Milford High School - Oak Lily and Ivy Yearbook (Milford, MA)

Page 24 text:

20 THE OAK, LILY AND IVY. why Japan should be grateful and should expect at least the same privileges as other nations is that it was an American, Commodore Perry, who by his visit to Japan in 1853 opened that country’s eyes to the vast possibilities of the future which would see her as one of the world powers, which position it holds to-day. From that day we have always befriended Japan. Our present immigration law, however, does not add to that friendliness; rather it does the reverse and no nation can afford to be unfriendly toward another nation. It hinders satisfactory solution of any international problems that may arise and builds up a wall of antagonism between us which prevents understandings in mutual interests. Then there is racial feeling. By such a law we might seem to look down on the yellow race. Such, however, is not the case. The United States gov¬ ernment is incapable of any such an unchristian act. Yet we ourselves should not be pleased to know that we were not wanted in Japan, or any country. Mr. Matsudaira, the new Japanese Ambassador to the United States, a very able statesman, says: “Japan’s objection to statutory exclusion has been a matter of principle. She has looked upon it from the standpoint of international amity and neighborliness and not merely from the standpoint of material loss or in¬ inconvenience. I understand that much hardship and inconvenience were ex¬ perienced by my countrymen immediately after the new law went into effect. I hope and trust that this hardship will be gradually mitigated by the judicious interpretation of the law and the considerate attitude of the authorities. I realize the difficulty of covering by a si ngle law all the complicated and intricate cases arising out of the movement of peoples from one country to another. Much, I presume, depends upon the discretion of the authorities concerned.” It is certain that immigration laws are necessary both for our own safety, in protecting the future of the nation and for the convenience of the immigrant himself. But in my opinion we do not need entirely to exclude the Japanese. They as one of the nations of the world should enjoy the privileges of the rest of the countries. The immigration problem, however, is relatively a new one in this country. Only the future can tell what conditions will arise from it and what new meas¬ ures will be enacted regarding it. Japan is comparatively a new country, but one that is rapidly advancing and one that may be considered as a world power. It needs the help of other nations to bring it up to their standards. Because of our friendliness toward that country it would therefore look to us for aid and we as a sister nation should respond, but now since the immigration law has passed, this is impeded both by uncertainty and some indignation on their side. That there is feeling can be shown by the letter received by the late Secretary of State Hughes from Mr. Hara Hara pre¬ vious to the passage of the law. It may not be as great now, but the feeling exists and will continue to exist. And it is a feeling that could bring about war. We do not want war with Japan, nor does Japan want war with us or any nation. Nevertheless all will agree that our present relations with Japan are somewhat strained, or, if not strained, they do not measure up to the standard of our friendliness with other nations. Some of this condition can be attributed to our immigration law. No country, I can safely say, relishes the idea of another war and it is the duty of every country to do its utmost to crush such an idea if any exists. The horrors of the late World War have satisfied all such inclina¬ tions in that direction. Furthermore no nation is in a condition for war for each one is undergoing its own period of reconstruction. War itself is the great¬ est menace to civilization, for it is during war times that the progress a nation might gain during peace is completely annihilated.

Page 23 text:

