Chapter X:
Open Questions

We have presented a combination of opportunities as well as a complication of dangers, into the realm of public affairs, our discussion leads us not to a remedy, but to still larger questions. For we perceive that a unified public opinion, the integration of our two economic systems, the adjustment of racial relations and the manner of dealing with future immigration are not matters for the consideration of business alone. America, in respect to its immigration, has now become the center of world politics. Whatever immigration policies it adopts will affect Europe no less than European emigration policies will affect this country; and between the two countries there are irreconcilable differences which will create constantly new situations, to be adjusted.

It would, then, be folly for American business, strong as it is, to undertake alone the solution of problems, many of which are beyond its ken. The designing of a broad policy on immigration, which will deal with both our internal racial affairs and with the international aspects of immigration, is the work of no one group but of all of the people. Such a policy, while recognizing the economic questions involved, has also to consider questions of education and of public welfare and must keep in mind the fundamental principles upon which this government is founded. It is, therefore, a question whether the economic assimilation of immigration will succeed in any great measure, unless this country establishes a clearly defined policy which will have an intelligent majority public opinion behind it. For this purpose, a way should be found by which business, labor, racial groups, government and all other interests, with different points of view, can combine in a common judgment.

The formulation of a policy to meet the requirements of the new era in our immigration history is a first duty if our community is not to be divided and our councils distracted; and if suspicion is not to weaken the strength of the nation; and if understanding and good faith are to prevail among nations. Until we separate the general subject of immigration into the specific questions which are now stumbling- blocks to the adoption of such a policy, and submit them to the American public, there will be no policy which can be said to represent American opinion. Until we examine our own mode of thinking upon this subject and test our own opinions by comparison with others, we cannot hope to establish a permanent policy. To facilitate this procedure, some of the open questions involved in such an immigration policy are suggested, together with a brief indication of the way in which Americans are to- day thinking upon them.

Is America irrevocably an immigration country?

Upon the general subject of future immigration, American opinion is divided between the restrictionists and the liberal immigrationists. The passage of the literacy test, the extension for a period of one year of the war regulations concerning passports, and the mass of bills which have been submitted in favor of restriction indicate that a considerable body of Americans think that we have had enough immigration. That another group of Americans do not regard the matter in the same light is indicated by the large numbers of immigrants now being admitted, and by the ease with which regulations are either complied with or are evaded.

To secure a majority opinion one way or the other from these fairly evenly matched bodies of opinion, involves, on the one hand, a consideration of the traditions, beliefs and tendencies of the descendants of the older stock; and, upon the other hand, a consideration of the power, interests and obligations of that third of the American population which is either foreign born or who are the children of foreign born parents. The changing of the opinion of the foreign born is not an easy matter, as many of them still have their families in the old country, whom they intend to rejoin either here or abroad, or whom they are under obligations to bring to America. The question is whether the presence of so many foreign born people has already fixed our destiny as the great middle class country, made up of all the races of the world, or whether there is still time to reverse our policy and to try a new experiment.

As yet, there has appeared no clear answer which, in the one group, has been free from prejudice and class feeling or from the desire to assure the future benefits of America to their own posterity; and which, in the other group, has been free from commercial ambition, racial obligations and the desire to share American good fortune. Nowhere is there amassed the information and the facilities for the solution of the question which will assure to us the vision necessary to arrive at sound conclusions upon which we can base immediate action.

Is immigration essential to our economic development?

Upon the questions of the economic necessity for immigration, American public opinion is divided between the ambitious youth of the country who wish to see America in the foreground of economic affairs and to see it become the greatest commercial nation in the world; and those who are fearful lest the country grow too fast and thereby possibly exhaust its resources. Opinion is divided between those who see the vast unused farm lands, and those who see only the crowded cities; between employers who say they cannot maintain production without a fresh supply of immigrants, and organized labor which insists that immigrants take their jobs and lower their standard of living.

