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):
═════════════╤══════════════════════════╤══════════════════════════ NATIVITY │ PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF │ PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF │ PAUPERS │ GENERAL POPULATION ─────────────┼────────┬────────┬────────┼────────┬────────┬──────── „ │ 1903 │ 1890 │ 1880 │ 1903 │ 1890 │ 1880 ─────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼──────── Native white │ 51.6│ 50.2│ 56.8│ 74.5│ 73.2│ 73.4 Foreign white│ 39.3│ 37.8│ 34.6│ 13.4│ 14.6│ 13.1 ═════════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════
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:
PER CENT OF NATIVE-BORN AND FOREIGN-BORN OF THE GENERAL POPULATION IN THE DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS[286] ═════════════════╤═══════════════════════════════════╤═════════════════ AGE PERIOD │ NATIVE WHITE │ FOREIGN-BORN │ │ WHITE ─────────────────┼─────────────────┬─────────────────┼───────────────── „ │Native Parentage │Foreign or Mixed │ „ │ │ Parentage │ ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── Under 5 years │ 13.2 │ 14.2 │ 0.8 5 to 14 years │ 22.6 │ 24.1 │ 4.9 ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── 15 to 24 years │ 19.7 59.5│ 21.6 60.4│ 15.8 85.3 25 to 44 years │ 26.2 „ │ 27.6 „ │ 44.1 „ 45 to 64 years │ 13.6 „ │ 11.2 „ │ 25.4 „ ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── 65 years and over│ 4.4 │ 1.4 │ 8.9 ═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════
Footnote 286:
Abstract of Thirteenth Census, p. 126.
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:
PER CENT OF FOREIGN-BORN PAUPERS IN ALMSHOUSES BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH[289] ═══════════════════╤════════════════╤════════════════╤════════════════ │ │ │ COUNTRY OF BIRTH │ENUMERATED 1903,│ ADMITTED, 1904 │ PER CENT OF │ │ │ TOTAL │ │ │ FOREIGN-BORN │ │ │ POP. ───────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────── Ireland │ 46.4│ 41.2│ 15.6 Germany │ 23.3│ 18.4│ 25.8 England and Wales │ 8.7│ 8.8│ 9.0 Canada │ 4.8│ 6.5│ 11.4 Scandinavia │ 4.9│ 4.9│ 10.3 Scotland │ 2.5│ 2.6│ 2.3 Italy │ 1.0│ 3.1│ 4.7 France │ 1.4│ 1.3│ 1.0 Hungary and Bohemia│ 1.0│ 1.5│ 2.9 Russia and Poland │ 1.5│ 3.4│ 7.8 Other countries │ 4.5│ 8.3│ 9.2 │ —————│ —————│ ————— │ 100.0│ 100.0│ 100.0 ═══════════════════╧════════════════╧════════════════╧════════════════
Footnote 289:
_Paupers in Almshouses_, pp. 19, 20.
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:
PER CENT OF FOREIGN-BORN PATIENTS ACCORDING TO LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES ════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════ │ UNDER 5 │ 5 TO 9 │ 10 TO 14 │ 15 TO 19 │ 20 OR OVER │ YEARS │ │ │ │ ────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼──────────── Per cent│ 28.0│ 14.2│ 8.9│ 10.8│ 38.1 ════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════
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:
PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES ASSIGNABLE TO THE SPECIFIED CAUSES
CAUSE PER CENT Lack of employment or insufficient earnings 59.0 Death or disability of breadwinner 28.7 Death or disability of another 18.9 Neglect or bad habits of breadwinner 18.7 Old age 6.2 Other causes 10.0[294]
Footnote 294:
The total of per cents adds up to more than 100 as more than one cause is often reported for the same case.