THE OAK, LILY AND IVY. 19 late, for because of the great numbers already here the new-comers naturally flock to them and small colonies are the result. This difficulty, however, is not so great, for we have to-day greater means to help and aid the foreigner and to instil in him our ideals and ways of living. A greater factor in the increase of immigration was the World War. We, the most fortunate of the belligerents, offered to the homeless and destitute families of Europe new homes where with renewed hope they might prosper. It is not strange that they should flock to our shores, for we as an independent nation could give to them the best promise of living conditions and advancement. Here one man could find the same chances as another, providing, of course, he had the same ability and integrity to raise himself. Although many have not found fortunes awaiting them here, according to the foreigners’ conception of America, they have for the most part found contentment and happiness. In so great an influx there is always danger of taking in undesirables who would harm rather than better the country. Accordingly restrictions were made. By the Acts of 1882 and 1893 criminals, paupers , persons diseased in mind or body, and persons unable to support themselves were forbidden entrance to the country. The immigration laws have become more severe until now it provides that two per cent of those from any country who were here in 1890 are to be ad¬ mitted, although Japanese and Chinese, and even Japanese even from Hawaii are excluded. According to the Loose Leaf Current Topics there are three peace-time causes of war, namely: economic, which have to do with our livings and our profit mak¬ ing; second, psychological, which have to do with our feelings and thinkings and third, political, which have to do with our governing. If we were to have war with Japan over our present immigration law, it would come under the first two causes, economic and psychological. President Coolidge says, “One of the greatest dangers to peace lies in economic pressure.” Japan must send its excessive population somewhere. Only one other important, country besides our own is in a condition to receive immigrants. This is the continent of Australia which is in the first stages of development and would naturally attract immigrants. Yet it has closed its doors to them. Besides this Japan has a high birth rate, so that its already large population is not decreasing but increasing. These people must go somewhere and what is not strange, they look toward us for relief from their difficulties, because we are nearer than other countries and besides offering bet¬ ter living conditions, we have always been a friend to the Japanese Empire. The frequent earthquake disasters have not bettered the economic life of Japan. Other countries under such difficulties can be relieved by immigration to other nations. Japan is deprived of this privilege. Their prosperity is hampered. These con¬ ditions in a country do not for long maintain peace. Then there is the psychological cause of war. Our present immigration law certainly does not strengthen our friendship with Japan. The aim of every country, no matter how great or how small, should be to further the civilization of the world. We need to aid and help the Asiatic nations, and if we look on them as not having the high degree of civilization that we have reached, it is our duty to help them gain that degree of enlightenment and advancement. It was we who gave to the world its first successful democracy, which has not only en¬ dured and prospered but has been mirrored in so many of the republics of to-day. ■ Therefore it is only natural that these countries should look toward us and that Japan as a growing nation should do the same. But when such a law is passed we inevitably lose some of their good will and dependence on us. Another reason

Page 25 text:

THE OAK, LILY AND IVY. 21 Such an immigration law as the present one rather lessens our hope for peace, for it gives to the Japanese people a cause for unfriendly feeling, and not only prevents satisfactory relations between two countries but indirectly affects the whole world. As Mr. Matsudaira says, it is very difficult to cover the movement of peoples from one country to another by one law. The problem of immigration is rela¬ tively a new one. It is the first time in our history that it has taken on the serious aspect it now bears. Never before has it seemed to loom so large before the minds of not only the statesmen of the country but the people themselves, and to be a possible cause for war. The future alone can tell how these problems will be met. But as the law now stands, it decreases our efforts for world peace. The direction of the uni¬ verse now is assuredly toward peace. This can be seen very clearly by its cries for disarmament, the League of Nations, and the World Court. War is not an easy thing to abolish. One country alone can not do it and make a certainty of everlasting peace, but one country can do much toward disturbing the hopes of others in that direction. This is what our immigration law may be doing. The immigration law may not be a direct cause for war but it can surely be an indirect cause, for it causes feeling that leads to greater difficulties that are serious enough to cause war. Dorothy King, 1925. WILL EXCLUSION LEAD TO WAR? By the introduction of the Negro into the American Colonies there were sown the seeds of a controversy which shook the institutions of our republic to their very foundations, and ended only in four years of civil war. With this catastrophe in mind, a fear arose that history would repeat itself, if we continued to allow Asiatic races to colonize on American soil and become a menance to our own people and to American institutions. As far back as 1882, the attention of our government was called to this new peril when friction developed in California, where the Chinese in large num¬ bers were rapidly displacing the white people in industrial occupations. Believing that self-preservation of nations as well as individuals is the first law of nature, Congress took drastic measures to protect our people against the incursion of Asiatic hordes by passing the Exclusion Act of 1882 which settled forever the question of Chinese immigration. Later the Barred Zone Act was passed, shutting out the Hindus and all other Asiatic races with the exception of the Japanese, which she still continued to admit, subject to certain conditions. Thus we see that the Exclusion Act of 1924 barring the Japanese is not a new policy of our government, that it is not based on animosity toward Japan, but upon the fundamental principle of preserving our American institutions and standard of living, by barring from our shores those races which by character and customs are ineligible to citizenship and incapable of Americanization. In 1907 during Roosevelt’s administration, conditions of social and indus¬ trial unrest became so acute on the Pacific Coast that our government awoke to the fact that a Japanese immigration had already taken place which threatened to submerge our people and our civilization. With over 30,000 Japanese immi¬ grants coming into the United States in that year, the question had become an international problem and President Roosevelt after a careful examination of