Best emigration & immigration studies books according to redditors
We found 89 Reddit comments discussing the best emigration & immigration studies books. We ranked the 46 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
12. Godfathers and Thieves: How Syria's Diaspora Crowd-Sourced a Revolution (Kindle Single)
1 mention
> It's anarchist in nature really. Open borders, free trade, and individual isolationism with roving bands of minorities that believe they are oppressed.
NO IT'S NOT. These are all government programs, not the absence of regulation.
Every step is government action, we're the farthest thing from anarchy.
From the Wall Street Journal (full text below):
>President Trump won two victories on his border agenda Friday, with the Supreme Court allowing the use of military funds to expand the barrier on the Mexican border while Guatemala agreed to serve as gatekeeper for asylum seekers trying to get to the U.S.
>In a 5-4 decision, the justices of the U.S. high court said President Trump can shift about $2.5 billion in military funds to construct an additional 100 miles of wall at the U.S.-Mexico border in an effort to seal off the U.S. from illegal immigration.
>In February, Mr. Trump had declared a national emergency in order to divert a total of $6.7 billion from military and other sources, without the approval of Congress, which had signaled willingness to give him far less. Lower courts had barred the transfer of some of the funds desired by the president, but the Supreme Court on Friday ordered those lower court rulings to be suspended.
>“Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law.”
>Separately, under pressure from the Trump administration, Guatemala agreed to require migrants traveling through it to the U.S. to seek asylum there instead of at the U.S.-Mexico border.
>Mr. Trump joined Guatemala’s interior minister, Enrique Degenhart, and acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan in the Oval Office to sign what White House officials said was a safe third-country agreement.
>“They can make a protection claim, if they would like, in Guatemala,” Mr. McAleenan said. “So, if they arrive in the U.S. not having availed themselves of that opportunity, they will be returned to Guatemala.”
>The two developments represent hard-fought victories for the Trump administration in its effort to address a flood of refugees along the U.S. border with Mexico, which the Republican president described on Friday as “the crippling crisis on our border.” Mr. McAleenan said he expected the agreement with Guatemala to take effect sometime in August.
>The move comes shortly after a federal judge in California dealt a blow to a Trump administration rule that would have barred most asylum claims from migrants who had passed through any other country after leaving their home nations. U.S. Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the administration to halt the rule, which had been in effect since mid-May.
>That put increased pressure on the Trump administration to come to an agreement with Guatemala that would block Hondurans and Salvadorans traveling north. In a call with reporters Friday, Mr. McAleenan said the agreement was “obviously part of a broader relationship with Guatemala.”
>Mr. McAleenan maintained that he believed that Guatemala was an appropriate country for asylum seekers from other places, and that the agreement, which he defined as an “agreement to collaborate on access to protection” was within the scope of the administration’s powers in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
>Guatemala’s government said the agreement seeks to prevent the threat of U.S. sanctions that would have inflicted severe economic and social damage to Guatemala. Under the deal, Guatemala will implement a plan to give asylum to migrants from Honduras and El Salvador.
>In exchange, Guatemala’s government said, the U.S. government agreed to expand an agricultural guest-worker program for Guatemalans, allowing them to travel legally to the U.S. The guest-worker program will also include construction and service-sector workers in subsequent stages.
>Under terms of the agreement posted online by the Guatemalan government on Friday, the U.S. government will arrange and cover transportation costs of asylum seekers sent from the U.S. to Guatemala. Unaccompanied minors are excluded from the agreement. The pact can be renewed after two years and it will be revised every three months.
>The Supreme Court order, which split the court along its conservative-liberal divide, allows the administration to begin constructing a barrier along the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexico border.
>Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, upheld a lower court ruling that blocked the administration’s plan. Friday’s order allows the government to move ahead while it appeals the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
>Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Mr. Trump’s two appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, voted to let the plan proceed. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
>“We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the lower courts should not have halted construction of walls on the southern border,” said Justice Department spokesman Alexei Woltornist. “We will continue to vigorously defend the administration’s efforts to protect our nation.”
>The challengers vowed to press on. The decision “will wall off and destroy communities, public lands and waters in California, New Mexico and Arizona,” said Gloria Smith, managing attorney with the Sierra Club. ”The Sierra Club will continue to fight this wall and Trump’s agenda through and through.”