There is no great difference in the proportions of the different causes in the different general groups. It may be significant to note that the per cent of cases due to the neglect or bad habits of the breadwinner is a little larger for the native-born white of native father than for the foreign-born, and larger for the native-born white of foreign father than for either. If we take persons instead of cases, the showing of the native-born of foreign father is even worse. The relatively small number of cases due to this cause—the only one which may be charged directly to the “fault” of the breadwinner—indicates that the difficulty lies rather with the industrial system of the United States than with the culpability of the individual.
That assimilation, in so far as it is represented by ability to speak English, will not remedy the situation is indicated by some suggestive figures given in the report on Charity Seekers above quoted. It is shown (p. 70) that of the total number of persons assisted, six years of age or over, belonging to non-English speaking races, 76.3 per cent were able to speak English. Now in the report on Manufactures and Mining it appears that only 53.2 per cent of the foreign-born employees studied, belonging to non-English speaking races, could speak English. That is, the percentage of dependents, who are so far “assimilated” as to be able to speak English, is much greater than the percentage of those who are at work, in spite of the fact that the former class includes younger children than the latter. This harmonizes with the fact already demonstrated, that dependent foreigners have been in this country much longer than the average of their group. It also lends color to the suggestion made by a charity worker, that one reason why the newer immigrants do not appear in larger numbers on the books of philanthropic organizations is that they are not yet “on to the ropes,” and that as they become familiarized with American methods, they will seek relief in increasing numbers.
The subject of crime is customarily linked with that of pauperism in the discussions of immigration, and the same claim is frequently made, viz. that immigration has increased the amount of crime in this country. The attempts at proof of this assertion generally follow the same method adopted in the case of pauperism, that is, they consist in an examination of the relative tendency toward criminality of the general groups of native-born and foreign-born. In other words, the line of argument is, if the foreign-born manifest a larger proportion of criminals among their number than do the native-born, all increases in the foreign-born population will mean a more than proportional increase in crime for the country as a whole. There is, however, another way in which immigration might operate to increase crime. That is, by interfering with the natural adjustment of economic relations between different classes, it may so alter the condition of the native-born as to lead to an increase in crime in this class. For instance, it has been claimed that a large proportion of the “hobo” class (who are, to be sure, not necessarily criminal) are native Americans who have been forced out of employment by foreign competition. In a similar way, other individuals may have been driven into active crime. This proposition, whatever the incidental evidence for or against it, is manifestly incapable of statistical proof, and for any semi-mathematical demonstration we must rely on the other method of approach.
In the matter of crime the effort to make generalizations is complicated by the fact that it is necessary to take into account, not only the number of crimes, but the nature and severity of the criminal act. Tests of criminality, to be accurate, should include quality as well as quantity. This is obviously very difficult to do. We are accustomed in everyday phraseology to speak of one crime as being worse than another. Presumably crimes against the person are more serious than crimes against property. In the case of crimes against property, we might naturally consider it “worse” to steal $1000 than $5, but it would not necessarily be so.
These conditions frequently result in an injustice to the immigrant. The police and court records of our great cities show an amazing proportion of crimes chargeable to the foreign population. For instance, out of 71,253 persons held for trial or summarily tried and convicted in the Magistrates’ Courts of New York City in 1907, only 30,261, or considerably less than half, were born in the United States. But when these records are studied more closely it becomes apparent that a large share of the offenses of the foreign-born are violations of the city ordinances,—offenses which are comparatively trivial in themselves do not indicate any special tendency toward criminality, and are in many cases intimately associated with a low station in life. The moral character of alien groups may in this way be seriously misrepresented.
