Immigration

The study of immigration is a part of the study of the dispersion of the human race over the surface of the earth, but only one of the most recent parts. The most important population movements by which the habitable portions of the globe became peopled took place long before there was anything which might accurately be styled immigration. The dawn of the historical period found the principal sections of the earth’s surface already inhabited by races not widely different from those now native to them.

About the early movements by which man was scattered from his original home to the four corners of the globe we have as yet little definite information. It seems safe to conclude that they must have resembled the instinctive movements of animals more closely than the rational movements of modern man. They must have been gradual, by slow stages, and in immediate response to the demands of the food supply or of the changing climate. Such movements, which may be designated by the term “wandering,” were the necessary precursors of the more recent developments. They furnish the background for the historic period, and constitute the original factors in modern relations. They may be taken for granted, and a detailed knowledge of them is not necessary for an understanding or investigation of such a historic question as immigration.

The word “immigration” is one of those terms which are in common use in everyday speech, and which convey a certain general impression to the hearer, but which need to be given a limited and specific meaning when used in a scientific study. Many vague and erroneous notions about immigration may be traced to the failure of those using the word to form an exact idea of its connotation. Particularly is it necessary to distinguish clearly between immigration and certain other forms of population movements to which the term is frequently applied.

There are three of these forms of movement. They all fall within the historical period, and consequently we have some definite information about them. They may be designated as invasion, conquest, and colonization. These, with immigration, all have this in common, that they are reasoned movements arising after man had progressed far enough in the scale of civilization to have a fixed abiding place. That is, they are definite movements from one place to another. This distinguishes them from what has been called “wandering,” and justifies including them in a separate category, to which the general name “migration” may be given. In using this term for this purpose, however, we must rid our minds of the association which it has with the movements of animals and birds. When we speak of the migrations of birds we customarily refer to seasonal changes of location, occurring regularly year by year. They are not cases of a change of home, but of having two homes at the same time.

Man, too, has his seasonal movements. It is a very common practice of primitive men to move from one location to another at different times in the year in the pursuit of food, seeking a certain locality at the time that a particular fruit ripens there, or a certain bird lays its eggs. “The Haida Indians of British Columbia annually voyage as many as 500 miles southward to Puget Sound to lay in a supply of dried clams and oysters for their own consumption and for trade.”^[1] Many nomadic tribes follow the pasture from the lowlands to the highlands, and from south to north, as the seasons change. Even civilized man, in his highest development, has his seasonal journeyings, from his summer home to his winter home, and back. But none of these comings and goings deserve to be included as true movements of peoples, or to be called migrations in the present sense. Migration involves an actual and permanent change of residence. It thus becomes evident that migrations can occur only in the most rudimentary form among people in the hunting stage; more developed cases may occur among pastoral people, when they change their base of operation, as when the Israelites moved from Canaan into Egypt, and back after several generations; but in its most complete form, migration appears only after man has reached the agricultural stage.

Since man, when he migrates, leaves a fixed home in response to a rational impulse, there must be some definable cause for the migration. There are certain general causes which are found to underlie all migratory movements, and which are worthy of examination. In the first place we find that the cause of a migratory movement must be a powerful one. Man inevitably becomes attached to the locality in which he finds himself placed. Bonds of many kinds arise to tie him to his home. Among these may be mentioned family connections, sentimental associations, familiar customs and habits of the community, political and religious attachments, business interests, property owned, superstitious veneration for graves. All of these, and others, unite to make the home ties very strong. The life of man is closely bound up with his environment, and a change of environment is a momentous event. As a result, there is a marked inertia, a resistance to pressure, among human beings, and the presumption is that people will stay where they are, unless some positive force causes them to move. And no trivial occasion will suffice.

