SCIENTIFIC REGULATION OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS Based on the Revised Plan of The National Committee for Constructive Immigration Legislation JANUARY 20, 1920 Headquarters 105 EAST 22d STREET New York City INTRODUCTION The National Committee for Constructive Immigration Legislation advocates the regulation of all immigration on a uniform basis. It is briefly this: The United States should so regulate, and where necessary re¬ strict immigration as to provide that no more immigrants of each people or mother-tongue group may be admitted than can be whole¬ somely Americanized and steadily employed. The number of those individuals of each people or mother-tongue group already in Continental United States who have become Ameri¬ canized, affords the best basis of the measure for the future immigra¬ tion of that people. On these fundamental principles, the National Committee suggests that the annual permissible immigration from any given people or mother- tongue group shall be a certain per cent (say from 3 to 10) of a basal figure to be made up of two factors. (a) The number of American-born children of that people residing in Continental United States as recorded in the census of 1920, plus (b) The number of naturalized citizens of that people residing in Continental United States as recorded in the last available census. Adding these two figures for the given people and multiplying the sum by the percentage rate for the given year, will give the figures of the permissible immigration of that people for that year. To show statistically how this proposal would affect immigration from the various peoples, is the purpose of this pamphlet. The first table shows what the actual travel of aliens back and forth has been. Immigrants and non-immigrants (i. e., transients), emigrants and non-emigrants, are all included. 2 TABLE I Total Immigration and Emigration, 1909-1919 Fiscal Year Total Admittances Total Departures Increase of Population 1909 944,235 400,392 543,843 1910 1,198,037 380,418 817,619 1911 1,030,300 518,215 512,085 1912 1,017,155 615,292 401,863 1913 1,427,227 611,924 815,303 1914 1,403,081 633,805 769,276 1915 434,244 384,174 50,070 1916 366,748 240,807 125,941 1917 362,877 146,379 216,498 1918 211,853 193,268 18,585 1919 237,021 216,231 20,790 PROBLEM I How large an immigration would have been permitted annually to each people during the decade 1911-1920, if the percentage plan proposed by the National Committee for Constructive Immigration Legislation had been in force? (a) From the Census of 1910 (Vol. 1, p. 875) we first get the figures of the American-born citizens, one or both of whose parents were born in the specified foreign country. (b) From the Census of 1910 (Vol. 1, p. 1082) we then secure the figures as to the naturalized citizens classified according to their native countries. Note: Since the United States Census does not classify naturalized aliens or their American-born children by race (or mother-tongue) but by country of origin, our calculations must adopt this classification. (c) Adding together these two elements, (a) and (b), we secure the Base from which to reckon the maximum and minimum permissible immigration from each country. These figures and calculations are presented in Table II. In these calculations we assume that Congress has set the per¬ missible rate at from three to ten per cent (the exact figure for any given year to be determined by the proposed Immigration Commission). TABLE II Maximum and Minimum Permissible Annual Immigration for the Decadb 1911-1920 Country of Origin Census 1910 Base (a) + (b) Permissible Immigration American- born (a) Naturalized (b) Maximum 10% Minimum 3% North and West Europe: United Kingdom. 5,163,289 770,094 5,933,383 593,338 178,001 Germany. 5,781,437 889,007 6,670,444 667,044 200,113 Norway. 575,241 121,651 696,892 69,689 20,906 Sweden. 699,032 219,057 918,089 91,80'^ 27,5-42 Denmark. 