Chapter XVII: Section 2169: (not a | | | | | | (1)

white person) | 84 | 0.1 | 3 | .... | .... | ....
No information | .... | .... | .... | .... | 16 | 0.5
---------------------+---------+------+---------+------+--------+-----
Total | 107,474 |100.0 | 13,133 |100.0 | 3,033 |100.0
Certificates granted | 848,777 | .... | 105,439 | .... | .... | ....
Cases disposed of | 956,251 | .... | 118,572 | .... | 26,284 | ....
Per cent denied | .... | 11.2 | .... | 11.1 | .... | 11.5
======================================================================

A study of the figures covering the reasons for denial of the 3,033 among the petitions of 1913-14 here analyzed illuminated special aspects of this matter, showing, as it does, how large a proportion of the denials are for reasons of a purely technical character, or because the petitioners abandoned their pursuit of citizenship after filing the final petition.

The following table lists the races represented by forty or more petitions, _in the order of percentage of denials_, and shows the percentages attributable to the six principal reasons, respectively: “want of prosecution,” “incompetent witnesses,” “declaration invalid,” “ignorance,” “immoral character,” and “old-law declaration--held to be invalid.”

TABLE XVIII

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF 26,284 PETITIONERS DENIED, 1913-14, AND THE
PER CENT OF THE DENIALS FOR THE SIX PRINCIPAL CAUSES

(Part One)
===========================================
COUNTRY | NUMBER | DENIALS |
OF | OF +--------+------+
BIRTH | PETITIONS | Number | Per |
| | | Cent |
--------------+-----------+--------+------+
All countries | 26,284 | 3,033 | 11.5 |
| | | |
Greece | 90 | 27 | 30.0 |
France | 86 | 19 | 22.1 |
Italy | 3,591 | 646 | 18.0 |
Turkey in | | | |
Europe | 92 | 15 | 16.3 |
Holland | 139 | 21 | 15.1 |
Scotland | 288 | 42 | 14.6 |
Denmark | 200 | 29 | 14.5 |
England | 831 | 120 | 14.4 |
Sweden | 616 | 80 | 13.0 |
Germany | 2,305 | 296 | 12.8 |
Switzerland | 197 | 25 | 12.7 |
Turkey in | | | |
Asia | 142 | 18 | 12.7 |
Norway | 389 | 48 | 12.3 |
Belgium | 41 | 5 | 12.2 |
Canada | 385 | 43 | 11.2 |
Hungary | 2,443 | 249 | 10.2 |
Finland | 144 | 14 | 9.7 |
Rumania | 569 | 54 | 9.5 |
Russia | 7,864 | 744 | 9.5 |
Ireland | 1,773 | 166 | 9.4 |
Austria | 3,875 | 347 | 9.0 |
Other | 201 | 27 | .... |
No information| 23 | .... | .... |
===========================================

(Part Two)
====================================================================
| CAUSES OF DENIAL--PER CENT
COUNTRY |--------+--------+-------+--------+-------+----------
OF | Want of Ignorance Immoral
BIRTH |Prosecution Character
| Incompetent Declaration “Old-Law”
| Witnesses Invalid Declaration{1}
--------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+-------+----------
All countries | 22.7 | 13.9 | 5.2 | 7.2 | 1.9 | 37.5
| | | | | |
Greece | 48.1 | 11.1 | 3.7 | .... | .... | 3.7
France | 15.7 | 26.3 | | | | 42.1
Italy | 28.1 | 11.1 | 2.9 | 14.2 | 1.7 | 34.2
Turkey in | | | | | |
Europe | 26.6 | 7.6 | 26.6 | .... | 7.6 | 20.9
Holland | 28.5 | 33.3 | .... | .... | .... | 14.0
Scotland | 21.4 | 11.9 | 9.5 | 2.4 | .... | 31.0
Denmark | 17.2 | 27.6 | 3.5 | .... | 6.9 | 31.0
England | 30.0 | 19.2 | 4.2 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 27.5
Sweden | 13.7 | 13.7 | 11.3 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 30.0
Germany | 17.2 | 14.5 | 5.4 | 4.7 | 2.4 | 47.3
Switzerland | 24.0 | 20.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | .... | 36.0
Turkey in | | | | | |
Asia | 44.4 | 11.1 | 16.7 | 5.6 | .... | 16.7
Norway | 25.0 | 27.1 | 14.6 | 8.3 | .... | 4.2
Belgium | 40.0 | 20.0 | .... | 20.0 | .... | ....
Canada | 30.2 | 14.0 | 9.3 | | 4.6 | 20.9
Hungary | 32.2 | 12.5 | 4.8 | 7.6 | 3.2 | 24.9
Finland | 42.8 | 14.3 | 14.3 | .... | .... | ....
Rumania | 7.4 | 11.1 | 5.6 | 7.4 | 3.7 | 63.0
Russia | 15.1 | 15.7 | 5.5 | 6.2 | 1.7 | 46.2
Ireland | 27.1 | 11.4 | 3.0 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 46.3
Austria | 21.6 | 10.4 | 5.5 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 44.8
Other | .... | .... | .... | .... | .... | ....
No information| .... | .... | .... | .... | .... | ....
====================================================================

[note 1: Denied because declaration of intention was more than seven
years old.]

In this table there are 14 countries listed whose per cent of denials exceeds that for all countries. Of these only four supply the “new” immigration. And of the seven showing a lower than 11.5 per cent denials, five constitute the “new” immigration. This would point to greater success on the part of the new races in attaining their naturalization papers. The qualifying fact here, as elsewhere, is that more than twice as many petitioners belong to the “new” races as to the “old.”

The two causes of denial showing the largest per cents for the country as a whole and for most countries are “want of prosecution” and the invalidity of their “old-law” declaration. That so large a proportion of immigrants have taken the trouble to take almost the last steps toward citizenship and then fail by default is symptomatic of waste somewhere along the line. This condition seems to prevail among both the “old” and “new” peoples.

