Turning to those aspects of the immigration situation in this country which more immediately affect the life of the American people as a whole, we find that they group themselves under nine main heads, as follows: wages and standard of living, pauperism, crime, insanity, industrial efficiency and progress, amount and distribution of wealth, crises, social stratification, and politics. In each of these categories certain preliminary effects are already observable, and other much more extensive ones may be predicted on a theoretic and hypothetical basis.

As regards wages, we have already made a careful study of what may be taken as typical immigrant wages. The question now is, how have these wages affected the earnings of the great body of American workmen? Has this admittedly low wage scale of the foreign labor body exercised a depressing effect upon the remuneration of the native American, or has the latter been enabled, by relinquishing the lower grades of labor to the foreigner, to avail himself of higher and better paid positions?

This question, like many others of its class, involves the problem of determining what would have happened if history had been different in some single particular. It is a most perilous, and often profitless, field to enter. It is apparently impossible for statisticians to determine with certainty what has been the course of real wages within the past half century or so. There is no doubt that money wages have gone up. There is also no doubt that the average price of commodities has gone up. The question is whether average prices or average wages have gone up the faster. The most reliable tables covering this subject are probably those of the Bureau of Labor, and these have been discontinued since 1907. As far as the showing which they make can be depended upon, it seems to indicate that there has been a very slight rise in the purchasing power of full-time weekly wages since 1890.^[269] Granting this, the question still remains, would not the American workman have enjoyed a much greater increase in real wages during this period, if he had been allowed to reap the full advantage of his economic position in the country, without having to meet the competition of vast numbers of foreign laborers? The answer to this question must rest on pure theory, as its statistical proof would involve a reënactment of past history, which is a manifest impossibility.

According to the established laws of economics there are two ways in which immigration may operate to lower wages. First, by increasing the supply of labor in the country, and thereby diminishing the amount of remuneration which the individual laborer can command. Second, by introducing a body of laborers whose customary wage in the countries they come from, and whose corresponding standard of living, is much lower than the prevailing standard in the new country. This factor operates, not by increasing the number of laborers bidding for employment, but by lowering the amount of the initial bid on the part of a sufficient number of laborers to fix the remuneration for the whole lot. As to the first of these ways, if the argument contained in Chapter XI is valid, it is not probable that in the long run immigration has materially increased the total population of the United States. But it has, from time to time, caused a marked temporary increase in the body of unskilled labor, and this, as will be shown later, is an important matter. However this may be, the second of these two ways has undoubtedly been by far the more instrumental in reducing the average wage of the American workman. It is not because he has had to compete with more laborers, so much as with cheaper laborers, that the American workman has failed to secure a higher remuneration for his services. It is what Professor Commons has called the “competitive struggle for standards of living”^[270] which has been the determining factor, and the whole matter can be best understood by taking it up in the light of the general standard of living, rather than of mere wages.

The standard of living is the index of the comfort and true prosperity of a nation. A high standard is a priceless heritage, which ought to be guarded at all cost. The United States has always prided itself on the high standard of living of its common people, but has not always understood on what that standard rests. The standard of living is the resultant of two great factors, the stage of the arts, and the ratio of men to land. It may be improved by bettering the methods of production and utilization of natural resources, or by reducing the ratio between men and land, i.e. by limiting the increase of population. It may be lowered either by a retrogression in the stage of the arts—something which can hardly be conceived of under our present civilization—or by an increase in the ratio between men and land. Both of these suppositions assume that the amount of land remains stationary. If large tracts of good land are made available by any means, it gives opportunity for a decided improvement in the standard of living, and if we can conceive of large areas of good land being actually lost, there would be an inevitable lowering in the standard. In point of fact, standards of living are much more likely to go up than down. The history of civilization has been that of increasing standards. A retrogression in the stage of the arts is not likely to take place on a large scale; neither is it probable that, other things being equal, men will increase their rate of reproduction, for the very reason that such an increase would involve a lowering in the standard of living.

