Much is said and written in these days about the “immigration problem,” yet it is only rarely that there appears a conscious effort to prove that such a problem exists, or to analyze its character. Is there in the United States an immigration problem? If so, in what does it consist? To answer these two questions is the purpose of the present chapter.

When the great new lands of the Western Hemisphere were made available to the inhabitants of Europe by the efforts of Columbus and the later explorers and discoverers, there opened up before humanity tremendous possibilities of advance.^[346] The ratio between men and land was changed for the whole civilized world. An enormous area of fertile country was presented to the nations of Europe, by which the operation of the Malthusian principles was checked. Peoples who had reached the saturation point of population in Europe were given the opportunity to utilize their acquired arts in a virgin and practically uninhabited region. On account of the difficulties of transportation, and the consequent slow settlement of the new world, the results of this great alteration were only tardily developed. In many ways the entire progress of civilization during the nineteenth century is the outward expression of the transformation in conditions which then took place. So far as the human mind can anticipate, nothing of a similar nature can ever happen again on this earth.

To the people of the new nation of the United States, as the possessors of the most favored portion of this new territory, was intrusted the responsibility of utilizing its marvelous resources, not only for their own advantage, but for the securing of the greatest and most permanent amelioration of the living conditions of the whole human family. It was not to be expected that our forefathers should have completely recognized the full significance of this responsibility, nor have undertaken the administration of it with a degree of scientific wisdom which they did not possess. Their past experience of bad political systems enabled them to frame a plan of government which has held the admiration of all civilized people down to the very present. In the utilization of the material resources of the country, however, they had no past experience to serve as a guide. No other civilized people within the compass of human history had been intrusted with such a profusion of virgin resources, absolutely open to exploitation. There is no wonder that the possibilities of the country seemed limitless, and that men proceeded to make the most of them to serve present needs, with no thought of what the consequences might be to future generations. Forests were cut down, mines were wastefully worked, rivers were dammed, natural gas was burned day and night, the soil was cultivated year after year without enrichment, and when exhausted, abandoned. In our modern age of conservation we are beginning to realize how ruthlessly these rich treasures have been squandered, and are making eager and earnest efforts to save what is left.

Something of the same sort took place in the more intangible domain of population. Into the minds of the less than four million people who were enumerated in the United States in 1790, even the thought of a redundant population could hardly enter. The one great thing that seemed to be needed was more people, and while the natural increase of the native stock seemed to many ample to meet the demands, there was nevertheless a hearty welcome to all sturdy and well-intentioned aliens who elected to establish themselves within the territory of the new nation. Especially was there a feeling of sympathy toward those who came seeking refuge from political tyranny or oppression in the nations of Europe. Thus the principle of an open door, and a welcome to the “oppressed and downtrodden of all races,” became the established policy of the nation, and as decade succeeded decade acquired all the power and authority of tradition and usage. As a consequence, all efforts to control or regulate the ingress of aliens, which have been incited by the apparent needs of the situation, have been confronted with the necessity of bearing the burden of proof, and of assailing established dogma. This has put the advocates of restriction into the category of “antis,” and has laid them open to the charge of narrow-mindedness and bigotry. If it can be conceived that the United States should have been in her present industrial situation when she first began to frame national policies, it is wholly probable that the restrictionists would have been considered the conservatives, and the advocates of free immigration, the radicals.

However this may be, the fact is that in general the open-door policy has prevailed, and only within the last generation have restrictive laws been passed, which have served merely to weed out the manifestly undesirables, scarcely to diminish in any significant measure the great bulk of the current. The resulting transfer of people from Europe to America has been truly phenomenal. In the period of years from 1820 to 1912 a total of 29,611,052 immigrants came to the United States.^[347] No population movement of equal social significance, and comparable in volume, has ever taken place within the recorded history of the human race. And never again, so far as the human eye can see, can it be repeated, when the heyday of immigration to the United States is over. It is inconceivable that such a phenomenon should not have important and far-reaching effects upon every country concerned in the movement. There is, then, an immigration problem.

But just what is the problem? The answer to that question depends upon the point of view. In the first place, it must be decided whether it is desirable for nations consciously to interfere with, and try to control, such a natural movement as this; secondly, if interference is to be undertaken, whose welfare is to be held prominently in view—in other words, from what standpoint is the problem to be attacked? If the former of these queries is answered in the negative, the problem remains a purely academic one—the study of causes and effects, and the recording of conclusions and data, without any telic purpose in view. No programs, schemes, or systems of reform can emanate from such a study. If answered in the affirmative, the problem then becomes one in applied sociology—perhaps the most complex and important that any modern nation has ever had to deal with. In regard to the second part of the above query, it is to be noted that there are four possible standpoints open to choice. First, that of the United States; second, that of the countries of source; third, that of the immigrants; fourth, that of humanity in general. There are possibilities of a different aspect of the problem from each of these viewpoints. Let us consider the two parts of this query in turn.

