Emigrant, Emigration

EMIGRANT, EMIGRATION. - In its proper meaning it is the abandonment of the national territory by one or more members of the community, who move to another territory, with the intention of establishing their domicile there permanently or temporarily. As such it presupposes a point of departure, the soil of the country of origin; a point of arrival, the territory outside the natural or political boundaries of the homeland; several individuals who move from the one to the other, and take the name of emigrants with respect to the first, of immigrants with respect to the second. In a somewhat restricted and less proper sense, the name of emigration is also given to displacements of the population that occur within the territory of the same political society. If, on the other hand, it is considered as a whole, as a characteristic fact of the demography of the civilized world in the past century and the present, emigration is that vast demographic movement composed of individuals and families who, under the impulse of private initiative and under personal responsibility, pass from one civilized and advanced country to another civilized and advanced country, ordinarily sparsely populated.

These distinctive notes of it separate it clearly from forms of migrations of peoples that have occurred in history, from the other ancient barbarian invasions, in which a whole people, driven both by the thirst for conquest and by the craving for new lands, marched as one under an embryonic political regime to their conquest, subjugating the peoples that it found in its passage, and often making a desert around itself. In it there is lacking the individualistic and peaceful character of modern emigration. Moreover, for the same reason, neither the forced exchange of populations, in some cases imposed by bilateral treaties between two States desirous of resolving the question of their respective ethnic minorities, nor the expulsion of important portions of inhabitants from certain territories, which occurred during the First World War and, to a greater extent, during and after the Second, can be assimilated to it. Emigration is a free and spontaneous movement.

It may be internal, continental, extracontinental or transoceanic, if one considers the country of destination toward which the emigratory current is directed; it may be temporary or permanent, if one considers the intended duration of the expatriation. It will be internal, if the emigratory current moves from one region to another, within the boundaries of the State; continental, if the country of destination remains within the European continent; transoceanic, if the of the emigratory outflow pours into the lands beyond the ocean. On the other hand, it will be temporary — to which seasonal migration belongs — if the emigrant intends to leave his native soil for a longer or shorter time, according to the possibilities of work and the obligations of the contract previously stipulated, after which he counts on crossing the borders again; it will be permanent if the emigrant departs with the intention of never returning and of establishing his domicile abroad definitively. Continental migration in principle has a temporary or seasonal character, whereas transoceanic migration is ordinarily permanent. As part of internal emigration, one may consider the outflow of a country's population directed toward territories subject to the political dominion of the nation of origin, although they are situated beyond the natural borders of the native soil, as are the overseas colonies regarded as an extension of the mother country.

I. HISTORY

Contemporary emigration begins with the early years of the 19th century and slowly grows in intensity until, toward its end and the beginning of the new century, it reaches very high percentages that cannot be matched in any preceding period of history. It is a veritable exodus of thousands upon thousands of individuals and families who, for various reasons, abandon the old Europe to move to the new continent in search of freedom or better living conditions. For the early years of the 19th century statistics are lacking, so that the human mass that the emigratory flow channels and drags along cannot be measured. The statistics, begun by the United States in 1820, although imperfect and insufficient, can give an idea of the number and the origin of the emigrants from 1820 to 1850. In this period there arrived in the United States, most of them coming from European countries, among which the British Isles and Germany predominated, followed at a wide distance by France and the Scandinavian states, 2,199,000 individuals. By the middle of the 19th century, the statistics provided by the countries of origin of the emigrants, by then sufficiently improved, make it possible to establish that, in the five-year period 1846-50, an average of 256,000 persons a year departed from Europe. The preferred country, given the origin of most of the emigrants and their linguistic and cultural affinity with the populations beyond the ocean, was the United States. Emigration toward South and Central America, on the other hand, remained scanty throughout the same period, since there was a lack of security for the settlers, who were poorly protected from the incursions of the natives, of good and easy roads, and of certainty of property titles, and other impediments of a political, moral and religious nature stood in the way; emigration toward Asia and Africa was insignificant.

