Grade Levels: Middle School, High School
Subject Areas: Social Studies, U.S. History, Civics
Questions: How do government institutions turn prejudice into policy? How can official reports and data be shaped by underlying assumptions? What makes something “evidence”?

By Erin Suh

---

Overview

In 1907, Congress created a commission to study immigration and recommend policy. Four years and 41 volumes later, the Dillingham Commission delivered its verdict: the “new immigrants” from southern and eastern Europe were fundamentally different from—and inferior to—the “old immigrants” from northern and western Europe.

The Commission’s findings were presented as objective, data-driven research. But the conclusions were baked into the questions from the start. By framing certain immigrants as less intelligent, less assimilable, and less committed to American life, the Commission provided the intellectual architecture for decades of restrictive immigration law.

This lesson examines primary sources from the Dillingham Commission to understand how prejudice can wear the mask of science, how categories shape conclusions, and how official government reports can transform bias into policy.

---

Historical Context

Between 1880 and 1920, the sources of American immigration shifted dramatically. Earlier waves had come primarily from northern and western Europe—Britain, Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia. The “new immigration” drew from southern and eastern Europe: Italy, Poland, Russia, Greece, Austria-Hungary, and the Balkans. Many were Catholic or Jewish. Many were fleeing poverty, political upheaval, or persecution.

This shift alarmed many native-born Americans. Were these newcomers capable of becoming American? Could they assimilate? Would they undermine wages, crowd cities, and dilute the nation’s character?

Congress responded by creating the United States Immigration Commission in 1907, chaired by Senator William Paul Dillingham of Vermont. The Commission was charged with studying immigration and recommending policy. It employed a staff of more than 300, gathered mountains of data, and published a 41-volume report in 1911.

But the Commission was not a neutral fact-finding body. Its members and staff largely shared the assumptions of the restrictionist movement. They believed that race determined character, that some peoples were more suited for democracy than others, and that the “new immigration” posed a threat to American institutions. The data they gathered and the categories they used reflected these beliefs.

The Commission’s recommendations—including literacy tests and numerical limits based on national origin—became the foundation for the Immigration Act of 1917 and the even more restrictive quota laws of the 1920s.

---

The Sources

The following excerpts come from the Dillingham Commission’s report. Read them carefully, paying attention not just to what the Commission claims, but to how it builds its argument—the categories it uses, the assumptions it makes, and the evidence it offers.

---

Source 1: “Old Immigration” vs. “New Immigration”

From the Plan and Scope of the Inquiry

During the fiscal year 1907, in which the Commission was created, a total of 1,285,349 immigrants were admitted to the United States. Of this number 1,207,619 were from Europe, including Turkey in Asia, and of these 979,661, or 81 per cent, came from the southern and eastern countries, comprising Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, Spain, Turkey in Europe, and Turkey in Asia.

Twenty-five years earlier, in the fiscal year 1882, 648,186 European immigrants came to the United States, and of these only 84,973, or 13.1 per cent, came from the countries above enumerated, while 563,213, or 86.9 per cent, were from Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Switzerland…

For convenience the former movement will be referred to in the Commission’s reports as the “old immigration” and the latter as the “new immigration.”

---

Source 2: Characterizing the “Old” and “New” Immigration

The old and the new immigration differ in many essentials. The former was, from the beginning, largely a movement of settlers who came from the most progressive sections of Europe for the purpose of making for themselves homes in the New World. They entered practically every line of activity in nearly every part of the country… They mingled freely with the native Americans and were quickly assimilated…

On the other hand, the new immigration has been largely a movement of unskilled laboring men who have come, in large part temporarily, from the less progressive and advanced countries of Europe in response to the call for industrial workers in the eastern and middle western States. They have almost entirely avoided agricultural pursuits, and in cities and industrial communities have congregated together in sections apart from native Americans and the older immigrants to such an extent that assimilation has been slow…

The new immigration as a class is far less intelligent than the old, approximately one-third of all those over 14 years of age when admitted being illiterate. Racially they are for the most part essentially unlike the British, German, and other peoples who came during the period prior to 1880, and generally speaking they are actuated in coming by different ideals, for the old immigration came to be a part of the country, while the new, in a large measure, comes with the intention of profiting, in a pecuniary way, by the superior advantages of the new world and then returning to the old country.

Source: United States Immigration Commission, Reports of the Immigration Commission: Abstracts of Reports of the Immigration Commission, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911), 13-14. Available via HathiTrust Digital Library.

