CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE COUNTRY. WAGES. PAUPERISM. CRIME. INSANITY
Turning to those aspects of the immigration situation in this country
which more immediately affect the life of the American people as a
whole, we find that they group themselves under nine main heads, as
follows: wages and standard of living, pauperism, crime, insanity,
industrial efficiency and progress, amount and distribution of wealth,
crises, social stratification, and politics. In each of these categories
certain preliminary effects are already observable, and other much more
extensive ones may be predicted on a theoretic and hypothetical basis.
As regards wages, we have already made a careful study of what may be
taken as typical immigrant wages. The question now is, how have these
wages affected the earnings of the great body of American workmen? Has
this admittedly low wage scale of the foreign labor body exercised a
depressing effect upon the remuneration of the native American, or has
the latter been enabled, by relinquishing the lower grades of labor to
the foreigner, to avail himself of higher and better paid positions?
This question, like many others of its class, involves the problem of
determining what would have happened if history had been different in
some single particular. It is a most perilous, and often profitless,
field to enter. It is apparently impossible for statisticians to
determine with certainty what has been the course of real wages within
the past half century or so. There is no doubt that money wages have
gone up. There is also no doubt that the average price of commodities
has gone up. The question is whether average prices or average wages
have gone up the faster. The most reliable tables covering this subject
are probably those of the Bureau of Labor, and these have been
discontinued since 1907. As far as the showing which they make can be
depended upon, it seems to indicate that there has been a very slight
rise in the purchasing power of full-time weekly wages since 1890.[269]
Granting this, the question still remains, would not the American
workman have enjoyed a much greater increase in real wages during this
period, if he had been allowed to reap the full advantage of his
economic position in the country, without having to meet the competition
of vast numbers of foreign laborers? The answer to this question must
rest on pure theory, as its statistical proof would involve a
reënactment of past history, which is a manifest impossibility.
According to the established laws of economics there are two ways in
which immigration may operate to lower wages. First, by increasing the
supply of labor in the country, and thereby diminishing the amount of
remuneration which the individual laborer can command. Second, by
introducing a body of laborers whose customary wage in the countries
they come from, and whose corresponding standard of living, is much
lower than the prevailing standard in the new country. This factor
operates, not by increasing the number of laborers bidding for
employment, but by lowering the amount of the initial bid on the part of
a sufficient number of laborers to fix the remuneration for the whole
lot. As to the first of these ways, if the argument contained in Chapter
XI is valid, it is not probable that in the long run immigration has
materially increased the total population of the United States. But it
has, from time to time, caused a marked temporary increase in the body
of unskilled labor, and this, as will be shown later, is an important
matter. However this may be, the second of these two ways has
undoubtedly been by far the more instrumental in reducing the average
wage of the American workman. It is not because he has had to compete
with more laborers, so much as with cheaper laborers, that the American
workman has failed to secure a higher remuneration for his services. It
is what Professor Commons has called the “competitive struggle for
standards of living”[270] which has been the determining factor, and the
whole matter can be best understood by taking it up in the light of the
general standard of living, rather than of mere wages.
The standard of living is the index of the comfort and true prosperity
of a nation. A high standard is a priceless heritage, which ought to be
guarded at all cost. The United States has always prided itself on the
high standard of living of its common people, but has not always
understood on what that standard rests. The standard of living is the
resultant of two great factors, the stage of the arts, and the ratio of
men to land. It may be improved by bettering the methods of production
and utilization of natural resources, or by reducing the ratio between
men and land, _i.e._ by limiting the increase of population. It may be
lowered either by a retrogression in the stage of the arts—something
which can hardly be conceived of under our present civilization—or by an
increase in the ratio between men and land. Both of these suppositions
assume that the amount of land remains stationary. If large tracts of
good land are made available by any means, it gives opportunity for a
decided improvement in the standard of living, and if we can conceive of
large areas of good land being actually lost, there would be an
inevitable lowering in the standard. In point of fact, standards of
living are much more likely to go up than down. The history of
civilization has been that of increasing standards. A retrogression in
the stage of the arts is not likely to take place on a large scale;
neither is it probable that, other things being equal, men will increase
their rate of reproduction, for the very reason that such an increase
would involve a lowering in the standard of living.
A standard of living, once established, has great tenacity, and people
will suffer almost anything in the way of hardship before they will
reduce it. If, for any reason, the dilemma is presented to a people of
lowering their standard or of limiting their rate of increase, they will
in general adopt the latter alternative. This will come about, not so
much as the result of a conscious choice, as by the unconscious
adaptation to surrounding conditions.[271] On the other hand, if natural
conditions are gradually and steadily improving, it may frequently
happen that the rate of reproduction will keep pace therewith, so that
the standard of living will remain essentially the same. But if some
sudden improvement in conditions appears—like the opening up of great
stretches of new land, or some far-reaching improvement in the arts—the
standard of living may rise appreciably before the forces of
reproduction have had time to offset the new advantage. In other words,
the rise of standards of living does not take place ordinarily by a
steady and unvarying progress, so much as by successive steps or waves.
The regular, continuous improvements in conditions account for lifted
standards less than the exceptional, epochal occurrences. Such
occurrences, being inherent in the cosmic laws and in the constitution
of human nature, transpire with sufficient frequency to make possible
great advances in standards of living over long periods of time.
Let us apply these principles to the case of the United States, and seek
to determine what part immigration has played in their operation.[272]
At the beginning of its career the United States was most favorably
circumstanced as regards its standard of living. A people whose
knowledge of the arts represented the highest product of the
civilization of the day was set down in a practically uninhabited
country, apparently unlimited in extent, and of marvelous fertility and
abundance of natural resources. All of the old checks to population were
removed, and there resulted a natural increase of numbers unprecedented
for a corresponding area and extent of time in the annals of the race.
But even this could not keep up with the development of natural
resources, and a general standard of living was established far ahead of
any other nation of the period.