This force, which results in movement, may be a very complex one, but in general it must present one of two aspects—it must be either attractive or repellent. Men are either drawn or driven to break the ties which bind them to their native locality. The attractive force must, of course, exist in the country which is the objective point, the repellent force, in the existing environment. This distinction is well brought out by Professor Otis T. Mason, who classifies the causes of migration into “positive”—advantages, satisfactions, etc.—and “negative”—discomforts, compulsions, etc.^[2] In view of the strength of the “home ties,” however, it is evident that the repellent type of forces must be much the more important. It would have to be a very alluring prospect indeed that would lead a man to leave a spot where he was contented. In fact we can hardly conceive of a man deserting a spot where he was really contented. There must be some dissatisfaction with existing conditions to induce him to take the step. Attractions often operate by inducing dissatisfactions, through comparison. There is no attraction in a foreign region unless it seems superior to the home surroundings. Then the home conditions appear inferior, and there is dissatisfaction. This is what Professor Sumner called a process of idealization.

It may be well, also, to distinguish between the causes and motives of migration. Motives are subjective feelings existing within the individual which inspire his actions. They are the immediate forces which lead to movement, and may be divided into the same two general classes as causes. Causes are objective forces or conditions existing outside of the individual, which react upon him. They may exist in the physical environment or in the human environment, and operate by arousing motives, which in turn are the immediate springs of conduct. Since human nature is everywhere enough alike so that similar causes arouse similar motives, and since motives can hardly arise without some exterior cause, in our search for the origins of migratory movements it will ordinarily be sufficient to examine merely the causes. Thus in almost every case of migration we are justified in looking for some cause of a repellent nature, some dissatisfaction, disability, discontent, hardship, or other disturbing condition.^[3]

These discomforts may arise in any of the various interests of human life, and may be classified according to almost any classification which will include those interests. Probably the most satisfactory is the familiar one of Economic, Political, Social, and Religious. The economic causes of migrations are the earliest and by far the most important. They arise in connection with man’s efforts to make his living, and concern all interests which are connected with his productive efforts. They are disabilities or handicaps which affect his pursuit of food, clothing, and shelter, as well as the less necessary comforts of life. These are vital interests, and any dissatisfaction connected with them is of great weight with men.

There is a wide variety of economic causes of migration, of which the following may be noted. Permanent natural inhospitableness of soil or climate or scarcity of natural resources may make the struggle for existence a perpetually hard one. Temporary natural calamities, such as drought, famine, flood, extreme seasons, etc., may interrupt the course of an ordinarily tolerable existence. Serious underdevelopment of the industrial arts may make life difficult in a nation by limiting the productive power of its citizens or handicapping them in the struggle for trade. A common economic cause of migration is overpopulation. This means that the population of a region has increased to the point where, under the existing industrial conditions, there are too many people for the supporting power of the soil. In man’s struggle with nature for a time an increase in numbers is an advantage. But there comes a point where the ratio between men and land reaches such an equilibrium that any increase in the number of men means a smaller amount of the materials of existence for each one.^[4] This results in hardship and dissatisfaction. Many migratory movements, particularly in the case of primitive men, or men on a low stage of culture, may be very simply explained by overpopulation.

Political causes are those connected with the organization of government or the actions of the governing power. In this case the dissatisfaction arises from the failure of the individual or group to secure what is believed to be a rightful share in the control of the government, or in some positive repressive or persecuting measures on the part of the governing body toward some of its citizens. Hence we may look for motives of infringed liberty, lack of freedom, or the feeling of oppression. A bad government may put such handicaps on the entire body of its citizens as to make life unsatisfactory to them.

Where social causes of migration exist, the dissatisfaction arises from some fault in the social organization. Some classes or individuals are subjected to a feeling of inferiority to other classes or individuals. A caste, or aristocratic, organization of society gives certain classes an advantage over others, and makes it impossible for the lower classes to rise to a higher level. In case people living under these conditions learn of another region where advancement is possible, migration may easily ensue.

Religious causes include those cases where restrictions are placed on certain members of the body politic because of their religious beliefs or practices. There may be actual persecution, though this is coming to be somewhat rare in modern times. The oppression may manifest itself in various disadvantages, imposed on other interests of life, but which are primarily due to religious differences. The great historical example of this class of causes is found in the case of the Jews.

All of these kinds of causes may overlap, and almost always two or more of them exist in conjunction. Cases where social causes alone account for a migration are rare. They are frequently, however, a contributory factor. The economic causes are by far the most important and universal, though we need frequently to look for other causes back of them. Political maladjustments often express themselves through economic or social disabilities, religious differences through economic and social limitations, etc. In any actual case of migration it is probable that the motives of migration will be due to a complication of causes. This fourfold classification, however, is of great aid in isolating and understanding the underlying forces.

