Assisted immigration is the term used to cover cases where a foreign government has eased itself of part of the burden of its paupers, insane, dependents, and delinquents by shipping them to the United States. This was not uncommon in the nineteenth century, especially in the case of local and municipal governments. Our laws were lax, and for a time nearly everybody, sane or insane, sound or diseased, was passed. The financial gain to the exporting government can be seen in the fact that it costs about $150 per head a year to support dependents and delinquents in this country, while it would not cost the foreign authorities more than $50 to transport them hither. This policy seems scarcely credible, but Switzerland, Great Britain, and Ireland followed it thriftily until our laws put a stop to it, in large part, by returning these undesirable persons whence they came, at the expense of the steamship companies bringing them. It was not until 1882, however, that our government passed laws for self-protection, and in 1891 another law made "assisted" immigrants a special class not to be admitted.
Other and incidental causes there are, such as the influence of new machinery, opening the way for more unskilled labor, such as the ordinary immigrant has to sell; the protective tariff, which shuts out foreign goods and brings in the foreign producers of the excluded goods; the thorough advertising abroad of American advantages by boards of agriculture and railway companies interested in building up communities; and a fear of restrictive legislation. But undoubtedly, ever back of all other reasons is the conviction that America is the land of plenty and of liberty--a word which each interprets according to his light or his liking.
[Sidenote: Colonists and Immigrants Distinguished]
Having thus considered the remarkable proportions of immigration, and the causes of it, it will be well at this point to say a cautionary word as to the attitude of mind and heart in which this subject should be approached. Impartiality is necessary but difficult. There is a natural prejudice against the immigrant. A Christian woman, of ordinarily gentle and sweet temper, was heard to say recently, while this very subject of Christian duty to the immigrant was under discussion at a missionary conference: "I hate these disgusting foreigners; they are spoiling our country." Doubtless many would sympathize with her. This is not uncommon prejudice or feeling, and argument against it is of little avail. Nevertheless, as Christians we must endeavor to divest ourselves of it. We must recognize the brotherhood of man and the value of the individual soul as taught by Jesus. It may aid us, perhaps, if we remember that we are all--with the exception of the Indians, who may lay claim to aboriginal heritage--in a sense descendants of immigrants. At the same time, it is essential to draw a clear distinction between colonists and immigrants. Colonization, with its attendant hardships and heroisms, steadily advanced from its beginnings in New England, New Amsterdam, and Virginia, until there resulted the founding of a free and independent nation, with popular government and fixed religious principles, including the vital ones of religious liberty and the right of the individual conscience. In other words, colonization created a nation; and there had to be a nation before there could be immigration to it. "In discussing the immigration question," says Mr. Hall, "this distinction is important," for it does not follow that, because, as against the native Indians, all comers might be considered as intruders and equally without claim of right, those who have built up a complicated framework of nationality have no rights as against others who seek to enjoy the benefits of national life without having contributed to its creation."[12]