Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun...

Monday, September 1, 2014

"Anchor" Babies and "Illegal" Children

I had an exchange recently with a family member here in France and it went something like this:

FM:  If it weren't for all those immigrants our social security system wouldn't have a deficit.  Foreigners are taking advange of us and we need to do something about it.

Me:  You think so?   All immigrants?

FM:  Most of them.

Me:  OK, can we quantify that?  Do you have a percentage or a number of those who are cheating the system?

FM:  I'm trying to drive here.

Immigration is a topic where feelings definitely trump facts.  I was reminded of this when I read on Andrew's blog, Multicultural Meanderings, that some Canadians were getting a bit under the collar over "birth tourism".  This is where foreign women come to Canada for the sole purpose of having their children born on Canadian soil and thus becoming Canadian citizens at birth (jus soli).

My first thought when I read that was:  Wait a minute, I've seen this before...  Oh yeah, people in the US worry about this, too.  Well, if two countries in North America are concerned about this, it must be a big problem, right?

To my surprise and delight the Canadian government took the stories very seriously and went looking for evidence.  (My goodness, what a sensible thing to do.)  And what did they find?
The proposal, marked “secret” and with inputs from various federal departments, found fewer than 500 cases of children being born to foreign nationals in Canada each year, amounting to just 0.14 per cent of the 360,000 total births per year in the country.
Forgive me, but with numbers like that the brouhaha over "birth tourism" which is being used to attack jus soli citizenship law in Canada looks more like a solution in search of a problem and not the other way around.

Given that the same kind of arguments and anecdotal evidence appear in both Canada and the US - two counties of immigration with relatively generous jus soli laws (citizenship conferred at birth based on place of birth) - then clearly there is something about it that makes people uneasy and want to either restrict it or to move to a birthright citizenship system based on blood (jus sanguinas).

Those emotions make it very hard for the Canadian government to come up with a politically acceptable response.  When human beings feel very strongly about something, law and policy-makers can be as rational and evidence-based as they please, but they can't make their constituents like (or accept) what they have to say.   The facts as they stand today will not prevent this myth from coming back in a future news cycle.

Birthright citizenship (both jus soli and jus sanguinas) makes me uneasy but for reasons completely unrelated to "birth tourism" and you can read what I've said about it here and here.

And finally for your viewing pleasure is a wonderful Jon Stewart piece about a recent immigration crisis in the US:  tens of thousands of children entering the US illegally causing a humanitarian and security crisis.  What I love about Jon Stewart is how he uses humor to make his point.  Every episode is a guided discovery where he invites his viewers to come along with him for a ride which almost always ends with  "Aren't we being a bit silly about this, folks?"

And that's a damn good tactic.  Answering an argument from the gut with facts is, alas, not very effective in changing people's minds about anything.  Worse, it can stop the conversation completely; ("Just shut up and let me drive.")  Just something to think about on a Monday morning...


Saturday, August 30, 2014

They Hypocrisy of the Debate Over "Inversions"

What a circus, folks.  What a show.

The cross-border marriage between Burger King (US) and Tim Hortons (Canada) with the happy couple opting for a home in the North has really flipped people's switches in the US.  The new buzz word is "inversions" and thank God for the Internet because in a paper world way too many trees would have to die just so that every pundit from Paris to Poughkeepsie can throw out his .02.

The Americans in the homeland are screaming for Something to be Done and Obama has come out swinging saying that he will do what he can to "discourage" American companies from marrying out and setting up shop in somebody else's tax jurisdiction.  I mean, we can't have that, right?

Do the American People, their elected representatives and their President understand the utter hypocrisy of their position?  I doubt it and I'm feeling frisky this morning (too much coffee?) so allow me to have some fun today at their expense.

Here's the argument three US lawmakers (including the now infamous Senator Reed) are making for strongly discouraging US companies from leaving the US :
“Inverted corporations take advantage of all the things American tax dollars provide – from tax credits for research and development, investments in transportation infrastructure, and strong patent and copyright protections..." 
Now just replace "American" in that sentence with "French", "German", "Japanese" or any other nationality. What about their tax base and talent?  Any consideration whatsoever here?  Not at all.

