Foreign Affairsの日本: 日米移民問題(1923年)

Pocket

1923年はForeign Affairsで日本に関する論文が2本掲載されています。1つ目はRomanzo Adams (December 1923)のSome Statistics on the Japanese in Hawaii です。当時、多数の日本人がハワイに移り住んでいたため、ハワイ人口の過半数をJapanese系を占めるのではないかと危惧する声がアメリカ国内で出ます。しかし、著者のアダムズは詳細な実証分析を通してそれはないと主張します。

ハワイは人口の流動性が高く、とくに日本人の人口増加が懸念されていました。
INSTABILITY has been characteristic of the population of Hawaii for at least half a century. Among the factors chiefly responsible may be named the great decrease in the native Hawaiian population and its partial amalgamation with Caucasian and Asiatic elements, the importation of laborers from many countries, the rapid increase by births of certain foreign peoples, and the departure of many laborers to the mainland of the United States and of others to their native lands. Considerable interest attaches to the question of Hawaii’s future population. Doubtless migration to and from the Territory will eventually be a less important factor and the population will gradually become more stable.

Just now the prediction is frequently made that, unless some special device be introduced to prevent it, the Japanese will soon form the majority of Hawaii’s population.
■Caucasianとは「白人」のことです。アメリカの白人はよく自分のことをCaucasianと言います。白人の起源はコーカサス地方にあるということなのでしょうが、科学的な事実に基づいていないので、アメリカ人の中でもWhiteをCaucasianと呼ぶできはないと考える人も多いようです。

ハワイへのアジアからの流入は中国人から始まり、1896年にはハワイ人口に中国人が占める割合が17.7%にもなります。ただしその後、中国人の割合は減り、代わりに日本人の流入が増加します。1920年がそのピークで42.7%まで上昇します。しかし、その後日本人の占める割合が少しずつ減っていきます。
The Chinese, the first of the labor groups to be brought to Hawaii, reached their highest relative numbers in 1896, when they constituted 17.7 per cent of the population as compared with 8.0 per cent in 1923. The Japanese, coming to Hawaii more recently, reached their highest relative number in 1920, when they constituted 42.7 per cent of the population; since that date their percentage has decreased as follows: 1921, 41.6 per cent; 1922, 41.1 per cent; 1923, 40.4 per cent. The number of adult male Japanese, both Hawaiian and foreign born, decreased from 41,795 in 1910 to 36,548 in 1920, and further decreases will characterize the present decade.

ハワイ在住の日本人
1896年: 22,329人(男性18,158人; 女性4,171人)
1900年: 61,111人(男性47,508人; 女性13,603人)
1910年: 79,675人(男性54,784人; 女性24,891人)
1920年: 109,274人(男性62,644人; 女性46,630人)

1908年以前は日本人女性のハワイへの流入はわずかでしたが、それ以降、女性のハワイ進出が急増します。その中には写真だけで結婚を決めるpicture bridesが多数含まれており、写真だけで結婚を決める結婚は日本の後進性を示すものとして当時アメリカ本土ではかなり非難されます。1994年に工藤夕貴主演で『ピクチャーブライド』という映画が公開されていますので興味のあるからこの映画を見てください。
Before 1908 the number of Japanese women arriving in Hawaii was less than a fifth the number of men, but arrivals of women have exceeded departures almost constantly since that date. Thus we find that between 1908 and 1923, there have arrived in Hawaii from Japan 23,353 men, 27,685 women, 4,439 children; in the same period there have departed from Hawaii to Japan 29,988 men, 14,769 women, 19,129 children. Therefore 6,635 more Japanese men and 14,690 more Japanese children have left Hawaii than have arrived, whereas 12,916 more women have arrived than have left. Including all three categories, 8,409 more Japanese have left than have arrived.

From 1908 to 1920 the female arrivals consisted in the main of wives whose husbands had preceded them and of young women who had been sent for to become brides–“picture brides.” More recently the arrivals have consisted largely of Japanese women returning from visits to Japan and of Hawaiian-born young women who had been sent to Japan as children to be educated. Indications for the present decade are that departures of women will exceed arrivals.