There is a natural and deep-seated reluctance on the part of every careful and scientific student of sociology to advocate the regulation of any great human activity according to any man-made scheme or formula. The laws of nature seem so much safer a guide than any plan which, as Professor Summer says, some one has thought out in bed.^[348] The laissez-faire doctrine makes a great initial appeal. This probably accounts in large measure for its great vogue. The broad-minded and liberal man says, “What can be better or more just than to let each individual work out his own destiny in the way that seems to him best?” Particularly does such a tremendous movement as modern immigration inspire the student with feelings of reverential awe, rather than a desire to intermeddle. It is such a gigantic and complex thing, and cuts straight across all social relations with such an inclusive and unsparing sweep, that one can never know what the unknown factors are, nor what unforeseen and unexpected developments may arise. Certainly this seems one of the things that had better be left alone.

But as we look at the world around us, we realize that the doctrine of laissez-faire has proved inadequate to meet the conditions of modern industrial life, and has broken down under the strain.^[349] We realize that self-interest, even enlightened self-interest, is not the safest guide for the individual or for the race. We recognize the fact that the safety of society demands that men shall not be allowed to do as they please, nor to go where they please. The law places many restrictions upon the free movements of men. I may not trespass upon my neighbor’s property; I may not enter public buildings except at specified times. If I wish to visit a fever-stricken and quarantined city, I either am not allowed to go, or I am prevented from coming away when I wish. These are familiar and trivial illustrations, but they emphasize the fact that complete laissez-faire is impossible under present conditions—in fact, probably always has been. A host of other instances of social legislation, pure-food laws, trust regulation, etc., might be invoked to establish the point, were it necessary. The whole series of immigration statutes, increasing in severity from 1882 down to the present, are evidence of the acceptance of this principle with special relation to immigration. The question is not, shall we have regulation or not, but how much and what kind of regulation shall we have? The doctrine of laissez-faire, per se, would have no greater weight as an argument against complete suspension of immigration than it would have against the exclusion of contract laborers.

If the personal inclinations of the individual lead him to prefer to regard the immigration problem in the strictly academic light, no fault can be found; but the denial of the propriety of suggesting plans of control, the demand that the immigrants be let alone, represents an obsolete point of view. Any amount of regulation, which proves necessary to safeguard the interests of society, can be justified in the light of modern opinion and practice.

Furthermore, it is to be observed that immigration will not be let alone. It has already been demonstrated that the immigration of to-day is not in any sense a wholly natural movement. It is stimulated at the outset, partly by disinterested friends and relatives, partly by purely selfish transportation interests. It is subjected to various controls all along the way. After the immigrants reach this country, they are often, for a long time, in almost complete subjection to the padrone, the contractor, or the importer. Once again, the question is not, shall immigration be a natural and uncontrolled movement or not, but shall it be controlled by greedy, selfish, and unscrupulous individuals, or by a well-intentioned government? For the rest of this book we shall take the position that the immigration problem is one of applied sociology, and that immigration is a proper subject for government control, by such means and to such an extent as the most careful and scientific study shall warrant.

Most problems in applied sociology have to do with interests; certainly the problem of immigration does. Having answered the first part of our query in the affirmative, the problem now expresses itself thus: how shall the movement of aliens from foreign countries to the United States be so controlled as to further the best interests of somebody? But of whom? This is the second part of our query. It is manifest that the United States, the countries of source, the immigrants, and humanity in general all have interests which may be affected by immigration, that these interests are not always harmonious or correlative, but that they may be, and in some cases must be, in direct opposition to each other. Any one who has opinions on the subject must make it plain, to himself at least, which of these interests he regards as paramount, which of these standpoints he proposes to assume. Many of the popular arguments on the question have been confused by the unconscious effort to take two or more of these viewpoints at once. Each of these viewpoints is legitimate, and has arguments on its own side, and no one should be blamed for choosing any one. Evidently the fourth is a sort of summation and balance of the other three. It will be profitable to consider the first three in turn; we shall then be prepared to take the point of view of the welfare of humanity in general.

What, then, are the arguments for and against immigration from the point of view of the United States? The positive arguments for, and the negative arguments against, immigration center around the question whether the United States needs the immigrants. The positive arguments against, and the negative arguments for, immigration have to do with the claim that immigration injures the United States.

