FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64  
65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   >>   >|  
untypical. The conclusion of the Immigration Commission as to the causes of the new immigration is that while "social conditions affect the situation in some countries, the present immigration from Europe to the United States is in the largest measure due to economic causes. It should be stated, however, that emigration from Europe is not now an absolute economic necessity, and as a rule those who emigrate to the United States are impelled by a desire for betterment rather than by the necessity of escaping intolerable conditions. This fact should largely modify the natural incentive to treat the immigration movement from the standpoint of sentiment, and permit its consideration primarily as an economic problem. In other words, the economic and social welfare of the United States should now ordinarily be the determining factor in the immigration policy of the Government." This delimitation of the immigration problem to its economic aspects led the Immigration Commission to recommend a somewhat restrictionist policy. That they were not without warrant in so delimiting it is evident from the utterances of such ardent opponents of restriction as Dr. Peter Roberts and Max J. Kohler. The latter, writing in the _American Economic Review_ (March, 1912) said: "In fact, the immigrant laborer is indispensable to our economic progress today, and we can rely upon no one else to build our houses, railroads and subways, and mine our ores for us." Dr. Roberts' plea is almost identical. What a glaring misconception of the whole economic and social problem is here involved will appear if we add a clause or two to Mr. Kohler's sentence. He should have said: "We can rely upon no one else to build our houses, railroads and subways, and mine our ores for us _at $455 a year; for workers of native birth but of foreign fathers would cost us $566, and native born White Americans $666 a year_." (See Abstracts of Rep. of Immigr. Comm. vol. i., pp. 405-8.) These are the facts. This is the social situation as it should be stated if a candid discussion of the problem is sought. Now what are the economic arguments for restricting somewhat the tide of immigration? Several studies of standards of living among American workingmen within the past ten years have shown that a large proportion of American wage earners fall below a minimum efficiency standard. Studies of American wages indicate that only a little over ten per cent of American wage earner
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64  
65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
economic
 

immigration

 

American

 

social

 

problem

 

States

 
United
 

Kohler

 

Roberts

 
native

policy

 

stated

 

railroads

 

Europe

 
conditions
 

Commission

 

subways

 
situation
 

necessity

 

Immigration


houses

 

involved

 
foreign
 

fathers

 

clause

 

sentence

 
workers
 

proportion

 
earners
 
workingmen

minimum

 

efficiency

 

earner

 

standard

 

Studies

 

living

 

standards

 

Immigr

 

Abstracts

 
misconception

restricting
 

Several

 

studies

 

arguments

 
candid
 

discussion

 

sought

 
Americans
 

laborer

 

modify