TESTS OF THE NEWS 57 material comes, he will examine the article itself to determine its value. If an article deals with factual material which can be obtained from a definite record, there is less chance that it will be untrue. Information concerning births, deaths, marriages, divorces, court decisions, imports, exports, etc., is fairly accurate because a record exists from which the paper can draw its facts, and they will tend to be as reliable as the record itself. If an article treats controversial subjects about which the truth is not known, it will of necessity be less reliable and will tend to be influenced by the paper's policy, its stereotypes, the attitude of the body of readers to which it caters. Data concerning personalities, feelings, the policies of foreign governments, labor efficiency, conservatism, radicalism, liberalism, wages, private profit, income, etc., are vague, hard to interpret correctly, or impossible to obtain.8 Common-Sense Questions to Ask Regarding Content. The reader will be aided in deciding what credence to place on a news item if he will ask himself four common sense questions concerning it. Is it credible and in accord with the customary actions of individuals and governments? Does it seem to be written with any ulterior purpose? Does it give only a one-sided and evidently biased account? Does it partake of the character of fact or rumor? The Pittsburgh papers' reports of the steel strike gave a onesided account. They would have been discounted by the intelligent reader. The Chicago papers' reports of the race riot partook of the character of rumor. They too would have been regarded with skepticism by the individual anxious to learn the facts. The New York Times' accounts of the Russian news, stretching as they did over a long space of time and in general discrediting the Russian Soviet government and its leaders at every point, would finally make the discriminating reader wonder whether perhaps there was not some purpose behind the Times' policy. In his perusal of the news coming out of Russia during and after the Russian Revolution, he would recognize much that was not credible. If he ran across a story describing the misery of the Russian people, stating that the peasants were fleeing from the German Volga colony, and carrying the statement, "The roads along which swarms of people are migrating are literally sprinkled with the bodies of children, say the colonists," he would realize that this did not accord with the customary actions 8 "Public Opinion," pp. 342-343. The Nation, August 24, 1921, p. 191. of human beings. He would also be interested in observing the vague source of the news, "say the colonists." Such a source would scarcely give the discriminating reader confidence in the authenticity of the news. CONCLUSION When the reader applies these tests to the news after recognizing his own fallibility and that of his paper, he may hope to detect errors in his own and his paper's beliefs, reports, and judgment. To obtain contemporary facts concerning great social questions, international relations, war, etc., either through his paper or through other agents, he will find difficult. Such facts are not adequately recorded, and as long as no scientific record exists, neither the paper nor the reader can be sure of the truth. The reader will find that he is aided in his effort to read the paper intelligently if he has a knowledge of its organization and the methods it employs, if he will read several different kinds of papers and periodicals. He must also learn to assess the value of a news item, to distinguish fact from rumor. He must use his common sense, must be ever watchful of exaggeration, over-coloring, of propaganda, and untruths. Only as he learns to balance conflicting reports, to discount known prejudices, to ascertain the reliability of news sources can he make his paper worth while to him as the most comprehensive and timely news purveyor in existence. IMMIGRATION POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CHARACTER OF IMMIGRATION Since Columbus made his discovery, the life of the Americas has been characterized by successive waves of immigration. This continent has offered to millions of migrants from the old world new economic and social opportunities, a wider freedom, and a greater chance for personal development. In return the newcomers have woven their ideas and ideals into the fabric of a great nation. They have given of their industry, have sacrificed their blood, have borne and nurtured its citizens. The English constituted the main contributors to the population in the seventeenth century. They were joined by the French Huguenots and Dutch who adopted their language and became one with them. In the eighteenth century there were large additions of Scotch-Irish and Germans. Finding the coast lands preempted they became the frontiersmen and acted as buffers against the Indians. While other racial elements were represented among the early settlers, the Anglo-Saxon race predominated and Protestantism was the principal religion. This was the race which fought the War of Independence, which determined the tongue, the laws, and forms of government of the United States. The majority element was English-speaking from the British Isles. Quite naturally many of the ideals and customs of Great Britain were embodied in the institutions which its members established. The experiences learned as colonies, the influence of other