The argument for immigration which, if not the strongest during the first half of the nineteenth century, was probably the most frequently expressed, was the sentimental one which exhibited the United States as the natural haven of refuge for the oppressed and unfortunate of all lands, and extended a hearty welcome to all seekers of liberty who should come. This, as has been mentioned, was natural under the conditions of the time. It found expression in such words as the following, appearing in a magazine in the year 1855:

“If the physiologic principle we have endeavored to establish is correct, it follows that America pre-eminently owes its growth and prosperity to the amalgamation of foreign blood. To cut off, therefore, or to discourage its influx, will be to check the current from which our very life is drawn. The better course is evidently to welcome and provide for this tide of immigration, rather than to oppose and turn it away; to cherish the good influence it brings, and regulate the bad, rather than to trample them both under foot. What, though the population which is annually cast upon American shores is all of the filthiest and most degraded kind! The farmer might as well complain of the black and reeking soil into which his seed is dropped, as the statesman of such materials as these.... Let us welcome the houseless and the naked of every land to American shores; in the boundless forests of the north and the south there is room to make a home for them all. Let us invite the ill-fed and the starving of every grade to partake of American abundance; on the fertile fields of the west there grows corn enough to feed them all. Let us urge the oppressed and the down trodden of every name to the blessings of American freedom; the Star Spangled Banner is broad enough to cover, and the eagle that sits over it is strong enough to defend, them all.”^[350]

Such talk as this is so thoroughly out of date as to sound almost ridiculous in modern ears. In fact, the sentimental argument plays but little part in the present agitation, for the reason that the conditions which justify it furnish the motive to an insignificant portion of our present immigrants, with the exception of the Russian Jews.

Two other arguments for immigration may be styled the social and the biological. These claim respectively that the national character and the physical stock of the American people may be much improved by the addition of new elements brought in by foreign immigrants. It is pointed out that the German love for music, the artistic temperament of the Italian, the thrift of the Slav, the outdoor sociability of the Greek, might add—perhaps have added already—something of great value to the life of the country. There is much weight to this argument. It is quite conceivable that under proper conditions of social contact on a plane of equality between foreigner and native some such desirable transfusion of character might take place. It is another matter altogether to claim that any such beneficial result is transpiring, under the present conditions of the immigrant in this country.

The biological argument brings up the much-vexed question of the desirability of mixed stocks. There has been a prevalent opinion that the interbreeding of two races, not too far separated in physical stock, resulted in a type superior to either of the parent races. But there is no agreement as to where the line between the favorable and the unfavorable mixing shall be drawn. Some of the papers read at the Universal Races Congress in London would seem to convey the impression that any two races on earth might be mixed to good advantage. But this is by no means the universal opinion of careful anthropologists.

In regard to both of these arguments it may be said that, whatever their intrinsic worth, they have no great positive weight as respects the present situation in the United States. It seems likely that this country has already within its borders all the alien elements that will be needed for a long time to come—certainly until they are more completely absorbed than they are at present.

There remains by far the greatest and most universal argument for immigration—the economic one. The one plea for the free admission of aliens, that has weight to-day, is that our industrial organization demands it. Not only is it asserted that the rapid development of the country would not have been possible without the immigrant and cannot be prosecuted in the future without him, but that the cessation of immigration would seriously cripple many of the basic industries of this country. The former of these points has already been considered at some length, and the conclusion was reached that it was inconceivable that in such a country as the United States any socially important or necessary work should have had to be foregone in the absence of a foreign labor supply. Such an assertion implies a lack of self-sufficiency on the part of a young and vigorous people which is unthinkable. Whether the exploitation of our resources would have proceeded at such a rapid pace in the past, whether this pace could be kept up in the future, without the immigrant—these are questions more difficult of answer. There is no doubt that at present a large portion of our industry—possibly the greater part—is closely dependent upon a foreign labor supply, and that a sudden cessation of immigration would check the expansion of those industries, though it would not necessarily prevent their continuing on the present basis. It seems wholly probable that the development of the country would be retarded for a time if the immigration current was stopped.

But why this insistent demand for a rapid exploitation of our resources? Wherein are we the gainers if the wonderful natural riches of the country, which, as we have seen, constitute one of the two great elements which have accounted for our past prosperity, are consumed in the shortest possible time? In the words of Prescott F. Hall, “what boots an extended railroad mileage or the fact that all our coal and minerals are dug up or all our trees cut down some years or decades sooner?” Are we so greedy for luxury in the present that we wish to leave as little as possible of this natural advantage to future generations? It seems hardly possible. Rather is this idea another of those traditional survivals from the early life of the country, when conditions were such that the exploitation of resources was really essential to growth in per capita, as well as total, wealth, and prosperity. Our country has, in point of fact, developed so rapidly that the public mind has not adjusted itself to new conditions, and the idea of the value of a rapid exploitation lingers on as an anachronism. Possibly there is a slight element of modern megalomania mingled with it.

