Immigration

by Henry Pratt Fairchild

When the great new lands of the Western Hemisphere were made available to the inhabitants of Europe by the efforts of Columbus and the later explorers and discoverers, there opened up before humanity tremendous possibilities of advance.[^[346]] The ratio between men and land was changed for the whole civilized world. An enormous area of fertile country was presented to the nations of Europe, by which the operation of the Malthusian principles was checked. Peoples who had reached the saturation point of population in Europe were given the opportunity to utilize their acquired arts in a virgin and practically uninhabited region. On account of the difficulties of transportation, and the consequent slow settlement of the new world, the results of this great alteration were only tardily developed. In many ways the entire progress of civilization during the nineteenth century is the outward expression of the transformation in conditions which then took place. So far as the human mind can anticipate, nothing of a similar nature can ever happen again on this earth.

To the people of the new nation of the United States, as the possessors of the most favored portion of this new territory, was intrusted the responsibility of utilizing its marvelous resources, not only for their own advantage, but for the securing of the greatest and most permanent amelioration of the living conditions of the whole human family. It was not to be expected that our forefathers should have completely recognized the full significance of this responsibility, nor have undertaken the administration of it with a degree of scientific wisdom which they did not possess. Their past experience of bad political systems enabled them to frame a plan of government which has held the admiration of all civilized people down to the very present. In the utilization of the material resources of the country, however, they had no past experience to serve as a guide. No other civilized people within the compass of human history had been intrusted with such a profusion of virgin resources, absolutely open to exploitation. There is no wonder that the possibilities of the country seemed limitless, and that men proceeded to make the most of them to serve present needs, with no thought of what the consequences might be to future generations. Forests were cut down, mines were wastefully worked, rivers were dammed, natural gas was burned day and night, the soil was cultivated year after year without enrichment, and when exhausted, abandoned. In our modern age of conservation we are beginning to realize how ruthlessly these rich treasures have been squandered, and are making eager and earnest efforts to save what is left.

Something of the same sort took place in the more intangible domain of population. Into the minds of the less than four million people who were enumerated in the United States in 1790, even the thought of a redundant population could hardly enter. The one great thing that seemed to be needed was more people, and while the natural increase of the native stock seemed to many ample to meet the demands, there was nevertheless a hearty welcome to all sturdy and well-intentioned aliens who elected to establish themselves within the territory of the new nation. Especially was there a feeling of sympathy toward those who came seeking refuge from political tyranny or oppression in the nations of Europe. Thus the principle of an open door, and a welcome to the “oppressed and downtrodden of all races,” became the established policy of the nation, and as decade succeeded decade acquired all the power and authority of tradition and usage. As a consequence, all efforts to control or regulate the ingress of aliens, which have been incited by the apparent needs of the situation, have been confronted with the necessity of bearing the burden of proof, and of assailing established dogma. This has put the advocates of restriction into the category of “antis,” and has laid them open to the charge of narrow-mindedness and bigotry. If it can be conceived that the United States should have been in her present industrial situation when she first began to frame national policies, it is wholly probable that the restrictionists would have been considered the conservatives, and the advocates of free immigration, the radicals.

However this may be, the fact is that in general the open-door policy has prevailed, and only within the last generation have restrictive laws been passed, which have served merely to weed out the manifestly undesirables, scarcely to diminish in any significant measure the great bulk of the current. The resulting transfer of people from Europe to America has been truly phenomenal. In the period of years from 1820 to 1912 a total of 29,611,052 immigrants came to the United States.[^[347]] No population movement of equal social significance, and comparable in volume, has ever taken place within the recorded history of the human race. And never again, so far as the human eye can see, can it be repeated, when the heyday of immigration to the United States is over. It is inconceivable that such a phenomenon should not have important and far-reaching effects upon every country concerned in the movement. There is, then, an immigration problem.

But just what is the problem? The answer to that question depends upon the point of view. In the first place, it must be decided whether it is desirable for nations consciously to interfere with, and try to control, such a natural movement as this; secondly, if interference is to be undertaken, whose welfare is to be held prominently in view—in other words, from what standpoint is the problem to be attacked? If the former of these queries is answered in the negative, the problem remains a purely academic one—the study of causes and effects, and the recording of conclusions and data, without any telic purpose in view. No programs, schemes, or systems of reform can emanate from such a study. If answered in the affirmative, the problem then becomes one in applied sociology—perhaps the most complex and important that any modern nation has ever had to deal with. In regard to the second part of the above query, it is to be noted that there are four possible standpoints open to choice. First, that of the United States; second, that of the countries of source; third, that of the immigrants; fourth, that of humanity in general. There are possibilities of a different aspect of the problem from each of these viewpoints. Let us consider the two parts of this query in turn.

