It may be worth while to note some of the general causes which lead to pauperism among the foreign-born. (1) Lack of intelligence. This is sometimes represented by figures of illiteracy. This is hardly a fair basis of judgment, however, as illiteracy may be often the result of poor opportunity, rather than of low intelligence. Nevertheless it is true that the average immigrant of the present generation is probably inferior to the average native workingman, and hence is handicapped in the competition with him. (2) Lack of industrial training. Most of the immigrants have had no training in their home countries to fit them for higher industrial pursuits, and many of those who have, find that it is not adapted to American conditions. (3) Lack of foresight. This must not be generally asserted of the immigrant class, for undoubtedly a large proportion of them are well equipped with an appreciation of the future. Yet in many cases, the ease with which a comparatively comfortable living may be secured in the first years of residence, and the apparently inexhaustible riches of the United States, combine to make the alien neglectful of a future period of dearth. (4) Large families. The birth rate of the foreign-born is a high one, and a large number of young children is always a predisposing cause of pauperism in a struggling family. In this connection some significant figures are furnished by the investigation of the charity organization cases, made by the Immigration Commission, and already referred to. Of all the foreign-born male persons, aided by these societies, who were twenty years of age or over, 81.5 per cent were married, 5 per cent deserted, separated, or widowed, and only 13.5 per cent single. Of the females, 62.3 per cent were married, 33.9 per cent deserted, separated, or widowed, and only 3.8 per cent single. When we remember how much the single men outnumber the married men in the general population of the foreign-born above twenty years of age, we see that if the time ever comes when immigration becomes more of a family matter than at present—in many ways a condition much to be desired—it must inevitably bring with it a tremendous increase in the amount of foreign-born pauperism. (5) Money sent home. If the situation of the immigrant was such that these large sums could be retained in this country, as a reserve fund against future want, his liability to pauperism would be much diminished. This, of course, cannot be expected, since much of this money is sent back to meet obligations which no one would wish the immigrant to evade. In cases where it is sent back to support a family, it is doubtless a more economical arrangement than if the wife and children were maintained in the United States. (6) Low wages, and the maladjustment between the supply of labor and the demand. Enough has already been said to establish this as a fundamental condition, and it is the proximate cause of pauperism in the majority of cases. The attempt to analyze and classify the causes of pauperism is unsatisfactory at best; yet a certain amount of light may be shed on the subject in this way if carefully done. The Immigration Commission’s Report on Immigrants as Charity Seekers assigns the cases studied to certain general causes in the following proportions:
| PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES ASSIGNABLE TO THE SPECIFIED CAUSES | |
|---|---|
| Cause | Per Cent |
| Lack of employment or insufficient earnings | 59.0 |
| Death or disability of breadwinner | 28.7 |
| Death or disability of another | 18.9 |
| Neglect or bad habits of breadwinner | 18.7 |
| Old age | 6.2 |
| Other causes | 10.0[[294]] |
[294]. The total of per cents adds up to more than 100 as more than one cause is often reported for the same case.
There is no great difference in the proportions of the different causes in the different general groups. It may be significant to note that the per cent of cases due to the neglect or bad habits of the breadwinner is a little larger for the native-born white of native father than for the foreign-born, and larger for the native-born white of foreign father than for either. If we take persons instead of cases, the showing of the native-born of foreign father is even worse. The relatively small number of cases due to this cause—the only one which may be charged directly to the “fault” of the breadwinner—indicates that the difficulty lies rather with the industrial system of the United States than with the culpability of the individual.
That assimilation, in so far as it is represented by ability to speak English, will not remedy the situation is indicated by some suggestive figures given in the report on Charity Seekers above quoted. It is shown (p. 70) that of the total number of persons assisted, six years of age or over, belonging to non-English speaking races, 76.3 per cent were able to speak English. Now in the report on Manufactures and Mining it appears that only 53.2 per cent of the foreign-born employees studied, belonging to non-English speaking races, could speak English. That is, the percentage of dependents, who are so far “assimilated” as to be able to speak English, is much greater than the percentage of those who are at work, in spite of the fact that the former class includes younger children than the latter. This harmonizes with the fact already demonstrated, that dependent foreigners have been in this country much longer than the average of their group. It also lends color to the suggestion made by a charity worker, that one reason why the newer immigrants do not appear in larger numbers on the books of philanthropic organizations is that they are not yet “on to the ropes,” and that as they become familiarized with American methods, they will seek relief in increasing numbers.
The subject of crime is customarily linked with that of pauperism in the discussions of immigration, and the same claim is frequently made, viz. that immigration has increased the amount of crime in this country. The attempts at proof of this assertion generally follow the same method adopted in the case of pauperism, that is, they consist in an examination of the relative tendency toward criminality of the general groups of native-born and foreign-born. In other words, the line of argument is, if the foreign-born manifest a larger proportion of criminals among their number than do the native-born, all increases in the foreign-born population will mean a more than proportional increase in crime for the country as a whole. There is, however, another way in which immigration might operate to increase crime. That is, by interfering with the natural adjustment of economic relations between different classes, it may so alter the condition of the native-born as to lead to an increase in crime in this class. For instance, it has been claimed that a large proportion of the “hobo” class (who are, to be sure, not necessarily criminal) are native Americans who have been forced out of employment by foreign competition. In a similar way, other individuals may have been driven into active crime. This proposition, whatever the incidental evidence for or against it, is manifestly incapable of statistical proof, and for any semi-mathematical demonstration we must rely on the other method of approach.
In the matter of crime the effort to make generalizations is complicated by the fact that it is necessary to take into account, not only the number of crimes, but the nature and severity of the criminal act. Tests of criminality, to be accurate, should include quality as well as quantity. This is obviously very difficult to do. We are accustomed in everyday phraseology to speak of one crime as being worse than another. Presumably crimes against the person are more serious than crimes against property. In the case of crimes against property, we might naturally consider it “worse” to steal $1000 than $5, but it would not necessarily be so.
These conditions frequently result in an injustice to the immigrant. The police and court records of our great cities show an amazing proportion of crimes chargeable to the foreign population. For instance, out of 71,253 persons held for trial or summarily tried and convicted in the Magistrates’ Courts of New York City in 1907, only 30,261, or considerably less than half, were born in the United States. But when these records are studied more closely it becomes apparent that a large share of the offenses of the foreign-born are violations of the city ordinances,—offenses which are comparatively trivial in themselves do not indicate any special tendency toward criminality, and are in many cases intimately associated with a low station in life. The moral character of alien groups may in this way be seriously misrepresented.
Nevertheless, if comparisons are to be made at all, they must rest upon such records as these, and such allowances as are possible be made afterwards. Figures of this kind are available in the publications of the Census Bureau, the Commissioner General of Immigration, and the Immigration Commission. In the census report on Prisoners we find that of the prisoners enumerated in the United States on June 30, 1904, 76.83 per cent were native-born, and 23.7 per cent foreign-born. In the general white population, ten years of age or over, in 1900, 80.5 per cent were native-born and 19.5 per cent foreign-born. If a due allowance is made for a disproportionate growth of the foreign-born population between 1900 and 1904, the relative proportions of prisoners among the two groups would be approximately equal. Of the white prisoners of known nativity committed during 1904 the percentages were as follows:
| Nativity | Total | Major Offenders | Minor Offenders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native-born | 71.2 per cent | 78.3 per cent | 69.9 per cent |
| Foreign-born | 28.8 per cent | 21.7 per cent | 30.1 per cent |