>Justice Breyer—who alone among the dissenters would have allowed the administration to take preliminary steps short of actually beginning physical construction—wrote a brief opinion offering a glimpse into the court’s deliberation. In it, Justice Breyer suggested that a principal question was whether the groups that challenged the administration’s plan to reallocate funds have legal standing to file the lawsuit.
>“This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power,” he wrote.
>The Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition sued to block the reallocation in February, alleging that the wall project would inflict environmental harms and reduce the quality of life along the border.
>If private parties lack standing to challenge the president’s action, however, there may be no one who can. The House of Representatives, whose Democratic majority rejected the administration’s border-wall funding request, itself sued to stop the action; in June, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled the House lacked legal standing to file suit. The House said it plans to appeal.
>Justice Breyer’s Friday opinion observed that by issuing the order, “the Government may begin construction of a border barrier that would cause irreparable harm to the environment and to respondents, according to both respondents and the District Court.”
>He said that the government’s only response to the claim of irreparable harm was that the border wall could be taken down, but it doesn’t say where that funding would come from.
>“But this is little comfort because it is not just the barrier, but the construction itself (and presumably its later destruction) that contributes to respondents’ injury,” he continued.
>At the same time, he said, the Trump administration could suffer if its request to move ahead while appealing from the Ninth Circuit was denied. That is because the appropriations the government wants to shift to the wall expire Sept. 30, and there is little prospect that Congress would allocate any funds to the project.
>That political fact, however, formed a basis of the appellate court ruling against the government. Courts, the Ninth Circuit said, should defer “to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction.”
>About 654 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border currently has some kind of physical barrier, and much of the rest of the border has natural barriers. Congress did allocate around $1.38 billion for 55 miles of wall; Mr. Trump deemed that insufficient for what he has described as a crisis of illegal immigration that requires a wall.
>The Trump administration has sought to replace some barriers with tougher materials and to erect some new barriers where there was previously no wall but hasn’t specified where all of the funded construction is to take place.
There are lots of CW angles here, though what I find fascinating is how most of those angles would not have been CW at all if Trump didn't famously make "Build a Wall" part of his platform in 2016. Every previous administration has dealt with illegal immigration over the US southern border by means not that much different. For example::
>No More Deaths depicts the border as a gauntlet which often condemns would-be crossers to grim and uncertain fates. It said the policy was rooted in a 1994 Clinton-era Border Patrol strategy called “Prevention Through Deterrence” which sealed off urban entry points and funneled people to wilderness routes risking injury, dehydration, heat stroke, exhaustion and hypothermia.
(This was also the central point of the "Land of Open Graves" book.)
In an alternative history universe, a different US president would have argued for the necessity of making the southern border impassable, based on humanitarian reasons.
Languages typically die off by the 3rd or 4th generation. A book I read a few years back, Replenished Ethnicity goes into how a steady influx of immigrants can prolong the attachment to one's ancestral home.
Right now, the largest immigrant communities in the US are Asian and Latin American... as such, these communities are likely to have stronger cultural ties to their nation of origin - including language.
With Western Europe, we simply don't have the same degree of immigration as we used to - there is no 'new blood' to keep cultural ties current.
Although most of us are too far removed from our ancestral origins for the language to persist, many cultural practices have taken firm hold - a lot of regional variation in the US is directly tied to the origins of their immigrants.
Growing up in Wisconsin, while I don't consider myself "German" I do feel a lot more comfortable/familiar visiting Germanic and Nordic regions of Europe than I do when visiting anywhere else. The humor, food, and overall way that people carry themselves is almost identical to what I grew up with.
edit: There are still many of us whose grandparents or great-grandparents who emigrated from Europe; I do know a few people that still speak Polish/German/Norwegian in their homes, but it's a minority.
All the links to the pictures of the sticker are flagged as non-secure for me, but they're by the same people that wrote this alt-right book.
