Chapter I:
A New Epoch of Immigration
Does America want new immigration? This question is uppermost in the minds of Americans as they read about conditions in Europe, and about the crowds at Ellis Island; for they remember the revelations of the war, and the recent propaganda of Bolshevism in America. This question existed long before the war, though the present manner of thinking upon it is new.
Does Europe intend to favor America in the direction of its future emigration? This question is uppermost in the minds of Europeans as they read about the exploitation of immigrants in America, and the tendency to suppress languages and to compel immigrants to become citizens; for they remember that their nationals did not return during the war as was expected. This question is new in Europe, though the manner of thinking upon it is old.
And what of the immigrant? Hitherto a traveler, of his own free will, answering to the call within him of adventure, of freedom, or of conquest,—does he now become a pawn in the great commercial contest between nations for economic stabilization and expansion?
These absorbing questions involve grave matters of policy in which all countries are deeply concerned. Europe, having in mind its own best interests, inquires under what conditions emigration will take place, who will be permitted to emigrate, and where emigrants will go. She wonders, not a little, what part the complex and delicate race questions, now pressing for recognition, will have upon her future emigration policies. America, having in view its future welfare, asks whether, along with immigration, the racial troubles of Europe will be transferred to its soil, and wonders what measures of freedom it should accord to future aliens.
While answers to these questions naturally wait upon the solution of the more immediate problems of reconstruction, the individual immigrant, on the one hand, is taking the future into his own hands, and is trying to escape from the results of the war in Europe; while, on the other hand, the individual American is indifferent to the future, and is content with conditions which obtained before the war. This situation is likely to continue until the relationship of America to the Treaty of Peace, and to the League of Nations, is finally determined; and it may extend to the time when economic stabilization and peace are restored among the various nations.
But there are evidences which indicate that the day of the unregulated flow of immigration is passing, and that its conscious utilization, as an element in the economic expansion of nations, is approaching. Therefore, any nation which continues to regard immigration solely as a matter of the individual immigrant's desire or initiative, or which continues to consider it only as a source of labor supply, is but dealing with conditions of a temporary period between the military conquests of the past and the economic conquests of the future. Those who do not see beyond the crowded entrance of Ellis Island comprehend but little of the new forces which have been released by the war, and of the necessities and opportunities existing in Europe; all of which are changing the attitude of the world toward immigration.
Is America, as is Europe, seeing beyond the immediate present? Do the graver questions of state occupy its thought? To answer these questions further inquiries must be made because it is evident that there are in this country two distinct trends of thought; trends so distinct as to constitute rival schools.
Before the war, Americans who thought at all about immigration were divided into restrictionists or anti- restrictionists. But there was also a vast body of people who had not made up its mind one way or the other, but which has now begun to think and to act. This group is largely responsible for the immigration bills introduced in Congress during the period of the armistice. These bills clearly indicate a growing belief that a sound immigration policy must embrace much more than provisions for the admission, rejection, or deportation of aliens.
In this belief, one part of this newly defined group is influenced by the great service which has been rendered to American progress by the 31,000,000 people who, in the past century, have been contributed by Europe. They believe that this constitutes a debt which Americans wish neither to belittle nor to deny. In the sincerity of this acknowledgment they are inclined also to believe that there is a place for countless other millions who will help to make this an even greater country. To them, the industrial advantages of immigration overshadow every other consideration.
There are others who, in view of recent revelations concerning the growth of the spirit of nationalism and of the pressing economic necessities of Europe, believe that American and European interests will inevitably come into sharp conflict over immigration. To them the safety of American institutions is the first consideration.
These two schools of thought— the one relying upon the benefits of the past for the key to future action, the other relying upon the revelations of the war as a guide— indicate that the world is entering upon a new era in its immigration history. It is likely to be one in which America will no longer be needed as an asylum for oppressed peoples. It is one in which we may witness the negotiation of immigration treaties that will succeed the present order of haphazard migrations where the individual immigrant alone bears the burden. This new era may well be one in which nations in the future will share these burdens through agreements covering the transportation, distribution, protection, and living conditions of immigrants in countries of immigration. Such agreements will be hardly less important than are the prevailing commercial treaties.