The passage of the contract labor law and of the Chinese exclusion law, the three vetoes of the literacy test, the constant raising of physical standards, and the increase of offenses for which deportation is prescribed, all bear testimony to the way in which Americans are registering their opinion upon this subject. The controversy existing among various governmental departments indicates vital differences of opinion even within the same political party. The Department of State regards future emigration as a matter of state to be governed by passport regulations; and the Department of Labor regards is as a matter of labor, to be governed by the immigration law; and the Department of Justice regards it as a matter of police regulation, to be attended to by the secret service.

To secure a public opinion, however, which will express something more than the attitude of one person or group, requires first an examination of the position of those who hold that economic needs come first. They believe that only in this way will America keep the leading position which it now occupies in production, finance, and commerce; and that this in itself will maintain sound political institutions.

It requires, second, an examination of the position of those who believe that the protection of American institutions comes first and that business is able to take care of itself. Members of this group, therefore, favor legislative control of all phases of immigration. There is, however, a third group which advocates the solution of the present problems by means of the admission of temporary labor. A powerful body of engineers is behind a movement to import Chinese labor and an experiment of this kind has already been made with the Mexicans. The advocates of this remedy for immigration problems point out that America needs workmen; that the conditions of employment vary; and that the movements of men should be extremely fluid to meet the fluctuating demands of both production and markets. They remind us that every other immigration country in the world, acting in the belief that the interests of loyalty and of commerce are not identical, separates economic necessity from citizenship requirements. They claim that the use of purely economic incentives to naturalization, such as American business is now adopting, but inject insincerity and hypocrisy into the situation, inasmuch as such motives lead immigrants who have no intention of completing their naturalization to apply for first papers in order to hold their jobs. They hold that "birds of passage" are also desirable because on their return home they will spread American ideas abroad and will help America to extend its foreign markets.

Others, however, see in this movement only an attempt to break down existing safeguards and to flood the country with cheap labor in order to lower wages; while still others are genuinely concerned about our unreadiness to handle such labor, so long as race prejudice is so prevalent, and so long as we lack facilities to protect such bodies of laborers, as they move from place to place.

Obviously, however, political exigencies rather than economic opinion will prevail, unless America first of all makes an unbiassed survey which will cover its economic resources, its means of distributing immigrants, and its powers to adjust them to its opportunities. All this will be more or less useless, unless there is a national reporting system which will keep the government constantly advised of the changing conditions of its labor market, and of the varying necessities of the immigrants whom it seeks to assimilate. Until then it is difficult to reach a decision which will have back of it a united public opinion.

Is America a necessary asylum for the foreign born?

Concerning America as a future asylum for oppressed people, opinion is divided between those who believe, irrespective of whether the immigrant is either essential or desirable, that there should be preserved the tradition that America is to be forever an asylum for oppressed people and a haven of refuge to the persecuted peoples of the world; and those who believe that the time has passed when America needs to continue so to serve the world. The latter group argues that the extension of democratic principles throughout Europe has eliminated the need; but some of its adherents go further and assert that even though the country needs alien labor, and even though some peoples may need an asylum in America, the safety of American institutions is being imperiled by the admission of those who must necessarily be affected by the unrest and spread of Bolshevism and by the growing sense of nationalism among these races whose experiences in self- government and representative government are so different from our own.

There are many who believe that there should be a valid expression of opinion on this subject rather than that America should hold itself out to be in theory what it is not in practice. They point to the "backstair methods of deportation, repression, and discrimination," which are applied to aliens after arrival. They say that "if this represents the majority opinion, then we should serve notice to all the world of the change in our point of view."

Before a decision is reached, it will add greatly to its wisdom if information is amassed concerning the prevalence of oppression and persecution among various races in Europe, concerning the effects of Bolshevist propaganda, and the tendencies of the spirit of nationalism, so that whatever position is finally taken, will be one of justice to ourselves and of good faith to the world.

Shall the basis for assimilation be Anglo-Saxon?