Into this favored section of the earth’s surface have been introduced
ever increasing numbers of the lower classes of foreign nations. What
has been their effect upon the prevailing standard of living? As a major
premise, it will be granted that the standard of living of the working
classes of the United States has been and still is superior to that of
the nations which have furnished the bulk of the immigrants. Common
observation and general testimony establish this beyond the need of
proof. Particularly at the present time, if this were not so, very few
of our immigrants would come, for, as we have seen, this is the great
incentive which draws them.[273] It is significant, however, that the
bulk of immigration has been recruited from more and more backward races
of Europe as the decades have succeeded each other. There is not now the
relative advantage for the peasant of England, Germany, or Scandinavia
that there was during the first two thirds of the nineteenth
century.[274] As regards the new immigrants—those who have come during
the last thirty years—the one great reason for their coming is that they
believe that on the wage which they can receive in America they can
establish a higher standard than the one to which they have been
accustomed. And this wage for which they are willing to sell their labor
is in general appreciably below that which the native American workman
requires to support his standard.[275] What does this mean? It means in
the first place that the American workman is continually underbid in the
labor market by vast numbers of alien laborers who can do his work
approximately as well as he. But it means more than this. It means that
he is denied the opportunity of profiting by those exceptionally
advantageous periods which as we have seen recur from time to time, and
provide the possibility of an improved standard. From his point of view
these periods include any circumstances which occasion a sudden increase
in the demand for labor—such as the establishment of a great new
industry or the opening up of new territory by the completion of a
railroad or recurring “good times” after a period of depression. If this
new demand must perforce be met by the labor already in the country,
there would be an opportunity for an increase in wages to the working
man. But the condition which actually confronts the American workman at
such a time is this—not only is the amount of wages which can be
successfully demanded by labor profoundly influenced by the number and
grade of foreign workers already in the country, but there comes at
once, in response to improved conditions, a sudden and enormous increase
in the volume of immigration. Thus the potential advantage which might
accrue to the laborers already in the country is wholly neutralized. The
fluctuating nature of the immigration current is of vital importance to
the American workman. It means that for him the problem is not that of
taking the fullest advantage of a possibility of an improved standard,
but of maintaining intact the standard which he has. We have seen that,
in the long run, the only way in which he can do this is by limiting the
size of his family.
The familiar argument that the immigrants simply force the native
laborers up into higher positions is often urged in this connection. It
is hard to see how any one can seriously hold this opinion. The fallacy
of it has already been shown. It is, of course, perfectly obvious that
at the present time most of the native workmen in industry are in the
better paid positions, and that the lower grades are occupied by
foreigners. But the question is, are there as many native workmen in
high positions as there would have been in all positions if there had
been no immigration? This is what the “forcing up” argument assumes, and
the falsity of the position seems self-evident. It appears much more
reasonable to believe that while a few native workers have been forced
up, a vastly larger number are working side by side with the immigrants
and earning approximately the same wages—to say nothing of that other
body of native labor which the immigrants have prevented from ever being
brought into existence.
Even if it were true that the native American himself is as well off as
he would have been without immigration, that would not settle the
matter. The question is that of the standard of living of the American
workman. If the American workman happens to be a foreigner, it is just
as important for the welfare of the nation, and of humanity, that he be
properly housed, fed, clothed, educated, and amused as if he were a
native. We would still have to face the fact of a standard continually
retarded by accessions of newcomers, representing ever lower economic
strata. Can we afford, as a nation, to allow the standard of living of
the workman, whoever he is, to suffer in this way?
It appears that the forces whose working has been outlined in the
preceding paragraphs can have only one logical outcome—namely, the
depression of the wage scale of the American workman. If immigration has
not absolutely lowered the wages and the standard of living of the
American workman, it certainly has kept them from rising to the level
that they otherwise would have reached. This is the opinion reached by
many of the most careful students of immigration in the country, and it
seems the only tenable one.[276] And after all, this is the really
important thing. For it must not be forgotten that poverty, and riches,
and standards of living are all purely relative terms. It is not a
question of how much a man has, absolutely, as of how much he has in
comparison with those around him, or how much he might have had. So that
the common statement that the American workman of to-day has more of the
comforts and luxuries of life than one in the same class fifty or one
hundred years ago, by no means meets the case. If his share in the
wonderful prosperity of the nation has not increased at least in the
same proportion as that of the capitalist, or the professional man, or
other members of society, then he has really suffered loss.
Immigration has seriously complicated the problems of the trade-unions
in this country. Both the need and the difficulty of organization have
been greatly increased. The traditional attitude of the unions toward
immigration has been one of opposition. Restrictive measures, in
particular the contract labor law, have met with their approval and
support. But when the immigrants are once admitted to the country, the
unions are under the necessity of either receiving them or suffering
from their competition. A large body of unskilled laborers, with low
standards, unaffiliated with the unions, is most prejudicial to the
success of unionism. Alien races differ as to their adaptability to
union control. Some of the races of southeastern Europe are looked upon
as natural strike-breakers. The Irish, on the other hand, are natural
organizers, and at the present time tend to monopolize the direction of
the unions. In some cases a large influx of foreigners has practically
put the unions out of the running.[277] In others, the unions come to be
made up largely of foreigners. At times it is necessary to organize the
different racial elements into separate subgroups.[278]
On the other hand, the unions exercise a great educative influence on
the immigrants—often practically the only one with which the adult
foreigner comes in contact. They encourage him to learn English, imbue
him with higher standards of living, and teach him the principles of
independent thought and self-government.[279]
One of the chief objections to unrestricted immigration has always been
the belief that it seriously increased the amount of pauperism and crime
in the country, and added to the burden of relief and correction. We
have seen how large a part this objection played in the early opposition
to immigration, not only in colonial days, but during the first half of
the nineteenth century. Even in our day, in spite of the laws
prohibiting the entrance of criminals, paupers, and persons likely to
become a public charge, there is a widespread impression that these two
evils are increased through immigration.
The prominence of pauperism as an item in the immigration agitation has
led to the production of a large amount of material on the subject.
Nevertheless, most of it has been fragmentary and untrustworthy. This
has been largely due to the incompleteness and lack of uniformity of the
records of various eleemosynary institutions, and the difficulty of
securing returns from all the manifold agencies of relief. At the
present time, however, as a result of careful studies by the Immigration
Commission, this is one of the very few effects of immigration about
which we may feel justified in setting down definite conclusions.