nationalities, made the new nation an original experiment rather than a replica of any of the older forms of civilization. The first official records of immigration to this country were made in 1820, but it was not until 1856 that any distinction was drawn between persons intending to return and those coming here to settle. Immigration in the early days of our national life was comparatively small, being but 8,385 in 1820 and only 22,633 in 1831.1 While the number of immigrants steadily increased, it was the period of the forties and early fifties which gave the United States its first great waves of immigration. These were caused by economic and political conditions in Europe, and the people mainly affected were the Irish and Germans. After 1842, there were few years when immigration did not far exceed 100,000. Besides the Germans and Irish, the English and Scandinavians contributed the greatest numbers during the middle of the nineteenth century. It was not until after 1882, a year when nearly 800,000 immigrants arrived, that the ethnic character of the population began to show a decided change. At that time eighty-seven per cent of the immigration from Europe and Asiatic Turkey was from western Europe and but thirteen per cent from southern and eastern Europe and Asiatic Turkey. By 1902 the proportion was twentytwo per cent from the first group of countries and seventy-eight per cent from the second.2 The new immigration was drawn from people representing in the main the Latin, Slav, and Semitic races; from backward lands where oppressive conditions, lack of education, and primitive industrial methods predominated. The older immigration had come from the more progressive and literate nations of Europe. One of the controversial questions of the twentieth century is concerned with this situation. Is the new immigration on a par with the old? Is it representative of the type of individuals with whom the older settlers can fraternize? Will the amalgamation of so many diverse stocks make a composite people, equal or better in character than the American people of to-day who are largely a Teutonic and Celtic mixture? These questions can only be answered in the future, for already there are so many representatives of the new races in the United States that they cannot fail to affect in some degree the character of the people. Immigration restrictionists claim the new immigration is less desirable than the old and the changes made in our immigration laws in 1921 and 1924 had this idea in mind. Yet the same arguments brought against the new immigrant were used by restrictionists in the nineteenth century against the very classes now considered "desirable"-Germans, Scotch Irish, Irish. Scandinavians, etc. 1 Davis, Philip, "Immigration and Americanization,” p. 63. 2 Commons, John R., "Races and Immigrants in America," pp. 63-71. ATTITUDES TOWARD IMMIGRATION FOUR ATTITUDES TOWARD IMMIGRATION 61 The actual reasons for a restrictive or non-restrictive policy probably lie deeper and are more complex than the antagonisms of racial differences which seem to have been present ever since immigration to the United States first reached any considerable proportions. It is possible to divide restrictionists and non-restrictionists into four groups, remembering that persons belonging to one of the divisions may likewise hold the ideas of another division. Internationalists. From a social standpoint there are the internationalists and nationalists. Internationalists are non-restrictionists. They believe in general that immigration is a great movement of peoples, that the boundaries of the world are likewise the boundaries of the individual. Within this radius he may seek his greatest opportunities. State lines should not be permitted to retard this "Volk Wanderung" motivated at least in part by an economic force ever seeking to bring about an equitable apportionment of land to people. Such a movement is too vast and fundamental to be checked by human laws. This idea was woven into the traditional ideal of America, the haven of the oppressed. It was definitely expressed by the United States government in the Burlingame treaty which declared that to man belonged the inalienable right to change his home and allegiance. Nationalist. The nationalist sees a picture of the modern world similar to the pink, green, yellow maps of the geography. Each division is sacred to the people who dwell in it. Each contains ordinarily a different kind of people speaking a different language, accustomed to a different form of government, having a different social system and various degrees of civilization. The nationalist can see no justice in the idea that persons from backward countries should be freely allowed to migrate to an advanced country even to the point of retarding the progress in the latter. He holds that every nation has the right to regulate immigration. It may open the doors to all immigrants, may admit some and bar others, or may close the doors entirely. Its actions should be determined by the welfare and prosperity of its citizens. All undesirable peoples should be rejected. The urge or needs of any foreign group desirous of coming to a country should only be considered in the light of the effect such a migration would have on the citizens of that country. A nationalist may be a restrictionist or non-restrictionist according to whether he thinks immigration prospers his country or not. He may support a policy of |