In the second half of the 19th century the migratory current intensifies, reaching the figure of 321 thousand departures a year on average in the five-year period 1851-53. The predominance is still held by the British Isles, and particularly by Ireland, because of the religious oppression and the very grave economic crisis that afflict it. The German current proves more sustained, and in the five-year period 1856-60 it reaches a quarter of all departures. At the same time the exodus from the Mediterranean countries begins, especially from Portugal and Italy, whose shares would increase year by year with a frightening progressive motion. Spain participates in it to a small extent, while the contribution of France diminishes. In the following five-year periods, shares are recorded oscillating between 229 thousand departures a year and 346 thousand, with a more notable participation of the Scandinavian states and of Italy, whose contribution reaches 5% of the total figure. The rhythm of migrations, after a temporary lowering, accelerates again around 1880 and the years shortly thereafter. Irish emigration resumes with an average of 80 thousand departures a year, that of Great Britain, excluding Ireland, touches its maximum point with 320 thousand expatriations in 1885, the German one rises again with over 200 thousand departures in 1882, and the Italian one takes a fairly high place in the percentage with its 200 thousand departures in the year 1888.

In the last decade of the 19th century, European emigration as a whole tends to lose tension, oscillating between 729 thousand departures on average in the first five-year period and 602 thousand in the second, while Italian emigration becomes ever more sustained with 27.5% and Spanish with 13.4%, and that of Great Britain and Germany falls considerably. In the early years of the 20th century the tide rises until it reaches a million departures a year, in which Italy participates with 30.5% of all European emigration, and it continues to rise in the period immediately preceding the First World War, touching the very high peaks of 1,389,000 departures a year on average, with a slight decline determined by the difficulties created by the war during its course. In this last span of time Great Britain sustained an outflow of population that oscillated from 453 thousand units in 1911 to 370 thousand in 1913, and was surpassed by Italy, which sent about half a million of its sons a year down the channels of emigration, registering the highest number of departures in comparison with any other country from the beginnings of the movement up to the outbreak of the First World War.

The destination countries of this immense flow of population, which shifted rapidly from one continent to another, besides the United States, which hold first place in the preferences of emigrants, are Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the states of Latin America, particularly Argentina and Brazil, toward the latter of which a good proportion of Italian emigration is directed, with a preference for Argentina over Brazil. The phase described thus far can be defined as one of perfect individual liberty. The outflow of population, the channels it follows and the choice of the countries of discharge are left to the spontaneous play of the natural forces of propulsion and attraction. In the old European countries no one opposed the continuous outflow of surplus labor forces, whose subsistence it was difficult to provide for with internal resources; in the new, sparsely populated countries there still existed no interests that opposed their reception. Both the one and the other considered the migratory movement as a suitable means of solving their problems; the former gladly rid themselves of persons who were a source of concern because they were discontented with their condition; the latter saw in European emigration the contribution of new forces capable of permitting their ascent toward prosperity and economic and political autonomy.

The picture begins to change in the 20th century. The preponderance of emigrants coming from the Mediterranean countries and from Eastern Europe induced the United States first to issue restrictive laws, so as to considerably check the influx of populations deemed less desirable, and these were then variously adopted by the other countries of immigration. The First World War marks the end of freedom of emigration and begins the period of protectionism under the influence of various causes, not always due to the will of states, indeed often such as to determine a political attitude different from that held in the preceding century in a necessary and insuperable manner. Emigration presently tends to assume an organized form, by means of bilateral agreements between states, which does not permit the autonomous movement of the masses.

To measure approximately the grandeur and importance of the migratory phenomenon, the following figures may serve as an indication. Between 1826 and 1932, according to the statistics of the countries of emigration, between 53 and 59 million persons would have departed from their respective homelands. If to these already imposing figures are added the probable ones of the period between 1820 and 1845 and, with somewhat greater precision, those of the years from 1932 to 1938, one will not be far from reality in affirming that, throughout the whole 19th century and the part of the 20th up to the Second World War, the migratory movement has channeled into its broad bed the overall number of about 80 million persons, at a rate of 600 or 700 thousand on average a year. No period of migration of peoples can find a match in that of the contemporary age.

