vicious or otherwise; these are under the control of the human reason
and will, and while they too entail a degree of suffering, it is not
comparable to that caused by the other class of checks. All civilized
societies have come more and more to employ the preventive checks,
particularly that which is known as moral restraint.
The basic principles of Malthusianism remain as unassailable as when
they were first propounded. But there have been certain modifications
made necessary by the changing conditions of human society. As already
suggested the preventive checks hold a much larger place than formerly,
and great weight is now attached to what are known as the institutional
checks, such as the demands of education, late marriages, social
obligations, the “emancipation” of women, and a host of other customs
and conventions which tend more or less imperceptibly to limit the
number of births. Still more important, in the place of a bare
subsistence as the limit upon which population is always pressing, has
been substituted the standard of living. This includes all those
necessaries, comforts, and even luxuries which are customary in the
social group in which the individual or family finds itself placed. The
limits of the family group are not now determined by the amount of bare
necessaries which are essential for the preservation of life—probably
they never were absolutely—but rather by the amount of advantages which
are required to keep the family in the social stratum to which it
belongs or to which the parents aspire, either for themselves or for
their children. Particularly is this true in a democratic country like
the United States, where social position depends not so much on rank or
birth, as on wealth and education, both of which are attainable by
effort and sacrifice. It is the desire for the “concentration of
advantages” of this sort which leads to the restriction of the size of
families.
With this set of laws in mind, let us seek to determine the effect which
might reasonably be expected to follow the introduction of a large
number of immigrants from European countries into the American body
politic. In the first place, it will be conceded that the great bulk of
our immigrants represent a much lower standard of living than is
customary among native American workmen in the occupations into which
they go.[185] Observation of conditions in the countries from which the
immigrants come, and in the communities in which they settle after they
arrive, establishes this fact beyond the necessity of proof. In fact,
this difference, as has been shown, is the underlying reason for their
coming.[186] Undoubtedly many of the immigrants raise their standard of
living somewhat after their arrival in this country, but not nearly up
to the American level.
Since the immigrant has a lower standard than the native, he can afford
to work for lower wages, and since the amount of alien labor is so
abundant and so easily available, the standard of wages in the
occupations into which the immigrants go is set by the amount for which
they are willing to work. This amount is lowered still further by the
fact that the immigrant is generally quite willing to add to the income
of his family by putting his children to work as soon as the law
allows—or earlier if possible—whereas the native ordinarily prefers to
keep his children at home and in school as long as possible.[187] Thus
large families become a source of revenue for one, and an item of
expense for the other. It is obviously impossible for the native to
support the same-sized family in the same degree of comfort on the new
scale of wages as on the old. He is compelled to choose between two
alternatives. Either he may lower his standard of living and keep the
same-sized family, or limit the size of his family for the sake of the
standard of living. But the lowering of the standard of living is
something which every people—particularly the Americans—resist
strenuously. If it is a question of the possibility of raising the
standard, people often prefer larger families. This is instanced by the
very significant fact that immigrants to this country do, as a rule,
raise their birth rate very considerably. The foreign-born birth rate in
Massachusetts in 1895 was 50.40, which is from 12 to 20 higher than in
most European countries.[188] But if it is a question of lowering the
standard of living, the opposite course is taken. The standard of living
is a matter of custom, and, when once established, has a tremendous
tenacity. The American laborer chooses the other alternative. _He limits
the size of his family._
Multiplied by tens of thousands, this expedient results in seriously
checking the growth of population. This decrease in the number of native
children destined to enter certain occupations makes a greater demand
for alien labor, which is promptly supplied. Thus the invasion of the
American standard goes on progressively, and gradually these occupations
come to be resigned more and more to foreign labor. Already certain
classes of work are commonly known as “Dago labor,” others as “Hunkie
labor,” etc., and a self-respecting American parent shudders at the
thought of having his child enter them.
This very fact is sometimes used as an excuse for the whole procedure.
It is claimed that the natives are not displaced, but are simply forced
into higher occupations. Those who were formerly common laborers are now
in positions of authority. While this argument holds true of
individuals, its fallacy when applied to groups is obvious. There are
not nearly enough places of authority to receive those who are forced
out from below. The introduction of five hundred Slav laborers into a
community may make a demand for a dozen or a score of Americans in
higher positions, but hardly for five hundred. Furthermore, in so far as
this process does actually take place, it must result in a lowering of
the native birth rate, for it is a well-known fact that in all modern
societies the higher the social class, the smaller is the average
family.
What has been said thus far refers to the limitation of families after
marriage. The same influences work to produce the same result in another
way. The increased difficulty in earning enough to support a family, due
to immigration, leads countless American young men to postpone marriage
for many years, and perhaps an equal number to give up marrying
altogether. Both result in a great decrease in the birth rate for
society as a whole.[189]
The processes sketched above are mainly volitional. There is a variety
of other influences, which work unconsciously, but perhaps none the less
powerfully, to accomplish the same result. General Walker asserted that
the shock produced on the American mind by the miserable class of
immigrants in the thirties and forties, in itself, had a profoundly
detrimental effect on the natural rate of reproduction. Immigration has
the effect of vastly increasing congestion of population, and congestion
limits its growth. Furthermore, in an average group of immigrants, the
males exceed the females by more than two to one.[190] The introduction
of such an unnatural element into the population must limit its
reproductive power.
