far only with the effects of an immigration that is assimilated; but some immigration (that from the Orient, for example) is not assimilated; other immigration remains unassimilated for a long time. What are the eugenic consequences of an unassimilated immigration?
The presence of large numbers of immigrants who do not intermarry with the older stock will, says T. N. Carver,32 inevitably mean one of three things:
- Geographical separation of races.
- Social separation of races (as the "color line" in the South and to a large extent in the North, between Negroes and whites who yet live side by side).
- Continuous racial antagonism, frequently breaking out into race war. This third possibility has been at least threatened, by the conflict between the white and yellow races in California, and the conflict between whites and Hindus in British Columbia.
None of these alternatives is attractive. The third is undesirable in every way and the first two are difficult to maintain. The first is perhaps impossible; the second is partly practicable, as is shown by the case of the Negro. One of its drawbacks is not sufficiently recognized.
In a soundly-organized society, it is necessary that the road should be open from top to bottom and bottom to top, in order that genuine merit may get its deserts. A valuable strain which appears at the bottom of the social scale must be able to make its way to the top, receiving financial and other rewards commensurate with its value to the state, and being able to produce a number of children proportionate to its reward and its value. This is an ideal which is seldom approximated in government, but it is the advantage of a democratic form of government that it presents the open road to success, more than does an oligarchic government. That this