So when it's a foreign company (or talented migrant) that wants to set up in the US, then Americans slap themselves on the back and smugly point out that America is clearly still the most popular girl in high school and destined to be Prom Queen forever.  But when the girl says, "Mom and Dad, I'm moving to Canada" because she thinks she can have a better HEA (Happily Every After) well, that's just wrong.

I'd have a lot more respect for the American "inversions are perversions" argument if its proponents took their position to its logical conclusion and said this to any company (or individual) wanting to move to the US from abroad,
 "You know, that's just not fair to your home country and its taxpayers.  You should stay home with your family and friends who have nurtured you from the cradle, invested in your education, and protected you as you grew and become successful.  The world really would be a better place if all good boys and girls stayed home where they belong and we want to step up and lead the way.  So here's your US certificate of incorporation and/or your Green Card.  Thank you for thinking of us.  Have a nice life." 
For the best article I read about this (one that actually would be worth killing a tree or two), see Megan McArdle's  Burger King and the Whopper about Taxes.  Her point about the US tax system is well made.  The US stoutly defends its unique citizenship-based taxation system in an residence-based taxation world.  Frankly there is a certain insanity in the US position on this that says it's the rest of the world that needs to change and not the US.  All I can say is, "Good luck with that."

Thursday, August 28, 2014

US Citizenship Renunciation Fees to be Raised 422%

The rumours over at the Isaac Brock Society are confirmed.  This morning in my mailbox was this link from a lovely lady in the UK.

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship About to Get More Expensive: From $450 to $2,350

That is, as the blogger points out, a 422% increase.

And the State Department's justification for this rather outrageous fee raise?

Well, it's a complicated labor-intensive procedure:
"The CoSM demonstrated that documenting a U.S. citizen’s renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases. For example, consular officers must confirm that the potential renunciant fully understands the consequences of renunciation, including losing the right to reside in the United States without documentation as an alien. Other steps include verifying that the renunciant is a U.S. citizen, conducting a minimum of two intensive interviews with the potential renunciant, and reviewing at least three consular systems before administering the oath of renunciation. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done by law within the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, D.C., after which the case is returned to the consular officer overseas for final delivery of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the renunciant."
And demand for this service is strong (yep, they say that).  450 USD, they say, was already below cost and they are just raising the fee in order to not lose (more) money on the service.

Now I'm just an old lady and I don't pretend to be the brightest crayon in the box but if the goal here is to "break even" then they are looking at this all wrong.  Read the outline of the procedure again. Does that sound efficient to you?  Just the assumption that any US citizen showing up to renounce his US citizenship doesn't really understand what he/she is doing and has to have it explained ad nauseum (intensive interviews?) and then be sent off to a corner like a little kid to reflect on it before being allowed to come back and do the deed, is just ridiculous.  Right there I'd say just treating people like adults and assuming that they do know their own mind would save a lot of time, money and hassle all around.

And the narrative that will come out of this fee raise is not likely to focus on "cost recovery" at US consulates around the world but on what is going to be perceived as a punitive act on the part of the US government.  It looks like they are so embarrassed by the renunciation numbers and the lines to renounce at the US consulates that they are looking for ways to reduce or slow down the demand.  Think about that.  Has the state of US citizenship in the world really come to the point where the US government thinks that Americans have to be actively discouraged from renouncing?  

That is what people are likely to take away from this news.  That the United States is trying to keep it's citizens captive by finding quasi-legal methods to interfere with their right to expatriate under international law.

(And there is a very good post and a lively discussion (as always) over at the Isaac Brock Society here.  79 comments already as I type this. )

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Why I just One-Starred a Book on Goodreads

Picked up a book this morning with enthusiasm.  A non-fiction book (I won't tell you which one) that got a 4+ rating on Goodreads and a mention on a site I respect.

30 minutes of reading and I came to a paragraph that went something like this:
There is a personality trait that is perceived to be very desirable and very important for getting along in today's world.  This personality trait, according to two sources the book cites, is related to DNA and is primarily found in Europeans and North Americans, not in Asians or Africans, because the former are descendants of emigrants.
That is just an unbelievable assertion to make and, frankly, that kind of argument for me is pure racism.

So I closed the book, deleted it from my Kindle and went straight to Goodreads and gave it a one-star rating which means, "I did not like it."  What I didn't do was a write a review expressing my feelings and explaining my rating.

