Full download text book at textbookfull.

com

The Sustainable Development Theory: A

Critical Approach, Volume 1: The
Discourse of the Founders Ion Pohoa■■
DOWLOAD HERE

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-sustainable-
development-theory-a-critical-approach-
volume-1-the-discourse-of-the-founders-ion-
pohoata/

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more textbook from textbookfull.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering, Fourth

Edition: Volume 3A: Chemical and Biochemical Reactors
and Reaction Engineering R. Ravi

https://textbookfull.com/product/coulson-and-richardsons-
chemical-engineering-fourth-edition-volume-3a-chemical-and-
biochemical-reactors-and-reaction-engineering-r-ravi/

The Dynamics of Corporate Social Responsibility A

Critical Approach to Theory and Practice 1st Edition
Maria Aluchna

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-dynamics-of-corporate-
social-responsibility-a-critical-approach-to-theory-and-
practice-1st-edition-maria-aluchna/

Unified Vision for a Sustainable Future: A

Multidisciplinary Approach Towards the Sustainable
Development Goals 1st Edition Mir Sayed Shah Danish

https://textbookfull.com/product/unified-vision-for-a-
sustainable-future-a-multidisciplinary-approach-towards-the-
sustainable-development-goals-1st-edition-mir-sayed-shah-danish/

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on

Materials and Sustainable Development Volume 1 Nano
Technology and Advanced Materials Abdelbaki Benmounah

https://textbookfull.com/product/proceedings-of-the-4th-
international-symposium-on-materials-and-sustainable-development-
volume-1-nano-technology-and-advanced-materials-abdelbaki-
Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

The Palgrave handbook of critical theory Thompson

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
critical-theory-thompson/

Building Green Software: A Sustainable Approach to

Software Development and Operations 1 / converted
Edition Anne Currie

https://textbookfull.com/product/building-green-software-a-
sustainable-approach-to-software-development-and-
operations-1-converted-edition-anne-currie/

The Founders and the Idea of a National University

Constituting the American Mind George Thomas

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-founders-and-the-idea-of-a-
national-university-constituting-the-american-mind-george-thomas/

Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on

Environmental Geotechnics Volume 1 Towards a
Sustainable Geoenvironment Liangtong Zhan

https://textbookfull.com/product/proceedings-of-the-8th-
international-congress-on-environmental-geotechnics-
volume-1-towards-a-sustainable-geoenvironment-liangtong-zhan/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN SUSTAINABILITY,
ENVIRONMENT AND MACROECONOMICS

The Sustainable
Development Theory:
A Critical Approach,
Volume 1
The Discourse of the Founders
Ion Pohoaţă · Delia Elena Diaconaşu ·
Vladimir Mihai Crupenschi
Palgrave Studies in Sustainability, Environment
and Macroeconomics

Series Editor
Ioana Negru
Department of Economics
SOAS University of London
London, UK
Most macroeconomic theory and policy is orientated towards promoting
economic growth without due consideration to natural resources, sustain-
able development or gender issues. Meanwhile, most economists consider
environmental issues predominantly from a microeconomic perspective.
This series is a novel and original attempt to bridge these two major gaps
and pose questions such as: Is growth and sustainability compatible? Are
there limits to growth? What kind of macroeconomic theories and policy
are needed to green the economy?
Moving beyond the limits of the stock-flow consistent model, the series
will contribute to understanding analytical and practical alternatives to
the capitalist economy especially under the umbrella term of “degrowth”.
It will aim to reflect the diversity of the degrowth literature, opening
up conceptual frameworks of economic alternatives—including feminist
political ecology—as critical assessments of the capitalist growth economy
from an interdisciplinary, pluricultural perspective.
The series invites monographs that take critical and holistic views of
sustainability by exploring new grounds that bring together progressive
political economists, on one hand, and ecological economists, on the
other. It brings in.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15612
 Ion Pohoaţă · Delia Elena Diaconaşu ·
Vladimir Mihai Crupenschi

The Sustainable
Development Theory:
A Critical Approach,
Volume 1
The Discourse of the Founders
Ion Pohoaţă Delia Elena Diaconaşu
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University Alexandru Ioan Cuza University
Iasi, Romania Iasi, Romania

Vladimir Mihai Crupenschi

Alexandru Ioan Cuza University
Iasi, Romania

Palgrave Studies in Sustainability, Environment and Macroeconomics

ISBN 978-3-030-54846-9 ISBN 978-3-030-54847-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54847-6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Maram_shutterstock.com

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Introduction

Since 1987, when the term came into official use, sustainable development
has come to define the spirit of the times. Generations separated by time
or profession, economists, philosophers, historians, sociologists, jurists,
biologists, engineers, Nobel Prize laureates, all the way to gardeners write
or talk about sustainability. Too much has been said on the topic, while
the essence has been lost.
How is it that so much has been written about this important but arid
theme? How can we establish whether the paths of scientific knowledge
have been followed in this extensive literature? How and why would a
prestigious publisher let himself be persuaded that another drop could be
added to this ocean of literature on sustainability, without the danger of
overflowing? What else could a new book on this matter say? Is it really
necessary?
We answer affirmatively to this last question, for at least three closely
related reasons:
Firstly, there is an acute need to restore depth and rigour to the topic
by reverting to its core. It springs mainly from economics and only later
acquires social and environmental accretions, which cloud its meaning.
Secondly, there is a need to simplify and clarify the key elements that
serve as a basis for development: economic growth, social harmony and
environmental conservation.
Thirdly, we are convinced that there are still unanswered questions
on the subject. An analysis that can bring objectivity is necessary; one in

v
vi INTRODUCTION

which strong and simple causalities retake centre stage; one that refuses
the shadowy places that elude and are served by predetermined truths.
We seek to discern the original truths through an extensive review of
existing literature and, mainly, through a return to the classical founders’
insights which have been overtaken by contemporary developments, and,
partly, to their neoclassical successors’ ideas. We do not intend to negate
concepts underpinning the current paradigm in the field of sustainable
development, but only to facilitate a return to the origins that gave them
meaning and relevance.
We have reason to believe that many truths have been removed from
the hardcore of economic science and even thrown beyond its protective
belt, to express ourselves in Lakatosian terms. This has happened in order
to hide or serve those who seek to profit from manipulating the economy.
Therefore, in line with the founders’ message, we seek to determine the
resorts of sustainability. Tracing known truths to their original source, we
will come up with our own interpretation. We want to know the origins of
this subject, the appropriate methods to study it and the potential bene-
ficiaries of such an analysis. Who has the right to diagnose sustainability,
and who is in charge of validating the conclusions that define it? On what
founding principles can we lean on to find out today what is sustainability
when the national economy could be conceived to belong to you only de
jure and not de facto. Moreover, what and how do you transmit some-
thing to future generations? For example, there are those who believe
that the USSR had a balanced and promising development, but that its
sustainability was compromised just because creative destruction avoided
it. What do we say to those who make the distribution of wealth the alpha
and omega of their discourse about sustainability, forgetting that wealth
must first be produced? What are the chances and what is the way forward
to get rid of absolute poverty? Do we dialogue with Nobel Prize winners
or do we take them at their word, accepting unquestioningly their scien-
tific offerings? And, ultimately, from whom do we learn what sustainability
really is?
The analysis is conducted within the confines of two volumes, “broth-
ers” of the same structure of ideas. The first volume “speaks” the language
of the founders. By exploring known but less exploited places, but also
unknown ones, we map the core and the boundaries of a splendid lesson
on sustainability, as it was originally intended.
 INTRODUCTION vii

In the second volume, we ask and answer the following question: What
are the contemporaries doing with the ideational dowry of sustainability
inherited from the founders?
The two volumes are relatively thematically autonomous. Yet, we
believe that only by reading both of them can one grasp a deeper meaning
and achieve a sense of completeness. This way we reveal the difference
between what sustainability is and what it could be.
 Contents

1 The Avatars of Sustainability: A Necessary

Prolegomenon 1

2 The Classical Discourse—From Start-Up to Harmony.

What Is Sustainable About It? 33

3 Institutionalism Drawn Upon Founding

and Sustainable Roots 73

4 Economic Dynamics According to the Thoughts

of the Founders 105

5 The Convoluted Sustainability of the Neoclassical

Discourse 139

6 Free Competition: An Invitation to a Less Explored

Type of Sustainability 169

7 Instead of General Conclusions—A Few Additional

Thoughts 205

Index 223

ix
 CHAPTER 1

The Avatars of Sustainability: A Necessary

Prolegomenon

1.1 Why Looking Back to the Founders?

Why is it necessary to employ the founders’ support for a better, fairer
and simpler understanding of sustainable development? Various reasons
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
First of all, their framework for analysis is clear, logical and well-
articulated. The division of labour and human cooperation gives substance
to this framework, and through them, almost everything is explained:
exchange, money, equilibrium and social harmony. The reality of the
classical founders’ world is a contradictory one, socially and economi-
cally. Their economic and social harmony is dynamic, with rich and poor
changing places, efficiently or otherwise, depending on how they use their
minds and hands. Good practices (Smithian institutions) respected by
economic actors, the government in particular, provide support for under-
standing the seeds of economic resilience. This resilience is sustained by a
small but powerful government, with a job description in accordance with
the conception of Smith and Bastiat, summed up under two main head-
ings: freedom and security. The role of domestic education as a natural
institution regarded by Smith as a creative activity and the role of profit
and productive work in sustaining economic dynamics, all with support in
private ownership, reject any contemporary approach that would pursue
sustainability beyond the free market economy. Classical economists tell us

© The Author(s) 2020 1

I. Pohoaţă et al., The Sustainable Development Theory: A Critical
Approach, Volume 1, Palgrave Studies in Sustainability,
Environment and Macroeconomics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54847-6_1
2 I. POHOAŢĂ ET AL.

