PROPOSALS AFFECTING IMMIGRATION

By JOHN J. D. TRENOR, Esq.

NEW YORK CITY

Chairman of the Committee on Immigration, appointed by the National Board of Trade, for 1904

At the outset of the examination of any proposals affecting immigration there should be a full realization of the magnitude of dependent interests and of the injury that will be wrought by ill-considered and misjudged legislation. No subject of national concern demands more assuredly impartial and thorough consideration-in the colorless light of facts determined and determinable -without any bias of prejudice, of misinformation, or selfish, short-sighted interest.

It is needless to enter into any presentation in detail of the contribution of immigration to the upbuilding of this country. It is conceded that the marvellous growth of our nation in every exhibit of industrial progress has been greatly aided by the influx, during the last century, of so many millions of honest, willing and industrious laborers seeking homes and opportunities here for themselves and their children. They have taken part in every memorable achievement and their decisive influence has been cast in the scale to sustain every effort for the maintenance of the life and integrity of the Union.

During the past forty years, there has been a persistent sifting of immigration, with the design of excluding all classes and conditions incapable of assimilation or offensive to our civilization. The Act of 1862 prohibited the importation of "coolie" labor from Oriental countries and subsequent "Chinese Exclusion Acts" have broadly shut out the Chinese as persistently alien and detrimental to the character and homogeneity of our nation. The Act of 1875 excluded convicts, except those guilty of political offenses, and women imported for immoral purposes. By the Act of 1882, lunatics, idiots, and persons unable to care for themselves without becoming public charges, were comprehended in the exclusion.

The Act of 1885, by implication, and the Act of 1887 expressly, added "contract laborers." By the Act of 1891, paupers, persons suffering from loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases, polygamists and "assisted" immigrants were specifically excluded. The Act of 1903 added epileptics, persons who have been insane within five years previous, professional beggars and anarchists. By the same Act also, there was a stringent exclusion of persons deported within a year previous, as being "contract laborers." If by any oversight of inspection any of the excluded persons should succeed in obtaining an entrance to this country, their deportation at any time within two years after their entry is secured when their presence is detected.

The comprehensive Act of March 3, 1903, entitled "An Act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States," was professedly the crystallization of thirty years of experience, investigation, debate, and legislation in the solution of the so-called "problems of immigration." The testing of the operation of this Act has barely begun; but, without waiting for any exact determination of substantial defects or insufficiency, further proposals of change are hazarded. Of the two deserving special mention, one would effect a radical change in administration through consular inspection and certification at the ports of embarkation; the other urges a sweeping exclusion, not based on moral character or capacity for labor and self-support, but on literary qualification and comprehension of political institutions-the ability to read and presumably to appreciate a text taken from the Constitution of the United States.

Proposal for Consular Inspection. The proposal for a change of administrative method, through consular inspection and certification, is a belated revival of a proposition that has received more careful and expert consideration than any other measure affecting immigration that has been urged upon the attention of Congress. Every material point in the case was raised and determined in the investigation of the "Weber Commission" of 1890-1891. The adverse report of this Commission was formally endorsed by Secretaries Gresham and Carlisle and its conclusion has been enforced by the repeated examination and judgment of successive committees on immigration. In the latest hearings before the Senate Committee. on Immigration in 1902, the undesirability of regulation by con

sular inspection was expressly attested by Mr. Charles Warren, representing the Immigration Restriction League, who stated: “I do not think that there is a prominent man who has taken up the subject, who advocates it;" and the Chairman of the Committee confirmed this conclusion by observing: "I understand that the idea of consular inspection has been practically abandoned."

Proposal for "Educational Tests."-The proposition for the introduction of the so-called "educational test" was judicially considered and rejected in the message accompanying the veto of President Cleveland on March 2d, 1897. No statement of the case is more obviously impartial or can carry a greater weight of individual authority.

In this statement he observed: "A radical departure from our national policy relating to immigration is here presented. Heretofore we have welcomed all who came to us from other lands, except those whose moral or physical condition or history threatened danger to our national welfare and safety. Relying upon the jealous watchfulness of our people to prevent injury to our political and social fabric, we have encouraged those coming from foreign countries to cast their lot with us and join in the development of our vast domain, securing in return a share in the blessings of American citizenship.

