CHAPTER XIX_Immigration

OTHER POINTS OF VIEW

The effects of the immigration movement upon the countries of source are

in a way much more simple than the effects upon the United States. None

of the problems of race mixture, assimilation, varying racial

inheritances, etc., are involved. They are confined principally to the

three questions of the effect of the removal of parts of the population,

the effect of the remittances from America, and the effect of the

returned immigrant. But while simpler, these effects are perhaps none

the less subtle than those in the United States, nor any less difficult

of prediction—for in Europe, as in America, the effects of this great

movement must be largely in the future.

It is one of the corollaries of the Malthusian theory of population that

a steady, regular emigration from a country has no power to check the

rate of increase of population in that country. This opinion has been

accepted by many leading students of social subjects from Malthus’ day

down to the present. In fact, the general idea was expressed as early as

1790 by an anonymous writer in that quaint old magazine, the _American

Museum_. He says: “When a country is so much crowded with people that

the price of the means of subsistence is beyond the ratio of their

industry, marriages are restrained: but when emigration to a certain

degree takes place, the balance between the means of subsistence and

industry is restored, and population thereby revived. Of the truth of

this principle there are many proofs in the old counties of all the

American states. Population has constantly been advanced in them by the

migration of their inhabitants to new or distant settlements.”[367] John

Stuart Mill believed that a steady emigration was powerless to cure the

ills of overpopulation.[368] Roscher and Jannasch maintain that not only

will emigration not decrease population, but may actually make the

increase of population greater than it would otherwise be.[369] Réné

Gonnard, the French writer, says that the fact of emigration gives a

stimulus to the birth rate, and cites Adam Smith, Malthus, Garnier,

Roscher, and De Molinari in support of the view.[370] Robert Hunter also

expresses his adherence to this opinion.[371]

With the laws of population in mind we can easily understand how this

condition may result—in fact, how it must result theoretically. Every

society, in the course of its development, reaches a balance between the

means of subsistence and the desire for reproduction. This balance is

represented by the standard of living. In a society where the desire for

reproduction greatly overbalances the desire for comforts and luxuries,

the standard of living will be low, and the rate of increase of

population high. In a society where the appetite for material welfare is

strong, the opposite conditions will prevail. Changing conditions

present the possibility of change either in the rate of reproduction or

in the standard of living. As we have already observed, the former is

the more flexible of the two. Particularly in static societies, such as

exist in European countries, where social positions have become

thoroughly stratified, any gradual amelioration in circumstances is much

more likely to result in an increased rate of population growth than in

an improved standard of living.

Emigration, by _temporarily_ relieving congestion to a certain extent,

offers a chance of betterment. But in general, if the emigration is

moderate, this chance is seized by the reproductive power rather than by

the standard of living. The rate of increase of population rises until

the drain of emigration is offset, while the standard of living remains

unaltered, and the total population continues virtually the same. The

very fact of emigration gives a sense of hopefulness to the people, and

the knowledge that there is an ever ready outlet for redundant

inhabitants causes the population of the country to multiply more

rapidly than it otherwise would. This is the result which must

reasonably be expected to follow all regular and gradual emigration

movements.

On the other hand, while the withdrawal of a more or less uniform number

of inhabitants, year by year, has no power to reduce population, and may

actually tend to increase it, the opposite result may be achieved where

there is such a sudden and extensive removal of people from a country,

that those who remain feel a definite and profound lightening of

pressure. This must be sufficiently immediate and widespread to produce

a sudden and significant rise in wages or fall in prices. In such a case

it may occur that, before the forces of population have had time to fill

the breach, the people may have become accustomed to a somewhat higher

standard of living, which thereafter they may be able and inclined to

maintain.

The peculiar sex distribution of modern emigration probably has the

effect of increasing the possibility of reducing the population in the

countries of source, out of proportion to the actual number of

emigrants, just as it lessens the likelihood of increasing population in

the country of destination.

Such is the theoretic argument as regards the effect of emigration upon

the population of a country. It may be summed up in the words of John

Stuart Mill, “When the object is to raise the permanent condition of a

people, small means do not merely produce small effects, they produce no

effects at all.”

There is no lack of authoritative opinions to support this view. In

addition to those already cited, the following may be noted. Douglas,

Earl of Selkirk, in his pamphlet on “Emigration” dated 1806, expresses

his belief that emigration does not reduce population, and cites the

Isle of Skye as a case in point. The population of this island in 1772

was about 12,000. Between this date and 1791, 4000 people emigrated, and

at least 8000 more moved in a more gradual and less conspicuous way to

the Low Country of Scotland. Yet the population more than kept

even.[372]

Mr. Whelpley says, “There is no hope of an exhaustion of supply, for the

most prolific races are now contributing their millions, and yet

increasing the population of their own countries. There is no hope of an

improvement in quality, for the best come first and the dregs

follow.”[373] Professor Mayo-Smith says, “Emigration does not threaten

to depopulate the countries of Europe. Had there been no emigration

during this century (the nineteenth) it is not probable that the

population of Europe would have been any greater than it is. The

probabilities are all the other way.”[374]

Professor Taussig, while not stating this opinion in so many words,

appears to adhere to it when he says that without emigration Sweden and

Italy would have had—not a larger population—but either a higher death

rate or a lower birth rate.[375]

If we seek for a statistical demonstration of the foregoing argument we

are confronted with the same impossibility of securing it which has

become so familiar in the course of this work. These matters do not

adjust themselves with clocklike regularity, but operate over long

periods, and are complicated by innumerable other factors. Even though

two phenomena are shown to operate harmoniously, it is not always

possible to prove which is cause and which effect. The declining birth

rate has been a common phenomenon in almost all European countries

during the last forty years, and particularly during the last twenty

years of the nineteenth century.[376] An opponent of the view we are

considering could point to this fact as a contradiction of the claim,

while one on the opposite side could assert that the decline would have

been equally rapid and perhaps more so without any emigration at all.