---

Source 3: Recommendations

It is desirable in making the restriction that—

A sufficient number be debarred to produce a marked effect upon the present supply of unskilled labor.

As far as possible, the aliens excluded should be those who come to this country with no intention to become American citizens or even to maintain a permanent residence here, but merely to save enough, by the adoption, if necessary, of low standards of living, to return permanently to their home country. Such persons are usually men unaccompanied by wives or children.

As far as possible the aliens excluded should also be those who, by reason of their personal qualities or habits, would least readily be assimilated or would make the least desirable citizens.

The following methods of restricting immigration have been suggested:

• The exclusion of those unable to read or write in some language.
• The limitation of the number of each race arriving each year to a certain percentage of the average of that race arriving during a given period of years.
• The exclusion of unskilled laborers unaccompanied by wives or families…

A majority of the Commission favor the reading and writing test as the most feasible single method of restricting undesirable immigration.

Source: United States Immigration Commission, Reports of the Immigration Commission: Abstracts of Reports of the Immigration Commission, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911), 13-14. Available via HathiTrust Digital Library.

---

Key Vocabulary

Assimilation: The process by which immigrants adopt the language, customs, and identity of their new country. The Dillingham Commission assumed assimilation was desirable and that some groups were more capable of it than others—assumptions worth questioning.

Eugenics: A pseudo-science claiming that human populations could be improved through selective breeding. Eugenicists ranked racial and ethnic groups in hierarchies and influenced immigration policy by arguing that certain groups were biologically unfit.

Literacy test: A requirement that immigrants demonstrate the ability to read. Though framed as measuring individual capability, literacy tests were designed to exclude groups with less access to formal education.

Quota system: A policy limiting immigration based on national origin. The quotas established in the 1920s were explicitly designed to favor northern and western Europeans and exclude southern and eastern Europeans, as well as virtually all Asians.

“Old” vs. “New” immigration: Categories created by restrictionists to distinguish between earlier immigrants (primarily from northern and western Europe) and later arrivals (from southern and eastern Europe). These terms embedded value judgments—”old” immigrants were portrayed as settlers and nation-builders, “new” immigrants as temporary laborers and threats.

Source: United States Immigration Commission, Reports of the Immigration Commission: Abstracts of Reports of the Immigration Commission, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911), 13-14. Available via HathiTrust Digital Library.

---

Accessing the Full Report

The complete 41-volume Dillingham Commission report is available digitally through several archives:

• HathiTrust Digital Library: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009606736
• Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/reportsofimmigra01LCunit
• Government Documents collections at major research libraries

For classroom use, the first volume (Abstracts of Reports) provides the most accessible overview of the Commission’s findings and recommendations.

Discussion Questions

Analyzing the Sources

1. The Commission divides European immigrants into “old” and “new.” What characteristics does it assign to each group? Make a two-column chart listing the traits associated with each category.
2. Look carefully at the language the Commission uses to describe “new” immigrants. Identify at least three words or phrases that reveal the Commission’s bias. What work is this language doing?
3. The Commission claims that “new” immigrants are “far less intelligent” than “old” immigrants and offers illiteracy rates as evidence. What assumptions does this argument make? What factors other than intelligence might explain differences in literacy rates?
4. The Commission describes “old” immigrants as coming “to be a part of the country” while “new” immigrants come “with the intention of profiting… and then returning to the old country.” How might economic conditions—rather than cultural character—explain different migration patterns? What circumstances might lead someone to migrate temporarily versus permanently?

Examining the Method

5. The Commission presents itself as conducting objective research. What makes something “scientific”? What would you need to know to evaluate whether the Commission’s methods were sound?
6. The categories “old immigration” and “new immigration” organize the entire report. How do these categories shape what the Commission can see and what it might miss? What would change if the Commission had used different categories—for example, organizing immigrants by occupation, religion, or reason for migration?
7. A critic at the time noted that the Commission decided what it wanted to recommend before it gathered its data. What evidence in these excerpts might support that criticism?

Understanding Consequences

8. The Commission recommends literacy tests and percentage limits based on “race.” How would these policies affect different immigrant groups? Who would be included, and who excluded?
9. The Commission’s recommendations eventually became law—first in the Immigration Act of 1917 (literacy tests) and then in the quota laws of the 1920s. What does it mean when prejudice gets encoded into law? How might official government policy shape public attitudes?
10. Many groups targeted by the Dillingham Commission—Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks—are today considered “white” Americans. What does this tell us about the stability of racial categories?

