(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

In your recent editorial on immigration you brought out two main points relative to the subject, namely, the economic and the social aspects.

After summarizing the opinions of a Boston manufacturer who claims that an acute stage in the labor shortage has been reached, you boldly arrived at the conclusion that "the limitations of immigration has been a boon to this country in every way, save apparently in this resulting scarcity of labor." The new immigration law has been in existence since 1921. And in so short a period of time you have been able to observe the remarkable improvement which you term "a boon to this country". Just how has this country benefited you failed to show. It is to be regretted that you did not see fit to include the premises upon which your conclusion was based. Personally, I believe that the three per cent limitation law has not only checked the very much needed industrial revival, but the immigration limitation law has brought untold suffering to the unfortunate immigrants who sell all they possess to come to our shores only to find the bars up and the open sea as their refuge.

Moreover, to say that "if there is a shortage of labor, then the unemployment period must be at an end" is like the attempt to extract rays of sunshine from a cucumber. What the manufacturers in this country protest is not the lack of skilled labor, of which, I believe, there is no serious shortage, but the generally experienced shortage of unskilled labor. In fact, there are large number of skilled workers in the shoe, textile, and other industries still unemployed.

Just what you meant by the statement of the "fact that immigration to this country . . . was of such deplorably low character that it was no longer possible to assimilate the new comers" was not quite clear to me. By "deplorably low character" did you mean that mentally the "New Immigration" was inferior, or that the standards of living of the immigrants belonging to this category was inferior? Though I agree that the mentally defected are undesirable and should be kept out, yet I contend that the average immigrant, who came to our shores prior to the adoption of the immigration limitation law of 1921, was no other than the friend, or the relative of the immigrant who came here by steerage passage before 1880. The "new" immigrant, since he is so closely related to the "old" immigrant, is capable of the same achievements, has the same ambitions, cherishes the same ideals as the "old" immigrant. When you say "that it was no longer possible to assimilate the new comers", you infer that prior to this deplorable situation assimilation was possible. Just when has this country succeeded in partially assimilating the immigrants? Has this country made any serious attempt to even Americanize the many national groups found within its borders?

It seems a pity that whenever one discusses this subject, particularly the phase of assimilation, one forgets that the immigrants in this country today constitute more than one-half of our population, and that they have a right to express their opinions on this point. I venture to say, also, that while every immigrant stands ready to welcome with open arms any sound Americanization policy, yet each and every true immigrant is equally prepared to challenge any policy of absolute assimilation as being a repudiation of the principles on which this country was founded, and a violation of those rights guaranteed to the individual by the constitution of the United States. JON. S. KAUFMAN '24 November 18, 1922.