Neither could prove his case. Even if it could be demonstrated that the

countries which experience the largest emigration also manifest the

highest rate of increase in population, it might be easily maintained

that it was the extreme growth of population that accounted for the

large emigration, rather than the reverse. About all that can be shown

is that a large emigration and a high rate of increase of population may

go together. Examples of this state of affairs are numerous.[377]

Of the opposite case, where a sudden and extensive emigration has cut

down population, there have been a few historical examples, notably that

of Ireland. The population of Ireland diminished from 8,100,000 in 1841

to 6,500,000 in 1851, and 5,700,000 in 1861. Since then it has steadily

declined to 4,456,000 in 1901.[378] The fact that the beginning of this

decline was coincident with the great exodus to America has made it

customary to explain the decreasing population by emigration. But even

in this case, it is a question whether it would not be more accurate to

assign the decrease in population in Ireland in the middle of the

nineteenth century to the famine, rather than to emigration. The famine

was the primary fact, and had passed the death sentence upon a large

proportion of the people; emigration—to carry out the figure—merely

commuted that sentence to exile. It furnished an outlet to thousands who

were otherwise doomed to die. It has been claimed that Norway has lost a

greater part of her population by emigration to America than any other

European country except Ireland.[379]

The obvious effect of the remittances from America is a beneficial one,

inasmuch as it increases the purchasing power of those of the peasant

class who remain at home. The immigrant in the United States who sends

money back to Europe is earning in a country where the price level is

high and spending in a country where it is low, which is a manifest

advantage. Even though his real wages are the same as he might command

at home, as long as there is a margin of saving his family benefits

financially by the arrangement. But in so far as this money sent home

results in an increase of the monetary circulation in the European

country, its desirability is more questionable. The Immigration

Commission notes an increase in wages in some immigrant-furnishing

sections of southern and eastern Europe. If this were accompanied by a

corresponding rise in prices, there would of course be no real gain.

Something of this sort has actually occurred in Greece. Several forces,

among which the remittances from America stand prominent, have within

the last few years brought the exchange between paper and gold down

nearly to par. The result has been to diminish seriously the purchasing

power of the income of the ordinary workingman. For while large payments

are made in gold, ordinary purchases are made in paper, so that while

both money incomes and prices have remained approximately the same, the

workman who gets his gold piece changed finds that he now has only 108

paper drachmas or so to make his purchases with, where ten years ago he

had 160 or so.[380]

Even where no such disadvantageous effects can be observed, it is a

question whether it is a healthy state of affairs for any nation to be

largely supported by money earned in another land, and sent back in a

form which gives it the nature of a gift in the eyes of the common

people.

As to the effect of the returned immigrant upon his native country,

opinions again differ. Some observers see a great advantage accruing to

European countries from the better habits of life, the more advanced

knowledge of agricultural and other industrial methods, and the more

independent and self-reliant spirit, which the returned immigrants bring

back with them. To them, the returned emigrant appears as a disseminator

of new ideas and higher culture, and a constant inspiration to more

effective living. There are others in whose opinion the evil influences

exerted by the returned immigrant largely outweigh the good. While they

build better houses, and wear better clothes, they are idle and

egoistical. They take no active interest in the life of those around

them, and make no effort to spread among their fellows the advantages of

what they have learned in America. Their example arouses feelings of

discontent and restlessness among their neighbors, and leads to further

emigration, rather than to the betterment of conditions at home. They

are misfits in the old environment.

There is undoubtedly much of truth in both of these opinions, and

numerous cases might be found to illustrate either. A very helpful idea

of the two-sided aspect of this matter may be gained by studying a

concrete case, furnished by a single country. For this purpose,

excellent material is furnished by the careful study of “The Effect of

Emigration upon Italy” made by Mr. Antonio Mangano,[381] who has gone

into all the divisions of his subject in an admirable way.

This author finds that emigration, great as it has been, has not

decreased the population of Italy, which, on the contrary, is larger

than ever. He does not say that the rate of increase has been as great

as it would have been without emigration, nor could this be proved. It

is certain that some sections of Italy have been seriously depopulated,

though the population of the country as a whole has increased. It is

quite possible that emigration from Italy at the present time approaches

the sudden and sweeping type sufficiently so that it may actually check

the rate of increase of population.

As to the effects of the money sent home, and the returned immigrants,

he finds contrary opinions, and facts on both sides of the case. Among

the beneficial results of emigration he finds that wages have increased

fifty per cent, so that the peasants who remain have benefited by the

departure of others. Farm machinery has been introduced, usury has

almost disappeared, and the percentage of violent crimes has been

reduced. The returned immigrant carries himself better, dresses better,

and has a greater spirit of independence, which he communicates to

others. There has arisen a growing demand for rudimentary education.

Many peasants have been enabled to buy land.

But on the other side there are many evil results to be reckoned with.

The ignorant peasant has been cheated in the quality and price of the

land he has bought, and after two or three years of unsuccessful effort

learns that he cannot make even a living from it, and sells it at a

great loss, sometimes to the very landlord from whom he purchased it.

The southern provinces are losing their working population, so that the

production, which was inadequate before, has become even more

insufficient. Carefully cultivated and terraced land is being laid waste

through neglect. As a result there has been a notable increase in prices

and in the cost of living, which nearly or entirely offsets the higher

wages of the peasants, and brings a disproportionately heavy burden on

the salaried and clerical classes. Women have been driven to take up

hard labor in the fields, to the extent that a physical injury to the

rising generation is already observable. As a consequence of the

breaking up of families, there has been a tendency toward moral

degeneracy, not only on the part of the men who have emigrated, but of

the women who are left. Prostitution, illegitimacy, and infanticide have

increased. Children are growing up without salutary restraint.