And here is the Wikipedia synopsis of the movement:
The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is a European and North American[2][3][4][5] white nationalist[5][6][7][8] movement originating in France. The identitarians began as a youth movement deriving from the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right) Génération Identitaire and the anti-Zionist and National Bolshevik Unité Radicale. Although initially the youth wing of the anti-immigration and nativist Bloc Identitaire, it has taken on its own identity and is largely classified as a separate entity altogether.[9]
The movement is a part of the counter-jihad movement,[10] with many in it believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory.[8][11] It also supports the concept of a "Europe of 100 flags".[12] The movement has also been described as being a part of the global alt-right.[13][14][15]
Sadly many did not vote for this (anytime the plebs are asked across the west the majority Always say NO!)
This is a great book,[ (https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Death-Europe-Douglas-Murray/dp/1543625487)
>I dont see why it's a "hater" mentality to love your own people
Don't be fooled, this is not a universal claim, it is applied exclusively to the whites. No one bats an eye when non-white immigrants all huddle in one area of a city as they sometimes do and only interact with each other, speak their own language, follow their own social norms. In fact, there's been some court cases in the United States where punishments have been lessened or waived for rape and murder because the courts found it acceptable for the non-assimilated immigrants to follow their own social norms. Example: murder wife and/or kids for adultery. See sources in Ann Coulter's "Adios America: the left's plan to turn our country into a third world hellhole".
None of my outrage is fake. I have some reading for you, because I suspect my perspective is confusing without a little academic foundation:
https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Paradox-Immigration-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0871545136
http://www.russellsage.org/research/post-racial-society-or-diversity-paradox
The best research (above) shows that the most effective way to reduce discrimination is to gradually increase the circle of what is considered an in-group. I am outraged that the left was complicit in restricting the circle. Nobody went, "Wait, Arabs are Caucasian and Caucasian are white" or anything like that. Note, these arguments are a bit disingenuous if you don't believe in race, but the important part is undermining WNs. The fact that "white" is even a commonly used label is itself a concession to WNs, and we won't be able to make completely coherent arguments before we back out of this paradigm. The left ceded ground to literal WNs and let them control the definition of one of the most important designations in our society. There's a reason Arabs all mark white in the census, yet in recent times they've been repeatedly described by the left as "brown".
Social progress, if we're going to engage in it, will eventually end the categories of "brown", "yellow", etc. They are meaningless categories and carry no information. The left isn't going to tear down the entire institution of racism in one fell swoop. Given that, one has to wonder why the left's central project is not expanding the circle. Is it because it reduces their political coalition? Maybe, maybe not. Either way the left is still a stooge trapped in the paradigm of white supremacy.
https://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Invasion-Conquest-Immigration-Resettlement/dp/1944229582
It's a review of the book The Scramble for Europe by Stephen Smith. There is a video of him giving a ten minute presentation here:
Hopefully someone will post a mirror for you soon.
Aha, is it this one?
Looks good. Do you have the quote where Trump thanked Ann for it?
Hi to Ann if you're reading this you awesomely nimble person!
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/get-rid-borders-completely/409501/
http://time.com/4062074/migrants-open-borders/
https://openborders.info/moral-case/
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/branko-milanovic-economist-proposal-open-borders-migration-citizenship
http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1407506?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.amazon.com/Let-Them-Case-Open-Borders/dp/1592404316
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-100-trillion-case-for-open-borders-2017-2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/14/why-economists-love-and-politicians-detest-the-idea-of-opening-the-borders-to-lots-more-immigrants/?utm_term=.01db014312eb
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199731732.001.0001/acprof-9780199731732-chapter-6
http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-case-for-open-borders/9A862A4A-BA82-4BA0-A25D-791F68D415D0.html
https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/joseph-h-carens/case-for-open-borders
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/the_freedom-lov.html
Etc...
Yep. stemgang is pretty violently antifeminist and anti-immigrant. (No, scratch that, anti non-European/North American immigrant.) I've never seen him bothered by sexism against women before.