that profit moves the world, but wealth is gained through work and within
the boundaries of such a framework. Work concerns all those who have
the capacity to engage in it. This is how growth is achieved, and its ratio-
nale, through development, is to make people happy—not equally nor
through statistical manipulation. With reference to such a background,
it is possible to understand why degrowth is not suitable for everybody,
through both message and reasoning; and how distributive justice and
impersonal efficiency are as attractive as they are non-engaging.
Following a natural process with impeccable logic: production–distri-
bution–exchange–consumption, the classicists help us understand why
their GDP has consistency. Unlike the contemporary one, the concept
is not full of holes, filled with nominal bubbles due to the fact that the
causal relationship between the main components of reproduction has
been reversed. In such a context, it is possible to prove that proclaiming
the primacy of distribution and redistributive justice in relation to produc-
tion is a naive, if not an absurd conclusion. For the same reasons, one can
find proof of the lack of logical support within reports such as the Stiglitz-
Sen-Fitoussi one (Stiglitz et al. 2009). We will rely on the founders’
analyses to reveal how the nominal economy may be illusory, if both the
lesson of Smith’s alleged dogma (Marx 1990) and the lesson of Ricardo’s
(2001) and Marx’s (1990) one about money are omitted.
Development for the benefit of all and with respect to nature can
be targeted and implemented through a socialist or liberal policy, or a
mixed one. Regardless of which research methodology is used, including
a counterfactual one, a brief but objective analysis of the history of
economic and social dynamics, as it has emerged from the classicists,
tells us one certain thing: welfare and civility, including respect for the
environment, are found in the countries that have followed Smith. At
the same time, the social and environmental elements call for the consis-
tent presence of the state, effecting concrete policies. Not, however, a
Leviathan state in communist clothes, but a responsible state, the main
actor in an institutional arrangement that makes possible human coex-
istence and cooperation. When asked how much state and how much
market, how much liberalism and how much protectionism, how the logic
of profit gets along with social welfare or how much macro-management
must be given to the state, classical texts remain the source for quali-
fied answers. If their recipe is sometimes seen as the ideal, at least, it
shows us the direction to follow. For example, the role of free compe-
tition within the framework of well-considered laws, in satisfying both
 1 THE AVATARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: A NECESSARY PROLEGOMENON 3

personal and general interests, remains the one that Adam Smith (1977)
and Frédéric Bastiat (2007) supported. The XVIIIth passage of Basti-
at’s Economic Sophisms alone, “There are No Absolute Principles”, is
sufficient to understand how the mechanism whereby private initiative
and freedom of exchange, guided by the invisible hand and personal
interest, are infinitely more effective in satisfying everybody than any arbi-
trary government intervention. Similarly, it becomes embarrassing to seek
protectionist arguments after reading the famous writing “Petition of the
Manufacturers of Candles, Waxlights, Lamps, Candlelights, Street Lamps,
Snuffers, Extinguishers, and the Producers of Oil, Tallow, Resin, Alcohol,
and, Generally, of Everything Connected with Lighting”—by the same
classical author. A simple reading of Marx’s “Fragment on Machines” and
of Ricardo’s chapter “On Machinery” might have calmed the atmosphere
at the Davos meeting in 2016. It might have clarified for the partici-
pants that the fourth industrial revolution is not necessarily destined to
fill the world with high-skilled unemployed. But do we still have time for
them? How many scholars still waste their time reading Ricardo to the end
to understand that “machinery cannot be worked without the assistance
of men, it cannot be made but with the contribution of their labour”
(Ricardo 2001, p. 290) and that the law of competitive advantage could
be theoretically invalidated but, in practice, it sustains the positive-sum
game of free international trade.
On the trail of classical thinking, we can set out certain assumptions
and suggestions that may be less comfortable but are not non-scientific or
unnecessary truths. With truths established, a priori, one remains within
orthodox analysis. This is not our intention. Rather, we think that the
natural division of labour and inequality, not only at the starting point
but also during the process, can be realistic working hypotheses. Both
economic geography and economic history will be exploited to consider
what responsibility may look like for future generations, in an increas-
ingly globalized world. What does it mean, and how and for whom can
redistributive justice act in order to materialize the messages of Piketty,
Hayek, Mill, Tinbergen, Sachs, etc. Significant migration makes the rela-
tionship between generations transient, as it is observed in the Brundtland
Report, because of the substantial number of children and grandchildren
living in a country other than the one of their grandparents. If we allow
distributive justice to become a sensitive topic, how will it be perceived
by the world, and how will it fit, if at all, with Smith’s comments on “the
unfortunate law of slavery” (Smith 1977, p. 775) or “very little honour
4 I. POHOAŢĂ ET AL.

to the policy of Europe” (Smith 1977, p. 778)? How can these topics be
tackled when it comes to the lack of development in a good part of the
world to which today’s developed nations have a “moral obligation”, to
use Brundtland’s phrase (World Commission on Environment and Devel-
opment 1987, p. 52). Will we rediscover the poor of the world to squeeze
out their surplus savings or allow them to find their way unhindered? At
the same time, how do we deal with the chorus of camouflaged futurists
who advise them to industrialize more slowly and focus on more tradi-
tional activities (Martin 2007)? Instead of advising the underdeveloped
to look at the rich countries in a demoralizing mirror (Marx 1990), we
should suggest that systematic and tenacious work is the way to achieve
sustainable development. Max Weber (2005) would prove to be a good
teacher in this endeavour.
We will also refer to the founding tenets of economics to show that
the dynamics of accumulation through reinvestment of profits ensures
employment and economic equilibrium as well as social peace. Also,
through the founders, we find that the concept of decrease is essentially
pre-modern, inspired by the obsolete idea of the uselessness of rein-
vesting the surplus and the illusion, as a consequence, of ostentatious
consumption. In other words, we can understand through the founders
that accumulating profits and reinvesting them are the main determinants
of growth. This is the way to be wealthy and happy. Mill’s “Socrates
dissatisfied” (Mill 2015, p. 124) is a transitory episode only to the extent
that waste and consumerist ostentation tend to define ranks, rather than
following rational precepts. It remains to be seen whether we need to
revisit the Brundtland Report to learn about the relationship between the
rich and the poor, when we already know from Adam Smith that things
will always be like this. Although differences will always exist, absolute
poverty is ugly and inhumane, and all energies must be gathered against
it. Furthermore, a fact that cannot be ignored is that many poor of the
rich world are today richer than the rich of the poor world, and relative
poverty is the measure we should consider when we try to validate
economic principles.
It is important to look back also because from the classical economists
we understand not only that the object of economic science is economic
growth, but also that a civilized society is sustained through the presence
of and respect for rules. Any deviation from these principles runs counter
to the theory of development and to reality itself. This topic is one of the
most generous places to be exploited. This is because instead of focusing
 1 THE AVATARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: A NECESSARY PROLEGOMENON 5

on meaningful themes, especially the theory of growth, there is a process

of dilution and digression to areas that do not belong to economics. This
is done by disregarding ideas from economics and by considering areas
only loosely linked to it. It should be noted that an extraordinary number
of books and articles dealing with growth make no reference to classical
economics. And it is highly damaging when renowned, opinion-forming
minds fall into this trap. If not even well-known economists build on solid
foundations, it is not difficult to understand how the theory of sustain-
able development has been filled with an extravaganza of words and why
it entertains the possibility of living better without working more, or
why proclaiming propagandistically “Down with growth!” paves the way
to scientific glory. On this line of thought, is it not significant that the
Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission was created in 2008, precisely the year
when the world economy began to crack? To crack not in relation to
distribution or the environment but rather in regard to its hard core: the
link between the natural rate of interest and the bank rate; and in regard
to an inflated monetary dimension fuelled by breaking some elementary
classical rules regarding the role and functions of money. Yet, it is precisely
the two aforementioned dimensions, of environment and distribution, on
which the Commission has focused.
In Romanian philosophy, there is a belief that, in each country, the sky
is different. Paraphrasing, we could say that each country experiences the
joy of possessing a part of the world’s sky in a unique way, a joy that you
build yourself, a distinct part of the joy of the world. The World Bank can
make calculations of the globalized world GDP, but they are not relevant
to individual well-being in Somalia or Switzerland. Individual well-being
is a result of how each person uses, efficiently or not, his/her mind and
hands in an environment of competition restricted only by law. To wait
for a share of the welfare of an increasingly globalized world to also flow
towards you only because you are part of it is akin to Campanella’s Sun
City or More’s Utopia. Individualism, and not holism, as a principle of
judgement, remains the distinctive feature of constructing and acceding
to welfare. Here, again, the founders tell us which is the best alternative.
If Adam Smith and his disciple on this topic, Hayek, reviewed the state
of the world, they would certainly appreciate the individual efforts of the
Dutch to fill their country with dams in order to drain and reclaim as
much land as possible from the sea. They would also see that the Sahara
is asking for solar panels. But that it also requires individual initiative to
bring about transformation.
6 I. POHOAŢĂ ET AL.

1.2 Sustainable Development:

Everything and Nothing
Never in the area of development theory has a word carried more mean-
ings, evoked more comments and accrued so many different adjectives.
We are talking about sustainable, or durable, or resilient development.
Although the phenomena of economic growth and development were
present well before 1987, this is the moment when, through the Brundt-
land Report, a milestone is reached that transforms sustainable develop-
ment into a leitmotif of economic and political discourse. The post-factum
comments of this event have institutionalized the idea that the essential
product of the Report translates into a standard definition. Thus, “Sus-
tainable development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987,
p. 41).
To define is to capture, in a sentence, the essence of a phenomenon.
After defining it, by an abstract and easy-to-remember sentence, a
complex phenomenon may be further elaborated through secondary
sentences to detail its intimate structure, function or mechanism. This
is not the case with development, no matter which metaphor we use—
sustainable, durable, resilient, etc. Economic growth, which, through
economic and social progress, affects development, is a concept that
economic theory has long since clarified, without doubt and without
relativisms. The Brundtland Report uses the notion of “sustainability”,
without stating clearly that it is a definition. Our opinion is that the
authors of Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment
and Development 1987) did not delineate a standard definition, but
rather the exegetes who have followed. What the Report’s authors wanted
to convey to the whole world was a message with a strong humani-
tarian flavour, expressed with a triple concern for the fate of those that
follow, pursuing the following aims: the use of non-renewable resources
without waste; everyone benefits from growth; increased growth occurs
without pollution, flattening Kuznets’ curve as much as possible. Nothing
is unclear, but rather the message is engaging and inspirational. If scien-
tists had taken this meaning from the Report, we would not have
reached today’s situation where sustainable development means every-
thing and nothing. Rather, the mundane and undistorted notion would
have retained its primary and original meaning of rational consumption
 1 THE AVATARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: A NECESSARY PROLEGOMENON 7

of resources and energies. However, to create a sense of false thorough-

ness, some scientists felt the need to encapsulate the words of the Report
in an alleged definition. And, in a conflicting etymological area, a defini-
tion evokes comments, criticism, denials or appreciations, depending on
one’s theoretical-doctrinal perspective and the socio-professional category
of the analyst. In the area of economic science, there are other areas of
“great oppositions” that undermine its status and suggest weak causalities
(Mouchot 2003). On the theme of growth and development, it should
be strong, edifying and clear. But it is not due to digressions on the topic
of sustainability.
We are already aware of the direction of our analysis and we are
convinced that an inventory of the pros and cons of sustainability,
impossible to fit between the covers of one book, does not affect our
conclusions. However, we offer a sample of guidelines in order to argue,
once more, that returning to healthy founding origins is necessary for
clarification and simplification.