The effects of migratory movements, involving the transference of bodies of people from one region to another, are far-reaching and extremely diversified. They concern both the country of origin and the country of destination. They differ widely in specific cases, so much so that it is scarcely possible to lay down any general rules or conclusions which will be of value. They manifest themselves under three main heads, viz. the density of population, the physical stock, and the customs and institutions, or mores. The most obvious effect, and the one which is commonly assumed to follow any migration, is a decrease in the population of the country of source, and an increase in that of the country of destination. But even this, as will appear hereafter, is not by any means the universal rule. There is commonly some effect on the physical stock of the country receiving the migrants. This effect may vary between wide extremes. Whether the customs and institutions shall be also affected depends upon a variety of circumstances which are likely to make each instance distinctive. There is scarcely one of the vital interests of either country concerned which may not be deeply affected by an important migratory movement. But the factors concerned are so complicated, and so subject to individual variation, that movements which bear a general resemblance may have very diverse effects, and each case must be studied by itself.

As to the routes or channels of migratory movements, it may be said that in general they follow the lines of least resistance, as determined by the combination of all the forces involved. The closer the movement is to a purely natural one, the more it will follow the natural routes marked out by the configuration of the earth. River valleys, such as the Danube in Europe and the Ohio in America, have always been favorite migratory routes. If mountains have to be traversed, the easiest passes will be chosen, such as the Cumberland Gap in the United States. In general, water has been a bond and not a barrier between different lands, and the earliest routes of distant travel were undoubtedly by water. Greece became the source of numerous migratory movements partly because of her extended coast line.^[5]

Having thus considered some of the essential features of migration as a whole, it will be well to distinguish further between the four great types of migrations to which reference has been made. One of the earliest, simplest, and most natural of migratory movements is the invasion. This occurs when a rude people, on a low stage of culture, but with much native physical virility, leaves its location, and overruns the territory of a more highly developed state. It is a movement en masse, involving the whole, or a large portion, of the tribe. The tribe acts as a unit, and the end sought is the benefit of the tribe as a tribe, not of any individuals. The forces back of it approach the unconscious and irrational, characteristic of wandering, more closely than in any other form of migration.

The power of the invasion lies in brute force and numbers. It is a case of a lower civilization temporarily overcoming a higher one—temporarily, because the rude virility which enables the invaders to maintain their own customs for a time succumbs eventually to the enervating influence of a civilization to which it is not trained. Civilization in the end proves itself more permanent than barbarism. This result is often furthered by the fact that the physical stock of the higher race is improved by the infusion of new blood from the very foreigners who are attacking it. This effect upon the physical stock may be very profound and lasting, as an invasion customarily involves large numbers of people. But while the invaders may succeed in checking the progress of civilization for a time, they seldom leave any permanent monuments of themselves, either material or institutional. They are not likely to affect the language, religion, or social customs of the invaded nation to an important degree. The mores are more enduring than the racial stock of the people who possess them.

There have been numerous instances of invasions in the history of Europe. In fact, the barbarian invasions are perhaps the most important single factor in the history of that continent during the Dark Ages. An excellent example is furnished by the Goths, particularly by the eastern division of that people. The original home of this people was in East Prussia, near the Baltic and the Vistula, where they were known in Roman days as traders in amber. There were two principal branches, the western or Visigoths, and the eastern or Ostrogoths. Their physical and mental characters were well marked and definite. In physique they were tall, blond, and athletic, in disposition brave and generous, patient under hardship, chaste and affectionate in their family relations. As to their habits of life before their migration, we have no very complete picture. In general, they seem to have been living on the pastoral-agricultural stage. They had no cities or villages, but lived in scattered dwellings upon farms, which they cultivated with the aid of slaves descended from captives. Much of the land was held in common, and upon it were pastured the vast herds of cattle which constituted their chief subsistence. The powers of government were centralized in a king, chosen by popular voice from certain great families. They had progressed far enough in learning to have an alphabet, but had not developed any written literature.