AS REGARDS “IMMORAL CHARACTER”

For some of the less mechanical causes of denial, let us segregate and arrange the countries in order of percentages. The following table shows denials for “immoral character.”

TABLE XIX

PER CENT OF DENIALS DUE TO “IMMORAL CHARACTER,” BY RACE

=================================
Country of Birth Denials
Per Cent
---------------------------------
Total cases 1.9
Turkey in Europe 7.6
Denmark 6.9
Sweden 5.0
Canada 4.6
Rumania 3.7
Hungary 3.2
England 2.5
Germany 2.4
Russia 1.7
Italy 1.7
Austria 1.4
Ireland 0.6
=================================

The average percentage of denials for the whole United States for the period 1908-18 on the ground of “immoral character” was 4.0 per cent. With the exception of Turkey in Europe, not one of the “newer” races came up to this average in the year 1913-14, so far as may be judged by this analysis of the court records of more than one in five of the petitions passed upon in that year. Austria, Hungary, Italy, Rumania, all showed a record materially better, and the figures generally show that cause to be negligible, anyway.

THE SHOWING AS TO “IGNORANCE”

In considering the statistics of denials on the ground of “ignorance,” it is to be remembered that the examinations which disclose this “ignorance” do not go as a rule to the subject of illiteracy or general intelligence, but deal in the majority of cases with the understanding of the petitioner as to the form of government, and sometimes decidedly minute details of the history, of the United States. The average percentage of denials on the ground of “ignorance” in the whole United States during the eleven years 1908-18 was 10.3. The records of the petitions of every one of the “recent” races, except Italian, for the year 1913-14--if one may judge by this study of more than one-fifth of them--was far better than that average, though generally higher than that of the old races.

TABLE XX

PER CENT OF DENIALS DUE TO “IGNORANCE,” BY RACE

================================
Country of Birth Denials
Per Cent
--------------------------------
Total cases 7.2
Italy 14.2
Norway 8.3
Switzerland 8.0
Hungary 7.6
Rumania 7.4
Austria 7.2
Russia 6.2
Turkey in Asia 5.6
Germany 4.7
Sweden 3.8
Scotland 2.4
Ireland 1.8
England 1.7
================================

TIME-INTERVALS IN NATURALIZATION

Generally speaking, judging by the 26,284 petitions examined, each of which must show the date of arrival and declaration of intention, the immigrant is in this country in the average case anywhere from 5.4 to 12.7 years before he files his declaration of intention to seek citizenship. (See Table XXI.)

The evidence on this point was strikingly uniform in all the courts save one. The lowest average shown was 5.4 years in Cincinnati; the highest average but two was 8.6 in the State Superior Court at Worcester, Massachusetts. The extreme exceptions were 9.4 years in the Superior Court for Middlesex County, at Middletown, Connecticut, and 12.7 years in the Androscoggin Supreme Judicial Court at Auburn, Maine. The latter court in naturalization matters deals largely with French-Canadians; of all the 385 Canadian petitioners falling under this analysis, this one court passed upon 61.5 per cent.

TABLE XXI

THE AVERAGE TIME ELAPSING BETWEEN ARRIVAL AND DECLARATION OF
INTENTION; BETWEEN DECLARATION AND PETITION, AND BETWEEN PETITION
AND NATURALIZATION AS SHOWN BY 26,284 CERTIFICATES, 1913-14

=====================================================================
| AVERAGE | AVERAGE | AVERAGE
| INTERVAL | INTERVAL | INTERVAL
| BETWEEN | BETWEEN | BETWEEN
COURTS | ARRIVAL |DECLARATION| PETITION
| AND | AND | AND
|DECLARATION| PETITION |CERTIFICATE
| (Years) | (Years) | (Months)
---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------
New York Co. Supm. Ct. | 6.7 | 4.7 | 5.1
U. S. Dist. Ct., Southern Dist. | | |
New York, N. Y. C. | 7.2 | 4.3 | 3.9
U. S. Dist. Ct., Eastern Dist. | | |
New York, Brooklyn | 7.1 | 5.2 | 4.1
Bronx Co. Supm. Ct., N. Y. C. | 7.7 | 3.9 | 5.0
Queens Co. Supm. Ct., Jamaica, | | |
L. I. | 7.4 | 6.5 | 4.6
Westchester Co. Supm. Ct., White | | |
Plains, N. Y. | 6.9 | 5.2 | 5.8
Nassau Co. Supm. Ct., Mineola, | | |
L. I. | 7.0 | 4.9 | 4.7
Passaic Co. Ct. Com. Pls., | | |
Paterson, N. J. | 6.3 | 5.2 | 4.1
Fairfield Co. Supr. Ct., | | |
Bridgeport, Conn. | 7.7 | 4.8 | 5.3
Knox Co. Circt. Ct., Galesburg, | | |
Ill. | 7.7 | 4.6 | 4.8
Johnson Co. Dist. Ct., Iowa City,| | |
Iowa | 6.1 | 3.5 | 4.6
Androscoggin Co. Supm. Jud. Ct., | | |
Auburn, Me. | 12.7 | 3.0 | 4.2
Tompkins Co. Supm. Ct., Ithaca, | | |
N. Y. | 8.0 | 3.5 | 6.4
Middlesex Co. Ct. Com Pls., New | | |
Brunswick, N. J. | 6.6 | 4.6 | 5.2
U. S. Dist. Ct. Northern Dist., | | |
Cleveland, Ohio | 5.4 | 5.0 | 4.5
Cuyahoga Co. Ct. Com. Pls., | | |
Cleveland, Ohio | 6.7 | 5.0 | 4.5
Multnomah Co. Circt. Ct., | | |
Portland, Ore. | 7.2 | 11.1 | 5.1
Monroe Co. Supm. Ct., Rochester, | | |
N. Y. | 6.3 | 5.5 | 4.6
U. S. Dist. Ct. Western Dist. | | |
Washington, Seattle | 6.1 | 7.1 | 4.8
King Co. Supm. Ct., Seattle, | | |
Wash. | 6.0 | 8.8 | 11.1
Chemung Co. Supm. Ct., Elmira, | | |
N. Y. | 7.0 | 4.8 | 12.7
Summit Co. Ct. Com. Pls., Akron, | | |
Ohio | 6.2 | 4.2 | 5.7
Northampton Co. Ct. Com. Pls., | | |
Easton, Pa. | 7.5 | 4.2 | 5.5
Worcester Co. Supr. Ct., | | |
Worcester, Mass. | 8.6 | 4.1 | 5.4
Middlesex Co. Supr. Ct., | | |
Middletown, Conn. | 9.4 | 3.7 | 5.3
Rensselaer Co. Supm. Ct., Troy, | | |
N. Y. | 6.2 | 4.1 | 7.7
U. S. Dist. Ct. Southern Dist. | | |
O., Cincinnati | 5.7 | 5.4 | 5.1
New London Co. Supr. Ct., | | |
Norwich, Conn. | 8.5 | 4.2 | 6.8
| | |
Average | 6.8 | 5.1 | 4.9
=====================================================================