There is a natural and deep-seated reluctance on the part of every careful and scientific student of sociology to advocate the regulation of any great human activity according to any man-made scheme or formula. The laws of nature seem so much safer a guide than any plan which, as Professor Summer says, some one has thought out in bed.[^[348]] The laissez-faire doctrine makes a great initial appeal. This probably accounts in large measure for its great vogue. The broad-minded and liberal man says, “What can be better or more just than to let each individual work out his own destiny in the way that seems to him best?” Particularly does such a tremendous movement as modern immigration inspire the student with feelings of reverential awe, rather than a desire to intermeddle. It is such a gigantic and complex thing, and cuts straight across all social relations with such an inclusive and unsparing sweep, that one can never know what the unknown factors are, nor what unforeseen and unexpected developments may arise. Certainly this seems one of the things that had better be left alone.

But as we look at the world around us, we realize that the doctrine of laissez-faire has proved inadequate to meet the conditions of modern industrial life, and has broken down under the strain.[^[349]] We realize that self-interest, even enlightened self-interest, is not the safest guide for the individual or for the race. We recognize the fact that the safety of society demands that men shall not be allowed to do as they please, nor to go where they please. The law places many restrictions upon the free movements of men. I may not trespass upon my neighbor’s property; I may not enter public buildings except at specified times. If I wish to visit a fever-stricken and quarantined city, I either am not allowed to go, or I am prevented from coming away when I wish. These are familiar and trivial illustrations, but they emphasize the fact that complete laissez-faire is impossible under present conditions—in fact, probably always has been. A host of other instances of social legislation, pure-food laws, trust regulation, etc., might be invoked to establish the point, were it necessary. The whole series of immigration statutes, increasing in severity from 1882 down to the present, are evidence of the acceptance of this principle with special relation to immigration. The question is not, shall we have regulation or not, but how much and what kind of regulation shall we have? The doctrine of laissez-faire, per se, would have no greater weight as an argument against complete suspension of immigration than it would have against the exclusion of contract laborers.

If the personal inclinations of the individual lead him to prefer to regard the immigration problem in the strictly academic light, no fault can be found; but the denial of the propriety of suggesting plans of control, the demand that the immigrants be let alone, represents an obsolete point of view. Any amount of regulation, which proves necessary to safeguard the interests of society, can be justified in the light of modern opinion and practice.

Furthermore, it is to be observed that immigration will not be let alone. It has already been demonstrated that the immigration of to-day is not in any sense a wholly natural movement. It is stimulated at the outset, partly by disinterested friends and relatives, partly by purely selfish transportation interests. It is subjected to various controls all along the way. After the immigrants reach this country, they are often, for a long time, in almost complete subjection to the padrone, the contractor, or the importer. Once again, the question is not, shall immigration be a natural and uncontrolled movement or not, but shall it be controlled by greedy, selfish, and unscrupulous individuals, or by a well-intentioned government? For the rest of this book we shall take the position that the immigration problem is one of applied sociology, and that immigration is a proper subject for government control, by such means and to such an extent as the most careful and scientific study shall warrant.

Most problems in applied sociology have to do with interests; certainly the problem of immigration does. Having answered the first part of our query in the affirmative, the problem now expresses itself thus: how shall the movement of aliens from foreign countries to the United States be so controlled as to further the best interests of somebody? But of whom? This is the second part of our query. It is manifest that the United States, the countries of source, the immigrants, and humanity in general all have interests which may be affected by immigration, that these interests are not always harmonious or correlative, but that they may be, and in some cases must be, in direct opposition to each other. Any one who has opinions on the subject must make it plain, to himself at least, which of these interests he regards as paramount, which of these standpoints he proposes to assume. Many of the popular arguments on the question have been confused by the unconscious effort to take two or more of these viewpoints at once. Each of these viewpoints is legitimate, and has arguments on its own side, and no one should be blamed for choosing any one. Evidently the fourth is a sort of summation and balance of the other three. It will be profitable to consider the first three in turn; we shall then be prepared to take the point of view of the welfare of humanity in general.