Opinion as to who shall be responsible for the assimilation of immigration is divided between the Americans who believe that upon the Anglo- Saxon element depends the preservation of American ideals, traditions and institutions; and the newer immigrants who believe that they can express American ideals just as well. The former favor the restriction of immigration and the passage of laws which prohibit aliens from owning land, which discriminate against them in employment, and which suppress the use of foreign languages. They believe that political leadership should go to representatives of the older immigration, and that the ownership and direction of American business should rest primarily with the native stock. There is a growing feeling among members of this group that the more recent immigrants differ from the older type of Americans so much in political and economic experience and background that neither their capacity nor desire to help in the assimilation of newcomers is to be counted upon to any great extent.

This point of view— that it is necessary to retain an unimpaired Anglo- Saxon stock in order to guarantee assimilation of immigration— is resented by others and there is a growing feeling against the domination of the Anglo- Saxon element in American affairs. It is, therefore, asserted that any immigrant, as soon as he is naturalized, is as capable of holding public office, of participating in the direction of American affairs and of interpreting America to his constituency and to the world, as are the descendants of the older stock. They voice the belief that American birth, traditions and the experience of growing up amid American institutions no more qualify a man as an American than does the immigrant's experience in his own native country. Some of them point out that their race was fighting, centuries before America was born, for the very principles of liberty and equality which America now enjoys, and that therefore America's destiny is entirely safe in their hands.

We shall probably have no final answer to this question until the contributions of the various races to American life are better known and compared; and until there is wider knowledge of the part which each race has played in establishing and maintaining principles of liberty both here and abroad. To what extent immigrants possess the leadership which qualifies them to share in Anglo- Saxon institutions, and to participate in the administration of the form of government already established in America is now a matter of opinion rather than of fact.

Shall America become a one-language country?

Upon the desirability that the immigrant learn the English language, there is well- nigh unanimity among native Americans. But we divide upon the question of whether such instruction shall be made compulsory and upon the wisdom of applying economic penalties to the immigrant workman who does not learn it. Those who favor compulsion see a barrier to assimilation in a diversity of languages and some favor deportation as a penalty for the failure to learn the English language. Those who favor economic penalties, such as the loss of work or failure of promotion in case of failure to learn the language, and economic rewards in case of compliance, apprehend a possible decrease in the labor supply and in the increased inefficiency among men who use polyglot tongues in America. They, therefore, approve of the recommendation of the Commissioner General of Immigration to register aliens and to remit in part the annual renewal fees wherever the English language is learned.

But others, while they agree upon the desirability of having all aliens learn the English language, and approve of providing facilities for this purpose, see in the movement for compulsion an infringement of constitutional rights and of treaty agreements. They think the success of such a movement will result in a form of repression which will be subversive of the best interests of America and they deplore the action already taken by some states, to limit the use of foreign languages. They point out that the expansion of business increasingly requires their use of foreign languages at home as well as abroad, and that it is hampered by the reaction of politics which tends to prohibit such free communication.

In arriving at a sound public opinion which will govern future legislation, we shall need to consider this question on broader grounds than those inspired by fear, prejudice or resentment. We shall have to consider our ability to provide such facilities as will enable aliens to learn the English language, as well as our capacity to enforce over so great a territory laws for the repression of all other languages. We shall have to ascertain in advance whether the international gains of good will and a future supply of immigration will be greater than will be the losses incurred by such action, and whether we safeguard American liberty more by encouraging free speech in all tongues than by limiting it to one.

What shall be done with the foreign language press?

Upon the subject of the necessity for the continuance of this press in American life, public opinion is divided among four groups of people. The first group would abolish it on the ground that it is unnecessary, pernicious and a distinct menace to American unity and institutions, by reason of its promotion of foreign culture, customs, traditions and ideas. They see no possibility for good in it—a conclusion to which they have been helped by the war and by the spread of Bolshevism. In support of this belief, they have encouraged the introduction of numerous bills in the states and in Congress for its abolition.

A second group believes in its regulation rather than in its suppression, on the ground that it reaches many people who do not speak English; that it has capacities for interpreting America to the immigrant; and that, in addition to being a center of opinion, it is a legitimate business organization. They believe that it should be licensed and that its utterances should be regularly supervised, and that active Americanization work should be undertaken through it; and that, further, it should be used in every possible way to advance American interests. This group includes many foreign born editors who favor some form of supervision and effort which they hope will effectively "separate the sheep from the goats," and will give the loyal and more responsible publications the standing which their editors think they deserve.