Having filed his declaration of intention after an average residence in this country shown in all courts as 6.8 years--nearly two years more than the five years’ minimum residence required for the _completion_ of citizenship--our average immigrant _waits more than five years_ longer before he files his final petition for naturalization--although under the law he need have waited only two. The range, however, was wide, between an average of 3.0 years in the Supreme Court of Androscoggin County, Auburn, Maine, and 11.1 years in the Circuit Court at Portland, Oregon. The whole average shown in all the courts studied was 5.1 years. These are very surprising figures for those who have been complaining that we have hurried aliens into citizenship.

Once the applicant has his petition filed, the process becomes more expeditious. The figures collated for the year 1913-14 show an average interval between petition and certificate of naturalization of 4.9 months; the range is between 3.9 months in the United States District Court in Manhattan, and 12.7 months in the State Supreme Court at Elmira, New York. From the point of view of delay, three months must always be subtracted, since the law requires, in any event, an interval of at least ninety days after the petition is filed before it can be considered by the court.

HOW DO THE RACIAL GROUPS COMPARE?

What light do the petitions throw upon the question of the relative “civic and political interest” of the various racial groups, as shown by the interval that elapses between their attainment of the age of 21 years, or if they come here after they are 21, between their arrival and their filing of the final petition?

TABLE XXII

AVERAGE INTERVAL BEFORE FILING PETITION, AFTER ATTAINMENT OF
TWENTY-ONE YEARS, FOR THOSE ARRIVING AT AGES OF ONE TO FOURTEEN, BY
RACES

=========================================
| NUMBER IN | AVERAGE
COUNTRY OF BIRTH | AGE GROUP | INTERVAL
| 1-14 | (Years)
------------------+-----------+----------
All countries | 2,900 | 6.2
| |
France | 19 | 12.9
Norway | 13 | 12.5
Switzerland | 7 | 12.4
Sweden | 31 | 12.4
Scotland | 13 | 11.8
England | 77 | 11.6
Ireland | 77 | 10.8
Germany | 280 | 10.3
Canada | 88 | 9.8
Denmark | 13 | 9.5
Holland | 17 | 9.5
Hungary | 192 | 5.8
Greece | 12 | 5.5
Finland | 6 | 5.3
Russia | 873 | 5.0
Italy | 651 | 4.9
Austria | 389 | 4.5
Turkey in Asia | 10 | 4.0
Rumania | 89 | 3.8
Turkey in Europe | 8 | 3.6
=========================================

We have three groups of statistics on this point: those petitioners arriving at the ages of 1 to 14, those at 15 to 20 years, and those 21 years and over. In the following table the countries of birth are arranged in the order of the average interval for those arriving at the ages of 1 to 14 years. The complete table will be found in the Appendix.

TABLE XXIII

AVERAGE INTERVAL BEFORE FILING PETITION, AFTER ARRIVAL, AT AGES OF
FIFTEEN TO TWENTY, BY RACES

=========================================
| NUMBER IN | AVERAGE
COUNTRY OF BIRTH | AGE GROUP | INTERVAL
| 15-20 | (Years)
------------------+-----------+----------
All countries | 9,512 | 11.0{1}
| |
France | 10 | 17.7
Canada | 99 | 17.3
Switzerland | 50 | 15.6
Germany | 600 | 14.1
England | 216 | 13.6
Sweden | 269 | 12.7
Scotland | 57 | 12.7
Denmark | 65 | 12.2
Holland | 32 | 12.2
Finland | 54 | 11.7
Ireland | 609 | 11.5
Norway | 148 | 11.3
Italy | 1,198 | 10.8
Hungary | 960 | 10.8
Austria | 1,658 | 10.6
Rumania | 202 | 10.2
Russia | 3,055 | 9.9
Greece | 47 | 9.7
Turkey in Asia | 69 | 9.0
Turkey in Europe | 42 | 7.9
=========================================

[note 1: This average includes the figures for races whose numbers
are too small to justify generalization.]

The striking thing in these tables is the fact that almost without exception the countries showing the longest intervals are those representing the old immigration.

TABLE XXIV

AVERAGE INTERVAL BEFORE FILING PETITION, AFTER ARRIVAL, AT AGES
TWENTY-ONE OR OVER, BY RACES

=========================================
| NUMBER IN |
| AGE GROUP | AVERAGE
COUNTRY OF BIRTH | 21 YEARS | INTERVAL
| AND OVER | (Years)
------------------+-----------+----------
All countries | 13,849 | 10.6{1}
| |
Canada | 198 | 16.4
Sweden | 316 | 13.1
Switzerland | 140 | 12.2
France | 57 | 11.9
Germany | 1,425 | 11.9
England | 538 | 11.7
Italy | 1,742 | 11.4
Norway | 228 | 10.8
Scotland | 218 | 10.6
Finland | 84 | 10.5
Austria | 1,828 | 10.5
Denmark | 122 | 10.2
Holland | 90 | 10.1
Hungary | 1,291 | 9.9
Rumania | 278 | 9.8
Russia | 3,936 | 9.6
Ireland | 1,087 | 9.6
Greece | 31 | 8.6
Turkey in Asia | 63 | 8.5
Turkey in Europe | 42 | 8.1
=========================================

[note 1: This average includes the figures for races whose numbers
are too small to justify generalization.]