If one were now to set out in search of the causes that produced such an enormous displacement of population, it would not be easy to identify them with precision from one case to the next. Religious persecutions, the desire for freedom, the density of population and precarious living conditions in certain countries, the mirage of easy earnings, the longing to improve one's social and economic position as far as possible, the pressing need for work, propaganda organized by the great companies, news received from the first ones who had made their fortune, and so on, influenced people's minds in different ways, leading them to break their ties with their homeland and family and to set out on the hazardous paths of the unknown. To attribute the vastness of the movement to one cause or another — as would be the case if one were to view it solely through the lens of the economic hardship produced by population density — leads to conclusions that are often belied by a more careful analysis of the facts.

II. MORAL AND LEGAL ASPECT

The right to emigrate, in order to go in search of a new domicile, breaking the juridical bond that ties man to the society in which he was born, has been discussed since the dawn of modern international law. Even before Grotius touched on the subject and Vattel later devoted greater attention to it, Vitoria had established certain principles and in general terms given the solution to the problem. According to Vitoria, the earth with its goods has been destined for the service of the human race, so that all men have the primordial right to make use of it, for their own subsistence and their own perfection. The division of property does not destroy this essential destination of the natural resources of the earth, and therefore if they are not exploited by the people who possess them, any man, even if belonging to another political society, may occupy them in order to make them attain their purpose, provided that his action is not harmful to that society to which the territory belongs. This conclusion is reinforced by him with an appeal to the principle of equality. If a society permits outsiders to set out in search of precious things existing in the territory of its jurisdiction, it cannot exclude others from the enjoyment of the same concession, without a reason grounded in the requirements of the common good. Moreover, the natural law dictates the precept of common solidarity and imposes the necessity of exchanges among the various peoples; man may, therefore, fix his domicile on any part of the earth, in order to weave relations of collaboration with other peoples, in whose territory he has the right to reside or to transit freely, if this does not bring detriment to others. Vitoria's thesis is, therefore, moderately liberal, inasmuch as to the affirmation of the human right to emigrate it joins the consideration of the common good of the land of immigration, by which the recognized right may be limited. The principles he established have become part of Catholic doctrine.

At present three solutions hold the field, two extreme and the other intermediate. The extreme ones draw their origin respectively either from the excessive worship of liberty, distinctive of the liberal conception, or from theories that more or less incline toward the absolutism of the power of the State and take different forms, while maintaining the principle of unlimited sovereignty. The liberal thesis maintains that the right to emigrate is nothing other than a manifestation of human liberty, which directs itself toward the choice of a domicile more suited to the person concerned, and since individual autonomy is a sacred and intangible right, the citizen has the faculty to emigrate at his discretion. Society consequently would have neither the power to suppress it nor that to limit it, except in case of true emergency. The theories, on the other hand, that more or less draw inspiration from the concept of the absolute power of the State, starting from the principle that the individual possesses no personal right for himself, except insofar as it is granted to him by public authority, denies him the right to emigrate and attributes to the State a discretionary power to prevent its exercise. Organic, racist or nationalist conceptions concur in confirming this attitude, inasmuch as in the bond that ties man to the land of origin and to the political and national society they see a bond of a physical nature.

