THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Much is said and written in these days about the “immigration problem,”
yet it is only rarely that there appears a conscious effort to prove
that such a problem exists, or to analyze its character. Is there in the
United States an immigration problem? If so, in what does it consist? To
answer these two questions is the purpose of the present chapter.
When the great new lands of the Western Hemisphere were made available
to the inhabitants of Europe by the efforts of Columbus and the later
explorers and discoverers, there opened up before humanity tremendous
possibilities of advance.[346] The ratio between men and land was
changed for the whole civilized world. An enormous area of fertile
country was presented to the nations of Europe, by which the operation
of the Malthusian principles was checked. Peoples who had reached the
saturation point of population in Europe were given the opportunity to
utilize their acquired arts in a virgin and practically uninhabited
region. On account of the difficulties of transportation, and the
consequent slow settlement of the new world, the results of this great
alteration were only tardily developed. In many ways the entire progress
of civilization during the nineteenth century is the outward expression
of the transformation in conditions which then took place. So far as the
human mind can anticipate, nothing of a similar nature can ever happen
again on this earth.
To the people of the new nation of the United States, as the possessors
of the most favored portion of this new territory, was intrusted the
responsibility of utilizing its marvelous resources, not only for their
own advantage, but for the securing of the greatest and most permanent
amelioration of the living conditions of the whole human family. It was
not to be expected that our forefathers should have completely
recognized the full significance of this responsibility, nor have
undertaken the administration of it with a degree of scientific wisdom
which they did not possess. Their past experience of bad political
systems enabled them to frame a plan of government which has held the
admiration of all civilized people down to the very present. In the
utilization of the material resources of the country, however, they had
no past experience to serve as a guide. No other civilized people within
the compass of human history had been intrusted with such a profusion of
virgin resources, absolutely open to exploitation. There is no wonder
that the possibilities of the country seemed limitless, and that men
proceeded to make the most of them to serve present needs, with no
thought of what the consequences might be to future generations. Forests
were cut down, mines were wastefully worked, rivers were dammed, natural
gas was burned day and night, the soil was cultivated year after year
without enrichment, and when exhausted, abandoned. In our modern age of
conservation we are beginning to realize how ruthlessly these rich
treasures have been squandered, and are making eager and earnest efforts
to save what is left.
Something of the same sort took place in the more intangible domain of
population. Into the minds of the less than four million people who were
enumerated in the United States in 1790, even the thought of a redundant
population could hardly enter. The one great thing that seemed to be
needed was more people, and while the natural increase of the native
stock seemed to many ample to meet the demands, there was nevertheless a
hearty welcome to all sturdy and well-intentioned aliens who elected to
establish themselves within the territory of the new nation. Especially
was there a feeling of sympathy toward those who came seeking refuge
from political tyranny or oppression in the nations of Europe. Thus the
principle of an open door, and a welcome to the “oppressed and
downtrodden of all races,” became the established policy of the nation,
and as decade succeeded decade acquired all the power and authority of
tradition and usage. As a consequence, all efforts to control or
regulate the ingress of aliens, which have been incited by the apparent
needs of the situation, have been confronted with the necessity of
bearing the burden of proof, and of assailing established dogma. This
has put the advocates of restriction into the category of “antis,” and
has laid them open to the charge of narrow-mindedness and bigotry. If it
can be conceived that the United States should have been in her present
industrial situation when she first began to frame national policies, it
is wholly probable that the restrictionists would have been considered
the conservatives, and the advocates of free immigration, the radicals.
However this may be, the fact is that in general the open-door policy
has prevailed, and only within the last generation have restrictive laws
been passed, which have served merely to weed out the manifestly
undesirables, scarcely to diminish in any significant measure the great
bulk of the current. The resulting transfer of people from Europe to
America has been truly phenomenal. In the period of years from 1820 to
1912 a total of 29,611,052 immigrants came to the United States.[347] No
population movement of equal social significance, and comparable in
volume, has ever taken place within the recorded history of the human
race. And never again, so far as the human eye can see, can it be
repeated, when the heyday of immigration to the United States is over.
It is inconceivable that such a phenomenon should not have important and
far-reaching effects upon every country concerned in the movement. There
is, then, an immigration problem.
But just what is the problem? The answer to that question depends upon
the point of view. In the first place, it must be decided whether it is
desirable for nations consciously to interfere with, and try to control,
such a natural movement as this; secondly, if interference is to be
undertaken, whose welfare is to be held prominently in view—in other
words, from what standpoint is the problem to be attacked? If the former
of these queries is answered in the negative, the problem remains a
purely academic one—the study of causes and effects, and the recording
of conclusions and data, without any telic purpose in view. No programs,
schemes, or systems of reform can emanate from such a study. If answered
in the affirmative, the problem then becomes one in applied
sociology—perhaps the most complex and important that any modern nation
has ever had to deal with. In regard to the second part of the above
query, it is to be noted that there are four possible standpoints open
to choice. First, that of the United States; second, that of the
countries of source; third, that of the immigrants; fourth, that of
humanity in general. There are possibilities of a different aspect of
the problem from each of these viewpoints. Let us consider the two parts
of this query in turn.
There is a natural and deep-seated reluctance on the part of every
careful and scientific student of sociology to advocate the regulation
of any great human activity according to any man-made scheme or formula.