Anti-feminist:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cl5gf/mens_rights_is_the_audacious_claim_that_men_are/c0tfc9g
Here's a book he recommended in one comment:
http://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312285485
umm try again sweetie
I'm reading the book "Illegal" which came out last month, I'm most the way through it. What I find interesting is that most of the illegal immigrants that get talked about love the work they do, even when it's fairly menial. They like the pride it gives them, and the relative wages compared to their old homes in mexico.
http://www.amazon.com/Illegal-Life-Death-Arizonas-Immigration/dp/1599218615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280523697&sr=8-1
I was reading a book on the arguments for and against compulsory voting, and one of the arguments that stuck with me was about voter ignorance. The point the guy, Jason Brennan, made was that it's not the bottom quartile of potential voters that are ignorant. That's the second to bottom quartile. The bottom quartile of citizens are actually actively wrong. You give them a 100 question true or false test they'll get under 25 right. They're not just ignorant, but misinformed.
Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole
https://www.amazon.com/dp/162157606X/
> Which bit of Europe exactly?
Western and Northern, with a couple exceptions. Even regular folks in your own nation are starting to notice. John Cleese explicitly stated that London isn't an English city anymore.
> when your own demographics are in a laughably worse state.
Uh, that's objectively wrong in regards to Islam bud. Do you seriously not know the demographics changes on your continent? You may want to read.
https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Death-Europe-Douglas-Murray/dp/1543625487
Ann Coulter: How the Establishment Will Try to Destroy Trump - Dec 8, 2016 - Source: breitbart.com
Shortly before Thanksgiving, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni wrote a column that should chill you to the bone.
Titled “Donald Trump’s Demand for Love,” Bruni said: “I had just shaken the president-elect’s normal-size hand and he was moving on to the next person when he wheeled around, took a half step back, touched my arm and looked me in the eye anew. ‘I’m going to get you to write some good stuff about me,’ Donald Trump said.”
Bruni is a fabulous writer, but if he ever writes good stuff about you, Mr. President-elect, YOU WILL HAVE FAILED.
I assume this was just our president-elect doing something he gets the least credit for, which is being nice.
But you can never be too careful.
The Times is in total opposition to Trump’s stated goal to make America great again.
Trump has got to know — not next year, but by 5 p.m. today — that anyone pursuing his agenda will incite rage, insanity and spitting blood from that newspaper.
There’s a long and tragic history of Republicans who won the war but lost the peace by trading results for respectability.
The first President Bush not only promised not to raise taxes, but also laid out the steps Democrats would take to get him to break that promise.
“And the Congress will push me to raise taxes,” he said in his iconic 1988 convention speech, “and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say to them, ‘Read my lips: No new taxes.’”
He was a good prognosticator!
Congress did exactly as he’d anticipated.
But instead of saying “no,” Bush caved.
That betrayal cost the GOP its most popular issue.
As the Times’ Michael Wines put it (shortly before Bush predictably lost his re-election bid), with the president’s sellout, Republicans gave up “a political weapon so fearsome that it had destroyed three Democratic presidential candidates in 12 years.”
The Times had spent months hectoring Bush about the “yawning deficit,” denouncing his “obdurate refusal” to raise taxes, and promising “political popularity” for the “needed” tax hike.
But the moment Bush raised taxes, the Times couldn’t stop crowing about his broken promise.
That was always the whole point.
Not the “yawning deficit.”
Not raising revenue.
But to get the GOP to give up its most potent issue.
Trump has just annihilated 16 far more experienced Republican rivals, the Clinton machine and the entire media/Hollywood/Wall Street complex by raising the one issue no other politician would touch: putting America’s interests first on immigration. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/162157606X]
What promise do you think they want Trump to break?
Luckily for the country, Trump doesn’t seem obsessed with what the elites think of him. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735214468]
But his advisers include just the type of Republicans whose second-tier law schools make them particularly susceptible to the cheap respectability of establishment media approval.
Trump has been a politician for only a little more than one year.
He has no experience with the tricks that will be played to get him to betray voters on his signature issue.
The first president Bush knew what was coming — and he still broke his promise.
Manifestly, if anyone in Washington seriously wanted to build a wall, deport illegals, return criminal aliens to their own countries, end the anchor baby scam and prevent jihadists from immigrating here to kill Americans, it would have been done already.
Nearly every promise Trump made on immigration is 100 percent within the power of the president.
For example:
It is already the president’s job, as commander in chief, to protect the borders.
It is already the Department of Defense’s job to build border walls.