There is a third group which believes that this press should be made bilingual and that all of its most important material should be printed in the English language as well as in the language of the race. They think that this will facilitate the learning of the English language; that it will enable the American to know what is being printed; and that it will gradually decrease the necessity for the existence of this press. They also urge that Americans cooperate in its ownership and management and in the use of it as an advertising medium.

There is still another group which believes that this press is indispensable to American unity and progress, and that any attempt to regulate it in ways not applicable to the press as a whole will promote race hatreds and will be a serious infringement of the rights of free speech. They point out that in the one state where the circulation of publications in foreign languages has been suppressed, the immediate reaction has been to revive and extend race hatreds; and that a publication in the English language has appeared, presumably to take the place of the foreign language press recently suppressed, which denounces not only the use of foreign languages, but types of racial activity and thought. It is significantly destructive and not constructive in tone and temper; and includes among its attacks one upon the Red Cross Service which furnishes information to immigrants concerning government institutions and functions.

The difficulties are almost insuperable at this time of obtaining a majority public opinion upon a policy toward this press. The great body of English language newspapers, which have so large a part in forming American opinion, and a great part of the English speaking public are not in sympathy with this press, while at least a third of the population believes there is a place for it in American life. To reconcile these two points of view and their respective interests by supplanting prejudice with facts is a task of the first magnitude.

Shall American citizenship be compulsory?

The question of learning the English language through compulsion suggests another— that of requiring aliens to become citizens within a specified time or to be deported. While there is great diversity of opinion on these two questions, bills have been introduced in Congress which provide for a declaration of intention upon arrival and for a penalty of deportation after a specified number of years, if citizenship has not been acquired. Those in favor of this legislation see in "birds of passage" an increase in labor turnover, a loss in money saved through American wages, and a tendency to exploit American resources. They regard immigration, naturalization and assimilation as inseparable and point out that America has received more than 31,000,000 immigrants from Europe under this policy and has thereby enormously prospered.

Those who are opposed to such a policy favor, as an alternative, making certain improvements in the present system. They believe that there should be a longer period of residence before aliens become citizens; that the technicalities of the law, as for instance state residence which now operates as a hardship rather than as a test should be replaced by more fundamental standards; and that a thorough examination of the immigrant upon his knowledge of our form of government and institutions and upon his attitude and sympathy with them should take the place of the more or less perfunctory examinations which are now without uniformity or standards, dependent as they are upon the judge who makes such an examination. They believe that when the alien is ready for admission to citizenship the occasion should be made one of ceremony.

There are still others who oppose compulsory citizenship on the ground that immigration is purely a matter of economics. They favor the European plan of admitting temporary laborers, with the understanding that they are not to become citizens and are not to participate in any American affairs.

It would seem that compulsory citizenship is much too serious a matter for snap judgments or hasty legislation, involving, as it does, the reversal of some fundamental American policies. Moreover, it bears a vital relation to production, as such a measure would inevitably affect the flow of immigration toward America, since it runs counter to all European interests. It also involves one of the most delicate of international questions—dual citizenship—which has been under discussion for many years; an analysis and adjustment of which should, by all means, precede legislation.

What is to be the status abroad of naturalized citizens?

Upon the subject of international citizenship it is nations, and not individuals or states, which are divided among themselves. "It is," says an Italian writer, "the one subject upon which no compromise is possible because it goes to the very root of the existence of each nation." In practice, many European nations do not recognize American citizenship, but regard their immigrants and their sons born in other lands as subject to miliary training and duty when upon their soil; and as amenable to punishment and confiscation of property for failure to comply with the summons.

Aliens in America see very little advantage in acquiring a citizenship which makes them and their sons born in America liable to foreign military service; and naturalized citizens point out that in some countries little respect is paid to their American citizenship. The native born American has been indifferent and has allowed this matter to drift, largely because he has never realized its tremendous importance to the foreign born people in America and to their standing abroad.