A standard of living, once established, has great tenacity, and people will suffer almost anything in the way of hardship before they will reduce it. If, for any reason, the dilemma is presented to a people of lowering their standard or of limiting their rate of increase, they will in general adopt the latter alternative. This will come about, not so much as the result of a conscious choice, as by the unconscious adaptation to surrounding conditions.^[271] On the other hand, if natural conditions are gradually and steadily improving, it may frequently happen that the rate of reproduction will keep pace therewith, so that the standard of living will remain essentially the same. But if some sudden improvement in conditions appears—like the opening up of great stretches of new land, or some far-reaching improvement in the arts—the standard of living may rise appreciably before the forces of reproduction have had time to offset the new advantage. In other words, the rise of standards of living does not take place ordinarily by a steady and unvarying progress, so much as by successive steps or waves. The regular, continuous improvements in conditions account for lifted standards less than the exceptional, epochal occurrences. Such occurrences, being inherent in the cosmic laws and in the constitution of human nature, transpire with sufficient frequency to make possible great advances in standards of living over long periods of time.

Let us apply these principles to the case of the United States, and seek to determine what part immigration has played in their operation.^[272] At the beginning of its career the United States was most favorably circumstanced as regards its standard of living. A people whose knowledge of the arts represented the highest product of the civilization of the day was set down in a practically uninhabited country, apparently unlimited in extent, and of marvelous fertility and abundance of natural resources. All of the old checks to population were removed, and there resulted a natural increase of numbers unprecedented for a corresponding area and extent of time in the annals of the race. But even this could not keep up with the development of natural resources, and a general standard of living was established far ahead of any other nation of the period.

Into this favored section of the earth’s surface have been introduced ever increasing numbers of the lower classes of foreign nations. What has been their effect upon the prevailing standard of living? As a major premise, it will be granted that the standard of living of the working classes of the United States has been and still is superior to that of the nations which have furnished the bulk of the immigrants. Common observation and general testimony establish this beyond the need of proof. Particularly at the present time, if this were not so, very few of our immigrants would come, for, as we have seen, this is the great incentive which draws them.^[273] It is significant, however, that the bulk of immigration has been recruited from more and more backward races of Europe as the decades have succeeded each other. There is not now the relative advantage for the peasant of England, Germany, or Scandinavia that there was during the first two thirds of the nineteenth century.^[274] As regards the new immigrants—those who have come during the last thirty years—the one great reason for their coming is that they believe that on the wage which they can receive in America they can establish a higher standard than the one to which they have been accustomed. And this wage for which they are willing to sell their labor is in general appreciably below that which the native American workman requires to support his standard.^[275] What does this mean? It means in the first place that the American workman is continually underbid in the labor market by vast numbers of alien laborers who can do his work approximately as well as he. But it means more than this. It means that he is denied the opportunity of profiting by those exceptionally advantageous periods which as we have seen recur from time to time, and provide the possibility of an improved standard. From his point of view these periods include any circumstances which occasion a sudden increase in the demand for labor—such as the establishment of a great new industry or the opening up of new territory by the completion of a railroad or recurring “good times” after a period of depression. If this new demand must perforce be met by the labor already in the country, there would be an opportunity for an increase in wages to the working man. But the condition which actually confronts the American workman at such a time is this—not only is the amount of wages which can be successfully demanded by labor profoundly influenced by the number and grade of foreign workers already in the country, but there comes at once, in response to improved conditions, a sudden and enormous increase in the volume of immigration. Thus the potential advantage which might accrue to the laborers already in the country is wholly neutralized. The fluctuating nature of the immigration current is of vital importance to the American workman. It means that for him the problem is not that of taking the fullest advantage of a possibility of an improved standard, but of maintaining intact the standard which he has. We have seen that, in the long run, the only way in which he can do this is by limiting the size of his family.

The familiar argument that the immigrants simply force the native laborers up into higher positions is often urged in this connection. It is hard to see how any one can seriously hold this opinion. The fallacy of it has already been shown. It is, of course, perfectly obvious that at the present time most of the native workmen in industry are in the better paid positions, and that the lower grades are occupied by foreigners. But the question is, are there as many native workmen in high positions as there would have been in all positions if there had been no immigration? This is what the “forcing up” argument assumes, and the falsity of the position seems self-evident. It appears much more reasonable to believe that while a few native workers have been forced up, a vastly larger number are working side by side with the immigrants and earning approximately the same wages—to say nothing of that other body of native labor which the immigrants have prevented from ever being brought into existence.