Nevertheless, if comparisons are to be made at all, they must rest upon such records as these, and such allowances as are possible be made afterwards. Figures of this kind are available in the publications of the Census Bureau, the Commissioner General of Immigration, and the Immigration Commission. In the census report on Prisoners we find that of the prisoners enumerated in the United States on June 30, 1904, 76.83 per cent were native-born, and 23.7 per cent foreign-born. In the general white population, ten years of age or over, in 1900, 80.5 per cent were native-born and 19.5 per cent foreign-born. If a due allowance is made for a disproportionate growth of the foreign-born population between 1900 and 1904, the relative proportions of prisoners among the two groups would be approximately equal. Of the white prisoners of known nativity committed during 1904 the percentages were as follows:
═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════ NATIVITY │ TOTAL │ MAJOR OFFENDERS │ MINOR OFFENDERS ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── Native-born │71.2 per cent │78.3 per cent │69.9 per cent Foreign-born │28.8 per cent │21.7 per cent │30.1 per cent ═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════
The somewhat less favorable showing made by the foreign-born in the case of those committed than of those enumerated, is accounted for by the large proportion of minor offenses among the foreign-born. Many minor offenders, serving short sentences, would not be included at all in the enumeration. Over half the major offenders among the foreign-born had been in the United States ten years or more, and about two thirds of the minor offenders.
According to the Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for 1908 (p. 98), there were in the penal institutions of the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico (in which the figures are not large enough to affect the conclusions materially), in 1908, 149,897 inmates, of whom 15,323 were aliens, 8102 naturalized, and 126,562 native-born. Thus the percentage of native-born was 84.4 and of foreign-born 15.6.
The Immigration Commission made a careful study of the matter of crime among the immigrants, reviewing the foregoing data, and collecting some original data of its own, covering 2206 convictions in the New York City Court of General Sessions from October 1, 1908, to June 30, 1909. This is, so far as known to the Commission, the first time that any court in the United States had made a record of the race of persons convicted in it. This fact illustrates the utter inadequacy of the data for making any deductions as to the influence of immigration upon crime in the United States. Not only courts, but police departments and penal institutions, are very lax in their keeping of records in this respect.
In response to the questions, “Is the volume of crime in the United States augmented by the presence among us of the immigrant and his offspring?” and “If immigration increases crime, what races are responsible for such increase?” the Commission says that no satisfactory answer has ever been made, or can ever be made, without much more complete data than have ever been collected or are available. Certain general conclusions, however, have been reached by the Commission, which harmonize with those reached by other students, and are worthy of acceptance as far as they go. First, “No satisfactory evidence has yet been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in crime disproportionate to the increase in adult population. Such comparable statistics of crime and population as it has been possible to obtain indicate that the immigrants are less prone to commit crime than are native Americans.”[295] Second, “Immigration has, however, made changes in the character of crime in the United States.”[296] These changes have been in the direction of an increase in offenses of personal violence, and offenses against public policy (disorderly conduct, drunkenness, violation of corporation ordinances, etc.), some of which are incident to city life, and probably in offenses against chastity. There does not appear to have been any increase in the majority of offenses against property, or, as they may be better called, gainful offenses.[297]
Comparing the different races as regards criminality, it appears that the Irish stand at the head as regards the total number of offenses and the Germans next. In respect to major offenses, however, the Germans stand first, while the Irish again take first place in the minor offenses.[298] The Germans are much addicted to crimes against property, the Irish and Scotch to drunkenness, Greeks and natives of Russia to violations of corporation ordinances, and immigrants from France, Russia, Poland, and Canada to crimes against chastity. The Italians are preëminent in crimes of violence or crimes against the person.[299]
It is even more difficult to postulate the causes of crime than of pauperism. Until the criminologists have furnished us with a more efficient means of determining the causes of crime in general, there can be no profit in the attempt to classify the causes of crime among a
## particular group of the population. In respect to the nature of crime
committed by different races, there seems to be something in the racial character of some of our immigrants which predisposes them in a certain direction, as exemplified in the preceding paragraph. There is also evidence that among some of the newer immigrants, crime is largely a matter of economic position. This is well illustrated by the case of the Greeks. Among the members of this very recent immigrant group, there has been a noteworthy decline in the average of criminality within the last few years, and the explanation appears to be that the crimes of the Greeks are such as correspond with a low economic situation—violations of corporation ordinances, of the sanitary code, etc. As a larger and larger proportion of the individuals of this nationality rise above this lowly estate, the percentage of crime among them falls off correspondingly.[300] This emphasizes once more the responsibility of the United States for some of the evil conditions for which we habitually blame the immigrants.