Left the house, did my morning shopping and now I'm back and really wondering if I did right.

In fact, I think I screwed up.

Ever see the Christopher Hitchen's talk where he says (paraphrasing here because I don't recall the exact quotation): "How do you know you are right about anything if this is all you've ever been taught and you have never really bothered to let anything challenge your own programming?"

So here I am having a negative visceral reaction to something I've read and I don't even bother to check out the sources cited.  That's not very intellectually honest of me, is it?  Or terribly courageous.

Was I too hasty?  Should I delete my rating on Goodreads and go back and finish the book so I can give it a fair review?  Should I go and read what the two sources cited have to say before I condemn them?

Surely I can do better than this. OK, I found it very offensive but feelings aren't facts.  If what was said in this book really is utter BS, then surely there are better reasons for criticizing it than just my sense of outrage.

But I'm really torn because I don't want to continue reading the book and I'm not sure I could be fair even if I did finish it.

Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Amazon in the Hexagon

The main newspaper in my hometown Seattle recently came out with an article about Amazon's efforts to operate in France:   Amazon ignites culture clash over France’s beloved bookstores.
I'm sure that everyone knows what Amazon is (that big on-line retailer) but you might not know that Amazon was founded in Seattle and is part of a number of other international companies that came out of the US Pacific Northwest (some others are Starbucks and Boeing).

There is a long history of American companies trying to break into the European market with uncertain results.  Nancy Green's latest book (which I highly recommend) about The Other Americans in Paris (many of whom were American businessmen) has an entire chapter devoted to doing business in the Hexagon.  It wasn't easy in the twentieth century and it's not a cake walk now.

From the tone of the article Amazon seems to be annoyed that they actually have to negotiate and adapt to other markets and other business environments.  Their issue is not that they are failing internationally, but that they are not as successful as they would like to be.  Now what is more likely here, folks?  That all these countries are going to see the light and change their ways so that Amazon's business model can stay the same wherever they go?  Or, that they are going to have to adapt and stop whining because the rest of the world is not like the United States?

The French want some protection for local bookstores and the Germans want their labor laws respected, and just what in the heck is wrong with that?  For that matter, the Pacific Northwest being something of a hotbed of what Americans call "liberalism" (left-wing thinking such as it is in the US), it strikes me that many Seattleites, Portlanders and the like might just come down on the side of France and Germany in this fight.

And it looks like I'm on to something.  Powell's Books, which is something of an institution in Portland, Oregon, USA, got a big boost from Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report (a US TV program that is widely watched).  Colbert's books are published by Hachette.  Have a listen:



So it's not just the Europeans (UK, France and Germany) kvetching and being "unreasonable" - there are bookstores and authors in the United States who have issues with Amazon as well and now some are calling for a boycott.

When I was studying for my MBA (in Europe) one of the classes was on corporate responsibility and a lot was said about the "contract" under which companies operate anywhere.  Not the legal framework, mind you, but the social context.  The right of any company to do business is conditional (even in "free market" countries) and where a company is perceived as a being a bad actor, they can lose a lot of business and credibility, too.  What I've outlined above is a lot of bad publicity for Amazon with some major stakeholders all over the world loudly expressing their discontent.  (And is it not ironic that this criticism travels the world using the same technology on which Amazon has based its business?)

Perhaps if they are not happy with their profits in Europe, a better way to go about it is to engage the stakeholders (a group which, by the way, includes, but is not restricted to, shareholders).  That is not "cultural exception" logic - it is simply good business practice:
"Employees, customers, suppliers and distributors, other allies and partners, communities where the company locates facilities (or where the supply chain members are located), owners and investors, creditors, and local, regional and national governments are among the stakeholders to whom it makes sense to pay attention..."
This quotation is from Total Responsibility Management by Sandra Waddock and Charles Bodwell.  It is available here on Amazon.  A modest suggestion to Amazon's management - you guys and gals might want to start reading some of the books you sell.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Want to Renounce? Join the Queue....

Patrick Cain of Global News has some new information about U.S. citizenship renunciations in his recent article,  Want to shed U.S. citizenship? Get in line.  He's reporting that the U.S. embassy in Toronto, Canada has so many requests for renunciation interviews that the first available appointment is now late January 2015.

