Right. Having done some due diligence and skipping snowmobiling I looked at the list and decided to ask where to start? I was expecting books but they do come in many forms. The front covers evoked interest but I'd like the first introduction to give a lasting impact. So....pick one and I'll buy it. Or two or three. Thanks Edit and a thought. The one that had his discussion on the points in the comment Mark Hunter made if you can zero in on that please.

Tracinski says we “... often hear the claim that allowing ‘amnesty’ for illegal immigrants will create tens of millions of new voters for the Democratic Party.” But, Tracinski says, don’t worry because “... not all of them will choose to devote the time and expense required to follow it. Of those who do, not all will vote, ...” Let’s interrupt right there. Obvisously he himself thinks that their not voting is desirable.

He continues: ”and of those who do vote, believe it or not, they don’t all vote in lockstep.” Lockstep is a strawman. Nobody says they vote in lockstep. What is true is that most of them vote for the most socialist candidate. See
http://Google.com/search?q=2008+immig...
for the statistics.

Tracinski concludes his paragraph as if he had proved his case: “So much for the great Democratic Party conspiracy to use immigrants to seize a majority.” Actually they themselves admit it. For example here is James Carville after the 2010 midterm election, gloating over “demographics” – by which he means “immigration results”:
“When you get into a presidential electorate, it decidedly favors Democrats, and every year it’s going to decidedly favor them more and more. ... Demographics don’t do anything but get better for Democrats. Every election becomes less white.”
The quote is from “Dem Strategists: Obama bungled 2010” by David Catanese, http://Politico.com, November 18, 2010. The bungling refers to the Democrats having lost many Congressional seats in the midterm elections.

Continuing our litany of Tracinski’s errors: he uses the wrong verb tense.

He refers to “preserving our culture ... from being diluted by hordes of newcomers who were raised in an alien culture ...” Elsewhere he refers to “Those who whip up fear of a cultural takeover by immigrants ...” He refers to “danger” etc, as if the problem were in a future that – he argues – will never come.

Yet in many places in America the culture has already been diluted, even taken over. Whole neighborhoods, even cities, have had their culture transformed by Third World immigration. It contradicts Tracinksi’s theorizing about a future that’s already begun to happen.

Tracinski commits a logical fallacy in his second paragraph, where he considers the proposition:
Immigrants “raised in an alien culture that doesn’t value liberty” will overwhelm our culture.

He tries to disprove this proposition by claiming that the “native-born citizens’ commitment to liberty” is lacking.

But that doesn’t address the proposition. Whatever the average native-borns’ commitment to liberty, if Tracinski wants to show that they will not be overwhelmed he needs to show that the Third World immigrants’ commitment is not less than theirs. (In fact it is less. Ann Coulter gives a lot of evidence in her book Adios, America.)

Two more points ...

Trancinski says “The United States is a ... stable nation and can absorb seemingly large numbers of people without much political impact.”

Seemingly to whom? He says this ex cathedra. It’s so obviously false it is its own reductio ad absurdum.

Trancinski says “Corruption and patronage in politics are not ‘Third World’ imports. They have been part of American politics since the beginning and were arguably much worse in the 19th century ...”

Remember, Trancinski makes this part of his argument for Third World immigration. He’s saying the U.S. politics is as corrupt as Mexico, Guatemala, China, etc. Of course it isn’t, not by a long shot.