Y u gosla v ia .................................... ----------------B ritish N orth A m erica -. ---------------------------................. M exico ----------------------------------..---------..-----------..... 5.163 12.641 19.139 3.809 42. 412 8.865 28.033 2.038 17.274 1. 129 7. 186 46.904 6.120 57. 634 23.028 +4. 428 -477 +4. 091 +12. 853 -4.873 -21.235 +3. 509 -6.194 -4.760 +10. 365 -11.716 +4. 412 +23.357 -4. 053 +35. 952 +14. 353 8. 296 14.090 50. 575 3. 05 50.828 12. 670 26.915 2.434 17. 815 1.897 18.493 74. 832 6.292 126. 742 67. 287 +7. 863 +227 +11.663 +46. 929 +254 +23. 442 +10.974 +20. 905 -279 +14.921 -1.627 +16. 612 +54.438 +4. 052 +102.520 +62. 224 +12. 291 -250 +15. 754 +59.782 -4. 619 +2.207 +14. 483 +14.711 -5.039 +25.286 -13. 343 +21.024 +77. 795 +138.472 +76. 577 As usually happens in movements of national Import. those most active In the interest of a measure are those least affected. The State of Connecticut. with a large foreignborn population. is naturally vitally Interested in the immigration problem. Yet Connecticut has raised no cry against the Italian. the Hungarian. or the Pole as an inferior type. To be sure. there are some among their number who are not the most desirable. but of what nation or race Is not the same thing true?
Keywords matched
immigration