and sociological principle, and that the proposal therefore is neither mechanical nor artificial. The admission of larger numbers than can be easily Americanized creates and maintains difficulties of many kinds-economic, political, and racial. The welfare of the immigrants themselves and of the American people and the abiding success of our democratic institutions depend upon the proper and rapid Americanization of all who settle permanently in our land. Another fact to be kept in mind is that we must start with the present actual situation. We cannot ignore or go back on history. We can no more rectify the inequalities of past immigration-Japanese or Italian as compared with English, German, and Scandinavian-than we can rectify the accident of an unfortunate grandfather. We must start our new policy and programme with the situation as it is today. We should insist that immigration from any land shall not be larger than that which we can Americanize. This requires the admission of immigrants from different lands in different numbers, but upon the same principle. This is not "race discrimination" in the usual sense, and in the sense to which Japan raises objection. The assertion that Japanese will resent this proposal is an assumption based on ignorance. Such a critic fails to understand the essence of Japan's criticism of our present policies. Japan is not de manding opportunity for free immigration. But she does earnestly ask for removal of the humiliation of differential treatment on the mere ground of race. As a matter of fact, Japanese who understand the foregoing proposals do not resent them. If all immigration to America is restricted on the same principle, that which they resent is removed, and they are satisfied. Baron Kato, former minister of foreign affairs, at a dinner of welcome (February 10, 1915) to Professor Shailer Mathews and the writer, who went to Japan as the Christian Embassy of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America to the churches of Japan, said: "We would not mind disabilities if they were equally applicable to all nations. . . . Questions like this require time to settle. . . . At the same time we cannot rest satisfied until this question is finally and properly settled." It may not be amiss to note that as the decades pass, if those admitted from any specified land and their children chose to become American citizens, the permissible immigration from that particular land will naturally increase decade by decade. The newcomers, however, being always kept at a small percentage of those already Americanized, the objections to and dangers from increasing immigration from that land will be held at a minimum. Would not the above proposals for a constructive immigration policy and programme co-ordinate, systematize, and rationalize our entire procedure in dealing with immigration, and solve in a fundamental way its most perplexing difficulties? Such a policy would protect American labor from danger of sudden and excessive immigration from any land. It would promote the wholesome and rapid assimilation of all newcomers. It would regulate the rate of the coming of immigrants from any land by the proven capacity for Americanization of those from that land already here. It would keep the newcomers of each people always a minority of its Americanized citizens. It would be free from every trace of differential race treatment. Our relations with Japan and China would thus be right. Such a policy, therefore, giving to every people the "most favored nation treatment," would maintain and deepen our international friendship on every side. Criticism of and suggestions for improving this plan are invited. Before making up his mind as to the actual practicability of the policy and programme described above, the student will inevitably inquire as to its statistical results. Whether the five-per-cent rate is desirable will depend upon the actual immigration which it would allow. We therefore add as an appendix to this chapter tables and explanations showing just how a five-per-cent immigration law would have affected immigration had it been in force during the five years between 1911 and 1915. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII TABLES SHOWING HOW THE FIVE PER CENT RESTRICTION PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE AFFECTED IMMIGRATION FROM JAPAN, CHINA, AND ITALY FOR EACH OF THE FIVE YEARS INDICATED ITALIANS: 23,410 189,950 24,071 39,761 126,118 45,768 80,350 27,650 162,273 23,114 38,262 100,867 45,768 55,099 44,372 274,147 31,550 50,263 192,334 45,768 146,566 27,320 296,414 37,711 60,695 198,008 45,768 152,240 9,452 57,217 13,272 19,589 24,356 45,768 132,204 980,001 129,718 208,600 641,683 228,840 434,255 |