In addition to the certificates granted there were, in 1912, 9635 certificates denied. These were for a variety of causes, the most important of which was failure of the petitioners to prosecute them, so that they were stricken from the docket. Of those which were actually refused the largest single cause was incompetent witnesses.
There has been a large amount of fraud and trickery in connection with naturalization, and presumably it has not wholly ceased. This has been due partly to a lax attitude on the part of some of the court officials, and partly to the physical impossibility of giving proper attention to the number of candidates who apply, with the existing machinery. There is a story of one judge in New York City who issued nearly seven thousand papers in October, 1891, at the rate of two a minute.[[333]] Many states have been very lax in their requirements for voting. In some states aliens have been allowed to vote in both state and federal elections, sometimes after a residence of only six months.[[334]]
Even where naturalization is desired by recent immigrants, it is not always for the most commendable reasons. Sometimes the motive is the desire for a better chance of securing employment,[[335]] sometimes the facilitating of entrance into the United States after a trip abroad. Natives of some foreign countries, particularly Turkey, have come to the United States with the express intention of securing citizenship, in order to return to their native land, and carry on business under the protection of the American flag, which carries with it greater guarantees than their own. A special law, passed to put a stop to such practices as these, provides that when a naturalized alien has resided two years in the foreign state from which he came, or five years in any other foreign state, he forfeits his citizenship.[[336]]
Of all foreign races, the Irish have taken by far the largest place in politics in this country. According to Professor Commons, the “ward boss” is the logical product of the mixture of nationalities in the various divisions of a city, and the Irishman is the logical man for the work.[[337]] “The Irishman has above all races the mixture of ingenuity, firmness, human sympathy, comradeship, and daring that makes him the amalgamator of races.”[[338]] Possibly a sense of humor ought to be added to these qualifications. In the eyes of Professor Commons, such a system makes it the merest chance if the best man is elected, and subverts our whole system of representative government.[[339]] It seems beyond question that the existence of separate racial groups in a community, each with its own prejudices and group loyalty, must have a very disturbing influence on the course of elections. Measures become of much less import than men in the minds of the voters, and in the choice of men race rather than fitness is often the determining element.
CHAPTER XVII
THE NEW PROBLEM OF IMMIGRATION
It was stated on an earlier page that the immigration situation, in most of its important characteristics, presents an entirely new aspect to the men of this generation, and that these changes might be looked for under six general heads, as follows: race, volume, distribution, economic condition of the United States, native birth rate and quality of the immigrants. We are now prepared to consider the truth of this assertion.
In regard to race, nothing further need be said. Sufficient facts are already before the reader to establish the fact that the racial aspect of the situation has undergone a sweeping and significant change in the last thirty years. The change in volume has naturally been one of degree, not of kind. But the change in degree has been a profound one—more so than is often admitted. It has been pointed out occasionally, as a sedative to the fears aroused by the immense immigration of the twentieth century, that while the positive immigration has increased tremendously, it has not increased at so great a rate as the population of the country. The ratio between immigration and total population was higher in the early fifties and early eighties than at any subsequent period. The assumption is that if we could successfully assimilate the immigrants of the earlier period, we certainly ought to be able to take care of those of to-day. But the question of assimilation depends not only upon the ratio of immigrants to total population, but upon the proportion of foreign-born population already in the country. In this connection the following figures are significant. The number of foreign-born to 100,000, native-born in the population of the country at the time of the last seven censuses was as follows:
| 1850 | 10,715 |
| 1860 | 15,157 |
| 1870 | 16,875 |
| 1880 | 15,365 |
| 1890 | 17,314 |
| 1900 | 15,886 |
| 1910 | 17,227 |
It thus appears that the proportion of foreign-born, even at the time of the census of 1900, after a decade of very slight immigration, was much higher than at the time of the beginning of large immigration, while the last census, after the enormous immigration of the past ten years, shows a proportion of foreign-born higher than at any previous census, except that of 1890. Now it is the proportion of foreign-born to native-born which determines the assimilating power of the nation, so that without this correction the comparison between immigration and total population is inadequate and misleading. It is as if a fireman whose steam boiler lacked a safety valve was warned that his gauge was going up more and more rapidly all the time, and he replied, “Never mind, the pressure is not coming in so fast, compared to what I already have, as it was awhile ago.”
Another circumstance which affects the ability of the country to assimilate immigrants, and in which there has been a marked change during the history of immigration, is the ratio of men to land, upon which much emphasis has already been laid. As the amount of unappropriated and unsettled land diminishes in any country, the need of new settlers also diminishes, while the difficulty of assimilation and the possible evils resulting from foreign population proportionally increase. In the case of the United States the first and simplest comparison to make is that between immigration and the total territory of the nation. In this, as in the subsequent comparisons, it will be desirable to leave Alaska out of consideration. The enormous extent of that inhospitable region, to which practically none of our immigrants ever find their way, if included in the reckoning, would simply confuse the issue. The gross area of the United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii, at the time of the different censuses, has been as follows: 1790 and 1800, 827,844 square miles; 1810, 1,999,775 square miles; 1820, 2,059,043 square miles; 1830 and 1840, the same; 1850, 2,980,959 square miles; 1860 down to the present, 3,025,600 square miles.[[340]]