The record-union., 1893-07-24
RESTRICTING IMMIGRATION.

Prudhon regarded liberty as the
mother instead daughter of order and
progress. One believing as Prudhon did
writes in the Social EconomiStfor July
claiming that it is all wrong to put restric-
ton upon Immigration.
The argument, in brief, is that we do
not regard the unity of the interests of
humanity; that the greatest number of
our paupers are native born; that no in
crease of pauperism is traceable to imni-
grafton; that immigration adds i'm
mensely to national strength and wealth;
that the clamor for restricted immigra-
ton is a secondary wave ofknow-nothing-
ism; that illiteracy is greatest in our land
where foreigners are tewest; that GRIM
inal statistics prove the largest percentage
of crime attaches to the native born:
that while since 1870 Massachusetts, has
received 100000 immigrants the number
of her convicts has decreased from $500
to 1900, and homicides have fallen off
greatly, while they have increased in
States receiving the least number of for
eigners; that Belgium is comfortable
with $50 people to the square mile, Eng
land not distressed with $50, while the
United States has but IA, and has .635,-
900 acres still uncuItivated and the aver
age production OF grains is but one-quar-
ter that OF which the acreage is capable.
In conclusion, the essayist thinks we
need to learn the fine art of letting each
other alone, and of according to each per
feet liberty, subject to the liberty of each
and all.
The Economist prints the essay, a
lengthy one, and takes occasion to de-
nounce it as illogical. The editor shows
that increased liberty in England did not
abolish the vicious phases of poor-iaw
legislation; that the increased liberty was
forced by the industrial improvement
and intelligence of the masses. The
Economist adds that the essayists shafts
are mainly aimed at the claim that i'm
migrants become paupers, which is not
NAb punt at Ill.
Nobody acquainted with the economies or
the history OF the subject would take anN such
ground. 1t is not because foreigners become
paupers that their Immigration should be re-
strlcted, but that they have too low a stand
ard OF social lie, habits and ideas; and their
influence, TO the extent that they dominate is
10 lower our social standard, and with il our
wages TO their level. 1t is their economic in
uuenee, through their low social quality and
not their pauperism, that is the real objection
10 their incoming in too great numbers The
citation OF the southern States 10 prove the
larger proportion of illiteracy and crime
among the natives than among Immigrants
only shows how blind one can become bv do
Notion 10 false theory. OF course the South is
luiterate and degraded, which Is due to its
poverty and low social status. Ii is the great
drag-down power in our national life; ana il is
because Immigrants OF the lowest type an
PrOXimate our southern population in Ills
respect that they endanger our civilization
anu me republic We forced the ignorant
population OF the South into this country rs
a part OF our slave trade, and we are now pay-
ing the penalty for II IN its baneful influence
upon our national character The lesson OF
our mistake IN kidnapping Africans into
America should teach us to be cautions about
importing that portion OF European popula-
lion which most nearly approNimates Then,
Tor barbariZlng influence. The true defense
Tor restricting Immigration is protection of
our civilization.
And the Economist might have added
1.-The protection OF our political institu
TONS" Also, that restriction does not
mean rejection, but discrimination to the
exclusion of the non-eontrlbuting and
non assimilative classes. Concerning
these the esssyist took no account what
ever