If it were true that the United States, having reached its present point of development, was unable to advance along the path of steady and solid growth, depending solely upon its own resources, human as well as material, it would be one of the most serious indictments against our social situation that could possibly be made. It is inconceivable that it should be true. It seems much more reasonable to believe that while the suspension of accessions of population from foreign sources would entail numerous and serious readjustments in social and economic relations, nevertheless the United States still has enough native virility to work out a prosperous and independent destiny of its own. It is hard to see any important respect in which the United States, at the present time, really needs immigrants.

There is still another type of argument for immigration, which might be called the indifference argument, which says, in effect, “Very likely we do not need the immigrants, but they do us no harm. Let them come, anyway.” The answer to this throws the burden of proof upon the restrictionist, and makes it incumbent upon him to show that immigration really injures the United States.

The positive arguments against immigration as at present conducted may be grouped under eight main heads, which may be designated as follows: (1) the numbers argument; (2) the distribution argument; (3) the standard of living and wages argument; (4) the pauperism and crime argument; (5) the stimulation argument; (6) the illegal entrance argument; (7) the biological argument; (8) the assimilation argument. In the discussion of these arguments it must be borne in mind that they are considered with reference to immigration as it now exists, not as it might be under other conditions.

(1) The common argument that we have too many immigrants is really no argument at all. There cannot be too many immigrants unless the excessive number manifests itself in some positive evil. What the average person who uses this argument probably means, if he has any definite meaning in mind at all, is that there are so many aliens coming to this country that their presence results in one or another of the undesirable conditions which are included in the other seven arguments.

(2) In like manner the statement that immigrants are poorly distributed is no real argument. It has been demonstrated that there are certain excessive tendencies toward concentration on the part of our alien population, but unless positive evils emerge from this condition, it is no argument against immigration.

(3) The claim that immigration has lowered the wages and standard of living of the American workman has already been examined, with the conclusion that it would be nearer the truth to say that it has kept them from rising. This, however, amounts to practically the same thing. If somebody prevents me from getting that to which I am entitled, he to all intents and purposes makes me suffer deprivation. The evidence on this point is so strong that it can hardly be gainsaid. As we have seen, practically all careful students admit it. About the only answer that can be made to this argument is that it is not the immigrant’s fault.^[351] This is undoubtedly true, partly at least. The immigrant has no grudge against the American workman, nor any desire to injure him. Undoubtedly he would be glad to earn as good wages as the native, if he could. Inasmuch as he cannot, he is not to blame if he consents to work for what he can get. And inasmuch as his wages are low, and his family is large, and he is anxious to save, he is not to blame if he lives on a miserably low standard. In the whole procedure the immigrant may display the most admirable qualities. He is simply playing his part in an impersonal struggle for existence. But the result to the American workman is the same. It is a question of causes and effects, not of blame. It must be accepted as a fact that each successive wave of immigration has tended to check the advance of the laboring men already in the country, be they native or foreign. And here is where the numbers argument applies. For it is obvious that the greater the numbers the more aggravated will be the evils of this kind.

(4) The argument that immigration increases the amount of pauperism and crime in the country has already been examined. As far as the past is concerned it appears that pauperism has been immensely increased through our foreign-born population, while the amount of crime has not. But there has been a change in the character of crime, in the direction of an increase in crimes against the person relative to crimes against property. What the future will bring forth, it is impossible to predict. It seems likely that the tendency toward an excess of pauperism on the part of the foreign-born will become greater as the average length of residence of the newer immigrants increases. Here, again, the claim that it is not the immigrant’s fault might be advanced, and the answer be made that whether it is the fault of the immigrant, or of our industrial system, or of the individual American, makes no difference in the facts as they exist. It does make a difference, of course, as to where the remedy must be applied.

(5) The extent to which the immigration movement of the present is a stimulated one has already been indicated. It might seem at first that it made no difference to the United States whether the immigrant was induced to come, or whether he came of his own volition. But a closer consideration shows that there is a fundamental difference. A strictly natural immigration would mean that immigrants came in response to some actual economic demand in this country which was strong enough to make itself felt abroad. They would also be the ones best fitted to meet that demand. But when one of the greatest motives back of immigration is the desire of the transportation companies to make money, the mere fact of emigration is no indication of any real need for the immigrant in this country, nor of his fitness to enter into its life.