Tuberculosis, almost unknown in Italy before emigration, is spreading

rapidly. Only a few of the returned emigrants are willing to settle down

permanently in the old country, and work for its uplift, and there is no

assurance that the money which has been sent to Italy for safe keeping

will be ultimately spent there. Many of the young men who return, bring

back vices with them, and serve as a demoralizing example while they

remain.[382] From the governmental point of view, there is an alarming

deficiency of recruits for the army. Even the new houses, built with

American money, are not always an improvement on the old, as no new

ideas come in with the remittances.

A comparison of these two categories emphasizes the fact that the

favorable effects are, in general, the more obvious and immediate ones.

They are the ones which catch the eye of the traveler or the superficial

observer. They are the ones which appear to have particularly impressed

the Immigration Commission, as evidenced by their seemingly hasty review

of conditions on the other side.[383] It is upon these that Professor

Steiner, with his warm fellow-feeling for the immigrant lays special

stress. Even Miss Balch gives prominence to this class of effects. The

injurious results of such a movement as emigration are likely to be of

such a nature as makes them slow of development, and difficult to

observe and calculate. Physical and moral degeneracy are slower to

appear than high wages and new houses, but at the same time they are

more important. Taking everything into account, it seems probable that,

for Italy at least, emigration under the present conditions will prove

at least as much of a curse as a blessing.

Conditions in Greece resemble in many respects those in Italy, though

the depopulation of the country seems even more imminent. Not only has

the emigration been very sudden, but it is almost exclusively male, so

that there seems a real danger of a serious diminution of population in

the kingdom. Although the emigration movement is so recent in Greece

that effects can hardly yet be looked for, yet here, as in Italy, the

immediate favorable results of better houses, a reduction of the rate of

interest, mortgages cleared from the land, higher wages and lower rates

of interest are already manifest. The darker side, too, is beginning to

show in the assumption of hard labor by the women, the lack of laborers

in certain sections, the increase of immorality among the women, and the

introduction of a demoralizing example by returned young men. Prices and

the cost of living have increased. The returned immigrant, instead of

serving as an uplifting example of intelligent industry, is likely so to

conduct himself as to add to the already prevalent scorn for hard work,

and increase the prevailing unrest and discontent which leads to further

emigration.[384]

The general conclusion in regard to the effects of emigration upon

European countries, which the facts appear to justify, is that the

movement is at least of doubtful benefit to the countries of

source.[385] The obvious beneficial results are partially if not wholly

offset by certain undesirable consequences, insidious and persistent in

their nature, and likely to make themselves more manifest with the

passage of years. The attitude of European governments serves as a

verification of this conclusion. It is certain that the advantages of

emigration do not sufficiently outweigh its drawbacks in the eyes of

most of these governments to lead them to regard it otherwise than with

disfavor, although none of them now practically forbid it.[386] Nor is

that attitude due to the military interest alone.

The question of the effects of immigration upon the immigrants is

perhaps the most difficult of all to determine. It is manifest that it

must affect all of their life interests, in their own generation and for

many generations to come. And particularly, if it is desired to

ascertain whether the immigrant gains or loses in the long run by his

undertaking, the effort involves the attempt at evaluation of almost

every human activity, in order that a balance may be struck between the

good and the bad.

On the face of it, it seems that there must be some gain to the

immigrants from immigration. It is inconceivable that such a movement

should continue year after year unless those directly concerned in it

were profiting thereby. It is true, to be sure, that there is a vast

deal of misinformation, and false hope, on the part of the immigrants.

Those who are interested in their coming strive to paint the future in

the brightest possible colors, and to minimize the drawbacks. The

example of one or two eminently successful acquaintances is likely to

wholly outweigh that of many who only scrape along or fail altogether.

Nevertheless, making all allowances, it seems necessary to believe that

there is a net margin of advantage in the long run. It is perhaps

possible that this advantage may often be more specious than real, and

that the immigrant may believe himself the gainer when, if he could

balance true values, he would find himself in a more pitiable case than

before.

The great gain of the immigrant is to be looked for in the field of

wealth, or material prosperity. There can be little doubt that on the

average the immigrant is able to earn and save more, not only of money,

but of wealth in the broader sense, than he could at home. This is the

great underlying motive of modern immigration, and if it were illusory,

the movement must soon fail. A comparison of economic conditions in

Europe and America, as far as this can be made, seems to bear this out.

Both wages and prices are lower, on the whole, in the countries which

send us most of our immigrants than they are in the United States. But

wages appear to be proportionally lower than prices. The money sent from

America is a very real and tangible thing, and represents a great

economic advance on the part of a large proportion of the immigrants.

Doubtless, there is also somewhat of gain in independence and freedom

for many of the immigrants. The growth of class distinctions in the

United States has not yet proceeded so far that the immigrant from

Austria-Hungary or Italy does not feel an improvement in his social

status. To be sure, the classes of population with which the immigrant

establishes this social equality in the United States are not such as to

do him the greatest conceivable good, but a sense of heightened

self-respect and self-reliance does undoubtedly develop,

nevertheless.[387]

Many of the immigrants, of course, forge ahead, either because of

unusual ability or exceptional good fortune, and attain a position of

advancement in every way which would have been utterly inconceivable in

their old home. There are countless instances of prosperous business

men, eminent and respected citizens, invaluable servants of society in

this country, who could never have been anything but humble peasants in

their home land. These shining examples attract much attention here and

abroad, and serve as valuable illustrations of what may be accomplished

under favorable circumstances.[388]

But for the bulk of the ordinary immigrants the economic and other

advantages are offset by terrible hardships and losses. As one thinks of

the broken and separated families, often never reunited; of the

depressing, and degrading group life of men in this country; of

religious ideals shattered and new vices acquired in the unwonted and

untempered atmosphere of American liberty; of the frequent industrial

accidents and unceasing overstrain of the Slavs in mine and factory,

upon which they reckon as one of the concomitants of life in America,

and which sends them back to Europe in a few years, broken and

prematurely aged, but with an accumulation of dollars;[389] of the

tuberculosis contracted by Italians in the confined life to which they

are unaccustomed, and by Greek boot-blacks in their squalid quarters and

their long day’s labors;[390] of the sad conditions of labor in the

sweatshops and tenement workrooms;[391] of the child labor in the

cranberry bogs of Massachusetts and New Jersey;[392] of the destruction

of family life by the taking of boarders, and the heart-breaking toil of

the boarding-boss’s wife;[393] of the unremitting toil and scant

recreation, of the low wages and insufficient standard of living, of the

unsparing and niggardly thrift by which the savings are made possible—as

one thinks of these things, which are all too common to be considered

exceptional, and compares them with the conditions which characterize

peasant life in Europe, where many æsthetic and neighborly circumstances

tend to offset the poverty, one cannot help wondering how large a

proportion of our immigrants finally reap a net gain in the things that

are really worth while.