THEY ARE YOUNG PEOPLE

They were young men. More than 60 per cent of them were between the ages of 18 and 30 years. Of the 26,284 applicants for citizenship whose petitions were examined, 16,586--over three-fifths--came to this country between the ages of 18 and 30. The preponderance is striking:

TABLE XXV

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF PETITIONERS FOR THREE AGE GROUPS{1}

=======================================
AGE AT ARRIVAL | NUMBER | PER CENT
-------------------+--------+----------
1-17 | 6,589 | 25.1
18-30 | 16,586 | 63.1
31 and over | 3,093 | 11.5
No data | 16 | ....
-------------------+--------+----------
Total | 26,284 | 99.8
=======================================

[note 1: The full table showing distribution of ages at arrival from
infancy to fifty years or over, is given in the Appendix, Table 57.]

RELATIVE AGE AND “POLITICAL INTEREST”

It is interesting to note, in this connection, the relation between the age at which the alien arrives in this country and the length of time that elapses before he files his final petition for citizenship. The following diagram exhibits this:

+-----------------+
| 1 to 14 years. | 6.2
+-----------------+

+---------------------------------+
| 15 to 20 years. | 11.0
+---------------------------------+

+-------------------------------+
| 21 years and over. | 10.6
+-------------------------------+

DIAGRAM 1

Average interval before filing petition after attainment of
21 years (or time of arrival, if arriving after 21 years) for
petitioners, arriving at ages of 1 to 14, 15 to 20, and 21 years
and over.]

Close analysis of these lists further emphasizes the importance of the factor of _age at arrival_ as affecting the lapse of time after the attainment of lawful age before filing the final petition for citizenship. It appears, as might well be expected, that those who come in childhood are more prompt than those who arrive between 15 and 20; but even those coming in childhood appear, on the average, to wait until after they are 27. The averages indicate, almost without exception, that those coming at ages over 20 waited more than 10 years before filing their petitions. Few come after they are 40 and then seek citizenship. The petitions show that on the average those arriving at 1 to 14 applied 6.2 years after 21. Those arriving at 21 years or over applied 10.6 years after arrival.

Those arriving between 15 and 20 applied 11 years after arrival, but it is fallacious to compare this interval with those in the case of the younger or older immigrants, because the five years’ required residence might mean application at 21 years of age by an immigrant who came at 15 or 16, or at 25 years by one who came at 20; while one who, coming at 15, waited the full average of 11 years would apply at 26, apparently more promptly than one who, coming in infancy, did not apply until he was 27 or over. The questions suggested by the discrepancy here apparent are many, but the data available furnish no definite answer to them. Perhaps fuller statistics might substantially modify the apparent discrepancies.

THE REAL RACIAL DISTINCTION

These men, the cream of our immigration--regardless of any fanciful distinction of race “older” or “newer”--came in the flower of their young manhood to try hazard of new fortunes in what they rightly believed to be the land of promise and opportunity; lived here from five to twelve years before they registered in normal declaration their intention to become citizens; lived here upward of five years more before filing their final petition for citizenship, and nearly nine out of ten of them passed their examinations and were admitted.

There is visible in these statistics a distinction of race--a very interesting and inspiring distinction, but it is not one of the “older” or “newer” races. It has little to do with any supposititious difference of racial quality or character. Indeed, it redounds on the whole to the credit of the more recent immigration, and, so far as it goes, would indicate, if anything, a greater potential fitness for American citizenship. In Diagram 2, which is based on Table XXIV, the bars which are black represent countries which have entirely a subject people, or in which a proportion of the population is subject. In the latter case it is the subject peoples who come to this country in larger proportions than the sovereign peoples. This is only one of the instances which illustrate an interesting conclusion. Certainly to a discerning eye this fact stands forth:

_Those from countries where, at the time of their migration, there was either autocratic government or political discontent, or inferior economic opportunity, head the list of those who seek, and upon examination prove their title to, fellow-membership with us._

_Those from countries where government was relatively democratic, where individual liberty prevailed, where political, social, and economic conditions were conducive to contentment, were satisfied to keep the citizenship of their fatherlands._

Why should it require exhaustive investigation to demonstrate so obvious, so inevitable an operation of human psychology? What else was to have been expected?

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
AVERAGE FOR ALL | | | | | | | | | | | | 10.6
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
TURKEY IN EUROPE | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 8.1
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
TURKEY IN ASIA | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 8.5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
GREECE | | | | | | | | | | 8.6
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
IRELAND | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 9.6
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
RUSSIA | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 9.6
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
ROUMANIA | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 9.8
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
HUNGARY | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 9.9
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
HOLLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | 10.1
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
DENMARK | | | | | | | | | | | | 10.2
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
AUSTRIA | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 10.5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
FINLAND | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 10.5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
SCOTLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | 10.6
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
NORWAY | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 10.8
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
ITALY | | | | | | | | | | | | |11.4
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
ENGLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11.7
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
GERMANY | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11.9
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
FRANCE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11.9
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
SWITZERLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 12.2
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
SWEDEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 13.1
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
CANADA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 16.4
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

DIAGRAM 2

Average interval before filing petition after arrival at ages
21 or over by races. The bars which are in black ((filled with
/ character)) represent countries from which the subject people
constituted almost entirely the immigration to this country.]