The third solution, which has become the most common among internationalists, links back to the opinion expressed by Vitoria. It recognizes in man the natural right to emigrate, but subordinates its exercise to the common good of the two societies concerned, tempering the powers of the State with the limits imposed by the right of the human person, and the liberty of the individual with the restrictions required by the collective good. This is the solution that is accepted by Catholic doctrine. Among the fundamental rights of man is to be numbered that of personal liberty. The faculty to emigrate is the exercise of this right, directed toward the choice of a new domicile, toward the election of a new field of activity, held to be more suited to the needs of life; the State cannot, therefore, intervene to suppress it or to reduce it in an arbitrary manner. The bond, moreover, that joins man to a determined political aggregate, including that in which he was born, is not of a physical nature, but is essentially a moral relation, which he may break when necessity or convenience should counsel it. There is added, to reinforce his right, the character of means of social life in relation to the prevailing ends of life. If man cannot do without inserting himself within a social organism, because outside it he could neither live nor progress, nevertheless this final necessity does not bind him in an indissoluble manner to the stock from which he proceeds, since he can attain the same end and in a more secure manner in another collective body. He may, therefore, seek under other skies and among foreign nations the means to realize the end of his existence.

It follows that the State, by virtue of the right of sovereignty, does not have the faculty to oppose emigration in an absolute manner. Nevertheless the use of this right on the part of the citizen finds natural restrictions in the collective good, the care of which is devolved upon the supreme power of the State, which by its law may impose conditions, as it imposes them on any exercise of personal liberty in the social field, so that the emigratory outflow does not prejudice the general interests of the collectivity. The country of origin consequently has the right to subordinate emigration to the prior fulfillment of certain social obligations, as would be, for example, military service, and may adopt more rigorous measures either in case of necessity, on the imminence of a conflict, or to check an exodus of the population which by its extent would prove harmful to the efficiency of its own life. The more universal interest of the social body then prevails over the interest and the right of the individual who wishes to expatriate.

It is somewhat more difficult to determine the obligations of the country of immigration, which has no positive juridical duties toward the immigrant, since the latter does not belong to its social body. And yet, if one keeps in mind the principle laid down by Vitoria concerning the essential destination of the goods of the earth to the service of the human race, the State has no right to consider its subjects as the exclusive beneficiaries of the resources of its territory and to reserve the enjoyment of them to them alone. If, therefore, it possesses available space, where the natural resources lying idle could be made productive by the labor of other hands, it has a strict duty of justice to permit these to settle there and to draw from it the means of subsistence. Nevertheless, in this regard too one must not lose sight of the other principle laid down by the same Vitoria concerning the proper protection of the collective good, and therefore one must admit that the country of immigration also has the faculty of imposing restrictions on the arrival of foreigners, subjecting entry into its territory to particular conditions, so that their influx may not be prejudicial to public order and safety. Such restrictions, however, must always be founded upon a real requirement of the common good and not dictated by national egoism or by other ethnic prejudices. Undoubtedly not all the varieties of the human species can be fused with one another in such a way that no grave inconveniences in the moral and social order result from it. Paying attention to the greater or lesser assimilability of human stocks, a State may establish discriminations; these, however, cannot reach the point of condemning entire populations to an existence of misery, since every man has the right to draw from the earth the means of subsistence, to whatever group he may belong. Certain restrictive laws existing in some country of immigration, as, for example, in the United States, must be considered unjust, not because they establish quotas, which are legitimate in certain circumstances, but because the quota system tends to exclude peoples who are most in need of allowing their demographic surplus to be drained off, for unfounded reasons or religious antagonism.

The working conditions of the emigrant in the country of adoption are subject to the general moral and juridical laws that regulate this matter (v. LAVORO SALARIO). Mention must nevertheless be made of a particular aspect, brought to light by Pius XII in the radio message of June 1, 1941. Commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, the Pope pointed out how there exist regions abandoned to the vegetative caprice of nature, where labor could usefully be transferred, and how it is often inevitable that certain families, by emigrating, seek a new homeland elsewhere. In this case the right of the family to a living space must be respected. "Where this happens — he adds — emigration will attain its natural goal, which experience often confirms, namely the more favorable distribution of men over the surface of the earth, suited to settlement by farmers; a surface that God created and prepared for the use of all."

