decisions of courts, however, a different rule now obtains as to the Chinese and Japanese, and as a result great numbers are annually added from the representatives of these races, who enter as exempts to the wage-earning population of the United States by virtue of those admitted as exempts becoming wage earners and their wives and children similarly entering industry as wage earners." 34 So far as the student of this question may pass judgment upon the motives impelling both parties to the controversy to adopt the policy which has culminated this year in the passage by the American Congress of exclusion legislation it may be safely assumed that various cabinets in power in Japan throughout the critical period have been afraid of a repercussion of sentiment should they yield by negotiations to the American demand of exclusion on the basis in force respecting the Chinese in the United States. On the other hand, the Secretaries of State of the United States were reluctant to press for a solution of a situation which might result equally in respect to the administration which they represented in a political overturn at the next election, should such a policy precipitate a crisis. The difficulties of the situation have unquestionably been aggravated by the fact that throughout the many years during which the problem of oriental immigration has been agitated in and out of Congress the Japanese Government has persistently refused to permit the publication of the correspondence upon which the gentlemen's agreement was based. So rigid has been the ban imposed upon any disclosures respecting the interchange of views that the committees of Congress charged with the responsibility of the preparation of immigration legislation have been unable to form an independent judgment as to the terms of the engagement entered into during Mr. Roosevelt's administration at the White House.35 On the other hand, no one could have known better than Mr. Roosevelt that in entering upon an agreement which was in effect a treaty without complying with the constitutional requirement that an international agreement be submitted to the Senate for approval, we were laying the groundwork for precisely such a political reaction as developed upon the publication of the Japanese note.36 Subsection (c) of section 13 of the act aims to correct the situation which has been hereinbefore described by providing that no alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United States; that is to say, although the Japanese have figured almost exclusively in the controversy over this section, its provisions apply to a population amounting to perhaps a billion of people, of which the inhabitants of Japan comprise barely three score millions.37 However, when the exceptions to this provision are carefully examined, it will be observed that the substance and clear intent of the gentlemen's agreement are embodied in the statute; that is to say, (1) an alien ineligible for citizenship previously lawfully admitted to the United States returning from a temporary visit abroad may be admitted; (2) an immigrant ineligible for citizenship who continuously, for at least two years immediately preceding the time of his application for admission to the United States, has been and is seeking to enter the United States solely for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of minister of any religious denomination or professor of a college, academy, seminary, or university, and his wife and his unmarried children under 18 years of age if accompanying or following to join him, may be admitted; or (3) an immigrant ineligible for citizenship who is a bona fide student at least 15 years of age and seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of study at an accredited school, college, academy, seminary, or university particularly designated by him and approved by the Secretary of Labor may be admitted. These provisions are the exemptions provided for in subsections (b), (d), and (e) of section 4. Finally, more important than these classes of persons is that group defined in subsection (6) of section 3 of the act, which entitles Japanese or any of the people to whom the provisions of the section apply, who desire to enter the United States solely to carry on trade under and in pursuance of the provisions of a present existing treaty of commerce and navigation, to admission at our ports.38 34 Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1923, p. 113. 35 Rept. No. 350 of the House of Representatives, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, to accompany H. R. 7995, p. 7. 36 The reader can find in the remarks of Hon. John C. Box in the House of Representatives, May 15, 1924, a condensed discussion of the relative merits of control over immigration by treaties, unratified agreements, or by Congress. The record of previous attempts to reach a solution of the problem by treaty or negotiation is not such as to encourage further efforts along this line. 37 Statesman's Yearbook for 1924, p. 1054, gives the Japanese population in 1922 as 59,460,252. 39 (a) Treaty proclaimed Apr. 5, 1911; (b) State Department instructions to consuls upon interpretation of immigration act of 1924, are not yet available. A careful consideration of the provisions described in the preceding paragraph makes it clear that the essential difference between the situation as it existed prior to the passage of the immigration act of 1924, and what may be expected to eventuate now that the law has gone into effect, lies in the fact that the United States Government will now determine the qualifications of any individual ineligible for citizenship seeking admission into the United States; that is to say, the responsibility for a determination of the eligibility and good faith of such persons to enter regardless of the country of their origin, will be determined by the American consul at the point of departure for our shores, and by the immigration inspectors at the ports of entry of the United States. To what extent the release of control by the Japanese Government over passports of persons seeking to enter