RACE AND RELATIVE AGE AT ARRIVAL

The racial distribution of these petitioners, with reference to age at arrival, is interesting and to some extent significant. Table XXVI, including only those races represented by at least 50 petitions, is arranged in the order of percentages of those arriving after attaining the age of 21 years. It throws sidelights upon the variations of the age at which the individuals of various races came to this country:

TABLE XXVI

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PETITIONERS, SHOWING PERCENTAGES FOR THE
AGE PERIODS “OVER TWENTY-ONE,” “FIFTEEN TO TWENTY,” AND “ONE TO
FOURTEEN,” IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST-MENTIONED AGE GROUP

=======================================================================
| | NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF THOSE
| | ARRIVING AT AGES
| WHOLE +----------------------------------------------
COUNTRY | NUMBER | 21 and Over | 15 TO 20 | 1 TO 14
OF BIRTH | OF +--------+------+--------+------+--------+-----
|PETITIONERS| Number | Per | Number | Per | Number | Per
| | | Cent | | Cent | | Cent
------------+-----------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+-----
Scotland | 288 | 218 | 75.7 | 57 | 19.8 | 13 | 4.5
Switzerland | 197 | 140 | 71.7 | 50 | 25.4 | 7 | 3.5
France | 86 | 57 | 66.3 | 10 | 11.6 | 19 | 22.1
England | 831 | 538 | 64.7 | 216 | 26.0 | 77 | 9.3
Holland | 139 | 90 | 64.7 | 32 | 23.0 | 17 | 12.2
Germany | 2,305 | 1,425 | 61.8 | 600 | 26.0 | 280 | 12.1
Ireland | 1,773 | 1,087 | 61.3 | 609 | 34.3 | 77 | 4.3
Denmark | 200 | 122 | 61.0 | 65 | 32.5 | 13 | 6.5
Norway | 389 | 228 | 58.6 | 148 | 38.0 | 13 | 3.3
Finland | 144 | 84 | 58.3 | 54 | 37.5 | 6 | 4.1
Hungary | 2,443 | 1,291 | 52.8 | 960 | 39.3 | 192 | 7.9
Canada | 385 | 198 | 51.4 | 99 | 25.7 | 88 | 22.9
Sweden | 616 | 316 | 51.3 | 269 | 43.7 | 31 | 5.0
Russia | 7,864 | 3,936 | 50.1 | 3,055 | 38.8 | 873 | 11.1
Rumania | 569 | 278 | 48.9 | 202 | 35.5 | 89 | 15.6
Italy | 3,591 | 1,742 | 48.5 | 1,198 | 33.4 | 651 | 18.1
Austria | 3,875 | 1,828 | 47.2 | 1,658 | 42.8 | 389 | 10.0
Turkey in | | | | | | |
Europe | 92 | 42 | 45.7 | 42 | 45.7 | 8 | 8.7
Turkey in | | | | | | |
Asia | 142 | 63 | 44.4 | 69 | 48.6 | 10 | 7.0
Greece | 90 | 31 | 34.4 | 47 | 52.2 | 12 | 13.3
=======================================================================

Inferences or generalizations from this table in connection with the age statistics given heretofore would be perilous, since we have not tabulated the data which would show, with regard to any particular racial group, how many of those between 15 and 20 years of age came at 18 or 19; or how many of those over 21 came after they were 25 or before they were 30. So far as it goes, however, it would appear to indicate that those of the so-called “older” immigration left their homelands at a later age, while a larger proportion of those of the “newer” came in younger manhood. The larger percentages in the column “over 21” are credited to the “older”; the larger in the second column, “15 to 20,” to the “newer.”

AT THE BEGINNING OF MARRIED LIFE

More than two-thirds (68.5 per cent) of the petitioners were married at the time of their petition for naturalization. One may hazard the guess that the majority were either unmarried or newly married when they came to this country, because, while 89.9 per cent of the 18,017 married petitioners reported wives of foreign birth, 10,563 (73.5 per cent) of them had children exclusively native-born. Only one in ten had foreign-born children only, and only 16.5 per cent had both native and foreign-born children. And 14,371 (79.8 per cent) of the married petitioners had one or more children under 21 years of age.[118]

AS FOR “STABILITY OF RESIDENCE”

The question of what might be called the “residential stability” of the immigrant in this country has been the subject of much assertion and little substantial information. The general tenor of the assertion and the vague impression of the average person are to the effect that the immigrant is more or less of a wanderer, shifting from place to place, and for that reason failing to establish anything resembling permanent residence or to relate himself to the community as a neighbor. Very little statistical data on this point is available, and it is unsafe to generalize. There is, however, a somewhat startling disclosure in the 1915 census of the state of Massachusetts, showing that in the class of otherwise “justified” voters disqualified solely by reason of not having resided one year in the state or six months in the city or town, there were 21,226 native and 3,845 foreign born; in other words, that 3.6 per cent of the native-born voters were disqualified because they were moving about; while only 1.9 per cent, or just about half the proportion, of the foreign-born were disqualified for that reason.

The analysis of petitions by the Americanization Study sheds a little further light on this subject, by segregating the figures in each court showing petitions which were filed by aliens who had filed their declaration in another state. Of the total of 26,284, there were 1,859 of these, or 7.1 per cent. Undoubtedly this moving about, in search of employment or for other reasons, is a considerable factor in the delay between arrival and declaration and between declaration and petition. Naturally, the figures would tend to be high on the Pacific coast, to which immigrants travel by rather long stages of time. The court in Portland, Oregon, showed 234 out of 714 petitioners--almost a third--who had filed their declaration in other states. This court shows also the longest average interval between declaration and petition. The courts in Seattle also show high figures in this regard. The same tends to be true of rapidly growing industrial centers, such as Cleveland, Bridgeport, Paterson, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

