Reddit mentions: The best emigration & immigration studies books

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.

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!

You are just seeing the tip of the iceberg friend. As many as they deport, round up, lock up, or let them be beaten by Golden Dawn members, the influx of immigrants won't stop.

EU law has deliberately turned Greece into a buffer zone of immigration while they (edit: I mean the states of EU) also struggle with maybe the biggest issue in the planet nowadays. These waves of immigrants were created by the western economic system and civilization that capitalized and exploited for centuries the third world. Now that there is a surplus of people there are no more places for them to go. So now they knock on your door but you say "I don't care, let them go somewhere else" while your country contributed to this (as a western country and a member of the EU - and even practically, we are in the NATO you know, NATO attacks Afghanistan and Iraq, immigrants fled to Greece). We buy our iPhones and iPads and our cool trendy shoes that are made by child labor in Asia but when these people knock on our doors, no, no, we don't want them here.

Who are you and our politicians to deem a human being as "legal" and "illegal'? Have you ever thought about that?

I can't really use a reply on reddit to convince you to see the bigger picture. I will link some books for you to read though and maybe these will change your mind:


Wasted Lives: Modernity and Its Outcasts

The End of Human Rights

Europe's 21st Century Challenge

Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life - this book really sheds a light on the "legal" and "illegal" issue for humans.


Guests and Aliens

>[...] our freedom depends on the severity of other states, especially, but not only, neighbouring states whose populations wish to leave their own country. Our freedom supposes more controls at the borders and more suspicion against tourism of the poor. Tourism as the freedom to move is for the rich but the poor are by definition a threat against the order as they are supposed to want to stay in a host state in order to profit from social benefits.

EU (and the western civilization in general) speaks a lot about freedom and liberty but it can only comprehend that freedom in a context of banishment of the "others". Raising walls, patrolling the borders stricter, rounding up people to lock them up in hideous detainment centers all around Europe won't stop them from coming. We are only making their road more difficult resulting in more of them being drown or frozen to death.

Oh and by the way even if you drive away from Greece all the "foreigners" that won't solve the crisis. Immigrants in Greece nowadays are just the scapegoats for anger to be unleashed and votes to be gained by the same people that brought you here and by the people that today are speaking of driving away "foreigners" but after will also speak of driving away the ones that aren't "pure Greeks" - if you catch my drift.

> 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.

• The borders aren't wide-open, they specifically restrict immigration of whites.
  
  
• Affirmative action isn't an absence of regulation, it's specifically using government power to take jobs from whites.
  
  
• University of Texas just went to the Supreme Court to rule in favor of excluding whites in favor of lesser qualified non-whites.
  
  
• The welfare programs are a major factor in attracting third-worlders here. That is a high-regulation government program that steals money from working people, gives it to non-working people, with bonuses paid for kicking the father out of the household, and bonuses for birthing each additional future-criminal.
  
  
• Police have outright not punished criminals from other cultures because "that's acceptable in their culture". See Ann Coulter's "Adios, America" for several instances.
  
  
• The government steals money from all working people and makes them pay for public indoctrination centers, where everyone is taught that the nature/nuture debate is 0% nature, 100% nurture, so any difference in outcome must be because of oppression.
  
  
• Government regulation stops you from being able to hire who you want, serve who you want, and live with who you want. They are relocating section 8 housing to the suburbs to break up white flight.
  
  Every step is government action, we're the farthest thing from anarchy.

> 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.

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!

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.

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.

Have you read this book? The Land of Open Graves

It could give you some good inspiration!

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

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

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!

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.

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

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

There are some AMAZING resources here, so I'll just throw in a few others:

The Body Remembers

The Body Keeps the Score)

Enrique's Journey

Crossing Over

The Devil's Highway

Random Family

Lost Children of Wilder

> 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. "

BTW, she wrote the playbook that Donald Trump used to win the election.

> 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.

[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

So much that our good friend Pat Buchanan is alarmed.

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.

You will enjoy Death of the West.

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

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.

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)

By far the #1 resource on Trump's immigration views:

http://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Ann-Coulter/dp/1621572676/

>Via e-mail, Coulter told me that Trump had “asked for, and received, an advance copy of my book, and he told me. . . that he’s read the book cover to cover.” She emphasized that Trump has “been talking about immigration for years. . . he didn’t get his ideas from me. He had them. My book supports his ideas.”

• Source

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 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.

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

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!)

Any one who really wants straight talk backed with real data about illegal immigration crimes should read this book Adios America

The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization

> 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