The laws of nature seem so much safer a guide than any plan which, as
Professor Summer says, some one has thought out in bed.[348] The
_laissez-faire_ doctrine makes a great initial appeal. This probably
accounts in large measure for its great vogue. The broad-minded and
liberal man says, “What can be better or more just than to let each
individual work out his own destiny in the way that seems to him best?”
Particularly does such a tremendous movement as modern immigration
inspire the student with feelings of reverential awe, rather than a
desire to intermeddle. It is such a gigantic and complex thing, and cuts
straight across all social relations with such an inclusive and
unsparing sweep, that one can never know what the unknown factors are,
nor what unforeseen and unexpected developments may arise. Certainly
this seems one of the things that had better be left alone.
But as we look at the world around us, we realize that the doctrine of
_laissez-faire_ has proved inadequate to meet the conditions of modern
industrial life, and has broken down under the strain.[349] We realize
that self-interest, even enlightened self-interest, is not the safest
guide for the individual or for the race. We recognize the fact that the
safety of society demands that men shall not be allowed to do as they
please, nor to go where they please. The law places many restrictions
upon the free movements of men. I may not trespass upon my neighbor’s
property; I may not enter public buildings except at specified times. If
I wish to visit a fever-stricken and quarantined city, I either am not
allowed to go, or I am prevented from coming away when I wish. These are
familiar and trivial illustrations, but they emphasize the fact that
complete _laissez-faire_ is impossible under present conditions—in fact,
probably always has been. A host of other instances of social
legislation, pure-food laws, trust regulation, etc., might be invoked to
establish the point, were it necessary. The whole series of immigration
statutes, increasing in severity from 1882 down to the present, are
evidence of the acceptance of this principle with special relation to
immigration. The question is not, shall we have regulation or not, but
how much and what kind of regulation shall we have? The doctrine of
_laissez-faire_, _per se_, would have no greater weight as an argument
against complete suspension of immigration than it would have against
the exclusion of contract laborers.
If the personal inclinations of the individual lead him to prefer to
regard the immigration problem in the strictly academic light, no fault
can be found; but the denial of the propriety of suggesting plans of
control, the demand that the immigrants be let alone, represents an
obsolete point of view. Any amount of regulation, which proves necessary
to safeguard the interests of society, can be justified in the light of
modern opinion and practice.
Furthermore, it is to be observed that immigration will not be let
alone. It has already been demonstrated that the immigration of to-day
is not in any sense a wholly natural movement. It is stimulated at the
outset, partly by disinterested friends and relatives, partly by purely
selfish transportation interests. It is subjected to various controls
all along the way. After the immigrants reach this country, they are
often, for a long time, in almost complete subjection to the padrone,
the contractor, or the importer. Once again, the question is not, shall
immigration be a natural and uncontrolled movement or not, but shall it
be controlled by greedy, selfish, and unscrupulous individuals, or by a
well-intentioned government? For the rest of this book we shall take the
position that the immigration problem is one of applied sociology, and
that immigration is a proper subject for government control, by such
means and to such an extent as the most careful and scientific study
shall warrant.
Most problems in applied sociology have to do with interests; certainly
the problem of immigration does. Having answered the first part of our
query in the affirmative, the problem now expresses itself thus: how
shall the movement of aliens from foreign countries to the United States
be so controlled as to further the best interests of somebody? But of
whom? This is the second part of our query. It is manifest that the
United States, the countries of source, the immigrants, and humanity in
general all have interests which may be affected by immigration, that
these interests are not always harmonious or correlative, but that they
may be, and in some cases must be, in direct opposition to each other.
Any one who has opinions on the subject must make it plain, to himself
at least, which of these interests he regards as paramount, which of
these standpoints he proposes to assume. Many of the popular arguments
on the question have been confused by the unconscious effort to take two
or more of these viewpoints at once. Each of these viewpoints is
legitimate, and has arguments on its own side, and no one should be
blamed for choosing any one. Evidently the fourth is a sort of summation
and balance of the other three. It will be profitable to consider the
first three in turn; we shall then be prepared to take the point of view
of the welfare of humanity in general.
What, then, are the arguments for and against immigration from the point
of view of the United States? The positive arguments for, and the
negative arguments against, immigration center around the question
whether the United States needs the immigrants. The positive arguments
against, and the negative arguments for, immigration have to do with the
claim that immigration injures the United States.
The argument for immigration which, if not the strongest during the
first half of the nineteenth century, was probably the most frequently
expressed, was the sentimental one which exhibited the United States as
the natural haven of refuge for the oppressed and unfortunate of all
lands, and extended a hearty welcome to all seekers of liberty who
should come. This, as has been mentioned, was natural under the
conditions of the time. It found expression in such words as the
following, appearing in a magazine in the year 1855:
“If the physiologic principle we have endeavored to establish is
correct, it follows that America pre-eminently owes its growth and
prosperity to the amalgamation of foreign blood. To cut off, therefore,
or to discourage its influx, will be to check the current from which our
very life is drawn. The better course is evidently to welcome and
provide for this tide of immigration, rather than to oppose and turn it
away; to cherish the good influence it brings, and regulate the bad,
rather than to trample them both under foot. What, though the population
which is annually cast upon American shores is all of the filthiest and
most degraded kind! The farmer might as well complain of the black and
reeking soil into which his seed is dropped, as the statesman of such
materials as these.... Let us welcome the houseless and the naked of
every land to American shores; in the boundless forests of the north and
the south there is room to make a home for them all. Let us invite the
ill-fed and the starving of every grade to partake of American
abundance; on the fertile fields of the west there grows corn enough to
feed them all. Let us urge the oppressed and the down trodden of every
name to the blessings of American freedom; the Star Spangled Banner is
broad enough to cover, and the eagle that sits over it is strong enough
to defend, them all.”[350]
Such talk as this is so thoroughly out of date as to sound almost
ridiculous in modern ears. In fact, the sentimental argument plays but
little part in the present agitation, for the reason that the conditions
which justify it furnish the motive to an insignificant portion of our
present immigrants, with the exception of the Russian Jews.