Thus:
– In terms of the Brundtland Report, the wording admits the rela-
tive: “sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but
rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources,
the direction of investments, the orientation of technological devel-
opment, and institutional change are made consistent with future
as well as present needs” (World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987, p. 17).
– The multidimensionality of the phenomenon, the fact that it
comprises, simultaneously, the economic, social and environmental
dimensions, makes it hard to capture it within a single equation
(Gatto 1995; Goodland 1995; Shearman 1990). From here orig-
inates the attempts to define the phenomenon by dividing it into
individual components.
– The economic-social-environmental triumvirate should come
together to provide the true meaning of sustainability. Unfor-
tunately, Jeffrey Sachs (2012) notes, the three desirables have not
yet been reconciled as an organic whole.
– The distinction between economic sustainability and environmental
sustainability is observed by the Commission of Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi
Report. The first is to be analysed by means of monetary indicators
8 I. POHOAŢĂ ET AL.

and the second by a well-chosen set of physical indicators (Stiglitz

et al. 2009).
– Robert Kates considers that pointing the concept towards social
concerns was a meritorious course of action by the Brundtland
Commission. A new perspective on nature would enhance the
chance that, steered in such direction, the concept would remain
alive, divided between its three main components: “The original
emphasis on economic development and environmental protection
has been broadened and deepened to include alternative notions
of development (human and social) and alternative views of nature
(anthropocentric versus eco-centric). Thus, the concept maintains
a creative tension between a few core principles and an openness
to reinterpretation and adaptation to different social and ecological
contexts” (Kates et al. 2005, p. 20).
– “The moral obligation for the future” is uncertain and, as such,
hardly feasible, believes Robert Solow: “Pretty clearly the notion of
sustainability is about our obligation to the future. It says something
about a moral obligation that we supposed to have for future gener-
ations. I think it is very important to keep in mind […] that you
can’t be morally obliged to something that is not feasible” (Solow
2005, p. 1002). A general and non-specific obligation, the author
adds, aims at preserving the ability to produce and live longer and
better: “Sustainability as a moral obligation is a general obligation
not a specific one. It is not an obligation to preserve this or preserve
that. It is an obligation, if you want to make sense out of it, to
preserve the capacity to be well off, to be as well off as we” (Solow
2005, pp. 1008–1009).
– It is clear that “The moral obligation underlying sustainability is an
injunction to preserve the capacity for future people to be as well
off as we are” (Anand and Sen 2000, p. 2038). At the same time,
we must not forget that the problem is also an intra-generational
one; that we have serious problems with poverty today; and that “It
would be a gross violation of the universalist principle if we were
to be obsessed about inter-generational equity without at the same
time seizing the problem of intra-generational equity: the ethic of
universalism certainly demands such impartiality” (Anand and Sen
2000, p. 2038).
– The predilection of political decision-makers to adorn their speeches
with fashionable words does not leave the concept untouched. In
this respect, Pelt et al. (1995), Morelli (2011), and Johnston et al.
 1 THE AVATARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: A NECESSARY PROLEGOMENON 9

(2007) emphasize that, through the language of political decision-

makers and corporate leaders, sustainable development has become a
slogan. Sharachchandra Lélé argues that sustainable development “is
in real danger of becoming a cliché like appropriate technology—a
fashionable phrase that everyone pays homage to but nobody cares to
define” (Sharachchandra 1991, p. 607). The same parallel between
sustainable development and appropriate technology is observed by
Desta Mebratu (1998).
– Abstract and inconsistent, the concept would benefit from a
consensus in approach precisely because of its lack of concreteness.
Baden says “The expression ‘sustainable development’ is a magic
formula, linked to emotions but without any concrete contents nor
exact definition. And precisely thanks to that, it carries a broad
consensus. Its attractive power lies in the impressions and the
emotions linked to it, and not in the concrete contributions from
a deep analysis” (Baden 1997, p. 2). Obligatory but also absurd,
sustainable development is a term that Luc Ferry finds to be “more
charming than meaningful” (Ferry 2007, p. 76).
– For Franck-Dominique Vivien, sustainable development has become
“a central element of the rhetoric” with an “incontestable fashion
effect” (Vivien 2003, p. 1), whether it belongs to economic jour-
nals, press or advertising. Even more critical, Alban Verchère (2011)
believes that sustainable development is a trick to deceive the Third
World, a naive concept that ignores the issue of power. The same
ambivalence is expressed by Peter Söderbaum: “One attractive (or
dubious) feature of the term is that each scholar, or other actor, can
choose a meaning of sustainability which fits well into his or her
pre-established world view” (Söderbaum 1992, p. 137).
– The view that sustainable development is a truism is supported by
Michael Redclift (1987, 2005) with titles such as Sustainable Devel-
opment: Exploring the Contradictions, or Sustainable development
(1987 –2005): an oxymoron comes of age.
– Following the evolution process, sustainability seems to be a link in
the chain: viable, sustainable, durable, resilient (Lefèvre 2015). It
only seems so, however, because the author immediately mentions
that the above notions are undifferentiated synonyms, all subordi-
nated to economic reasons. To this latter fact, he attributes not only
the economic and social crisis, but also the crisis of civilisation as
a whole. An ecological transition would solve the problem. Samuel
10 I. POHOAŢĂ ET AL.

Huntington (2011) has been deprived of its subject. It seems that

the Clash of Civilizations happens in a completely different place!
– Sustainability can be weak or strong. The first type is based on the
neoclassical hypothesis that technology can substitute nature as a
production factor. Eminent contributions on this matter are brought
by Dasgupta and Heal (1974), Stiglitz (1974), Solow (1974), and
Hartwick (1977). The second type takes into account that nature
cannot be substituted indefinitely due to technical impossibilities,
but also simply because it is finite, exhaustible (Daly 1990; Costanza
1991; Norgaard 1994). The solution would be the subordination of
the economy to ecology in the structure of a new science, ecological
economics, based on the principle of strong sustainability. It would
differ from environmental economics simply because, according to
the concept of ecological economics, “nature is not soluble in the
market” (Froger et al. 2016, p. 8).
– Richard Norgaard (1994) and Herman Daly (1990) believe that the
solution to the contradictions between the financial management
of resources, subject to the constraints of capitalist accumulation,
and ecological management can be found in the logic of sustain-
able development, as understood in terms of the co-evolution of
social and natural dynamics. This is a central theme of ecological
economics, of which the two are supportive.
– For Debal Deb, capitalism is the most inappropriate way to pursue
sustainable development. The logic of profit and the mechanism
of perpetual growth do not recommend it as a suitable system
for sustainability. The author’s solution is predictable: “zero-growth
economy will result in better environmental integrity because with
zero rates of profit and interest, there will be no further incentive
to invest in technology to accelerate depletion of natural resources.
Zero rate of profit may not need stopping of all business enterprises;
rather, enterprises will strive to maintain the average rate of profit,
which is zero, and avoid negative rates of profit” (Deb 2009, p. 293).
This would be possible in an “inclusive freedom of society”, believes
the author. Sudhir Anand and Amartya Sen also have a problem with
the market and its mechanisms based on the logic of profit. They
do not believe in its ability to solve a problem that belongs to the
future. Therefore, they call for the state’s presence: “the obligation
of sustainability cannot be left entirely to the market. The future is
not adequately represented in the market – at least not the distant
future – and there is no reason that ordinary market behavior will
 1 THE AVATARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: A NECESSARY PROLEGOMENON 11

take care of whatever obligation we have to the future. Universalism

demands that the state should serve as a trustee for the interests of
future generations” (Anand and Sen 2000, p. 2034).
– The existence of strong and effective institutions, including the
presence of democracy, can make the difference between sustain-
ability and non-sustainability in the opinion of many authors (Barro
1996; Broadberry and Wallis 2017; North 1990, 2005; Stiglitz
2016). Within this approach, Acemoglu and Robinson maintain the
inclusive role of political and economic institutions to make the
difference between “inclusive” and “extractive” nations (Acemoglu
and Robinson 2012).
– It is the production of material and non-material goods that gener-
ates growth. The neglect of this aspect is synonymous with the
trivialisation of the concept of development, believes Amartya Sen.
He states that “The process of economic development cannot
abstract from expanding the supply of food, clothing, housing,
medical services, educational facilities, etc. and from transforming
the productive structure of the economy, and these important and
crucial changes are undoubtedly matters of economic growth” (Sen
1988, p. 12). Sen continues “The foundational role of values can
be neglected in favor of an instrumental view only by trivializing the
basis of the concept of development” (Sen, 1988, p. 23).
– The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report’s (2009) synthesis mentions the
“sustainability of well-being”. In response, the Report of the Conseil
d‘Analyse Économique and German Council of Economic Experts
(2010) points out that, indeed, GDP is not an absolute measure
of well-being, but, nonetheless, the material component prevalent in
the calculation of GDP is essential if well-being is to be achieved and
delivered to the population.
– “The problem with sustainable development”, believes Serge
Latouche, “has not so much to do with the word sustainable, a
beautiful expression, but with the concept of development that is
downright a ‘toxic word’” (Latouche 2007).

