| Excess of births over deaths per 1000 Inhabitants. | Emigrants per 1000 Inhabitants. | |
| Great Britain and Ireland | 11.4 | 6.06 |
| England and Wales | 12.0 | 4.96 |
| Scotland | 12.2 | 8.45 |
| Ireland | 6.3 | 11.42 |
| Germany | 13.2 | .45 |
| Switzerland | 9.5 | 1.45 |
| Sweden (1903) | 10.6 | 6.89 |
| Norway | 12.6 | 9.11 |
| Denmark | 13.5 | 3.12 |
| Italy | 10.6 | 14.33 |
| Austria-Hungary | 12.2 | 6.29 |
It will be observed that, with the exception of Ireland and Italy, wherever there is a heavy emigration there is usually a considerable excess of births over deaths, i.e. natural increase more than makes up for the loss by emigration. Even taking Great-Britain and Ireland together, the loss by emigration per annum has not been very large, as is shown by the following table:—
| Annual Emigration per 1000 of the Average Population of Great Britain and Ireland. | |||
| 1853–1855 . . . | 8.4 | 1881–1890 . . . | 7.1 |
| 1856–1860 . . . | 4.3 | 1891–1895 . . . | 5.1 |
| 1861–1870 . . . | 5.2 | 1896–1900 . . . | 3.7 |
| 1871–1880 . . . | 5.1 | 1901–1905 . . . | 5.5 |
Even in particular districts where emigration is heavy the loss is made up by births. For instance, in 1891 the emigration from the provinces of West Prussia and Posen was extraordinarily heavy—10.9 and 10.4 per mille respectively—but the excess of births over deaths was 19.6 per mille. Emigration may give temporary relief to congested districts, but it is not in itself a remedy for so-called over-population.
It is difficult to analyse closely the economic effect of emigration, because so much depends upon the character of the emigrants and the condition of the labour market. The following considerations have been urged at different times: Although emigration does not diminish population, yet, as the emigrants are in the most productive period of life (15 to 45), the country of emigration loses adults and replaces them with children. It thereby loses the cost of rearing that number of people to adult age, and is left with a disproportionate number of children and old people. The age distribution of the population of Ireland lends some support to this view. In the same vein it is urged that voluntary emigration takes away the cream of the working-classes. It is the man of energy, of some means, of ambition, who takes the chances of success in the new country, leaving the poor, the indolent, the weak and crippled at home. It is maintained that such emigration institutes a process of selection which is unfavourable to the home country.
On the other side, it is said that the men who are doing well at home are the ones least likely to emigrate, because they have least to gain. Modern means of transportation have made the voyage so cheap that almost any one is able to go. It is therefore the restless, the unsuccessful, or at least those not fitted for the strenuous competition of the older countries, who are tempted to go. Emigration affords a natural outlet for the superfluous labour force of a country. The supply of labour is somewhat reduced, but wages are kept up for those who remain. Those who go find means of bettering their own condition beyond the seas, where they become producers of food and raw material for the home country, and at the same time customers for her manufactured products. Emigration is therefore an economic gain, both directly and indirectly. It is evident from these arguments that no general answer can be given to the question. In some cases it may be an evil; in most, when conducted under normal conditions, it would seem to offer little danger.
The same remark would hold true in regard to the social and political effects of emigration. In some cases, by taking away the strong, self-reliant and energetic, it may result In the deterioration of the home population. In other cases it allows restless spirits who have failed at home to try again elsewhere. Often in cases of political revolution the members of the defeated party have sought refuge elsewhere, as after the revolutionary movements of 1848. In case of conquest the conquered nationality takes to emigration on an extensive scale, as after the absorption of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany in 1871. The movement may be aided either by the state or by private associations. Of such character have been the state-aided emigration from Ireland, and the assisted emigration of paupers, criminals and other persons in the effort to relieve a congested population, or simply from the desire to get rid of undesirable members of the community. Such efforts fail if the new countries are unwilling to admit these persons. Finally, we have the expulsion of the Jews from Russia as an example of the effort of a community to get rid of an element which has made itself obnoxious to the local sentiment.