Even if it were true that the native American himself is as well off as he would have been without immigration, that would not settle the matter. The question is that of the standard of living of the American workman. If the American workman happens to be a foreigner, it is just as important for the welfare of the nation, and of humanity, that he be properly housed, fed, clothed, educated, and amused as if he were a native. We would still have to face the fact of a standard continually retarded by accessions of newcomers, representing ever lower economic strata. Can we afford, as a nation, to allow the standard of living of the workman, whoever he is, to suffer in this way?

It appears that the forces whose working has been outlined in the preceding paragraphs can have only one logical outcome—namely, the depression of the wage scale of the American workman. If immigration has not absolutely lowered the wages and the standard of living of the American workman, it certainly has kept them from rising to the level that they otherwise would have reached. This is the opinion reached by many of the most careful students of immigration in the country, and it seems the only tenable one.^[276] And after all, this is the really important thing. For it must not be forgotten that poverty, and riches, and standards of living are all purely relative terms. It is not a question of how much a man has, absolutely, as of how much he has in comparison with those around him, or how much he might have had. So that the common statement that the American workman of to-day has more of the comforts and luxuries of life than one in the same class fifty or one hundred years ago, by no means meets the case. If his share in the wonderful prosperity of the nation has not increased at least in the same proportion as that of the capitalist, or the professional man, or other members of society, then he has really suffered loss.

Immigration has seriously complicated the problems of the trade-unions in this country. Both the need and the difficulty of organization have been greatly increased. The traditional attitude of the unions toward immigration has been one of opposition. Restrictive measures, in particular the contract labor law, have met with their approval and support. But when the immigrants are once admitted to the country, the unions are under the necessity of either receiving them or suffering from their competition. A large body of unskilled laborers, with low standards, unaffiliated with the unions, is most prejudicial to the success of unionism. Alien races differ as to their adaptability to union control. Some of the races of southeastern Europe are looked upon as natural strike-breakers. The Irish, on the other hand, are natural organizers, and at the present time tend to monopolize the direction of the unions. In some cases a large influx of foreigners has practically put the unions out of the running.^[277] In others, the unions come to be made up largely of foreigners. At times it is necessary to organize the different racial elements into separate subgroups.^[278]

On the other hand, the unions exercise a great educative influence on the immigrants—often practically the only one with which the adult foreigner comes in contact. They encourage him to learn English, imbue him with higher standards of living, and teach him the principles of independent thought and self-government.^[279]

One of the chief objections to unrestricted immigration has always been the belief that it seriously increased the amount of pauperism and crime in the country, and added to the burden of relief and correction. We have seen how large a part this objection played in the early opposition to immigration, not only in colonial days, but during the first half of the nineteenth century. Even in our day, in spite of the laws prohibiting the entrance of criminals, paupers, and persons likely to become a public charge, there is a widespread impression that these two evils are increased through immigration.

The prominence of pauperism as an item in the immigration agitation has led to the production of a large amount of material on the subject. Nevertheless, most of it has been fragmentary and untrustworthy. This has been largely due to the incompleteness and lack of uniformity of the records of various eleemosynary institutions, and the difficulty of securing returns from all the manifold agencies of relief. At the present time, however, as a result of careful studies by the Immigration Commission, this is one of the very few effects of immigration about which we may feel justified in setting down definite conclusions.

According to statistics for the year 1850 a native-born population of 21,947,274 contributed 66,434 of the paupers who were wholly or partially supported in the country, while a foreign-born population of 2,244,602 contributed 68,538.^[280] This was manifestly enough to arouse deep consternation, and had not the current of immigration fallen off in the latter fifties we should probably have had a pauper restriction clause in the federal statutes long before we did. The enactment and enforcement of such a statute has prevented the recurrence of any such state of affairs in recent years. Nevertheless, as one glances at random over the reports of various charitable organizations he is impressed with the fact that the number of foreign-born paupers is out of all proportion to the total number of foreign-born inhabitants. Thus in Massachusetts in 1895 a foreign-born population of 30.6 per cent furnished 47.1 per cent of the paupers.^[281] The report of the Associated Charities of Boston for 1894 stated that nearly all of their applicants were of foreign birth or parentage,^[282] while in the same city, three years later, the Industrial Aid Society reported that 56 per cent of the men given work in the men’s department were foreign-born, while 66 per cent of those aided by the Provident Aid Society were of this class.^[283] The reports of the Wisconsin State Board of Charities for the years 1871 to 1898 show that, on the average, the foreign-born paupers considerably outnumber the native-born. Similar figures may be obtained from many sources.^[284]

But the question can be settled only by taking the whole country into account. The Special Report of the Census Bureau on Paupers in Almshouses, 1904, gives the following figures as to the proportions of foreign and native paupers in the almshouses of the country (p. 6):

These figures are the most authoritative and inclusive which there are, covering the almshouses of the country, and show a ratio of paupers among the foreign-born vastly in excess of the ratio of total population.