Two other arguments for immigration may be styled the social and the
biological. These claim respectively that the national character and the
physical stock of the American people may be much improved by the
addition of new elements brought in by foreign immigrants. It is pointed
out that the German love for music, the artistic temperament of the
Italian, the thrift of the Slav, the outdoor sociability of the Greek,
might add—perhaps have added already—something of great value to the
life of the country. There is much weight to this argument. It is quite
conceivable that under proper conditions of social contact on a plane of
equality between foreigner and native some such desirable transfusion of
character might take place. It is another matter altogether to claim
that any such beneficial result is transpiring, under the present
conditions of the immigrant in this country.
The biological argument brings up the much-vexed question of the
desirability of mixed stocks. There has been a prevalent opinion that
the interbreeding of two races, not too far separated in physical stock,
resulted in a type superior to either of the parent races. But there is
no agreement as to where the line between the favorable and the
unfavorable mixing shall be drawn. Some of the papers read at the
Universal Races Congress in London would seem to convey the impression
that any two races on earth might be mixed to good advantage. But this
is by no means the universal opinion of careful anthropologists.
In regard to both of these arguments it may be said that, whatever their
intrinsic worth, they have no great positive weight as respects the
present situation in the United States. It seems likely that this
country has already within its borders all the alien elements that will
be needed for a long time to come—certainly until they are more
completely absorbed than they are at present.
There remains by far the greatest and most universal argument for
immigration—the economic one. The one plea for the free admission of
aliens, that has weight to-day, is that our industrial organization
demands it. Not only is it asserted that the rapid development of the
country would not have been possible without the immigrant and cannot be
prosecuted in the future without him, but that the cessation of
immigration would seriously cripple many of the basic industries of this
country. The former of these points has already been considered at some
length, and the conclusion was reached that it was inconceivable that in
such a country as the United States any socially important or necessary
work should have had to be foregone in the absence of a foreign labor
supply. Such an assertion implies a lack of self-sufficiency on the part
of a young and vigorous people which is unthinkable. Whether the
exploitation of our resources would have proceeded at such a rapid pace
in the past, whether this pace could be kept up in the future, without
the immigrant—these are questions more difficult of answer. There is no
doubt that at present a large portion of our industry—possibly the
greater part—is closely dependent upon a foreign labor supply, and that
a sudden cessation of immigration would check the expansion of those
industries, though it would not necessarily prevent their continuing on
the present basis. It seems wholly probable that the development of the
country would be retarded for a time if the immigration current was
stopped.
But why this insistent demand for a rapid exploitation of our resources?
Wherein are we the gainers if the wonderful natural riches of the
country, which, as we have seen, constitute one of the two great
elements which have accounted for our past prosperity, are consumed in
the shortest possible time? In the words of Prescott F. Hall, “what
boots an extended railroad mileage or the fact that all our coal and
minerals are dug up or all our trees cut down some years or decades
sooner?” Are we so greedy for luxury in the present that we wish to
leave as little as possible of this natural advantage to future
generations? It seems hardly possible. Rather is this idea another of
those traditional survivals from the early life of the country, when
conditions were such that the exploitation of resources was really
essential to growth in per capita, as well as total, wealth, and
prosperity. Our country has, in point of fact, developed so rapidly that
the public mind has not adjusted itself to new conditions, and the idea
of the value of a rapid exploitation lingers on as an anachronism.
Possibly there is a slight element of modern megalomania mingled with
it.
If it were true that the United States, having reached its present point
of development, was unable to advance along the path of steady and solid
growth, depending solely upon its own resources, human as well as
material, it would be one of the most serious indictments against our
social situation that could possibly be made. It is inconceivable that
it should be true. It seems much more reasonable to believe that while
the suspension of accessions of population from foreign sources would
entail numerous and serious readjustments in social and economic
relations, nevertheless the United States still has enough native
virility to work out a prosperous and independent destiny of its own. It
is hard to see any important respect in which the United States, at the
present time, really needs immigrants.
There is still another type of argument for immigration, which might be
called the indifference argument, which says, in effect, “Very likely we
do not need the immigrants, but they do us no harm. Let them come,
anyway.” The answer to this throws the burden of proof upon the
restrictionist, and makes it incumbent upon him to show that immigration
really injures the United States.
The positive arguments against immigration as at present conducted may
be grouped under eight main heads, which may be designated as follows:
(1) the numbers argument; (2) the distribution argument; (3) the
standard of living and wages argument; (4) the pauperism and crime
argument; (5) the stimulation argument; (6) the illegal entrance
argument; (7) the biological argument; (8) the assimilation argument. In
the discussion of these arguments it must be borne in mind that they are
considered with reference to immigration as it now exists, not as it
might be under other conditions.
(1) The common argument that we have too many immigrants is really no
argument at all. There cannot be too many immigrants unless the
excessive number manifests itself in some positive evil. What the
average person who uses this argument probably means, if he has any
definite meaning in mind at all, is that there are so many aliens coming
to this country that their presence results in one or another of the
undesirable conditions which are included in the other seven arguments.
