« PreviousContinue »
the old, as regards race and religion. They apprehend that these newer immigrants will not settle on the land, as the older did, and will not be scattered among the people who have been longer in the United States, but, rather, will live by themselves in separate quarters of towns and cities, and there maintain their social and religious peculiarities. This apprehension is based on a belief which has no foundation in fact, namely, that the numerous races which came to this country during the nineteenth century have formed, or may be expected to form, a racial amalgam or blend. It is obvious that very little blending has thus far taken place. The different races remain essentially distinct, not geographically, but socially, and in many cases industrially. The process of assimilation begins with children born in this country and sent to American schools, and is even then very slow, particularly as regards intermarriage. Experience during the nineteenth century shows that real assimilation will take centuries, and that amalgamation, or blending of races through intermarriage, is not only extraordinarily slow, but of doubtful issue as to the strength and viability of the offspring. In short, the different races already in this country live beside each other, and all produce in time good citizens of the Republic, but they do not blend. The probability is that the twentieth century will exhibit the same methods and results in a population become somewhat more various racially.
6. Some religious people fear that the Catholic Church will become unduly powerful in the United States if races which have long been Catholic continue to pour into the country immigrants by the hundred thousand who are vigorous, industrious, frugal, and prolific. Whatever gains the Catholic Church may make in this way under a régime of religious toleration, that church is fairly entitled to. Even the extreme Protestants who feel this apprehension shrink from declaring that their motive in advocating restrictions of immigration is fear of the Roman Church; and, indeed, for the United States to try to shut out Roman Catholics by restrictions not avowedly for that purpose would be an extraordinarily insincere and cowardly performance, at the very moment when in Europe the Catholic Church is being steadily dispossessed in Catholic countries of the control it once exercised; and when in the United States the effects of democracy on the Catholic Church are plainly much wider and deeper than the effects of the Catholic Church on either American governments or American society. To restrict immigration because, for the time being, immigration is more Catholic than Protestant would be the public confession of lack of faith in the efficacy of religious toleration and the independence of church and state as bulwarks of political freedom.
7. Finally, it has been lately maintained by some persons of humane proclivities that America is no longer needed as a refuge for people of other lands who think themselves politically or industrially, unfortunate at home. If this were really the case, the present extraordinary migrations of the European. races would come to a natural end. People who exile themselves and encounter all the risks of a new start in life in a strange land must have some strong motive for such extraordinary conduct. At any rate, the decision of the question whether America is still needed as a refuge may best be left to the decision of the people most interested, to the people who, being poor or hopeless at home, think they see brighter prospects and an animating hope in the New World. The people now occupying the United States know that those prospects are brighter, and they are themselves animated by a great hope, the hope that freedom nourishes. The American people, if they get a chance to express themselves, will not be found in favor of shutting the door on any honest and healthy persons who believe they can better themselves by coming to America, and are enterprising enough to assume the inevitable risks.
The arguments against further restrictions of immigration are essentially arguments to the sense of gratitude, justice, and generosity in the actual Americans of to-day. Sincerely yours,
CHARLES W. ELIOT. EDWARD LAUTERBACH, Esq.
(February 4, 1911.)
Mr. BENNET of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a letter from Mr. Andrew Carnegie.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?.
February , 1911.
150 Nassau Street, New York City. DEAR Sır: Responding to yours of December 31.
Bismarck once made the statement that America was draining Germany
of its best blood. This was at a time when immigration was at
high flood from Germany. In recent years it averages less than 30,000 people annually. One year it was 27,000, of which our fortunate Republic obtained 26,000, the remaining 1,000 being scattered over other lands.
A first-class, healthy man slave was worth $1,500 when men were bought and sold. Every German man that arrives here is worth a great deal more. So it is with the Scotch, the Irish, and the English, and not less so with the Scandinavians and the healthy, able-bodied men of good character of other nationalities.
The importations of human beings are the most valuable of all imports. With a population in our territory which does not greatly exceed 30 per square mile, while Belgium has nearly 600 per square mile and England about the same, it would pay us to give a premium for every able-bodied man or woman of good character that could be induced to come here.
The best test of the value of the immigrant lies in the fact that a workingman and his wife have the ambition to better their condition so strongly implanted that they save sufficient money for their passage to settle in the land where “one man's privilege is every man's right."
Let the objectors to opening our gates to able-bodied immigrants of good character reflect where our country would have been except for that invaluable element. Very truly yours,
IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES.
DECEME ER 16, 1913.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BURNETT, from the Committee on Immigration and Naturaliza
tion, submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 6060.]
The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 6060) to regulate the immigration of aliens to and the residence of aliens in the United States, reports the same to the House with the following amendments, and recommends that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amended be passed:
In section 3 amend on line 8, page 5, by adding after the word "officials” the words “or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property,” and in section 3, line 15, page 5, amend by adding after the words '“ official character” the words “ or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property."
Amend on page 7, line 5, section 3, by striking out the word "journalists."
Amend on page 7, line 4, section 3, by inserting the word “civil” before the word "engineers."
Amend on page 1, line 4, section 3, by striking out the word "editors.”
Amend on page 7, line 5, section 3, by striking out the word "bankers.”
Amend on page 38, line 15, section 19, by inserting after the word "law” the words “any alien who within three years after entry shall be found advocating or teaching the unlawful destruction of property, or advocating or teaching anarchy or the overthrow by force or violence of organized government or the assassination of public officials."
Amend on page 56, line 18, by striking out the word “ thirteen" and inserting in lieu thereof the word “fourteen."
There are only a few important changes in this bill of the laws as they now exist in regard to the restriction of immigration. Most of the changes are of an administrative nature. The addition of a