According to statistics for the year 1850 a native-born population of
21,947,274 contributed 66,434 of the paupers who were wholly or
partially supported in the country, while a foreign-born population of
2,244,602 contributed 68,538.[280] This was manifestly enough to arouse
deep consternation, and had not the current of immigration fallen off in
the latter fifties we should probably have had a pauper restriction
clause in the federal statutes long before we did. The enactment and
enforcement of such a statute has prevented the recurrence of any such
state of affairs in recent years. Nevertheless, as one glances at random
over the reports of various charitable organizations he is impressed
with the fact that the number of foreign-born paupers is out of all
proportion to the total number of foreign-born inhabitants. Thus in
Massachusetts in 1895 a foreign-born population of 30.6 per cent
furnished 47.1 per cent of the paupers.[281] The report of the
Associated Charities of Boston for 1894 stated that nearly all of their
applicants were of foreign birth or parentage,[282] while in the same
city, three years later, the Industrial Aid Society reported that 56 per
cent of the men given work in the men’s department were foreign-born,
while 66 per cent of those aided by the Provident Aid Society were of
this class.[283] The reports of the Wisconsin State Board of Charities
for the years 1871 to 1898 show that, on the average, the foreign-born
paupers considerably outnumber the native-born. Similar figures may be
obtained from many sources.[284]
But the question can be settled only by taking the whole country into
account. The Special Report of the Census Bureau on Paupers in
Almshouses, 1904, gives the following figures as to the proportions of
foreign and native paupers in the almshouses of the country (p. 6):
═════════════╤══════════════════════════╤══════════════════════════
NATIVITY │ PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF │ PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF
│ PAUPERS │ GENERAL POPULATION
─────────────┼────────┬────────┬────────┼────────┬────────┬────────
„ │ 1903 │ 1890 │ 1880 │ 1903 │ 1890 │ 1880
─────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
Native white │ 51.6│ 50.2│ 56.8│ 74.5│ 73.2│ 73.4
Foreign white│ 39.3│ 37.8│ 34.6│ 13.4│ 14.6│ 13.1
═════════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════
These figures are the most authoritative and inclusive which there are,
covering the almshouses of the country, and show a ratio of paupers
among the foreign-born vastly in excess of the ratio of total
population.
The paupers in almshouses, however, do not by any means include the
total number of persons who belong in that category. There are large
numbers of persons receiving relief, who never get inside the
almshouses. To cover this class, the Immigration Commission made a
special study of immigrants as charity seekers, which included the work
done by the charity organization societies in forty-three cities, during
the six months from December 1, 1908, to May 31, 1909. The cities were
distributed as follows: North Atlantic states, 17; North Central states,
18; Southern states, 4; Western states, 4.
In the terminology of this report, a “case” means an individual or
family assisted. The head of the case is the husband, if he is living at
home, or the wife if widowed or deserted. If there are no parents or
real family, the one upon whom the responsibility falls is the head of
the case, or otherwise, the one asking assistance. The total number of
cases for which information was secured is 31,685. Of these, the head of
the case was foreign-born in 38.3 per cent of the cases, native-born of
foreign father in 10.7 per cent, native-born white of native father,
39.9 per cent, and native-born of native negro father, 11 per cent. Of
the persons represented, 37.5 per cent were native white of native
father, and 42.3 per cent foreign-born. For exact conclusions,
comparison should be made of the relation of the percentage of
foreign-born paupers to the percentage of foreign-born in the total
population in each separate city. For general purposes it is sufficient
to note that in the cities of 25,000 or over in 1910—which include all
of the forty-three cities studied—the percentages of foreign-born were
20.2 for cities of 25,000 to 100,000, 22.1 for cities of 100,000 to
500,000, and 33.6 for cities of 500,000 and over.[285]
In fifteen out of the forty-three cities one half or more of the cases,
classed by the head of the case, were foreign-born, Milwaukee standing
at the head of the list with 67 per cent. In twelve out of the
forty-three cities, more than 15 per cent of the cases were immigrants
of the second generation, Milwaukee again standing at the head with 25.5
per cent. These two classes make up 92.5 per cent of all the cases for
this city. There is evidently more than one thing that makes Milwaukee
famous, with a possible connection between them.
In regard to the relative importance of the various foreign races in
this respect, we find that the Germans show the largest proportion,
amounting to 6.8 per cent of the total number of cases and 7.1 per cent
of the total number of persons. The next in order are the Polish, with
6.5 per cent of the cases and 8.6 per cent of the persons, and the
Irish, with 6.2 per cent of the cases, and 6.3 per cent of the persons.
As might be expected, the proportion of foreign-born is much larger
(more than half) in the cities of the North Atlantic states than in the
rest of the country, and very small (10 per cent) in the southern
cities. It is interesting to see how each city has its special problem.
For instance, in Buffalo 32 per cent of all the cases were foreign-born
Poles, and in Chicago 20 per cent were of the same class. In Hartford
15.1 per cent of the cases were foreign-born Irish, in Lynn 10.7 per
cent were foreign-born Canadians (other than French), and 19.3 per cent
foreign-born Irish. In Milwaukee 33.3 per cent were German, in Newport
22.2 per cent were Irish, in Orange 26.4 per cent Irish, in Rochester
14.6 per cent south Italian, in San Francisco 23.7 per cent were “other
races.” By way of comparison, it is interesting to note that in
Washington 56.9 per cent of the cases were native-born negroes of native
father. In ten of the cities, the native-born whites of native father
were less than one fourth of the cases.
The Hebrews are noted for looking after their own poor, yet in six
cities more than 5 per cent of all the cases were foreign-born Hebrews.
In Brooklyn they made up 18.1 per cent, and in Malden 15.7 per cent. The
Germans rank first among the foreign races in 18 cities, and tie with
other races in three more. The Irish rank first in nine cities and tie
with the Germans in one more. The Polish rank first in four cities and
tie in one more.
One more piece of evidence may be taken from the Report of the
Commissioner General of Immigration for 1908 (p. 98). It is there shown
that in the charitable institutions (other than for the insane) in the
United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico, both public and
private, there were, at the time this investigation was made, 288,395
inmates, of whom 19,572 were aliens, 40,453 naturalized citizens, and
228,370 native-born. The percentages are native-born 79.2 per cent and
foreign-born 20.8 per cent. It appears that the proportion of
foreign-born in institutions is not so extremely excessive as among
those seeking a more temporary relief. This is what might be expected in
the light of certain considerations respecting the make-up of the
foreign-born group which are now to be considered.
It thus becomes evident that from whatever source the figures are taken,
the percentage of foreign-born dependents is sadly out of proportion to
their relative number in the general population. The absolute figures
themselves are bad enough. But a further consideration of the
composition of the foreign-born element will demonstrate that the actual
showing is much worse than the figures would indicate on their face.
We have seen that as respects their economic efficiency the immigrants
are a picked group. The same is true of the foreign-born in the country.