Although the subject presents very great difficulties, yet in view of the kind of future immigration and of the complexity of our racial problems, the question cannot be longer ignored nor should its discussion in the future be permitted to lapse as it has in the past.

Shall aliens be registered?

The question of registration has been squarely raised by the activities of some aliens in America during the war. The object of registration, as given by those who propose it, is the separation of those who intend to remain aliens from those who intend to become citizens and to establish this classification by requiring a declaration of their intention upon arrival. Aliens are then to be kept under surveillance while declarants for citizenship are to be placed on probation.

Such registration is recommended in a bill suggested by the Commissioner General of Immigration in his report of 1919. It is again embodied under the guise of probation in a bill proposed by the League for Constructive Legislation. Its favorable consideration is re ported to be the substance of an address recently made by Mr. Albert Johnson, Chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Education of the House. It is favored by some of the foreign born people who see in this plan a way to relieve them of the burdens which they now carry, by reason of the American habit of indiscriminately grouping together the loyal and disloyal immigrants and the pro- American and the un-American elements.

Those who oppose registration, while they admit that we should know more about where our alien population lives and about what it is thinking and doing, insist that we should try a system of Americanization first, and should make a national effort to assimilate our immigrants. They say that the proposed registration plan will introduce into America the police system of Europe with Prussian methods which we went to war to exterminate. They point out that it is a complete reversal of the American policy of granting freedom to the immigrant after arrival. They hold that to place the members of other races on probation, and thus under suspicion, will offend European countries and will affect the flow of immigration in our direction. They fear that it will increase the strain already existing between the old and the new worlds.

There is perhaps more sentiment involved in the discussion of this question than in any other; and, therefore, both sides are taking a strong position which indicates that there will be a bitter fight on any bill which embodies such provisions. It is a question upon which a referendum will in all probability be taken to public opinion. It embodies a principle, so new to America and so fraught with national difficulties that the most impartial and exhaustive study of its probable effect upon American institutions, upon the foreign born in America and upon our international relations should precede final action—whether for acceptance or rejection.

Shall the status of aliens be fixed solely by national laws?

Nation and states are in disagreement upon the question of the rights of aliens. The nation, with its power to make treaties and to govern naturalization and immigration, assumes one position; but the states, with a multiplicity of local regulations which they have passed discriminating against the aliens, apparently assume another position. Fourteen states prohibit aliens from owning land while the others permit it; other states limit the kind of employment in which an alien may engage.

While many Americans appreciate the delicate questions raised by these contradictions between international guarantees and the regulations in force in the various states, they also sympathize with the state leaders who are reluctant to abolish regulations which they believe are necessary to safeguard the homes, occupations and other interests of native Americans, and who contend that the Federal government is too remote, too slow and too indifferent to appreciate the local difficulties caused by the presence of aliens.

It may be said that majority opinion supports the national position, which is that it alone has jurisdiction over aliens. But, if so, it has apparently not registered that opinion in an authoritative way, for the alien is still perplexed and handicapped by a number of petty regulations which exist in some states and towns but not in others and which are a source of endless misunderstanding and friction between native and foreign born residents.

Shall America adopt a national system of assimilation?

Upon the question of making more adequate provision for the assimilation of immigration, there is little divergence of opinion, for America, through its laws and institutions, has already expressed its belief that immigrants can and should be assimilated. Its policy of admitting large numbers of immigrants which it considers assimilable, and of excluding others concerning whom it is in doubt, leaves no question at to the American attitude.