It is useless for any individual to undertake to answer this question

categorically for immigrants in general. The answer rests too much upon

personal opinion and estimation of relative values. The point that needs

to be emphasized in this connection is that against the evident and

unquestioned economic gain of most, and the general social and

intellectual gain of many, there must be set off a long list of serious,

though not always obvious, evils which result for a large proportion of

the immigrants under present conditions.

The question of the desirability of immigration from the point of view

of humanity as a whole, as previously stated, is a summation of the

aspects of the problem from the point of view of the United States, the

countries of source, and the immigrants. This balance must be struck by

every student for himself. The effort has been made in the foregoing

pages to set forth the facts which condition this great movement at the

present time, as a groundwork upon which reasonable conclusions may be

based. It has appeared that for the United States there is at present no

real need of further immigrants, and that the most that can be said is

that they do no harm. On the other hand, it seems likely that the evil

effects from the movement as at present conducted—effects to be

developed mainly in the future rather than existent at the present

time—will overbalance any good that may result. From the point of view

of European countries, while the advantages are obvious, it appears that

there are also fundamental drawbacks which may in the end more than

offset the gain. For the immigrant there is an undoubted net margin of

advantage on the average; but this advantage is less general and real

than is often supposed, and is qualified by many weighty considerations.

In striking this balance it is important to bear in mind the influence

of emigration and immigration upon total population. If it is true that

immigrants in a large measure are supplanters of native population,

rather than additions to population, it then becomes a question whether

the immigrants as a body are happier than the native population would

have been, which would otherwise have filled their places.

In regard to national prosperity and welfare, moreover, it must ever be

remembered that the effects of immigration upon all countries concerned,

particularly upon the receiving country, are scarcely more than in the

embryo. Such a tremendous movement as this must inevitably have

significant and far-reaching results. But only a prophetic vision could

state with assurance what those results will be.

One thing, however, seems certain—that the movement is not accomplishing

all the good that it might. Many of the foregoing statements in regard

to immigration have been qualified by the phrase “as at present

conducted.” The peculiar circumstances which have given rise to the

immigration movement certainly contain possibilities of great advantage

to the human race. It ought to be possible so to utilize them as to

bring about a great and permanent uplift for the whole of mankind. There

is no assurance that our present policy, adopted in its main features at

a time when conditions were radically different,[394] guarantees this

uplift in its maximum degree. What, then, ought to be done about it?

This is the real kernel of the immigration problem for the statesman and

the practical sociologist.

One of the great difficulties with which sincere social workers have to

contend in almost every field of their efforts is that practical

economics has advanced so much more rapidly than practical sociology.

Our knowledge of the technique of production and transportation, and of

the industrial arts, has made phenomenal strides in the past century.

The growth of cities, the development of the factory system, easy means

of communication between all countries, the growth of the world market,

advances in agricultural methods which have made the soil much more

productive per unit of labor, have coöperated to introduce a new set of

social conditions and problems with which we have not yet learned to

grapple. Our knowledge of how to produce satisfactory social relations

is far behind our knowledge of how to produce wealth. This is strikingly

evident in the matter of immigration. If transportation conditions and

means of communication had remained as they were at the time of the

Revolution, our present immigration situation could never have arisen.

There would have been a natural barrier which would have prevented too

large increments of European population from entering the new country

while it was working out its problems and gradually finding itself. The

problems of immigration which presented themselves would have been of

sufficiently moderate dimensions so that they could have been dealt with

as they arose. As it is, the recent rapid development of communication

has made the ease of immigration so great that we have been overwhelmed

by the resulting problems. The movement of millions of people from one

region to another is a phenomenon of prodigious sociological import.

Modern mechanical progress has made this movement possible, before the

nations or the individuals concerned have advanced far enough in social

science to know how to make the most of it.

Granting that there is an immigration problem, and granting that there

is a desire to grapple with it, there are two methods of attack. The

first is, to pick out the obvious evils, and apply a specific to them

one by one. The other is to endeavor to determine the underlying

principles and to devise a consistent and comprehensive plan which will

go to the root of the matter, relying upon established sociological

laws. The first method is much the simpler. It is the one which has

hitherto been followed out in our immigration legislation. One by one

certain crying evils have been met by definite measures. After half a

century of protest, paupers and criminals were refused admission. A

little later contract laborers were debarred. Certain diseased classes,

growing more comprehensive with the years, have been excluded. The

principle of deportation has been introduced and gradually enlarged.

Steamship companies have been made responsible for the return of

nonadmissible aliens. The net result of these measures has

unquestionably been beneficial. This type of remedy, if wisely

administered, is always valuable, and should be adopted, in the absence

or delay of the other kind of solution.

Certain other improvements of this general type readily suggest

themselves. The steerage should be abolished, and United States

inspectors placed on all immigrant-carrying vessels. If possible, better

provisions should be adopted for turning back inadmissibles early on

their journey. Immigrant banks and lodging houses should receive

stricter supervision. The padrone system and the unrestricted contract

labor system should be abolished. Tenement houses should be supervised

in the strictest way possible. Every remedial agency designed to better

the lot of the alien in this country should be encouraged.

