Learning a Second Language: Dreaming in Hindi

"To learn a second language, you must be willing to give your self up, the self encoded in your first one.  You are no longer a person who speaks with facility and authority.  You are less than you were as a child:  You cannot transact a phone call without help, discuss matters more complex than the color of fruits and vegetables.  You cannot signal who you are."

Dreaming in Hindi:  Life in Translation
Katherine Russell Rich

I picked up Dreaming in Hindi by Katherine Russell Rich when I was still in Seattle.  I had my doubts about it - the reviews of the book on Goodreads were very negative - but the subject matter interested me.  Here is woman, a New Yorkaise, with Stage IV breast cancer who throws up her career and goes to India for a year to learn to speak Hindi.

Why?  I don't know and I suspect that Rich didn't know either.  She had just gone through 10 years of treatment.  I went through one year and between the chemo and the radiation there were days when all I could do was take it one day at a time and desperately hope I still had a functional mind when it was over.

Her response to that period between treatments was to take a Hindi lesson and she found something in that exercise that may sound flippant but makes perfect sense to me:  "I no longer had the language to describe my own life.  So I decided I'd borrow someone else's."

Dreaming in Hindi is the story of the year Rich spent in India trying to master Hindi  - a year out of time, place and self.  From one culture and language to another on the other side of the planet.  It was meant to be, she said, a story about "the near-mystical and transformative powers of language:  the way that words, with only the tensile strength of breath, can tug you out of one world and land you in the center of another."  In the end it became something else: a powerful book about identity and its destruction and reconstruction through language.

It's a path I'm familiar with.  I started my own immersion here in France 20+ years ago and it's a journey with no end in sight.  Learning a language and a culture is a process that lasts a lifetime and there is never a moment when I'm not learning something new about this place I call home and the beautiful language which still has dark spaces for me.  After 25 years I still stumble when I'm tired, my pronunciation degrades under strong emotion and stress, and every so often someone points out a misuse of the subjunctive and I feel angry because I wish someone had mentioned it earlier - like 20 years ago, maybe?

"There is still the daily schism to contend with, of having the mind of a woman who's worked to have one and a voice that's the Indian equivalent of a U.S. sitcom character named Babu."

Rich's journey toward competence (not fluency) in Hindi will be very familiar to second language learners everywhere.  From the difficult, humbling and tentative efforts to express anything in the other language to that worst of both worlds where the new language hasn't settled and the old one starts to degrade:

"Hindi pollutes my English and vice versa.  I construct clunky Hindi sentences using English syntax;  total groaners, all wrong.  The courtly politeness of Hindi filters into my English, 'by your kindness," "I am obliged to your honor.' It leeches my American personality, makes me feel I've gone pale.  I never realized before the extent to which we reside in language.  We are how we speak."

And then there is the agony and humiliation of failure:

"'You have arrived when?' he asked. 'You are still speaking like this?  You should be ashamed.  Your school should be ashamed.'"

But what an incredible sense of accomplishment when things began to click:

"At school, I'm still dead last, too self-conscious to push myself in front of the others, but outside, I ski Hindi, have long, gleeful conversations in shops (gleeful for me, long for my interlocutors).  I kick off and really fly sometimes. 'Your Hindi is very good,' rickshaw walas say, by which they mean it's intelligible.  I talk until I drop."

The more language competence one has, the more one becomes aware of this world within the world that was inaccessible before.  Yes, we can read all we like about other cultures and how things work elsewhere but we don't, I contend, really see it until we can access it on its own terms.  Our first language/culture are an impediment to understanding, not just participating, because the certainty that comes with our mother tongue, and our efforts to translate that experience though our original language, are an exercise in defiance - a refusal to be changed.  We all want firm ground under our feet and yet, as long as we refuse to let go of what we were, we cling to all that cultural baggage,  not because we love it so much, but because we are too afraid to cast ourselves into the darkness, throw ourselves over the ledge, step on what looks like quicksand, and wholly embrace something that is both seductive and terrifying.

To acquire a language, I flog myself, you have to give up your accumulated assurances - this is how you say things, this is how it's done.  Pretty soon, I give up my American pretenses that things should be any way at all.