contiguous territory to the United States, may affect surreptitious entries from Mexico and Canada, is impossible to determine. Subsections (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 13 of the act are for the most part administrative, and of little general interest, being self-explanatory. It may, however, be well before closing the discussion of the provisions of this section to call attention to the definition of the term "ineligible for citizenship," as given in section 28, subsection (c).3 The substance of the definition in so far as it applies to other classes of persons than those debarred from citizenship by reason of their color relates to individuals who have failed in their duty as citizens called for service, or as soldiers enrolled in the armed forces of the United States. ALIEN SEAMEN (Sections 19, 20, 26, and 27) Experience has demonstrated that the efforts of Congress in the passage of acts over a period of many years excluding undesirable aliens from the United States have been thwarted to an alarming degree by the surreptitious entry of persons debarred by the terms of the statutes. One of the most fruitful sources of evasion of these provisions has been the crews employed on ships entering ports of the United States. "It is generally understood," says Mr. Furuseth in a letter to the Hon. John E. Raker, dated December 29, 1923,10 that $1,000 is paid by the Chinese for being landed in the United States in such a way that he can at once mingle with others of his kind; and when we know that vessels manned with Chinese are constantly going away with from 10 to 40 or even 50 men less in the crew than they had on arrival we must realize that we are here dealing with a temptation to shipowners and to officers of vessels that is great enough to tempt the shipowners as well as the officers. Again, vessels coming from Europe have on one trip to this country left behind them from 50 to 150 persons, a great many of whom would have been refused admission if coming as regular immigrants." The While a serious effort was made in drafting the act of 1917 to deal with this condition of affairs, Congressman Raker points out that "due to a weakness in section 32, there has been no proper enforcement for several years. flaw was that the shipmaster, although required to detain inadmissible seamen, could not be punished for failure to detain unless it was shown that he had notice in writing so to do. Notice in writing anterior to the breach of responsibility to detain was physically impossible." In an apparent effort not to impair in any way the liberty accorded to seamen under the act of March 4, 1915, commonly known as the La Follette law, and at the same time, not to impose regulations so onerous as to cripple the free movement of shipping, and possibly arouse retaliatory legislation abroad, Congress in sections 19 and 20 evolved provisions which in all likelihood will prove inadequate to correct the evils that they were designed to cure. Section 19 provides that "no alien seaman excluded from admission into the United States, under the immigration laws and employed on board any vessel arriving in the United States from any place outside thereof, shall be permitted to land in the United States, except temporarily for medical treatment, or pursuant to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe for the ultimate departure, removal, or deportation of such alien from the United States." man * Section 20, subsection (a) provides that "the owner, charterer, agent, consignee or master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any place outside thereof who fails to detain on board any alien seaman employed on such vessel until the immigration officer in charge at the port of arrival has inspected such sea* * or who fails to detain such seaman on board after such inspection or to deport such seaman if required by such immigration officer or the Secretary of Labor to do so, shall pay to the collector of customs of the customs district in which the port of arrival is located the sum of $1,000 for each alien seaman in respect of whom such failure occurs." Subsection (b) provides that "proof that an alien seaman did not appear upon the outgoing manifest of the vessel on which he arrived in the United States * * * shall be prima facie evidence of a failure to detain or deport after requirement by the immigration officer or the Secretary of Labor." Unquestionably these provisions and amendments to sections 9 and 10 of the act of 1917, embodied in sections 26 and 27, will help to give effect to the general principles upon which the law is based, but as intimated above, it is doubtful whether they are altogether adequate. CONCLUSION (Sections 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) The remaining sections of the act dealing with "Deportation,' ""Penalty for illegal transportation, "Entry from foreign contiguous territory,' " "Unused immigration visas," ," "Preparation of documents," "Öffenses in connection with documents," "Burden of proof" (which has already been referred to), "Rules and regulations,' ""Act to be in addition to immigration laws" (which has already been referred to), "Steamship fines under 1917 act," "General definitions" (which has already been referred to), "Authorization of appropriation,' ""Act of May 19, 1921," "Time for taking effect," and "Saving clause in event of unconstitutionality" are one and all, with the exception of the latter, of a purely. technical administrative character. In general, it may be said that these sections are so drawn as to correct defects in the act of 1917, where interpretation by the courts or experience in practice have demonstrated that the underlying intent could not be carried out in the administration of the act. The last section, No. 32, entitled "Saving clause in event of unconstitutionality," provides that if any provision of this act or the application thereof is held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. In conclusion, it may be said that the immigration act of 1924, may reasonably be expected to accomplish the following results: (1) ̊ A