It’s already the law that citizenship is not acquired by being born on U.S. soil to an illegal alien. (No Congress has ever passed such a law, nor has the Supreme Court ruled that they are: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/162157606X)
It is already the secretary of state’s duty to rescind visas from countries that refuse to take their criminals back.
It is already the president’s job to prohibit the entry of any class of immigrants he deems “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
It is already the president’s job to remove immigrants who commit crimes, entered our country through fraud (i.e., every single refugee), are in the country illegally or who become public charges.
None of those things have ever been done before for one reason: The entire Washington establishment is unalterably opposed to enforcing our immigration laws.
Trump will have no trouble enacting the rest of his agenda.
If congressional Republicans are good for anything, it is to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes and regulation, confirm good judges and protect the Second Amendment.
No one but Trump would have done it, but not even Nancy Pelosi is going to attack Trump for keeping jobs in America.
Only when it comes to immigration will Trump be Gary Cooper, out there alone against every powerful entity in America.
Just as he was during the campaign.
On immigration, Trump will be furiously opposed by: Democrats, Republicans, the permanent bureaucracy, the Chamber of Commerce, George Soros, The Wall Street Journal — in fact, the entire media, except four webpages, six bloggers and five talk-radio hosts — and hundreds of taxpayer-funded immigrant grievance groups. And that’s just off the top of my head.
He’ll even be opposed by his own hand-picked U.N. ambassador! (It is an amazing fact that at the 2016 State of the Union, both the Democratic president’s address, and the Republican governor’s response, attacked candidate Trump’s immigration proposals.)
There’s a reason millions of Americans were showing up at Trump’s rallies chanting, “Build the Wall!” and not, “End Obamacare!” “Cut taxes!” “Save the Second Amendment!” — or any other slogan that could have been chanted just as easily at a Jeb! Rally.
There are only a handful of people in the entire country with the knowledge and ability to enforce our immigration laws.
Any Cabinet appointees likely to impress The New York Times aren’t going to get it done.
They won’t have to expressly defy Trump.
They just won’t do it.
Perhaps they’ll make some showy effort at deporting illegals — and then back down at the first La Raza lawsuit.
Or they will allow career government lawyers to submit briefs in court that cite all the wrong cases.
Or they’ll wait for Speaker Paul Ryan’s approval to do anything.
Or they’ll be moved by a Nikki Haley speech about the vibrant diversity of Somali refugees.
Or they’ll be scared off by Washington bureaucrats who say, You can’t do that!
But if Trump chooses from among the few people who know how to get it done (Kris Kobach, Kris Kobach or Kris Kobach), his promises will be kept.
He can relax.
He can spend all his time playing golf, living in Trump Tower, yelling at American CEOs trying to outsource jobs — and engaging in appalling conflicts of interest with his businesses.
He could even shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. (I propose GOP consultant Rick Wilson!)
Trump is down to his last wish from Aladdin.
He can impress The New York Times, or he can make America great again.
But he can’t do both.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/ann-coulter-how-the-establishment-will-try-to-destroy-trump/
OP, si lo que te interesa es leer de migración específicamente, el problema es qe hay muchas fuentes. Hay ibros de "estudios de la migración" y también muchos artículos. La mayoría tienden a hablar de migración a sitios/países específicos. ¿Deseas saber de la migracón en América Latina, quieres leer de teoría de la migración? Los podcasts que pusiste son muy buenos, creo, y muy bien narrados.
No es mi campo, pero he leído algo al respecto. El año pasado leí una porción de un libro titulado "The Oxford Handbook of Forced Migration Studies". Es bastante completo, y aborda teoría, causas y estudios de caso.
También vi uno en la biblioteca, de un autor llamado James Hampshire, The Politics of Immigration, pero no lo conozco, así que no podría dar una opinión.
Ahora bien, de la migración en América Latina, también hay muchísimo, a grado tal que es difícil recomendar algo específico. Un buen lugar donde empezar a orientar tu lectura sería Latinobarómetro, la CEPAL y el Pew Center. Esas instituciones tienen mucho acerca de migración. También te sugeriría que entraras a la página web de tu biblioteca y buscaras artículos específicos. Por último, te puedo sugerir este libro de Durand, que habla específicamente sobre la migración México-EE.UU.