(6) Owing to the very strict wording of our contract labor law, a very large proportion of our immigrants enter the country under the impression, either false or correct, that they are evading the law. This has a very serious effect upon their character, and upon their attitude toward American institutions. They may readily conceive that a country that has such laws that it is necessary to break them to get in, probably has other laws that need to be broken after one is in. The whole system engenders a most dangerous attitude of indifference or hostility to law.

(7) The biological argument of the restrictionist is the obverse of the biological argument of the pro-immigrationist, and is equally vague in the present state of our knowledge on the subject of race mixing. Those who urge this argument against immigration are those who believe that only when the mingled races are closely allied is the resulting stock of a superior type, or else those who hold the extreme view that no mixed race is as good as a pure race. At any event, they believe that the racial elements which are now coming to the United States are too diverse to produce anything but an inferior stock through their interbreeding. In this connection it should be observed that there are two possible results of this gathering of races in the United States, each with its own problems. One is that these races will, in the course of time, become so blended through intermarriage as to produce one composite but homogeneous whole—the new American people. The other is that race prejudice and the forces of segregation will result in the growth of a large number of ethnic groups within the nation, each with its own peculiarities, and each distinct from the others. There are some indications which point to the latter as the more probable outcome.^[352]

(8) The charge that our immigrants are not completely assimilated, or are not assimilated at all, is one of the most frequent and gravest complaints made against our present immigration situation. It is made to include—as, indeed, it rightfully does in a sense—all the other arguments against immigration. The term assimilation is almost unfailingly suggested by the mere mention of immigration. But assimilation is a big word, and needs to be used with great caution and understanding.

In its general application, assimilation is defined as the “act or process of assimilating, or bringing to a resemblance, conformity, or identity,”^[353] or “the act or process of making or becoming like or identical; the act or process of bringing into harmony”;^[354] or again, “the action of making or becoming like; the state of being like; similarity, resemblance, likeness; ... the becoming conformed to; conformity with.”^[355] It is evident from these definitions that the essence of assimilation is likeness or conformity; this of necessity implies a type to which such likeness approaches. It appears that it would not be incorrect to speak of assimilation when there is nothing more than resemblance; it seems equally clear that complete assimilation involves identity. This is particularly evident in reference to the special application of the term, which is the one generally in mind when it is used, viz. the assimilation of food in the body. In this sense the process is described as “the reformation of biogen molecules by those already existing, aided by food-stuffs.”^[356]

It is this physiological analogy which underlies the term assimilation when applied to population, and the whole matter may be best understood by keeping that analogy in view. When nutriment is taken into the system of a living organism, it passes through certain processes by which it ultimately becomes an integral part of the physical body of that organism. It is then said to be assimilated. Every suggestion of separate origin disappears, each new constituent entering harmoniously into relation with the others, new and old, and fulfilling its own functions. While it is true that certain food elements contribute particularly to certain portions of the organism, yet the whole is a coördinated unit. Any portion of the food which created disturbance with reference to the body would not be said to be assimilated.

This is only an analogy, and analogies are dangerous if used as arguments. But it may contain a helpful suggestion. Transferred to the field of population, it means that true and complete assimilation of the foreign elements in the United States involves such a complete transformation and unification of the new constituents that all sense of difference between the new and the old completely disappears. The idea of a type, into conformity with which the new elements must be brought, is here present also. In the case in point, this is manifestly the “American type.” Just what this is, it might be difficult to say. Some writers appear even to question its existence. But the very idea of assimilation presupposes a type. In general terms, this type in the United States is the “native American.”^[357]

A foreigner, or the descendant of a foreigner, can be truly said to be assimilated only when the natives around him are conscious of no feeling of alienation on account of his origin, and when the newcomer himself feels no degree of separateness, nor possesses divergent interests or loyalties traceable to the source from which he came. This is not inconsistent with the fact that certain elements contribute more fully to specific characteristics of the body politic than others. The political, religious, or artistic aspects of the national life may, in fact, owe their character more to one element of the population than to another. But if assimilation is complete, there can be no disturbances or friction arising from differences of origin among the members of the nation.

Perhaps the most efficient test of entire assimilation is that of free intermarriage. If marriage might take place between any man and woman in the country, without suggesting differences of race or ethnic origin to either contracting party, or their families, it is a safe evidence of complete assimilation. There may be objections on the grounds of wealth, social station, or religion; there must be none based on race.