Effects of Immigration.—The effects of emigration are negative in character; those of immigration are positive. (a) On population: immigration, of course, is a direct addition to the population of new countries, and greatly accelerates the growth by natural increase, especially as the immigrants are in the most productive ages of manhood and womanhood In the United States, for instance, out of a population of 76,303,387 (in 1800), there were 26,147,407 ersons who were either foreign-born or who had one or both parents foreign born. This does not mean that the population would have been twenty-six millions less if it had not been for immigration; for the rate of natural increase among the native-born might have maintained itself. Nevertheless, immigration has probably stimulated the growth of population. (b) Economic effects: The economic gain of immigration to new countries is evident. It adds directly to their available labour force, that is, to the number of adults engaged in the work of producing wealth.
According to the United States census of 1900, out of 29,073,233 (1900) persons engaged in gainful occupations, 5,851,399 or 20.1%, were of foreign birth. If we add to these the native whites of foreign parentage (5,300,924) we have 11,152,323 persons of foreign extraction or 39.4% of the total labour force. The foreign whites alone constituted 10.4% of the total number of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits; 11.4% of those in professional services; 25.7% in domestic and personal services; 19.2% in trade and transportation; and 30.6% of those engaged in manufacturing and mechanical industries. In addition to these, the native whites of foreign parentage constituted, in agriculture, &c., 10.6%; in professional service, 20.6%; in domestic and personal service, 16.4%; in trade and transportation, 25.7% in manufacturing and mechanical, 25.4% of all those engaged in those occupations. The labour force of the United States is thus made up very largely of immigrants and the children of immigrants.
Attempts have sometimes been made to put a money value on the economic gain by immigration. The amount of money brought by the immigrants is not large, and is probably more than offset by the money sent back by immigrants for the sup ort of families and friends at home or to aid them in following. Tffe valuable element is the able-bodied immigrant himself as a factor of production. It is said, for instance, that an adult slave used to be valued at from $800 to $1000, so that every adult immigrant may be looked upon as worth that sum to the country. Or, it has been said that an adult immigrant represents what it would cost to bring up a child from infancy to the age, say, of 15. This has been estimated by Ernst Engel as amounting to $550 for a German child. The most scientific procedure, however, is to calculate the probable earnings of the Immigrant during the rest of his lifetime, and deduct therefrom his expenses of living. The remainder represents his net earnings which he will contribute to the well-being of the new country. W. Farr reckoned this to be, in the case of unskilled English emigrants, about £175. Multiplying the total number of adult immigrants by any one of these figures, we get the annual value of immigration. Such attempts to put a precise money value on immigration are futile. They neglect the question of quality and of opportunity. The immigrant is worth what it has cost to bring him up only if he is able-bodied, honest and willing to work. If he is diseased, crippled, dishonest or indolent, he may be a direct loss to the community instead of a gain. So, too, the immigrant is worth his future net ieagnings to the community only if there is a demand for his labour.
Social and Political Ejects of Immigration.—The influx of millions of persons of different nationality, often of a foreign language and generally of the lower classes, would seem to be a danger to the homogeneity of a community. The United States, for instance, has felt some inconvenience from the constant addition of foreigners to its electorate and its population. The foreign-born are more numerously represented among the criminal, defective and dependent classes than their numerical strength would justify. They also tend to segregate more or less, especially in large cities. Nevertheless, the process of assimilation goes on with great rapidity. Intermarriage with the native-born occurs to a considerable extent. The influence of the physical environment leads to the adoption of the same mode of life. The most powerful influences, however, seem to be social. These are common school education and the adoption of one language (English); participation in political life, which is granted to all adult males after five years’ residence; and the general influence of social standards embodied in laws, institutions and customs already established. Doubtless immigration in the last fifty years of the 19th century had a modifying effect on American life; but on the whole the power of a modern civilized community working through individual freedom to assimilate elements not differing from it too radically has been displayed to a remarkable degree.
Restriction of Immigration.—New countries have sought to escape certain evils of indiscriminate immigration. These evils were as follows: (a) The immigration of criminals, paupers, persons diseased in mind or body, and persons unable to support themselves. By the Acts of 1882 and 1893 such persons were refused admission to the United States, and, when rejected, the steamship companies that brought them were compelled to take them back. The number debarred from 1896 to 1905 is shown in the following table:—