The paupers in almshouses, however, do not by any means include the total number of persons who belong in that category. There are large numbers of persons receiving relief, who never get inside the almshouses. To cover this class, the Immigration Commission made a special study of immigrants as charity seekers, which included the work done by the charity organization societies in forty-three cities, during the six months from December 1, 1908, to May 31, 1909. The cities were distributed as follows: North Atlantic states, 17; North Central states, 18; Southern states, 4; Western states, 4.

In the terminology of this report, a “case” means an individual or family assisted. The head of the case is the husband, if he is living at home, or the wife if widowed or deserted. If there are no parents or real family, the one upon whom the responsibility falls is the head of the case, or otherwise, the one asking assistance. The total number of cases for which information was secured is 31,685. Of these, the head of the case was foreign-born in 38.3 per cent of the cases, native-born of foreign father in 10.7 per cent, native-born white of native father, 39.9 per cent, and native-born of native negro father, 11 per cent. Of the persons represented, 37.5 per cent were native white of native father, and 42.3 per cent foreign-born. For exact conclusions, comparison should be made of the relation of the percentage of foreign-born paupers to the percentage of foreign-born in the total population in each separate city. For general purposes it is sufficient to note that in the cities of 25,000 or over in 1910—which include all of the forty-three cities studied—the percentages of foreign-born were 20.2 for cities of 25,000 to 100,000, 22.1 for cities of 100,000 to 500,000, and 33.6 for cities of 500,000 and over.^[285]

In fifteen out of the forty-three cities one half or more of the cases, classed by the head of the case, were foreign-born, Milwaukee standing at the head of the list with 67 per cent. In twelve out of the forty-three cities, more than 15 per cent of the cases were immigrants of the second generation, Milwaukee again standing at the head with 25.5 per cent. These two classes make up 92.5 per cent of all the cases for this city. There is evidently more than one thing that makes Milwaukee famous, with a possible connection between them.

In regard to the relative importance of the various foreign races in this respect, we find that the Germans show the largest proportion, amounting to 6.8 per cent of the total number of cases and 7.1 per cent of the total number of persons. The next in order are the Polish, with 6.5 per cent of the cases and 8.6 per cent of the persons, and the Irish, with 6.2 per cent of the cases, and 6.3 per cent of the persons.

As might be expected, the proportion of foreign-born is much larger (more than half) in the cities of the North Atlantic states than in the rest of the country, and very small (10 per cent) in the southern cities. It is interesting to see how each city has its special problem. For instance, in Buffalo 32 per cent of all the cases were foreign-born Poles, and in Chicago 20 per cent were of the same class. In Hartford 15.1 per cent of the cases were foreign-born Irish, in Lynn 10.7 per cent were foreign-born Canadians (other than French), and 19.3 per cent foreign-born Irish. In Milwaukee 33.3 per cent were German, in Newport 22.2 per cent were Irish, in Orange 26.4 per cent Irish, in Rochester 14.6 per cent south Italian, in San Francisco 23.7 per cent were “other races.” By way of comparison, it is interesting to note that in Washington 56.9 per cent of the cases were native-born negroes of native father. In ten of the cities, the native-born whites of native father were less than one fourth of the cases.

The Hebrews are noted for looking after their own poor, yet in six cities more than 5 per cent of all the cases were foreign-born Hebrews. In Brooklyn they made up 18.1 per cent, and in Malden 15.7 per cent. The Germans rank first among the foreign races in 18 cities, and tie with other races in three more. The Irish rank first in nine cities and tie with the Germans in one more. The Polish rank first in four cities and tie in one more.