But the country is very far from having a generally accepted definition of assimilation and from the adoption of methods to carry out its policies; and it is upon such definitions and methods that the differences of opinion arise. When the Division of Information was organized a number of years ago, it was heralded as the beginning of such a system, but it received little cooperation from racial organizations. Likewise, when the Federal Employment Bureau was inaugurated it was believed that it would accomplish the same end, but it received little support from business. When the Smith- Bankhead bill was introduced to provide for the reduction of illiteracy and for the teaching of the English language, it was regarded as an all inclusive measure, but it was defeated by partisan political interests. The Commissioner General of Immigration also undertook to provide for assimilation in his proposed bill; and the Welty Bill, which is the last word Congress has had on the subject of assimilation, before the national election of 1920, covers it more specifically, as well as more broadly, under a Board of Immigration, which aims to protect the immigrant after arrival.

Those in favor of a national assimilation measure say that these are but half- hearted and ineffectual attempts to deal with a situation which is but little understood, and that none of them provides for an inclusive system which will assure both political and economic assimilation. In reply, the advocates of these various measures say that the only way to obtain such a system is to build it up piecemeal by such efforts as they are putting forth, since no ideal plan can be either conceived or adopted in a situation which cannot be immediately controlled in all of its relations, largely because we lack the necessary data and experience.

The proposed measures, however, have other opponents, who, though in sympathy with their aims, are mostly Federal officials who fear that any coordination of government activities into a system will interfere with their individual powers and prerogatives. They think such coordination will hamper, both their responsibility and their initiative, and they doubt whether the motives behind some of the measures which have been proposed are as disinterested as they appear.

It is extraordinary that there is so little public interest taken in the success or failure of assimilation and in measures to promote it, since in the last analysis it will determine both the volume and kind of future immigration. Its inadequacy explains the existence of many of the repressive measures now under consideration as it is also the occasion for much of the racial resentment now prevalent in America; yet, as those interested in the subject point out, it commands less of American constructive thought and action than does any other phase of immigration, and it is the one concerning which public opinion is least informed and the most voluble.

Shall immigration be dealt with abroad?

Opinion on this subject is divided between the "stay-at-homes," who see danger in conferring power upon officials abroad; and those who believe that at present we are receiving only such immigrants as Europe chooses to send, without being in touch with either the motives or causes for this selection. They believe that additional light on this subject will be secured by the recent visit to Europe of the Commissioner General of Immigration.

Those who oppose the establishment of immigration officers abroad point out if inspectors are appointed to serve abroad, that the rejected alien will have no appeal and that the difficulties of such a long range method of control will hardly prevent maladministration. Those who favor it contend that it will reduce the hardships to the immigrant and will establish a fairer basis for the selection of immigration. There seem to be but few differences of opinion as to the gravity of the questions which will be involved in the extension of American powers abroad, but so far no one has sought to secure an expression of public opinion upon any phase of them or to take the lead in the initiation of such measures.

Shall the troubles of Europe be settled in America?

The question of whether the immigrant will bring the troubles of Europe with him for his race to solve in America has been brought to the fore by the war, and has been aggravated by the course of affairs in Europe since the war has ended.

There are many who view with some alarm the existing racial solidarities in America and the arrival of new immigrants. They ask whether they will bring with them the racial hatreds of Europe, and whether they will come already committed to work for this party or that one in Europe. They also inquire whether in the transfer of factional difference, existing among the races abroad, and in the stimulation by these newly arrived immigrants of political activities on foreign affairs, the immigrant in America will not create miniature political republics which are a replica of those abroad. And if so, they further ask what will the effect be upon the one great Republic from which they derive their support. They reflect much of the caution which Hamilton urged in the early days of the Constitution, when he said:

"In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to discordant mixture must have an injurious tendency. The United States has already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will always be a numerous body of men of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation; but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."

These inquirers cannot see how America is to be kept free of international entanglements if a large section of its population through its own subterranean channels is assuming the direction of affairs in Europe. They foresee the time when there will be a division of opinion upon the attitude to be taken by the country as a whole.

But there are many others who see an infringement upon American liberty in the limitations of the powers of such organizations. To them, the discussion of international affairs by foreign language groups, with intent to circulate propaganda in favor of one party or the other in the home country, is a lesser evil, compared to the greater danger of restricting the freedom of expression in America. They see little harm in meetings which are called to denounce or to promote foreign governments regardless of whether these governments are free or oppressive, or whether they are monarchies or democracies. They see no harm in permitting publications in foreign languages to be published in America which take a stronger position on foreign political events than they do upon American political events. They believe that organizations should be free to raise money for any purpose which they see fit, to be used abroad; that they should forward resolutions expressing their opinion on the affairs of their native country; that they should send delegates, if need be, to deliberate in assemblies abroad which are dealing with native country affairs.