TABLE XXVII

PETITIONERS WHOSE DECLARATIONS WERE MADE IN A STATE OTHER THAN THE
ONE IN WHICH THE COURT IS LOCATED

===========================================================
| PETITIONERS WHO DECLARED
COURT | IN OTHER STATES
+-------------+-----------
| Number | Per Cent
---------------------------------+-------------+-----------
Norwich, Conn. | 52 | 43.7
Portland, Ore. | 234 | 32.8
Seattle, Wash. (state court) | 42 | 29.4
Bridgeport, Conn. | 96 | 23.4
New Brunswick, N. J. | 84 | 21.6
Cleveland, Ohio (U. S. court) | 158 | 13.4
Paterson, N. J. | 76 | 10.2
Seattle, Wash. (U. S. court) | 69 | 9.8
Middletown, Conn. | 7 | 9.5
Cincinnati, Ohio | 34 | 9.4
Cleveland, Ohio (state court) | 152 | 8.9
Easton, Pa. | 10 | 8.7
Ithaca, N. Y. | 2 | 8.7
Akron, Ohio | 16 | 8.0
Iowa City, Iowa | 1 | 7.7
Rochester, N. Y. | 57 | 7.0
Jamaica, L. I. | 39 | 6.5
Elmira, N. Y. | 1 | 5.3
Mineola, L. I. | 7 | 5.2
New York City (U. S. court) | 121 | 5.0
White Plains, N. Y. | 28 | 4.3
Worcester, Mass. | 27 | 4.3
New York City (state court) | 452 | 4.1
Bronx, N. Y. C. (state court) | 47 | 3.5
Brooklyn, N. Y. C. (U. S. court) | 47 | 3.0
---------------------------------+-------------+-----------
Total | 1,859 | 7.1
===========================================================

That upward of 13 out of 14--nearly 93 per cent--of alien petitioners for American citizenship, in a total of more than 26,000, should have been able to file their final petitions in the same states in which, on an average of more than five years before, they had declared their intention to do so, certainly attests a degree of “stability of residence” comparing favorably with that of other, native-born residents of the country. And it would seem also to justify the inference that those who become naturalized have generally become well assimilated into the life of the communities where they live.

INTELLECTUAL EQUIPMENT AND OCCUPATION

As for the intellectual equipment and the general usefulness of the aspirants for citizenship represented in the petitions studied, one may infer something from the occupational range shown in an analysis of the petitions for 1913-14 in seven cities,[119] representing a wide variety of locality. This analysis showed, for each of the 17 kinds of occupations listed, the ratio between the number of naturalization petitions filed by persons in those occupations in those cities in 1913-14, and the foreign-born white males in those occupations in those cities as shown by the census of 1910. Perhaps the most striking fact emerging from this analysis, illuminating to those who have supposed that the naturalization process swept into citizenship the dregs of immigration, is that the smallest percentage is shown in the class of common labor; the highest in the grade of executives, and the preponderance throughout attaching to trades requiring a degree of dexterity and general intelligence and information, if not technical training. It is unsafe, however, to infer too much from these percentages, because of the relatively small numbers represented in some of the classes, and the large proportions accredited to the garment trades and to “retail dealers,” among whom, doubtless, there were many mere peddlers. The distribution of occupations is here set forth in the order of the percentages:

TABLE XXVIII

LIST OF PRINCIPAL OCCUPATIONS REPRESENTED IN PETITIONS FOR
NATURALIZATION FILED IN SEVEN CITIES, 1913-14; SHOWING RATIO
BETWEEN NUMBER OF PETITIONS AND TOTAL OF FOREIGN-BORN WHITE MALES
IN THOSE OCCUPATIONS IN THOSE CITIES IN 1910

=========================================================
| NUMBER OF | RATIO TO
OCCUPATIONS | PETITIONERS | FOREIGN BORN
| IN THOSE | IN THOSE
| OCCUPATIONS | OCCUPATIONS
-----------------------------+-------------+-------------
Total | 9,930 | 3.0
| |
Managers and superintendents | 154 | 7.1
Chauffeurs | 176 | 5.9
Tailors | 2,120 | 5.3
Clergymen | 67 | 4.7
Bartenders | 248 | 3.6
Plumbers | 193 | 3.6
Barbers | 372 | 3.2
Bakers | 328 | 3.1
Retail dealers | 2,103 | 3.1
Painters and glaziers | 514 | 3.1
Carpenters | 779 | 3.0
Salesmen | 591 | 2.8
Manufacturing and officials | 511 | 2.7
Blacksmiths | 161 | 2.7
Motormen | 92 | 2.4
Brick and stone masons | 219 | 2.2
Laborers | 1,302 | 1.5
=========================================================

Analysis of the entire total of 26,284 petitions from which the data were obtained shows a general occupation distribution as follows:

TABLE XXIX

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF PETITIONERS IN EACH OCCUPATION

===============================================================
| PETITIONERS
OCCUPATIONS +--------+---------
| Number | Per Cent
--------------------------------------------+--------+---------
Total | 26,284 | 100.0
| |
Manufacturing and mechanical industries | 15,335 | 58.3
Trade | 4,427 | 16.8
Domestic and personal service | 2,382 | 9.1
Clerical | 1,388 | 5.3
Transportation | 1,010 | 3.8
Professional service | 1,026 | 3.9
Agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry | 454 | 1.8
Public service. | 170 | 0.6
Extraction of minerals | 40 | 0.2
No information | 52 | 0.2
===============================================================

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Certain inferences and conclusions seem to be warranted on the whole by the examination and analyses in this chapter and that preceding it, of the compilations of the United States Census, the Immigration Commission of 1907, the Naturalization, Bureau and the Americanization Study.

First, and most important, is the destruction of the legendary presumption of some change for the worse in recent years in the inherent character-quality of immigration to this country, and in the attitude of the typical immigrant of those years toward American citizenship. There has been no such change; indeed, if there is any substantial difference in “quality of assimilability” between the “older” races and the newer, _it is in favor of the latter_.

Second, it is evident that such difference as exists among races is not an inherent racial quality, but _a difference between the political, social, and economic conditions at the time of migration in the country of origin_. Those nations whose people are most free from tyranny and oppression and most contented with the conditions under which they live at home, send the fewest immigrants to America; their emigrants come at a later age, and when they do come they retain longest or altogether their original citizenship.

Third, and broadly corollary, is the fact that the major, not to say exclusively, controlling factor in the political absorption of the immigrant is _length of residence_. The longer the individual lives in America the more likely he is to seek active membership therein.

Fourth, the interval between arrival and petition for naturalization--or even the original declaration of intention--is much longer than has generally been supposed. The average immigrant, regardless of racial extraction, does not concern himself about political privileges or activities until after long years of residence and the attainment of a considerable degree of permanent social and economic status.