One more piece of evidence may be taken from the Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for 1908 (p. 98). It is there shown that in the charitable institutions (other than for the insane) in the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico, both public and private, there were, at the time this investigation was made, 288,395 inmates, of whom 19,572 were aliens, 40,453 naturalized citizens, and 228,370 native-born. The percentages are native-born 79.2 per cent and foreign-born 20.8 per cent. It appears that the proportion of foreign-born in institutions is not so extremely excessive as among those seeking a more temporary relief. This is what might be expected in the light of certain considerations respecting the make-up of the foreign-born group which are now to be considered.

It thus becomes evident that from whatever source the figures are taken, the percentage of foreign-born dependents is sadly out of proportion to their relative number in the general population. The absolute figures themselves are bad enough. But a further consideration of the composition of the foreign-born element will demonstrate that the actual showing is much worse than the figures would indicate on their face.

We have seen that as respects their economic efficiency the immigrants are a picked group. The same is true of the foreign-born in the country. This is especially evident as regards the age distribution. The following table, taken from the census of 1910, illustrates this point:

It will be seen that there is a much larger proportion of the foreign-born in the middle age groups, that is, in the period of greatest productivity, than of the native-born. There ought accordingly to be a smaller percentage of pauperism, rather than a larger one.

The sex distribution contributes a further element to this disparity. In 1910, in the native-born white population there were 102.7 males to 100 females. In the foreign-born white population there were 129.2 males to 100 females. This should lessen the liability of the foreign-born to pauperism.

Another factor which enters in to complicate statistical comparisons of pauperism among immigrants and native-born is the matter of the age at which persons become dependent, or, in the case of the immigrants, the number of years they have resided in the United States before they become dependent. There are two periods at which the immigrant is most likely to need relief. The first is immediately after landing, when he has exhausted his slender store of money, and has not yet found means of self-support. Seven per cent of the entire Jewish immigration to the United States, in one year, found it necessary to apply at the office of the United Hebrew Charities in New York, within a short time after their arrival. Relief granted at this time is liable to be temporary, and the immigrant cannot justly be considered a pauper. If he actually becomes dependent, he is of course liable to deportation.

The second, and vastly more important, period is several years after arrival, when the immigrant has exhausted the prime of his strength, and becomes one of the unfit in the keen struggle for economic existence. Those who become dependent at this time are likely to remain so for life. They are those who have been unable or unwilling to make provision for old age, perhaps being so dazzled by the apparent richness of America that they gave no thought to a possible future dearth, perhaps having sent all their meager savings year by year back to friends or relatives in the old country, possibly never having been able to earn more than a bare living wage. Individuals of this class make up the vast majority of the foreign-born paupers in our almshouses. The census of 1890 showed that 92 per cent of the foreign-born male paupers in the almshouses of the United States had been in this country ten years or more. The corresponding figures for the twelfth census show that out of 27,230 foreign-born paupers whose length of residence in this country is known, 26,171, or 96 per cent, had been here ten years or more.^[287] The facts furnished by the investigation of the Immigration Commission in respect to persons aided by the Charity Organization societies are similar; it must be borne in mind, also, in respect to these cases, that they largely represent instances of temporary distress, rather than settled dependence. Of all the foreign-born heads of cases aided by these societies, 44 per cent had been in the United States twenty years or more, and 70.7 per cent ten years or more. When it is recollected how small a proportion of our foreign-born population have been in this country twenty years or over, or even ten years or over, it is manifest how misleading are comparisons in respect to pauperism between native-born and foreign-born, based on the total population of the two classes. Thus, according to the census of 1910, only 62.2 per cent of the total foreign-born population, and 60.2 per cent of the foreign-born population in the urban communities, had immigrated in the year 1900 or earlier.^[288] These facts also point to a possible great increase of pauperism among the foreign-born, as the average length of residence of this class increases.

The age of admission to the almshouse of the different population groups gives corroborative evidence along the same line. The following figures, taken from the census report on Paupers in Almshouses (p. 129), give the average age at admission of the different groups in 1904: native white of native parentage, 45.6 years; native white of foreign parentage, 41.7 years; native white of mixed parentage, 38.3 years; foreign-born white, 56.9 years. The high average age of the foreign-born is due in part to the relatively small number of foreign-born children in the country. But it is undoubtedly also an indication of the effectiveness of the system of examination in weeding out those whose liability to dependence in the near future can be detected. It furthermore adds to the apprehension with which we must look forward to the time when a greater proportion of our foreign-born residents will be above the specified age.