(2) In like manner the statement that immigrants are poorly distributed
is no real argument. It has been demonstrated that there are certain
excessive tendencies toward concentration on the part of our alien
population, but unless positive evils emerge from this condition, it is
no argument against immigration.
(3) The claim that immigration has lowered the wages and standard of
living of the American workman has already been examined, with the
conclusion that it would be nearer the truth to say that it has kept
them from rising. This, however, amounts to practically the same thing.
If somebody prevents me from getting that to which I am entitled, he to
all intents and purposes makes me suffer deprivation. The evidence on
this point is so strong that it can hardly be gainsaid. As we have seen,
practically all careful students admit it. About the only answer that
can be made to this argument is that it is not the immigrant’s
fault.[351] This is undoubtedly true, partly at least. The immigrant has
no grudge against the American workman, nor any desire to injure him.
Undoubtedly he would be glad to earn as good wages as the native, if he
could. Inasmuch as he cannot, he is not to blame if he consents to work
for what he can get. And inasmuch as his wages are low, and his family
is large, and he is anxious to save, he is not to blame if he lives on a
miserably low standard. In the whole procedure the immigrant may display
the most admirable qualities. He is simply playing his part in an
impersonal struggle for existence. But the result to the American
workman is the same. It is a question of causes and effects, not of
blame. It must be accepted as a fact that each successive wave of
immigration has tended to check the advance of the laboring men already
in the country, be they native or foreign. And here is where the numbers
argument applies. For it is obvious that the greater the numbers the
more aggravated will be the evils of this kind.
(4) The argument that immigration increases the amount of pauperism and
crime in the country has already been examined. As far as the past is
concerned it appears that pauperism has been immensely increased through
our foreign-born population, while the amount of crime has not. But
there has been a change in the character of crime, in the direction of
an increase in crimes against the person relative to crimes against
property. What the future will bring forth, it is impossible to predict.
It seems likely that the tendency toward an excess of pauperism on the
part of the foreign-born will become greater as the average length of
residence of the newer immigrants increases. Here, again, the claim that
it is not the immigrant’s fault might be advanced, and the answer be
made that whether it is the fault of the immigrant, or of our industrial
system, or of the individual American, makes no difference in the facts
as they exist. It does make a difference, of course, as to where the
remedy must be applied.
(5) The extent to which the immigration movement of the present is a
stimulated one has already been indicated. It might seem at first that
it made no difference to the United States whether the immigrant was
induced to come, or whether he came of his own volition. But a closer
consideration shows that there is a fundamental difference. A strictly
natural immigration would mean that immigrants came in response to some
actual economic demand in this country which was strong enough to make
itself felt abroad. They would also be the ones best fitted to meet that
demand. But when one of the greatest motives back of immigration is the
desire of the transportation companies to make money, the mere fact of
emigration is no indication of any real need for the immigrant in this
country, nor of his fitness to enter into its life.
(6) Owing to the very strict wording of our contract labor law, a very
large proportion of our immigrants enter the country under the
impression, either false or correct, that they are evading the law. This
has a very serious effect upon their character, and upon their attitude
toward American institutions. They may readily conceive that a country
that has such laws that it is necessary to break them to get in,
probably has other laws that need to be broken after one is in. The
whole system engenders a most dangerous attitude of indifference or
hostility to law.
(7) The biological argument of the restrictionist is the obverse of the
biological argument of the pro-immigrationist, and is equally vague in
the present state of our knowledge on the subject of race mixing. Those
who urge this argument against immigration are those who believe that
only when the mingled races are closely allied is the resulting stock of
a superior type, or else those who hold the extreme view that no mixed
race is as good as a pure race. At any event, they believe that the
racial elements which are now coming to the United States are too
diverse to produce anything but an inferior stock through their
interbreeding. In this connection it should be observed that there are
two possible results of this gathering of races in the United States,
each with its own problems. One is that these races will, in the course
of time, become so blended through intermarriage as to produce one
composite but homogeneous whole—the new American people. The other is
that race prejudice and the forces of segregation will result in the
growth of a large number of ethnic groups within the nation, each with
its own peculiarities, and each distinct from the others. There are some
indications which point to the latter as the more probable outcome.[352]
(8) The charge that our immigrants are not completely assimilated, or
are not assimilated at all, is one of the most frequent and gravest
complaints made against our present immigration situation. It is made to
include—as, indeed, it rightfully does in a sense—all the other
arguments against immigration. The term assimilation is almost
unfailingly suggested by the mere mention of immigration. But
assimilation is a big word, and needs to be used with great caution and
understanding.
In its general application, assimilation is defined as the “act or
process of assimilating, or bringing to a resemblance, conformity, or
identity,”[353] or “the act or process of making or becoming like or
identical; the act or process of bringing into harmony”;[354] or again,
“the action of making or becoming like; the state of being like;
similarity, resemblance, likeness; ... the becoming conformed to;
conformity with.”[355] It is evident from these definitions that the
essence of assimilation is likeness or conformity; this of necessity
implies a type to which such likeness approaches. It appears that it
would not be incorrect to speak of assimilation when there is nothing
more than resemblance; it seems equally clear that _complete_
assimilation involves identity. This is particularly evident in
reference to the special application of the term, which is the one
generally in mind when it is used, viz. the assimilation of food in the
body. In this sense the process is described as “the reformation of
biogen molecules by those already existing, aided by food-stuffs.”[356]
It is this physiological analogy which underlies the term assimilation
when applied to population, and the whole matter may be best understood
by keeping that analogy in view. When nutriment is taken into the system
of a living organism, it passes through certain processes by which it
ultimately becomes an integral part of the physical body of that
organism. It is then said to be assimilated. Every suggestion of
separate origin disappears, each new constituent entering harmoniously
into relation with the others, new and old, and fulfilling its own
functions. While it is true that certain food elements contribute
particularly to certain portions of the organism, yet the whole is a
coördinated unit. Any portion of the food which created disturbance with
reference to the body would not be said to be assimilated.
