gration is opposed to the welfare of the masses of the peo ple. This belief can be based solely on grounds of numbers, the relation of population to resources, quite apart from a preference for particular races or the familiar arguments re garding social and political evils and lack of assimilation, however valid they may be. The limitation of immigration would at once improve working-class conditions where they are worst in and would check and probably reverse the tendency to diminishing returns already manifest in many directions. This opinion does not necessitate an ab solute prohibition of immigration ; it is consistent with the continuance of immigration of a strictly selected character, and in numbers so small that all European immigrants now here could be rapidly and completely assimilated, econom ically and racially. With a slow national increase of popula tion and with the continued progress of science and the arts, it should be possible for real wages to continue indefinitely rising in America. The selection of immigrants to be admit ted should be a part of a national policy of eugenics," which aims to improve the racial quality of the nation by checking the multiplication of the strains defective in respect to men tality, nervous organization, and physical health, and by en couraging the more capable elements of the population to con tribute in due proportion to the maintenance of a healthy, moral, and efficient population. In such a view, a eugenic opportunity is presented in the selection and admission of immigrants who are distinctly above (not merely equal to) the average of our general population.
assumed their full share of the military and other patriotic duties of the time; as did many natives of the Central Em pires. But in many cases were revealed our lack of na tional unity and consciousness as a result of recent immigra tion, the failure of the "melting-pot" to melt, and wide spread sedition and disloyalty among the aliens who had been welcomed to our shores. In the period of agitated feelings, of unsettled labor conditions, and of a threatening Bolshevism, the desirability of a "wide-open" policy of immigration came to be doubted in the very circles where immigration had been most strongly favored before. Large employers and the well-to-do classes recognized the threat to our institutions in the presence here of so many alien elements, un-American in thought and feeling, and em bittered against all established political and economic institu tions as a result of their experiences in their native lands. The first legislative fruit of this public opinion was the en actment by Congress of the temporary restriction law, which went into effect June 3, 1921. Of several restrictive laws that have passed both houses of Congress since Cleveland's administration, this was the first that was signed by the Presi dent. It limits (to the end of the fiscal year 1922) the immi gration from each foreign country to 3 per cent of the number in the United States by the census of 1910. Immigration had already begun to rise to the pre-war rate. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, immigrants to the number of 805,228 were admitted, while 247,718 departed, making a net addition of 557,510. The total number that can be admitted under this law, if each country sent its full quota, would be 354,000. This law, if supplemented by other legislation be fore 1922, will have inaugurated a new era of immigration policy in the United States.
crudescence of the spirit of armed national aggression apparent in the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, the military aspect of the population question deserves serious consideration. The growth of savage and barbarian tribes in numbers, so that their customary standards of living were threatened, frequently has led to the invasion and con quest of their neighbors." To-day nations on a higher plane of living are probably repeating history. The nation with an expanding population is tempted to seek an outlet for its numbers and for its products by entering upon a policy Fig. 5, Chapter 25. Immigration restriction law of 1921; restric tive effects upon various nationalities, shown graphically.
of commercial expansion, which in turn has to be supported by stronger military and naval establishments. It is led by primitive impulses that to itself seem to be a moral justifica tion, to possess the territory of its neighbors. Such a nation points to its increasing population and declares that it must have its "place in the sun"; it must find lands and food for its swarming numbers. Other nations with lower birth-rates and higher standards of living, which they seek to preserve is See Vol. I, p. 412, on war and the pressure of population.
by various measures excluding immigration, appear to be greedy, malevolent, and insulting. These are not the con ditions for rational thinking. The immediate occasion of war may be some matter of internal politics, such as growing discontent and democratic sentiment among the people, while the deeper cause is the pressure of population in a limited territory. Nations with slowly growing populations, and still possessed of ample territories to maintain their ac customed standards of life, naturally favor the status quo, and are pacifist or non-militarist. If they arm, it is for their own safety. In this view, militarism is seen to consist, not in hav ing drilled soldiers and stores of munitions, but in the na tional state of mind that would use these for aggression, not merely for defense. When, therefore, a powerful nation has reached a certain stage in the relation of its population to resources, limitation of population more truly than limitation of armaments is the real pacifism ; and increase of population, not increased military training or a larger navy, is the real militarism.
§ 17. Problem of maximum military power. It is a grave question, however, how far a nation with a relatively sparse population, high wages, and great wealth can safely limit population in the presence of a capable, ambitious, and efficient rival that covets such opportunities. On the one hand, a population may be so sparse that it has not sol diers enough to defend its territory against a numerous enemy ; on the other hand, it may be so dense, and conse quently average incomes be so low, that it cannot properly train, arm, and support its population of military age. The recent developments in the art of warfare call for great use of the mechanical industries, for great power to endure taxa tion, and for great financial resources, conditions found only where the average of national income is high. The point of maximum military power must be far short of the maximum possible population. It would seem that a nation of 100,000, 000 inhabitants favorably situated to resist aggression, well supplied with the natural materials for munitions, and well equipped to produce them, might safely limit its numbers so as to insure a high level of popular income. This safety would be greatly increased by permanent alliance with other peoples likewise limiting their numbers and, therefore, in terested in maintaining the peace of the world. In this way it would be possible for them all to maintain a standard of popular well-being even higher than is fully consistent with the maximum military power, even in the presence of pro lific and aggressive rival nations.