This may seem like strong doctrine. It may, indeed, not be necessary for the welfare of the country that assimilation should be so thoroughgoing as this. It is possible that different racial groups within the body politic do not constitute a menace. But if so, the fact should be stated by saying that complete assimilation is not necessary, rather than by saying that the absence of serious difficulties or evils arising from a composite population is a proof of complete assimilation.

It is disheartening to note the frequency with which even careful writers on the subject accept trivial and superficial indications as evidence of the assimilation of our foreign residents. The wearing of American clothes, the laying of carpets on the floors, the abandonment of sleeping in the kitchen and taking large numbers of boarders, the use of better food, and most of all the knowledge of English are taken as proofs of assimilation.

Not all of these improvements, to be sure, are in themselves trivial. They may indicate a great advance in living conditions, and in so far an approach to Americanization; but they are superficial as proofs of assimilation. Particularly is this true of the knowledge of English, upon which so much emphasis is laid, and which is often accepted as an evidence of essential assimilation. Now the knowledge and use of the English language is of the greatest importance, and is one of the first steps—perhaps the most essential one—toward assimilation. But it is not assimilation itself. Missionaries in China, Turkey, and other foreign lands learn to speak the languages almost perfectly, and sometimes their children speak the language of the country more readily than they do English. But that is no proof that either the missionaries or their children are assimilated into the nations in which they reside. The outlook for foreign missions would indeed be dark, were it so. The importance of the knowledge of English to our foreign residents must not be underemphasized. The lack of it is an almost insuperable bar to assimilation. But the two should not be confused. Even people whose native tongue is English may need to go through a process of assimilation before they become Americans. The following incident may serve as an illustration of this point.

Two young men, one an American and the other an Englishman, both teachers in a foreign city, were discussing the conditions in the armies of their native lands. The Englishman remarked that in his country the officers were chosen from the noble families, and that it was a fine system, as it caused the men to look upon their superiors with great respect. The American replied that in America officers were chosen for bravery, ability, or distinguished conduct, and that made the men respect them much more. “Oh, no,” said the Briton, “it is impossible that such a system as that could result in as profound a respect as exists in our army.” The point was argued for half an hour, with naturally not the slightest alteration of opinion on either side. It is probable that that young Englishman might have lived all the remainder of his life in the United States, without actually getting the American point of view. But until he did, in this respect as well as others, he could not be said to be truly assimilated, although he might have been a very useful citizen.^[358]

Regarding the matter of assimilation from the American point of view, there are two questions to be asked. First, are our immigrants being thoroughly assimilated? Second, is complete assimilation necessary or desirable? As to the first of these queries, it seems that there can be but one answer, as far as the immigrants themselves—those of the first generation—are concerned. We have seen in how large a proportion of this class the first step, the mastery of the English language, has not been taken. In the various other conditions of life, which we have studied, it is apparent that a large part of the foreign-born are very far from American standards. With length of residence, an approach to Americanization is made. Yet it is very doubtful if it is possible for even the most exceptional adult immigrant, from the southeastern European races, at least, to become thoroughly assimilated in his lifetime. The barriers of race, set for the most part by Americans, can hardly be broken down. The immigrant is still an Italian, or a Slav, or a Greek, as long as he lives, and Americans regard him as in a measure a stranger, no matter how cultivated, or wealthy, or broad-minded he may be. The mental habits, also, which are the result of long race inheritance, are very deep-seated, and can hardly be altered even after a long residence in a foreign country.^[359] Assimilation for the adult means the abandonment of one set of mores and the adoption of another. But the mores of a race become too thoroughly ingrained into individual character and thought to be subject to complete revision in a changed environment, even under the most favorable circumstances. And when attention is directed to the slums, the question of assimilation becomes almost a mockery. These matters are so obvious as to be almost an axiom, and even the adherents of the “liberal” policy of immigration have come to lay little stress in their arguments upon the assimilation of the first generation. The attention of all is turned to the children of the foreign-born—the immigrants of the second generation.

Judged by the superficial tests upon which reliance is generally placed, the native-born children of foreign parents seem to be very well assimilated. They wear American hats, clothes, and shoes, they speak English, they are as literate as the offspring of native parents of the same social class, they play American games when they are young, and engage in American business when they grow up. In the words of Professors Jenks and Lauck, speaking of the foreign races in the larger cities, “Their children differ little from those of the American-born, unless they are brought up throughout their childhood in the race colonies,”—a weighty exception.^[360] But are they really assimilated? Are the tests which have been enumerated above fulfilled? This is a matter worthy of the most serious consideration, and very difficult of determination, withal.