218,443 63,068 281,511 28,151 8,445 Holland. 173,521 33,922 207,443 20,744 6,223 Belgium, etc. 43,744 11,869 55,613 5,561 1,668 France. 175,153 29,613 204,766 20,476 6,142 Switzerland. 176,816 42,760 219,576 21,957 6,587 15,187,717 1,518,768 455,627 South and East Europe: Portugal. 53,499 7,141 60,640 6,064 1,819 Spain...... 11,157 2,318 13,475 1,347 500 Italy. 755,290 126,523 881,813 88,181 26,454 Russia. 938,897 192,264 1,131,161 113,116 33,934 Finland... 81,357 21,669 103,026 10,302 3,090 Austria. 826,635 149,914 976,549 97,654 29,296 Hungary. 204,627 36,610 241,237 24,123 7,237 Roumania. 21,801 8,014 29,815 2,981 894 Bulgaria, etc. 1,234 821 2,055 1,000 500 Greece. 8,401 4,946 13,347 1,334 500 Turkey in Europe. 3,093 1,474 4,567 1,000 500 Turkey in Asia. 18,929 6,940 25,869 2,586 776 3,483,554 349,694 105,500 China. 14,935 1,368 16,303 1,630 500 Japan. 4,502 420 4,922 1,000 500 Grand Total.... 1,871,092 562,129 ! PROBLEM II How much immigration would have been excluded during the decade 1900-1919 if the proposed percentage plan had been in operation? The following table (III) shows the amount of immigration (not including transients) from the important countries since 1900. At the bottom are given the maximum and minimum figures effective during the past decade. By comparing these figures, therefore, for any people with the immigration of that people for any year since 1910, we see at once whether or not the percentage restriction plan would have restricted immigration for that year from that country, and if so, by striking the difference we see how much approximately it would have been restricted. 4 TABLE III Immigration Into the United States from Selected Countries (Not Including Transients) •o a £ COrHOO(NcOTt(^00 05COiOOOH^cOHCO HiNCO © ©_C^QO t-jN^© ©C^t^CO 05 CO 1 -T O 0 ©O 0 ©T-HO 0 -< CO t*- l^co CO ^cO CO C^OO i> © i-T CO CO ©” oT ©* ©* © 00 CO I> 00 CO ©* ©rjT rfT CO t-T -©r^©©©©©Oi-H©O©© 00 ©l^ © © • •—< ^-MO» 0 '^ l ©COOCOr-(COrtHJ>T-iTft^CO©CO © © T-Ii-Jcsicoco©'©©-^^©©'^!^©^ ©i -7 CQ ©©’'fO 0 ©Tt<©t^©O 0 T}< 001 >CO 00 © © © CO HT}-©© TH 05 J 3 HCNCOOONNiO(N © 00 •o »-i©TtH>©©©©©t^COCO’^'^C. b-rHTfl©O < ^Tt^©I>l>»l>t^ Tt< CO c ©©OOOOOt>© 0 ©''tfOO©COCOt>l>OOOOTt 4 CO © 1 -H C l-. 00 1-H 00 © © © t>--! 03 r-t y* r- o v »-H(M(NrtiT}HT^COCOCO©Tt. CO © 5 M»CO©iO*Hr-iioC 0001 >’>t©(N'^'^l>iH 00 N CO © GC©©OOt^U-C 3 COCOi-< 00 - 4 -» l—t »—1 rH trH © yi c p rt . V u 3 H 41 O CD00aToiD* > 00r-icDC0TtiL-.0005TjHi--l hhnnhconncon CM CO © (05 coi-T HO^OLOiDOOOHCOcOOMNfN^^OM O NHOa>rt O rH o CO ID TP ID ■tFh 00_ CM^Tf 00 00 ir5 CD O O 00 CO ID CO ID 00 "eft i—i cT O CO i-i tM icT CD —h CM ID 05f— CO rH —T rH rH rH rH 0Q CM rH CM CM CM CM CO rH CM CM CJ • •-4 a § 3 O O iO CO O N N O 00 O lO M N >0 N H O CO O O <-* rt< iDiCD>H00C0N00(N©Tt((N03l0C00005OiO(» 00 05 ^hhcoO'^^CONiDhiDOhO'# 0500 o' f-" «>" oT t>“ TjT r>T r}T ID i-T CM* CM* tH Cm" h* (N 3 M a 3 X 3 to 3 < i/i to 3 ft t'-O05rHCDC000CM05rHr^t--CMl0CMrHrH00rHCM ■^DCOHiODCOiDODWiDOOMiDHDiDOW 00^ CO 0^0 rHCOH^lCHNOOOOOrHlQHN ^ CO* r-T cd" I>~ id" id" 00 oo" CD 00 cT co" rjT00 00 ID 1 -T HHNONNOfOONiDiDNiCNH rH rH rH CM rH CM CM CO rH rH O'! t - H rt CM CM NNNCOHNIDCOHONhiOOONCKONN OOiDTf05rf050^fr-icD05CM05'^000'>^T-H'!tiCO !>■_ CM_ CO O r-^ GO CD_ CD I> rt^ NNCCO O H 00 t-CM^iD OiDND id"tjTid"00"co"o"CD*GO Cm"H id"CD* t'"CM* t*T_T OOOOCO^QOtHiDiOINOOiDCOaiiDN 1-4 HHHHC5NHHHHHC5N co t'.g rH "* CM r '£> co CD rt« 1-1 CO j—( 05 CO co r—< co ^■h 3 iDCCiDCMcOOSOt-hcOGOI'-CMtHCMOOGGiDCQOCO C005J>CM05t-CMC0OrHC000C0TCiC000CD05iD05 H CD CO CO CM^ rH ID CM_ id GO r-^ W t-_ CD CD_ ID CM^ CO O »D 00 O CO 1 —I CO ID 00 CO ID CM I> ID* CO* oT CO* rjT ID co" ©CCI>C005CMI>.OOCMOOrHOO»OCDOO^COCO —H rH rH CM r—t CM CM CM rH r —I CM 1 —4 t—I CM CM rH 00 ID —H Tfrt 00 co" 00 CM 3 to 3 4 -* l-l o cu Tf4iDt>.l>lD00r^001>COC5’^©*—I 00 05 ID CODOHHCMHOOiDNNTONOOiONCM.n CM_rH CO CO ©_ID CDCO C5_CM_CO CM_H 