What's fascinating about Rich's book is that she analyzed what was happening to her over the course of the year.  She observed, for example, that her face was different after a few months.  Plausible reasons for this are changes in the environment like diet (I dropped 10 pounds within a few months of arriving in France) but it's possible that language is a factor, too.  She quotes A.L. Becker:

"'Most language systems have one central vowel.  It's the schwa in English.  In French, it's Uu.  It's that central place that shapes your face at rest.  When you're speaking, it's the recurrent place.  If it's far back, it changes your cheeks, changes the way your mouth looks."

If Rich had simply written about her experience with language, the book would be a satisfying meal.  It becomes a feast when she went beyond that to talk about culture (something she had to learn at the same time she was leaning the language) and how her relationship to her home country changed.  Rich was from New York and was in India during 911.  Here she was thousands of miles away while her city was burning surrounded by people whose interpretation of events was very different.  They ran the "facts" through their own prism of experience and had their own ideas about what it all meant :

"Swami-ji announced the latest international development, usually a dastardly act by Pakistan. 'Pakistan is going with Bin Laden,' he informed us when we returned to the bus for the next leg.  By the end of the day, China was rolling toward the border, Israel had bombed Afghanistan, and I'd figured out Swami-ji's news source:  the bus driver, who was getting his facts from other drivers when we stopped.. 'India is on red alert,' he announced as the bus pulled out of the Garden of the Maidens. 'Within twenty-four hours, America will bomb Pakistan.'  The teacher all shook their heads gravely."

It sounds surreal and yet this is what happens.  However we imagine that the global media and government propaganda agencies work, the reality is that people don't necessarily take what they have to say for the gospel truth, or may even be convinced that reporters are outright lying on behalf of this or that interest (something that is certainly true in some cases).  If a person is outside of their home country when some seminal event occurs in the homeland, the host country and culture interpretation is very powerful and, to some extent, as a resident one cannot help but be influenced by it.  This is normal since one is not directly part of the national conversation and one's sources of information (local news, local gossip) are very different.  I am often surprised when I talk to Americans in the homeland about 911 to see just how far apart we are.  We didn't experience the event in the same way and while they were having an internal conversation about it, I was right smack in the middle of another amongst people who had a very different point of view.

This can lead to a disconnect between the homeland and its diaspora which might actually be useful if those outside perspectives were welcome.  My experience (and yours might be very different) is that the homeland is not feeling secure enough yet to have that kind of conversation.  I'd give it another 10 years.

Rich was gone for one year.  I've been gone for nearly 20 now.  And yet, I think we both ended up in the same place, at different times:

At night, I lie in bed and worry that we've become a little like the Raj, the other students and I:  dumb to the ways the homeland's been altered, loyal to old notions, too floridly assured now, out of sync and out of time.  In the right here and now, we're citizens of the America we left at the beginning of September, a country still blessed by sheltering geography, a country that's impregnable and will always stay fortified.

For all these reasons and many more,  I recommend this book to you.  There are two editions and be sure to get the version published in 2011.  It was the 2010 edition that got so many bad reviews and with cause - it was very poorly edited.

Katherine Russell Rich died of breast cancer in 2012.

The Frenchlings in Montreal

Montreal is one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen.  It's not flashy beautiful - it's subtle beauty that grows on you over time.  As you walk down the streets (and this is a city that is oh so walkable) you turn your head and there is a stunning little house painted in bright colors with lovely woodwork and a charming staircase leading up to the first floor.  This happens all the time, even in parts of the city that are a bit run down.

If you haven't been to Montreal may I whet your appetite with this video of the city?



The Frenchlings (my two Franco-American daughters who are studying in Canada) have an apartment near the Atwater metro station in the downtown area.  They are in what is called a coloc which is short for colocation - a situation where young people, usually students, get together and rent a communal apartment for relatively cheap.  I think the equivalent term in English is group housing.

Their building is old and has seen better days.  In fact from the outside it looks like it is owned by a slumlord.  I have to wonder what the neighbors in their gentrified houses next door think of this monstrosity in their midst.  The tenants are almost exclusively students at McGill, UdeM and UQAM which means that it is a transient population.

When we arrived last Sunday we saw some of the repercussions of this:  the small garden and  sidewalk in front of the apartment was littered with garbage and old furniture.  I winced when I saw that the outgoing students had dumped garbage all over the day lilies:

A very disorganized and unsightly grande poubelle.  In the students' defense, I didn't see any other place where they could have put all this.  Many arrived from abroad and other parts of Canada at the very last minute;  if they didn't get that stuff out of those apartments that day, then the landlord would have put it all out on the street in any case.

