reat employers of
labor. By misrepresentation, these interested agencies have been able at
times to arouse the fears of the older races of immigrants not affected
by the measure. Their fears were groundless, for the illiteracy test is
not a test of the English language, but a test of any language, and it
applies only to those who are 15 years of age and over, but does not
apply to wife, children, parents, or grandparents of those who are
admitted. With these reasonable limitations it would exclude only 1 in
200 of the Scandinavians, 1 in 100 of the English, Scotch, and Finns, 2
or 3 in 100 of the Germans, Irish, Welsh, and French; but it would
exclude one-half of the South Italians, one-seventh of the North
Italians, one-third to two-fifths of the several Slav races, one-seventh
of the Russian Jews, altogether one-fifth or one-fourth of the total
immigration.[153] But these proportions would not long continue.
Elementary education is making progress in Eastern and Southern Europe,
and a test of this kind would stimulate it still more among the
peasants. Restrictive at first, it is only selective; it would not
permanently reduce the number of immigrants, but would raise their level
of intelligence and their ability to take care of themselves.

The foregoing principles do not apply to Chinese immigration. There the
law is strictly one of exclusion and not selection. This distinction is
often overlooked in the discussion of the subject. Respecting European,
Japanese, and Korean immigration, the law _admits_ all except certain
classes definitely described, such as paupers, criminals, and so on.
Respecting Chinese immigration the law _excludes_ all except certain
classes described, such as teachers, merchants, travellers, and
students. In the case of European immigration the burden of proof is
upon the immigration authorities to show that the immigrant should be
excluded. In the case of the Chinese, the burden of proof is on the
immigrant to show that he should be admitted. In the administration of
the law the difference is fundamental. If the Chinese law is liberalized
so as to admit doctors, lawyers, and other professional classes,
against whom there is no objection, it can be done in one of two ways.
It can name and specify the additional classes to be admitted. To this
there is little objection, for it retains the existing spirit of the
law. Or it can be reversed, and can admit all classes of Chinese except
coolies, labo