1907年頃まではハワイから米本土へ移る日本人も多数いましたが、西海岸で日本人に対する排斥運動が盛んになり、日本政府と米政府は日本から米国への移民を自主的に制限する「紳士協定」を1908年に結び、ハワイから本土への転航移民が禁止されます。1885年から1907年にかけて28,027人の日本人がハワイから米本土に移りますが、1908年から1923年の間はたった1,624人しか本土移転をしていません。禁止なのになぜ移れるかというと、すでに本土にいる日本人の家族の転航は認められていたからです。その中にはピクチャーブライドで家族になった女性も多数含まれます。
The very heavy movement before 1907 (the date of the “Gentleman’s Agreement” between Japan and the United States) and its negligible and comparatively evenly balanced character after that date. Thus we find that whereas in the period 1885-1907 inclusive 28,027 Japanese (men, women, and children) left Hawaii for the United States, there was practically no travel in the opposite direction. On the other hand, from 1908 to 1923 inclusive there have been only 1,624 departures for the United States, against 677 arrivals thence. In other words, 947 more Japanese have gone to the United States from Hawaii than have gone to Hawaii from the United States.

日本本土からハワイに来たピクチャーブライドの数は以下の通りです。
1907年 466人
1908年 755人
1909年 436人
1910年 658人
1911年 865人
1912年 1,285人
1913年 1,572人
1914年 1,407人
1915年 1,050人
1916年 909人
1917年 985人
1918年 1,017人
1919年 848人
1920年 676人
1921年 529人
1922年 555人
1923年 263人

ピクチャーブライドの数はそのピークを迎えた1913年以降、減少の一途をたどっています。また、日本人女性の平均出産数も他の移民と比べて高くないという証拠も示し、著者のAdamsはハワイに日本人が過半数を占める可能性はまずない(improbable)と主張します。
It has been predicted that the Japanese will have a majority or nearly a majority of the voters by 1940. This is improbable. They constitute at present only 40.4 per cent of the population and the percentage is diminishing. Moreover, by 1940 most of the Japanese men and women over forty years old, being aliens, will not be eligible for naturalization, while nearly all of the other people in the islands over forty will be either native-born or foreign-born eligible to naturalization–this on the basis of present laws and policies

非常にバランスのよく取れた実証論文かと思います。

0

2つ目の論文はRaymond Leslie Buell (December 1923)のAgain the Yellow Perilです。Yellow Perilは「黄禍論」と訳されます。東アジアの中国人や日本人ら黄色人種に対する脅威や嫌悪を示したもので、アメリカでは中国人と日本人の移民に対する反対という形でとくに黄禍論が起きました。

20世紀に入って、アメリカ西海岸では日本人移民に対する排斥運動が起きますが、それが外交問題になり、アメリカ政府を悩ませることになります。黒人、インディアン、移民中国人に対する差別は常態化していましたが、被差別グループの中に同じ有色人種の日本人も含めることは重大な問題を孕みます。当時、日本は有色人種でありながら国際社会では一等国と認められていたからです。
In a domestic sense, the Oriental problem in the United States is relatively unimportant. Contrasted with ten million negroes and 250,000 Indians, there are less than 150,000 Japanese in the United States. But from the international standpoint the problem may become one of considerable magnitude. The Japanese cannot be called an “inferior” people as is done with the Indians and the negroes; and they, alone of the color groups in this country, are represented by a sensitive and powerful government abroad.

1906年にはサンフランシスコ市で日本人児童を公立学校に通わせない日本人学童隔離問題が起きます(セオドア・ルーズベルト大統領の介入により翌年に撤回)。1908年には日米間で紳士協定が結ばれ、日本政府は日本人の米国への移民を自主的に制限することに同意します。
Agitation of some sort against the Japanese in this country has recurred from time to time ever since 1900. President Roosevelt believed he had brought it to an end when he negotiated the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1908. President Wilson did penance for it when he consented to the Lansing-Ishii agreement of 1917 and allowed Japan to secure Shantung at the Paris Peace Conference. Undoubtedly President Harding hoped that the Washington Conference would dissipate all the misunderstandings between the two great powers of the Pacific.