Students of international affairs see little hope for the successful maintenance of any policy which does not recognize that the adult immigrant is an international person and an important pawn in the future contest among nations for economic supremacy. Such students point out that conditions and influences which surround the immigrant before he leaves his home land will continue to affect him as powerfully as do those which environ him in America. The adult immigrant, even if he would, can scarcely be without ties and interests in both countries. America, of all great immigration countries, alone, seems to have discounted the fact that the immigrant is the product of his heredity as well as of his new environment, and is thus the mutual possession of two nations; and that, while his duty may be to the one, his sentiment may be with the other.
It requires no sacrifice of American pride or of independence to perceive that the immigrant cannot be separated from the habits, tastes, tendencies and remembrances of his home land. There will be little disagreement upon the principle that America, unaided, must decide who and how many shall enter, and who shall be permitted to remain. But, at the same time, it must also be admitted that the country of origin has a similar right to say who and how many shall leave, and what countries will be favored in the distribution of its emigrants.
Without conceding one iota of America's right to determine its own policies and to conduct its own affairs, it will readily be apparent that there are many delicate questions to be discussed and many complicated situations to be adjusted in order that this international personality, during the period of his migration, may not be made to pay too heavy a price. Some inkling of this complex situation may have been in the minds of the American statesmen who objected to Article XXIII in the draft of the League of Nations, on the grounds that it would permit interference with local affairs. It may have been also in the minds of those who secured the passage of an amendment to the Immigration Law, which authorized the President to call an international conference on immigration.
These statesmen showed both vision and courage, for to- day Europe and America regard the question of immigration in different ways. America looks squarely in the direction of the assimilation of races. Europe looks as squarely in the direction of the separation of races. America urges every desirable immigrant to become a citizen. European nations urge every emigrant to remain loyal to his home country. The needs of America to safeguard its wealth and to unite its many peoples make its attitude but one of self- preservation. The needs of Europe for money, for markets, and for man power to stabilize economic conditions, and to protect the rights and boundaries of each nation against future aggression, make the attitude of the various foreign nations but one of ordinary prudence.
Europe, disillusioned by the war concerning the resources and ambitions of America, is naturally averse, without exacting compensation, to help make this country become more powerful. Each emigrant nation, with relation to its emigrants, is, therefore, more jealous of their citizenship, more concerned with the remittances of their savings, more interested in their temporary if not permanent return home, more sensitive to their value as propagandists for the home country, and more sagacious in placing them abroad as economic outposts. The emigrant, carefully planted in a new country, or directed to a destination where he will reflect the most credit and bring the most profit to his home country, and carefully watched during his stay in the new land, thus creates a situation whereby the subject of immigration must become a matter of international conference.
That Americans are not more conscious of these vital, and as yet unsettled, international issues is due to the fact that, on the American side, they are obscured by the present rush of immigration; and, on the European side, they are submerged by the publicity which is given to more momentous affairs. In Europe, such matters as the creation of new states, the experiment of the Soviet government, the attempted taking over by workmen of the Italian factories, the disputes over boundaries, and the economic hardships of the people—these hold public attention. Because the American is so far removed from European affairs, he does not realize that the way in which even these priority questions are settled will have a mighty influence, not only upon the character of emigration from Europe, but upon its volume and direction; nor does he generally appreciate how these questions will affect the rate and cost of production and the prices of goods and markets in America; for he is disinclined to admit that America has any economic dependence whatever upon Europe.
Other questions have arisen which relate to matters wholly within our own boundaries. Now that the war is over, we are discovering that, while it has cemented many new friendships among races, and has promoted cooperation between some native and foreign born Americans, it has just as definitely created new racial antagonisms and brought about new misunderstandings between individuals. The American, influenced as he is by the spread of Bolshevism and by the prevalence of unrest, as well as by some spectacular evidences of disloyalty among some aliens during the war, leans more and more toward repression and intolerance of differences. The immigrant is sensitive to this change and, as he is constantly receiving messages from abroad urging him to return home, he is becoming less friendly toward America. For this reason, assimilation measures, which might have been undertaken with ease and success before the war, now yield but little result, even with greater efforts.