This is especially evident as regards the age distribution. The
following table, taken from the census of 1910, illustrates this point:
PER CENT OF NATIVE-BORN AND FOREIGN-BORN OF THE GENERAL POPULATION IN
THE DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS[286]
═════════════════╤═══════════════════════════════════╤═════════════════
AGE PERIOD │ NATIVE WHITE │ FOREIGN-BORN
│ │ WHITE
─────────────────┼─────────────────┬─────────────────┼─────────────────
„ │Native Parentage │Foreign or Mixed │ „
│ │ Parentage │
─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
Under 5 years │ 13.2 │ 14.2 │ 0.8
5 to 14 years │ 22.6 │ 24.1 │ 4.9
─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
15 to 24 years │ 19.7 59.5│ 21.6 60.4│ 15.8 85.3
25 to 44 years │ 26.2 „ │ 27.6 „ │ 44.1 „
45 to 64 years │ 13.6 „ │ 11.2 „ │ 25.4 „
─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
65 years and over│ 4.4 │ 1.4 │ 8.9
═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════
Footnote 286:
Abstract of Thirteenth Census, p. 126.
It will be seen that there is a much larger proportion of the
foreign-born in the middle age groups, that is, in the period of
greatest productivity, than of the native-born. There ought accordingly
to be a smaller percentage of pauperism, rather than a larger one.
The sex distribution contributes a further element to this disparity. In
1910, in the native-born white population there were 102.7 males to 100
females. In the foreign-born white population there were 129.2 males to
100 females. This should lessen the liability of the foreign-born to
pauperism.
Another factor which enters in to complicate statistical comparisons of
pauperism among immigrants and native-born is the matter of the age at
which persons become dependent, or, in the case of the immigrants, the
number of years they have resided in the United States before they
become dependent. There are two periods at which the immigrant is most
likely to need relief. The first is immediately after landing, when he
has exhausted his slender store of money, and has not yet found means of
self-support. Seven per cent of the entire Jewish immigration to the
United States, in one year, found it necessary to apply at the office of
the United Hebrew Charities in New York, within a short time after their
arrival. Relief granted at this time is liable to be temporary, and the
immigrant cannot justly be considered a pauper. If he actually becomes
dependent, he is of course liable to deportation.
The second, and vastly more important, period is several years after
arrival, when the immigrant has exhausted the prime of his strength, and
becomes one of the unfit in the keen struggle for economic existence.
Those who become dependent at this time are likely to remain so for
life. They are those who have been unable or unwilling to make provision
for old age, perhaps being so dazzled by the apparent richness of
America that they gave no thought to a possible future dearth, perhaps
having sent all their meager savings year by year back to friends or
relatives in the old country, possibly never having been able to earn
more than a bare living wage. Individuals of this class make up the vast
majority of the foreign-born paupers in our almshouses. The census of
1890 showed that 92 per cent of the foreign-born male paupers in the
almshouses of the United States had been in this country ten years or
more. The corresponding figures for the twelfth census show that out of
27,230 foreign-born paupers whose length of residence in this country is
known, 26,171, or 96 per cent, had been here ten years or more.[287] The
facts furnished by the investigation of the Immigration Commission in
respect to persons aided by the Charity Organization societies are
similar; it must be borne in mind, also, in respect to these cases, that
they largely represent instances of temporary distress, rather than
settled dependence. Of all the foreign-born heads of cases aided by
these societies, 44 per cent had been in the United States twenty years
or more, and 70.7 per cent ten years or more. When it is recollected how
small a proportion of our foreign-born population have been in this
country twenty years or over, or even ten years or over, it is manifest
how misleading are comparisons in respect to pauperism between
native-born and foreign-born, based on the total population of the two
classes. Thus, according to the census of 1910, only 62.2 per cent of
the total foreign-born population, and 60.2 per cent of the foreign-born
population in the urban communities, had immigrated in the year 1900 or
earlier.[288] These facts also point to a possible great increase of
pauperism among the foreign-born, as the average length of residence of
this class increases.
The age of admission to the almshouse of the different population groups
gives corroborative evidence along the same line. The following figures,
taken from the census report on Paupers in Almshouses (p. 129), give the
average age at admission of the different groups in 1904: native white
of native parentage, 45.6 years; native white of foreign parentage, 41.7
years; native white of mixed parentage, 38.3 years; foreign-born white,
56.9 years. The high average age of the foreign-born is due in part to
the relatively small number of foreign-born children in the country. But
it is undoubtedly also an indication of the effectiveness of the system
of examination in weeding out those whose liability to dependence in the
near future can be detected. It furthermore adds to the apprehension
with which we must look forward to the time when a greater proportion of
our foreign-born residents will be above the specified age.
These considerations have an especial bearing on the effort to establish
the relative tendency toward dependence of the different immigrating
races. As one runs over tables of dependence or pauperism, arranged by
nationality, he is impressed by the immense preponderance of the Germans
and Irish among those listed. His first conclusion is likely to be that
the popular idea of the greater desirability of these races over the
newer immigrants is an error; but as soon as he recalls how much longer
these races have been in this country, on the average, than the
southeastern Europeans, he realizes that these tables, taken by
themselves, are wholly unreliable as indicating relative tendencies
among races. The following table will serve as an illustration:
PER CENT OF FOREIGN-BORN PAUPERS IN ALMSHOUSES BY COUNTRY OF
BIRTH[289]
═══════════════════╤════════════════╤════════════════╤════════════════
│ │ │
COUNTRY OF BIRTH │ENUMERATED 1903,│ ADMITTED, 1904 │ PER CENT OF
│ │ │ TOTAL
│ │ │ FOREIGN-BORN
│ │ │ POP.
───────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────
Ireland │ 46.4│ 41.2│ 15.6
Germany │ 23.3│ 18.4│ 25.8
England and Wales │ 8.7│ 8.8│ 9.0
Canada │ 4.8│ 6.5│ 11.4
Scandinavia │ 4.9│ 4.9│ 10.3
Scotland │ 2.5│ 2.6│ 2.3
Italy │ 1.0│ 3.1│ 4.7
France │ 1.4│ 1.3│ 1.0
Hungary and Bohemia│ 1.0│ 1.5│ 2.9
Russia and Poland │ 1.5│ 3.4│ 7.8
Other countries │ 4.5│ 8.3│ 9.2
│ —————│ —————│ —————
│ 100.0│ 100.0│ 100.0
═══════════════════╧════════════════╧════════════════╧════════════════
Footnote 289:
_Paupers in Almshouses_, pp. 19, 20.