A brief mention is still deserved in this moral and juridical part by the assimilation and naturalization of the immigrant, with regard to which, while the right of the receiving State to work toward the slow absorption of the foreigner, settled in its territory, into its social and political body, so as to achieve amalgamation with the native populations and to ensure unity, is to be affirmed, it is at the same time to be categorically excluded that the process can be forced by oppressive measures. Assimilation must rather be left to the spontaneous play of man's natural virtues, which sooner or later produce the associative effect, if prudently aided by the stimulating action of public authority: naturalization, on the other hand, with the acquisition of the new citizenship, being a voluntary act of the individual, by which he spiritually adheres to the new political aggregate, can never be imposed by coercive means. Legislations on this point are not in agreement, some being inspired by ius soli, like that of the United States, others by ius sanguinis, and still others by a mixed system. It would be desirable for a certain uniformity to be achieved in this matter, in order to avoid the grave inconvenience of dual citizenship.

The immigrant, whether naturalized or not, enjoys, even within the country that has received him, the right to use his original language in his family and among his fellow nationals, and to profess his own religion freely in places of worship that his personal preferences lead him to choose. These are universal human rights, commonly recognized even by positive international law for ethnic minorities, which cannot in any way be denied to those who have emigrated, nor does the argument that they delay assimilation have any validity against them.

III. SOCIAL EVALUATION

Judgments on the social value of emigration prove discordant because of the different aspect under which it is considered, and of the emphasis given to some elements in preference to others, which nonetheless must not be neglected in an objective evaluation of the fact.

The opponents of emigration, generally of a nationalist tendency, linger in particular on pointing out the ills that it causes to the country. First of all, emigration would deprive the nation of a precious force, which, if kept within the borders of the homeland, could reinvigorate its efficiency. The emigrant is lost forever, not only as a numerical element, but as a man endowed with intelligence, will and physical and spiritual industriousness, and with him his offspring is lost, which, born in a foreign country, preserves only a pale memory of the homeland of origin. Moreover, emigration usually takes away the best-endowed individuals, in the full vigor of their strength and in the period of greatest productivity, who will lavish their activity in foreign lands, without the nation, to which they owe their birth, sustenance and education, deriving any direct benefit from it. The remittances that he sends do not suffice to compensate for the expenses incurred for his rearing, education and intellectual and professional formation. Nor is it accurate to say that with emigration national culture is expanded or the social organism is purified of dangerous toxins, freeing it of the less good individuals. In reality the emigrant, particularly in the second generation, is completely absorbed into the culture of the country of adoption, and only with further expenses can the nation of origin keep alive the flame of its own, by opening and maintaining schools and institutes for its assistance. Emigration, furthermore, as the statistics can demonstrate, far from purifying the social organism, takes away from it the youngest, most active and most daring members. Those who venture toward an often unknown future are not the weak, the sick, the incapable and the intellectually and physically deficient. Emigration, then, effects a reverse selection, dragging away the valid individuals and leaving the inept in the homeland. To the inconveniences described is added its inadequacy to solve the internal problem of the excessive density of the population in relation to the resources of the soil, since a prolific people, despite the migratory outflow, will always face the same scarcity of materials and the same demographic disproportion. It must then be borne in mind that emigration often disrupts family life, from which it separates the father for a long time, who is not always able to reconstitute the domestic unity. Pressing on these and other reasons, deduced from national prestige, emigration is judged as a social evil, which can be accepted out of greater necessity, but cannot be approved as an ordinary means to solve the problems of the life of a nation.

At the opposite pole stand its supporters, in whose favor the arguments previously mentioned militate, founded on man's freedom to choose for himself on earth the dwelling that he believes most suited to the satisfaction of his needs. It cannot, however, be denied that a part of truth is contained in the reasons of the opponents, regarding which it must be noted in a general way that number is strength when it can be usefully employed in profitable work; when, instead, it is condemned to inertia for lack of the possibility of using its energies, to the overcoming of which the economic conditions of the country are opposed, it does not represent a value, but a burden, which can become a source of discomfort for all, lowering the standard of living and giving rise to restless movements of unsatisfied masses. The computations in figures of the economic losses of which the country of departure is the victim betray a mercantilist mentality. Even from the economic aspect, moreover, man counts or is worth not for what he costs, but for what he is useful for, that is, for what under given conditions he can produce. If, then, in a nation there is a surplus of men relative to the need, such a surplus will not constitute an economic good, as long as those conditions last. In the overall reckoning of the advantages and disadvantages of emigration, perhaps the former prevail over the latter. After so many years of experiment, the conclusions reached by the International Congress of Public Charity, held in Brussels in 1856, may still be considered in principle valid, according to which: 1) the growth of the population cannot and must not be opposed by legal provisions; 2) the ills of pauperism due to the increase of the population can be effectively, if indirectly, attenuated through emigration; 3) consequently, full freedom and every possible protection must be granted to emigrants; 4) governments, associations and private individuals must combine their efforts to obtain from emigration all the benefits that can derive from it.