Fifth, knowledge of the English language at the time of arrival is not a material factor in determining the rapidity with which the individual seeks citizenship. On the contrary, those of other tongues who have been in the United States as long as those whose mother speech is English show even greater interest and a higher rate of naturalization. In the ordinary case, by the time the immigrant of any race has been in this country long enough to reach the normal stage of interest in naturalization he has acquired a good working knowledge of the language.

Sixth--and from the common-sense point of view it ought to occasion no surprise--is the evident influence upon the display of “civic and political interest” as shown in the desire for citizenship, of social and economic conditions in this country as they practically affect the individual. Whether from northwestern or from southeastern Europe, whether from the so-called “recent” or “older” immigration, the racial groups show a slower desire for citizenship and a lower rate of naturalization while they are employed in the more poorly paid industries; both the individual interest and the rate increase as the individuals toil upward in the social and economic scale.

* * * * *

The inherent thing in the racial quality, experience, and character of the immigrant that leads some to seek citizenship earlier than others, the essential element in the “quality of assimilability,” in the display of “civic and political interest,” is a human thing, which lies, and always has lain, broad upon the face of nearly all of the statistical tables over which students have labored so intricately and pontificated so solemnly--in some instances so absurdly. It is a thing so obvious that it is difficult to understand why so many of them have overlooked it.

IX

CITIZENSHIP VIA MILITARY SERVICE

We do not yet realize--perhaps we never shall fully realize--the profound effect upon the whole structure of our political life, and especially upon the quality of our citizenship, wrought by the World War. One effect, however, stands forth clearly: the war has destroyed the underpinning of the great structure of hand-picked citizenry which, during twelve years of arduous labor and scrupulous straining of technicalities, was built up by the Naturalization Bureau and the courts on the basis of the Naturalization Law of 1906, and turned into solemn farce most of the pontifical preachments by which that policy was justified. Almost overnight the whole long campaign for the establishment of an educational standard of admission, the system of technical exactitude of papers and microscopical scrutiny of the antecedents, length of residence, and even the personal opinions of applicants, and of the competency of their witnesses, and so on, was nullified. Aliens, helter-skelter, hit-or-miss, were swept into full citizenship to an aggregate well-nigh half as large as the whole number admitted previously during the entire period of the existence of the Naturalization Service.

When the United States entered the war, early in 1917, the instant necessity of raising a stupendous army swiftly out of our heterogeneous population injected an unprecedented factor into the question of naturalization. The body of native-born citizens, even together with the great mass of those among the foreign-born who were naturalized, was not sufficient. Aside from that, there were considerations of another character; such, for example, as were set forth by the Provost Marshal General of the Army:[120]

As soon as the estimates of population made by the Census Bureau
had been received, it began to be apparent that the rule of the
Selective Service Act, which based the apportionment of quotas
on total population, and yet drew the quotas from citizens and
declarants only, would operate quite differently upon communities
having largely differing percentages of aliens in their population.
In certain local-board jurisdictions, in which the element of
alien population exceeded 30 per cent of the total, the burden
placed upon the citizen population was very great.... If in two
communities of equal population the citizen population of one
were 100 per cent of the whole and in the other 50 per cent, the
remainder being composed of aliens, the two communities, though
equal in population, in resources, in industries, and in need of
labor, the efforts, and the enterprise of men of military age,
would fall under a very unequal tax upon their man power. The
all-citizen community would be required to furnish twice as many
men as the half-citizen, half-alien community.

POSITION OF THE ALIEN SOLDIER

The Provost Marshal General[121] reported 1,243,801 aliens registered under the first draft, and estimated that of these (21-30) nearly half a million (457,713) had been called for examination, and 16.72 per cent--nearly 17 out of every hundred--certified for service; a few in ignorance of their right to exemption, but virtually all of them voluntarily waiving that right.

The position of the aliens, even if they had declared their intention to become citizens, was unenviable. They still owed technical allegiance to European sovereignty--many of them to the nations with which we were formally or practically at war. Many of them were of the cobelligerent nations known as “the Allies,” but were here in evasion of military-service laws or other embarrassing legal obligations at home, making personally undesirable their return to the old country; and as for those of German, Austrian, Bulgarian, or Turkish nationality, there was for them short shrift--upon capture while fighting against armies of the Central Powers--only the dismal certainty of summary execution as traitors. Their only possible shadow of protection would lie in completed American citizenship.

Furthermore, there was the fact that only American citizens are eligible for commissions as officers in the military service of the United States; but in the new army, and the augmented navy and marine corps--to say nothing of the merchant marine--a very large number of officers would be needed. This last consideration seems to have been the one which chiefly impressed the Commissioner of Naturalization; for, in his explanation of the necessity for the legislation of May 9, 1918, which let down the bars to citizenship for the benefit of aliens and declarants taken into the military service of the nation, he twice refers to it:[122]

No man engaged in the actual military and naval operations of
our country can attain to the rank of commissioned officer
unless he be an American, either by birth in the United States
or by naturalization therein, irrespective of his training or
qualifications. As this restriction, made for peace times, was no
less a detriment to the country in limiting its range of selection
for commissions to citizens than to those who demonstrated
their efficiency, legislative action was taken to remove this
restriction....

... The foreign-born residents of the United States, nondeclarants
and declarants, had not claimed exemption from military service
because of their alienage; but, unless he could claim full American
citizenship, none of them, however valiantly he might fight, could
receive a commission as an officer, which is the laudable ambition
of every soldier.

REVOLUTIONARY LEGISLATIVE ACTION

The revolutionary character of the legislative action with which Congress undertook to meet the situation in its various aspects is apparent in the description of it given by the Commissioner of Naturalization in this same report:[123]

Another authority which Congress conferred upon the Bureau in aid
of the national undertaking in Europe was a new code of procedure
by which recognition should be given to certain foreign residents
of the country ... that eliminated the delays so necessary in the
general provisions of the naturalization law. The requirement for
posting petitions for naturalization for at least 90 days before
the court could acquire jurisdiction of them for the purposes of
admitting the applicant to citizenship was so changed as to admit
of the hearing of the petition for naturalization, filed by members
of certain enumerated exempted classes, without any delay, the time
for hearing being dependent only upon the convenience of the court.