移民制限に加え、在米日本人に対して土地利用を制限する動きが出ます。
Nevertheless the anti-Japanese agitation continues on the Pacific Coast, under the leadership of the Exclusion League and the American Legion. It is becoming aggressive in and about Seattle, a neighborhood which hitherto has been comparatively sympathetic with the Oriental. It has appeared in other parts of the State of Washington where, because of the anti-alien policy of the Department of the Interior, Japanese farmers have been unable to renew their leases of public lands. It has cropped out in the Utah, Idaho and Montana legislatures where anti-Japanese legislation has been debated. It is an endless theme in Hawaii, where the Labor Commission appointed by President Harding protested recently against the “menace of alien domination.” It has appeared in Congress, where exclusion bills are pending.

1920年当時、カリフォルニア州に7万人の日本人が在住していましたが、当時日本人の慣習で特に忌み嫌われていたのがピクチャーブライドです。kankodan brideという表現も出ていますが、kankodanとは「観光団」のことのようです。おそらく在米日本人が観光団として来日し、日本で用意された女性の中から妻を娶ったのでしょう。
Diplomats, rear-admirals, and big business men are about the only persons in this country, or for that matter in Japan, who worry about the Open Door, naval bases, spheres of influence and railway rates in China. From the popular standpoint, the most important factors in the Oriental problem concern immigration and the treatment of Japanese in the United States–questions which the Washington Conference did not attempt to solve. The people of the Pacific Coast are indifferent to the disposition of the salt mines of Shantung. But they become very disturbed over Japanese “picture” and kankodan brides, and the Japanese birth rate in California. The people of Japan do not care a great deal whether the Bonin Islands are fortified. But they become greatly incensed when they hear of “racial insults” to Japanese in the United States.

But Japanese laborers in America are still being supplied with wives called kankodan brides. The Japanese Government has extended the time in which Japanese may visit Japan for the purpose of securing such a bride, without performing military service, from thirty to ninety days. According to advertisements appearing in the Japanese American News and the Japanese New World in February, 1922, “peace excursion parties” have been organized to secure cheap passage for Japanese going home for this purpose.

1922年に最高裁判所が、free white personsはCaucasiansを指すのであって日本人はCaucasiansではないから、アメリカ市民になる権利はないという三段論法的な判決をします。日本人の子でもアメリカで生まれれば自動的にアメリカ人になれますが、日本人移民は何十年アメリカに住んでいても日本人になれません。その根拠は、有色人種にはアメリカでの生活で不可欠な民主主義制度を理解することも、取り入れることもできないからというものでした。
A Japanese cannot become naturalized in this country as can a European. Congress has never passed a law expressly barring Japanese from naturalization, as it has done in the case of the Chinese; it has merely limited that privilege to “free white persons” and to negroes. But in November, 1922, the Supreme Court definitely ruled that free white persons meant only Caucasians, that the Japanese were not Caucasians, and that there was no evidence that Congress intended to make Japanese eligible to citizenship. The Japanese are now confronted with the unpalatable fact, laid down in unmistakable terms by the highest court in the land, that we consider them unfit to become Americans.

We have justified the policy of naturalizing only “free white persons” on the ground that the “colored” races cannot comprehend democratic institutions or assimilate themselves in other ways to American life. Perhaps this theory, so dear to the Nordic idolators, is sound. But we disavowed it when we granted the franchise to the negro. And today we repeatedly disavow it when we admit to citizenship swarthy settlers from the Near East, Mexicans, and Parsees. Under the 14th Amendment, every child born in this country is an American citizen, regardless of the color of his skin or of that of his parents. A Japanese alien, even if he has lived here for forty years, cannot become a citizen if he wants to. But a Japanese child born here becomes one whether he wishes to or not. Obviously, it is absurd to deny citizenship to Japanese aliens on the ground of race when we force it upon their children.