It is a very hopeless task to attempt to decide upon the degree of assimilation of any group on a statistical basis. Statistics which might give light are meager and unreliable, and it is not a matter which lends itself well to such treatment at best. In many of the statistics which might be appealed to, the second generation of immigrant is included under the general head of the native-born, and sometimes gives that class a more unfavorable appearance than it would otherwise present. As far as the statistics of criminality and tendency to pauperism are concerned, the native-born of foreign parents appear to be the most troublesome class in the population. They seem to have earned an unfortunate reputation for lawlessness, although their crimes, as the Immigration Commission has pointed out, tend to resemble those of the native element in character. But these things alone are not sufficient tests of assimilation. We need to know whether in their mental processes, in their attitude toward life, and in their position in regard to political or moral questions, there linger peculiarities traceable to their foreign origin. We need to know whether their neighbors, of the old American stock, think of them as different from themselves, because of race. We need to know whether, in respect to international questions, their views are colored by inherited affiliations or prejudices. In regard to such considerations as these it is impossible to make any positive and sweeping statements. It seems wholly probable that there are large numbers of the descendants of immigrants, particularly of the earlier races, who would measure up to the full standard of assimilation even by these tests. But it seems also beyond question that there are great bodies of immigrants of the second generation who are prevented from complete absorption into the body politic, if not by their own lack of adaptation, at least by the attitude of the representatives of the old American stock.

It would be foolhardy to deny that, at the present time, there are immense unassimilated elements in our population,—immigrants of the first or second generation, possibly even of the third. Every foreign-American society, be it Irish, German, Italian, Slovak, or any other, whatever its aims and purposes, is a standing evidence of a group of people who recognize certain affiliations or loyalties which are foreign to the out-and-out American. The number of such organizations is legion, and the membership, if it could be reckoned, would reach an imposing total. The recent protests by Irish-American societies against the production of certain plays by the Irish Players, the German-American demonstration which broke up the peace meeting in Carnegie Hall on December 12, 1911, as well as the German-American meetings held four years previously to protest against the enforcement in New York of what was styled a Puritan Sunday, the discrimination of the Russian government against certain of our citizens—these and a host of similar events occurring from time to time emphasize the existence within this country of racial contingents which have not become indistinguishably blended into the American people. If, for any conceivable reason, the United States should be drawn into any European international complication, she would find that hosts of her citizens, as well as mere residents, displayed a divided allegiance, of which the preponderance might easily be on the side of some foreign nation. As long as such conditions as these prevail, it is idle to claim that assimilation is complete.

Assimilation is a matter of the force of environment pitted against that of heredity. The protracted discussion as to the relative influence of these two factors continues unsettled. But the claim that the second generation of immigrants are thoroughly assimilated seems to deny the importance of either. To assert that the children of foreign parents, brought up in a home made by foreigners though located in the United States, are in the end equally American with children born of native parents, and reared in a home upon which the American type is indelibly stamped, is to claim that heredity is of no account whatever, and that the only environment which has weight is that rather vague environment of “country.” It is to say that a man’s character is solely the result of the region in which he lives, without reference to either birth or breeding. It seems hardly credible that such an assertion should be seriously made. It is more likely that those who say that the children of the foreign-born are assimilated really mean that they are nearly enough assimilated for all practical purposes.

Professor Franz Boas, in his study of “Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants,” which forms a part of the report of the Immigration Commission, and has attracted wide attention, lays much stress on the change in environment which follows immigration. He reaches the conclusion that there is a tendency manifest in the American-born children of immigrants to approach a common physical type in this country, and that this tendency becomes more marked as the mother’s length of residence in the United States, previous to the birth of the child, increases. His main investigations are concerned with the head form, and have to do particularly with Sicilians and east European Hebrews. The cephalic index has always been considered one of the most permanent of race characters, but Professor Boas’s figures seem to show that the naturally long-headed Sicilians tend to become less so in this country, while the relative length of head of the naturally brachycephalic Hebrews increases. The results reached by Professor Boas are somewhat startling, and challenge attention. It is to be hoped that they will be subjected to the most careful scrutiny by anthropologists qualified either to verify or to correct them. Until they have been thus tested they can be accepted only tentatively. On the face of them they suggest certain weaknesses or limitations. In the first place, they are concerned with too few races, and too few individuals in each race, to justify general conclusions. Again, they are concerned almost wholly with persons under twenty years of age, who are naturally still in a plastic state. It would be much more significant if it could be shown that this tendency still persisted after the individuals were fully matured. Furthermore, the curves show a decided tendency to lose their regularity, and go to pieces, in the upper ages tabulated, either because there were too few individuals in those age groups to afford regularity, or because the tendencies actually diminish as age advances. Finally, it must be said that if the mere change of residence from eastern Europe or southern Italy to America is sufficient to produce a complete change of head form in the offspring, it can only mean that after all the head form is not such a permanent race character as has been supposed, and really has little significance. Certainly we should avoid such sweeping deductions from this study as Professors Jenks and Lauck make in the statement, “If these physical changes are so great, we may well conclude that the whole mental and even the moral constitution of the people may also rapidly change under the new conditions.”^[361]