The positive evaluation becomes somewhat uncertain if emigration is considered in its moral reflections, since it is undoubted that very often transplantation into another environment becomes fatal for whoever attempts it, nor can it be denied that the removal, especially of the head of the family, can disorganize and overturn the family nucleus. There exists, moreover, a sad experience regarding the easy contraction of new habits, vices and diseases, from which the emigrant's place of origin was immune. Once the balance of the pros and cons is struck, everything advises proceeding very cautiously in pronouncing on the social and moral value of emigration.

IV. INTERNATIONAL ASPECT

More than in past times, in which the regime of the widest freedom prevailed, particularly after the First World War and even more so after the Second, emigration has become an international problem, which cannot be solved except through collective measures, which lay down an organic plan for the convenient distribution of the population over the earth and regulate migratory currents, directing them toward those outlets where the need for labor is felt. The changed economic conditions of the countries, the increased demands of the worker, who even abroad claims fair treatment, the ever-growing regulation of production by the State, today prevent free mass emigration and permit only that which is qualified according to the needs of the local economy. On the other hand, the situation of endemic hardship in which certain overpopulated nations find themselves in relation to the possibilities of work creates in itself a problem not only internal but also international, in whose solution all nations are interested, in order to prevent demographic pressure, with the consequent pauperism, from becoming a bad counselor and driving toward violent expansion. An outlet must be sought for these dissatisfied masses, attenuating, as far as possible, the necessity of emigrating, and at the same time increasing the possibilities of immigrating, and this cannot be achieved without collective collaboration.

The international character of emigration also results from the close economic interdependence of the various nations, determined by the unequal distribution of wealth. In the economic field, nations cannot live in isolation, but depend on one another and complement one another. Those most endowed with means and sources of raw materials cannot remain indifferent to the others with depressed economies, to which they must come to the aid in order to raise their common standard of living, which often cannot be achieved without a regulated outflow of their demographic surplus. Nor are the other aspects of emigration any less international, such as those of social protectionism, of equality of treatment between nationals and foreigners, of citizenship, of racial and national discriminations, each of which presents a practical problem, in whose solution both the countries of immigration and the countries of emigration have an equal interest. The intimate connection, moreover, with other international phenomena, such as the circulation of capital and of goods, extends still further the necessity of a regulation of a collective character, by which the problem may be tackled globally.

Attempts to set out along this path have not been lacking, but they have remained fruitless. The lack of a felt international solidarity, the absence of awareness of the interdependence among the various economies, the failure to recognize the necessity of considering and resolving the question of emigration in all its aspects, and exaggerated nationalism have prevented any appreciable results from being achieved on the international plane. The only international body of an official character that has carried out positive work, also in the sector of emigration, has been the International Labor Organization, which has promoted the stipulation of numerous international conventions, with provisions for the protection of the economic, sanitary and moral interests of emigrants, and at the same time, subordinately to the struggle for the prevention and repression of unemployment, has concerned itself with the international placement of labor. This body has survived the Second World War, indeed emerging strengthened by virtue of its excellent structure, and will be able, in connection with the United Nations Organization, to be useful still for an effective coordination of efforts tending toward the pacification of the nation, which in large part depends on the solution that will be given to the problem of emigration.