ちなみにアメリカでは国籍は出生地主義(アメリカで生まれれば親が日本人でもアメリカ人)をとっていますが、日本では血統主義(父親が日本人だとアメリカで生まれても日本人)がとられているので、アメリカで生まれた日本人の子供は二重国籍の問題が出てきます。
While Japanese born in this country automatically become citizens of the United States, they also are citizens of Japan. The Japanese Civil Code declares: “A child is a Japanese if his or her father is a Japanese at the time of his or her birth.” To the uninformed, there is something sinister about Japan’s claim of allegiance from Japanese wherever they may be born. Yet this rule of jus sanguinis is followed by most of the countries of Europe and by several countries in South America. The Japanese Government has attempted to solve the problem of dual citizenship by the Expatriation Law of 1916, which allows Japanese born abroad, under certain conditions, to lose Japanese citizenship. But if application for expatriation is not made until after the age of seventeen the Japanese cannot lose his nationality without first returning home and performing the required military service. An increasing number of Japanese children born in this country are becoming expatriated, through their guardians, before the age of seventeen. But there seems to be no justification for the restriction imposed on those over this age. As long as the restriction exists, Japan’s motives are likely to be questioned.

カリフォルニア州では過酷労働にも耐える日系の農業従事者(とくに野菜栽培)が脅威と感じられるようになり、農地を購入できないようにします。
Discriminations of more practical importance than ineligibility to citizenship have been imposed on the Japanese by many western states. The Pacific Coast is particularly alarmed at the inroads which the Japanese have made into agriculture. Within the last ten years, the acreage under Japanese cultivation in California has increased between 300 and 400 per cent. Although the Japanese control only about three per cent of the farm land of the state they practically monopolize the vegetable business. Few white farmers today engage in truck farming. And whatever the cause for the rural exodus may be, the presence of Japanese competitors of a low standard of living, willing to work twelve or fourteen hours a day, is no incentive for the American to go back to the land.

In order to stop the invasion of agriculture, California, Washington and Arizona have passed anti-alien land laws. In 1913 California enacted a law, against the wishes of President Wilson, which denied to aliens ineligible to citizenship any rights in regard to real property which were not granted by the Treaty of 1911 between the United States and Japan–except the right to lease land for three years. As the Treaty of 1911 was a treaty only of commerce and navigation, and not of agriculture, this meant that Japanese could not purchase land for farming purposes. Nevertheless, the law offered little protection to the American farmer, because Japanese could still lease land in unlimited amounts, subject to renewal every three years. This led to the passage of an initiative measure in 1920, which abolished the right to lease land and prohibited several means which the Japanese had used to evade the 1913 law.

カリフォルニア州で日本人に対する差別的な法律が次々と成立します。
In 1921 the legislature carried the anti-Japanese program further by passing a law placing the fifty-six Japanese language schools in California under state control. It also amended the school law so as to allow communities to establish separate schools for Japanese. Under this authority, half a dozen school districts have established separate schools or classrooms for Japanese children. In 1923 the legislature passed a bill which abolished the language schools altogether. But it was vetoed by Governor Richardson for constitutional reasons. A law was also passed prohibiting Japanese from making “croppage contracts.” In such contracts the landlord allows the Japanese to cultivate the land in return for a half (or some such portion) of the crop. By means of croppage contracts the Japanese continued to stay on the farms, despite the laws of 1913 and 1920 prohibiting ownership and leases. In addition to prohibiting croppage contracts, the legislature passed two resolutions calling on Congress to prohibit Japanese immigration and advocating a constitutional amendment withholding citizenship from Japanese born in the United States. It is probable that the Exclusion League will place several initiative measures on the ballot at the next election, one prohibiting Japanese from engaging in the fishing business, which they now control, and a second prohibiting Japanese language schools in a manner that will conform, if possible, to the Supreme Court decision of June 4, 1923.