Taking these figures as they stand, we may say roughly that the Irish
have thirty times as many paupers as those born in Russia and Poland,
and forty-six times as many as the natives of Italy or Hungary and
Bohemia, and twice as many as the Germans. But this evidently does not
represent the relative tendencies to pauperism of these races. The first
correction to be made is in regard to the relative numbers of each group
in the total population. The Irish have 3.3 times as large a total
population as the Italians, which reduces the ratio of relative tendency
to pauperism down to about fourteen to one. By a similar reckoning we
find that the Germans manifest only about one third the tendency to
pauperism that the Irish do, but 4.2 times as great as the Italians. But
before even approximately accurate figures for the relative tendencies
of these races can be secured, a further correction must be made for the
relative average length of residence of the different groups. This
unfortunately cannot be done in the present state of our information.
The figures in the preceding paragraph are of course merely the rudest
approximations, but they serve to convey an idea of the extreme
complexity of the problem of determining relative tendencies toward
pauperism, and illustrate the utter worthlessness of the ordinary
hit-and-miss comparisons which are made.
The Immigration Commission also made a study of the patients admitted to
Bellevue and Allied Hospitals for the seven months period August 1,
1908, to February 28, 1909. The total number of charity patients or
cases was 23,758. Of these 18.5 per cent were native-born of native
father (2.5 per cent negro), 28.5 per cent native-born of foreign
father, and 52.3 per cent foreign-born. The Irish foreign-born are far
in the lead, having approximately one fifth of all the cases treated. If
we add the Irish native-born of foreign father, we have over one third
of the total.
In regard to the length of residence in the United States, the two
danger periods noted above are well marked, as the following figures
show:
PER CENT OF FOREIGN-BORN PATIENTS ACCORDING TO LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN THE
UNITED STATES
════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════
│ UNDER 5 │ 5 TO 9 │ 10 TO 14 │ 15 TO 19 │ 20 OR OVER
│ YEARS │ │ │ │
────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────
Per cent│ 28.0│ 14.2│ 8.9│ 10.8│ 38.1
════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════
The same distinction appears here between the old and new immigrants
that we should expect—a high percentage for the old immigrants in the
group over twenty, and a high percentage for the new immigrants in the
group under five.
Whether the newer races, as their average length of residence in this
country increases, will approach the degree of pauperism of the Irish
and Germans, time alone can tell. The strictness of the tests of
admission to the United States has steadily increased, and this has had
the effect of giving the later immigrants a better showing, as a body,
than the earlier ones. It is not impossible that time will prove that
thrift and foresight are more distinguishing features of the southern
races than of the northern, purchased though they are at the cost of a
very low standard of living. A large amount of relief is undoubtedly
sought by members of the newer races of immigrants. Among the Charity
Organization cases studied by the Immigration Commission, 14.2 per cent
of the Russian foreign-born heads of cases had been in the United States
less than one year, and the following percentages of foreign-born heads
of cases had been in the United States less than five years: Magyar,
44.1 per cent; Russian, 38.7 per cent; Italian, south, 26.6 per cent;
Syrian, 25.8 per cent; Italian, north, 25.6 per cent. The races having
the largest percentages of foreign-born heads of cases residing in the
United States twenty years or over were: Irish, 71.3 per cent; Welsh,
70.4 per cent; French, 62.9 per cent; German, 62.8 per cent; Canadian,
French, 58.5 per cent.
The Hebrews exhibit a large amount of dependence, but as they are almost
wholly looked after by their own race they seldom appear in large
numbers in the public reports. The United Hebrew Charities of New York,
in the year 1904, received 10,334 applications at their relief bureau,
representing 43,938 individuals, and expended for relief alone
$124,694.45. In 1912 the number of applications had fallen to 7140,
representing 31,835 individuals, but the expenditure for relief had
risen to $254,188.71. This indicates, as the report points out, that the
present applicants are in need of permanent relief to a much greater
extent than those of a decade ago. The report of the same organization
for October 1, 1901, gives the estimate that from 75,000 to 100,000 Jews
in New York alone are not self-supporting.
There can be but one conclusion from the foregoing discussion, namely,
that our foreign-born residents add to the burden of public and private
relief an amount largely out of proportion to their relative numbers in
the general population, and that this burden is likely to be an
increasing one. Mr. Prescott F. Hall publishes an estimate that the
total annual cost of caring for the foreign-born poor of New York State
alone equals $12,000,000.[290] It is worth noting that while the expense
of this burden of relief is borne by the public and by benevolent
individuals, the real benefit goes to the employer of cheap labor. He
secures his labor at a wage which will barely maintain its efficiency
for a period of years, without any provision for the future, and when
that period is over, and the laborer is no longer an efficient producer,
he is cast aside with absolutely no responsibility resting on the
employer for his future support or care.[291] At the customary rate of
wages there seem to be but two alternatives open to the workingman’s
family—either to live on a frightfully low standard, and make some
slight provision for the future, or to live on a somewhat higher
standard and run the risk of dependence in old age or misfortune.[292]
It is obvious that both of these are unqualifiedly bad.
As to the causes of this abnormal amount of pauperism Miss K. H.
Claghorn makes the following statement: “While it is plain enough that
foreign immigration has some connection with the problem of pauperism
since common observation and all the statistics available unite in
showing that the majority of the recipients of our charity, public and
private, are of foreign birth, it is equally certain on the other hand
that pauperism is not something that the immigrant brings with him, but
is the result of a considerable period of life and experiences
here.”[293] This opinion, coming from so high a source, emphasizes two
facts—first, that it is not altogether, if at all, the immigrant’s
“fault” that there is so much pauperism among this class. Those who have
been paupers before, or seem likely to become so, are refused admission.
Second, that there is something radically wrong in the industrial
adjustment of the United States when so large a number of foreigners,
who come here primarily for motives of financial betterment, and who are
not by nature thriftless, are unable during a long period of faithful
labor to lay up anything against the period of helplessness. We cannot
escape the accusing finger which points toward the United States,
demanding recognition of the fact that we are by no means prepared to
accept the tremendous responsibility of admitting unlimited numbers of
aliens whose entire future destiny depends upon the soundness of our
political, social, and economic fabric.