These considerations have an especial bearing on the effort to establish the relative tendency toward dependence of the different immigrating races. As one runs over tables of dependence or pauperism, arranged by nationality, he is impressed by the immense preponderance of the Germans and Irish among those listed. His first conclusion is likely to be that the popular idea of the greater desirability of these races over the newer immigrants is an error; but as soon as he recalls how much longer these races have been in this country, on the average, than the southeastern Europeans, he realizes that these tables, taken by themselves, are wholly unreliable as indicating relative tendencies among races. The following table will serve as an illustration:

Taking these figures as they stand, we may say roughly that the Irish have thirty times as many paupers as those born in Russia and Poland, and forty-six times as many as the natives of Italy or Hungary and Bohemia, and twice as many as the Germans. But this evidently does not represent the relative tendencies to pauperism of these races. The first correction to be made is in regard to the relative numbers of each group in the total population. The Irish have 3.3 times as large a total population as the Italians, which reduces the ratio of relative tendency to pauperism down to about fourteen to one. By a similar reckoning we find that the Germans manifest only about one third the tendency to pauperism that the Irish do, but 4.2 times as great as the Italians. But before even approximately accurate figures for the relative tendencies of these races can be secured, a further correction must be made for the relative average length of residence of the different groups. This unfortunately cannot be done in the present state of our information.

The figures in the preceding paragraph are of course merely the rudest approximations, but they serve to convey an idea of the extreme complexity of the problem of determining relative tendencies toward pauperism, and illustrate the utter worthlessness of the ordinary hit-and-miss comparisons which are made.

The Immigration Commission also made a study of the patients admitted to Bellevue and Allied Hospitals for the seven months period August 1, 1908, to February 28, 1909. The total number of charity patients or cases was 23,758. Of these 18.5 per cent were native-born of native father (2.5 per cent negro), 28.5 per cent native-born of foreign father, and 52.3 per cent foreign-born. The Irish foreign-born are far in the lead, having approximately one fifth of all the cases treated. If we add the Irish native-born of foreign father, we have over one third of the total.

In regard to the length of residence in the United States, the two danger periods noted above are well marked, as the following figures show:

The same distinction appears here between the old and new immigrants that we should expect—a high percentage for the old immigrants in the group over twenty, and a high percentage for the new immigrants in the group under five.

Whether the newer races, as their average length of residence in this country increases, will approach the degree of pauperism of the Irish and Germans, time alone can tell. The strictness of the tests of admission to the United States has steadily increased, and this has had the effect of giving the later immigrants a better showing, as a body, than the earlier ones. It is not impossible that time will prove that thrift and foresight are more distinguishing features of the southern races than of the northern, purchased though they are at the cost of a very low standard of living. A large amount of relief is undoubtedly sought by members of the newer races of immigrants. Among the Charity Organization cases studied by the Immigration Commission, 14.2 per cent of the Russian foreign-born heads of cases had been in the United States less than one year, and the following percentages of foreign-born heads of cases had been in the United States less than five years: Magyar, 44.1 per cent; Russian, 38.7 per cent; Italian, south, 26.6 per cent; Syrian, 25.8 per cent; Italian, north, 25.6 per cent. The races having the largest percentages of foreign-born heads of cases residing in the United States twenty years or over were: Irish, 71.3 per cent; Welsh, 70.4 per cent; French, 62.9 per cent; German, 62.8 per cent; Canadian, French, 58.5 per cent.

The Hebrews exhibit a large amount of dependence, but as they are almost wholly looked after by their own race they seldom appear in large numbers in the public reports. The United Hebrew Charities of New York, in the year 1904, received 10,334 applications at their relief bureau, representing 43,938 individuals, and expended for relief alone $124,694.45. In 1912 the number of applications had fallen to 7140, representing 31,835 individuals, but the expenditure for relief had risen to $254,188.71. This indicates, as the report points out, that the present applicants are in need of permanent relief to a much greater extent than those of a decade ago. The report of the same organization for October 1, 1901, gives the estimate that from 75,000 to 100,000 Jews in New York alone are not self-supporting.