It is thus apparent that the laws of population would lead us to expect
exactly the result which the statistical data indicate—a decided fall in
the native birth rate, due to the enormous and ever increasing
immigration into this country. The conclusion thus reached is
corroborated and verified by a host of social workers, who testify from
their own experience and observation. As an example, note the words of
Rev. Walter A. Rauschenbusch, whose keen insight into social questions
has placed him in the front rank of American thinkers: “The natives, who
suffer by the competition of the immigrants and who feel the tightening
grip of our industrial development, refuse to bring children into a
world which threatens them with poverty.”[191] Whether this decline in
the native birth rate has been sufficient to offset the high birth rate
of the foreign-born, and produce an actually smaller population than we
would have had without any immigrants since 1820, is impossible of
proof. It seems wholly probable that it has. The second generation of
immigrants themselves feel the effect of the newcomers, and our foreign
population shows a sharp decline in its birth rate after a generation of
American life.[192] At least, if immigration has not positively lessened
our population, we may be certain that it has failed to increase it to
any considerable extent. Its net result, as far as size of population is
concerned, has been to substitute a very large foreign element, from
various sources, for a native element which would otherwise have come
into being.
The size and diversity of this foreign element in the United States is
constantly increasing. The representatives of different foreign
nationalities are becoming ever more numerous and more important in the
life of the country. In them is embodied the “problem of the immigrant.”
One of the most essential factors conditioning this problem is the
distribution of these foreign residents. The importance of this aspect
of the situation is becoming more and more felt, and will manifest
itself in the succeeding pages. There are two main sources of official
information on this point. The first of these, the immigration reports,
has already been considered, and its data taken for what they are
worth.[193] The other is the reports of the Bureau of the Census, which
give the actual distribution of the foreign-born, at ten-year intervals.
According to this authority, the per cent distribution of the
foreign-born among the various territorial divisions in 1900 was as
follows:
PER CENT DISTRIBUTION
OF FOREIGN-BORN
POPULATION IN THE
UNITED STATES
(EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA
AND HAWAII) AMONG THE
DIVISIONS, 1900[194]
Total foreign-born,
exclusive of Alaska and
Hawaii, 10,356,644
DIVISION PER CENT
North Atlantic 46.0
South Atlantic 2.1
North Central 40.2
South Central 3.5
Western 8.2
—————
Total 100.0
Footnote 194:
Twelfth Census, Vol. I, p. civ.
According to the division adopted in the census of 1910, 84.8 per cent
of the foreign-born were in the North, 5.4 per cent in the South, and
9.7 per cent in the West.
The distribution shown by these figures accords closely with the
statement of destinations made by the immigrants at the time of their
arrival.[195] Whereas 88.4 per cent of the immigrants in 1910 gave their
destination as either the North Atlantic or North Central divisions, in
1900 the census enumerators found 86.2 per cent of the foreign-born
residents actually residing in those divisions, and in 1910, 84.8 per
cent in the North.
There is a marked difference, however, in the distribution of the
various races. This is shown by the following table, which gives the
proportional distribution of some of the leading races of the
foreign-born among the divisions:
PER 10,000 DISTRIBUTION OF FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE
UNITED STATES, ACCORDING TO DIVISIONS AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH,
1900[196]
════════════════╤════════╤════════╤════════╤════════╤════════
BIRTHPLACE │ NORTH │ SOUTH │ NORTH │ SOUTH │ WEST
│ATLANTIC│ATLANTIC│CENTRAL │CENTRAL │
────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
United Kingdom │ 6152│ 234│ 2558│ 220│ 806
Scandinavia │ 1653│ 37│ 7066│ 105│ 1087
Germany │ 3312│ 274│ 5475│ 410│ 508
Poland (Russian)│ 7070│ 261│ 2389│ 145│ 132
Hungary │ 7297│ 144│ 2260│ 126│ 167
Italy │ 7264│ 216│ 1136│ 540│ 830
Roumania │ 8491│ 144│ 1142│ 92│ 124
Austria │ 6187│ 134│ 2543│ 365│ 743
Russia │ 6580│ 387│ 2535│ 211│ 272
════════════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════
Footnote 196:
Twelfth Census, Supp. Anal. and Deriv. Tables, Table 67.
The most striking fact exhibited by this table is the exceptionally
large proportion of the Germans and Scandinavians who have settled in
the North Central division. It also illustrates further the minor part
that the Southern and Western divisions have played in the immigration
of all races. The same general showing is made by the figures for 1910.
