Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10.djvu/341

 MIGRATION

295

MIGRATION

about 200,000 immigrants annually, and about S0,000 emigrants. In 1907 there were 209,103 immigrants and 90,190 emigrants. Of the immigrants there were 90,282 Italians, 86,606 Spaniards, and sprinklings of other nationalities. In 1909 there entered Argentina 125,497 Spaniards and 93,479 Italians, with small numbers of Russians, Germans, etc. Since 1857 the balance of immigrants against emigrants has been 2,550,197. There have migrated to Brazil since the records were kept, 2,723,964. In 1908 Brazil received 94,695 immigrants. In 1909 there migrated from the German Empire 24,921, of whom 19,930 came to the United States. Italy in 1908 lost 486,674 emigrants and received back 281,000. Austria-Hungary sent out 386,528 in 1907, of whom 352,983 went to the United States. In 1902, 55,368 Russians emigrated to the United States; in 1903, 68,105; in 1904, 80,892; in 1905, 72,475; in 1906, 112,764.

Legal Control of Migration. — The legal control of migration began when it ceased to be collective and began to be individual. Laws have been passed pre- venting people from leaving their native land, and also, by the country of destination, forbidding or regulating entrance thereto. Extensive regulation has been found necessary applying to transportation companies and their agents, the means of transporta- tion, treatment en route and at terminal points. The justification of public interference is to be found in the right of a nation to control the variations of its own population. The highest necessity is that arising from war: on this ground nations almost universally regulate very closely the movements of population, forbidding emigration, that they may not lose their soldiers, and guarding immigration as a military pre- caution. Restrictive measures are also justified on grounds of health and morals, and on the general ground that a national family has a right to say who shall join it. Historically speaking, the right of the individual to emigrate is of rather recent date. The old theory was that a man may not leave his native land without the consent of the ruler. This situation arose from a variety of causes. After the dissolution of the feudal system, the population carried some of the advantages and some of the incumbrances of that system over into the monarchic state. One of its lead- ing principles was the fixedness of the mass of the peo- ple to the soil. Again, in England, after the ravages of the Great Plague in 1351, laws were enacted requir- ing people to remain in their own parish or town. As time passed, and the industrial revolution brought its changes, this legislation still farther limited free- dom of movement. Furthermore, when the patri- archal idea of the State gave way to the military, the personal bond of national unity yielded to the im- personal, but the obligation of the subject as a mem- ber of this new national family did not weaken, the presumption being that no one could abrogate this al- legiance. The opposition to emigration was based upon military necessity, upon the desire to maintain a strong industrial population at home, upon the jealousy existing among the nations, and upon the de- sire to keep the nation intact.

Gradually this attitude toward migration was aban- doned. The Treaty of Westphalia extended the right to migrate for religious reasons. The great migra- tions westward, as discovery and the settlement of new lands became a dominant interest, did much to break the crust of conservatism and allow life to op- erate in all ways more freely. The development of means of transportation made trans-oceanic voyages possible, leading immigrants into new and unoccupied areas. The growth of a colonial .system under which the mother country reaped large profits broke down the narrow policies and removed the old prejudices, and migration to the colonies was encouraged — in some instances enforced. Along with these changed conditions came the radical philosophy of the eigh-

teenth century, the teaching of natural rights and an insistence upon the individual's privilege to go to, and remain in, that part of the world which best suited his fancy. Thus was a condition reached when limita- tions could be removed. In England, in 1824, the law limiting emigration was repealed. In Continental countries the same liberal policy has obtained. In Russia, in European Turkey, and in certain Oriental lands the old policy is still partially prevalent, though in these countries more liberal measures are being adopted. But, generally, there is no longer question of prohibiting emigration, but rather of encourag- ing it, and always of making regulations for the arrival and departure of emigrants. European gov- ernments have undertaken this control partly on their own account, partly in co-operation with the United States. The fortunate sentiment constantly grows stronger that joint action is necessary to suc- cessful regulation.

France is the country where emigration plays the smallest part. With a hiirth-rate in some years above, in others slightly below, the death-rate, she has no surplus population. It has been truly said that Ger- many has population to spare, but no territory; Eng- land has an excess of both people and territory; but France has no surplus people and little vacant land. The annual emigration from France is 6000. The total since 1860, probably not more than 300,000. The regulations in France deal almost exclusively with the means of transportation, the condition of ships, waiting-room inspection, the health and morals of the emigrant, etc. There are no general legal bar- riers to free migration. The same thing may be said of Belgium and Holland. The emigration law of I taly of 1901 is the most thorough enactment among the laws of the European states: it places matters concerning emigration under the Foreign Office; all persons leav- ing Italy must register with the Government; persons under 14 years may not leave alone; parents and guardians must leave their children or wards in com- petent hands. Strict care is taken that persons shall not take passage who will be liable to return under foreign immigration tests. A fund has been created with which to care for those who are forced to return.

These countries, constantly losing population, have so far had few problems connected with immigration. Immigration into them is practically unrestricted. In Germany, on the contrary, very minute and effec- tive control is exercised. Besiiles its conformity to their general practice of close public regulation, cer- tain special conditions urge such a course. Germany is, of all lands, most completely organized for military purposes; a vigorous attempt is constantly made, therefore, to prevent desertion from the military forces, whether with the colours or in the Reserves. Hence their laws touching the emigration of eligibles are very strict, and treaty rights for such persons who go to foreign countries are very uncertain and imper- fect. Again, up to a recent date Germany has been of all lands the point of departure, not only of her own, but of the emigrants of other European states. This has been true, not merely because, geographically, she lies in the pathway of commerce, but also because for a long time the traffic went out from German ports and over German steamship lines. Germany has been compelled to guard, not only her own emigrants, but, what has perhaps been a more pressing necessity and more difficult task, the inspection of the alien emi- grant. The many trans-German emigrants are sub- jected to two, and often to three, inspections before they finally embark. Of such persons the Russians are the most rigorously dealt with; they must have Russian passports and tickets through to their desti- nation and their baggage must be examined and dis- infected.

In the United States immigration problems have developed, demanding,''aiid finally receiving, minute