V. RELIGIOUS ASSISTANCE TO EMIGRANTS

The phenomenon of emigration created in the last century, alongside other problems, that of religious assistance to emigrants. The first emigrants, transferred from regions where religious life was intense to regions that had only yesterday ceased to be mission lands, or were monopolies of the Protestants, without adequate instruction, far from the local clergy, by whom they were often not understood, struggling with poverty, with exploitation and with the greed to grow rich, often ended up falling into the hands of either the Protestants, or more often still of religious indifferentism or of a practical atheism. It was the direct or indirect experience of these painful facts that moved in the last century certain great souls to organize the apostolate for emigrants and for Italian emigrants.

The movement is linked above all to three names: G. B. Scalabrini, Geremia Bonomelli, St. Frances Cabrini, and to various male and female religious congregations, some of which arose with this specific purpose.

A letter of the Pope to the archbishops of Naples, Genoa and Palermo for assistance to emigrants in the ports of embarkation dates from 1883. Committees were set up, but they accomplished very little. The first to take an effective interest in religious assistance to emigrants was the servant of God Msgr. G. B. Scalabrini, bishop of Piacenza. On the commission of the S. Congregation of Propaganda Fide, to which he had presented the problem, he drafted a plan, which Leo XIII approved on 26 June 1887. Part of this plan was also what was later called the Pious Society of the Missionaries of St. Charles for the assistance of Italian emigrants (28 Nov. 1887), later still called Scalabrinians.

A year later he invited Mother Cabrini to send her religious to America, for the assistance of emigrants, instead of to China, and on 19 May he himself handed the Crucifix to the foundress and to the first sisters about to depart. The same invitation he extended in 1900 to Mother Clelia Merloni, foundress of the Missionary Sisters Zelatrices of the Sacred Heart, and in Oct. of the same year a first group of these departed for São Paulo (Brazil). He then himself founded a Congregation of Missionary Sisters - divided into two branches - with the same purpose as his missionaries (Scalabrinians).

Another apostle of assistance to Italian emigrants was the bishop of Cremona, Msgr. G. Bonomelli, a great friend of Scalabrini. He dealt with the question of emigration in a pastoral letter of his of 1896, L'emigrazione. In Jan. 1900 he moreover sent an appeal on the subject to the National Association for the Aid of Italian Missionaries (founded by Senator Schiaparelli).

There then arose the Opera di assistenza degli emigrati italiani, for their material and spiritual assistance in the place where they went for work, of which in 1901 20 secretariats were functioning. It went on developing until after the war of 1914-18 under the direction of the priests of the Opera Bonomelli, who in 1914 began the publication of their own periodical La Patria. The Opera died out in 1928.

With an identical purpose, religious and patriotic, there arose the Italica gens, promoted in 1909 by the National Association for Italian Missionaries, which opened secretariats in Italy, in the Levant and in America, and granted subsidies to other similar institutions.

Outside the congregations properly so called, priests were sent directly from Italy to the regions of Europe and overseas inhabited by groups of Italians. To this end there arose in Rome a College of priests for Italian emigration, founded on 13 March 1914 and opened on 6 Jan. 1920. By then the S. Congregation Consistorial, with which Pius X by motu proprio of 15 Aug. 1912 had set up a special section for the spiritual care of emigrants (AAS, 4 [1912], pp. 526-27), had already claimed for itself, by the decree Magna semper of 30 Dec. 1918 (AAS, 11 [1919], pp. 39-43), everything concerning religious assistance to emigrants, together with the whole movement of priests who, for whatever reason, intend to emigrate from Europe, even temporarily, to America or to the Philippine Islands. The same Congregation set up a prelate for Italian emigration, who was above all to maintain relations with the Italian authorities, appointing him at the same time rector of the aforesaid College (Notification of the S. Congregation Consistorial, 23 Oct. 1920 and 26 May 1921).