Back to the apartment.  Magnificent.  5 bedrooms for 4 people.  A huge kitchen.  A lovely common area (living room).  Decent modern bathroom.  Bright.  Hardwood floors.  Beautiful old molding around the light fixtures and the ceiling.  A stunning old fireplace in the living room.  All this for very very cheap rent.

It was, however, very dirty, many of the windows didn't close properly and there was still stuff from the previous tenants packed into the hallway.  The elder Frenchling and I scrubbed while the younger Frenchling and her father put together the furniture from Ikea (and Mike, we really could have used you - the most competent Ikea certified technician we know).  Here are some pictures.

Kitchen

Balcony off the kitchen (there is another off the front bedroom)

One of the 5 bedrooms

Living room

All in all, not too bad for temporary digs.

But as pleased as I am that my children are living here, I can't help but wish that these apartments belonged to people who loved them and had the time, energy and money to care for them.  To do for this place what we did for our little house in Versailles.  I wonder what will happen in a few short years when the landlord gets tired of dealing with students and the rot has spread too far, if they will be sold and torn down or rehabilitated.  I pray that the latter is their destiny.

"He who loves an old house never loves in vain."
Isabel Conant

The Basis for a Great Conversation

Yesterday I posted this piece, CBT versus RBT – a Counter Offer, up on the Isaac Brock Society website. 

The post is about an article written by Professor Richard Harvey of the Villanova School of Law and Graduate Tax Program called World Wide Taxation of U.S. Citizens Living Abroad – Impact of FATCA and Two Proposals.

I appreciated this article on several levels. Harvey acknowledges problems with FATCA and citizenship-based taxation and then he goes on to explore possible solutions.  He has an interesting analysis of ACA's Residence-based Taxation proposal as well.

His article has generated quite a lively conversation over at Isaac Brock and if you are interested in joining in, please do.  There is already quite a broad spectrum of opinions from a community that is very knowledgeable on this topic.  

You (and I) may not like everything he proposes but it's commendable that he takes the problems seriously and is actively thinking about mitigation.  I sent him a note to that effect and invited him to have a look at the comments on Brock.  He answered with a very nice note of his own and said that he did go over and have a look at what people were saying.

Before you head for Brock to read (and I hope, participate) I'd ask that you try to be French for a few minutes.  What do I mean by that?  As you read, think about the context.  Who is Professor Harvey and what does he have to do with FATCA/CBT?  Why did he write it?  What audience might read his paper and what might their starting positions be?   And is there some reason that the article appears now and not at some other time?

Above all I invite you to look at it as the start of a conversation, not the last word.

From Raymonde Carroll's Evidences Invisibles:

Si l'on imagine la conversation  comme une toile de l'arraignée, on peut voir la parole y jouer le role de l'araignée, générer  ces fils qui relient les participants.  Idéale, la conversation (francaise) ressemblerait à une parfaite toile d'arraignée, delicate, fragile, élégante, brillante, aux proportions harmonieuses, une oeuvre d'art. 

(If one imagines conversation as a spider's web, we can see that speech plays the role of the spider, generating links which connect the participants.  Ideally,  conversation (French-style) resembles a perfect web:  delicate, fragile, elegant, brilliant, with harmonious dimensions, a work of art.) 

La caractere de telle ou telle conversation et sa forme refléteront ainsi, avec beaucoup d'exactitude pour qui prend la peine de lire les signes, la nature des rapports entre les conversants. On fabrique un tissu de relations de même et en même temps qu'on "fait" la conversation. 

(The character of this or that conversation and its form reflect as well, with great precision for those who go to the trouble of reading the signs, the relationships between the speakers.  And we create that web of relationships every time we "make" conversation.)