What does this “conflict of definitions” tell us, to use the expres-
sion of Jacques Sapir from his book Quelle économie pour le XXIe siècle?
(Sapir 2005)? Sapir uses an inventory of the multitude of definitions of
Economic Science created by Serge Latouche. Yet, ironically, it is precisely
Latouche who makes use of titles such as L’imposture du développement
durable ou les habits neufs du développement (Latouche 2003) and A bas
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
on wealth, partly on race. Already certain occupations are regarded
as the special province of certain nationalities, and native parents
recoil from the prospect of having their children enter them to work
side by side with the aliens. Only the beginnings of these changes are
as yet manifest, and no one can foretell what the outcome will be. But
even the beginnings must give us pause. There can be no more
pernicious social classification in a nation than one based on race.
Distinctions resting on wealth, religion, or education can be
overcome, potentially at least. Distinctions of birth affect only a small
proportion of a society, and exist only in nations long habituated to
them. But distinctions of race affect the entire population are
fundamental, and can never be obliterated except as assimilation is
so perfect that race is forgotten. No effort of the individual can blot
out his racial identification. The most familiar example yet developed
in the United States is that of the Hebrews. However sincerely we
may admire their fine racial traits, however closely we may associate
with individuals of the race, we cannot deny that they constitute a
separate body in our population in many respects.[327] Summer hotels
are closed to them, or else other people avoid those resorts.
Americans move out of the sections of cities where they are moving
in. Select clubs are closed to them. It is an indictment against the
American people that these things are so. We, who pose as the
friends of all races, however downtrodden and despised, should be
ready to take them into equality with us when they seek refuge on
our shores. Both Hebrews and Americans may resent the bald
statement of such facts. Can we deny their truth?
Nor is it only in high society, nor only among Americans, that this
friction is felt. In the slums of our cities bitter feeling exists between
the Italians and the Jews.[328] Nor is racial antagonism confined to
any two or three races.[329] Employers of labor find it wholly
expedient to arrange their workers in groups of the same nationality.
[330]
Austria-Hungary is an example of the conditions that may result
when too many jarring nationalities are included within a national
territory. But the racial groups in Austria-Hungary do not compare
in diversity with those which are gradually forming in the United
States.
In the political aspects of the immigration situation there has been
a peculiar reversal of public opinion in the last three quarters of a
century. In the days of the Native Americans and the Know nothings,
the uneasiness was mainly due to the fear that too many aliens would
acquire the rights of citizenship. Then it was the naturalized
foreigner who was the undesirable. Nowadays, the fear is that the
foreigners will ignore the privileges of citizenship, and a high
percentage of naturalization is a test of desirability in any foreign
group. This change may be attributed to a change in the situation of
the United States, and to a difference in the character and causes of
immigration. During the first half of the nineteenth century the
United States was essentially a new country. Political questions were
predominant, and the memory of the men who fell in the fight for
freedom was still fresh in the minds of their sons. The immigrants of
the period, on the other hand, were actuated to a large extent by the
desire for political freedom, and were keen to secure all the power
possible in this country. At the present time, the predominating
interests are wholly economic, and even the political questions of the
day have an economic flavor. At the same time, the motives of the
immigrants are almost wholly economic. So the jealousy between
native and foreigner now concerns itself mainly with the industrial
relations, and anything which indicates an inclination on the part of
the alien to ally himself permanently with the interests of the country
is welcomed. The temporary immigrant was an almost unknown
quantity in the old days.
The naturalization laws of the United States have undergone only
slight modifications in the past hundred years.[331] The main
provisions of the present laws are as follows: In order to become a
citizen of the United States an alien must follow out the following
method of procedure: At least two years before he is admitted he
must file a preliminary declaration of intention. To do this he must
be at least eighteen years old. This declaration shall state that it is his
bona-fide intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to
renounce all other allegiance to a foreign power, and shall set forth
his name, age, occupation, personal description, place of birth, last
foreign residence and allegiance, date of arrival in the United States,
name of the vessel, if any, by which he came, and present place of
residence in the United States. Not less than two years nor more than
seven years after he has made application, he shall present a petition
in writing, signed in his own handwriting, stating the essential facts
about himself, including his declaration of allegiance to the United
States, and disclaiming belief in anarchy, or belief in or practice of
polygamy.
This petition shall be verified by at least two credible witnesses,
who are citizens of the United States, who shall state that they have
known the applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period
of at least five years continuously, and of the state or territory at least
one year immediately preceding, and that they have personal
knowledge of his good moral character and general fitness to become
a citizen of the United States.
With this petition is filed a certificate from the Department of
Commerce and Labor, stating the date, place, and manner of his
arrival, and also his declaration of intention. He shall swear in open
court his allegiance to the United States and renounce all other
allegiance.
In accordance with a recent law, no alien can now be naturalized
without an ability to speak the English language, unless he has made
entry upon the public lands of the United States. No person may be
naturalized within thirty days preceding the holding of a general
election in the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Chinese are not
admissible to citizenship.
A woman who is married to a citizen of the United States is herself
a citizen, provided she herself might be legally naturalized. This
provision has been the subject of considerable attention lately on
account of the practice of women engaged in the white slave traffic
marrying a citizen in order to avoid deportation. The Commissioner
General in his report for 1910 recommended that a more definite
statement be made of this clause, admitting of no doubt as to its
interpretation.
Children of naturalized citizens who were under the age of twenty-
one at the time of the naturalization of their parents, if dwelling in
the United States, are considered citizens, as are children of citizens,
born outside of the United States.
If any alien who has received a certificate of citizenship shall,
within five years thereafter, go to the land of his nativity or to any
other foreign country, and take up permanent residence therein, it
shall be deemed evidence of his lack of intention to become a
permanent citizen of the United States at the time of filing his
application, and warrants the canceling of his certificate.
According to the regulations of September 15, 1910, clerks of
courts are instructed not to receive declarations of intention or file
petitions for naturalization from other aliens than white persons, and
persons of African nativity or of African descent.
Jurisdiction to naturalize aliens is conferred on the following
courts: United States circuit and district courts in any state, United
States district courts for the territories, the supreme court of the
District of Columbia, and the United States courts for the Indian
territory; also all courts of record in any state or territory, having a
seal, a clerk, and jurisdiction in actions at law or equity, or law and
equity, in which the amount in controversy is unlimited.
Since the establishment of the division of naturalization by the act
of June 29, 1906, the business of naturalization has been in the
hands of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.
The statistics of naturalization for the five years 1908–1912 are as
follows:
Year Declarations filed Petitions filed Certificates granted
1908 137,229 44,029 25,963
1909 145,794 43,161 38,372
1910 167,226 55,038 39,206[332]
1911 186,157 73,644 55,329
1912 169,142 95,627 69,965

332. Repts. Comm. Gen. of Imm.

In addition to the certificates granted there were, in 1912, 9635
certificates denied. These were for a variety of causes, the most
important of which was failure of the petitioners to prosecute them,
so that they were stricken from the docket. Of those which were
actually refused the largest single cause was incompetent witnesses.
There has been a large amount of fraud and trickery in connection
with naturalization, and presumably it has not wholly ceased. This
has been due partly to a lax attitude on the part of some of the court
officials, and partly to the physical impossibility of giving proper
attention to the number of candidates who apply, with the existing
machinery. There is a story of one judge in New York City who issued
nearly seven thousand papers in October, 1891, at the rate of two a
minute.[333] Many states have been very lax in their requirements for
voting. In some states aliens have been allowed to vote in both state
and federal elections, sometimes after a residence of only six months.
[334]

Even where naturalization is desired by recent immigrants, it is

not always for the most commendable reasons. Sometimes the
motive is the desire for a better chance of securing employment,[335]
sometimes the facilitating of entrance into the United States after a
trip abroad. Natives of some foreign countries, particularly Turkey,
have come to the United States with the express intention of securing
citizenship, in order to return to their native land, and carry on
business under the protection of the American flag, which carries
with it greater guarantees than their own. A special law, passed to
put a stop to such practices as these, provides that when a
naturalized alien has resided two years in the foreign state from
which he came, or five years in any other foreign state, he forfeits his
citizenship.[336]
Of all foreign races, the Irish have taken by far the largest place in
politics in this country. According to Professor Commons, the “ward
boss” is the logical product of the mixture of nationalities in the
various divisions of a city, and the Irishman is the logical man for the
work.[337] “The Irishman has above all races the mixture of ingenuity,
firmness, human sympathy, comradeship, and daring that makes
him the amalgamator of races.”[338] Possibly a sense of humor ought
to be added to these qualifications. In the eyes of Professor
Commons, such a system makes it the merest chance if the best man
is elected, and subverts our whole system of representative
government.[339] It seems beyond question that the existence of
separate racial groups in a community, each with its own prejudices
and group loyalty, must have a very disturbing influence on the
course of elections. Measures become of much less import than men
in the minds of the voters, and in the choice of men race rather than
fitness is often the determining element.
 CHAPTER XVII
THE NEW PROBLEM OF IMMIGRATION

It was stated on an earlier page that the immigration situation, in

most of its important characteristics, presents an entirely new aspect
to the men of this generation, and that these changes might be
looked for under six general heads, as follows: race, volume,
distribution, economic condition of the United States, native birth
rate and quality of the immigrants. We are now prepared to consider
the truth of this assertion.
In regard to race, nothing further need be said. Sufficient facts are
already before the reader to establish the fact that the racial aspect of
the situation has undergone a sweeping and significant change in the
last thirty years. The change in volume has naturally been one of
degree, not of kind. But the change in degree has been a profound
one—more so than is often admitted. It has been pointed out
occasionally, as a sedative to the fears aroused by the immense
immigration of the twentieth century, that while the positive
immigration has increased tremendously, it has not increased at so
great a rate as the population of the country. The ratio between
immigration and total population was higher in the early fifties and
early eighties than at any subsequent period. The assumption is that
if we could successfully assimilate the immigrants of the earlier
period, we certainly ought to be able to take care of those of to-day.
But the question of assimilation depends not only upon the ratio of
immigrants to total population, but upon the proportion of foreign-
born population already in the country. In this connection the
following figures are significant. The number of foreign-born to
100,000, native-born in the population of the country at the time of
the last seven censuses was as follows:
 1850 10,715
1860 15,157
1870 16,875
1880 15,365
1890 17,314
1900 15,886
1910 17,227