​
Y ya para cerrar, yo no me pondría a leer ni a Wallerstein, ni a Fanon ni a Galeano para indagar más sobre la migración, porque ninguno habla específicamente de ello. Son lecturas útiles (Fanon el que más, los otros dos, aunque más nuevos, se han vuelto obsoletos más pronto), pero demasiado tangenciales para el tema que te interesa.
Really good book on this subject by Stephen Smith: https://www.amazon.com/Scramble-Europe-Young-Africa-Continent/dp/1509534563
> "In this brand new SteynPost, Mark considers the latest attempt to discuss the demographic transformation of Europe without getting damned as a racist white supremacist, etc, and the crude arithmetic of the latest UN population statistics."
Book he mentions: https://www.amazon.com/Scramble-Europe-Young-Africa-Continent/dp/1509534563
Mark Steyn's 2017 interview with Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4obxH2vSms
Mark Steyn's 2018 interview with Lindsay Shepherd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUMkRa6lBAQ
I'm mixed and identify as white like Obama identifies as black. Half my family are Christian Republicans and the other half is white. Apparently it is very common with Asians/Indians and to a lesser extent Latinos with mixed ancestry to identify as white. Maybe you just don't notice?
There's a book which corroborates what I am saying with data: https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Paradox-Immigration-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0871545136
here http://middleeastweek.org/home/2015/9/29/syrian-diaspora-in-the-gulf
https://www.amazon.com/Godfathers-Thieves-Diaspora-Crowd-Sourced-Revolution-ebook/dp/B0155RJN46/ref=sr_1_1?tag=mideaswee-20#nav-subnav
BTW, she wrote the playbook that Donald Trump used to win the election.
On behalf of /r/the_donald I would like to welcome Ann Coulter!
Everyone, please give this wonderful lady the respect she deserves. No trolling, no snide remarks, no "progressive" morons trying to hijack the AMA with their anti-American agenda. Morons are not allowed to post here at /r/the_donald! Offenders will be banned.We would love for Ms. Coulter to return for more AMAs in the future. Make her feel welcome!Also, please check out her most recent book ¡Adios, America!. Some of Trump's rhetoric (i.e. "30 million illegals, not 11") are straight from the book.
EDIT: Ann Coulter has told us to not remove any more comments. From now until the end of the AMA morons are allowed to post here!
EDIT #2: I've modmailed /r/politics asking them to promote this, they offered it earlier today but we declined. Ann wants these people to show up. Welcome the liberal morons! This is their one and ONLY chance to post here without being banned!
EDIT #3: The /r/politics moderators offered a sticky. 15 minutes after I accepted it I asked for an update and was told that I can't expect them to get a link up in the snap of a finger. They have a LOW ENERGY moderator team!
EDIT #4: /r/politics has rescinded their offer to promote this AMA. They are not good to stand by their word. No wonder they lost their status as a default subreddit!
EDIT #5: Ann Coulter is done with this AMA!
I bought/read this book when it came out.
Jason Riley is a fervent supporter of open borders.
https://www.amazon.com/Let-Them-Case-Open-Borders/dp/1592404316
Cool, that is what I wanted. Read this https://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Lefts-Country-Hellhole/dp/162157606X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499674388&sr=8-1&keywords=ann+coulter
Things in the EU will not get any better, and the US will follow. One major factor is that the more non-muslims are exposed to muslims, the more they vote for right-wingers. I highly recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Death-Europe-Douglas-Murray/dp/1543625487
I mean there's obviously stuff like this. You can probably make something like this for any famous person because it's inevitable that they're going to say stupid things. Looking at her twitter it's a lot less cringey than I remember it was during the campaign. It looks like she's upset about Trump not following through with his campaign promises.
I haven't read her [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Lefts-Country-Hellhole/dp/162157606X) and I don't plan to because it's ridiculous and certainly doesn't help my opinion of her.
It's hard to really pinpoint one thing that made me form that opinion of her but it's more of a built up thing especially since I've never heard her say something that I agree with or that would sway my opinion the other way.
Side note: it's not really relevant but seeing her at the roast of rob lowe was just embarrassing for her and really hard to watch.
So much that our good friend Pat Buchanan is alarmed.