One would expect that the greatest immigration country in the world would be keenly alive to these difficulties between races in America, between native and foreign born, and between nations of emigration and immigration. But not so. Even so visible a result of these difficulties as the remigration of American immigrants has not aroused our curiosity. In the two years since the armistice was signed hundreds of thousands of immigrants have returned to their native countries, and we have scarcely inquired into the causes of this exodus. In the press of other affairs we have said: "Oh, let them go, there are others"; while European countries, on the contrary, have welcomed them as important factors in their own reconstruction and future expansion. America has seen in this increase of remigration only the temporary loss of labor; Europe has seen in it an economic asset.
This assumption by Americans that immigration is important only as a source of labor, is typical of some of the habits of mind into which we have fallen and which delay our appreciation of the significance of larger events. It is this which has led us to judge immigration so exclusively by a quantitative test.
When Ellis Island is crowded, our apprehensions arise; when it is deserted, our confidence is restored; and the million or more immigrants who entered during a heavy period of immigration, are cheerfully forgotten. In like manner we assume that assimilation is satisfactorily progressing when the number of immigrants who are convicted is low, or when the number who become public charges is small; or, again, when the number who attend English classes or who apply for naturalization papers is large. So, too, we regard it as a good sign when the ratio between the arrivals and deportations is low, and when the arrivals exceed the departures.
These statistical tests, upon which Americans have so faithfully relied in the past, have failed altogether to indicate such subtle forces at work among immigrants as, for example, the persistence of racial characteristics and the control by foreign governments of their own emigrants. In this country an optimistic interpretation of statistics has obscured the significance of the growth of racial solidarities, of the increasing power of the foreign language press, and of the ever increasing influence of racial leaders. At the same time the influence in America of public opinion from the old world on the life of the immigrant has often to Americans seemed trivial or amusing. Isolated as we are from the foreign born groups we are likely to assume that they, like ourselves, are immune from foreign influences.
When evidences of these influences come to an American, he is more likely to dismiss or to resent them than he is to seek to understand them; he is more apt to condemn the foreign born than he is to examine into the causes that mold their thoughts and actions in this country. Indignation rather than curiosity is aroused when the average American is told, for instance, that there are sections in America where the third generation of foreign born has not learned to speak the English language; or that a Turkish colony, with its old world customs and manners of living, is established in one of the oldest and most conservative of New England towns; or that to- day a town in a state that Charles the Second gave to William Penn, is inhabited wholly by Sicilians who have their own mayor, chief of police, postmaster, school teacher, and political leaders; or again, that a fourth generation of native born Germans of native stock favor the fatherland in preference to America.
Another assumption by Americans is that immigration cannot be discussed in an impartial manner. Whoever approaches the subject in such a spirit and from a scientific standpoint is regarded at once as having ulterior motives. He must be prepared to meet the accusation that he is serving the cause of capital or of labor; or that he is "socializing labor"; or that he is "shackling labor with the chains of capital." Such a one cannot escape from the reproach that he is, at least, trying to subsidize the press, or that he is playing politics. Indeed, if his research is very thorough, the probability is that he will be charged with all of these offenses. The idea is generally scouted that Americans are capable of discussing disinterestedly the question of immigration in its national and international aspects. To the mind of the average American, the query "are you for or against immigration?" is equivalent to, "are you for or against organized labor?"
This state of American public opinion has now come to influence the freedom of discussion. Official investigators and public officials who are charged with the duty of supplying the public with the full facts on immigration have submitted to this narrowness of view. An evidence of this was shown in 1909 when the Federal Immigration Commission decided to exclude certain subjects as likely to lead to political controversy. From a like motive, the Director of Americanization of the United States Bureau of Education, at the opening of its conference on Americanization, in 1919, and in the hearing of officials from other departments, announced that the subjects of immigration, emigration, and naturalization should be avoided as they were not within the jurisdiction of the Bureau. So accustomed have Americans become to this kind of dictation that even this action seems to have aroused little comment among the hundreds assembled.
On occasions we have been known to penalize violations of this established precedent. In April, 1920, The Interracial Council called a conference to which were invited representatives of industry, agriculture, commerce, labor, and races to discuss a national immigration policy. Out of sixteen recommendations, but one aroused public discussion, and that was a recommendation to abolish the literacy test. Although the findings of the conference did not express the action of the directors and members of The Inter- racial Council, the assumption immediately was made that the repeal of the literacy test was the sole object of the meeting, and, because of this false assumption, two of the labor members of the Council resigned.