It may be worth while to note some of the general causes which lead to
pauperism among the foreign-born. (1) Lack of intelligence. This is
sometimes represented by figures of illiteracy. This is hardly a fair
basis of judgment, however, as illiteracy may be often the result of
poor opportunity, rather than of low intelligence. Nevertheless it is
true that the average immigrant of the present generation is probably
inferior to the average native workingman, and hence is handicapped in
the competition with him. (2) Lack of industrial training. Most of the
immigrants have had no training in their home countries to fit them for
higher industrial pursuits, and many of those who have, find that it is
not adapted to American conditions. (3) Lack of foresight. This must not
be generally asserted of the immigrant class, for undoubtedly a large
proportion of them are well equipped with an appreciation of the future.
Yet in many cases, the ease with which a comparatively comfortable
living may be secured in the first years of residence, and the
apparently inexhaustible riches of the United States, combine to make
the alien neglectful of a future period of dearth. (4) Large families.
The birth rate of the foreign-born is a high one, and a large number of
young children is always a predisposing cause of pauperism in a
struggling family. In this connection some significant figures are
furnished by the investigation of the charity organization cases, made
by the Immigration Commission, and already referred to. Of all the
foreign-born male persons, aided by these societies, who were twenty
years of age or over, 81.5 per cent were married, 5 per cent deserted,
separated, or widowed, and only 13.5 per cent single. Of the females,
62.3 per cent were married, 33.9 per cent deserted, separated, or
widowed, and only 3.8 per cent single. When we remember how much the
single men outnumber the married men in the general population of the
foreign-born above twenty years of age, we see that if the time ever
comes when immigration becomes more of a family matter than at
present—in many ways a condition much to be desired—it must inevitably
bring with it a tremendous increase in the amount of foreign-born
pauperism. (5) Money sent home. If the situation of the immigrant was
such that these large sums could be retained in this country, as a
reserve fund against future want, his liability to pauperism would be
much diminished. This, of course, cannot be expected, since much of this
money is sent back to meet obligations which no one would wish the
immigrant to evade. In cases where it is sent back to support a family,
it is doubtless a more economical arrangement than if the wife and
children were maintained in the United States. (6) Low wages, and the
maladjustment between the supply of labor and the demand. Enough has
already been said to establish this as a fundamental condition, and it
is the proximate cause of pauperism in the majority of cases. The
attempt to analyze and classify the causes of pauperism is
unsatisfactory at best; yet a certain amount of light may be shed on the
subject in this way if carefully done. The Immigration Commission’s
Report on Immigrants as Charity Seekers assigns the cases studied to
certain general causes in the following proportions:
PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES ASSIGNABLE TO
THE SPECIFIED CAUSES
CAUSE PER CENT
Lack of employment or insufficient earnings 59.0
Death or disability of breadwinner 28.7
Death or disability of another 18.9
Neglect or bad habits of breadwinner 18.7
Old age 6.2
Other causes 10.0[294]
Footnote 294:
The total of per cents adds up to more than 100 as more than one cause
is often reported for the same case.
There is no great difference in the proportions of the different causes
in the different general groups. It may be significant to note that the
per cent of cases due to the neglect or bad habits of the breadwinner is
a little larger for the native-born white of native father than for the
foreign-born, and larger for the native-born white of foreign father
than for either. If we take persons instead of cases, the showing of the
native-born of foreign father is even worse. The relatively small number
of cases due to this cause—the only one which may be charged directly to
the “fault” of the breadwinner—indicates that the difficulty lies rather
with the industrial system of the United States than with the
culpability of the individual.
That assimilation, in so far as it is represented by ability to speak
English, will not remedy the situation is indicated by some suggestive
figures given in the report on Charity Seekers above quoted. It is shown
(p. 70) that of the total number of persons assisted, six years of age
or over, belonging to non-English speaking races, 76.3 per cent were
able to speak English. Now in the report on Manufactures and Mining it
appears that only 53.2 per cent of the foreign-born employees studied,
belonging to non-English speaking races, could speak English. That is,
the percentage of dependents, who are so far “assimilated” as to be able
to speak English, is much greater than the percentage of those who are
at work, in spite of the fact that the former class includes younger
children than the latter. This harmonizes with the fact already
demonstrated, that dependent foreigners have been in this country much
longer than the average of their group. It also lends color to the
suggestion made by a charity worker, that one reason why the newer
immigrants do not appear in larger numbers on the books of philanthropic
organizations is that they are not yet “on to the ropes,” and that as
they become familiarized with American methods, they will seek relief in
increasing numbers.
The subject of crime is customarily linked with that of pauperism in the
discussions of immigration, and the same claim is frequently made, viz.
that immigration has increased the amount of crime in this country. The
attempts at proof of this assertion generally follow the same method
adopted in the case of pauperism, that is, they consist in an
examination of the relative tendency toward criminality of the general
groups of native-born and foreign-born. In other words, the line of
argument is, if the foreign-born manifest a larger proportion of
criminals among their number than do the native-born, all increases in
the foreign-born population will mean a more than proportional increase
in crime for the country as a whole. There is, however, another way in
which immigration might operate to increase crime. That is, by
interfering with the natural adjustment of economic relations between
different classes, it may so alter the condition of the native-born as
to lead to an increase in crime in this class. For instance, it has been
claimed that a large proportion of the “hobo” class (who are, to be
sure, not necessarily criminal) are native Americans who have been
forced out of employment by foreign competition. In a similar way, other
individuals may have been driven into active crime. This proposition,
whatever the incidental evidence for or against it, is manifestly
incapable of statistical proof, and for any semi-mathematical
demonstration we must rely on the other method of approach.
In the matter of crime the effort to make generalizations is complicated
by the fact that it is necessary to take into account, not only the
number of crimes, but the nature and severity of the criminal act. Tests
of criminality, to be accurate, should include quality as well as
quantity. This is obviously very difficult to do. We are accustomed in
everyday phraseology to speak of one crime as being worse than another.
Presumably crimes against the person are more serious than crimes
against property. In the case of crimes against property, we might
naturally consider it “worse” to steal $1000 than $5, but it would not
necessarily be so.
These conditions frequently result in an injustice to the immigrant. The
police and court records of our great cities show an amazing proportion
of crimes chargeable to the foreign population. For instance, out of
71,253 persons held for trial or summarily tried and convicted in the
Magistrates’ Courts of New York City in 1907, only 30,261, or
considerably less than half, were born in the United States. But when
these records are studied more closely it becomes apparent that a large
share of the offenses of the foreign-born are violations of the city
ordinances,—offenses which are comparatively trivial in themselves do
not indicate any special tendency toward criminality, and are in many
cases intimately associated with a low station in life. The moral
character of alien groups may in this way be seriously misrepresented.