00 CDCM_05 CM_ L D UH -rh id" o" co" id" oo" C 5 ~ t>" Tin" oo" 00 o" r^" ©" t*T Cm" ©" Cm" w Hfl 05 CO i—i O GO -> 3 CJ Or-iMCO^lDONOOCiOr-iMCOrJUOCONOO® 1 ^0 O CD CD CD O CD 05 O O rH I—I r—I rH rH rH rH rH rH rH 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 H H CQ ►H to • to CL 6 PROBLEM III How large an immigration will be permitted annually from each country during the decade 1921-1930 if the percentage plan proposed by the National Committee for Constructive Immigration Legislation is in force? No exact answer to this question is possible because the United States Census of 1920 is not yet available. An effort to forecalculate these figures is beset with many insuperable difficulties. No figures are available showing how many American-born children we now have (1920) one or both of whose parents are foreign-born. Moreover, although the Bureau of Naturalization publishes annually the number of those naturalized, these figures are not classified by race or country. The total for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1911-1918, is 750,325. If, nevertheless, the curious insist upon some kind of an estimate* the following procedure may be suggested: < 1) Start with the numbers of native-born and of naturalized in 1910 as given in Table II, columns (a) and (b). (2) Each number in each column will be reduced by deaths during the decade 1911-20 and increased in the case of column (a) by births in the United States, 1911-20, of children one or both of whose parents was born in the specified country of origin and in the case of column (b) by the naturalization, 1911-20, of natives of the specified country of origin. (3) The deaths can be estimated by assuming a probable death rate for the class under examination. (4) The births to be added to column (a) can be estimated by assuming a birth rate (1) for the natives of that country who were here in 1910 and (2) for the net immigration from that country during the decade 1911-1920. (5) The number of persons naturalized to be added to the figures in column (b) might be roughly estimated by distributing the total per¬ sons naturalized each year as shown by the Bureau of Naturalization to the various countries of origin in accordance with the proportion pre¬ vailing in 1910 among those who had taken out first papers and were then on the road to complete naturalization. The National Committee does not regard the results which may thus be secured as having any real value. There are too many uncertain¬ ties. Nor does the Committee regard such a forecalculation as par¬ ticularly necessary. The figures given in Table II show what would have happened during the decade 1911-1920. And from these figures a general forecast is possible for the coming decade. In view of the fact that the large immigration from south, central and east Europe came after 1900, it seems quite probable that the number of their American-born children who will be recorded in the Census of 7 1920 plus those naturalized of those peoples will permit a very substantial increase of immigration for the decade 1921-1930 over that which wouM have been permitted on the same basis during the decade 1911-1920. In other words, it may perhaps be roughly estimated that the permissible annual immigration for 1921-1930, at the maximum rate of 10%, would be somewhere between 500,000 and 600,000 instead of 348,349 as calcu¬ lated for the decade 1911-1920. The permissible immigration from northwest Europe for 1921-1930 would be somewhat increased over that for 1911-1920, but not by the same proportion. In the case of the Japanese, however, a forecalculation is highly important and also fortunately quite possible. The results of such a cal¬ culation are given in the next discussion. PROBLEM IV How would the percentage plan affect immigration from Japan? 