550 
(t) An objection to the proposed plan 
is raised by some. It is urged that tens 
of thousands would suffer the hardship 
of deportation because of arrival after 
the maximum limit has been reached. 
Such a situation, however, could easily 
be avoided by a little care in the matter 
of administration. Provision could be 
made, for instance, that each of the 
transportation lines bringing immigrants 
from any particular land should agree 
with the immigration office upon the 
maximum number of immigrants that 
it may bring to America during the year, 
the sum total of these agreements being 
equal to the maximum permissible immi- 
gration from that particular land. There 
would then be no danger of deportation 
because of excessive immigration. The 
steamship lines, moreover, would see to 
it that their immigration accommoda- 
tion would be continuously occupied 
throughout the year, avoiding thus a 
rush during the first two or three months 
of the year. 
(7) A second objection is raised by 
some, namely, the difficulty of selecting 
the favored few in those countries where 
the restriction would be severe. This 
difficulty, however, would be completely 
obviated by the steamship companies 
themselves. Immigrants would secure 
passage in the order of their purchase of 
tickets; first come, first served. 
(k) In order to alleviate hardship as 
far as possible, might not immigration 
inspection offices be established in the 
principal ports of departure, and pro- 
vision be made that all immigration from 
specified regions should receive inspec- 
tion at those offices alone, such inspec- 
tion to be final? 
Would not the above proposals for a 
comprehensive and constructive immi- 
gration policy coordinate, systematize 
and rationalize our entire procedure in 
dealing with immigration, and solve in a 
fundamental way its most perplexing 
difficulties? Such a policy would pro- 
tect American labor from danger of 
sudden and excessive immigration from 
any land. It would promote the whole- 
some and rapid assimilation of all new- 
comers. It would regulate the rate of 
The Journal of Heredity 
the coming of immigrants from any 
land by the proved capacity for Ameri- 
canization of those from that land 
already here. It would keep the new- 
comers of each people always a mi- 
nority of its Americanized citizens. It 
would be free from every trace of 
differential race treatment. Our rela- 
tions with Japan and China would thus 
be right. 
Such a policy, therefore, giving to 
every people the ‘‘most favored nation 
treatment,’’ would maintain and deepen 
our international friendship on every 
side. 
Criticism of this plan is invited. If 
the reader finds himself in harmony 
with this proposal a letter of endorse- 
ment would be appreciated. 
APPENDIX 
The statistical tables of this appendix 
give the actual immigration of the five 
years ending June 30, 1915, so classified 
as to show what the effect upon that 
immigration would have been if the 
proposed 5 per cent standard for its 
limitation had been in force. The 
basal figures here given have been 
especially prepared for the writer by 
the statistician of the United States 
Bureau of Immigration. 
In classifying aliens the Immigration 
Bureau distinguishes between immi- 
grants (who come for permanent resi- 
dence here) and non-immigrants (who 
come for a transient stay). The 5 per 
cent restriction proposal as worked out 
in these statistics does not limit the 
entering of non-immigrants, of children 
or of women. It affects only males 14 
years of age and over. 
Column 6 gives the standards for the 
maximum permissible annual immigra- 
tion‘of males from the various races and 
peoples according to the 5 per cent re- 
striction policy advocated in _ this 
article. This column is derived from 
the census of 1910; the figure for each peo- 
ple is 5 per cent of the American born 
children of foreign parents of that peo- 
ple plus the number of those from that 
same people who have become natural- 
ized citizens. This last item (the nat- 
