(Part 2) Best emigration & immigration studies books according to redditors

Wut? It's not a circle jerk as it's quite commonly the solution proposed or demanded across the political spectrum.

If you haven't heard of it i'd recommend Maximum Canada by Doug Sanders which looks at this. though his book focuses far more on population it's quite well written and interesting.

https://www.amazon.ca/Maximum-Canada-Million-Canadians-Enough/dp/073527309X

Many Filipinos self-identify as Latino, yet they complain about not being included in the Asian-American dialogues. It's a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. A number do identify as Asian, and I'm not really opposed to having them be included, but if you yourself claim to be Latino, why should you get to speak on Asian matters?

Heck, I'm 1/4 Hispanic myself, and even have a Spanish surname because my grandfather changed it when he moved to a Spanish-speaking country, but my looks alone would probably exclude me from most Hispanic-American discussions.

I'm not going to call you an evil racist. I don't think you're evil or a racist. But I think your beliefs are incorrect and misguided.

if you're ever in NY, you should visit Ellis Island. There's a section on Nativism in the 19th and early 20th century. Nativists believed basically the same things you do, and they gave basically same reasons that you gave for your beliefs. Why the country should remain a majority "American" or "white," which had a different meaning back then, and that immigrants were dangerous. They'd take over, and society would decline. This is our country, not theirs, etc. They believed they were simply being pragmatic.

Would you be interested in doing a book swap. I'll read a book you choose, and report back if you read a book I choose.

This is the book I would choose: https://www.amazon.com/Not-Fit-Our-Society-Immigration/dp/0520269918/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479430538&sr=8-1&keywords=nativism

I think the current problems with immigration are part incompetence and part malice. Big business really does love the cheap labor. Religious Americans are still having enough kids to sustain/grow their populations, so once we get immigration under control I think most things will sort themselves out over time.

I will check out the book you mentioned.

Hey u/PandaDanee ! Just saw this post and wanted to give my two cents. I just received my "Ready for Visa" e-mail from IRCC after nearly a year of prep-work and paperwork, etc. I'm getting my Federal Skilled Workers Express Entry Visa so that I can move to Ontario to live closer to my girlfriend. I'm a 34 year old male from Boston and work in information technology myself.

The best place to start with Express Entry is to take the eligibility test here:
http://onlineservices-servicesenligne.cic.gc.ca/eapp/eapp.do

You might want to try the quiz with and without an existing job offer, because due to your age and low years of experience you may need to have a pre-existing job offer to add those points to your score.

Check your score versus those of the previous rounds of invitations to see if you have a score, near, or above the scores of recent invitees. If you don't score close, you may want to look at the master's degree/study visa route of living in Canada.

A really great source of information that I found helped me greatly during my process was 15miles.info . It was written by a couple from NYC that moved to Toronto and wrote about the process in detail. I think they've taken most of the info off of their site as they've now written a book on the topic, which is here:

https://www.amazon.com/Moving-Canada-detailed-immigration-Americans/dp/1540880664/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510024029&sr=8-1&keywords=moving+to+canada

Good luck! Let us know if you have any other questions!

Anyone interested in reading a first hand account of the exodus from Iraq should read Shlomo Hillel's 'Operation Babylon'.

You are correct that immigrants create jobs, but not all immigrants are created equally. I apologize for not having an online source, but the book below claims that the immigrant community with the largest number of business owners is...wait for it...Iran. Turns out something messy happened over there a while back, and anyone who was educated enough to run a business left the country. The immigrant community with the lowest rates of business ownership come from central america.

Not to belabor the point, but we already have a mechanism in our immigration law for people with a large enough amount of cash who want to come here to start a business. Who this doesn't help are the people, like the iranians, who had lost everything physical that they owned, but still retained their business acumen and experience that allowed them to thrive once actually here.

http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-American-Immigration-Nations-Future/dp/1442228946

You may want to read Wounded Border/Frontera Herida. I had to read it in my English class.

I would recommend reading this book. Plenty of time to read it since it will probably be quite a few months until you get through the process if you are successful.

