[Footnote 8: From _Scribner's Magazine_, May, 1917. Copyright, 1917, by
Charles Scribner's Sons. By permission of the author and of the
publishers.]
The outstanding feature of our immigration policy has been its negative
character. The immigrant is expected to look out for himself. Up to the
present time legislation has been guided by conditions which prevailed in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We have permitted the immigrant
to come; only recently has he been examined for physical, mental, and moral
defects at the port of debarkation, and then he has been permitted to land
and go where he willed. This was the practice in colonial days. It has been
continued without essential change down to the present time. It was a
policy which worked reasonably well in earlier times, when the immigrant
passed from the ship to land to be had from the Indians, or in later
generations from the government.
And from generation to generation the immigrant moved westward, just beyond
the line of settlement, where he found a homestead awaiting his labor.
These were the years of Anglo-Saxon, of German, of Scandinavian, of north
European settlement, when the immigration to this country was almost
exclusively from the same stock. And so long as land was to be had for the
asking there was no immigration problem. The individual States were eager
for settlers to develop their resources. There were few large cities.
Industry was just beginning. There was relatively little poverty, while the
tenements and slums of our cities and mining districts had not yet
appeared. This was the period of the "old immigration," as it is called;
the immigration from the north of Europe, from the same stock that had made
the original settlements in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and the South; it was the same stock that settled Ohio and the Middle West,
Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.
The "old immigration" from northern Europe ceased to be predominant in the
closing years of the last century. Then the tide shifted to southern
Europe, to Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Poland, and the Balkans. A new
strain was being added to our Anglo-Saxon, Germanic stock. The "new
immigration" did not speak our language. It was unfamiliar with
self-government. It was largely illiterate. And with this shift from the
"old immigration" to the "new," immigration increased in volume. In 1892
the total immigration was 579,663; in 1894 it fell to 285,631. As late as
1900 it was but 448,572. Then it began to rise. In 1903 it was 857,046; in
1905 it reached the million mark; and from that time down to the outbreak
of the war the total immigration averaged close on to a million a year, the
total arrivals in 1914 being 1,218,480. Almost all of the increase came
from southern Europe, over 70 per cent of the total being from the Latin
and Slavic countries. In 1914 Austria contributed 134,831 people; Hungary
143,321; Italy 283,734; Russia 255,660; while the United Kingdom
contributed 73,417; Germany 35,734; Norway 8,329; and Sweden 14,800.
For twenty years the predominant immigration has been from south and
central Europe. And it is this "new immigration," so called, that has
created the "immigration problem." It is largely responsible for the
agitation for restrictive legislation on the part of persons fearful of the
admixture of races, of the difficulties of assimilation, of the high
illiteracy of the southern group; and most of all for the opposition on the
part of organized labor to the competition of the unskilled army of men who
settle in the cities, who go to the mines, and who struggle for the
existing jobs in competition with those already here. For the newcomer has
to find work quickly. He has exhausted what little resources he had in
transportation. In the great majority of cases his transportation has been
advanced by friends and relatives already here, who have lured him to this
country by descriptions of better economic conditions, greater
opportunities for himself, and especially the new life which opens up to
his children. And this overseas competition _is_ a serious problem to
American labor, especially in the iron and steel industries, in the mining
districts, in railroad and other construction work, into which employments
the foreigners largely go.
How seriously the workers and our cities are burdened with this new
immigration from south and central Europe is indicated by the fact that 56
per cent of the foreign-born population in this country is in the States to
the east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio Rivers, to which at least
80 per cent of the present incoming immigrants are destined. In the larger
cities between 70 and 80 per cent of the population is either foreign born
or immediately descended from persons of foreign birth. In New York City
78.6 per cent of the people are of foreign birth or immediate foreign
extraction. In Boston the percentage is 74.2, in Cleveland 75.8, and in
Chicago 77.5. In the mining districts the percentage is even higher. In
other words, almost all of the immigration of the last twenty years has
gone to the cities, to industry, to mining. Here the immigrant competes
with organized labor. He burdens our inadequate housing accommodations. He
congests the tenements. He is at least a problem for democracy.
But the effect of immigration on our life is not as simple as the advocates
of restriction insist. It is probable that the struggle of the working
classes to improve their conditions is rendered more difficult by the
incoming tide of unskilled labor. It is probable too that wages are kept
down in certain occupations and that employers are desirous of keeping open
the gate as a means of securing cheap labor and labor that is difficult to
organize. It is also probably true that the immigrant is a temporary burden
to democracy and especially to our cities. But the subject is not nearly as
simple as this. The immigrant is a consumer as well as a producer. He
creates a market for the products of labor even while he competes with
labor. And he creates new trades and new industries, like the clothing
trades of New York, Chicago, and Cleveland, which employ hundreds of
thousands of workers. And a large part of the immigrants assimilate
rapidly.