1. During the Decade 1911-1920. According to the Census of 1910 the number of American-born Japanese in Continental United States was 4,502, and the number of the naturalized was 420 giving a “base” of 4,922. Since this figure is less than 20,000 the permissible annual immigration, as provided by the proposed law, would have been 1,000 annually at the maximum rate and 500 at the minimum rate. The actual arrivals and departure of Japanese to and from Conti¬ nental United States for the years 1911-1919 is given in Table IV. If the law proposed by the National Committee for Constructive Immigra¬ tion Legislation had been in effect it is evident that the amount of Jap¬ anese immigration would have been highly restricted. TABLE IV Japanese Admitted to and Departed from Continental United States Total Admitted Former Residents New Arrivals Departed Difference 1909 2,432 850 1,582 5,004 -2,572 1910 2,595 838 1,757 5,024 -2,426 1911 4,282 1,203 3,080 5,868 -1,587 1912 5,358 1,869 3,489 5,437 -79 1913 6,771 2,893 3,878 5,646 + 1,124 1914 8,462 3,852 4,610 6,300 +2,162 1915 9,029 4,063 4,966 5,967 +3,062 1916 9,100 4,150 4,950 6,922 42,178 1917 9,150 4,123 5,022 6,581 42,578 1918 11,143 4,958 6,185 7,691 +3,452 1919 11,404 4,096 7,303 8,328 +3,076 79,726 32,899 43,827 68,768 10,968 8 2. During the Decade 1921-1930. (a) American-born Japanese in Continental United States recorded in the Census of 1910 numbered 4,502. Deaths at 5 per 1,000 annually for ten years will amount to 225, leaving 4,277 survivors in 1920. (b) According to the Census of 1910 (Bulletin 127 p. 26) Japanese children under five years of age in Continental United States (3,608) exceeded those in California (2,411) by 41 per cent, and the married women (5,581 and 3,916 respectively) by 42 per cent. We may there¬ fore assume that during the decade 1911-1920 Japanese children born in Continental United States exceeded those born in California by 42 per cent. Now the California State Board of Health reports Japanese births for the years 1911-1918. Estimating births for 1919 and 1920 (total for decade 32,787), calculating deaths at the mortality rates given in the United States Life Tables (p. 16) (total for decade 5,087) and multiply¬ ing the survivors by 42 per cent, we find that Japanese born in Con¬ tinental United States during the decade and surviving in 1920 will be approximately 39,334. TABLE V Births and Deaths of Japanese Children in California Births Deaths Fiscal Year Num¬ ber 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 Total 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 995 1,467 2,215 2,874 3,342 3,721 4,108 4,365 113 24 168 10 35 253 6 15 54 329 4 9 23 70 383 4 7 14 30 92 426 3 5 10 19 40 91 470 2 4 8 13 25 39 100 500 2 4 7 11 17 24 97 106 2 3 6 9 14 17 42 103 170 250 375 481 571 597 709 709 /Esti- \1919 \mated/1920 Total 4,700 5,000 538 114 573 652 573 3?,78 5,087 Adding results (4,277+39,334) we find that American-born Japanese in Continental United States who will probably be recorded in the Census of 1920 will be approximately 43,611. Since some of these will have re¬ turned to Japan we shall use 43,000 in our further calculations. The number of naturalized Japanese recorded in the Census of 1920 will probably be inappreciable, since none have been naturalized during the 9 past decade and those who were recorded in the Census of 1910 (420) are regarded by the Census Bureau as having been errors, (cf. Bulletin 127 p. 11.) The “Base” therefore is 43,000 and the permissible annual immigra¬ tion for the decade 1921-1930 will be At the maximum rate, 10% of 43,000=4,300 At the minimum rate, 3% of 43,000=1,290 3. During the Decade 1931-1940. (a) The basal figure for American-born Japanese will be that already caluculated—43,000. (b) The new law will permit everyone to become a citizen who will properly qualify. How many Japanese in Continental United States will be able and will desire to do so? No one knows. Nor is there any basis for a statistical estimate. Making allowances