It is evident, then, that the Goths were a settled people, and while the ties which bound them to their home land were not very complex, and they were undoubtedly used to long warlike expeditions, yet there must have been some powerful motives to induce them to leave a land where they had become so well established. As to the exact nature of these motives, and the causes which lay back of them, there is no accurate record. It is not probable that they were driven out by the pressure of stronger neighbors. “Most likely it was simply the natural increase of their population, aided perhaps by the failure of their harvests or the outbreak of a pestilence, that made them sensible of the poverty of their country, and led them to cast longing eyes towards the richer and more genial lands farther to the south, of which they had heard, and which some of them may have visited.”^[6] This explanation is admittedly largely based on guess. But it has every element of probability and marks the movement of the Goths as a perfectly typical example of a migration due to economic causes, natural overpopulation, augmented by temporary natural calamity, arousing motives of dissatisfaction through comparison with other seemingly more desirable regions.

Whatever the causes, the Goths determined to move. Uniting with the Gepids, Herules, and some other kindred peoples, they formed a great throng, which moved through what is now western Russia to the shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Thence they journeyed westward to the north bank of the Danube. On the way they were joined by other groups of people, of Slavonic race. Their real history may be said to begin about 245 A.D., when they were living near the mouth of the Danube, under the rule of the Ostrogoths. For about twenty years they had been the allies of the Romans, who paid them money to defend their borders from the attacks of other would-be invaders. The Roman emperor, Philip the Arab, put an end to this payment, thereby arousing the anger of the Ostrogoths, who crossed the Danube and plundered the Roman provinces. This was the beginning of a long series of invasions extending down into Greece and Asia Minor. Many cities were plundered cruelly and brutally. Fortunately for civilization, however, the Goths had been converted to Christianity in the meantime, so that the army which finally entered and devastated Rome in the year 410 was not the utterly barbarous throng which had started on the journey from northern Europe. Their leader, Alaric, was himself a Christian and did what he could to restrain the natural passions of his followers. Yet in spite of all, the sack of Rome was a cruel and bloodthirsty affair.

It is characteristic of an invasion that over two centuries were consumed in the journey from the old home to Rome, so that no single individual of those who started on the undertaking lived to reach the final destination. For nearly a century and a half after the fall of Rome the Ostrogoths lived in or near Italy. Their fortunes in war fluctuated, and for a time, under Theodoric, they were the masters of the peninsula. Their kindred, the Visigoths, were in the meantime settled in Gaul and Spain. Finally, in the year 553, after repeated reverses, the Ostrogoths retired from Italy to the north, and as a people disappeared from history, leaving scarcely a trace behind. The Franks were never driven from Gaul, but eventually lost their native language and became absorbed in the people whom they had invaded. The Goths “have bequeathed to the world no treasures of literature, no masterpieces of art, no splendid buildings. They have left no conscious impress on the manners or the institutions of any modern European people.”^[7] Even Gothic architecture has no historic connection with the people whose name it bears.

Other barbarian tribes invaded Europe at about the same time as the Goths, and during the succeeding centuries. One of the most powerful was the Huns, a people of rude culture but great virility, belonging probably to the Mongolic or Tatar stock, who appeared about the fourth century A.D. They were followed by other races from the same general region and belonging to the same great stock, the Avars who arrived about 555, and the Magyars who put in an appearance at the close of the ninth century. The most recent explanation of the migrations of these Asiatic tribes is that their habitat suffered a change of climate from one of those great cycles about which we are beginning to have some information, which resulted in drying up the region, and furnishing a much smaller amount of subsistence than the people had been accustomed to. This is overpopulation, and furnishes another case of that great economic cause.^[8] Another powerful Asiatic invader was Timur or Tamerlane, who with his Tatar hordes devastated Asia Minor during the latter part of the fourteenth century.