In addition, the new stock from southern and central Europe brings to this
country qualities of mind and of temperament that may in time greatly
enrich the more severe and practical-minded races of northern Europe.
But it is not the purpose of this article to discuss the question of
immigration restriction or the kinds of tests that should be applied to the
incoming alien. It is rather to consider the internal or domestic policy we
have thus far adopted after the immigrant has landed on our shores. And
this policy has been wholly negative. Our attitude toward the immigrant has
undergone little change from the very beginning, when immigration was
easily absorbed by the free lands of the West. Even at the present time our
legislative policy is an outgrowth of the assumption that the immigrant
could go to the land and secure a homestead of his own; and of the
additional assumption that he needed no assistance or direction when he
reached this country any more than did the immigrants of earlier centuries.
Up to the present time, with the exception of the Oriental races, there has
been no real restriction to immigration. Our policy has been selective
rather than restrictive. Of those arriving certain individuals are rejected
by the immigration authorities because of some defect of mind, of body, or
of morals, or because of age infirmity, or some other cause by reason of
which the aliens are likely to become public charges. For the official year
1914, of the 1,218,480 applying for admission 15,745 were excluded because
they were likely to become a public charge; 6,537 were afflicted with
physical or mental infirmities affecting their ability to earn a living;
3,257 were afflicted with tuberculosis or with contagious diseases; and
1,274 with serious mental defects. All told, in that year less than 2 per
cent of the total number applying for admission were rejected and sent back
to the countries from which they came.
Our immigration policy ends with the selection. From the stations the
immigrants pass into the great cities, chiefly into New York, or are placed
upon the trains leaving the ports of debarkation for the interior. They are
not directed to any destination, and, most important of all, no effort is
made to place them on the land under conditions favorable to successful
agriculture. And this is the problem of the future. It is a problem far
bigger than the distribution of immigration. It is a problem of our entire
industrial life. For, while our immigrants are congested in the cities
agriculture suffers from a lack of labor. Farms are being abandoned. Not
more than one-third of the land in the United States is under cultivation.
Far more important still, millions of acres are held out of use. Land
monopoly prevails all over the Western States. According to the most
available statistics of land ownership, approximately 200,000,000 acres are
owned by less than 50,000 corporations and individual men. Many of these
estates exceed 10,000 or even 50,000 acres in extent. Some exceed the
million mark. States like California, Texas, Oregon, Washington, and other
Western States have great manorial preserves like those of England,
Prussia, and Russia which are held out of use or inadequately used, and
which have increased in value a hundredfold during the last fifty years.
These great estates are largely the result of the land grants given to the
railroads as well as the careless policy of the government in the disposal
of the public domain.
Here is one of the anomalies of the nation. Here is the real explanation of
the immigration problem. Here, too, is the division between the "old
immigration" and the "new immigration." For the "old immigration" from the
north of Europe went to the country. The "new immigration" has gone to the
cities because the land had all been given away and the only opportunity
for immediate employment was to be found in the cities and mining
districts. The "new immigration" from the South of Europe is as eager for
home-ownership as the "old immigration" from the north of Europe. But the
land is all gone, and the incoming alien is compelled to accept the first
job that is offered, or starve. It is this too that has stimulated the
protest on the part of labor against the incoming tide. For, so long as
land was accessible for all, the incoming immigrants went to the country,
where they could build their fortunes as they willed, just as they did in
earlier generations.
The European War has forced many new problems upon us. And one of these is
the relation of people to the land. Of one thing, at least, we may be
certain--that with the ending of the war there will be a competition for
men, a competition not only by the exhausted Powers of Europe but by
Canada, Australia, and America as well. Europe will endeavor to keep its
able-bodied men at home. They will be needed for reconstruction purposes.
There will be little immigration out of France; for France is a nation of
home-owning peasants and France has never contributed in material numbers
to our population. The same is true of Germany. Germany is the most highly
socialized state in Europe. The state owns the railways, many mines, and
great stretches of land. In England too the state has been socialized to a
remarkable extent as a result of the war. Russia and Austria-Hungary have
undergone something of the same transformation. When the war is over these
countries will probably endeavor to mobilize their men and women for
industry as they previously mobilized them for war. And in so far as they
are able to adjust credit and assistance to their people, they will strive
to keep them at home.
But that is not all. Millions of men have been killed or incapacitated.