This is only an analogy, and analogies are dangerous if used as
arguments. But it may contain a helpful suggestion. Transferred to the
field of population, it means that true and complete assimilation of the
foreign elements in the United States involves such a complete
transformation and unification of the new constituents that all sense of
difference between the new and the old completely disappears. The idea
of a type, into conformity with which the new elements must be brought,
is here present also. In the case in point, this is manifestly the
“American type.” Just what this is, it might be difficult to say. Some
writers appear even to question its existence. But the very idea of
assimilation presupposes a type. In general terms, this type in the
United States is the “native American.”[357]
A foreigner, or the descendant of a foreigner, can be truly said to be
assimilated only when the natives around him are conscious of no feeling
of alienation on account of his origin, and when the newcomer himself
feels no degree of separateness, nor possesses divergent interests or
loyalties traceable to the source from which he came. This is not
inconsistent with the fact that certain elements contribute more fully
to specific characteristics of the body politic than others. The
political, religious, or artistic aspects of the national life may, in
fact, owe their character more to one element of the population than to
another. But if assimilation is complete, there can be no disturbances
or friction arising from differences of origin among the members of the
nation.
Perhaps the most efficient test of entire assimilation is that of free
intermarriage. If marriage might take place between any man and woman in
the country, without suggesting differences of race or ethnic origin to
either contracting party, or their families, it is a safe evidence of
complete assimilation. There may be objections on the grounds of wealth,
social station, or religion; there must be none based on race.
This may seem like strong doctrine. It may, indeed, not be necessary for
the welfare of the country that assimilation should be so thoroughgoing
as this. It is possible that different racial groups within the body
politic do not constitute a menace. But if so, the fact should be stated
by saying that complete assimilation is not necessary, rather than by
saying that the absence of serious difficulties or evils arising from a
composite population is a proof of complete assimilation.
It is disheartening to note the frequency with which even careful
writers on the subject accept trivial and superficial indications as
evidence of the assimilation of our foreign residents. The wearing of
American clothes, the laying of carpets on the floors, the abandonment
of sleeping in the kitchen and taking large numbers of boarders, the use
of better food, and most of all the knowledge of English are taken as
proofs of assimilation.
Not all of these improvements, to be sure, are in themselves trivial.
They may indicate a great advance in living conditions, and in so far an
approach to Americanization; but they are superficial as proofs of
assimilation. Particularly is this true of the knowledge of English,
upon which so much emphasis is laid, and which is often accepted as an
evidence of essential assimilation. Now the knowledge and use of the
English language is of the greatest importance, and is one of the first
steps—perhaps the most essential one—toward assimilation. But it is not
assimilation itself. Missionaries in China, Turkey, and other foreign
lands learn to speak the languages almost perfectly, and sometimes their
children speak the language of the country more readily than they do
English. But that is no proof that either the missionaries or their
children are assimilated into the nations in which they reside. The
outlook for foreign missions would indeed be dark, were it so. The
importance of the knowledge of English to our foreign residents must not
be underemphasized. The lack of it is an almost insuperable bar to
assimilation. But the two should not be confused. Even people whose
native tongue is English may need to go through a process of
assimilation before they become Americans. The following incident may
serve as an illustration of this point.
Two young men, one an American and the other an Englishman, both
teachers in a foreign city, were discussing the conditions in the armies
of their native lands. The Englishman remarked that in his country the
officers were chosen from the noble families, and that it was a fine
system, as it caused the men to look upon their superiors with great
respect. The American replied that in America officers were chosen for
bravery, ability, or distinguished conduct, and that made the men
respect them much more. “Oh, no,” said the Briton, “it is impossible
that such a system as that could result in as profound a respect as
exists in our army.” The point was argued for half an hour, with
naturally not the slightest alteration of opinion on either side. It is
probable that that young Englishman might have lived all the remainder
of his life in the United States, without actually getting the American
point of view. But until he did, in this respect as well as others, he
could not be said to be truly assimilated, although he might have been a
very useful citizen.[358]
Regarding the matter of assimilation from the American point of view,
there are two questions to be asked. First, are our immigrants being
thoroughly assimilated? Second, is complete assimilation necessary or
desirable? As to the first of these queries, it seems that there can be
but one answer, as far as the immigrants themselves—those of the first
generation—are concerned. We have seen in how large a proportion of this
class the first step, the mastery of the English language, has not been
taken. In the various other conditions of life, which we have studied,
it is apparent that a large part of the foreign-born are very far from
American standards. With length of residence, an approach to
Americanization is made. Yet it is very doubtful if it is possible for
even the most exceptional adult immigrant, from the southeastern
European races, at least, to become thoroughly assimilated in his
lifetime. The barriers of race, set for the most part by Americans, can
hardly be broken down. The immigrant is still an Italian, or a Slav, or
a Greek, as long as he lives, and Americans regard him as in a measure a
stranger, no matter how cultivated, or wealthy, or broad-minded he may
be. The mental habits, also, which are the result of long race
inheritance, are very deep-seated, and can hardly be altered even after
a long residence in a foreign country.[359] Assimilation for the adult
means the abandonment of one set of mores and the adoption of another.