for deaths and for immigration during the decade 1921-1930, the number of alien Japanese in Continental United States will be approximately 55,000 to 60,000. In view, however, of the known difficulty for a Japanese in acquiring the English language, in view of the improbability that women in any con¬ siderable numbers will be able to qualify, in view of the high standards for naturalization proposed by the National Committee, in view of the probable strictness with which those who administer the law on the Pacific Coast will administer it in the case of Japanese applicants, and in view of the fact that a considerable majority of the Japanese are in agricultural pursuits where opportunities for learning English are poor, we conclude that the number who can and will secure citizenship will be relatively small, perhaps 15,000. This is probably an over-generous estimate. (c) The Base will therefore be 58,000 (43,0004-15,000). (d) The Permissible Immigration will be At the maximum rate, 10% of 58,000=5,800 At the minimum rate, 3% of 58,000=1,740 10 CONCLUSIONS 1. If the proposed law had been passed in 1910, it would not have restricted pre-war immigration from northwest Europe even at the minimum rate of three per cent. From west, south, central and east Europe there would have been a slight restriction of immigration on a ten per cent rate, and, on a three per cent rate, especially from Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Russia, considerable restriction. The permis¬ sible immigration from both China and Japan would have been ma¬ terially reduced. 2. In case no change is made at this time in the immigration laws, we shall be subject to a possible flood of immigration from central, south¬ ern and northeastern Europe, of which we can at present make no probable forecast, as the variable factors are too many and too uncertain. 3. In view of this fact we contend that the early passagge of the proposed law is highly important. If it should turn out that the immigration from Europe is so small that the law would not in the least affect it, it would in that case have no effect. But if the immigra¬ tion should suddenly rise to two or three or even four millions in the course of a couple years, we would be helpless in the face of a condition that we could not control or cope with. We would be forced into some kind of hurried emergency legislation, which could not fail to work great hardship on the millions already started or preparing to start on their journey hither. If, however, we had already enacted a law of the kind proposed, it would automatically deal with the situation before it becomes acute, because it would be well known to all shipping and railroad agents in Europe and thus to every prospective immigrant before he would take the decisive step of breaking his home relations. 4. The proposed lav/ will enable the United States to keep faith with China in regard to the observance of treaty obligations. It will also remove from our relations with Japan those features that are causing continued irritation. For a full statement of the proposals of the National Committee, with a copy of the proposed bill and the reasons for urging this legis¬ lation, the reader is referred to the pamphlet “Proposed Laws for Regulating Immigration and for Raising the Standards for Natural¬ ization.” The National Committee invites the active co-operation of every one who desires to have the immigration and naturalization laws amended along the lines advocated by this Committee. SIDNEY L. GULICK, Secretary, National Committee for Constructive Immigration Legislation, 105 East 22nd Street, New York City. 11 -Japanese Aliens Admitted to and Departed from Continental United States (excluding Hawaii) 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 o' I .- 0 0* -—{- 0 0 «o' -,—1- ui £ r a < a a h ^ $ rQ P- O C) v* a* £ 1 a * $ .5 12 JQ05 1910 19 k5 I92O 1925 19*30 19*3.5 *9^0