Americans by Choice

Table XVI

Comparison by Races of (1) a Naturalization Petitioners Studied, (2) Unnaturalized Males Twenty-one Years or Over in Nine Cities{1} Where Petitions Were Filed, and in The Country as a Whole, in 1910{2}

———
———
Country of Birth	Petitioners Studied 1913–14		Unnaturalized{3} Foreign-born White Males Twenty-one Years of Age and Over in Nine Cities, in 1910		Unnaturalized Foreign-born White Males Twenty-one Years of Age and Over In the United States in 1910
———
	Number	Per Cent	Number	Per Cent	Number	Per Cent
———
All countries	26,284	100.0	437,517	100.0	2,837,307	100.0
Russia	7,864	29.9	107,393	24.5	481,532	17.0
Austria	3,875	14.7	59,252	13.5	407,977	14.4
Italy	3,591	13.7	98,595	22.5	523,964	18.5
Hungary	2,443	9.3	31,194	7.1	200,274	7.1
Germany	2,305	8.8	35,425	8.1	219,133	7.7
Ireland	1,773	6.7	16,453	3.8	116,613	4.1
England	831	3.2	14,807	3.4	112,317	4.0
Sweden	616	2.3	8,675	2.0	92,289	3.3
Rumania	569	2.2	5,778	1.3	17,498	0.6
Norway	389	1.5	4,084	0.9	66,802	2.4
Canada	385	1.5	9,229	2.1	176,868	6.2
Scotland	288	1.1	5,299	1.2	38,940	1.4
Denmark	200	0.8	1,881	0.4	27,045	1.0
Switzerland	197	0.8	4,039	0.9	16,942	1.6
Finland	144	0.6	2,395	0.5	43,737	1.5
Turkey in Asia	142	0.5	1,883	0.4	22,776	0.8
Holland	139	0.5	930	0.2	18,116	0.6
Turkey in Europe	92	0.3	1,650	0.4	19,546	0.7
Greece	90	0.3	5,393	1.2	62,758	2.2
France	86	0.3	4,116	0.9	21,457	0.8
Wales	32	0.1	294	0.1	6,424	0.2
Spain	23	0.1	932	0.2	10,037	0.4
Portugal	8	....	92	....	19,557	0.7
No information	23	....	....	....	....	....
Other	179	0.8	17,728	4.1	114,705	4.0
———
———

note 1: Cleveland, New York (Boroughs of Manhattan, Bronx, and Queens); Bridgeport, Connecticut; Cincinnati; Paterson, New Jersey; Portland, Oregon; Rochester, New York; Seattle, Washington; Worcester, Massachusetts.

note 2: United States Census, 1910, vol. 1, chap. xi.

note 3: Includes aliens and those holding first papers.

Considerable variations will be observed between the racial distribution of petitioners studied and that of the unnaturalized but potentially naturalizable males in the whole country in 1910. For instance, while 18.5 per cent of the unnaturalized persons in the United States were born in Italy, only 13.7 per cent of the petitioners studied were Italians; on the other hand, while 29.9 per cent of the petitioners studied were from Russia, only 17 per cent of the unnaturalized males in the United States in 1910 were Russians.

These discrepancies do not prove, however, that even in such cases the groups of petitioners studied are not representative of the foreign-born population, because racial distribution varies considerably from state to state. Fortunately, moreover, it is possible to compile from the census figures to show by country of origin the distribution of unnaturalized white males in the cities covered by the study, and these figures, also included in the last column of the table, show conclusively that the racial distribution in those cities is fairly typical. The percentages do not exactly agree, nor is that to be expected. In the first place, there is a difference of three years between the times represented respectively in the two sets of figures—years during which there was a heavy immigration. The figures given for the unnaturalized are not complete, inasmuch as for those cities the citizenship status of 9.8 per cent of the foreign-born males 21 years of age and over was not reported by the 1910 census. Furthermore, the petitions studied were not all from these nine cities, although nearly nine out of ten (86.8 per cent) of them were. On the whole, the nativity distribution in those nine cities of the petitioners studied coincides remarkably with that of the unnaturalized but naturalizable males.

Relative “Civic and Political Interest”

In Table X, page 211, the relative numbers and percentages are arranged in the order of magnitude, and this arrangement is illuminating in its display of what the Immigration Commission and the writers who have taken their cue therefrom have interpreted as “civic and political interest” exhibited in relative desire for citizenship. With the exception of Italy the races from the sources of largest recent immigration show a higher proportion naturalized than the proportion they represented in the population. It can fairly be said that the desire to become citizens is as evident among these immigrants of the new races as among those of the earlier, entirely leaving out of consideration the length of residence which operates in favor of the older immigrants.

How Did These Petitioners Fare?

How did these applicants for citizenship fare? However much they may have desired citizenship, these of the “new immigration” and the “old”—did they get it? Did they pass the examinations? And as regards the reasons for denial of those who were rejected, how did the “recent” races account for themselves in respect of those matters which really go to the questions of moral and intellectual fitness?

Well, to begin with, the percentage of all denials (3,033) among these more than 26,000 petitioners was 11.5—almost exactly that (11.2) of the whole United States during the entire period of eleven years, 1908–18, as shown by the reports of the Commissioner of Naturalization. Here appears a compilation analyzing all the denials during the period 1908–18.