It appears that many of the ills of immigration are due to faulty

distribution and the lack of efficient contact between aliens and the

better classes of Americans. Consequently, the need of better

distribution, and various schemes for securing it, are constantly urged

in the press, and in other writings on the subject. Yet we are warned to

be on our guard against pinning too much faith to this solution of the

problem. There are many evils which distribution alone cannot remedy,

and there is competent authority for the statement that much of the

agitation for better distribution emanates from interests which profit

by a large immigration, and which hope in this way to blind the eyes of

the American people to the more deep-seated evils, and to hush the cry

for some restrictive measures. Some think, also, that if there ever was

a time when any scheme of distribution would have been effective, it is

now long since past.[395]

In such ways as the foregoing, great good may be accomplished, and many

of the more obvious evils avoided or mitigated. It does not seem

possible, however, that in such a manner can the greatest possible good

be derived from the immigration movement. This can be achieved only

through the operation of some far-reaching, inclusive plan of

regulation, based on the broadest and soundest principles, in which all

countries concerned will concur. The formulation of such a plan requires

the greatest wisdom of which man is capable. It is possible that we have

not yet advanced far enough in social science to make the construction

of such a plan feasible. In such a case, it might be the part of wisdom

and honor to radically restrict the numbers of immigrants until such a

plan can be devised and put into operation. Otherwise, the peculiar

situation of the United States among nations may disappear, and the

possibilities of gain to the race be lost forever, before the maximum

advantage has been secured. One of the strongest arguments for

restriction at the present time is that the United States is not yet

qualified to accept the responsibility of admitting unlimited numbers of

eager seekers for advantages, and giving them in fullest measure those

things which they desire, and which their earnest efforts merit.

One thing, meanwhile, must be remembered—the problem will not solve

itself. If there are evils connected with immigration, there is no

prospect that in the natural course of events they will disappear of

themselves. The history of immigration has been a history of successive

waves of population, from sources ever lower in the economic, if not in

the social, scale. If it has seemed at any time that the country was

about to adjust itself to a certain racial admixture, a new and more

difficult element has presented itself. And the process will go on. As

General Walker pointed out long ago, immigration of the lowest class

“will not be permanently stopped so long as any difference of _economic

level_ exists between our population and that of the most degraded

communities abroad.”[396] Under present conditions a diminution in the

immigration stream should not be interpreted as a cause of

congratulation, but rather deep consternation. For, except to the extent

that restriction is actually accomplished by our laws, a cessation of

the stream of immigration to the United States can only mean that

economic conditions in this country have fallen to so low a pitch that

it is no longer worth while for the citizens of the meanest and most

backward foreign country to make the moderate effort to get here.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTE. A bibliography on Immigration might be extended almost

indefinitely. Nearly every book written on any social question,

particularly in America, contains material on immigration. The magazine

articles on the subject are legion. By no means all the works which may

profitably be consulted, nor all those cited in the foregoing pages, are

included in the following list.

GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

_Books_

ADDAMS, JANE: Newer Ideals of Peace, 1907; Twenty Years at Hull-House,

1910.

ANDERSON, W. L.: The Country Town, 1906.

BLODGET, SAMUEL: Economics: A Statistical Manual for the United States

of America, 1806.

BRANDENBURG, BROUGHTON: Imported Americans, 1904.

BROMWELL, WILLIAM J.: History of Immigration into the United States,

1856.

BUSHEE, F. A.: Ethnic Factors in the Population of Boston, American

Economic Association, 3d Series, 4:2, 1903.

BYINGTON, MARGARET F.: Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town, 1910.

CHICKERING, JESSE: Immigration into the United States, 1848.

COMMONS, JOHN R.: Races and Immigrants in America, 1908.

DONALDSON, THOMAS: The Public Domain, 1881.

EDWARDS, RICHARD H.: Immigration, 1909.

ELLWOOD, CHARLES A.: Sociology and Modern Social Problems, 1910.

ENDICOTT, WILLIAM C., JR.: Immigration Laws, State and National, in

Commercial Relations of the United States, 1885–1886. Appendix III,

1887.

EVANS-GORDON, W.: The Alien Immigrant, 1903.

GONNARD, RÉNÉ: L’Émigration européenne au XIX Siècle, 1906.

GROSE, HOWARD B.: Aliens or Americans? 1906.

HALL, PRESCOTT F.: Immigration, 1906.

HENDERSON, C. R.: An Introduction to the Study of the Dependent,

Defective, and Delinquent Classes, 1893.

HUNTER, ROBERT: Poverty, 1904.

Immigration Commission: Report, Authorized, 1907.

JENKS, JEREMIAH, and LAUCK, W. JETT: The Immigration Problem, 1911.

KAPP, FRIEDRICH: Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of

the State of New York, 1870.

KENNGOTT, GEORGE F.: The Record of a City, 1912.

LINCOLN, JONATHAN T.: The City of the Dinner Pail, 1909.

MACLEAN, ANNIE M.: Wage-Earning Women, 1910.

MARTINEAU, HARRIET: Society in America, 1837.

MAYO-SMITH, RICHMOND: Emigration and Immigration, 1890.

New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration: First Annual Report,

1911.

New York Commission of Immigration: Report, 1909.

VON RAUMER, F. L.: America and the American People, 1846.

RAUSCHENBUSCH, WALTER: Christianity and the Social Crisis, 1910.

RIIS, JACOB: How the Other Half Lives, 1890; The Making of an

American, 1901.

ROBERTS, PETER: Anthracite Coal Communities, 1904; The New

Immigration, 1912.

ROSCHER, WILHELM, and JANNASCH, ROBERT: Kolonien, Kolonialpolitik, und

Auswanderung, 1885.

SEYBERT, ADAM: Statistical Annals of the United States, 1789–1818,

1818.

SPILLER, G.: Interracial Problems, 1911.