For months now rumours have been floating around that such and such U.S. embassy's renunciation appointment calendar is filled up (Paris, for example) but this is the first hard evidence I've seen and it comes from a country that has one of the largest U.S. citizen populations in the world. Canada is estimated to have around a million U.S. citizens (that includes duals) while the American "colony" in Paris probably does not exceed 100,000.  But even in Paris there is anecdotal evidence that the embassy is struggling to meet the demand.  When a French citizen was outed as a U.S. citizen by his French bank earlier this year, Le Figaro had this to say:
"Désarçonné, le Franco-Américain, qui n'a aucune attache outre-Atlantique, envisage alors de renoncer à cette pesante nationalité. Mais renseignement pris auprès de l'ambassade américaine, le délai est bien trop long (plusieurs mois)."
("Flabbergasted, this Franco-American, who has no attachments on the other side of the Atlantic, thought to renounce this unwanted nationality. But after inquiring at the American embassy, the delay [to renounce] was too long (several months).")
Phil Hogden's commentary on the Cain article is quite good.  His last point in particular which is about the official renunciation procedure which went from one appointment to two appointments and is now back to one.  Why it went to two in the first place is any one's guess (and furthermore it does not seem to have been consistently applied in all U.S. embassies worldwide) but, yes, it does look like an attempt to slow down the process and get people to reflect (perhaps change their minds?) before the deed is done.

And how many of those renunciations actually end up on the Name and Shame list in the Federal Register is any one's guess.  What we do know is that there are individuals out there who have publicly renounced and for some reason their names were never included (or were included many months after the deed).  Some of them are quite miffed about it.

Renunciations are not, however, the whole story.  To appreciate the magnitude of this "rush to the exit" phenomenon and its impact on U.S. citizenship, I suggest that two other numbers should be looked into as well.

1.  Certificates of Loss of Nationality.  There is renunciation and there is relinquishment and the latter is often touted as an easier, softer, cheaper way.  Maple Sandbox has a good explanation of the difference here but, in a nutshell, a U.S. citizen just has to commit an expatriating act with the intention of giving up U.S. citizenship to be halfway out the door.

One of those acts is taking on another citizenship.  So  what can happen is an American citizen who became a Canadian citizen in 1972 and never renewed her US passport or voted (or any other act that might imply that she wanted to remain an American citizen) can file papers with the local consulate documenting the act and the intent and requesting a certificate of loss of nationality (CLN) backdated to 1972 when the relinquishing act was performed.

And what works for her will also work for someone who took on, say, Italian citizenship a few days ago.  He can go to the local U.S. consulate and file the same papers and then wait for the CLN to come in the mail.   Not all cases are as simple as these two but hopefully you get the gist.

But what that means is that the most accurate number of U.S. citizenship renunciations/ relinquishments is not the count in the Federal Register but the number of Certificates of Loss of Nationality issued (renunciations + relinquishments = CLNs).

2.  Consular Reports of Birth Abroad:  U.S. citizens abroad can go to the local consulate in the host country to report the birth of a new US citizen (a child born abroad to parent(s) who fulfill the requirements to pass along their U.S. citizenship to their offspring).  The purpose of such a pilgrimage to the local consulate is to get a determination that the child was indeed born an American citizen and acquire the documentation necessary to, say, apply for a US passport.

But here's the kicker - this is entirely voluntary.  No American parent abroad has to make such a report and furthermore reporting or not reporting the birth makes no difference whatsoever in the status of that child:  if his parent(s) fulfilled the requirements for passing along US citizenship then that child is a US citizen by birth, albeit an undocumented one.  Nothing prevents that child from claiming US birthright citizenship later in life.  It's just a matter of gathering the right paperwork.

So put yourself in the position of an American abroad with a new baby.  Do you report the birth and get the passport/social security number right away? Or do you wait until the child can make up his or her own mind whether he wishes to claim US citizenship or not?

There is anecdotal evidence that the latter is becoming more and more common and that would make sense.  But is it true?  No one knows.

Both of these things should be looked into by an intrepid, inquisitive soul in order to get a much better perspective on the state of US citizenship today.  A simple Freedom of Information Act request should suffice.