Thus 74.1 per cent of the foreign-born from Austria, 86.8 per cent of
those from Hungary, 69.3 per cent of those from Italy, and 72.9 per cent
of those from Russia were in the Middle Atlantic and East North Central
divisions. But 35.2 per cent of the foreign-born from Denmark, 17.1 per
cent of those from Germany, 49.2 per cent of those from Norway, and 32.1
per cent of those from Sweden were in the West North Central division
alone.[197]
The significance of these figures can be fully comprehended only by
taking into consideration the questions of area and density. The
statement is often made that the density of population in the United
States is so small that we still have ample room for an indefinite
number of immigrants. It is pointed out that the average density of
population in the United States is only 25.6 per square mile (1900), as
against 400, 500, or even more in European countries. If the immigrants
were evenly distributed over the entire territory of the United States,
this argument would have some weight. But we see that they are not. This
is one of the cases where an average is misleading. The immigrants are
really being concentrated in the most thickly populated portions of the
country. This becomes more evident if we examine the conditions in
certain states. Thus in 1907, according to the Immigration Report, 6.5
per cent of the immigrants were destined to Massachusetts, which in 1900
had a density of 348.9; 30 per cent of the immigrants were destined to
New York, with a density of 152.6; 17.9 per cent to Pennsylvania, with a
density of 140.1; 8.1 per cent to Illinois, with a density of 86.1; 5.5
per cent to New Jersey, with a density of 250.3; while little Rhode
Island, with a density of 407, was credited with .9 per cent. It thus
appears that these six states, containing only 5.6 per cent of the total
area of the United States, and with a density in each case far above the
average, received 68.9 per cent of the total immigration for the year.
It is thus apparent that our foreign-born residents tend irresistibly to
congregate in the most densely settled portions of the country, and in
the most densely populated states. But this is not all. They also tend
to congregate in the largest cities, and in the most congested sections
of those cities. In 1890, 61.4 per cent of the foreign-born population
of the United States were living in cities of at least 2500 population.
In 1900 the percentage had increased to 66.3, while 38.8 per cent of the
entire foreign-born population were huddled into the few great cities
having a population of over 100,000. In the same year only 36.1 per cent
of the native-born population were living in cities of over 2500. This
tendency appears to be increasing in strength, and is more marked among
the members of the new immigration than among the older immigrants.[198]
Thus in 1910 the percentage of foreign-born living in cities of the
specified size had risen to 72.2.
The reasons for this tendency of the foreign-born to congregate in the
most densely settled districts may be briefly summarized as follows. (1)
They land, almost without exception, in cities, and it is often the
easiest thing for them to stay there. It takes some capital, knowledge,
and enterprise to carry the immigrant any distance from the port of
arrival, unless he has a definite connection in some other place. Yet it
is claimed that, land them where you would, about the same number of
immigrants would find their way to New York within a few weeks. (2)
Economic opportunities are much more abundant and varied in the cities
than in the country. (3) Such occupations as are obtainable in the city
require much less capital than the characteristic country occupations.
With a few dollars, an immigrant in the city can set himself up in some
independent business, depending on turning over his capital rapidly to
make a living. There are so many people in the city, that if one can
manage to serve the most trivial want satisfactorily, he can get along.
But any independent business in the country requires a larger outlay of
capital than the average immigrant can hope for. The only country
occupation open to him is common farm labor, and there are other reasons
which make him ill adapted for this. (4) In the cities, the newly
arrived immigrant can keep in close touch with others of his own race
and tongue. In the compact colony of his fellow-countrymen, he may be
sure of companionship, encouragement, and assistance when needed. It is
the most natural thing in the world for an immigrant to want to settle
where there are numbers of others of his immediate kind. (5) Knowledge
of the English language is much less essential in the city than in the
country. The presence of others who can speak the same tongue makes it
possible for an immigrant to make a living without knowing a word of the
language of his adopted country, as many of them do for year after year.
In the rural districts, however, it is almost impossible for a newly
arrived immigrant to get along at all without a knowledge of the English
language, either in independent business, or as an employee, unless he
settles in a farm colony of people of his own race, of which there are,
of course, many to be found. (6) Not only is there more chance of
friendly relief from fellow-countrymen, in case of necessity, in the
cities, but public relief agencies and private benevolences are much
more available there than in the country. (7) The excitement and novelty
of American city life is very attractive to many immigrants—just as it
is to the natives. Trolley cars, skyscrapers, and moving picture shows
are wonderfully alluring features. In fact, in addition to the
considerations which are peculiar to himself, the immigrant has all the
general incentives to seek the city, which operate upon the general
population, and which have produced so decided a change in the
distribution of population within the last few decades.[199]
The matter of distribution has been treated thus at length because it is
one of the most important aspects of the entire situation. Many, if not
most, of the practical problems of immigration hinge directly upon the
matter of distribution. Upon it depends the question whether the
immigrant and the economic opportunity, which is his justification for
being in the country, shall come together. The question of assimilation,
which is largely a question of contact between the newcomer and the
native-born population, is primarily a matter of distribution. Crime,
pauperism, disease, the standard of living, morality, education—all, to
a greater or less extent, are dependent upon distribution. No practical
program for the treatment of immigrants, which is not calculated
directly to improve distribution, can hope for any considerable measure
of success.