Obamacare and the American Migrant

When I was in the U.S. last month I went to see the staff at the district office of one of my senators.  While I was waiting for the meeting to start I saw a flyer about the new American national health care program known as 'Obamacare' (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).  As I read all kinds of questions popped into my mind about how this program will work for American migrants - those living abroad and those who might choose to return to the U.S.  After my meeting I spent a few minutes talking to another staff member and she was able to answer a few basic inquiries like:  If someone lives abroad for 20 years and has a pre-existing medical condition can he/she get health insurance in the U.S. if he/she wishes to return?  Her answer was an unequivocal 'yes'.  Under the new program insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage.  However, when I asked what 'reasonably priced" meant and what level of coverage one might expect, she couldn't answer and suggested that I got to a website to find out more.  I followed up that question by explaining my circumstances.  After hearing me out she admitted that the coverage would probably not be as comprehensive (or as inexpensive) as what I receive in France.  I'll be looking into this further and I'll post more when I have better information.

I'm not the only one with questions.  I know a couple of Americans here in the Paris area with long-term life-threatening health conditions.  One case I know of personally is someone who is very ill and on permanent disability here in France.  They have long considered the lack of national health insurance in the U.S. to be an impediment to ever returning there to live.  Going home to die or to end up on the streets isn't very appealing.  Under Obamacare has that changed?

Not easy to answer that question.  The few sites I looked at this morning were oriented toward what Obamacare means for Americans living in the U.S.  I could find nothing that specifically addresses Americans abroad (6 million+ U.S. citizens) or Americans who will return or who have returned to the U.S. to live.

Case in point - on the blog Iris sans frontières a woman who returned to the U.S. with her husband after living many years in Paris is concerned about Obamacare and her private French insurance.  Under the new healthcare law everyone must have a minimum level of insurance or pay a fine.

The situation worrying me for the past year as an American expatriate now residing in the U.S. is the possibility that my medical insurance might not qualify for Obamacare, that it might fall through the cracks.

To make matters even more interesting she and her husband are enrolled in the national health insurance program for retirees called Medicare but only Part A (hospitalization) and not Part B (doctors, scans and so on).  They did not elect to join Part B because they already had their private French insurance.  This system has worked reasonably well for them for 18 years - they pay the local doctor when they receive service and then they send the bills to France to be reimbursed.  But now with Obamacare she sees a problem because "I appear, like a good number of Americans, to have no insurance."

Furthermore, because they did not join Medicare Part B when they became eligible, there is penalty for late enrollment:

10% for each full 12-month period one could have had Part B but did not. I am 18 years overdue. Every Social Security representative I’ve talked with sees no way out of my paying the penalty if I were to enroll now.

After many phone calls and lengthy explanations she was able to get some answers from the Healthcare Insurance Marketplace Advanced Resolution Center.  They were able to confirm that their existing French insurance does qualify as "minimum essential insurance coverage" so the American system will recognize that  coverage and not charge them a fine.

However, if they ever lose their French insurance and have to apply for Medicare Part B, it looks like they will have to pay that penalty to join.  That doesn't seem right.  Does that mean that an American abroad who wishes to return home in his 70's will have to pay extra to get enrolled in Medicare, the national healthcare program for retirees (people on fixed incomes)?

It would be good to get some clarity on all this.  We know that Americans abroad are exempt from Obamacare but what about all the issues around re-insertion into the homeland healthcare system?

If you have any information that would be helpful to Iris or to Americans abroad who are contemplating a return to the U.S., please feel free to leave a comment here or on her blog.

I must say however, that this all seems much trickier than I had imagine and it is yet another example of how the American diaspora is something of an afterthought when it comes to homeland legislation.  All the more reason to push hard for a Commission on Americans Living Abroad.

Control, False Knowledge, and Truth

Much going on in the world today.  I can't speak to any one thing in particular but I do have a few guidelines I use when I think about these things.  You are free to reject them or use them as you wish.

Control:  Ultimately we have no control over other people.  We can cajole, threaten, try to make them happy, try to make them miserable but in the end they will do what they will do.  And sometimes the more we try to manipulate or force, the more people resist.  Even when we believe we are acting in their best interests.

What we don't know:  A small bit of humility goes a long way.  We read the headlines or search the internet for information and have the illusion that we understand what's happening.  Not true.  In fact, we could have been in the next town over when something happened and we would still have missed a great deal.  Better to assume a certain level of ignorance than to sally forth in arrogant false knowledge.

Truth:  John Waters once said, "Just because something 'happens', because it is 'true,'  because the 'facts' are correct, does not ensure that it is the truth."  Truly big lies always contain an element of truth if only to make them plausible or credible.  If we are comfortably in the majority in our little limited world, beware.  That is not "truth" -  that is 'groupthink."

