rers, and the classes now excluded by other laws. If this
were done, the enforcement of the law would break down, for the burden
of proof would be lifted from the immigrant and placed on the examining
board. The law is with great difficulty enforced as it is, but the
evasions bear no comparison in number with those practised under the
other law. European immigration is encouraged, provided it passes a
minimum standard. Chinese immigration is prohibited unless it exceeds a
maximum standard. One is selection, the other is exclusion. One should
be amended by describing new classes _not_ to be admitted, the other by
describing classes which _may_ be admitted.
This difference between the two laws may be seen in the effects of the
restrictions which have from time to time been added to the immigration
laws. Each additional ground of restriction or selection has not
decreased the total amount of immigration, nor has it increased the
proportion of those debarred from admission. In 1898, 3200 aliens were
sent back, and this was 1.4 per cent of those who arrived. In 1901, 3900
were sent back, but this was only three-fourths of 1 per cent of those
arriving. In 1906, 13,000 sent back were 1.2 per cent of the arrivals.
Intending immigrants as well as steamship companies learn the standards
of exclusion and the methods of evasion, so that the proportion who take
their chances and fail in the attempt is very small. Nevertheless, this
deportation of immigrants, though averaging less than 1 per cent, is a
hardship that should be avoided. It has often been proposed that this
should be done through examination abroad by American consuls or by
agents of the Immigration Bureau. Attractive and humane as this proposal
appears, the foreign examination could not be made final. It would
remove the examiners from effective control, and would require a large
additional force as well as the existing establishment to deport those
who might evade the foreign inspection. It does not strike at the root
of the evil, which is the business energy of the steamship companies in
soliciting immigration, and their business caution in requiring doubtful
immigrants to give bonds in advance to cover the cost of carrying them
back.[154] It is not the exclusion law that causes hardship, but the
steamship companies that connive at evasions of the law. The law of 1903
for the first time adopted the correct principle to meet this evasion,
but with a limited applicatio
|