STEINER, EDWARD A.: On the Trail of the Immigrant, 1906; The Immigrant

Tide, 1909.

STELZLE, CHARLES: The Working Man and Social Problems, 1903.

SUMNER, WILLIAM G.: Folkways, 1907; War and Other Essays, 1911.

TAUSSIG, F. W.: Principles of Economics, 1911.

TROLLOPE, MRS. T. A.: Domestic Manners of the Americans, 1832.

United States Bureau of the Census: Census Reports; A Century of

Population Growth, 1909.

United States Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization: Commissioner

General of Immigration, Annual Reports; Immigration Laws

(Pamphlets).

United States Bureau of Statistics: Immigration into the United States

from 1820 to 1903, 1903; Special Report on Immigration, by Young,

Edward, 1871.

United States Congress: Documents, Reports, etc.

United States Library of Congress: A List of Books (with references to

periodicals) on Immigration, 1907.

WALKER, F. A.: Discussions in Economics and Statistics, 1899.

WATSON, JOHN F.: Annals of Philadelphia, 1830.

WHELPLEY, JAMES D.: The Problem of the Immigrant, 1905.

WILKINS, WILLIAM H.: The Alien Invasion, 1892.

WOODS, ROBERT A., and others: Americans in Process, 1902; The City

Wilderness, 1898.

_Magazine Articles, etc._

AINSWORTH, F. H.: Are We Shouldering Europe’s Burden? Charities,

12:134, 1904.

American Museum: 1:13; 2:213; 5:109; 7:87, 233, 240; 8:124; 10:114,

221; 12:112; 13:196, 263, 268, 1787–98.

BARROWS, W.: Immigration; Its Evils and their Remedies. New Englander,

13:262, 1855.

BRANDENBURG, BROUGHTON: The Tragedy of the Rejected Immigrant,

Outlook, 84:361, 1906.

Chambers’ Journal: Warning to Emigrants, 50:644, 1873.

CHAMBERS, W.: Emigrant Entrappers, Chambers’ Journal, 23:141, 1855.

COMMONS, JOHN R.: Social and Industrial Problems of Immigration,

Chautauquan, 39:13, 1904.

DE BOW’S REVIEW: Sources from which Great Empires Come, 18:698, 1855.

DEVINE, EDWARD T.: The Selection of Immigrants, The Survey, Feb. 4,

1911.

EVERETT, A. H.: Immigration to the United States, North American

Review, 40:457, 1835.

GOLDENWEISER, E. A.: Immigrants in Cities, The Survey, Jan. 7, 1911.

HALL, PRESCOTT F.: The Future of American Ideals, North American

Review, 195:94, 1912.

HART, A. B.: The Disposition of Our Public Lands, Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 1:169, 251, 1887.

HAZARD, SAMUEL: Register of Pennsylvania, 1:25; 6:266; 8:31, 27, 33,

54, 88, 108, 116; 11:361, 416; 15:157, 1828–35.

LEE, JOSEPH: Conservation of Yankees, The Survey, Oct. 28, 1911.

Monthly Anthology: Letter from a French Emigrant, 6:383, 1809.

Niles’ Register: 11:359; 13:35, 378; 17:38, 63; 20:193; 22:155, 310;

23:305; 24:113, 411; 25:232; 34:411; 40:74, 130, 273; 41:356; 43:40,

391; 44:131, 233; 45:2; 46:1, 218, 244, 398; 49:62, 69; 52:250,

1816–38.

North American Review: Review of von Fürstenwärther, M., Der Deutsche

in Nord-Amerika, 11:1, 1820; Figures of Immigration, 1812–21,

15:301, 304, 1822; Review of Schmidt and Gall on America, 17:91,

1823; Quotations from Hodgson’s Remarks on America, 18:222, 1824.

RIPLEY, WILLIAM Z.: Races in the United States, Atlantic Monthly,

102:745, 1908.

ROSSITER, W. S.: A Common-Sense View of the Immigration Problem, North

American Review, 188:360, 1908.

SATO, S.: History of the Land Question in the United States, Johns

Hopkins Studies, 4:259, 1886.

SHALER, N. S.: European Peasants as Immigrants, Atlantic Monthly,

71:646, 1893.

TOBENKIN, ELIAS: Immigrant Girl in Chicago, The Survey, Nov. 6, 1909.

WILLIS, H. PARKER: Review of Findings of the Immigration Commission,

The Survey, Jan. 7, 1911.

GENERAL MIGRATION

_Books_

BRADLEY, HENRY: The Story of the Goths, 1888.

HODGKIN, THOMAS: Theodoric the Goth, 1891.

JORDANES: The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, English version by

Mierow, Charles C., 1908.

KELLER, ALBERT G.: Colonization, 1908.

LEROY-BEAULIEU, PAUL: De la Colonisation chez les Peuples Modernes,

1908.

MERIVALE, HERMAN: Lectures on Colonization, 1861.

VON PFLUGK-HARTTUNG, JULIUS: The Great Migrations, translated by

Wright, John Henry, 1905.

_Magazine Articles, etc._

BRYCE, JAMES: Migrations of the Races of Men Considered Historically,

Contemporary Review, 62:128, 1892.

MASON, OTIS T.: Migration and the Food Quest, American Anthropologist,

7:275, 1894.

COLONIAL PERIOD

_Books_

Archives of Maryland.

ARMSTRONG, EDWARD: Correspondence between William Penn and James Logan

and Others, 1870–72.

BITTINGER, LUCY F.: The Germans in Colonial Times, 1901.

COBB, S. H.: The Story of the Palatines, 1897.

DEXTER, F. B.: Estimates of Population in the American Colonies, 1887.

DIFFENDERFFER, F. R.: The German Immigration into Pennsylvania through

the Port of Philadelphia, 1700–75, 1900.

Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York.

FISKE, JOHN: Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, 1897.