A conquest is almost the reverse of an invasion. In this case the people of higher culture take the aggressive. It is an overflow of civilization, of manners, of organization, of government,—not to any great extent, of population. Conquest occurs when a well-developed state, full of vigor, sends its armies over the territory of less advanced peoples, imposing its political system upon them, and laying them under tribute, but not slaying the people or destroying their wealth any more than is necessary to secure subjection. It is an enterprise of the state, seeking its own glory and aggrandizement. The movement of population to the conquered territory may be insignificant, and in this, conquest differs from all the other forms of migratory movements. Consequently the effects on the racial stock of the conquered people may be very slight, and in most cases are. The effect on the mores, on the other hand, including the language, may be profound and lasting. Conquest differs from the other forms of migration also in the fact that the motives belong more nearly to the positive, or attractive, group than in any of the others. It is energy, ambition, etc., which lead to conquest rather than fear, cowardice, etc. Many of the individuals who change their residence under conquest are state officials, sent out in the pursuit of their duties to the sovereign, not because of any particular choice of their own.

It scarcely need be said that the great historical example of conquest is Rome. Her policy was to extend her dominion by making outlying tribes realize that it was to their advantage to acknowledge her sway and pay tribute. So long as they did this quietly and regularly, little else was required of them. As far as possible, the native governmental organization was continued, and simply grafted on to the great Roman stock, the native officials being made subordinates in the Roman organization. Roman traders came and went, carrying culture and civilization with them, and exerting a powerful influence on the mores of the provinces, but the permanent movement of people from the central state was comparatively slight. Alexander the Great was a spreader of conquest, though his early death destroyed whatever possibility there may have been of his establishing a permanent empire. The career of the British government in India has many of the characteristics of conquest. Native rajahs are, to a great extent, utilized as officials of the British government, and there is no large migration of people from England to India, save those connected in some way with the government service, or persons engaged in commercial pursuits, who maintain their permanent home in England. But the influence on the mores of the native inhabitants is great.

The third form of migratory movement, which has a particularly close connection with immigration, is colonization. This occurs when a well-established, progressive, and physically vigorous state sends out bodies of citizens, officially as a rule, to settle in certain specified localities. The regions chosen are newly discovered or thinly settled countries, where the native inhabitants are so few, or are on such an inferior stage of culture that they offer but slight resistance to the entrance of the colonists. For while the two previous forms of migration have been warlike, colonization is essentially a peaceful movement. The rivalry for certain favored localities may involve the colonizing power in war with other civilized nations who desire the same thing, but as far as the seizure of the colony itself is concerned, it requires slight military exertion. Colonization, like conquest, is a state enterprise, conducted for the benefit of the state, but differs from it in that its motive is rather the commercial advancement of the state than its military or political aggrandizement. Colonization has often been resorted to, also, when a state has believed itself to be overpopulated, and has aimed directly at improving the condition of its citizens, both those who go and those who are left,—something that is scarcely dreamed of under conquest. Several classifications of colonies have been made. The most satisfactory is that adopted by Professor A. G. Keller, which makes a twofold division into farm and plantation colonies.^[9] These differ from each other so much in their essential characteristics that it will be well to examine them separately, before making any further generalizations regarding colonies as a whole.

This classification is based on the typical form of the industrial organization in the colony. As colonies are always new and undeveloped regions, the fundamental industry is always of an extractive nature, almost universally agriculture in some form, though it may be mining or fishing. Practically all important colonies in the history of the movement, however, have been agricultural, so that the above division serves every purpose. In the first place, it must be noted that practically all colonizing nations have been situated in the north temperate zone, and primarily in Europe. Outside of this continent, Phœnicia and China are the sole important representatives. These, with Greece and Rome, made up the colonizing powers of the ancient world. As far as modern colonizing nations are concerned, the question is limited to the countries of Europe.

A farm colony springs up in a region similar to that held by the colonizing state, that is to say, in the temperate zone. Colonies of this class have appeared both north and south of the equator. The requirements are that the conditions of soil and climate be such as to make the products of the colony similar to those of the home state, and to render acclimatization either unnecessary or very easy.

Under these conditions, a large movement of population takes place from the home state to the colony, and it is a movement of families. Men find it possible to take their wives and children with them, and a normal population is established in the new land. Agriculture may be taken up according to the methods with which the colonists are familiar in the old country. As land is abundant and cheap, each man will prefer, and will find it possible, to take up a piece of land of his own, and to cultivate it independently, rather than to hire out his services to any other cultivator. Consequently, hired agricultural labor is almost impossible to secure, and each man is compelled to rely on the labor of himself and his family to cultivate his land. As a result, the typical agricultural unit becomes the small holding, occupied and tilled by a single family. The system is further established by the fact that the products of such a region are well adapted to this form of culture. This is the typical “farm” organization which gives its name to this class of colony.