In view of this attitude of mind, there are many who believe that the first task before Americans is to free immigration from class controversy and its discussion from the suspicion of ulterior motives. They see the necessity of lifting it from the plane of partisan politics to that of practical affairs. Otherwise, they point out, we shall continue to be the victims of international, as well as of local propaganda; and we shall, in addition, be unable to collect the necessary scientific data. They insist that we will not, therefore, be in a position to deal intelligently with the changing conditions, and with the new proposals which will be laid before us. They assert that, prior to the adoption of any policies to fit the new epoch, we need to establish a source of public opinion which will be free from bias or control by any one interest, and which will serve to create standards upon the subject and give the authority for them.
In the meantime, immigrants come and go and the difficulties multiply. While it would seem that Congress acted wisely in postponing action upon the many proposals submitted, we should not, in the absence of a united public opinion, pursue a policy of inaction simply because it does not seem wise to erect ideal barriers against immigration or to throw down inferior safeguards. There is danger in continued delay, even though it is true that in our puzzled state of speculation one guess is as good as another; that any conclusions by experts upon the interpretation of the statistics upon the volume of immigration can be proved or disproved; and that a policy adopted today may have to be rejected to- morrow. The danger increases every hour in which propaganda is substituted for information.
Meanwhile, through scientific study, other countries are assembling information. They are submitting their findings to dispassionate analysis. They are meeting in conventions and perfecting agreements. They are formulating domestic policies to stimulate, to divert, or to retard immigration. Thus, they are arriving at sound conclusions which eventually will give them a sound policy. The men who direct the broad fiscal and commercial policies of these countries, and who direct their foreign affairs are the men who deal with immigration policies.
Few will contend that we in America are following a similar course. No such study or analysis of the immigration question is being made, nor are we formulating sound policies, arrived at by similar methods. Neither are the minds that direct the fiscal and commercial policies of America at work on immigration questions and policies. On the contrary, not one of the best constructive business minds of this country has ever been applied to the subject and the men who have added power and prestige to America have given little more than a passing thought to the foreign born people who have contributed so much to the success of their undertakings. How else are we to keep pace with Europe than by developing in this country a group of men whose word and judgment on immigration will be trusted as readily and deservedly as is the word and judgment of other groups upon finance and commerce?
Though no country possesses more material upon immigration than does America, never has public opinion in this country had to grope so much in the dark. Government departments have acquired more than enough information to guide this country aright if it were assembled, analyzed, and made available to men who understand its significance. Its departments are filled with data which indicate that unless we can make use of them, we cannot understand the responsibilities which the millions of immigrants of America have created. So well is this fact recognized abroad that the solution of the problem of racial assimilation is regarded as the one great contribution which America is under obligation to make to world history. America has had more than a century of experience with all of the races of the world; and because of this there are those who believe that, had she but mastered the knowledge that naturally should come from such an experience, and had her racial experience been more articulate, the results at Paris might have been different. Far from being enlightened at the Peace Conference by America's knowledge of racial assimilation, European statesmen are still seeking for principles to guide them in their future policies. They are eagerly watching America with a view of profiting by its experiment. They say, quite frankly, that if America fails, no other country can succeed in the assimilation of immigration. The success of America, therefore, is of immense importance, not only to itself but to the world.
In the meantime, America marks time while the governments of Europe are making their own plans independently of this country. They are regarding the immigrant, not so much as a free individual but as one whose ambitions, hopes, possibilities and progress will keep him united to his home government. They seek to tie him to his native land, not less by economic than by political bonds. They conceive the task broadly and profoundly, and the American government must think, act, and plan, not less broadly or less profoundly. For, great as is its wealth and power, numerous as are its opportunities in the field of immigration, America is yet but one competitor among many.
As we look back, there is something magnificent in the way in which America has flung open its doors to the oppressed of all lands. As we look forward, there is something noble in the conception of a great embracing policy which, while intelligently providing for the welfare of the nation, will also insure to every immigrant from the time he leaves the land of his birth until he returns to it, or elects to stay with us, respect, justice and fair play.