GEISER, K. F.: Redemptioners and Indentured Servants in the Colony and

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1901.

Massachusetts Election Sermons, 1754.

MITTELBERGER, GOTTLIEB: Journey to Pennsylvania in 1750, translated by

Eben, C. T., 1898.

New Jersey Archives.

North Carolina Colonial Documents.

Pennsylvania Colonial Records.

PROPER, E. E.: Colonial Immigration Laws, Columbia College Studies,

12:2, 1900.

Rhode Island Colonial Records.

RACIAL STUDIES

_Books_

ANTIN, MARY: The Promised Land, 1912.

BALCH, EMILY G.: Our Slavic Fellow-Citizens, 1910.

BENJAMIN, G. G.: The Germans in Texas, 1909.

BERNHEIMER, CHARLES S.: The Russian Jew in the United States, 1905.

CARO, L.: Auswanderung und Auswanderungspolitik in Österreich, 1909.

COOLIDGE, MARY R.: Chinese Immigration, 1909.

FAIRCHILD, H. P.: Greek Immigration to the United States, 1911.

FAUST, A. B.: The German Element in the United States, 1909.

FLOM, GEORGE T.: Norwegian Immigration into the United States, 1909.

GREEN, S. S.: The Scotch-Irish in America, 1895.

HALE, E. E.: Letters on Irish Immigration, 1852.

HANNA, CHARLES A.: The Scotch-Irish, 1902.

KING, BOLTON, and OKEY, THOMAS: Italy To-day, 1901.

LORD, ELIOT, TRENOR, J. D., and BARROWS, S. J.: The Italian in

America, 1905.

MACLEAN, J. P.: Settlements of Scotch Highlanders in America, 1900.

MAGUIRE, J. F.: The Irish in America, 1868.

NELSON, O. N.: History of Scandinavians and Successful Scandinavians

in the United States, 1900.

PETERS, MADISON C.: The Jews in America, 1905.

RUBINOW, I. M.: Economic Condition of the Jews in Russia, United

States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 72, 1907.

SEWARD, GEORGE F.: Chinese Immigration, 1881.

SPARKS, E. E.: The Chinese Question, in National Development, 1877–85,

p. 229, 1907.

_Magazine Articles, etc._

ABBOTT, GRACE: The Bulgarians of Chicago, Charities, 21:653, 1909.

BODIO, L.: Dell’ Emigrazione Italiana, Nuova Antologia, 183:529, 1902.

EVERETT, E.: German Immigration to the United States, North American

Review, 11:1, 1820.

HOUGHTON, LOUISE S.: Syrians in the United States, The Survey, July 1,

Aug. 5, Sept. 2, Oct. 7, 1911; The above criticised, The Survey,

Oct. 28, 1911.

MANGANO, ANTONIO: The Effect of Emigration Upon Italy, Charities and

the Commons, Jan. 4, Feb. 1, April 4, May 2, June 6, 1908.

MILLIS, H. A.: East Indian Immigration to British Columbia and the

Pacific Coast States, American Economic Review, 1:72, 1911.

North American Review: The Irish in America, 52:191, 1841.

RUBINOW, I. M.: The Jews in Russia, Yale Review, 15:147, 1906.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

_Books_

ADAMS, T. S., and SUMNER, H. L.: Labor Problems, 1905.

DEWEES, F. P.: The Molly Maguires, 1877.

HOURWICH, ISAAC A.: Immigration and Labor, 1912.

STEWART, ETHELBERT: Influence of Trade Unions on Immigrants, In

LaFollette, R. M., The Making of America, Vol. 8, p. 226, 1906.

WARNE, F. J.: The Slav Invasion and the Mine Workers, 1904.

_Magazine Articles, etc._

All the Year Round: Molly Maguire in America, New Series, 17:270,

1876.

BAILEY, W. B.: The Bird of Passage, American Journal of Sociology,

18:391, 1912.

CANCE, ALEXANDER E.: Immigrant Rural Communities, The Survey, Jan. 7,

1911; Jewish Immigrants as Tobacco Growers and Dairymen, The Survey,

Nov. 4, 1911; Piedmontese on the Mississippi, The Survey, Sept. 2,

1911; Slav Farmers on the “Abandoned-Farm” Area of Connecticut, The

Survey, Oct. 7, 1911.

CHUTE, CHARLES L.: The Cost of the Cranberry Sauce, The Survey, Dec.

2, 1911.

DARLINGTON, THOMAS: Medico-Economic Aspect of the Immigration Problem,

North American Review, 183:1262, 1906.

HOLCOMBE, A. N.: Minimum Wage Boards, The Survey, April 1, 1911.

KELLOGG, PAUL U.: An Immigrant Labor Tariff, The Survey, Jan. 7, 1911;

The above criticised, The Survey, Feb. 4, 1911.

LAUCK, W. JETT: Industrial Communities, The Survey, Jan. 1, 1911.

LOVEJOY, OWEN R.: Cost of the Cranberry Sauce, The Survey, Jan. 1,

1911.

Political Science Quarterly: Levasseur’s American Workman, 13:321,

1898.

RHODES, J. F.: The Molly Maguires in the Anthracite Region of

Pennsylvania, American Historical Review, 15:547, 1910.

RIPLEY, WILLIAM Z.: Race Factors in Labor Unions, Atlantic Monthly,

93:299, 1904.

ROBERTS, PETER: The Foreigner and His Savings, Charities, 21:757,

1909.

SPEARE, CHARLES F.: What America Pays Europe for Immigrant Labor,

North American Review, 187:106, 1908.

POLITICAL RELATIONS

_Books_

FRANKLIN, FRANK G.: The Legislative History of Naturalization in the

United States, 1906.

United States Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization: Naturalization

Laws, 1911.

_Magazine Articles, etc._

MCMASTER, J. B.: The Riotous Career of the Know-Nothings, Forum,

17:524, 1894.

