Proposition:—Immigration should be further restricted by law.
Affirmative argumentNegative argument
Immigration should be further restricted, becauseImmigration should not be further restricted, because
I.It is a detriment to the country, forI.It is a benefit to the country, for
1.We now admit extreme socialists and anarchists. 1.The worst elements are now excluded.
2.They form undesirable groups of foreigners in the congested parts of cities. 2.They are soon assimilated.
3.They lower the standard of living of the American workman. 3.They furnish examples of thrift to American workmen.
4.Many of the immigrants now admitted do not make good citizens. 4.They ultimately become good citizens.
II.The present laws are not satisfactory, forII.The present laws are satisfactory, for
1.Black Hand societies show that undesirable persons are admitted. 1.No law would exclude all undesirable immigrants.
2.Diseased persons are admitted. 2.All persons having contagious diseases are excluded.
3.Steamship lines help to evade the immigrant laws. 3.Custom house officials are diligent in enforcing the laws.
4.Paupers are admitted. 4.Paupers are not admitted.
III.We do not need all the immigrants now coming to us, forIII.We need all the immigrants now coming to us, for
1.The great necessity for laborers to develop our natural resources has passed. 1.We need them to develop our natural resources.

By contrasting the arguments thus tabulated we derive the following main issues.

I. Is immigration under existing conditions a detriment or a benefit to the country?

(The answer depends upon the answers to these subordinate questions.)

1. Is the undesirable element excluded?

2. Have the immigrants assimilated readily?

3. Do they exert a detrimental influence upon the standard of living of the American workman?

4. Do they make good citizens?

II. Are the present laws satisfactory?

1. Are they the most effective in excluding undesirable immigrants that it is possible to enact?