It will not do to assume, as is sometimes done apparently, that mere residence in the United States is enough to make Americans of foreign immigrants or their children. America is something more than merely a section of the earth’s surface. It is a set of standards, customs, ideals, institutions, mores, embodied and personified in a group of people. Like many other of the deepest things in life they would be very hard to enumerate or describe, yet their existence is none the less sure. They are exemplified more completely in some persons than in others, and he who most thoroughly personifies them is the truest American. Historically, they have been associated with a certain physical strain, with which many of them appear to be inherently connected. Real assimilation means adoption into this spiritual inheritance. The only way it can be brought about is through close, intimate, constant association with those in whom it is embodied.

The agencies of assimilation then, in addition to the physical one of race blending, are those things which further contact and association between the newcomer and those who are truly Americans. Professors Jenks and Lauck give a list of such causes or influences.^[362] The list might perhaps be amplified, but as it stands it is an enumeration of forces which contribute to interrace association. It is not essential that the influence of the American upon the immigrant be an intentional, or even a conscious, one. Many of the most powerful forces are unobserved. The foreigner is very much aware of the differences between himself and his American neighbors, and the laws of imitation work strongly. But to have these forces work, there must be contact.

Under the modern conditions which surround the immigrant this contact or association is all too often wholly lacking, or very meager. The entire life of many of our foreign-born and the youth of their children is spent in compact colonies, where, except for a few externals, the atmosphere is much more suggestive of the old world than of the new. The conditions of the old home are reproduced with the utmost possible fidelity, though often with a loss of much of the charm. So far as there is any social life, it is almost wholly confined within the boundaries of race. Even in the industrial life of to-day, as has been pointed out, there is practically no contact with Americanizing influences. It is really a wonder that the aliens are Americanized at all. When we stop to consider that in Massachusetts and New Jersey there are only two natives for every foreigner, and that many of these natives are of foreign parentage, we realize how slight are the chances for assimilation. It would be almost the task of a lifetime for two Americans to thoroughly Americanize a native peasant from a backward district of southeastern Europe, if they gave their whole time to it.

The one great assimilative agency, which is continually cited as the hope of the coming generation of the foreign-born, is the American public school. It certainly is a tremendous force in the right direction, and its possibilities are immeasurable. Yet even the public school is not a panacea for all ills. It cannot take the place of both birth and home training. During the hours that the pupils are in school, a wise and tactful teacher can instill many of the principles of Americanism into their minds. But the means, good as it is, is not adequate to the end. And it is to be feared that under recent conditions even the public schools are losing some of the power in this direction that they once had. With the growth of localized colonies of a single race, or of several foreign races, the schools in many of our large cities are losing their American character, as far as the pupils are concerned, so that the immigrant child finds himself associating with others equally foreign with himself, instead of with children from American families. There is a story that in a certain New England city, of high scholastic traditions, an American lady determined to place her son in the public school, and on taking him down found that he was the only American child in that school. A Russian Jewess edged up to her and remarked confidentially, “Ain’t it a shame, the way the Dagoes are crowding in everywhere these days?” Furthermore, a very large proportion of the children of the foreign-born do not receive even such Americanizing influence as the public school exerts, because of the religious prejudices which compel them to attend parochial schools.

Aside from the characteristics of the immigrants themselves, the positive forces which prevent or retard assimilation may be considered under three heads, viz. the indifference, love of wealth, and race prejudice of the older residents of the United States. As to the first of these, no elaboration is required. The attitude of those who are perfectly content to let things drift along as they will, without any care on their part, is too familiar and too well understood to need comment. The love of wealth manifests itself as a barrier to assimilation, in two principal ways. First, the greed for economic gain results in bringing in continually cheaper supplies of labor, represented by ever lower and more backward races, and paying them such wages as of necessity keep them on the lowest scale of living. Secondly, the well-developed distinctions between the rich and the poor prevent Americans from associating on friendly terms with these same foreigners for whose presence and condition they are at least indirectly responsible. The growing tendency for certain occupations of the lower type to become the especial province of certain foreign races, as has been observed above, is continually accentuating these distinctions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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