Funny you ask, as I am currently working on a paper for school that addresses this. According to The Latino Threat, Latino women have an average of 1.81 children in the US, compared to the average of 1.27 for non-Hispanic white women. So, there is a slight increase, but not a significant one.

I've had to read this book for class, but it was very well written and informative. I'd recommend picking it up if you want to read further on the issue.

My mother, Roberta Gellis, wrote a four-part fantasy series with Lackey, and some other fantasies, and some medieval mysteries and medieval romances (which is sort of like fantasy but with real history and no magic). Here are links to her pages on publishers' sites...

http://www.baen.com/catalog/category/view/s/roberta-gellis/id/1739/

http://www.belgravehouse.com/online/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1012_1063

https://www.audible.com/author/Roberta-Gellis/B000AQ38HG

I hope this helps.

Also, as far as the non-fiction goes, I am NOT an expert in this field, but I did a little checking and I found a few things...

https://www.amazon.com/Immigrant-Success-Planning-Family-Resource/dp/177141023X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1525813966&sr=8-2&keywords=legal+resources+refugees \<-- meant more for the refugees, I think, but a useful checklist of things you may need to discuss with people

https://www.amazon.com/There-Goes-Neighborhood-Communities-Immigration/dp/1633883078/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1525813504&sr=8-15&keywords=american+law+refugees \<-- looks like it may be useful

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826126685/ref=rdr_ext_tmb \<-- it looks like the profession most closely associated with what you described is social work, although it may not be called that, so this book may be helpful

Related to that, check out https://www.socialworkers.org/ \<-- why read a book when you can just find some experts and ask them a question? Yes, they'll talk to you. This is what they do for a living.

https://socialworklicensure.org/resources/social-work-organizations/ \<-- ditto

Again, I hope this helps. Thanks for trying to help other people. “No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.” —Aesop.

Extensive quotes in the article from the book "Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation, and Race." Anyone but someone named Bubba would have recognized that.

> as long as immigrants are not welfare queens, I benefit from having them around.

True, but they have children whose welfare usage is higher than the native average. See chapter 9 of Borjas' We Wanted Workers: while immigrants themselves may not use more welfare than natives, immigrant-headed households do (because their children are eligible for all sorts of taxpayer-funded assistance). In the context of Mexican immigrants, I expect this to last indefinitely: Generations of Exclusion by Tellez and Ortiz shows that while high-school graduation rates jump from the first generation to the next, they stay at a measly 73–87% (compared to whites' 90%) over four generations.

So you benefit from having immigrants, but you lose money as their kids come of age here and consume more welfare.

> hate

I never said that. Furthermore, there's no way I would say that, because I simply don't have strong emotions on this subject one way or another.

> I'm extremely confused by this argument.

A policy that lets in unskilled people (they're not just labor, they're people) lowers the price of unskilled labor and, in a generation, increases the supply of unskilled labor and the percentage of people on welfare rolls. Many people on the Bernie Sanders wing of the left think that this is a bad thing, so they try to institute wage minima well above the market-clearing price. This makes work pay (for those who can still find jobs), but it doesn't do anything about the increased number of welfare recipients a generation or two or three or four or five down the line.

I propose a different strategy for making unskilled labor more remunerative, reducing welfare rolls, and reversing both inner-city and Fishtown dysfunction: Reduce the domestic supply of people willing and able to supply unskilled labor. This raises the market-clearing price, making it more worth it to stay employed, even if you're doing something unglamorous like making sure the trash is dumped and the bathrooms are clean.

[not a troll post] There's a pretty good book that I recommend, which is a firsthand discussion of the loss of culture in England. Whether you are pro or against immigration is really beside the point. The indigenous working class population has been replaced in much of England and there is almost no literature that reflects that massive change. For anyone who still clings to an idealised notion of life in Britain Dark Albion is essential. Yet it is not an easy read.

I've got a hard copy of it, but if anybody buys the ebook, pls upload it to libgen.

https://www.amazon.ca/Dark-Albion-Requiem-David-Abbott/dp/0957228902

OK, let's test it. "There are more than two genders in some cultures" is our hypothesis.