RELIGIOUS RELATIONS

_Books_

United States Bureau of the Census: Religious Bodies, 1906.

_Magazine Articles, etc._

COUDERT, FREDERIC R.: The American Protective Association, Forum,

17:513, 1894.

GLADDEN, W.: The Anti-Catholic Crusade, Century, 25:789, 1894.

WHITE, GAYLORD S.: The Protestant Church and the Immigrant, The

Survey, Sept. 25, 1909.

WINSTON, E. M.: The Threatening Conflict with Romanism, Forum, 17:425,

1894.

SOCIAL RELATIONS

_Books_

ARONOVICI, CAROL: Some Nativity and Race Factors in Rhode Island,

1910.

BINGHAM, T. A.: The Girl that Disappears, 1911.

BONAR, J.: Malthus and His Work, 1885.

BOURNE, S.: Trade, Population, and Food, 1880.

United States Bureau of the Census; Insane and Feeble-Minded in

Hospitals and Institutions, 1906; Paupers in Almshouses, 1904;

Prisoners and Juvenile Delinquents in Institutions, 1907.

WHITE, ARNOLD: The Destitute Alien in Great Britain, 1892.

_Magazine Articles, etc._

BINGHAM, T. A.: Foreign Criminals in New York, North American Review,

188:383, 1908.

BUSHEE, F. A.: The Declining Birth Rate and Its Cause, Popular Science

Monthly, 63:355, 1903.

CLAGHORN, K. H.: Immigration and Dependence, Charities, 12:151, 1904;

Immigration in its Relation to Pauperism, Annals American Academy of

Political Science, 24:187, 1904.

COMMONS, JOHN R.: City Life, Crime, and Poverty, Chautauquan, 38:118,

1903.

DAVENPORT, CHARLES B.: The Origin and Control of Mental Defectiveness,

Popular Science Monthly, 80:87, 1912.

DUNRAVEN, EARL OF: The Invasion of Destitute Aliens, Nineteenth

Century, 31:985, 1892.

FAIRCHILD, H. P.: Distribution of Immigrants, Yale Review, 16:296,

1907.

FISHER, S. G.: Alien Degradation of American Character, Forum, 14:608,

1893; Has Immigration Increased the Population? Popular Science

Monthly, 48:244, 1895.

HART, H. H.: Immigration and Crime, American Journal of Sociology,

2:369, 1896.

HUNTER, ROBERT: Immigration the Annihilator of our Native Stock, The

Commons, 9:114, 1904.

Monthly Chronicle: Pauperism in Massachusetts, 3:564, 1842.

PATTEN, S. N.: A New Statement of the Law of Population, Political

Science Quarterly, 10:44, 1895.

ROSS, E. A.: Western Civilization and the Birth Rate, American Journal

of Sociology, 12:607, 1907.

ROSSITER, W. S.: The Diminishing Increase of Population, Atlantic

Monthly, 102:212, 1908.

ROUND, WILLIAM M. F.: Immigration and Crime, Forum, 8:428, 1889.

TUKE, J. W.: State Aid to Immigrants, Nineteenth Century, 17:280,

1885.

WHITE, ARNOLD: The Invasion of Pauper Foreigners, Nineteenth Century,

23:414, 1888.

WILLCOX, W. F.: The Distribution of Immigrants in the United States,

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 20:523, 1906.

STANDARD OF LIVING

_Books_

CHAPIN, ROBERT C.: The Standard of Living Among Workingmen’s Families

in New York City, 1909.

STREIGHTOFF, FRANK H.: The Standard of Living Among the Industrial

People of America, 1911.

_Magazine Articles, etc._

ALMY, FREDERIC: The Huddled Poles of Buffalo, The Survey, Feb. 4,

1911.

BRECKENRIDGE, SOPHONISBA, and ABBOTT, EDITH: Housing Conditions in

Chicago, American Journal of Sociology, 16:289, 433; 17:1, 145,

1910–11.

CHAPIN, ROBERT C.: Living Costs: A World Problem, The Survey, Feb. 3,

1912.

HUNT, MILTON B.: The Housing of Nonfamily Groups of Men in Chicago,

American Journal of Sociology, 16:145, 1910.

MARK, MARY L.: The Upper East Side: A Study in Living Conditions and

Migration, American Statistical Association, 10:345, 1907.

THOMPSON, CARL D.: Socialists and Slums, Milwaukee, The Survey, Dec.

3, 1910.

WARD, ROBERT DE C.: Congestion and Immigration, The Survey, Sept. 9,

1911.

SHIPPING CONDITIONS

_Magazine Articles, etc._

All the Year Round: Aboard an Emigrant Ship, 7:111, 1862.

Chambers’ Journal: Emigrant Ship _Washington_, 16:27, 1851; Trip in an

Emigrant Ship, etc., 1:228, 262, 302, 1844.

Living Age: Scenes in Emigrant Ships, 26:492, 1850.

United States Senate Reports: Sickness and Mortality on Board Emigrant

Ships, 33d Congress, 1st Session, Committee Report No. 386, 1853–54.

INDEX

Advertising, 153.

Age distribution of immigrants, 194–196, 316.

Agents, 132, 148–160.

Agriculture, 59, 72, 263.

Alaric, 13.

Alexander the Great, 15.

Alien Bill, 57.

Almshouses, paupers in, 312, 318, 319, 320.

American Protective Association, 294.

American type, 51, 147, 399, 408.

Americanization. See Assimilation.

Ancient Order of Hibernians, 95.

Appeals, 111, 114, 116, 185.

Argentina, 22, 27, 137.

Arguments concerning immigration, 388–415.

Assimilation, 51, 58, 69, 103, 130, 194, 196, 199, 202, 231, 257, 327,

369, 375, 397–415.

Assimilation argument, 397.

Assisted immigration, 159.

Association, 409.

Attitude toward immigrants, of colonists, 38, 41, 43, 45, 46;

of American people, 54, 65, 88, 99, 164.