But the mores of a race become too thoroughly ingrained into individual
character and thought to be subject to complete revision in a changed
environment, even under the most favorable circumstances. And when
attention is directed to the slums, the question of assimilation becomes
almost a mockery. These matters are so obvious as to be almost an axiom,
and even the adherents of the “liberal” policy of immigration have come
to lay little stress in their arguments upon the assimilation of the
first generation. The attention of all is turned to the children of the
foreign-born—the immigrants of the second generation.
Judged by the superficial tests upon which reliance is generally placed,
the native-born children of foreign parents seem to be very well
assimilated. They wear American hats, clothes, and shoes, they speak
English, they are as literate as the offspring of native parents of the
same social class, they play American games when they are young, and
engage in American business when they grow up. In the words of
Professors Jenks and Lauck, speaking of the foreign races in the larger
cities, “Their children differ little from those of the American-born,
unless they are brought up throughout their childhood in the race
colonies,”—a weighty exception.[360] But are they really assimilated?
Are the tests which have been enumerated above fulfilled? This is a
matter worthy of the most serious consideration, and very difficult of
determination, withal.
It is a very hopeless task to attempt to decide upon the degree of
assimilation of any group on a statistical basis. Statistics which might
give light are meager and unreliable, and it is not a matter which lends
itself well to such treatment at best. In many of the statistics which
might be appealed to, the second generation of immigrant is included
under the general head of the native-born, and sometimes gives that
class a more unfavorable appearance than it would otherwise present. As
far as the statistics of criminality and tendency to pauperism are
concerned, the native-born of foreign parents appear to be the most
troublesome class in the population. They seem to have earned an
unfortunate reputation for lawlessness, although their crimes, as the
Immigration Commission has pointed out, tend to resemble those of the
native element in character. But these things alone are not sufficient
tests of assimilation. We need to know whether in their mental
processes, in their attitude toward life, and in their position in
regard to political or moral questions, there linger peculiarities
traceable to their foreign origin. We need to know whether their
neighbors, of the old American stock, think of them as different from
themselves, because of race. We need to know whether, in respect to
international questions, their views are colored by inherited
affiliations or prejudices. In regard to such considerations as these it
is impossible to make any positive and sweeping statements. It seems
wholly probable that there are large numbers of the descendants of
immigrants, particularly of the earlier races, who would measure up to
the full standard of assimilation even by these tests. But it seems also
beyond question that there are great bodies of immigrants of the second
generation who are prevented from complete absorption into the body
politic, if not by their own lack of adaptation, at least by the
attitude of the representatives of the old American stock.
It would be foolhardy to deny that, at the present time, there are
immense unassimilated elements in our population,—immigrants of the
first or second generation, possibly even of the third. Every
foreign-American society, be it Irish, German, Italian, Slovak, or any
other, whatever its aims and purposes, is a standing evidence of a group
of people who recognize certain affiliations or loyalties which are
foreign to the out-and-out American. The number of such organizations is
legion, and the membership, if it could be reckoned, would reach an
imposing total. The recent protests by Irish-American societies against
the production of certain plays by the Irish Players, the
German-American demonstration which broke up the peace meeting in
Carnegie Hall on December 12, 1911, as well as the German-American
meetings held four years previously to protest against the enforcement
in New York of what was styled a Puritan Sunday, the discrimination of
the Russian government against certain of our citizens—these and a host
of similar events occurring from time to time emphasize the existence
within this country of racial contingents which have not become
indistinguishably blended into the American people. If, for any
conceivable reason, the United States should be drawn into any European
international complication, she would find that hosts of her citizens,
as well as mere residents, displayed a divided allegiance, of which the
preponderance might easily be on the side of some foreign nation. As
long as such conditions as these prevail, it is idle to claim that
assimilation is complete.
Assimilation is a matter of the force of environment pitted against that
of heredity. The protracted discussion as to the relative influence of
these two factors continues unsettled. But the claim that the second
generation of immigrants are thoroughly assimilated seems to deny the
importance of either. To assert that the children of foreign parents,
brought up in a home made by foreigners though located in the United
States, are in the end equally American with children born of native
parents, and reared in a home upon which the American type is indelibly
stamped, is to claim that heredity is of no account whatever, and that
the only environment which has weight is that rather vague environment
of “country.” It is to say that a man’s character is solely the result
of the region in which he lives, without reference to either birth or
breeding. It seems hardly credible that such an assertion should be
seriously made. It is more likely that those who say that the children
of the foreign-born are assimilated really mean that they are nearly
enough assimilated for all practical purposes.