Nevertheless, if comparisons are to be made at all, they must rest upon
such records as these, and such allowances as are possible be made
afterwards. Figures of this kind are available in the publications of
the Census Bureau, the Commissioner General of Immigration, and the
Immigration Commission. In the census report on Prisoners we find that
of the prisoners enumerated in the United States on June 30, 1904, 76.83
per cent were native-born, and 23.7 per cent foreign-born. In the
general white population, ten years of age or over, in 1900, 80.5 per
cent were native-born and 19.5 per cent foreign-born. If a due allowance
is made for a disproportionate growth of the foreign-born population
between 1900 and 1904, the relative proportions of prisoners among the
two groups would be approximately equal. Of the white prisoners of known
nativity committed during 1904 the percentages were as follows:
═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════
NATIVITY │ TOTAL │ MAJOR OFFENDERS │ MINOR OFFENDERS
─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
Native-born │71.2 per cent │78.3 per cent │69.9 per cent
Foreign-born │28.8 per cent │21.7 per cent │30.1 per cent
═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════
The somewhat less favorable showing made by the foreign-born in the case
of those committed than of those enumerated, is accounted for by the
large proportion of minor offenses among the foreign-born. Many minor
offenders, serving short sentences, would not be included at all in the
enumeration. Over half the major offenders among the foreign-born had
been in the United States ten years or more, and about two thirds of the
minor offenders.
According to the Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for
1908 (p. 98), there were in the penal institutions of the United States,
including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico (in which the figures are not
large enough to affect the conclusions materially), in 1908, 149,897
inmates, of whom 15,323 were aliens, 8102 naturalized, and 126,562
native-born. Thus the percentage of native-born was 84.4 and of
foreign-born 15.6.
The Immigration Commission made a careful study of the matter of crime
among the immigrants, reviewing the foregoing data, and collecting some
original data of its own, covering 2206 convictions in the New York City
Court of General Sessions from October 1, 1908, to June 30, 1909. This
is, so far as known to the Commission, the first time that any court in
the United States had made a record of the race of persons convicted in
it. This fact illustrates the utter inadequacy of the data for making
any deductions as to the influence of immigration upon crime in the
United States. Not only courts, but police departments and penal
institutions, are very lax in their keeping of records in this respect.
In response to the questions, “Is the volume of crime in the United
States augmented by the presence among us of the immigrant and his
offspring?” and “If immigration increases crime, what races are
responsible for such increase?” the Commission says that no satisfactory
answer has ever been made, or can ever be made, without much more
complete data than have ever been collected or are available. Certain
general conclusions, however, have been reached by the Commission, which
harmonize with those reached by other students, and are worthy of
acceptance as far as they go. First, “No satisfactory evidence has yet
been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in
crime disproportionate to the increase in adult population. Such
comparable statistics of crime and population as it has been possible to
obtain indicate that the immigrants are less prone to commit crime than
are native Americans.”[295] Second, “Immigration has, however, made
changes in the character of crime in the United States.”[296] These
changes have been in the direction of an increase in offenses of
personal violence, and offenses against public policy (disorderly
conduct, drunkenness, violation of corporation ordinances, etc.), some
of which are incident to city life, and probably in offenses against
chastity. There does not appear to have been any increase in the
majority of offenses against property, or, as they may be better called,
gainful offenses.[297]
Comparing the different races as regards criminality, it appears that
the Irish stand at the head as regards the total number of offenses and
the Germans next. In respect to major offenses, however, the Germans
stand first, while the Irish again take first place in the minor
offenses.[298] The Germans are much addicted to crimes against property,
the Irish and Scotch to drunkenness, Greeks and natives of Russia to
violations of corporation ordinances, and immigrants from France,
Russia, Poland, and Canada to crimes against chastity. The Italians are
preëminent in crimes of violence or crimes against the person.[299]
It is even more difficult to postulate the causes of crime than of
pauperism. Until the criminologists have furnished us with a more
efficient means of determining the causes of crime in general, there can
be no profit in the attempt to classify the causes of crime among a
particular group of the population. In respect to the nature of crime
committed by different races, there seems to be something in the racial
character of some of our immigrants which predisposes them in a certain
direction, as exemplified in the preceding paragraph. There is also
evidence that among some of the newer immigrants, crime is largely a
matter of economic position. This is well illustrated by the case of the
Greeks. Among the members of this very recent immigrant group, there has
been a noteworthy decline in the average of criminality within the last
few years, and the explanation appears to be that the crimes of the
Greeks are such as correspond with a low economic situation—violations
of corporation ordinances, of the sanitary code, etc. As a larger and
larger proportion of the individuals of this nationality rise above this
lowly estate, the percentage of crime among them falls off
correspondingly.[300] This emphasizes once more the responsibility of
the United States for some of the evil conditions for which we
habitually blame the immigrants.
There are two particular forms of crime which are closely associated
with foreign groups in the United States. These are the Black Hand
outrages and the white slave traffic. The former of these is confined
almost wholly to persons of the Italian race. In some of its features it
recalls the Molly Maguire occurrences of a generation earlier. In fact,
the resemblance between the Irish societies and the Mafia of southern
Italy was noted in a contemporary magazine article at the time of the
disturbances in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania.[301] In both
cases no organic connection between the societies in the new world and
the old is manifest. In fact, the best judgment in regard to the Black
Hand appears to be that there is no real organization in existence in
America, but that individuals of Italian race use the power of the
dreaded name to accomplish their own ends. Like the Molly Maguires, the
Black Hand operators utilize warning letters, but they differ from them
in that their purpose is often, if not usually, blackmail, which was
seldom the case with the Irish society.
The white slave traffic has aroused tremendous public interest during
the last few years, and has been thoroughly exploited in the daily and
periodical press. Only the essential features, particularly in their
bearing on immigration, need to be reviewed in the present connection.
Not all of the girls concerned in this business are immigrants, nor are
all the persons who draw a revenue from it foreigners; yet the various
investigations of the subject have demonstrated that the whole trade is
fundamentally an affair of our foreign population.
One surprising thing about this traffic is that essentially it is an
economic phenomenon. It is not a perverted sex passion which demands the
perpetuation of the inhuman system; it is the desire for large and easy
profits, and the life of indolence that goes with them, which actuates
the promoters of the traffic, while on the part of the alien women it is
frequently the desire for larger earnings which brings them to our
shores. The demand has to be stimulated.