VI. CURRENT STATE

The Sacred Consistorial Congregation (Section for Emigration) follows and directs every particular activity aimed at the assistance of emigrants in general, and in a particular way of Italian emigrants. Therefore all the religious Congregations and priests who concern themselves with the assistance of emigrants come under this Congregation.

The Pious Society of the Missionaries of St. Charles, the Congregation most specifically directed to this kind of apostolate, has been under the high direction of the same Sacred Consistorial Congregation since 1926. It has 87 houses, of which 39 are in the northern United States and 27 residences in Brazil with churches, schools and colleges; in these regions their ministry is carried out among communities that are already Italian and by now inserted into the communities of the respective nations (Italian-Americans).

Recently they have opened houses in 3 Argentine dioceses. Moreover their apostolate is carried out in the assistance of Italian emigrants, in the strict sense of the word, whether during the journey, or on arrival, or during their temporary stay abroad. And if the stay becomes permanent, the problem of insertion into the Catholic life of the country will then present itself. For 14 years they have extended their ministry into the neighboring nations of Europe (6 residences in France, 3 in Belgium and 3 in Switzerland). Other male and female religious Congregations collaborate in the assistance of emigrants, and particularly the Franciscans, Minor and Capuchin, the Jesuits, the Salesians, the Society of Catholic Apostolate, the Oblates of M. I., the Guanellians, the Company of St. Paul; among the female ones, the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (of Cabrini), the Missionary Sisters Zelatrices of the Sacred Heart, the Daughters of Charity, the Poverelle of Palazzolo, the Preziosine of Monza, the Sisters of St. Joseph, the Salesian Sisters.

Besides the religious men and women, other priests of the secular clergy who depend directly on the Sacred Consistorial Congregation work among the emigrants. These are subject to a superior for each nation or group of nations, elected by the same Congregation.

Religious assistance, specific to emigrants, must follow somewhat the more or less rapid course of the emigrant's assimilation into the country of arrival, and naturally follows different directions according to whether the emigration is temporary or perpetual. Where assimilation is rapid and the emigration perpetual, the only means of ensuring spiritual assistance is to increase proportionally the number of priests, bringing them from the countries of origin. This is what has been done and is being done. In Argentina there are already about thirty Italian priests, who have gone to the dioceses of Buenos Aires, La Plata, Rosario, Mercedes, S. Fè, Bahia Blanca, Mendoza, Tucuma, Catamarca.

When the true colonization of the great uncultivated territories is carried out, the criterion is instead to have the homogeneous groups of emigrants followed by a priest of their own nationality. This has been done in Argentina and in Venezuela.

In Europe, on the other hand, emigration is more than anything else temporary and individual in character. Given also the dispersion of the emigrants, the work of approach is more difficult. An attempt has been made to compensate by organizing above all the so-called flying missions. Each nation has been divided into many zones and the assistance of all the emigrants residing in each zone has been entrusted to one or more Italian missionaries. These, in close contact with the bishops, periodically visit the emigrants, in order to bring them spiritual assistance and direct them to attend the Churches and the local clergy.

In 1948 there were 13 of these missionaries in Belgium, 28 in France, 18 in Switzerland, 1 in Sweden, 2 in Luxembourg, 1 in Holland, 2 in England, 1 in Romania, without counting the religious, transferred from one nation to another by their respective religious superiors. Thus recently a group of Italian Capuchins from the United States moved to Australia for the assistance of Italian emigrants.

In their work in France and in Belgium, the Italian missionaries are assisted by the local Ordinaries and by the organizations ACLI (v.) and ONARMO (v.). In France an episcopal Commission presided over by the archbishop of Sens has been set up for this purpose. In Belgium each bishop has appointed his own delegate for immigrants; these delegates moreover come under a national delegate, who arranges the various initiatives in agreement with the superior of the Missionaries.

The organ of the missions of Europe consists of 8 local bulletins. Moreover since 1947, at the Secretariat of State of His Holiness, a special Migration Office has been functioning, which concerns itself with stateless persons and with the Catholic initiatives that arise in the various nations in favor of emigrants.

Antonio Mestineo