Upon a subject of such vital importance no general public opinion has as yet been formed. Both those who emphasize and those who minimize the dangers realize that before official action is taken a thoroughgoing analysis should be made of this new political situation, with a view to informing the country and receiving the benefit of its mature judgment.

$$$$

If these are the fundamental questions to be determined in the adoption of a national policy and if most Americans agree that they are as yet unanswered by a majority public opinion, as expressed in American law, procedure or customs where and how shall we seek the answers? If business alone takes the lead, it may be accused of having the motive of self- interest. If government alone takes the lead, it may be accused of having the motive of partisan politics. If the public alone takes the lead, its findings may be ignored as the work of "uplifters." For these reasons, there are many who believe that the question of immigration is one upon which business, government and the public should cooperate in seeking a solution. They question the wisdom of pursuing a plan whereby laws passed at the instance of one group are evaded by other groups; whereby policies announced by the government or by business, are disparaged by those not responsible for them; and whereby official information, when published, is charged with being propaganda. They decry the spread of propaganda to influence legislation which plays upon the temporary fears of men whether it be through Bolshevism or through allegations that foreign governments are "dumping radicals or criminals upon our shores."

To avoid these dangers, we require first of all, an enormous amount of data from both American and foreign sources. Before a practical use can be made of such data, we need to have it tested, analyzed, compared and supplemented by an impartial and thoroughly trustworthy body of men, in order that it shall be free from any taint of propaganda or from any suggestion of control by special interests. There appears at the present time to be no organized body of men who can undertake this work, for such bodies as exist are either a part of other organizations which could not do otherwise than make this subject the tail to their larger kite; or they are committed to methods and policies which do not leave them free to give an unbiased judgment.

But there are students of both national and international affairs whose services could be combined in an institute of immigration research which would serve this purpose at home. Its immediate creation is important for there already exists in Washington an immense amount of valuable information concerning the foreign born in America, the significance of which few now in charge of it are equipped to use. Such governmental organizations as the War Loan Organization of the Treasury Department, the Committee on Public Information, the Council of National Defense, the various extensions of the War Department, the Bureau of Naturalization, the war. Bureaus of the Department of Labor, the Alien Property Custodian, the Bureau of Education and the Secret Services of various departments have collected a vast amount of information which, if put at the disposal of such a body, would be of inestimable value in helping the country to formulate a sound immigration policy. Furthermore, its preservation for future use is a matter of prime importance because the great sums expended to secure it are not likely to be duplicated. An effort should therefore be made at an early time to classify this information and to bring it up to date.

During the war some of these various governmental divisions established connections with foreign born people and their institutions, which brought about a feeling of cordiality and good will between them and the government. To permit these to- lapse is for the American government to lose official touch with much of the racial life and expression in the country, and thus lose a connection which the war has made possible. For this reason a resumption of conferences with these racial groups is highly important.

To- day, with all of this information available—but unassembled and unanalyzed—America is at a disadvantage, not only in dealing with its own racial affairs, but in handling its international problems inasmuch as European countries are much better informed than is America regarding their nationals in this country.

Of equal importance is the necessity to submit this information, when gathered and analyzed, to the people whose opinion must finally prevail. While the publication of data and the formulation of policies are important, there are many who believe that before America makes. up its mind about immigration American public opinion would be greatly benefited if there were more deliberation upon a smaller body of data; more discussion of fundamental principles, and more frequent conferences held at which more free opinion was expressed in sustained debate.