There are two classes of these alien girls who are brought over. One
consists of innocent girls who are brought over under a false
understanding. The incentive is usually a false promise of employment or
of marriage. Sometimes false marriages, and occasionally actual
marriages, are resorted to. With this class of subjects, the male
importer is naturally the most successful. All kinds of inducements are
offered by the procurer, including an apparently sincere love-making.
About the only inducements which female importers can offer to such
girls are easier or more lucrative employment. The other class, probably
constituting a large majority, are women who have already been leading
an immoral life on the other side, and come in the hope of bettering
their prospects, although they recognize the power of the importer.
These women and girls are usually brought over second class, and every
conceivable artifice is employed to deceive the inspectors. When a girl
has been safely introduced into the country, she is completely in the
power of the man who controls her. The supposition is that the man
furnishes protection and care to the girl in return for her earnings.
She is sometimes kept in a disorderly house, sometimes in a hotel or
other resort, but always where the man can keep control of her. She is
thoroughly frightened, and every device is employed to keep her from
communicating with any outside sources of relief, or escaping. She is
often deprived of street clothing, so as to make escape impossible. She
is kept heavily in debt, so that there may be a legal claim over her.
Only a very small part of her earnings is given to her, and she is
charged outrageous prices for all the supplies which are furnished her.
Her life is one of hopeless and terrible degradation, and she has
nothing to look forward to except a wretched and continually descending
existence, and an early death.
Alien women are particularly desirable to the promoters of this traffic
because their lack of connections in this country, and their ignorance
of the language and customs of the country make it more difficult for
them to escape or to make trouble for their men than in the case of
native girls. In addition to the terrible wrongs wrought upon the women
themselves, this practice has resulted in an increase in the number of
prostitutes in the United States, in the introduction and dissemination
of dangerous diseases, and in the introduction of various forms of
unnatural vice, more degrading and terrible than even prostitution
itself in its ordinary form.
The great majority of the alien women found by the Immigration
Commission engaged in these pursuits, as well as the men who prosecute
the traffic, are French and Hebrews. Belgians are largely engaged in it,
according to Commissioner Bingham. Germans are numerous, and there are a
few Irish and Italians, with of course a scattering of individuals of
other races.
A number of these women are detected at the port of entry and returned,
and a good many are deported. But it is a practice very difficult of
detection, and it is not easy to get at the facts in regard to its
extent in this country. It is certain that the class of abandoned women
in this country is largely recruited in this way. Commissioner Bingham
estimated in 1908 that there were more than 100,000 such women on the
Pacific coast and in Mexico, who had come in through New York.
No evidence has been found to justify the suspicion that there was an
organization controlling this traffic in this country. But those engaged
in the trade naturally are acquainted with each other, and are always
ready to help each other against a common enemy. They have various
meeting places where they get together for gambling, conference, and
divers forms of recreation.
It has been proven that this traffic is slavery in more than name, as
girls are sometimes sold directly by one person to another. The new
federal law is designed to put a check to all practices of this sort, by
making it illegal to transport women or girls from one state to another
for immoral purposes. The efforts of the Immigration Commission and
other governmental agencies within the last two or three years have
accomplished a good deal in breaking up some of the resorts, and
deporting or imprisoning the culprits. But while the traffic has
received a serious setback, it is by no means killed. This is
emphatically one of the things where eternal vigilance is the price of
safety. Nothing short of a sweeping change in public opinion and
practice will ever put it out of the way beyond the possibility of
resurrection.[302]
In respect to juvenile delinquency the most unenviable place is held by
the native-born children of immigrants. They not only manifest two or
three times as great a tendency toward crime as the native-born children
of native parents, but they are much more criminal than foreign-born
children. Of the juvenile delinquents committed during 1904, according
to the census report, 76.7 per cent were native white. This percentage
was made up as follows: native parentage, 37.6 per cent; foreign
parentage, 24.9 per cent; mixed parentage, 9.7 percent; parentage
unknown, 4.5 per cent. An exact comparison of the children of native
parents and of foreign parents in this respect would require information
as to the total number of the two classes in the country in the year in
question, which is not available. But it cannot be supposed that the
number of native-born children of foreign parents compared with the
number of native-born children of native parents is anything like the
ratio shown in the above figures. This high degree of criminality is
attributed by Professor Commons and by the Immigration Commission
largely to concentration in the cities. Whatever the cause, this
tendency toward lawlessness among the second generation of immigrants is
indisputable, and is one of the most disturbing elements in the whole
situation.[303]
Still another way in which the immigrant becomes a burden upon the
American public is through insanity. The laws are very strict in regard
to the admission of aliens who are liable to be subject to this
misfortune. Yet it is impossible to prevent the entrance of large
numbers who ultimately appear in the category of the insane. The
maladaptation of the immigrant to his environment shows itself in this
way perhaps as clearly as in any other.
In the institutions for the insane, both public and private, in the
United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico, in 1908,
there were, according to the Report of the Commissioner General of
Immigration, 172,185 inmates. Of these 25,066 were aliens, 25,128
naturalized citizens, and 121,451 native-born. Thus the percentages
were 70.5 per cent native-born and 29.5 per cent—nearly one
third—foreign-born.[304]
An even larger percentage of foreign-born appears among the insane
persons enumerated in hospitals in continental United States on December
31, 1903—34.3 per cent of the white insane of known nativity[305]—while
of the persons received at Bellevue and Allied Hospitals for treatment
for insanity during the period of the investigation of the Immigration
Commission, 63.4 per cent were foreign-born, and 36.6 per cent
native-born. Moreover, among the native-born, more than half (20.6 per
cent of the total) were native-born of foreign father.
Summing up the matter of insanity, the Commission speaks as follows:
“For the high ratio of insanity among the foreign-born, several causes
have been assigned, and while it is difficult to determine the values of
the various factors it is probably true that racial traits or tendencies
have a more or less important influence. A further cause of mental
disease is probably to be found in the total change in climate,
occupation, and habits of life which the majority of immigrants
experience after arrival in the United States.”
The efficiency of the inspection in regard to feeble-mindedness is shown
by the very small proportion of foreign-born of that class appearing in
the statistics. This is an affliction which can more easily be detected
than the liability to insanity, of which there may be no observable
indication at the time of admission.[306]