西海岸での排日運動は日米関係を悪化させます。今は、日本は静観しているが、排日運動が続くといずれ二国が衝突するであろう事を著者は危惧しています。
On several occasions, these campaigns have severely strained the diplomatic relations between Japan and the United States. In 1906 the Japanese Government protested vigorously against proposed school segregation in San Francisco. In 1913 it protested bitterly against the California land law. It should be noted that the present attitude of the Japanese Government is more restrained than it has been in the past. Today the treatment of the Japanese on the Pacific Coast is much more discriminatory and oppressive than it was in 1906 or in 1913. But no public protest has been made by Japan since 1913, apart from the informal address of Ambassador Hanihara last May. Nevertheless, the diplomatic aspect of the controversy is by no means ended. If Japan is silent, it is the calm before the storm. It is impossible to believe that the two great powers of the Pacific can live together in permanent peace if this agitation continues indefinitely.

1906年に起きたサンフランシスコ市の日本人学童隔離問題の本質は、日本人の移民流入だが、日本政府は1908年に日米間で結ばれた紳士協定を遵守せずに、日本からの移民がその後も続いたのが問題の本質だと著者は説きます。picture brideやkankodan brideだけでなく、カナダやメキシコからの違法入国も指摘されています。
Back of the whole anti-Japanese movement in America is the belief that Japanese immigration to this country is increasing. Every anti-Japanese election in California has been a protest against further immigration; and many Californians believe that the state can make its protest felt throughout the country as a whole only by enacting laws of a “pin-pricking” nature. In 1906 there were 93 Japanese out of 25,000 school children in San Francisco. Nevertheless, the city school board passed an ordinance which prohibited Japanese from attending the general public schools–an ordinance creating an international scene. The politicians of San Francisco were not concerned by the presence of these 93 Japanese in the schools; but they were concerned by the great number of Japanese laborers who were flooding the city. That immigration was the real issue was proved by the fact that the school ordinance was withdrawn as soon as President Roosevelt promised to stop immigration from Hawaii and to negotiate the Gentlemen’s Agreement.

This agreement did not take the form of a treaty, much less of a law. Apparently it is based only on an exchange of notes whose text has not been printed to this day. In the report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for 1908 a summary of this “understanding” was made: the Japanese Government promises to issue passports only to Japanese non-laborers going to the United States and to those laborers who wish to “resume a formerly-acquired domicile, to join a parent, wife, or child residing there, or to assume active control of an already possessed interest in farming enterprises in this country.”

Ever since this agreement was negotiated Japanese have been accused of evading it and entering this country in wholesale batches. The agreement says that those Japanese who wish to join “a parent, wife, or child residing there” may enter. But it says nothing about joining a husband. Nevertheless, the Japanese Government issues passports to wives for the purpose of joining a husband in the United States. And until recently it issued passports to thousands of “picture brides,” who were married by proxy in Japan and who never saw their “husbands” –Japanese laborers–until they arrived in America. So great was the protest on the Pacific Coast against this means of evading the agreement and against the unmorality of this type of marriage that the Japanese Government voluntarily promised not to issue passports to picture brides after February, 1920.

There is nothing particularly infamous about a man wanting to get a wife. And if the Japanese are estopped from seeking Japanese brides, they will look about for Americans, which is the last thing the Exclusion League desires. Nevertheless, the California Board of Health statistics show that the birth rate of Japanese women in California is three times that of the white. In 1908 the excess of Japanese births over deaths was 24; in 1921 it was 4,379. Forty-three per cent of the Japanese mothers in California have more than three children. Under the Gentlemen’s Agreement, there is absolutely no limitation upon the number of Japanese women laborers who may enter this country, as long as they are accompanied by a husband who has a residence here.