The Act of May 9, 1918, authorized petitions for naturalization
and immediate hearing for any alien who serves in the military or
naval branches of the Government, upon any United States vessel,
any vessel of the American merchant marine, or anyone honorably
discharged from the National Guard of any State, Territory, or the
District of Columbia, within six months after honorable discharge
therefrom. It repealed the provisions of the law that previously
extended the right of an alien to petition for naturalization
after an honorable discharge from the military or naval branches
of the Government at any time after such honorable discharge, and,
with few exceptions, reduced the period of time to six months
after such service and honorable discharge. The provisions of the
law heretofore existing were saved to those holding honorable
discharges from the military service where the service was
performed prior to January 1, 1900. This provision was included in
the law for the distinct purpose of preserving to the veterans of
the Civil and Spanish-American Wars the rights which previously had
been given to them. The number of aliens now holding discharges
from military service prior to the date stated who have not applied
for and received American citizenship is small and constantly being
reduced.

To accomplish the provisions of this code of procedure it
was necessary to create a corps of examiners to aid in the
administration of a new statute under conditions wholly strange and
different from those ordinarily prevailing. The law requires, very
properly, that each candidate for naturalization whose immediate
hearing is contemplated shall appear before a representative of
this Bureau before filing his petition for naturalization. This
particular provision has made it possible for the machinery of the
law to operate with the minimum of friction. Indeed, there has been
no friction at any point in this new code.

The War Department presented the largest number of candidates for
naturalization under the new law. Their location and distribution
were general throughout the United States, extending from points
in Maine, throughout the country, to the Pacific coast, in the
various cantonments, army camps, posts, and military stations.
So insistent was the demand for immediate action to naturalize
the soldiers of foreign birth in our ranks, in order to enable
units to move solidly and prevent dismemberment, that the Bureau
detailed immediately such of its experienced officers as it could
spare to take charge of instructing the newly appointed examiners,
even though their removal from their regular stations resulted
in embarrassments to courts, court officials, and thousands of
candidates under the general provisions of the law. From various
sources throughout the United States men qualified in law and
typewriting were nominated by citizens interested in accomplishing
this great need for our military forces. In less than two weeks the
process of naturalization had begun in many of the cantonments, and
by the end of June, 63,993 soldiers had become entitled to all of
the rewards of the American soldier by having citizenship conferred
upon them.

The necessity of this legislation was clearly shown by the report
of the Provost Marshal General, from which it appears that there
were 123,277 soldiers not naturalized. This total comprised 76,545
foreigners who had not declared their intention, and 46,732
declarants.

CITIZENS AT HEART BUT “ENEMY ALIENS”

A very important by-product of this legislation went to the benefit of persons of foreign birth, long resident--many of them practically life-long residents--in the United States, but still aliens, and many of them enemy aliens, in those states which at that time permitted voting upon the declaration of intention without the completion of naturalization. In many thousands of such cases, these persons, technically aliens, not only had sons and grandsons in the military service of the nation as volunteers or willingly drafted soldiers, but were themselves of the highest degree of loyalty, enlisted to their last ounce of energy and resources in the country’s cause, and in good faith believing themselves to be citizens in full standing for every American purpose.[124]

An important provision of the Act of May 9, 1918, had for its
purpose the relief of those subjects of the Central Powers who are
able to establish their loyalty to the United States. Ever since
the States of Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,
Arkansas, and Texas have been admitted to statehood, aliens have
been allowed to vote under the constitutions of these States upon
the making of their declarations of intention to become citizens
of the United States. In several other States this condition
prevailed, but in recent years there have been such changes in the
constitutions of all of the States, except the seven named, that
the franchise is limited to American citizens. With the operation
of the provisions of the law requiring alien enemies to register
there were disclosures of hundreds of thousands of loyal residents
of the United States who believed themselves to be citizens, but
were found never to have completed their naturalization. Cases
have been reported of unnaturalized foreign-born residents of the
United States who have lived here over 70 years; persons who were
brought here as infants by their parents and who settled in those
States where foreigners have always enjoyed the right of franchise.
Instances were shown of those who had fought in the Civil War;
where they had held offices of trust and responsibility, both of
an elective and appointive nature, such as members of the State
legislatures, mayors, judges, postmasters, and in other capacities.
The registration required of persons born in the Central Powers,
who had not completed their American citizenship, disclosed the
most shocking state of affairs. Men and women who have their
children and grandchildren in the military forces of the United
States were disclosed as being not only as aliens but enemy aliens;
with no means for removing the stigma.

The relief provided by Congress permitted such alien enemies to be naturalized under certain restrictions which need not now be detailed, except to mention that the Bureau of Naturalization was empowered to interpose objection in any case at its discretion, and obtain continuance at its pleasure.

As was pointed out by Representative Howland of Ohio, in 1910, in hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, there has always been a public sentiment in favor of allowing honorably discharged soldiers to vote, regardless of naturalization. Both such soldiers and their children have in good faith believed themselves to be citizens. It appeared in those hearings, by the way, that no requirement of citizenship for enlistment in the army, navy, or marine corps had existed in the United States until 1894, when an Act was passed,[125] providing that at least a declaration of intention should be required for a first enlistment. This was suspended during the Spanish-American War, but reinstated in force after the close of that war.[126]

Representative Meeker of Missouri presented to the House of Representatives in the summer of 1918 the results of a personal inquiry regarding the attitude of the nations of the world regarding the relations between citizenship and military service.[127] Space is not here available for even an outline of what this inquiry discloses; suffice it to say--though it is obvious enough--that never in the history of any modern nation save this has there been a wholesale sweeping into citizenship, by reason of military service alone, of a very large number of aliens upon an exhibit of qualifications consisting in the last analysis of ability to pass the physical tests of admission to the military service of the nation.