It thus appears that the proportion of foreign-born, even at the time

of the census of 1900, after a decade of very slight immigration, was
much higher than at the time of the beginning of large immigration,
while the last census, after the enormous immigration of the past ten
years, shows a proportion of foreign-born higher than at any
previous census, except that of 1890. Now it is the proportion of
foreign-born to native-born which determines the assimilating power
of the nation, so that without this correction the comparison between
immigration and total population is inadequate and misleading. It is
as if a fireman whose steam boiler lacked a safety valve was warned
that his gauge was going up more and more rapidly all the time, and
he replied, “Never mind, the pressure is not coming in so fast,
compared to what I already have, as it was awhile ago.”
Another circumstance which affects the ability of the country to
assimilate immigrants, and in which there has been a marked change
during the history of immigration, is the ratio of men to land, upon
which much emphasis has already been laid. As the amount of
unappropriated and unsettled land diminishes in any country, the
need of new settlers also diminishes, while the difficulty of
assimilation and the possible evils resulting from foreign population
proportionally increase. In the case of the United States the first and
simplest comparison to make is that between immigration and the
total territory of the nation. In this, as in the subsequent
comparisons, it will be desirable to leave Alaska out of consideration.
The enormous extent of that inhospitable region, to which practically
none of our immigrants ever find their way, if included in the
reckoning, would simply confuse the issue. The gross area of the
United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii, at the time of the
different censuses, has been as follows: 1790 and 1800, 827,844
square miles; 1810, 1,999,775 square miles; 1820, 2,059,043 square
miles; 1830 and 1840, the same; 1850, 2,980,959 square miles; 1860
down to the present, 3,025,600 square miles.[340]
Estimating the immigration before 1820 at 10,000 per year, and
using the official figures after that date, we find that the immigration
by decades from 1791 to 1910 was as follows:

1791–1800 100,000
1801–1810 100,000
1811–1820 98,385
1821–1830 143,439
1831–1840 599,125
1841–1850 1,713,251
1851–1860 2,511,060
1861–1870 2,377,279
1871–1880 2,812,191
1881–1890 5,246,613
1891–1900 3,687,564
1900–1910 8,795,386

Combining these two sets of figures, it appears that for each

immigrant coming to this country during the decades specified, there
was at the close of the decade the following number of square miles
of territory in the United States:
 1800 8.278
1810 19.998
1820 20.927
1830 14.355
1840 3.437
1850 1.739
1860 1.205
1870 1.273
1880 1.076
1890 .570
1900 .824
1910 .347

This table illustrates forcibly the fact that from the point of view of
the need of new settlers immigration at the present time is a vastly
different matter from what it has ever been before in the history of
our country. This impression is strengthened if we make another
comparison, which is even more significant for our purposes, viz. the
relation of immigration to the public domain, that is, to the land
which still remains unclaimed and open to settlement. If there were
still large tracts of good land lying unutilized, and available for
settlement, as there have been in other periods of our history, we
could take comfort in the thought that as soon as the incoming aliens
caused too great a congestion in any region, the surplus inhabitants
would overflow, by a natural process, into the less thickly settled
districts. Let us consider what the facts have to show in this respect.
In 1860 there were, as nearly as can be estimated, 939,173,057
acres of land lying unappropriated and unreserved in the public
domain. In 1906 there were 424,202,732 acres of such land,
representing the leavings, after all the best land had been chosen. In
other words, for each immigrant entering the country during the
decade ending 1860 there were 374 acres in the public domain, at
least half of it extremely valuable farm land. In 1906, for each
immigrant entering during the previous ten years, there were 68.9
acres, almost wholly arid and worthless.
 The fact that the immigrants in this country do not, to any great
extent, take up this unclaimed public land does not destroy the
significance of this comparison. As long as there was a strong
movement of the native population westward, it was not so much a
matter of concern, if large numbers of foreigners were entering the
Atlantic seaboard. And this was exactly the case during the middle of
the nineteenth century. This was the period of the great internal
migration to the new lands of the Middle West. In point of fact also,
at this time, many of these pioneers were actually immigrants. It is
scarcely necessary to say that nothing comparable to this is going on
at the present time. The frontier, which has had such a determining
influence on our national life, is a thing of the past. Of the
424,202,732 acres remaining in the public domain in 1906, only a
very small part consisted of valuable farm lands, such as existed in
great abundance when the Homestead Act was passed in 1862.
Evidence of this fact is furnished by the act recently passed allowing
homesteads of 640 acres to be taken up in certain sections of
Nebraska, where it is impossible for a man to make a living from less.
Not only are the incoming hordes of aliens not now counterbalanced
by an important internal migration, but there is an actual movement,
of noteworthy dimensions, of ambitious young farmers from the
United States to the new and cheaper wheat lands in Canada.
This set of conditions may be stated in another way by saying that
the United States has changed from an agricultural to a
manufacturing and commercial nation.[341] In the early nineteenth
century the rural family was the typical one, to-day it is the urban
family. Then the simplicity and independence of the farm gave
character to the national life; to-day it is the complexity and
artificiality of the city which govern. The nineteenth century was a
period of expansion. Particularly in the earlier part of it was the
subduing of new land the fundamental consideration of national
development. This was the period of internal improvements, the
building of roads and canals, and later of railroads. It was the
adolescence of the American people. At such a period the great
demand is for accessions of population, and it is no wonder that
many of the writers of that day were frank in their demands for the
encouragement of immigration. And even in the thirties and forties,
though the miserable shipping conditions and the large number of
incoming paupers aroused a countercurrent of opinion, still the
immigrants found a logical place on the great construction works of
the period, as well as on the vacant arable lands.
This period is past. The labors of the typical alien are not now
expended on the railroad, the canal, or the farm, but in the mines
and foundries, the sweatshops and factories. The immigrants of to-
day are meeting an economic demand radically different from that of
a century or half a century, yes, we may say a quarter of a century
ago.[342]
This change is further exemplified by the increased concentration
of population in cities which the United States has witnessed in the
past century. In 1790 there were only 6 cities in the United States
with over 8000 population each, containing 3.4 per cent of the total
population. In 1840 the percentage of population in cities of this size
was still only 8.4. But in 1900 there were 545 cities of over 8000,
counting among their inhabitants 33.1 per cent of the total
population. In other words, the ratio between city and country
dwellers (taking the city of 8000 as the dividing line) has changed
from one to twenty-eight in 1790 to one to two in 1900. At the same
time the average density of population of the country as a whole has
increased from 3.7 per square mile in 1810 to 10.8 in 1860, 17.3 in
1880, and 25.6 in 1900.
Hand in hand with these changes has come a sweeping change in
the scale of production, which must have an important bearing on
the immigration situation. The early immigrants, to a very large
extent, came into more or less close personal relations with their
employers, often working side by side with them on the farm or in
the shop. Now foreigners are hired by the thousands by employers
whom they perhaps never see, certainly never have any dealings
with, the arrangements being made through some underling, very
likely a foreigner himself. Working all day side by side with others of
their own race, or of other races equally foreign, and going home at
night to crowded dwellings, inhabited by aliens, and with a European
atmosphere, the modern immigrants have but slight commerce with
anything that is calculated to inculcate American ideas or contribute
any real Americanizing influence.
Mention of the declining native birth rate in the United States had
already been made (Chapter XI), with some consideration of the
causes thereof. The fact needs to be called attention to in this
connection as another element in the changed aspect of immigration.
It is unfortunate that our census figures do not give us positive data
as to the respective birth rates of the native-born and foreign-born,
so that we have to rely upon estimates. All of these estimates,
however, agree that there has been a marked decline in the rate of
native increase, though the causes assigned vary. The population of
the United States in 1810 was 1.84 times as great as in 1790, and that
of 1840, 1.77 times as great as twenty years earlier. Since the
immigration during all this period was relatively slight, this increase
may be taken as representing a very high native birth rate. In 1900,
in spite of the large element of foreign-born with a high birth rate
then in the country, and the large immigration of the previous twenty
years, the population of the country was only 1.52 times as large as in
1880. This must represent a tremendous fall in the native birth rate.
Mr. S. G. Fisher has estimated that the rate of native increase by
decades has fallen from 33.76 per cent in the decade ending 1820 to
24.53 in the decade ending 1890. Some eminent authorities, as
previously mentioned, are of the opinion that at the present time the
native population of parts, if not the whole, of New England is not
even maintaining itself. Thus our present immigrants are being
received by, and are mingling with, a people, not vigorous and
prolific as in the early days, able to match the crowds of aliens with a
host of native-born offspring, but weak in reproductive power, and
constantly decreasing in the ability to maintain itself. In this
connection it is significant that during the last intercensal decade the
total foreign-born population increased 30.7 per cent, while the
native-born population increased only 19.5 per cent. This fact, in
connection with the high birth rate of our now large foreign-born
population, puts a new face on the question of the elimination of the
native stock.
There yet remains to be considered the matter of the quality of
immigrants to-day as compared with those of past generations. In
regard to this but little can be said in the way of positive declarations.
Quality in an immigrant is a very uncertain matter, and differs
according to the individual point of view and prejudices. What may
seem to an employer of labor high quality in an immigrant may
appear quite the reverse in the eyes of a minister. With the facts of
immigration in mind, each student of the question must determine
for himself whether the quality of our present immigrants compares
favorably with that of earlier groups. There is, however, one
consideration to which attention should be directed when examining
changes, which has materially altered the character of immigration.
This is the selective influence of the act of immigration itself, upon
those who are to come. It used to be the prevailing idea that the
immigrant represented the better individuals of his race or class, that
he was more daring, energetic, or enterprising. Traces of this notion
are still very common.[343] There was, moreover, a great amount of
truth in this view during earlier periods of immigration. Many of the
migrations of two or three centuries ago were inspired by religious or
political motives, or very often by a combination of the two. Such was
the exodus of the Huguenots from France, of the Palatines from
Germany, the Puritans from England, the Scotch-Irish from Ireland.
In such cases as these, emigration implies strength of character,
independence, firmness of conviction, moral courage, bravery,
hatred of oppression, etc. Motives such as these played no small part
in immigration movements even as late as the middle of the
nineteenth century.
More than this, it is doubtless true that the earliest immigration
from any region at any time involves a certain degree of ambition,
independence, courage, energy, forethought, all of those
characteristics which are required in the individual who forsakes the
known for the unknown, the familiar for the untried, the stable for
the unstable, the certain though hopeless present for the hopeful but
uncertain future. Such were the early immigrants to this country
from every land—not north European alone, but south European.
They possessed something of the intrepidity and daring of pioneers.
They had the strength of character to break the shackles of age-long
tradition and custom, and, taking their destiny in their hand, seek
their fortune in a new and unknown land. In this respect all new
immigration differs from all established immigration.
But all this is now a thing of the past. Not only have the religious
and political motives almost wholly disappeared in favor of the
economic in modern immigration, but the European immigrant of
to-day is in no sense going to a new or unknown land, when he
embarks for the United States. American life and conditions,
particularly economic conditions, are well known in those sections of
Europe which furnish our large contingents of immigration. The
presidential election, the panic, the state of the crops in the United
States, are familiar topics of conversation.[344] Almost every
individual in the established currents of immigration has at least one
friend in this country. Many of them know exactly where they are
going and what they are going to do. To a host of them the change is
no greater than to go to the next village in their native land, perhaps
less so. For as likely as not, just as many of their friends and relatives
are awaiting them in the new country as are lamenting them in the
old.
Neither is the voyage to-day, bad as it is, beset with the
uncertainties, hardships, and perils which used to characterize it.
The way is cleared for the travelers at every step. If their ticket is not
actually supplied to them from America, probably all or part of the
money with which it is purchased came from America. At least they
may now secure a ticket direct from a European center to their
ultimate destination in America, and every stage of the journey is
facilitated by the ingenuity of financially interested agents. Induced
immigration has always existed since the days when the press gangs
in the coast towns of England carried inducement to the point of
abduction. But probably never in the history of our country has
artificially stimulated immigration formed so large a part of the
whole as now. There is nothing, therefore, in the modern conditions
of immigration which serves as a guaranty of high quality in the
immigrants.
One other element which concerns the quality of the immigrant,
and therefore should be mentioned in this connection, is the
immense increase in what may be designated temporary or seasonal
immigration. The prominence of this type of movement in recent
years has radically modified the industrial aspect of the situation.[345]
It is possible that some of the changes reviewed above may be of a
beneficial character. However that may be, there can be no question
that, taken together, they indicate so complete an alteration in the
circumstances surrounding the admission of aliens to this country as
to require that the entire immigration situation be considered in the
light of present conditions, rather than of past history. The old stock
arguments, pro and con, which seem to have stood the test of time,
need to be thoroughly reviewed. The modern immigrant must be
viewed in the setting of to-day. Especially must it be borne in mind
that the fact—if such it be—that immigration in the past has worked
no injury to the nation, and has resulted in good to the immigrants,
by no means indicates that a continuance of past policy and practice
in the matter will entail no serious evil consequences, nor bring
about disaster in the future.
 CHAPTER XVIII
THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Much is said and written in these days about the “immigration