Any one who really wants straight talk backed with real data about illegal immigration crimes should read this book Adios America
You will enjoy Death of the West.
Have you read this book? The Land of Open Graves
It could give you some good inspiration!
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
amazon.fr
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization
Incentivado? Também não. A enorme maioria das pessoas que votam não são remotamente informadas o suficiente pra um voto competente. A enorme maioria das pessoas simplesmente não devem votar, já que o voto delas só polui a qualidade da democracia. Nós não vamos ter governos melhores se quantidades maiores de pessoas mal-informadas nos assuntos cruciais votando. Ótimo livro que eu recomendo, de dois cientistas políticos debatendo esse assunto: Compulsory Voting For and Against.
I just read your book ["Adios America"] (http://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Ann-Coulter/dp/1621572676) and I wanted to say Thank You for writing this. It is really eye opening how our government is systematically lying to us regarding immigrants. Also Thank You for bring the topic of Immigration to the forefront of this election cycle.
P.S. Just ordered a signed copy of the book.
Europe should also consist of ethnostates. Here is a book on this subject: https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Identity-Markus-Willinger/dp/1907166416
Why should Europeans also have a state or states in North America? Because Europeans came here as pioneers and created a society and state of their own on this continent. Compare the Turks in Turkey. They are originally a Central Asian people, from (more or less) Turkmenistan. They migrated west and conquered Turkey for themselves. This is pretty much how any people that possesses any land has acquired it. History can be brutal.
Europeans settled in America and created a nation for "Ourselves and Our Posterity." As they made quite clear in the First Congress (1790 Naturalization Act - google it), that means White people. The USA was created by, of, and for White people.
Further reading on the Founders: http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race
Further considerations on America and race: https://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312285485
> What would UK be looking to gain from Ireland, and vice versa?
One of the biggest hurdles for Brexit is figuring out how the Ireland/Northern Ireland border would function. It seems silly to dismiss the possibility of disputes between them when their shared border is one of their biggest foreign policy issues right now.
> And in the US/Mexico case, how would war benefit either side?
I don't think it would, but it is worth acknowledging that this book exists:
Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation
...so others clearly disagree.
> If we are looking at this, strictly from an economic standpoint, it seems that the world has become extremely efficient at economic exploitation of labor and resources...
That is my point! They have too much to lose from war, so they find other means.
>...so much that the opposite might actually be more beneficial - governments might prop up bad governments, to allow continued access to cheap resources and labor, instead of trying to invade and take over those resources themselves.
It has happened!
"In the early 20th century, the American businessman Sam Zemurray...conspired with Manuel Bonilla, an ex-president of Honduras (1904–1907), and the American mercenary Gen. Lee Christmas, to overthrow the civil government of Honduras and install a military government friendly to foreign businessmen. "
How is that myth still alive? "Invasions" during a time when it took 6 months to travel from Rome to England did not lead to any mass settlements... are you paid to post such nonsense or do you really believe it? If only some scientists did genetic testing to decipher our population's history... oh wait, they already did that multiple times:
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Flags-Indigenous-People-Britain/dp/1445287757
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nation-Immigrants-Demographic-History-Britain/dp/1903386586
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/12th-may-2001/20/barking-racists
Verdict: false.
The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole
https://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Lefts-Country-Hellhole/dp/162157606X
> I've been very critical of Omar's remarks. They're irresponsible and factually wrong at best, anti-semitic at worst.
You're being moderate. I appreciate it.
>
> But I don't see what that has to do with the accusation that she hates America. I think that's facially ridiculous.
I agree; it is ridiculous.
>you see the same resentment, whether somebody has or hasn't illegally immigrated.
The resentment is far greater on the illegals. And there were some exaggerated concerns over Muslims coming to the U.S., partly because of the murders in Europe by Muslims and also the fascinating 2014 Sam Harris-Ben Afleck debate over Muslims. Harris made a pretty good anti-Muslim case. But IMO many conservatives in the past 2 years have realized the Muslims in the U.S. boogieman is much overstated.
>What I believe to be fundamentally at the core of this resentment is a fear of cultural and demographic change... white people... statistically begin to favor stricter immigration policies than before.