It has also been charged that a Japanese who has smuggled himself into this country across the Canadian or Mexican border may secure a certificate from a local Japanese association, certifying that he has a legal residence in the United States. He presents this certificate to the Japanese consulate, which in turn authorizes him to bring relatives into this country or gives him permission to visit Japan and then return, with or without a bride. By this means, he converts an illegal into a legal residence here, and proceeds to bring in a family when he has no business to be here himself.

根本的な問題は紳士協定とすることで遵守の責任を日本側だけに任せたこと、日本からの移民を抑制するためには日米間で正式に移民に関する条約を結ぶべきだと主張しています。著者は、日本からの移民を制限しない限り、西海岸での日本人排斥運動がおさまらないと考えているようです。
The Gentlemen’s Agreement is defective not so much because of these figures but because the sole responsibility for enforcing it lies upon Japan. American immigration officials must accept every passport issued to Japanese coming to this country. In case they believe that a Japanese is not entitled to enter the United States they can do nothing but ask the State Department to make a diplomatic protest to Japan. In reviewing these cases, the hearing and the decision are ex parte:Japan, and Japan alone, determines in each individual case what Japanese shall come to our shores. This is a privilege which we grant to no other nation in the world. The Japanese Government perhaps has been absolutely sincere in restricting passports to the United States. But under this type of restriction there is always the possibility of fraud or of misinterpretation.

There is nothing to be said in favor of the immigration of Japanese laborers into the United States. If unrestricted, it would wipe out American standards of living, eventually reduce us to the economic level of the Oriental, and implant an alien and half-breed race on our soil which might make the negro problem look white. But the best means of enforcing the exclusion of Japanese immigration is not through the Gentlemen’s Agreement, nor through an exclusion law, but through an exclusion treaty.

A treaty embodying these principles would prohibit effectively future Japanese immigration and would thus go far in allaying anti-Japanism on the Pacific Coast. Many anti-Japanese leaders would agree to such a treaty, as far as its exclusion provisions are concerned; but they do not believe it would be acceptable to Japan. If the terms of this treaty were made reciprocal, this defect would to a certain extent be removed. It should apply to Americans wishing to go to Japan and to Japanese wishing to come to America, with the customary exceptions of tourists, students, etc. The Japanese Government has already agreed to the necessity of exclusion by entering into the Gentlemen’s Agreement. But it is improbable that it will ever consent to a treaty of this character unless the discriminatory legislation now imposed on Japanese in the United States is repealed. America has an obligation toward its present Japanese population which it cannot ignore. This population is here at our invitation and under our laws. It is therefore entitled to the same treatment we accord other immigrant groups. It is probable that the Pacific Coast would voluntarily give up most of its discriminatory legislation and its anti-Japanese agitation if it were convinced that exclusion was really being enforced. The agitation against the Chinese in California died out following the passage of the Chinese Exclusion laws. Probably the Japanese Government would agree to an exclusion treaty if it were assured that these discriminations and this agitation would come to an end. Such assurance could be given in the treaty, simply by guaranteeing to Japanese residents in the United States most-favored-nation treatment in all civil rights. Such a treaty should also make Japanese residents eligible to citizenship. They are just as qualified to become citizens as dozens of other groups whom we admit. Their children born here are already citizens. No possible danger could come from giving the vote to a few additional thousand Japanese–if they pass the naturalization tests–provided future immigration is stopped.

A treaty embodying these provisions would satisfy our demand for exclusion and Japan’s demand for racial equality. It would establish the principle that the segregation of races of different color is necessary, as far as laboring masses are concerned, not because of racial inferiority but because of racial difference. And it would prove to the Japanese that we really mean what we say, because it would grant Japanese lawfully in this country the same treatment we grant Europeans.

とくに日本に焦点を当てた論文ではありませんが、1924年9月号に1924年移民法(the Immigration Act of 1924)に関する論文が掲載されていますので、興味のある方はRobert DeC. WardOur New Immigration Policyもお読みください。

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

2月 16, 2014 · Pukuro · No Comments
Posted in: ☆戦前の日本

Leave a Reply