definite improvement in the quality and character of immigrants lawfully admitted to the United States through more efficient means of enforcement of the provisions of section 3 of the act of 1917, excluding undesirables from the United States. (2) An elimination of the so-called hardship cases at ports of entry of the United States in respect to immigrants who answer accurately and in good faith, all the questions contained in their application for an immigration visa. (3) A definite restriction upon lawful immigration into the United States without the violation of treaty engagements. (4) The progressive development of a homogenous population. On the other hand, it is probable that there will be a stimulation of surreptitious entries through the ports and over our northern or southern frontiers for three reasons: (1) The act embodies no provision requiring the registration of aliens now within the borders of the United States. (2) Because there is no general registration statute covering citizens, native born or naturalized, in effect, by which a provision such as that indicated in the previous paragraph could be made effective. (3) Because of the lack of coordination in Government agencies charged with the enforcement of the Federal statutes. SERIES VII. OUTLINE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND CONFERENCE BY THE IMMIGRANT-RECEIVING NATIONS APPENDIX J A GENERAL OUTLINE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF HUMAN MIGRATION, PREPARED BY HARRY H. Laughlin This suggested outline gives a list of the more important factors in human migration, considered from the standpoints of both the emigrant-sending and the immigrant-receiving nations. These items therefore are the factors which should be made the subject of any investigation which may have for its purpose a better understanding of the historical, economic, geographical, social, political, and racial forces which govern human migration. The materials for such a study, properly assembled and analyzed, should be made the basis for any more specialized consideration of the larger aspects of human migration which may be undertaken by the several nations or the world, for the purpose of determining the rights of nations collectively, and within such rights, the rights, interests, and policies of single nations, individually. I. SUBJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER CAUSES OF HUMAN MIGRATION. A. THE EMIGRATION OR EXPELLING FORCES. 1. Vital statistics; birth and death rates; overpopulation. 2. Economic status; agriculture; production; commerce; balance of trade. 3. Social organization. 4. Racial factors. 5. Religious factors. 6. Political factors. 7. Statutory laws on emigration and expatriation; historical development. 8. Cost and facilities for emigration. (a) Trade routes. (b) Steamship companies. (c) Advertising. (d) Paving of way by earlier migrant-relatives. 9. Intentions of the emigrant. (a) Seasonal employment. (b) New home and maintenance of original race and culture. (c) New home and assimilation with new peoples. (d) Seeking asylum. (e) Seeking adventure. 10. Seasonal migration cost, distance, treatment, duration. 11. Facilities for emigration in relation to quality of the emigrant, shifting population, and gravitation to centers of special opportunity or interest. 12. Exiling and forced or encouraged emigration. B. THE IMMIGRATION OR ATTRACTION FORCES. 1. Density of population. 2. Economic opportunities. (a) Employment at high wages. (c) Opportunity for ownership. 3. Social relations. (a) Democracy. (b) Opportunity for education and citizenship. I. SUBJECTS TO BE CONSIDEred under CAUSES OF HUMAN MIGRATION-Con. B. THE IMMIGRATION OR ATTRACTION FORCES--continued 4. Religious factors. 5. Racial factors. (a) Near kin and acquaintances who have proceeded. (b) Established colonies or "quarters" of same race and culture. (c) General racial similarity to established stocks. Racial harmony. 6. Compilation and analysis of national laws and policies and international treaties on immigration and naturalization; historical development. 7. Slave trade. 8. National immigration standards: Quota, race, family, individual. 9. Debarring and deportation. II. SUBJECTS TO BE CONSIDEred under CoNSEQUENCES OF HUMAN MIGRATION. 1. Phases of racial and cultural mosaics and blends. (a) Anthropological. (b) Family stock quality. (c) Linguistic. (d) Religious. (e) Social. (f) Economic. (g) Political. 2. Distribution and adjustment of immigrants, by race, quality, and relative numbers of the immigrant and of his neighbors in the same geographical region. 3. Mate selection among immigrants. 4. Racial and cultural assimilation. Conditions. Rate. Completeness. (a) Among closely related peoples. (b) Among distantly related peoples. 5. Comparative racial and cultural standards of immigrants and their 6. Differential fecundity and survival in immigrant-receiving nations. 8. Nonassimilation. (a) Conditions of nonassimilation between peoples occupying the same geographical region. Character, habits, numbers, and other conditions necessary to maintain an alien social and racial unit within a host nation. (b) Race, language, religion, and social and economic levels as factors in survival or nonassimilation. 9. Rating the individual immigrant and his offspring, in the long run, as a national credit or debit. 10. Rating the loss of a particular emigrant as a national loss or gain. III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 1. Dictionary of races, with particular reference to migration history (a) Ancient movements-families, tribes, and nations. (b) Later historical movements. 4. Natural or economic versus statutory control of migration. 5. Local versus international migration. Country to city migrations. 6. The migration-controlling political unit. 7. The individual character versus the economic situation in migration. 8. Control of emigrants by home country. Dual citizenship. 9. International law and migration control. 10. National policy and migration control. Comparative outcome based 11. Relative weights of factors in emigration, and in immigration. |