(And before I forget, there are rumours that the current US citizenship renunciation fee will be raised from 450 USD to 2 or 3,000 USD.  No idea where it came from but welcome to an Internet world, folks, where information flows fast and furious and where a US cit with news in China can pass that info along to a US cit in Germany in minutes.  And that is also something to look into - the new American abroad networks which connect American communities around the world.  Something to watch and frankly I am amazed that more migration experts in the US haven't clued into this yet...) 

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Flophouse Citizenship and International Migration Reading List Updated

Time for another update of the Flophouse citizenship/migration reading list. New books are in green. I highly recommend all the titles below - read them and you will never look at citizenship or migration the same way again. All the underlined titles take you directly to the book on Amazon (U.S.). I would really appreciate suggestions for other titles that might be of interest. I promise to read and add them to the list if I think they are good.


Global Marriage: Cross-Border Marriage Migration in Global Context (2010) by Dr. Lucy Williams.  Outstanding look at cross-border marriages from a global perspective.  Williams takes on the myths, stereotypes about foreign brides (and grooms) and counters them with solid research. A refreshing antidote to the many silly things said about those "marriage migrants."

The Scramble for Citizens: Dual Nationality and State Competition for Immigrants (2013) by David Cook-Martin.  A fine book that looks at migration from Spain and Italy to Argentina in one era and the reverse migration from Argentina back to Spain and Italy of those immigrants' descendants in another.  The author does a fine job of showing how it is almost impossible for a state to make (and make stick) immigration/emigration and citizenship law unilaterally.  There is a larger context with sending and receiving states competing for the productive power and loyalty of immigants/emigrants.  This competition takes place over generations which may (the author says) have interesting implications for large receiving states like the United States.

Democracy and the Foreigner (2003) by Bonnie Honig.  Great read.  Honig takes the idea of "the foreigner" as a vexing issue to be solved through assimilation or rejection and turns it around.  Are there circumstances when the stranger is not a problem at all, but rather a solution to what ails a community?

Migration and the Great Recession:  the Transatlantic Experience (2011) edited by Demetrios Papademetriou et al.  If you were wondering how the economic crisis in the first decade of the 21st century had an impact on migration, this book of essays from the Migration Policy Institute is good place to begin.  Data from the U.S., U.K., Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Sweden and Germany.

Anthropology and Migration: Essays on Transnationalism, Ethnicity, and Identity (2003) by Caroline Brettell. An anthropologist looks at migration, transnationalism, and assimilation/integration through a population she knows well: the Portuguese diaspora. (Flophouse review here.)

Moving Matters: Paths of Serial Migration (2013) by Susan Ossman. .A look into the minds of "serial migrants." Those who immigrate once (like all other migrants) and then do something that shatters the standard immigrant tale - they move on. (Flophouse review here.)

International Migration in the Age of Crisis and Globalization (2010) by Andres Solimano. Well-written, well-argued book.  The author is ambitious and confronts some of the most difficult topics around migration:  Why is International Migration Such a Contentious Issue?  Are Goods and Capital More Important than People?  Don't Always 'Blame' the North, and so on.

The Citizen and the Alien:  Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership (2006) by Linda Bosniak.
Refreshing take on the dilemmas of citizenship and democratic ideals.  Who is included/excluded and on what basis?  The problem of democracy and the legal permanent resident. Complex questions with no easy answers.

A Nation of Emigrants:  How Mexico Manages Its Migration by David Fitzgerald (2009)  The internal American battle over immigration from Latin America is a very public debate but it's only half the story.  Mexico, the U.S.'s southern neighbor and a major sending country, has made and is still making policy to manage its emigration and its emigrants.  This is an extraordinary book and there is much to be learned from Mexico's efforts and policies - even when they have failed.

The Sovereign Citizen:  Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (2013) by Patrick Weil  Really superb book.  Excellent research into the un-making of American citizens in the 20th century.  

Citizenship and Those Who Leave:  The Politics of Emigration and Expatriation by Nancy L. Green and Francois Weil (2007)  I contend that you cannot talk about immigration without also discussing emigration.  A fine work - excellent chapters on how states (UK, Holland, U.S., France and others) have tried to manage emigration.