Professor Franz Boas, in his study of “Changes in the Bodily Form of
Descendants of Immigrants,” which forms a part of the report of the
Immigration Commission, and has attracted wide attention, lays much
stress on the change in environment which follows immigration. He
reaches the conclusion that there is a tendency manifest in the
American-born children of immigrants to approach a common physical type
in this country, and that this tendency becomes more marked as the
mother’s length of residence in the United States, previous to the birth
of the child, increases. His main investigations are concerned with the
head form, and have to do particularly with Sicilians and east European
Hebrews. The cephalic index has always been considered one of the most
permanent of race characters, but Professor Boas’s figures seem to show
that the naturally long-headed Sicilians tend to become less so in this
country, while the relative length of head of the naturally
brachycephalic Hebrews increases. The results reached by Professor Boas
are somewhat startling, and challenge attention. It is to be hoped that
they will be subjected to the most careful scrutiny by anthropologists
qualified either to verify or to correct them. Until they have been thus
tested they can be accepted only tentatively. On the face of them they
suggest certain weaknesses or limitations. In the first place, they are
concerned with too few races, and too few individuals in each race, to
justify general conclusions. Again, they are concerned almost wholly
with persons under twenty years of age, who are naturally still in a
plastic state. It would be much more significant if it could be shown
that this tendency still persisted after the individuals were fully
matured. Furthermore, the curves show a decided tendency to lose their
regularity, and go to pieces, in the upper ages tabulated, either
because there were too few individuals in those age groups to afford
regularity, or because the tendencies actually diminish as age advances.
Finally, it must be said that if the mere change of residence from
eastern Europe or southern Italy to America is sufficient to produce a
complete change of head form in the offspring, it can only mean that
after all the head form is not such a permanent race character as has
been supposed, and really has little significance. Certainly we should
avoid such sweeping deductions from this study as Professors Jenks and
Lauck make in the statement, “If these physical changes are so great, we
may well conclude that the whole mental and even the moral constitution
of the people may also rapidly change under the new conditions.”[361]
It will not do to assume, as is sometimes done apparently, that mere
residence in the United States is enough to make Americans of foreign
immigrants or their children. America is something more than merely a
section of the earth’s surface. It is a set of standards, customs,
ideals, institutions, mores, embodied and personified in a group of
people. Like many other of the deepest things in life they would be very
hard to enumerate or describe, yet their existence is none the less
sure. They are exemplified more completely in some persons than in
others, and he who most thoroughly personifies them is the truest
American. Historically, they have been associated with a certain
physical strain, with which many of them appear to be inherently
connected. Real assimilation means adoption into this spiritual
inheritance. The only way it can be brought about is through close,
intimate, constant association with those in whom it is embodied.
The agencies of assimilation then, in addition to the physical one of
race blending, are those things which further contact and association
between the newcomer and those who are truly Americans. Professors Jenks
and Lauck give a list of such causes or influences.[362] The list might
perhaps be amplified, but as it stands it is an enumeration of forces
which contribute to interrace association. It is not essential that the
influence of the American upon the immigrant be an intentional, or even
a conscious, one. Many of the most powerful forces are unobserved. The
foreigner is very much aware of the differences between himself and his
American neighbors, and the laws of imitation work strongly. But to have
these forces work, there must be contact.
Under the modern conditions which surround the immigrant this contact or
association is all too often wholly lacking, or very meager. The entire
life of many of our foreign-born and the youth of their children is
spent in compact colonies, where, except for a few externals, the
atmosphere is much more suggestive of the old world than of the new. The
conditions of the old home are reproduced with the utmost possible
fidelity, though often with a loss of much of the charm. So far as there
is any social life, it is almost wholly confined within the boundaries
of race. Even in the industrial life of to-day, as has been pointed out,
there is practically no contact with Americanizing influences. It is
really a wonder that the aliens are Americanized at all. When we stop to
consider that in Massachusetts and New Jersey there are only two natives
for every foreigner, and that many of these natives are of foreign
parentage, we realize how slight are the chances for assimilation. It
would be almost the task of a lifetime for two Americans to thoroughly
Americanize a native peasant from a backward district of southeastern
Europe, if they gave their whole time to it.
The one great assimilative agency, which is continually cited as the
hope of the coming generation of the foreign-born, is the American
public school. It certainly is a tremendous force in the right
direction, and its possibilities are immeasurable. Yet even the public
school is not a panacea for all ills. It cannot take the place of both
birth and home training. During the hours that the pupils are in school,
a wise and tactful teacher can instill many of the principles of
Americanism into their minds. But the means, good as it is, is not
adequate to the end. And it is to be feared that under recent conditions
even the public schools are losing some of the power in this direction
that they once had. With the growth of localized colonies of a single
race, or of several foreign races, the schools in many of our large
cities are losing their American character, as far as the pupils are
concerned, so that the immigrant child finds himself associating with
others equally foreign with himself, instead of with children from
American families. There is a story that in a certain New England city,
of high scholastic traditions, an American lady determined to place her
son in the public school, and on taking him down found that he was the
only American child in that school. A Russian Jewess edged up to her and
remarked confidentially, “Ain’t it a shame, the way the Dagoes are
crowding in everywhere these days?” Furthermore, a very large proportion
of the children of the foreign-born do not receive even such
Americanizing influence as the public school exerts, because of the
religious prejudices which compel them to attend parochial schools.
Aside from the characteristics of the immigrants themselves, the
positive forces which prevent or retard assimilation may be considered
under three heads, viz. the indifference, love of wealth, and race
prejudice of the older residents of the United States. As to the first
of these, no elaboration is required. The attitude of those who are
perfectly content to let things drift along as they will, without any
care on their part, is too familiar and too well understood to need
comment. The love of wealth manifests itself as a barrier to
assimilation, in two principal ways. First, the greed for economic gain
results in bringing in continually cheaper supplies of labor,
represented by ever lower and more backward races, and paying them such
wages as of necessity keep them on the lowest scale of living. Secondly,
the well-developed distinctions between the rich and the poor prevent
Americans from associating on friendly terms with these same foreigners
for whose presence and condition they are at least indirectly
responsible. The growing tendency for certain occupations of the lower
type to become the especial province of certain foreign races, as has
been observed above, is continually accentuating these distinctions.