Plantation colonies, on the other hand, arise in regions different in climate from the home state, that is, in tropical or subtropical regions. Here conditions of soil and climate are such that the natural products are of a kind which cannot be raised under home conditions, and hence are luxuries rather than staples. Acclimatization is practically impossible for men, and almost wholly so for women, so that normal family life is precluded for the colonist. Furthermore, as it is impossible for natives of the temperate zone to engage in agricultural labor in the tropics, for physiological reasons, all work of that kind must be performed by the natives, or by other similar races imported for the purpose. As a rule, the natives do not wish to work, and wages are no sufficient inducement. Hence they must be made to work, and slavery, either openly or in one of its disguised forms, appears. Since a very small number of Europeans will suffice to direct the activities of a large number of natives, the movement of population from the home state is small, and we find agriculture in the tropics developing along the line of a large unit, producing a single commodity, and operated by compulsory labor, under conditions of waste and exploitation. This is the typical “plantation.”

Thus we see that the social and industrial conditions are diametrically opposed in the two forms of colony. In the farm colony we have a vigorous population, similar in stock to that of the home state, each family tilling its own piece of land, and largely self-supporting. Under such conditions large families are an economic advantage, and population grows rapidly. In the plantation colony the colonists are few and mostly males, who superintend the cultivation of large estates, with the purpose of making as much money as possible and getting back to the home land at the earliest possible moment. As far as the population of the colony is affected, it is mainly by the growth of a body of half-breeds, who are always a troublesome class. Morals are low, and life unhealthy and artificial. In the political interests of the colonies similar distinctions exist. Life in a farm colony tends to develop enterprise, independence, and political and social equality. A feeling of patriotism toward the colony, as distinguished from the home state, inevitably develops. The manifest destiny of the farm colony is to become an independent state, either with a wholly separate government, or with only the most tenuous ties binding it to the home authority. In the plantation colony life develops along an aristocratic groove, with well-defined social and political classes. There is no love on the part of the colonist for the colony as such, and no body of local feeling grows up among the colonists. This development is furthered by the customary action of the central government, which regards the farm colony as of little importance because of the similarity between its products and her own, but devotes an enormous attention to the plantation colony because of the apparent importance of its unique products. Hence the farm colony is left free to develop along natural lines, while the plantation colony is subjected to all sorts of artificial restrictions and limitations which hamper its growth. As a result of all these factors, the plantation colony seldom achieves its independence, but remains subject to the home state indefinitely. Examples of farm colonies are the Thirteen Colonies, Canada, New Zealand, etc.; of plantation colonies, Java, Jamaica, Brazil under the Portuguese, etc. As will be seen, the farm colony has a peculiarly intimate relation with immigration movements.

This preliminary survey of the earlier forms of migration prepares the way for a clear understanding of the characteristic features of the fourth form. This is immigration, which in many respects differs from any other population movement. These distinctions merit emphasis.

In the first place, both of the two states concerned in an immigration movement are well established, and on approximately the same stage of civilization. Immigration can take place only over what Professor Sumner calls a single culture-area. Secondly, immigration is a distinctly individual undertaking. States may direct, control, regulate, or encourage immigration, but the motives which lead men into this form of movement are strictly individual ones, and the causes which arouse these motives are conditions which react upon the individual alone. The end sought is neither the advantage of the country of origin, nor of the country of destination, but the improvement of the condition of the individual.

The two countries concerned in an immigration movement resemble each other not only in the stage of culture but in climatic conditions and circumstances of life. There has never been any immigration between the temperate zones and the tropics, in either direction, nor have the polar regions ever figured. In fact, practically all immigration, historically speaking, has been between different countries in the temperate zone. But while there are these resemblances between the countries concerned, there must also always be some differences, otherwise there would be no motive for movement. The first and primary difference between the two countries is that the one which receives the stream of immigration is newer, and therefore much less thickly settled, than the other. Other things being equal, the chances for a comfortable living are greater in a country where the ratio between men and land is still low. This ratio between men and land is of extreme importance, and ought never to be neglected in the discussion of any sociological or economic problem.^[10] It is especially vital as regards migrations, which are so directly connected with the shifting of populations.