And finally before we decide that "something must be done"  best talk to the people who we are asking to submit to our vision of a better world.  That means a direct (in so far that it's possible) conversation with the people on the ground.  What do they think?  What are their desires?  Do they want help?

And that may be the most important thing to keep in mind here:  people, however poor or abused in our eyes, are nonetheless actors in their own right.  They are human beings with dignity that must be respected, not passive creatures who should stand by while their betters decide their fate.  They should have a say in all this and if they don't appear to have a voice, then here is something we could and should do:  listen.

A Few Good Reads about Identity Politics, Syria, Shari'a and Democracy

So much to do here in Montreal and just a few short days to get everything done before we head home. Yesterday the younger Frenchling and I attended an orientation seminar for international students over at the Université de Montréal.  That and a trip to the bank to open my daughter's very own "offshore" checking account filled the morning.  The afternoon was spent getting the health insurance straightened out and taking a quick jaunt to Costco to pick up a few necessities like sheets.  Today we will be moving the elder Frenchling out of her old apartment and then we are off to Ikea to buy a bed to go with the younger Frenchling's new linens.

But it is early yet and right now I am happily ensconced in my hotel room here in Montreal surrounded by piles of books and a full Kindle.  From time to time, I check my mail and peruse the blogs I follow regularly.  Here are three conversations from bloggers I greatly admire that you might want to check out:

Multicultural Meanderings by Andrew Griffith:  Lively debate in Quebec over issues of identity, multiculturalism and the secular society.  There is a proposal to forbid the wearing of religious attire and signs by public servants here.  This has sparked quite a discussion and Andrew has a great round up of articles about it. I personally found this one from Le Devoir to be right on the money.

"La Charte qui nous est proposée est une mauvaise réponse à un faux problème, qu’aucune urgence ne justifie - sinon les visées électorales du gouvernement - et qui ne fera qu’attiser inutilement les tensions entre Québécois."

Identity is such a complex subject and how sad to see it reduced to a tool for political shenanigans.  Eva Hoffman's words seem appropriate here, "It is only after I have taken in disparate bits of cultural matter, after I have accepted its seduction and snares, that I can make my way through the medium of language to distill my own meanings; and it is only coming from the ground up that I can hit the tenor of my own sensibility, hit home."

Arun with a View:  Arun has provided a link to a piece by a blogger in Beirut called An open letter on Syria to Western narcissists.  The frustration expressed in this post is something I have felt myself and empathize with.  Perhaps I will write a post about it later but for now here is Eva Hoffman once again:

Multivalence is no more than a condition of contemporary awareness, and no more than the contemporary world demands. The weight of the world used to be vertical: it used to come from the past, or from the hierarchy of heaven and earth and hell; now it's horizontal, made up of the endless multiplicity of events going on at once and pressing at each moment on our minds and our living rooms. Dislocation is the norm rather than the aberration in our time, but even in the unlikely event that we spend an entire lifetime in one place, the fabulous diverseness with which we live reminds us constantly that we are no longer the norm or the center, that there is no one geographic center pulling the world together and glowing with the allure of the real thing.

Looks like the Americans didn't get the memo.


Terra Nullius:  Rhodri has this brilliant post up Beware philosophers bearing simple answers – Sharia and democracy which he wrote in response to a BBC series by Roger Scruton.

Quite simply put, Scruton’s analysis treats the two categories of post-imperial states as antithetical, positing a nearly unbridgeable divide in historical experience and political culture and going on to issue a fatwa on the incompatibility of Shari’a with democracy. To me, this argument not only essentialises and oversimplifies the diverse experiences of entire regions but also misses the wonderful opportunity that the recognition of obvious commonalities would provide to draw historical lessons relevant both to the Middle East and the (less dramatically so but undoubtedly troubled) frontiers of Europe.

Bonne lecture!

Flophouse Citizenship and International Migration Reading List Updated

Greetings from Montréal , Québec! Time for another update of the Flophouse citizenship/migration reading list. Been doing a lot of reading on airplanes and in hotels rooms recently. Here are the ones that made the cut. New stuff is 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. 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.

International Migration in the Age of Crisis and Globalization by Andres Solimano (2010).

This is a very 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.