Here, the result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine

Fa'afafine are people who identify themselves as a third-gender in Samoa, American Samoa and the Samoan diaspora. A recognized gender identity/gender role since at least the early 20th century in Samoan society, and some theorize an integral part of traditional Samoan culture, fa'afafine are assigned male at birth, and explicitly embody both masculine and feminine gender traits, fashioned in a way unique to this part of the world. Their behavior typically ranges from extravagantly feminine to conventionally masculine.

Here, some images of people identifying as this third gender: https://www.google.se/search?q=Fa%27afafine&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi29dSovZXUAhVnL8AKHQCcAdIQ_AUIBigB&biw=1920&bih=950

A Vice documentary describing this third gender: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9xvkCa63Js

A cultural event with these third gender people present: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37227803

Some scientific articles discussing the gender: https://www.amazon.com/Migrating-Genders-Westernisation-Anthropology-Indo-Pacific/dp/1409402738

http://hawaii.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.21313/hawaii/9780824838829.001.0001/upso-9780824838829-chapter-004

http://people.wku.edu/barry.kaufkins/280/THE%20ISLANDS%20WHERE%20BOYS%20GROW%20UP%20TO%20BE%20GIRLS.htm

I daresay I have proven to you that these people exist.

>What is under discussion is your claim that "even though every study shows the exact opposite,"

The broad literature just proves you wrong, I already cited Kauffman 2016, a review of over 100 studies. But I could also look at schaeffer 2014 that reviewed 172 studies and found 73% of studies, adjusting for covariates, find that trust related sentiments decline with more diversity. Obviously you can cherry pick the occassional study that doesn't replicate, but you can't counter these broad meta reviews.

>namely that all studies of multiculturalism show that it's bad

This is literally an absurd threshold to argue from. Obviously some studies are going to fail to replicate by chance, a variance in the way they measure diversity (area size matters in this literature) or what covariates they account for or even ideological biases. But you can't simply argue against these type of broad trends in the literature.

Addressing Your Arguments

> Decentivizing travel to the United States illegally for purposes of giving birth and having your child born into citizenship may cut down on the rate of illegal immigration.

I highly recommend reading the book Immigration: Examining The Facts which has a section addressing this claim. Suffice it to say, the idea that immigration for the purpose of providing an anchor baby is a significant factor in immigration at all is utterly unsupported. If anything, the immigrant population is actually likely to be less "immediately fecund" than their native counterparts (pregnant women, or married women planning on starting families soon, are much less likely to make the dangerous trek to immigrate illegally).

> Those immigrants here with a green card or a valid visa of any kind, would still have citizenship rights conferred to the newborn, even if they themselves are not citizens.

You are correct that this would not be the population directly affected by this change; Instead, this change would exacerbate the current problems associated with the undocumented population, by increasing the number of people who are undocumented. Stopping these children from gaining citizenship will directly hurt them by removing a multitude of legal rights from them. This is morally no different from stripping the citizenship from the children of U.S. Citizens.

> I also acknowledge ...there needs to be an amnesty program or a citizenship path for people who came illegally, have lived here for decades, and have established roots.

Your proposed policy would directly contradict this goal. It would create and maintain an even larger population of undocumented immigrants.

Problems With Your Suggestion

There isn't any moral reason why the children of people who immigrated illegally should receive any fewer rights than any other child born in the U.S. So the only defense of this position (it seems to me) must be pragmatic.

But from a pragmatic angle, the direct result of your policy would be an increase in the undocumented population (by about a quarter million a year!) It would quickly lead to a population within the U.S. which was born here, raised here, and is exactly "as American" as anybody else in America... and yet is a stateless person. This seems to be a recipe for disaster.

> it is a privilege to move back to your own country

Um, incorrect. Thank you for playing High School Civics, we've got a handsome edition of the home game as your parting gift.

http://www.amazon.com/UNMAKING-AMERICANS-MULTICULTURALISM-UNDERMINED-ASSIMILATION/dp/068483622X