It is true, though some whites don't want to concede it. Some of the criticisms directly our way are wrong, e.g., to say we are primarily racists or xenophobic. Japanese fit that characterization. Many of us (and the number will grow) have no problem living in a multicultural society say 60% white/40% non-white. But if the demographic is reversed, it's a concern to many whites.
We have several assumptions: 1) Immigrants by and large will support further large scale immigration, and whatever other policies the initial group will tend to support will be further supported by the additional arrivals. 2) Most immigrants will embrace liberal platforms more than conservative. Not necessarily to a huge degree--many immigrants have conservative values like hard work--but the overall their support will tip Left, we suspect.
We cannot be sure of these assumptions, but at minimum, it's a situation of unforeseen outcomes, sort of similar to what's happening to Europe, but the situation is more extreme there. (Pretty good book: The Strange Death of Europe)
It's not clear to America what the benefit of all this increased immigration is. We conservatives already accept the reality that non-white immigrants will have children at much higher rates than whites. Though the U.S. is multicultural, it has a historical narrative with the founding fathers and all that. This is Greek to most immigrants, and it is clear that some people on the Left see no value in it either. More cultural diffusion is a concern for conservatives.
Theoretically, yes, unless they're citizens. Don't hold your breath, though. Some sort of really, really, really super-duper serious misrepresentation had to have taken place during the asylum process for the US Immigration and Naturalization Service to send someone back to country they came from.
(Ann Coulter discusses immigration issues in her 2015 book, ¡Adios, America!)
>Didn't he say people coming on the border are "bringing crime, THEY'RE RAPISTS - and some I assume are good people"?
from your Cato link:
"Whether illegal immigrants bring a significant amount of crime to the United States is one of the most important questions to answer in the debate over immigration policy. President Trump also seems to think so as he launched his campaign in 2015 with the now infamous quote: “[Mexican illegal immigrants] are bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” From executive orders to major talking points to the President’s speeches, which Vox reporter Dara Lind has aptly described as “immigrants are coming over the border to kill you,” Trump is interested in this important topic. "
​
​
ILLEGAL.
Dont leave out the adjective that makes the statement NOT racist.
​
>Which, besides being false (immigrants, including illegals, commit crimes at a lower rate than american born citizens (a sum article: https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-crime-assessing-evidence), is a pretty racist thing to say
​
​
Why is it racist? He said Illegal ones not all Mexicans.
He got that from a HuffPo article.
From your Cato link:
>" In 2010, 10.7 percent of native-born men aged 18-39 without a high school degree were incarcerated compared to 2.8 percent of Mexican immigrants and 1.7 percent of Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants. "
​
Why are we comparing native men WITHOUT high school degree?
>" Measuring illegal immigrant crime rates is challenging for several reasons. First, the American Community Survey does not ask which inmates in adult correctional facilities are illegal immigrants. Second, federal data on the number of illegal immigrants incarcerated on the state and local level is recorded through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which is a combination of stocks and flows that is incomparable to any other measure of inmates. Third, 49 states do not record the immigration statuses of those in prison or convicted. Until recently, these data limitations allowed pundits to say anythingabout illegal immigrant crime without fear of being fact-checked"
​
So we dont know what illegals do, do we?
​
>"The ACS counts the incarcerated population by their nativity and naturalization status, but local and state governments rarely record whether prisoners are illegal immigrants.10 As a result, we have to use common statistical methods to identify incarcerated illegal immigrant prisoners by excluding prisoners with characteristics that illegal immigrants are unlikely to have. In other words, we can identify likely illegal immigrants by looking at prisoners with individual characteristics highly correlated with being an illegal immigrant. Following guidance set by other researchers, those characteristics are: the immigrant must have entered the country after 1982 (the cutoff date for the 1986 Reagan amnesty); cannot have been in the military; cannot be receiving Social Security or Railroad Retirement Income; cannot have been covered by Veteran Affairs or Indian Health Services; is not a citizen of the United States; was not living in a household where someone received food stamps (unless the immigrant’s child, who may be eligible for food stamps if a U.S. citizen, is living with the immigrant); is not from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Syria; was age 59 years or younger on arrival; and is not of Puerto Rican or Cuban origin if classified as Hispanic."
​
IE Cato is guessing.