In a brief article written in 1905, Broughton
Brandenburg reported his investigative findings on immigration at the beginning
of the 20th century. His reason
for writing was that, amidst legitimate immigration to the United States, there
were many issues of concern that needed to be identified and not ignored. A person concerned with ethics and immigration needs to understand the issues. We might find the following twelve points from over one hundred years ago still helpful in a discussion of the ‘root
causes’ and moral issues of immigration, not only in the USA but elsewhere as well.
First, Brandenburg notes that ethnic immigrant groups
among the Jews, Italians, Slavs, French, Hungarians, and so forth, viewed other
groups as undesirable. Consequently,
they excused undesirable and illegal immigrants from their own ethnic group and
opposed the same from other ethnic groups.
Second, undesirable immigrants—thieves, murderers, etc.—tended to strike
first among their own ethnic groups. For
example, the Mafiusi (Mafia) illegally entering the US first preyed on other
Italians. The situation could be ‘clarified’
if others from the same group would inform on their illegal compatriots. Third, the main action society needed was to
bring a halt to the underground movement of immigrants. Fourth, immigrants required a great,
charitable response from others.
Brandenburg, writing in 1905 (and before the great governmental social
programmes initiated three decades later), stated that there were 80 million
persons in the US and 12 million were immigrants. Of those receiving charitable assistance in
the country, 74% were immigrants.
Ninety-five percent of the beggars in Philadelphia were aliens.
Fifth, the situation could explode if certain economic
(a rate war), political (the election of Roosevelt), and international (troubles
in Russia) factors changed to allow those waiting to immigrate to do so. This comment points to the problem of an open
immigration policy held in check only by other factors than government
immigration rules. Brandenburg noted
that he had been ridiculed for predicting immigration at the level of 1 million
persons for 1905, but he ended up being correct.
Sixth, America’s industrial prosperity was one of the
major factors encouraging immigration.
The more prosperous America, the more immigrants should be
expected. Seventh, Brandenburg raises
the question of discriminating among immigrant applicants. ‘Good’ immigrants were those who were willing
and able to earn their own living and who were willing to obey the laws of the
land. ‘Bad’ immigrants were those who
were ‘criminals, diseased, physically and mentally deficient, immoral and politically
undesirable classes.’ Later in the essay, Brandenburg proposes the
shocking suggestion that people with a poor physique should not be permitted to
immigrate. This is not, though, a
question of eugenics for him but a concern that immigrants should be able to
work. Notably, he does not discuss
immigrants who would earn their living by other means than physical labour.
Eighth, capacity to absorb immigrants needs to be a
consideration. Brandenburg notes that
America in his day had a great capacity to receive immigrants: ‘two-thirds of
our national material resources remain undeveloped….’ Ninth, similar to the first point mentioned
above about ethnic solidarity, Brandenburg mentions the problem of familial
solidarity, where a recent immigrant sends a ticket to his ‘thieving cousin.’ He also mentions the increasing numbers of ‘crippled,
club-footed, cross-eyed, anemic, scrofulous, decrepit, hollow-chested, and
variously diseased recruits to the colony.’ His concern is not with the physically
dependent per se but with the
possibility that they would become charitable cases. At the time, immigration officials did screen
immigrants to be sure that such persons had relatives who promised to assist
them, but the problem still existed that, once these people obtained legal
residence, their sponsors left them to the care of charitable services of
almshouses, asylums, and hospitals.
Tenth, Brandenburg points out a major concern
regarding agents involved in assisting persons to emigrate from their home
countries. Their interest is to assist
the immigrants, and so they help to conceal conditions that would disqualify them
for immigration. Brandenburg provides
several anecdotes. One story of
significance was that Hungary contracted with the Cunard Line transporting
immigrants to take a minimum of 30,000 of their citizens a year, and the result
was that many ‘insane and idiotic Hungarians and Australians’ were found
wandering about towns in Pennsylvania.
Another anecdote he offered was of an operation in Italy that collected
persons from disease-ridden centers in southern Europe and did not inspect
their baggage or fumigate them. It was
disclosed on May 12, 1905, that some 42 lodging-houses operated this
way. They the ‘epileptic, periodically
insane, crippled, trachomatous, and criminal persons’ to send to the USA. The European agents involved found the
immigration trade lucrative, charging more for more difficult cases but
guaranteeing successful immigration. The
agents would doctor up, coach, prepare, and fit the immigrants with papers.
Eleventh, Brandenburg points out the challenge to
border control agents along the southern border of the USA. He found a major breach of the border across
the Rio Grande and concluded that, to stem the tide, some 500 mounted
inspectors would be required. The land
border to a country raises unique issues to immigration, as Europe, the United
States, and certain countries in Africa regularly understand. A frequent approach in history to help with
orderly immigration in such cases, or simply to keep people out, has been to
build a wall. The Roman Empire, for
example, built a wall to keep the Germanic tribes out and another wall in
northern England to keep out the Picts and other tribes of present-day
Scotland.
Twelfth, Brandenburg recommends raising the head tax
on immigrants. This, along with other
measures, would help to keep some of the undesirable people out. This matter is related to what other
countries were doing, and Brandenburg argues that America should not be chosen
by immigrants because it is the cheaper option but because the immigrants want
the best.
This full summary of Brandenburg’s article about
immigration to America in 1905 highlights many of the issues of immigration
today. His discussion of qualities of
immigrants needs far more nuancing and perhaps correction for moral
reasons. Missing from his description
are today’s issues of smuggling, crime syndicates, illegal drugs, sex
trafficking, slavery, and the possibility of terrorist infiltration into the
country. Another area needing further
consideration, though he touches on it, is the importance of family ties for
many immigrants. The challenges of
immigration can be helped where there is a tightly bound family unit that can
help one another. Young persons, on the
other hand, might fare well if they arrive with a job offer, but allowing
minors to immigrate is a shocking development in our day.
Statistics and generalisations are never adequate grounds
for discussing particular cases. So, I
will conclude on a personal note. Three
of my grandparents arrived from Eastern Europe within two to seven years of
Brandenburg's article. They came in stages as they could not afford to
leave at the same time. They were exploited in Europe and in America by
those involved in immigration. One family left via a Jewish underground
immigration network out of Russian controlled territory in Ukraine—the sort
berated by Brandenburg. Another left with nothing but a briefcase to
avoid suspicion in Austria-Hungary. In all cases, had they not left, they
would have been killed or sent to prison camps within a few decades as the
First and then the Second World Wars ravaged the areas of Europe from which
they came. They arrived penniless—they were Brandenburg’s ‘undesirables’
to some measure—but they worked tirelessly for a generation or more. Two
of the families faced terrible disasters within a few years of their arrival,
including the loss of two of the breadwinner’s ability to work. Two families faced hunger. Some stayed within their immigrant
communities, others integrated quickly and well--depending in part on where
they lived. They had to negotiate fundamental challenges to life as they
knew it, including their faith (a deepening of it, in our case), their
ethnicity (they were Germans, and America went to war against Germany twice),
language, Americanised children and grandchildren, and so forth. Within
two generations, two of these immigrant families were living and working in
ministry in Africa and South America, and a sizeable number were in ministry in
America, giving back to others and bringing hope in Christ to many. The
story of immigration is complicated, to be sure, and simplistic views on immigration
are just that, simplistic. It is not simply an issue of open or closed
borders. The study of Brandenburg helps to outline a number of the root
causes of immigration and to identify several moral and practical issues
involved, but it needs to be tempered with a theology of hope. Indeed, there is a divide between ‘good
public policy’ regarding immigration, the realities of individuals, and the
hope of Christian ministry.