Other differences which may be looked for between the two countries concerned in an immigration movement are the following: the country of destination is more democratic than the other, and its people enjoy greater social and political equality; there is more of individual freedom of conduct, and fewer traditional or legal restraints; military burdens are lighter, and there is greater latitude for religious belief and practice. On the other hand, life in the new country is likely to be more arduous, industry more insistent, the demands for personal ability more urgent. These features at once suggest those typical of the farm colony, and in point of fact we find that practically all countries which receive large streams of immigrants are developed farm colonies. These are, at the present time, the United States, Canada, Argentina, Australia, South Africa, and to a certain extent parts of Asiatic Russia.

The requirements, then, for an immigration movement are the following: two well-developed countries, one old and densely populated, the other new and thinly settled, the two on friendly, or at least peaceable, terms with each other. For immigration, even more than colonization, is a phenomenon of peace. On the part of the people who are to take part in the movement a high degree of civilization is demanded. They must be trained to act on individual initiative, and must have sufficient personal enterprise to undertake a weighty venture without an official or state backing. They must have sufficient intelligence to know about the objective point, and sufficient accumulated capital to enable them to get there. There must be adequate, easy, and inexpensive means of transportation between the two countries, in order to enable any large number of people to make the journey. The immigrant is not in any sense an adventurer or explorer. On the part of the nations concerned there must be a willingness to allow individuals to come and go at their own pleasure, without any extreme restrictions or regulations. There must be nothing of the old idea of the feudal bond between the person and the land.

From the above it appears that immigration must be distinctly a modern movement. Scarcely one of the foregoing requirements—not to speak of the conjunction of all of them—is more than three or four centuries old. Consequently immigration, in the sense in which we have defined it, has existed only for a comparatively short time, practically since the Discoveries Period. Moreover, it seems likely to be a purely temporary phenomenon. With the disappearance of the conditions which differentiate the countries which are now receiving immigrants from the older European countries, it seems probable that immigration will cease, for as far as the human eye can see, there will be no new lands to be opened up for the purpose.

In addition to these four chief forms of migration, there are certain other less important forms of which mention should be made to avoid any confusion. First among these stands what may be called forced migration. This occurs when bodies of people, for any reason, without any choice of their own, are compelled to leave a certain region, and go elsewhere, either with or without a specific destination. A familiar example is that presented by the Jews, who were expelled from England in 1290, from France in 1395, and from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1495. The Moors were also expelled from Spain in 1609, on penalty of death. Another familiar example is that of the Huguenots, who were expelled from France at the end of the seventeenth century. Such movements as these have usually resulted in a nation’s losing the most valuable elements of its population. The cause has usually been religious.

A different type of forced migration has been exemplified in the slave trade. In this case the migrants are compelled by actual force to go from one region to another specified one. The movement of the Africans to America is a familiar example. The motive is the economic one of securing a supply of labor at a minimum expense. Still another type is furnished by the penal colonies, such as have been established in Australia and elsewhere. All these forms of forced migration are evidently different in principle and in most of their characteristics from the great types of migration which have been mentioned. Their study is a subject by itself.

Still another form of migration is what is known as the internal or intra-state migration. This is manifestly going on all the time in every civilized country. It is only when it involves large masses of people, moving in certain well-defined directions, with a community of motives and purposes, that it deserves to be classed with the great population movements. Then it may become of great interest and significance, as in the case of the great westward movement of the people of the United States. It is evidently a wholly different matter from the other forms which have been emphasized.

There is, of course, also a continual passage of individuals between all the nations of the earth, in every direction. A permanent change of residence is frequently involved. These movements, obviously, may not correspond to any of the principles which have been laid down for any specific form of migration, and, if they were sufficiently numerous, would constitute exceptions to all that has been said. In point of fact, they are isolated, scattered, and occasional. They do not rank in any sense as movements of peoples, nor do they complicate the discussion of the great sociological phenomena in which we are interested.