There can be little doubt that race prejudice is the greatest single
barrier to assimilation. It is a disgraceful anomaly that the people of
the United States, who preach and profess to believe in the doctrine of
universal brotherhood, who have given political equality to the negroes,
who proclaim all men born equal, should in their lives exemplify the
narrowest race prejudice. The very currency of the terms, “Dago,”
“Sheeny,” “Griner,” “Hunkie,” “Bohunk,” “Guinea,” “Wop,” etc., however
insulting to the people addressed, is more of a shame to those who use
them. Many of the sincerest efforts toward a better understanding
between races are thwarted by this feeling. Ministers who try to attract
the foreigners to their churches find that their old parishioners do not
wish to associate with them—though quite willing to foot the bills—and
do not wish their children to mingle with them in Sunday school. The
fact that a certain perfectly natural fastidiousness contributes to this
result does not in the least lessen the problem. All praise is due to
such broad-minded persons as Professor Steiner and Miss Addams, who are
doing all in their power to break down this barrier. But their task is a
hard one.
In addition to the race prejudice existing between Americans and
foreigners, there is an even more bitter prejudice existing between
various foreign groups, as has been mentioned already. This is also a
most serious obstacle in the way of assimilation. One of the first to
cry, “Down with the foreigners,” is the Irishman.[363] In this
connection it has been pertinently pointed out that it is possible for
foreign races to become so far assimilated as to be in practical harmony
with Americans, and yet to be seriously at variance among
themselves.[364]
It must be confessed that, under present conditions, the outlook for the
complete assimilation of our foreign population, even in the second
generation, is far from bright. Even Miss Balch’s thoughtful and
sympathetic chapter on assimilation, though written in an optimistic
spirit, makes it plain that there are many and grievous difficulties,
and leaves one with a somewhat gloomy feeling at the close. Professor
Sumner used to say that the United States had no claim to the name of
nation, because of the diverse population elements—foremost among them
the negro—which it contains. Exception may be taken to so narrow a
conception of the term “nation.” But there can be no question as to the
fact that the problem of maintaining national solidarity is immeasurably
complicated by the great variety of ethnic constituents with which the
United States has to deal.
There are, of course, countless institutions and agencies, of a
benevolent or philanthropic nature, which are consciously working to
assimilate the immigrant. Such are the night schools, the social
settlements, the religious missions, the boys’ clubs, etc. Conscientious
efforts of this kind, when wisely directed, are worthy of the fullest
commendation and support. But the extensive and valuable work they are
doing must not be allowed to obscure the fact that such agencies, at
best, can only touch the border of the problem. Just as philanthropy is
inadequate to abolish poverty or to do away with the evils of factory
employment, so it is inadequate to secure the assimilation of the
immigrants in this country. Such immense problems can be met, if at all,
only by profound and sweeping changes in the conditions of life. The
whole aim of social legislation is to remedy the conditions of
employment, and to regulate the relations between workman and employer,
so as to reduce the need of philanthropy to a minimum. So it is vain to
hope for the assimilation of the alien as a result of conscious,
benevolent effort. The only possibility of accomplishing such
assimilation is through such a change in the conditions of life of the
immigrant, that Americanization will inevitably and naturally result
from the unconscious and normal influences which surround him in the
daily routine of his existence.
In the event of failure of assimilation to the American type, there seem
to be two possibilities, as mentioned above. One, the development of a
new, composite race, with a character all its own; the other, the growth
of a number of separate racial groups in the same territory. There are
some who regard the latter outcome as the more desirable of the
two.[365]
As to the question whether complete assimilation is desirable or
necessary from the point of view of the United States, there is little
ground for argument. If a person sincerely holds the opinion that
neither of the two eventualities mentioned in the foregoing paragraph is
unfortunate or undesirable, his opinion could hardly be changed by any
amount of argument. Another individual, who believes that such an
outlook, on the face of it, is ominous, is likely to remain of the same
opinion still, no matter how much logic is brought up on the other side.
The appeal to history is not fruitful, for two main reasons. First, it
can be used equally by the adherents of either side. Montesquieu is
often quoted as saying that the fall of Rome was due to the
heterogeneity of its population, while on the other hand it has been
asserted that the strength of Rome, as well as of all other great
empires, was due to the mixture of population elements, even from the
very lowest sources.[366] The opposing camps in the mixed race
controversy are evidently ranged on opposite sides of this question.
Secondly, as has been pointed out, immigration is distinctly a modern
movement, and history furnishes no parallels, but only more or less
remote analogies.
The opinion of the average American citizen, based perhaps upon
prejudice or conviction, rather than reasoning or investigation, is
probably that a certain degree of assimilation is essential to the
welfare of the American nation, and that the nearer the approach to
complete assimilation, the better. Any plan for regulating immigration,
devised to meet the wishes of the American people, would probably have
to proceed on this assumption.
It is now necessary to take the opposite point of view, and examine this
whole matter from the standpoint of the countries of source. What have
been, what are likely to be, the effects of emigration upon those
nations, and accordingly what is desirable, from their point of view, as
respects the regulation of this great movement?