American public opinion, owing to the distribution of its various racial problems throughout the country, differs very much according to locality, and, therefore, to obtain the judgment of one section is not necessarily to obtain the judgment of all sections. The South, with an intensive race problem of its own, bases its attitude toward all race problems upon this experience. The far West, with Oriental and Mexican border problems of immigration, reaches its conclusions through its experience with them. The middle West, with its older immigration and fewer intensive industrial demands, inclines to be less cordial to the new immigration; while the East is the home of both the liberal immigrationist and the restrictionist. But the experience and judgment of all of these sections are the substance of American public opinion and only conferences held in each section of the country, in which identical questions are discussed and findings are compared, can hope to reveal upon what points no unity is possible, or to secure upon such points as are susceptible of general agreement a majority public opinion.

Through such conferences the government should find a way to avail itself of the intelligence and resources of all of its people on the subject of immigration. Other countries have Emigration Councils, which discuss policies and give due deliberation to new proposals. Any policy which is adopted will affect the foreign born of thirty- two racial groups in different ways. If there were a council composed of both native born and naturalized American citizens who could bring to such a discussion not only the point of view of the native born, but also the experience, judgment and point of view of each of the racial groups in America, its opinion would carry weight and we would obtain a high level of competence.

The knowledge gained by such a series of conferences needs to be supplemented by international conferences so as to collate similar knowledge and points of view possessed by foreign countries. America has in process of organization for such purposes an American Institute of International Affairs. This Institute, in cooperation with similar Institutes abroad, might well be asked to undertake this work. The purpose of these Institutes is to widen association, but not authority; to bring men into consultation, without attaching responsibility; to analyze information, but not to apply its findings; to separate information from propaganda; and to publish the results of their deliberations. These Institutes could do these things as well for immigration as for other international matters.

But it is important to diffuse this knowledge gained through international conferences among the various sections of the country and for this are needed exchange scholarships to acquaint leaders in one country with leaders of another country. Not less necessary are courses for the training of representatives in foreign affairs, and the exchange of missions between countries which should be extended on a considerable scale.

This necessity for the exchange of knowledge also suggests the need of a more formal statement of the result of such deliberations and of the diffusion of accurate information concerning the immigration activities of each country. This will in turn doubtless necessitate the establishment of international publications which would be the joint contribution of the various nations. The possibilities of this are illustrated by the work now being done by a periodical of the character of the Economic Review. This is an admirable digest of such information, and with a few additions to include American data, would be of immense value to business men, who now have to rely upon a few organizations, like the Bankers Trust Company and the Guaranty Trust Company, in order to secure necessary information about industrial as well as trade conditions abroad.

The Peace Conference taught us the futility of having information possessed by only a few men, and of international conferences in which only a few minds participated. On a subject of such vast importance as immigration we need to distribute information and to multiply discussions throughout America, as well as to bring together American and foreign statesmen, scholars, publicists, engineers, jurists, bankers and industrial men.

It is to be hoped that if America concludes that such a necessity for information and analysis exists, that it will follow some such plan as has been indicated, and to a degree at least avoid the mistakes of the past where ponderous commissions have been appointed to hold hearings, the net results of which have been reams of opinions but few facts. The work of such commissions has usually been temporary and has depended upon ephemeral public interest or has continued until their appropriations were exhausted. It is not an investigation commission that is needed but the assembling of a permanent, non- partisan body of scientific minds, whose business it will be to function every week in the year, to gather facts as needed, to pursue routine studies, to test and to analyze propositions and to form a center to which public opinion, perplexed on any phase of the subject, can turn for enlightenment. Until then, we shall perhaps blunder along, following this prejudice or that whim, and this theory or that argument.

But there are other questions which involve immigration and unless the same quality and range of discussion is to prevail among them, immigration problems cannot be dealt with in the way indicated. Among these is the question of industrial relations which bears so vital a relation to the flow of immigration. It is, therefore, necessary that each trade organization throughout the country should not only have its immigration committee to keep its members constantly advised concerning immigration affairs, but also that steps should be taken to reach agreements upon methods of industrial management and manpower problems. In this way government, business, and the public interest would be united in a way to insure a speedy answer to the open questions which have been suggested, and thus insure a sound basis for any policies which were adopted.