problem,” yet it is only rarely that there appears a conscious effort to
prove that such a problem exists, or to analyze its character. Is there
in the United States an immigration problem? If so, in what does it
consist? To answer these two questions is the purpose of the present
chapter.
When the great new lands of the Western Hemisphere were made
available to the inhabitants of Europe by the efforts of Columbus and
the later explorers and discoverers, there opened up before humanity
tremendous possibilities of advance.[346] The ratio between men and
land was changed for the whole civilized world. An enormous area of
fertile country was presented to the nations of Europe, by which the
operation of the Malthusian principles was checked. Peoples who
had reached the saturation point of population in Europe were given
the opportunity to utilize their acquired arts in a virgin and
practically uninhabited region. On account of the difficulties of
transportation, and the consequent slow settlement of the new
world, the results of this great alteration were only tardily developed.
In many ways the entire progress of civilization during the
nineteenth century is the outward expression of the transformation
in conditions which then took place. So far as the human mind can
anticipate, nothing of a similar nature can ever happen again on this
earth.
To the people of the new nation of the United States, as the
possessors of the most favored portion of this new territory, was
intrusted the responsibility of utilizing its marvelous resources, not
only for their own advantage, but for the securing of the greatest and
most permanent amelioration of the living conditions of the whole
human family. It was not to be expected that our forefathers should
have completely recognized the full significance of this responsibility,
nor have undertaken the administration of it with a degree of
scientific wisdom which they did not possess. Their past experience
of bad political systems enabled them to frame a plan of government
which has held the admiration of all civilized people down to the very
present. In the utilization of the material resources of the country,
however, they had no past experience to serve as a guide. No other
civilized people within the compass of human history had been
intrusted with such a profusion of virgin resources, absolutely open
to exploitation. There is no wonder that the possibilities of the
country seemed limitless, and that men proceeded to make the most
of them to serve present needs, with no thought of what the
consequences might be to future generations. Forests were cut down,
mines were wastefully worked, rivers were dammed, natural gas was
burned day and night, the soil was cultivated year after year without
enrichment, and when exhausted, abandoned. In our modern age of
conservation we are beginning to realize how ruthlessly these rich
treasures have been squandered, and are making eager and earnest
efforts to save what is left.
Something of the same sort took place in the more intangible
domain of population. Into the minds of the less than four million
people who were enumerated in the United States in 1790, even the
thought of a redundant population could hardly enter. The one great
thing that seemed to be needed was more people, and while the
natural increase of the native stock seemed to many ample to meet
the demands, there was nevertheless a hearty welcome to all sturdy
and well-intentioned aliens who elected to establish themselves
within the territory of the new nation. Especially was there a feeling
of sympathy toward those who came seeking refuge from political
tyranny or oppression in the nations of Europe. Thus the principle of
an open door, and a welcome to the “oppressed and downtrodden of
all races,” became the established policy of the nation, and as decade
succeeded decade acquired all the power and authority of tradition
and usage. As a consequence, all efforts to control or regulate the
ingress of aliens, which have been incited by the apparent needs of
the situation, have been confronted with the necessity of bearing the
burden of proof, and of assailing established dogma. This has put the
advocates of restriction into the category of “antis,” and has laid
them open to the charge of narrow-mindedness and bigotry. If it can
be conceived that the United States should have been in her present
industrial situation when she first began to frame national policies, it
is wholly probable that the restrictionists would have been
considered the conservatives, and the advocates of free immigration,
the radicals.
However this may be, the fact is that in general the open-door
policy has prevailed, and only within the last generation have
restrictive laws been passed, which have served merely to weed out
the manifestly undesirables, scarcely to diminish in any significant
measure the great bulk of the current. The resulting transfer of
people from Europe to America has been truly phenomenal. In the
period of years from 1820 to 1912 a total of 29,611,052 immigrants
came to the United States.[347] No population movement of equal
social significance, and comparable in volume, has ever taken place
within the recorded history of the human race. And never again, so
far as the human eye can see, can it be repeated, when the heyday of
immigration to the United States is over. It is inconceivable that such
a phenomenon should not have important and far-reaching effects
upon every country concerned in the movement. There is, then, an
immigration problem.
But just what is the problem? The answer to that question depends
upon the point of view. In the first place, it must be decided whether
it is desirable for nations consciously to interfere with, and try to
control, such a natural movement as this; secondly, if interference is
to be undertaken, whose welfare is to be held prominently in view—
in other words, from what standpoint is the problem to be attacked?
If the former of these queries is answered in the negative, the
problem remains a purely academic one—the study of causes and
effects, and the recording of conclusions and data, without any telic
purpose in view. No programs, schemes, or systems of reform can
emanate from such a study. If answered in the affirmative, the
problem then becomes one in applied sociology—perhaps the most
complex and important that any modern nation has ever had to deal
with. In regard to the second part of the above query, it is to be noted
that there are four possible standpoints open to choice. First, that of
the United States; second, that of the countries of source; third, that
of the immigrants; fourth, that of humanity in general. There are
possibilities of a different aspect of the problem from each of these
viewpoints. Let us consider the two parts of this query in turn.
There is a natural and deep-seated reluctance on the part of every
careful and scientific student of sociology to advocate the regulation
of any great human activity according to any man-made scheme or
formula. The laws of nature seem so much safer a guide than any
plan which, as Professor Summer says, some one has thought out in
bed.[348] The laissez-faire doctrine makes a great initial appeal. This
probably accounts in large measure for its great vogue. The broad-
minded and liberal man says, “What can be better or more just than
to let each individual work out his own destiny in the way that seems
to him best?” Particularly does such a tremendous movement as
modern immigration inspire the student with feelings of reverential
awe, rather than a desire to intermeddle. It is such a gigantic and
complex thing, and cuts straight across all social relations with such
an inclusive and unsparing sweep, that one can never know what the
unknown factors are, nor what unforeseen and unexpected
developments may arise. Certainly this seems one of the things that
had better be left alone.
But as we look at the world around us, we realize that the doctrine
of laissez-faire has proved inadequate to meet the conditions of
modern industrial life, and has broken down under the strain.[349] We
realize that self-interest, even enlightened self-interest, is not the
safest guide for the individual or for the race. We recognize the fact
that the safety of society demands that men shall not be allowed to
do as they please, nor to go where they please. The law places many
restrictions upon the free movements of men. I may not trespass
upon my neighbor’s property; I may not enter public buildings
except at specified times. If I wish to visit a fever-stricken and
quarantined city, I either am not allowed to go, or I am prevented
from coming away when I wish. These are familiar and trivial
illustrations, but they emphasize the fact that complete laissez-faire
is impossible under present conditions—in fact, probably always has
been. A host of other instances of social legislation, pure-food laws,
trust regulation, etc., might be invoked to establish the point, were it
necessary. The whole series of immigration statutes, increasing in
severity from 1882 down to the present, are evidence of the
acceptance of this principle with special relation to immigration. The
question is not, shall we have regulation or not, but how much and
what kind of regulation shall we have? The doctrine of laissez-faire,
per se, would have no greater weight as an argument against
complete suspension of immigration than it would have against the
exclusion of contract laborers.
If the personal inclinations of the individual lead him to prefer to
regard the immigration problem in the strictly academic light, no
fault can be found; but the denial of the propriety of suggesting plans
of control, the demand that the immigrants be let alone, represents
an obsolete point of view. Any amount of regulation, which proves
necessary to safeguard the interests of society, can be justified in the
light of modern opinion and practice.
Furthermore, it is to be observed that immigration will not be let
alone. It has already been demonstrated that the immigration of to-
day is not in any sense a wholly natural movement. It is stimulated at
the outset, partly by disinterested friends and relatives, partly by
purely selfish transportation interests. It is subjected to various
controls all along the way. After the immigrants reach this country,
they are often, for a long time, in almost complete subjection to the
padrone, the contractor, or the importer. Once again, the question is
not, shall immigration be a natural and uncontrolled movement or
not, but shall it be controlled by greedy, selfish, and unscrupulous
individuals, or by a well-intentioned government? For the rest of this
book we shall take the position that the immigration problem is one
of applied sociology, and that immigration is a proper subject for
government control, by such means and to such an extent as the
most careful and scientific study shall warrant.
Most problems in applied sociology have to do with interests;
certainly the problem of immigration does. Having answered the first
part of our query in the affirmative, the problem now expresses itself
thus: how shall the movement of aliens from foreign countries to the
United States be so controlled as to further the best interests of
somebody? But of whom? This is the second part of our query. It is
manifest that the United States, the countries of source, the
immigrants, and humanity in general all have interests which may be
affected by immigration, that these interests are not always
harmonious or correlative, but that they may be, and in some cases
must be, in direct opposition to each other. Any one who has
opinions on the subject must make it plain, to himself at least, which
of these interests he regards as paramount, which of these
standpoints he proposes to assume. Many of the popular arguments
on the question have been confused by the unconscious effort to take
two or more of these viewpoints at once. Each of these viewpoints is