There are two particular forms of crime which are closely associated with foreign groups in the United States. These are the Black Hand outrages and the white slave traffic. The former of these is confined almost wholly to persons of the Italian race. In some of its features it recalls the Molly Maguire occurrences of a generation earlier. In fact, the resemblance between the Irish societies and the Mafia of southern Italy was noted in a contemporary magazine article at the time of the disturbances in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania.[301] In both cases no organic connection between the societies in the new world and the old is manifest. In fact, the best judgment in regard to the Black Hand appears to be that there is no real organization in existence in America, but that individuals of Italian race use the power of the dreaded name to accomplish their own ends. Like the Molly Maguires, the Black Hand operators utilize warning letters, but they differ from them in that their purpose is often, if not usually, blackmail, which was seldom the case with the Irish society.
The white slave traffic has aroused tremendous public interest during the last few years, and has been thoroughly exploited in the daily and periodical press. Only the essential features, particularly in their bearing on immigration, need to be reviewed in the present connection. Not all of the girls concerned in this business are immigrants, nor are all the persons who draw a revenue from it foreigners; yet the various investigations of the subject have demonstrated that the whole trade is fundamentally an affair of our foreign population.
One surprising thing about this traffic is that essentially it is an economic phenomenon. It is not a perverted sex passion which demands the perpetuation of the inhuman system; it is the desire for large and easy profits, and the life of indolence that goes with them, which actuates the promoters of the traffic, while on the part of the alien women it is frequently the desire for larger earnings which brings them to our shores. The demand has to be stimulated.
There are two classes of these alien girls who are brought over. One consists of innocent girls who are brought over under a false understanding. The incentive is usually a false promise of employment or of marriage. Sometimes false marriages, and occasionally actual marriages, are resorted to. With this class of subjects, the male importer is naturally the most successful. All kinds of inducements are offered by the procurer, including an apparently sincere love-making. About the only inducements which female importers can offer to such girls are easier or more lucrative employment. The other class, probably constituting a large majority, are women who have already been leading an immoral life on the other side, and come in the hope of bettering their prospects, although they recognize the power of the importer.
These women and girls are usually brought over second class, and every conceivable artifice is employed to deceive the inspectors. When a girl has been safely introduced into the country, she is completely in the power of the man who controls her. The supposition is that the man furnishes protection and care to the girl in return for her earnings. She is sometimes kept in a disorderly house, sometimes in a hotel or other resort, but always where the man can keep control of her. She is thoroughly frightened, and every device is employed to keep her from communicating with any outside sources of relief, or escaping. She is often deprived of street clothing, so as to make escape impossible. She is kept heavily in debt, so that there may be a legal claim over her. Only a very small part of her earnings is given to her, and she is charged outrageous prices for all the supplies which are furnished her. Her life is one of hopeless and terrible degradation, and she has nothing to look forward to except a wretched and continually descending existence, and an early death.
Alien women are particularly desirable to the promoters of this traffic because their lack of connections in this country, and their ignorance of the language and customs of the country make it more difficult for them to escape or to make trouble for their men than in the case of native girls. In addition to the terrible wrongs wrought upon the women themselves, this practice has resulted in an increase in the number of prostitutes in the United States, in the introduction and dissemination of dangerous diseases, and in the introduction of various forms of unnatural vice, more degrading and terrible than even prostitution itself in its ordinary form.
The great majority of the alien women found by the Immigration Commission engaged in these pursuits, as well as the men who prosecute the traffic, are French and Hebrews. Belgians are largely engaged in it, according to Commissioner Bingham. Germans are numerous, and there are a few Irish and Italians, with of course a scattering of individuals of other races.
A number of these women are detected at the port of entry and returned, and a good many are deported. But it is a practice very difficult of detection, and it is not easy to get at the facts in regard to its extent in this country. It is certain that the class of abandoned women in this country is largely recruited in this way. Commissioner Bingham estimated in 1908 that there were more than 100,000 such women on the Pacific coast and in Mexico, who had come in through New York.
No evidence has been found to justify the suspicion that there was an organization controlling this traffic in this country. But those engaged in the trade naturally are acquainted with each other, and are always ready to help each other against a common enemy. They have various meeting places where they get together for gambling, conference, and divers forms of recreation.
It has been proven that this traffic is slavery in more than name, as girls are sometimes sold directly by one person to another. The new federal law is designed to put a check to all practices of this sort, by making it illegal to transport women or girls from one state to another for immoral purposes. The efforts of the Immigration Commission and other governmental agencies within the last two or three years have accomplished a good deal in breaking up some of the resorts, and deporting or imprisoning the culprits. But while the traffic has received a serious setback, it is by no means killed. This is emphatically one of the things where eternal vigilance is the price of safety. Nothing short of a sweeping change in public opinion and practice will ever put it out of the way beyond the possibility of resurrection.[302]
In respect to juvenile delinquency the most unenviable place is held by the native-born children of immigrants. They not only manifest two or three times as great a tendency toward crime as the native-born children of native parents, but they are much more criminal than foreign-born children. Of the juvenile delinquents committed during 1904, according to the census report, 76.7 per cent were native white. This percentage was made up as follows: native parentage, 37.6 per cent; foreign parentage, 24.9 per cent; mixed parentage, 9.7 percent; parentage unknown, 4.5 per cent. An exact comparison of the children of native parents and of foreign parents in this respect would require information as to the total number of the two classes in the country in the year in question, which is not available. But it cannot be supposed that the number of native-born children of foreign parents compared with the number of native-born children of native parents is anything like the ratio shown in the above figures. This high degree of criminality is attributed by Professor Commons and by the Immigration Commission largely to concentration in the cities. Whatever the cause, this tendency toward lawlessness among the second generation of immigrants is indisputable, and is one of the most disturbing elements in the whole situation.[303]
Still another way in which the immigrant becomes a burden upon the American public is through insanity. The laws are very strict in regard to the admission of aliens who are liable to be subject to this misfortune. Yet it is impossible to prevent the entrance of large numbers who ultimately appear in the category of the insane. The maladaptation of the immigrant to his environment shows itself in this way perhaps as clearly as in any other.
In the institutions for the insane, both public and private, in the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico, in 1908, there were, according to the Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 172,185 inmates. Of these 25,066 were aliens, 25,128 naturalized citizens, and 121,451 native-born. Thus the percentages were 70.5 per cent native-born and 29.5 per cent—nearly one third—foreign-born.[304]
An even larger percentage of foreign-born appears among the insane persons enumerated in hospitals in continental United States on December 31, 1903—34.3 per cent of the white insane of known nativity[305]—while of the persons received at Bellevue and Allied Hospitals for treatment for insanity during the period of the investigation of the Immigration Commission, 63.4 per cent were foreign-born, and 36.6 per cent native-born. Moreover, among the native-born, more than half (20.6 per cent of the total) were native-born of foreign father.
Summing up the matter of insanity, the Commission speaks as follows: “For the high ratio of insanity among the foreign-born, several causes have been assigned, and while it is difficult to determine the values of the various factors it is probably true that racial traits or tendencies have a more or less important influence. A further cause of mental disease is probably to be found in the total change in climate, occupation, and habits of life which the majority of immigrants experience after arrival in the United States.”
The efficiency of the inspection in regard to feeble-mindedness is shown by the very small proportion of foreign-born of that class appearing in the statistics. This is an affliction which can more easily be detected than the liability to insanity, of which there may be no observable indication at the time of admission.[306]
##