Part 1 (1/2)
They Who Knock at Our Gates.
by Mary Antin.
INTRODUCTION
Three main questions may be asked with reference to immigration--
_First:_ A question of principle: Have we any right to regulate immigration?
_Second:_ A question of fact: What is the nature of our present immigration?
_Third:_ A question of interpretation: Is immigration good for us?
The difficulty with the first question is to get its existence recognized. In a matter that has such obvious material aspects as the immigration problem the abstract principles involved are likely to be overlooked. But as there can be no sound conclusions without a foundation in underlying principles, this discussion must begin by seeking an answer to the ethical question involved.
The second question is not easy to answer for the reason that men are always poor judges of their contemporaries, especially of those whose interests appear to clash with their own. We suffer here, too, from a bewildering multiplicity of testimony. Every sort of expert whose specialty in any way touches the immigrant has diagnosed the subject according to the formulae of his own special science--and our doctors disagree! One is forced to give up the luxury of a second-hand opinion on this subject, and to attempt a little investigation of one's own, checking off the dicta of the specialists as well as an amateur may.
The third question, while not wholly separable from the second, is nevertheless an inquiry of another sort. Whether immigration is good for us depends partly on the intrinsic nature of the immigrant and partly on our reactions to his presence. The effects of immigration, produced by the immigrant in partners.h.i.+p with ourselves, some men will approve and some deplore, according to their notions of good and bad. That thing is good for me which leads to my ultimate happiness; and we do not all delight in the same things. The third question, therefore, more than either of the others, each man has to answer for himself.
THEY WHO KNOCK AT OUR GATES
I
THE LAW OF THE FATHERS
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children... . And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
Deut. vi, 6, 7, 9.
If I ask an American what is the fundamental American law, and he does not answer me promptly, ”That which is contained in the Declaration of Independence,” I put him down for a poor citizen. He who is ignorant of the law is likely to disobey it. And there cannot be two minds about the position of the Declaration among our doc.u.ments of state. What the Mosaic Law is to the Jews, the Declaration is to the American people. It affords us a starting-point in history and defines our mission among the nations. Without it, we should not differ greatly from other nations who have achieved a const.i.tutional form of government and various democratic inst.i.tutions. What marks us out from other advanced nations is the origin of our liberties in one supreme act of political innovation, prompted by a conscious sense of the dignity of manhood. In other countries advances have been made by favor of hereditary rulers and aristocratic parliaments, each successive reform being grudgingly handed down to the people from above. Not so in America. At one bold stroke we shattered the monarchical tradition, and installed the people in the seats of government, subst.i.tuting the gospel of the sovereignty of the ma.s.ses for the superst.i.tion of the divine right of kings.
And even more notable than the boldness of the act was the dignity with which it was entered upon. In terms befitting a philosophical discourse, we gave notice to the world that what we were about to do, we would do in the name of humanity, in the conviction that as justice is the end of government so should manhood be its source.
It is this insistence on the philosophic sanction of our revolt that gives the sublime touch to our political performance. Up to the moment of our declaration of independence, our struggle with our English rulers did not differ from other popular struggles against despotic governments. Again and again we respectfully pet.i.tioned for redress of specific grievances, as the governed, from time immemorial, have pet.i.tioned their governors. But one day we abandoned our suit for petty damages, and inst.i.tuted a suit for the recovery of our entire human heritage of freedom; and by basing our claim on the fundamental principles of the brotherhood of man and the sovereignty of the ma.s.ses, we a.s.sumed the champions.h.i.+p of the oppressed against their oppressors, wherever found.
It was thus, by sinking our particular quarrel with George of England in the universal quarrel of humanity with injustice, that we emerged a distinct nation, with a unique mission in the world. And we revealed ourselves to the world in the Declaration of Independence, even as the Israelites revealed themselves in the Law of Moses. From the Declaration flows our race consciousness, our sense of what is and what is not American. Our laws, our policies, the successive steps of our progress--all must conform to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the source of our national being.
The American confession of faith, therefore, is a recital of the doctrines of liberty and equality. A faithful American is one who understands these doctrines and applies them in his life.
It should be easy to pick out the true Americans--the spiritual heirs of the founders of our Republic--by this simple test of loyalty to the principles of the Declaration. To such a test we are put, both as a nation and as individuals, every time we are asked to define our att.i.tude on immigration. Having set up a government on a declaration of the rights of man, it should be our first business to reaffirm that declaration every time we meet a case involving human rights. Now every immigrant who emerges from the steerage presents such a case.
For the alien, whatever ethnic or geographic label he carries, in a primary cla.s.sification of the creatures of the earth, falls in the human family. The fundamental fact of his humanity established, we need only rehea.r.s.e the articles of our political faith to know what to do with the immigrant. It is written in our basic law that he is ent.i.tled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing left for us to do but to open wide our gates and set him on his way to happiness.
That is what we did for a while, when our simple law was fresh in our minds, and the habit of applying it instinctive. Then there arose a fas.h.i.+on of spelling immigration with a capital initial, which so confused the national eye that we began to see a PROBLEM where formerly we had seen a familiar phenomenon of American life; and as a problem requires skillful handling, we called an army of experts in consultation, and the din of their elaborate discussions has filled our ears ever since.
The effect on the nation has been disastrous. In a matter involving our faith as Americans, we have ceased to consult our fundamental law, and have suffered ourselves to be guided by the conflicting reports of commissions and committees, anthropologists, economists, and statisticians, policy-mongers, calamity-howlers, and self-announced prophets. Matters irrelevant to the interests of liberty have taken the first place in the discussion; lobbyists, not patriots, have had the last word. Our American sensibility has become dulled, so that sometimes the cries of the oppressed have not reached our ears unless carried by formal deputations. In a department of government which brings us into daily touch with the nations of the world, we have failed to live up to our national gospel and have not been aware of our backsliding.
What have the experts and statisticians done so to pervert our minds?