legitimate, and has arguments on its own side, and no one should be
blamed for choosing any one. Evidently the fourth is a sort of
summation and balance of the other three. It will be profitable to
consider the first three in turn; we shall then be prepared to take the
point of view of the welfare of humanity in general.
What, then, are the arguments for and against immigration from
the point of view of the United States? The positive arguments for,
and the negative arguments against, immigration center around the
question whether the United States needs the immigrants. The
positive arguments against, and the negative arguments for,
immigration have to do with the claim that immigration injures the
United States.
The argument for immigration which, if not the strongest during
the first half of the nineteenth century, was probably the most
frequently expressed, was the sentimental one which exhibited the
United States as the natural haven of refuge for the oppressed and
unfortunate of all lands, and extended a hearty welcome to all
seekers of liberty who should come. This, as has been mentioned,
was natural under the conditions of the time. It found expression in
such words as the following, appearing in a magazine in the year
1855:
“If the physiologic principle we have endeavored to establish is
correct, it follows that America pre-eminently owes its growth and
prosperity to the amalgamation of foreign blood. To cut off,
therefore, or to discourage its influx, will be to check the current
from which our very life is drawn. The better course is evidently to
welcome and provide for this tide of immigration, rather than to
oppose and turn it away; to cherish the good influence it brings, and
regulate the bad, rather than to trample them both under foot. What,
though the population which is annually cast upon American shores
is all of the filthiest and most degraded kind! The farmer might as
well complain of the black and reeking soil into which his seed is
dropped, as the statesman of such materials as these.... Let us
welcome the houseless and the naked of every land to American
shores; in the boundless forests of the north and the south there is
room to make a home for them all. Let us invite the ill-fed and the
starving of every grade to partake of American abundance; on the
fertile fields of the west there grows corn enough to feed them all. Let
us urge the oppressed and the down trodden of every name to the
blessings of American freedom; the Star Spangled Banner is broad
enough to cover, and the eagle that sits over it is strong enough to
defend, them all.”[350]
Such talk as this is so thoroughly out of date as to sound almost
ridiculous in modern ears. In fact, the sentimental argument plays
but little part in the present agitation, for the reason that the
conditions which justify it furnish the motive to an insignificant
portion of our present immigrants, with the exception of the Russian
Jews.
Two other arguments for immigration may be styled the social and
the biological. These claim respectively that the national character
and the physical stock of the American people may be much
improved by the addition of new elements brought in by foreign
immigrants. It is pointed out that the German love for music, the
artistic temperament of the Italian, the thrift of the Slav, the outdoor
sociability of the Greek, might add—perhaps have added already—
something of great value to the life of the country. There is much
weight to this argument. It is quite conceivable that under proper
conditions of social contact on a plane of equality between foreigner
and native some such desirable transfusion of character might take
place. It is another matter altogether to claim that any such
beneficial result is transpiring, under the present conditions of the
immigrant in this country.
The biological argument brings up the much-vexed question of the
desirability of mixed stocks. There has been a prevalent opinion that
the interbreeding of two races, not too far separated in physical
stock, resulted in a type superior to either of the parent races. But
there is no agreement as to where the line between the favorable and
the unfavorable mixing shall be drawn. Some of the papers read at
the Universal Races Congress in London would seem to convey the
impression that any two races on earth might be mixed to good
advantage. But this is by no means the universal opinion of careful
anthropologists.
In regard to both of these arguments it may be said that, whatever
their intrinsic worth, they have no great positive weight as respects
the present situation in the United States. It seems likely that this
country has already within its borders all the alien elements that will
be needed for a long time to come—certainly until they are more
completely absorbed than they are at present.
There remains by far the greatest and most universal argument for
immigration—the economic one. The one plea for the free admission
of aliens, that has weight to-day, is that our industrial organization
demands it. Not only is it asserted that the rapid development of the
country would not have been possible without the immigrant and
cannot be prosecuted in the future without him, but that the
cessation of immigration would seriously cripple many of the basic
industries of this country. The former of these points has already
been considered at some length, and the conclusion was reached that
it was inconceivable that in such a country as the United States any
socially important or necessary work should have had to be foregone
in the absence of a foreign labor supply. Such an assertion implies a
lack of self-sufficiency on the part of a young and vigorous people
which is unthinkable. Whether the exploitation of our resources
would have proceeded at such a rapid pace in the past, whether this
pace could be kept up in the future, without the immigrant—these
are questions more difficult of answer. There is no doubt that at
present a large portion of our industry—possibly the greater part—is
closely dependent upon a foreign labor supply, and that a sudden
cessation of immigration would check the expansion of those
industries, though it would not necessarily prevent their continuing
on the present basis. It seems wholly probable that the development
of the country would be retarded for a time if the immigration
current was stopped.
But why this insistent demand for a rapid exploitation of our
resources? Wherein are we the gainers if the wonderful natural
riches of the country, which, as we have seen, constitute one of the
two great elements which have accounted for our past prosperity, are
consumed in the shortest possible time? In the words of Prescott F.
Hall, “what boots an extended railroad mileage or the fact that all our
coal and minerals are dug up or all our trees cut down some years or
decades sooner?” Are we so greedy for luxury in the present that we
wish to leave as little as possible of this natural advantage to future
generations? It seems hardly possible. Rather is this idea another of
those traditional survivals from the early life of the country, when
conditions were such that the exploitation of resources was really
essential to growth in per capita, as well as total, wealth, and
prosperity. Our country has, in point of fact, developed so rapidly
that the public mind has not adjusted itself to new conditions, and
the idea of the value of a rapid exploitation lingers on as an
anachronism. Possibly there is a slight element of modern
megalomania mingled with it.
If it were true that the United States, having reached its present
point of development, was unable to advance along the path of
steady and solid growth, depending solely upon its own resources,
human as well as material, it would be one of the most serious
indictments against our social situation that could possibly be made.
It is inconceivable that it should be true. It seems much more
reasonable to believe that while the suspension of accessions of
population from foreign sources would entail numerous and serious
readjustments in social and economic relations, nevertheless the
United States still has enough native virility to work out a prosperous
and independent destiny of its own. It is hard to see any important
respect in which the United States, at the present time, really needs
immigrants.
There is still another type of argument for immigration, which
might be called the indifference argument, which says, in effect,
“Very likely we do not need the immigrants, but they do us no harm.
Let them come, anyway.” The answer to this throws the burden of
proof upon the restrictionist, and makes it incumbent upon him to
show that immigration really injures the United States.
The positive arguments against immigration as at present
conducted may be grouped under eight main heads, which may be
designated as follows: (1) the numbers argument; (2) the distribution
argument; (3) the standard of living and wages argument; (4) the
pauperism and crime argument; (5) the stimulation argument; (6)
the illegal entrance argument; (7) the biological argument; (8) the
assimilation argument. In the discussion of these arguments it must
be borne in mind that they are considered with reference to
immigration as it now exists, not as it might be under other
conditions.
(1) The common argument that we have too many immigrants is
really no argument at all. There cannot be too many immigrants
unless the excessive number manifests itself in some positive evil.
What the average person who uses this argument probably means, if
he has any definite meaning in mind at all, is that there are so many
aliens coming to this country that their presence results in one or
another of the undesirable conditions which are included in the other
seven arguments.
(2) In like manner the statement that immigrants are poorly
distributed is no real argument. It has been demonstrated that there
are certain excessive tendencies toward concentration on the part of
our alien population, but unless positive evils emerge from this
condition, it is no argument against immigration.
(3) The claim that immigration has lowered the wages and
standard of living of the American workman has already been
examined, with the conclusion that it would be nearer the truth to
say that it has kept them from rising. This, however, amounts to
practically the same thing. If somebody prevents me from getting
that to which I am entitled, he to all intents and purposes makes me
suffer deprivation. The evidence on this point is so strong that it can
hardly be gainsaid. As we have seen, practically all careful students
admit it. About the only answer that can be made to this argument is
that it is not the immigrant’s fault.[351] This is undoubtedly true,
partly at least. The immigrant has no grudge against the American
workman, nor any desire to injure him. Undoubtedly he would be
glad to earn as good wages as the native, if he could. Inasmuch as he
cannot, he is not to blame if he consents to work for what he can get.
And inasmuch as his wages are low, and his family is large, and he is
anxious to save, he is not to blame if he lives on a miserably low
standard. In the whole procedure the immigrant may display the
most admirable qualities. He is simply playing his part in an
impersonal struggle for existence. But the result to the American
workman is the same. It is a question of causes and effects, not of
blame. It must be accepted as a fact that each successive wave of
immigration has tended to check the advance of the laboring men
already in the country, be they native or foreign. And here is where
the numbers argument applies. For it is obvious that the greater the
numbers the more aggravated will be the evils of this kind.
(4) The argument that immigration increases the amount of
pauperism and crime in the country has already been examined. As
far as the past is concerned it appears that pauperism has been