There can be but one conclusion from the foregoing discussion, namely, that our foreign-born residents add to the burden of public and private relief an amount largely out of proportion to their relative numbers in the general population, and that this burden is likely to be an increasing one. Mr. Prescott F. Hall publishes an estimate that the total annual cost of caring for the foreign-born poor of New York State alone equals $12,000,000.^[290] It is worth noting that while the expense of this burden of relief is borne by the public and by benevolent individuals, the real benefit goes to the employer of cheap labor. He secures his labor at a wage which will barely maintain its efficiency for a period of years, without any provision for the future, and when that period is over, and the laborer is no longer an efficient producer, he is cast aside with absolutely no responsibility resting on the employer for his future support or care.^[291] At the customary rate of wages there seem to be but two alternatives open to the workingman’s family—either to live on a frightfully low standard, and make some slight provision for the future, or to live on a somewhat higher standard and run the risk of dependence in old age or misfortune.^[292] It is obvious that both of these are unqualifiedly bad.

As to the causes of this abnormal amount of pauperism Miss K. H. Claghorn makes the following statement: “While it is plain enough that foreign immigration has some connection with the problem of pauperism since common observation and all the statistics available unite in showing that the majority of the recipients of our charity, public and private, are of foreign birth, it is equally certain on the other hand that pauperism is not something that the immigrant brings with him, but is the result of a considerable period of life and experiences here.”^[293] This opinion, coming from so high a source, emphasizes two facts—first, that it is not altogether, if at all, the immigrant’s “fault” that there is so much pauperism among this class. Those who have been paupers before, or seem likely to become so, are refused admission. Second, that there is something radically wrong in the industrial adjustment of the United States when so large a number of foreigners, who come here primarily for motives of financial betterment, and who are not by nature thriftless, are unable during a long period of faithful labor to lay up anything against the period of helplessness. We cannot escape the accusing finger which points toward the United States, demanding recognition of the fact that we are by no means prepared to accept the tremendous responsibility of admitting unlimited numbers of aliens whose entire future destiny depends upon the soundness of our political, social, and economic fabric.

It may be worth while to note some of the general causes which lead to pauperism among the foreign-born. (1) Lack of intelligence. This is sometimes represented by figures of illiteracy. This is hardly a fair basis of judgment, however, as illiteracy may be often the result of poor opportunity, rather than of low intelligence. Nevertheless it is true that the average immigrant of the present generation is probably inferior to the average native workingman, and hence is handicapped in the competition with him. (2) Lack of industrial training. Most of the immigrants have had no training in their home countries to fit them for higher industrial pursuits, and many of those who have, find that it is not adapted to American conditions. (3) Lack of foresight. This must not be generally asserted of the immigrant class, for undoubtedly a large proportion of them are well equipped with an appreciation of the future. Yet in many cases, the ease with which a comparatively comfortable living may be secured in the first years of residence, and the apparently inexhaustible riches of the United States, combine to make the alien neglectful of a future period of dearth. (4) Large families. The birth rate of the foreign-born is a high one, and a large number of young children is always a predisposing cause of pauperism in a struggling family. In this connection some significant figures are furnished by the investigation of the charity organization cases, made by the Immigration Commission, and already referred to. Of all the foreign-born male persons, aided by these societies, who were twenty years of age or over, 81.5 per cent were married, 5 per cent deserted, separated, or widowed, and only 13.5 per cent single. Of the females, 62.3 per cent were married, 33.9 per cent deserted, separated, or widowed, and only 3.8 per cent single. When we remember how much the single men outnumber the married men in the general population of the foreign-born above twenty years of age, we see that if the time ever comes when immigration becomes more of a family matter than at present—in many ways a condition much to be desired—it must inevitably bring with it a tremendous increase in the amount of foreign-born pauperism. (5) Money sent home. If the situation of the immigrant was such that these large sums could be retained in this country, as a reserve fund against future want, his liability to pauperism would be much diminished. This, of course, cannot be expected, since much of this money is sent back to meet obligations which no one would wish the immigrant to evade. In cases where it is sent back to support a family, it is doubtless a more economical arrangement than if the wife and children were maintained in the United States. (6) Low wages, and the maladjustment between the supply of labor and the demand. Enough has already been said to establish this as a fundamental condition, and it is the proximate cause of pauperism in the majority of cases. The attempt to analyze and classify the causes of pauperism is unsatisfactory at best; yet a certain amount of light may be shed on the subject in this way if carefully done. The Immigration Commission’s Report on Immigrants as Charity Seekers assigns the cases studied to certain general causes in the following proportions: