Page images
PDF
EPUB

tests, if they are rigidly applied. But I should be willing to have it go further than that and increase the time of residence. If the provisions suggested in here are rigidly applied that would be in itself sufficient.

Mr. SIEGEL. By that you mean an increase of the time necessary to become citizens?

Mr. JENKS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean for all immigrants?

Mr. JENKS. No; for the immigrants that come from nations with whom we have been at war, such as Germany and Austria.

Mr. RAKER. This is a very important question. Upon what theory would you do that? Supposing there is a treaty of peace signed and everything is adjusted. Upon what theory would you put extra restrictions upon the Germans, particularly those that come from the Moselle Valley and the Rhine Valley? I direct your attention to this particularly in order to get your viewpoint.

Mr. JENKS. As I say, I think that the educational provisions provided in these proposals, if we can count on their administration, are sufficient, because that is really sounder than the mere length of residence.

Mr. RAKER. Ninety-eight per cent of all those people can read and write, the people in those countries.

Mr. JENKS. It is not a question of reading and writing only; it is a question of reading and speaking the English language, knowing the history of the American people, and that the immigrant has passed certain tests on the principles of personal and public hygiene, in the history of the American people, in the methods and ideals of the Government of the United States, and in the rights and duties of citizens.

Now, with an examining board, they could be pretty sure, if they wished to do that, that these last three tests provided should be applied so closely that they would be convinced that the people coming up for citizenship really meant it and were not hypocrites and really trying to get in in order to upset our institutions.

Mr. WELTY. Are not the alien enemies handicapped because of the war, because they have not been permitted to come to America during the war?

Mr. JENKS. I think that is true.

Mr. WELTY. And probably the reason we have so many German and Irish people here is because 60 per cent of our immigrants were German and Irish people. What per cent of our immigrants before the war were from Germany?

Mr. JENKS. I can not say offhand.

Mr. WELTY. Was it some 30 per cent?

Mr. JENKS. I would not like to give the figures without looking them

up.

Mr. WHITE. I think you will find that German immigration had fallen off remarkably in the last 5, 10, or 15 years, doubtless owing to the collectivity idea that was so intensely carried out by the Germans, it being largely inculcated through their universities.

Mr. JENKS. I think that is one reason for it. But I think another was that owing to the policies of the German Government in encouraging industries, the opportunities for the workingman there had, relatively speaking, increased, so that there was no longer the same

inducement that there would have been otherwise. I have the figures of the German immigration here and they show that it runs down from about a quarter of a million in 1882 to some 34,000 in 1913 and some 32,000 in 1914.

Mr. RAKER. What was it in 1912?

Mr. JENKS. It was 27,788.

Mr. RAKER. Suppose this country should get into difficulty with some foreign nation. Do you not believe there would be to a greater or less extent a strong tendency to stand by their mother country on the part of those who had not been naturalized, and a sort of sympathetic feeling in the case of those who had been naturalized, that is, a good many of them, irrespective of what the race might be? Mr. JENKS. It is, of course, perfectly normal that there should be more or less of a sympathy with reference to that. Notwithstanding that, the point is this. When a person deliberately leaves his home country and comes to another country to make his home there it is because he believes that in the new home he is going to have better conditions all along the line; he comes for some purpose of that kind, and the better conditions are usually primarily economic, but there is often in certain places a still further factor of an improved political condition. He ought to recognize his new obligations.

Mr. RAKER. Then your view is that we should amplify and extend our present efforts in the way of preparing citizens for naturalization, educating them, making them familiar with our form of Government and have them thoroughly understand it before they become citizens? Mr. JENKS. Clearly.

Mr. RAKER. Should there not be some method whereby we would have the record of these people who have come to this country? Mr. JENKS. Absolutely.

Mr. RAKER. It could not be considered offensive in any way, could it?

Mr. JENKS. It ought not to be, and I think whether some people consider it offensive or not, it should be imposed upon them.

Mr. RAKER. Do you not believe from your experience that it would be a good thing for this country as well as for the immigrants if we were to enact a registration law to provide for all of them?

Mr. JENKS. I do; I am emphatically in favor of it.

Mr. SIEGEL. In other words, you favor the establishment in America of what we would call an interstate passport system?

Mr. JENKS. Yes, I would favor that as a method.

Mr. SIEGEL. You do not think it should apply to American citizens? Mr. JENKS. I do not think it is necessary for them, although I should not seriously object to it. I do not want to be diverted too much from the main phase of the subject, but I feel that in this country when we have talked so much about freedom among ourselves, in many cases freedom has amounted to carelessness in letting people do as they pleased, even when their actions were detrimental to the country as a whole, and I believe as loyal American citizens we ought to be willing to submit ourselves to little inconveniences if it seems essential in order to protect the country as a whole against a greater danger.

We did it during the war to a certain extent, and nobody objected. I feel that it is one of the more important lessons that American

citizens must learn that they need to be on the lookout all the time, that they should have their duty to their country in their minds continuously. We have that impressed upon us by taxes, to begin

with.

If it seems essential to protect ourselves from dangers, to require that all American citizens should be registered, I would say that would be all right. So far as I can see now, that is not necessary and might be offensive, but I do think it is very important so far as the immigrants are concerned, that we register the aliens as they come in and keep them registered and have them report from year to year until they become American citizens.

Mr. RAKER. What do you mean by the term "interstate passport"? Mr. JENKS. That expression was used by the presiding officer. Mr. SIEGEL. That is for this reason. Let us assume that an alien arrived in New York five years ago. Under the proposed system we would have to obtain a card and be registered. If he is living in New York and went to any other part of the country he would have to have his card with him. No matter where he traveled, no matter what states he went to, he would have to produce his card, and if he lost it there would be considerable difficulty in getting another. And then another difficulty would be that we would have to build up a big espionage system all over the country.

Mr. JENKS. No, the point would be this. That if that man reported to the immigration authorities as long as he still remained an alien, he would have to keep his registration, if he went from one place to another, when the next registration came along it would be at another point, and then he would have to report from where he was. Mr. SIEGEL. Assuming that John Jones arrived at Ellis Island and got his card and lived in New York a while and then moved away. Say he went to California.

Mr. JENKS. But he would get permission.

Mr. SIEGEL. Say he does not report at the end of the year. How is our official force in this country ever going to get the information where that man is?

Mr. JENKS. I think when he moves he should say he is moving and take his card with him.

Mr. SIEGEL. Let us assume that he does not do that. How are you going to meet that condition? I am looking at it from a practical standpoint.

Mr. JENKS. Exactly. There is this with reference to the matter. Every foreigner would have to be checked up under those circumstances by the officials in charge. But I think the simpler way would be that he would be under some penalty if he did not report when he changed his residence.

Mr. SIEGEL. But you can see what a gigantic system you would have to build up if you really were to enforce the law, in the fullest sense of the term.

Mr. JENKS. I think it is worth it.

Mr. SIEGEL. I think you realize fully that the immigration law is not enforced and can not be enforced fully simply because Congress will not give them the full authority which they think they ought to have.

Mr. JENKS. That is true.

142055-19 11

Mr. SIEGEL. Even if they get what they ask for in the sundry civil bill, which is about 50 per cent of what Mr. Caminetti thinks they should have. This is a new proposition.

Mr. JENKS. It would mean greater expense, but I think it would be worth it.

Mr. SIEGEL. I think it would take 100,000 people to enforce that. Mr. RAKER. If it is of absolute importance to Americanize our people and keep them up to a proper standard of Americanism, the expense which would be attached to it would be infinitesimal compared with the good that would be accomplished, and the good should be looked at rather than the question of the expense.

Mr. SIEGEL. That is assuming that it will help Americanism.
Mr. THOMPSON. I think we should let the witness go on.

Mr. JENKS. May I sum up that one point in a sentence? I agree with the statement that there is no more important, perhaps no other question in connection with immigration so important, as the Americanization of the immigrants, and I believe we should be prepared to spend very large sums of money along educational lines in Americanizing them. I should say further than that, we should spend, if necessary, many millions of dollars to protect ourselves by registration or whatever method seems most practical against treachery, and that is merely one step toward Americanization in education.

Now, if I may go on to the other matters I will be glad to come back to this. I have spoken of the fact that the children were not counted in this plan we have after 1920. We simply get our basic number and then go on, and the basic number from that time on is increased accordingly by the naturalized aliens.

Let me say in that connection also that we should keep in mind very clearly the difference between the permissible immigration, as the expression was used yesterday, the permissible immigration under this plan, and the practically possible immigration if you want to put it in that way. There was considerable emphasis laid upon that yesterday, and I think it is important that we should keep that difference clearly in mind and do not be confused over it at all.

Take, for example, this figure [pointing to chart] of the permissible immigration of those from northern Europe. It is not at all fair and reasonable to argue that we are opening our immigration doors because under this provision that large number would be permissible from northern Europe. Under our present laws any one who can pass our immigration health test, and the other tests we now apply, can now come in, so you might say that under the present law the "permissible" immigration from northern Europe was all the persons living in northern Europe. There is no reason why it should not be 50,000,000.

But that is not the way to consider those things. What we ought to do is this. Consider the maximum under the proposed plan that under any circumstances could possibly be admitted, and that maximum is much less than the present maximum. When we speak of those whom it would be practically possible to get in, we would find the number less than at present in some countries but for northern Europe a few more.

Take, for instance, the total for 1914 for Scandinavia and Germany and the United Kingdom and other countries, a total for northwest Europe of 164,133. Suppose we put this law into

effect, we have no reason to think that there would be any more from those countries than are now coming, because they are all coming now who wish to come, if they can pass the tests, and the fact would probably be that under the proposed plan the number would be less because of the more rigid restrictions.

The real effect of the law comes where the greatest restrictions are, as in southern Europe. From Italy in 1914 this number actually came [indicating on chart]; under this new provision there is a decided cutting down; and the same would be true in regard to Austria and with regard to Russia. They would be cut down from 906,000 in 1914 to 382,000, that being all that is permitted. So if we want to find out what the effect of the law is going to be, we should take from 1914 the 906,000 and add to this figure [indicating on chart] 164,133, which would give us a little over 1,000,000 in 1914. In 1914 the number that actually came in was 906,395, from east, central, and southern Europe. From northwestern Europe the number was 164,133. If this new proposition was to be put into effect and enacted into law, the number we might expect, we will say, after the disturbing influences of the war have gone by, would be from east, central, and southern Europe 382,678 plus 164,135 equals 546,813. That is the number of those practically possible to come in would be cut down by about one-half.

Mr. SIEGEL. Your figures as to the number of arrivals are based on the old law, when the literacy test was not in effect, but the literacy test is now in effect?

Mr. JENKS. That is cutting it down somewhat.

Mr. SIEGEL. If the commission's report is correct that would reduce it one-third.

Mr. JENKS. Suppose it does. That makes the figures still more striking, because the literacy test cuts down more from the east and central and southern portions of Europe then from northwest Europe. If that proposition were put into effect now, instead of cutting it one-half, it would cut it still more. The reason we have used the figures of 1914 is because after the outbreak of war conditions were abnormal, so absolutely abnormal that the figures of 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, and 1919 are of no value at all as records so far as any general conclusion to be made hereafter is concerned. So the only figures we can use are these.

As Mr. Siegel has very well noted, the literacy test was not in effect then so the figures would be cut down. The point I want to make is that instead of its being possible under this proposition to increase immigration, it is the most highly restrictive proposition we have had before us, except the one to absolutely cut off immigration. It is much more restrictive than the present law and the literacy test. The special reason why the immigration commission advocated a literacy test instead of something of this kind was this: You will note from the report the expression that was used was this: "A majority of the commission favor the reading and writing test as the most feasible single method of restricting undesirable immigration." The word "feasible" was discussed at considerable length, and the word "feasible" meant that that was the restrictive bill that could, beyond any question, be put through Congress. You will recall it was put through Congress and it was vetoed by two Presidents, until Congress passed it over the presidential veto. The word "feasible"

« PreviousContinue »