immensely increased through our foreign-born population, while the
amount of crime has not. But there has been a change in the
character of crime, in the direction of an increase in crimes against
the person relative to crimes against property. What the future will
bring forth, it is impossible to predict. It seems likely that the
tendency toward an excess of pauperism on the part of the foreign-
born will become greater as the average length of residence of the
newer immigrants increases. Here, again, the claim that it is not the
immigrant’s fault might be advanced, and the answer be made that
whether it is the fault of the immigrant, or of our industrial system,
or of the individual American, makes no difference in the facts as
they exist. It does make a difference, of course, as to where the
remedy must be applied.
(5) The extent to which the immigration movement of the present
is a stimulated one has already been indicated. It might seem at first
that it made no difference to the United States whether the
immigrant was induced to come, or whether he came of his own
volition. But a closer consideration shows that there is a fundamental
difference. A strictly natural immigration would mean that
immigrants came in response to some actual economic demand in
this country which was strong enough to make itself felt abroad.
They would also be the ones best fitted to meet that demand. But
when one of the greatest motives back of immigration is the desire of
the transportation companies to make money, the mere fact of
emigration is no indication of any real need for the immigrant in this
country, nor of his fitness to enter into its life.
(6) Owing to the very strict wording of our contract labor law, a
very large proportion of our immigrants enter the country under the
impression, either false or correct, that they are evading the law. This
has a very serious effect upon their character, and upon their attitude
toward American institutions. They may readily conceive that a
country that has such laws that it is necessary to break them to get in,
probably has other laws that need to be broken after one is in. The
whole system engenders a most dangerous attitude of indifference or
hostility to law.
(7) The biological argument of the restrictionist is the obverse of
the biological argument of the pro-immigrationist, and is equally
vague in the present state of our knowledge on the subject of race
mixing. Those who urge this argument against immigration are those
who believe that only when the mingled races are closely allied is the
resulting stock of a superior type, or else those who hold the extreme
view that no mixed race is as good as a pure race. At any event, they
believe that the racial elements which are now coming to the United
States are too diverse to produce anything but an inferior stock
through their interbreeding. In this connection it should be observed
that there are two possible results of this gathering of races in the
United States, each with its own problems. One is that these races
will, in the course of time, become so blended through intermarriage
as to produce one composite but homogeneous whole—the new
American people. The other is that race prejudice and the forces of
segregation will result in the growth of a large number of ethnic
groups within the nation, each with its own peculiarities, and each
distinct from the others. There are some indications which point to
the latter as the more probable outcome.[352]
(8) The charge that our immigrants are not completely
assimilated, or are not assimilated at all, is one of the most frequent
and gravest complaints made against our present immigration
situation. It is made to include—as, indeed, it rightfully does in a
sense—all the other arguments against immigration. The term
assimilation is almost unfailingly suggested by the mere mention of
immigration. But assimilation is a big word, and needs to be used
with great caution and understanding.
In its general application, assimilation is defined as the “act or
process of assimilating, or bringing to a resemblance, conformity, or
identity,”[353] or “the act or process of making or becoming like or
identical; the act or process of bringing into harmony”;[354] or again,
“the action of making or becoming like; the state of being like;
similarity, resemblance, likeness; ... the becoming conformed to;
conformity with.”[355] It is evident from these definitions that the
essence of assimilation is likeness or conformity; this of necessity
implies a type to which such likeness approaches. It appears that it
would not be incorrect to speak of assimilation when there is nothing
more than resemblance; it seems equally clear that complete
assimilation involves identity. This is particularly evident in
reference to the special application of the term, which is the one
generally in mind when it is used, viz. the assimilation of food in the
body. In this sense the process is described as “the reformation of
biogen molecules by those already existing, aided by food-stuffs.”[356]
It is this physiological analogy which underlies the term
assimilation when applied to population, and the whole matter may
be best understood by keeping that analogy in view. When nutriment
is taken into the system of a living organism, it passes through
certain processes by which it ultimately becomes an integral part of
the physical body of that organism. It is then said to be assimilated.
Every suggestion of separate origin disappears, each new constituent
entering harmoniously into relation with the others, new and old,
and fulfilling its own functions. While it is true that certain food
elements contribute particularly to certain portions of the organism,
yet the whole is a coördinated unit. Any portion of the food which
created disturbance with reference to the body would not be said to
be assimilated.
This is only an analogy, and analogies are dangerous if used as
arguments. But it may contain a helpful suggestion. Transferred to
the field of population, it means that true and complete assimilation
of the foreign elements in the United States involves such a complete
transformation and unification of the new constituents that all sense
of difference between the new and the old completely disappears.
The idea of a type, into conformity with which the new elements
must be brought, is here present also. In the case in point, this is
manifestly the “American type.” Just what this is, it might be difficult
to say. Some writers appear even to question its existence. But the
very idea of assimilation presupposes a type. In general terms, this
type in the United States is the “native American.”[357]
A foreigner, or the descendant of a foreigner, can be truly said to
be assimilated only when the natives around him are conscious of no
feeling of alienation on account of his origin, and when the
newcomer himself feels no degree of separateness, nor possesses
divergent interests or loyalties traceable to the source from which he
came. This is not inconsistent with the fact that certain elements
contribute more fully to specific characteristics of the body politic
than others. The political, religious, or artistic aspects of the national
life may, in fact, owe their character more to one element of the
population than to another. But if assimilation is complete, there can
be no disturbances or friction arising from differences of origin
among the members of the nation.
Perhaps the most efficient test of entire assimilation is that of free
intermarriage. If marriage might take place between any man and
woman in the country, without suggesting differences of race or
ethnic origin to either contracting party, or their families, it is a safe
evidence of complete assimilation. There may be objections on the
grounds of wealth, social station, or religion; there must be none
based on race.
This may seem like strong doctrine. It may, indeed, not be
necessary for the welfare of the country that assimilation should be
so thoroughgoing as this. It is possible that different racial groups
within the body politic do not constitute a menace. But if so, the fact
should be stated by saying that complete assimilation is not
necessary, rather than by saying that the absence of serious
difficulties or evils arising from a composite population is a proof of
complete assimilation.
It is disheartening to note the frequency with which even careful
writers on the subject accept trivial and superficial indications as
evidence of the assimilation of our foreign residents. The wearing of
American clothes, the laying of carpets on the floors, the
abandonment of sleeping in the kitchen and taking large numbers of
boarders, the use of better food, and most of all the knowledge of
English are taken as proofs of assimilation.
Not all of these improvements, to be sure, are in themselves trivial.
They may indicate a great advance in living conditions, and in so far
an approach to Americanization; but they are superficial as proofs of
assimilation. Particularly is this true of the knowledge of English,
upon which so much emphasis is laid, and which is often accepted as
an evidence of essential assimilation. Now the knowledge and use of
the English language is of the greatest importance, and is one of the
first steps—perhaps the most essential one—toward assimilation. But
it is not assimilation itself. Missionaries in China, Turkey, and other
foreign lands learn to speak the languages almost perfectly, and
sometimes their children speak the language of the country more
readily than they do English. But that is no proof that either the
missionaries or their children are assimilated into the nations in
which they reside. The outlook for foreign missions would indeed be
dark, were it so. The importance of the knowledge of English to our
foreign residents must not be underemphasized. The lack of it is an
almost insuperable bar to assimilation. But the two should not be
confused. Even people whose native tongue is English may need to
go through a process of assimilation before they become Americans.
The following incident may serve as an illustration of this point.
Two young men, one an American and the other an Englishman,
both teachers in a foreign city, were discussing the conditions in the
armies of their native lands. The Englishman remarked that in his
country the officers were chosen from the noble families, and that it
was a fine system, as it caused the men to look upon their superiors
with great respect. The American replied that in America officers
were chosen for bravery, ability, or distinguished conduct, and that
made the men respect them much more. “Oh, no,” said the Briton, “it
is impossible that such a system as that could result in as profound a
respect as exists in our army.” The point was argued for half an hour,
with naturally not the slightest alteration of opinion on either side. It
is probable that that young Englishman might have lived all the
remainder of his life in the United States, without actually getting the
American point of view. But until he did, in this respect as well as
others, he could not be said to be truly assimilated, although he
might have been a very useful citizen.[358]
Regarding the matter of assimilation from the American point of
view, there are two questions to be asked. First, are our immigrants
being thoroughly assimilated? Second, is complete assimilation
necessary or desirable? As to the first of these queries, it seems that
there can be but one answer, as far as the immigrants themselves—
those of the first generation—are concerned. We have seen in how
large a proportion of this class the first step, the mastery of the
English language, has not been taken. In the various other conditions
of life, which we have studied, it is apparent that a large part of the
foreign-born are very far from American standards. With length of
residence, an approach to Americanization is made. Yet it is very