Connecting to Larger Patterns

11. The Dillingham Commission is one example of how government institutions can produce “evidence” that reflects existing prejudices. Can you think of other historical or contemporary examples where official reports or studies have been shaped by underlying assumptions?
12. How do contemporary debates about immigration echo or differ from the arguments in the Dillingham Commission report? What continuities do you notice? What has changed?

---

Close Reading Activity

Select one paragraph from Source 2 and analyze it using the following questions:

1. Claim: What is the main argument of this paragraph?
2. Evidence: What evidence does the Commission offer to support its claim?
3. Assumptions: What unstated beliefs or values underlie this argument?
4. Language: What specific word choices reveal the Commission’s perspective?
5. Counter-evidence: What information might complicate or contradict this claim?

---

Extension Activities

For Middle School:

• Research the immigration story of one group characterized as “new immigrants” (Italian, Polish, Jewish, Greek, or others). What were conditions like in their home countries? Why did they leave? What did they find when they arrived? How does their actual history compare to the Commission’s characterization?
• Create a graphic showing how the Dillingham Commission’s recommendations became law. Trace the path from the 1911 report to the Immigration Act of 1917 to the quota laws of the 1920s.
• The Commission uses literacy as a measure of fitness for citizenship. Write a response arguing why literacy rates might not accurately measure someone’s intelligence, character, or potential contribution to a society.

For High School:

• Compare the Dillingham Commission’s approach to the work of the Immigration Restriction League and eugenicist Harry Laughlin. How did these different actors reinforce each other’s arguments? How did ideas move between advocacy organizations, academic institutions, and government bodies?
• Read historian Mae Ngai’s analysis of the quota system. How did the categories created by the Dillingham Commission become embedded in law? What were the long-term consequences of these racial classifications?
• Investigate how the Dillingham Commission’s report was received at the time. Were there critics? What arguments did they make? Why did the restrictionist view prevail?
• Analyze a contemporary government report on immigration. What categories does it use? What assumptions underlie its methodology? How does it compare to the Dillingham Commission’s approach?

---

Thinking Like a Historian

The Dillingham Commission report raises important questions about how we evaluate sources:

Authority is not neutrality. Government commissions carry official weight, but they are staffed by people with perspectives and agendas. The fact that something appears in an official report does not make it true or unbiased.

Categories are choices. The division between “old” and “new” immigration was not natural or inevitable—it was constructed to serve an argument. Historians pay attention to who creates categories, what purposes they serve, and what they make visible or invisible.

Data can be shaped by assumptions. The Dillingham Commission gathered enormous amounts of data, but the questions it asked and the interpretations it drew reflected pre-existing beliefs. Numbers alone do not guarantee objectivity.

Consider what’s missing. The Commission did not interview immigrants about their aspirations, document their contributions, or examine the structural barriers they faced. Asking what a source leaves out is as important as analyzing what it includes.

---

For Educators

This lesson offers an opportunity to develop students’ critical thinking about sources, evidence, and the relationship between knowledge and power. Some considerations:

On the nature of evidence: Students often assume that “data” and “research” are inherently objective. The Dillingham Commission provides a powerful case study in how research can be shaped by underlying assumptions. Help students develop questions they can ask of any source claiming scientific or evidentiary authority.

On the construction of race: The Commission treated racial categories as self-evident biological facts. In reality, these categories were constructed and contested. The fact that southern and eastern Europeans were once considered racially distinct from (and inferior to) northern Europeans—but are now generally considered “white”—reveals the instability of racial classifications.

On connecting to the present: Students may draw connections to contemporary immigration debates. Encourage careful analysis rather than simple equivalence. Some patterns recur; contexts differ. The goal is analytical thinking, not predetermined conclusions.

On immigrant perspectives: The Dillingham Commission spoke about immigrants, not with them. Consider pairing this lesson with primary sources from immigrants themselves—letters, memoirs, oral histories—to ensure students encounter the humanity that the Commission’s categories obscured.

---

Resources for Further Learning

• Katherine Benton-Cohen, Inventing the Immigration Problem: The Dillingham Commission and Its Legacy (2018)
• Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (2004)
• Daniel Okrent, The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics, and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians, and Other European Immigrants Out of America (2019)
• Desmond King, Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy (2000)
• Digital Public Library of America, “Immigration to the US, 1789-1930”: https://dp.la/primary-source-sets/immigration-to-the-us-1789-1930