Immigration

by Henry Pratt Fairchild

There is still another type of argument for immigration, which might be called the indifference argument, which says, in effect, “Very likely we do not need the immigrants, but they do us no harm. Let them come, anyway.” The answer to this throws the burden of proof upon the restrictionist, and makes it incumbent upon him to show that immigration really injures the United States.

The positive arguments against immigration as at present conducted may be grouped under eight main heads, which may be designated as follows: (1) the numbers argument; (2) the distribution argument; (3) the standard of living and wages argument; (4) the pauperism and crime argument; (5) the stimulation argument; (6) the illegal entrance argument; (7) the biological argument; (8) the assimilation argument. In the discussion of these arguments it must be borne in mind that they are considered with reference to immigration as it now exists, not as it might be under other conditions.

(1) The common argument that we have too many immigrants is really no argument at all. There cannot be too many immigrants unless the excessive number manifests itself in some positive evil. What the average person who uses this argument probably means, if he has any definite meaning in mind at all, is that there are so many aliens coming to this country that their presence results in one or another of the undesirable conditions which are included in the other seven arguments.

(2) In like manner the statement that immigrants are poorly distributed is no real argument. It has been demonstrated that there are certain excessive tendencies toward concentration on the part of our alien population, but unless positive evils emerge from this condition, it is no argument against immigration.

(3) The claim that immigration has lowered the wages and standard of living of the American workman has already been examined, with the conclusion that it would be nearer the truth to say that it has kept them from rising. This, however, amounts to practically the same thing. If somebody prevents me from getting that to which I am entitled, he to all intents and purposes makes me suffer deprivation. The evidence on this point is so strong that it can hardly be gainsaid. As we have seen, practically all careful students admit it. About the only answer that can be made to this argument is that it is not the immigrant’s fault.[^[351]] This is undoubtedly true, partly at least. The immigrant has no grudge against the American workman, nor any desire to injure him. Undoubtedly he would be glad to earn as good wages as the native, if he could. Inasmuch as he cannot, he is not to blame if he consents to work for what he can get. And inasmuch as his wages are low, and his family is large, and he is anxious to save, he is not to blame if he lives on a miserably low standard. In the whole procedure the immigrant may display the most admirable qualities. He is simply playing his part in an impersonal struggle for existence. But the result to the American workman is the same. It is a question of causes and effects, not of blame. It must be accepted as a fact that each successive wave of immigration has tended to check the advance of the laboring men already in the country, be they native or foreign. And here is where the numbers argument applies. For it is obvious that the greater the numbers the more aggravated will be the evils of this kind.

(4) The argument that immigration increases the amount of pauperism and crime in the country has already been examined. As far as the past is concerned it appears that pauperism has been immensely increased through our foreign-born population, while the amount of crime has not. But there has been a change in the character of crime, in the direction of an increase in crimes against the person relative to crimes against property. What the future will bring forth, it is impossible to predict. It seems likely that the tendency toward an excess of pauperism on the part of the foreign-born will become greater as the average length of residence of the newer immigrants increases. Here, again, the claim that it is not the immigrant’s fault might be advanced, and the answer be made that whether it is the fault of the immigrant, or of our industrial system, or of the individual American, makes no difference in the facts as they exist. It does make a difference, of course, as to where the remedy must be applied.

(5) The extent to which the immigration movement of the present is a stimulated one has already been indicated. It might seem at first that it made no difference to the United States whether the immigrant was induced to come, or whether he came of his own volition. But a closer consideration shows that there is a fundamental difference. A strictly natural immigration would mean that immigrants came in response to some actual economic demand in this country which was strong enough to make itself felt abroad. They would also be the ones best fitted to meet that demand. But when one of the greatest motives back of immigration is the desire of the transportation companies to make money, the mere fact of emigration is no indication of any real need for the immigrant in this country, nor of his fitness to enter into its life.

(6) Owing to the very strict wording of our contract labor law, a very large proportion of our immigrants enter the country under the impression, either false or correct, that they are evading the law. This has a very serious effect upon their character, and upon their attitude toward American institutions. They may readily conceive that a country that has such laws that it is necessary to break them to get in, probably has other laws that need to be broken after one is in. The whole system engenders a most dangerous attitude of indifference or hostility to law.

(7) The biological argument of the restrictionist is the obverse of the biological argument of the pro-immigrationist, and is equally vague in the present state of our knowledge on the subject of race mixing. Those who urge this argument against immigration are those who believe that only when the mingled races are closely allied is the resulting stock of a superior type, or else those who hold the extreme view that no mixed race is as good as a pure race. At any event, they believe that the racial elements which are now coming to the United States are too diverse to produce anything but an inferior stock through their interbreeding. In this connection it should be observed that there are two possible results of this gathering of races in the United States, each with its own problems. One is that these races will, in the course of time, become so blended through intermarriage as to produce one composite but homogeneous whole—the new American people. The other is that race prejudice and the forces of segregation will result in the growth of a large number of ethnic groups within the nation, each with its own peculiarities, and each distinct from the others. There are some indications which point to the latter as the more probable outcome.[^[352]]

(8) The charge that our immigrants are not completely assimilated, or are not assimilated at all, is one of the most frequent and gravest complaints made against our present immigration situation. It is made to include—as, indeed, it rightfully does in a sense—all the other arguments against immigration. The term assimilation is almost unfailingly suggested by the mere mention of immigration. But assimilation is a big word, and needs to be used with great caution and understanding.