Citizenship and Immigration by Christian Joppke (2010) This one covers a wide variety of old and new ideas about citizenship.  A good place to begin for someone who is just delving into how immigration/emigration and citizenship are entwined. Joppke refutes the idea of the decline of citizenship - an argument worth reading..

International Migration and the Globalization of Domestic Politics edited by Rey Koslowski.  Some very good insights into how international migration and diaspora politics affect politics back in the home country.

Immigration and Citizenship in Japan by Erin Aeran Chung (2010) Excellent book about Japan as a country of immigration. "Japan is currently the only advanced industrial democracy with a fourth-generation immigrant problem." Chung tells the story of how this came about and the impact this has had on modern Japanese citizenship law.

Rights and Duties of Dual Nationals:  Evolution and Prospects edited by David A. Martin and Kay Hailbronner (2003)  Fine set of articles on dual citizenship and such things as military service, extradition, political rights (Peter Spiro), denationalization and many others.  Pricey but worth every penny.

International Migration and Citizenship Today by Niklaus Steiner (2009).  A very fine book on the political, economic and cultural impact of immigration.  He frames the discussion around two essential questions:  What Criteria to Admit Migrants?  and What Criteria to Grant Citizenship?

Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices edited by T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (2001).  This was one of the best books I read on the topic of citizenship with essays by Patrick Weil, Karen Knop and Richard T. Ford, among many others.   I particularly enjoyed Ford's contribution called "City-States and Citizenship" which was, for me, a real revelation.

States without Nations:  Citizenship for Mortals by Jacqueline Stevens (2009) A strong critique of birthright citizenship in all forms and a call for citizenship based on residency.  

The Perils of Belonging: Authochthony, Citizenship, and Exclusion in Africa and Europe by Peter Geschier (2009).  Outstanding read.  States make citizens and states can also "unmake" them.  Nativism and the never-ending debate over who really "belongs."

The Politics of Citizenship in Europe by Marc Morje Howard (2009).  A really fine study of the citizenship policies of the oldest member-states of the EU.  Read this book to grasp how citizenship laws have changed over time and the reasons why.

The Future Governance of Citizenship by Dora Kostakopoulou ((2008).  Good overview of the current citizenship models and a proposal for an "anational" citizenship framework.

Beyond Citizenship:  American Identity After Globalization by Peter Spiro (2008).  Excellent book that examines how globalization has changed the value of citizenship overall and American citizenship in particular.  Very thoughtful.  Very well-written.

Qu'est-ce qu'un Français? by Patrick Weil (2002).  Mr. Weil spent over 8 years in the archives researching this book and it is fascinating.  France has been something of a test lab for just about every combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship possible.  Everything has been tried and tried again.  I read the book in French but it is also available in the usual places in English.

Gender and International Migration in Europe by Eleonore Kofman, Annie Phizacklea, Parvati Raghuram and Rosemary Sales (2000).  If you are looking for some empirical evidence (as I was) for how migration, immigration policy and citizenship rights have different outcomes and impacts for women, this is a good place to start.

The Birthright Lottery:  Citizenship and Global Inequality by Ayelet Shacher (2009) An attack on both jus soli and jus sanguinis methods of transmitting citizenship.  Fascinating argument.

Aliens in Medieval Law:  the Origins of Modern Citizenship by Keechang Kim ((2000).  I've been meaning to write a post about this book since it has a very original take on the historical roots of modern citizenship.  I recommend it highly. 

Human Rights or Citizenship? by Paulina Tambakaki (2010)  Interesting ideas about how traditional models of citizenship and  human rights legislation are in conflict.

International Migration, Remittances and the Brain Drain edited by Caglar Ozden and Maurice Schiff  for the World Bank (2006)  This book contains a number of very interesting essays about the economic impact of remittances and brain drain/gain.  The editors point out that the potential for economic benefit for all parties (individuals and sending and receiving countries)  is substantial but policy decisions need to be made carefully (we are talking about people after all).

Let Them In:  the Case for Open Borders by Jason L. Riley (2008)  The author makes a very radical argument for simply opening the doors and letting people move where they wish.

For info I have created a Citizenship and Migration book list on Goodread's Listopia here.  Good place to read reviews and find quotations from the above books.