Poland, Galicia, parts of Hungary and Russia have been devastated. Many
nobles who owned the great estates have been killed. Many of them are
bankrupt. Their land holdings may be broken up into small farms. The state
can only go on, taxes can only be collected if industry and agriculture are
brought back to life. And the nations of Europe are turning their attention
to a consciously worked out agricultural programme for putting the
returning soldiers back on the land. Not only that, but reports from
steamship and railroad companies indicate that large numbers of men are
planning to return to Europe after the war. The estimates, based upon
investigation, run as high as a million men. Poles and Hungarians are
imbued with the idea that land will be cheap in Europe and that the savings
they have accumulated in this country can be used for the purchase of small
holdings in their native country, through the possession of which their
social and economic status will be materially improved.
I have no doubt but that the years which follow the ending of the war will
see an exodus from this country which may be as great as the incoming tide
in the years of our highest immigration. Along with this exodus to Europe,
Canada will endeavor to repeople her land. Western Canada especially is
working out an agricultural and land programme. Even before the war her
provinces had removed taxes from houses and improvements and were
increasing the taxes upon vacant land, with the aim of breaking up land
speculation. And this policy will probably be largely extended after the
war is over. England, too, is developing a comprehensive land policy, and
is placing returning soldiers upon the land under conditions similar to
those provided in the Irish Land Purchase Act. It is not improbable that
the war will be followed by a breaking up of many of the great estates in
England and the settlement of many men upon the land in farm colonies, such
as have been worked out in Denmark and Germany. Even prior to the war
Germany had placed hundreds of thousands of persons upon the state-owned
farms and on private estates which had been acquired by the government for
this purpose. Over $400,000,000 has been appropriated for the purpose of
encouraging home-ownership in Germany during recent years.
All over the world, in fact, the necessity of a new governmental policy in
regard to agriculture is being recognized. Thousands of Danish agricultural
workers have been converted into home-owning farmers through the aid of the
government. To-day 90 per cent of the farmers in Denmark own their own
farms, while only 10 per cent are tenants. The government advances 90 per
cent of the cost of a farm, the farmer being required to advance only the
remaining 10 per cent. In addition, teachers and inspectors employed by the
state give instruction as to farming, marketing, and the use of coöperative
agencies, while the railroads are owned by the state and operated with an
eye to the development of agriculture. As a result of this, Denmark has
become the world's agricultural experiment-station. The immigration from
Denmark has practically ceased, as it has from other countries of Europe in
which peasant proprietorship prevails.
In my opinion, immigration to the United States will be profoundly
influenced by these big land-colonization projects of the European nations.
It may be that large numbers of men with their savings will be lured away
from the United States. As a result, agricultural produce in the United
States may be materially reduced. Even now there is a great shortage of
agricultural labor, while tenancy has been increasing at a very rapid rate.
And America may be confronted with the immediate necessity of competing
with Europe to keep people in this country. A measure is now before
Congress looking to the development of farm colonies, in which the
government will acquire large stretches of land to be sold on easy terms of
payment to would-be farmers, who are permitted to repay the initial cost in
installments covering a long period of years. Similar measures are under
discussion in California, in which State a comprehensive investigation has
been made of the subject of tenancy and the possibility of farm settlement.
Looking in the same direction are the declarations of many farmers'
organizations throughout the West for the taxing of land as a means of
ending land monopoly and land speculation. This is one of the cardinal
planks in the platform of the non-partisan organization of farmers of North
Dakota which swept the State in the last election. Every branch of the
government was captured by the farmers, whose platform declared for the
untaxing of all kinds of farm-improvements and an increase in the tax rate
on unimproved land as a means of developing the State and ending the
idle-land speculation which prevails.
If such a policy as this were adopted for the nation as a whole; if the
idle land now held out of use were opened up to settlement; if the
government were to provide ready-made farms to be paid for upon easy terms,
and if, along with this, facilities for marketing, for terminals, for
slaughter-houses, and for agencies for bringing the produce of the farms to
the markets were provided, not only would agriculture be given a fillip
which it badly needs but the congestion of our cities and the immigration
problem would be open to easy solution. Then for many generations to come
land would be available in abundance. For America could support many times
its present population if the resources of the country were opened up to
use. Germany with 67,000,000 people could be placed inside of Texas. And
Texas is but one of forty-eight States. Under such a policy the government
could direct immigration to places of profitable settlement; it could
relieve the congestion of the cities and Americanize the immigrant under
conditions similar to those which prevailed from the first landing in New
England down to the enclosure of the continent in the closing days of the
last century. For the immigration problem is and always has been an
economic problem. And back of all other conditions of national well-being
is the proper relation of the people to the land.