It then goes on to say: There is of course a wide difference between monthly arrivals of 1.500 before the passage of this law and the 00 average for thelast year. In the ten years for which the law runs the surreptitious arrivals would not aggregate more than 3.500. The paper says that the half of the 66 per month were probably "landed by fraud or perjury or other evasion of the act." It is therefore to prevent the suspected surreptitious immigration of 3.500 in ten years that this bill is to be enacted into law. But mark this. there is no evidence that a single one of those 66 monthly arrivals were fraudulent or surreptitious. but the proper conclusion is that they really were those who have the right under the treaty to return to this country.
Keywords matched
immigration