There can be little doubt that race prejudice is the greatest single barrier to assimilation. It is a disgraceful anomaly that the people of the United States, who preach and profess to believe in the doctrine of universal brotherhood, who have given political equality to the negroes, who proclaim all men born equal, should in their lives exemplify the narrowest race prejudice. The very currency of the terms, “Dago,” “Sheeny,” “Griner,” “Hunkie,” “Bohunk,” “Guinea,” “Wop,” etc., however insulting to the people addressed, is more of a shame to those who use them. Many of the sincerest efforts toward a better understanding between races are thwarted by this feeling. Ministers who try to attract the foreigners to their churches find that their old parishioners do not wish to associate with them—though quite willing to foot the bills—and do not wish their children to mingle with them in Sunday school. The fact that a certain perfectly natural fastidiousness contributes to this result does not in the least lessen the problem. All praise is due to such broad-minded persons as Professor Steiner and Miss Addams, who are doing all in their power to break down this barrier. But their task is a hard one.

In addition to the race prejudice existing between Americans and foreigners, there is an even more bitter prejudice existing between various foreign groups, as has been mentioned already. This is also a most serious obstacle in the way of assimilation. One of the first to cry, “Down with the foreigners,” is the Irishman.[[363]] In this connection it has been pertinently pointed out that it is possible for foreign races to become so far assimilated as to be in practical harmony with Americans, and yet to be seriously at variance among themselves.[[364]]

It must be confessed that, under present conditions, the outlook for the complete assimilation of our foreign population, even in the second generation, is far from bright. Even Miss Balch’s thoughtful and sympathetic chapter on assimilation, though written in an optimistic spirit, makes it plain that there are many and grievous difficulties, and leaves one with a somewhat gloomy feeling at the close. Professor Sumner used to say that the United States had no claim to the name of nation, because of the diverse population elements—foremost among them the negro—which it contains. Exception may be taken to so narrow a conception of the term “nation.” But there can be no question as to the fact that the problem of maintaining national solidarity is immeasurably complicated by the great variety of ethnic constituents with which the United States has to deal.

There are, of course, countless institutions and agencies, of a benevolent or philanthropic nature, which are consciously working to assimilate the immigrant. Such are the night schools, the social settlements, the religious missions, the boys’ clubs, etc. Conscientious efforts of this kind, when wisely directed, are worthy of the fullest commendation and support. But the extensive and valuable work they are doing must not be allowed to obscure the fact that such agencies, at best, can only touch the border of the problem. Just as philanthropy is inadequate to abolish poverty or to do away with the evils of factory employment, so it is inadequate to secure the assimilation of the immigrants in this country. Such immense problems can be met, if at all, only by profound and sweeping changes in the conditions of life. The whole aim of social legislation is to remedy the conditions of employment, and to regulate the relations between workman and employer, so as to reduce the need of philanthropy to a minimum. So it is vain to hope for the assimilation of the alien as a result of conscious, benevolent effort. The only possibility of accomplishing such assimilation is through such a change in the conditions of life of the immigrant, that Americanization will inevitably and naturally result from the unconscious and normal influences which surround him in the daily routine of his existence.

In the event of failure of assimilation to the American type, there seem to be two possibilities, as mentioned above. One, the development of a new, composite race, with a character all its own; the other, the growth of a number of separate racial groups in the same territory. There are some who regard the latter outcome as the more desirable of the two.[[365]]

As to the question whether complete assimilation is desirable or necessary from the point of view of the United States, there is little ground for argument. If a person sincerely holds the opinion that neither of the two eventualities mentioned in the foregoing paragraph is unfortunate or undesirable, his opinion could hardly be changed by any amount of argument. Another individual, who believes that such an outlook, on the face of it, is ominous, is likely to remain of the same opinion still, no matter how much logic is brought up on the other side. The appeal to history is not fruitful, for two main reasons. First, it can be used equally by the adherents of either side. Montesquieu is often quoted as saying that the fall of Rome was due to the heterogeneity of its population, while on the other hand it has been asserted that the strength of Rome, as well as of all other great empires, was due to the mixture of population elements, even from the very lowest sources.[[366]] The opposing camps in the mixed race controversy are evidently ranged on opposite sides of this question. Secondly, as has been pointed out, immigration is distinctly a modern movement, and history furnishes no parallels, but only more or less remote analogies.

The opinion of the average American citizen, based perhaps upon prejudice or conviction, rather than reasoning or investigation, is probably that a certain degree of assimilation is essential to the welfare of the American nation, and that the nearer the approach to complete assimilation, the better. Any plan for regulating immigration, devised to meet the wishes of the American people, would probably have to proceed on this assumption.

It is now necessary to take the opposite point of view, and examine this whole matter from the standpoint of the countries of source. What have been, what are likely to be, the effects of emigration upon those nations, and accordingly what is desirable, from their point of view, as respects the regulation of this great movement?

CHAPTER XIX
OTHER POINTS OF VIEW

The effects of the immigration movement upon the countries of source are in a way much more simple than the effects upon the United States. None of the problems of race mixture, assimilation, varying racial inheritances, etc., are involved. They are confined principally to the three questions of the effect of the removal of parts of the population, the effect of the remittances from America, and the effect of the returned immigrant. But while simpler, these effects are perhaps none the less subtle than those in the United States, nor any less difficult of prediction—for in Europe, as in America, the effects of this great movement must be largely in the future.