"A century's stupendous growth, largely due to the assimilation and thrift of millions of sturdy and patriotic adopted citizens, attests the success of this generous and free-handed policy, which, while guarding the people's interests, exacts from our immigrants only physical and moral soundness and a willingness and ability to work.

"A contemplation of the grand results of this policy cannot fail to arouse a sentiment in its defense; for, however it might have been regarded as an original proposition and viewed as an experiment, its accomplishments are such that if it is to be uprooted at this late day, its disadvantages should be plainly apparent and the substitute adopted should be just and adequate, free from uncertainties and guarded against difficult or oppressive administration.

"It is not claimed, I believe, that the time has come for the further restriction of immigration on the ground that an excess of

"It is said, however, that the quality of recent immigration is undesirable. The time is quite within recent memory when the same thing was said of immigrants who with their descendants are now numbered among our best citizens.

"It is said that too many immigrants settle in our cities, thus dangerously increasing their idle and vicious population. This is certainly a disadvantage. It cannot be shown, however, that it affects all our cities, nor that it is permanent; nor does it appear that this condition, where it exists, demands as its remedy the reversal of our present immigration policy.

"The best reason that could be given for this radical restriction of immigration is the necessity of protecting our population against degeneration and saving our national peace and quiet from imported turbulence and disorder.

"I cannot believe that we would be protected against these evils by limiting immigration to those who can read and write in any language twenty-five words of our Constitution. In my opinion it is infinitely more safe to admit a hundred thousand immigrants who, though unable to read and write, seek among us only a home and opportunity to work, than to admit one of those unruly agitators and enemies of governmental control, who can not only read and write, but delight in arousing by inflammatory speech the illiterate and peacefully inclined to discontent and tumult. Violence and disorder do not originate with illiterate laborers. They are rather the victims of the educated agitator. The ability to read and write as required in this bill, in and of itself, affords, in my opinion, a misleading test of contented industry and supplies unsatisfactory evidence of desirable citizenship or a proper apprehension of the benefits of our institutions. If any particular element of our illiterate immigration is to be feared for other causes than illiteracy, these causes should be dealt with directly instead of making illiteracy the pretext for exclusion, to the detriment of other illiterate immigrants against whom the real cause of complaint cannot be alleged."

Hon. Samuel J. Barrows, Secretary of the Prison Association of New York, has characterized this test as a suggestion of literary dilettanteism-not measuring the extent of education in its true meaning as the drawing out of faculty, or the capability for

useful and needed service, nor gauging the moral character of any immigrant. In view of this apparent certainty, it may be noted without unfairness that the probable effect of the adoption of this test seems to be of much more concern to the bulk of its advocates than the justice and fitness of its application. It is the simplest and handiest resort for cutting down immigration and it is calculated that it will bear chiefly on the immigration from Southern Europe, which is the most novel and hence least expert in settlement and least supported by widely distributed roots here.

Without discussing further, therefore, the application of this particular device of reduction, it is of prime importance to meet the broader issue-the pressure for the curtailing of immigration. Its advocacy must be based, necessarily, on one of two assumptions -that, in spite of all present safeguards, part of the present influx is unfit to enter this country, or that there is no longer an opening here for the labor seeking admission.

In maintenance of the first proposition, it is alleged broadly. that our foreign-born population shows a higher percentage of criminality than the native born; that the immigration from Southern Europe is more burdensome proportionately to our prisons and asylums than the immigration from Northern Europe; and that these immigrants are the makers of the slums of our great cities and are largely thriftless and unprogressive. These are too common impressions through prejudiced and misinformed disparagement, but records of unquestionable authority demonstrate that none of these assertions is correct.

The Immigrant and Crime.—In view of the services of the immigrant in upbuilding this country, there might be some just palliation of a percentage of law breaking in excess of that of the native born. The immigrant has not been reared in conformity with our laws and social restrictions and has been negligently housed in the slums. Yet in spite of our slum traps it does not appear that the record of the immigrant needs any special consideration. Hastings H. Hart, General Secretary of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, has contributed a notable demonstration of the comparative criminality of our foreign and native-born population, in a communication to the American Journal of Sociology for No