I've found the institution of contemporary thinking around modern immigration policies. 

The organization is called the "Migration Policy Institute". It was founded in 2001 and grew out of the International Migration Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

I signed up to receive a monthly update from this Migration Policy Institute and the first email I received pointed to a document titled Migration and Development Policy, What Have We Learned? by Kathleen Newland (one of the founders).

To summarize this letter, The Migration Policy Institute has found that the European Union would like to “solve” immigration, which to them means limit immigration. The U.S. and France tried throwing money into their neighboring countries to develop them – and in turn curb immigration. That didn’t work.

Over the last 10 years the Migration Policy Institute has found that:

·         Immigration persists even between countries with high levels of development.

·         Immigration benefits the immigrant’s mother country via close family ties.

·         Migrants can be escaping political or criminal violence, persecution and natural disasters.

·         Family reunification accounts for the largest stream of immigrants to most receiving countries.  

·         European governments have constrained family reunification programs in an attempt to engineer a class of migrants who can contribute more to the economic growth of the country of destination, overlooking the fact that family ties are a powerful agent for successful immigrant settlement, and that well-integrated immigrants are better able to contribute to both countries.

·         Immigrant-receiving governments should foster family and community ties of new immigrants, and promote the success of newly arrived individuals and the communities they enter.

·         Remittances reduce poverty but do not necessarily bring about more sustainable growth or development.

·         Partnership between countries is desired but destination countries often do not meet at the table.

·         Migration patterns occur in about equal quantity in North > North, South > South, but in a smaller volume on average from North > South.

·         Migrations are normal and not a pathological feature of human existence and relations among states.

·         Florida has worked to promote humanitarian and development work in the Caribbean and Central American, which are the origin of substantial immigration flows to the state.

·         Spain is doing substantial work toward improving relationships and managing their circular flow of agricultural workers from Morocco. 

In Summary:

·         Governments have barely begun to institutionalize productive relationships between countries of origin and countries of destination.

·         Building trust between migrant communities and governments takes time and patience as well as mutual commitment.

·         Policies that are affected are political, organizational, financial and technical.

·         Governments should take a wholehearted approach to migration and development policy which recognizes the needs of both the origin and destination countries.

·         Cooperation between countries is essential.

·         A much deeper analysis needs to be undertaken, tracing how practices are shaped, who they reach and with what effect.

·         A continuous examination of what is working and why is needed. 

-Frank Livingstone, anthropologist

If there were black and white people, their offspring would be grey.

"Citing Blumenbach by name, Emerson agrees that races shade into each other imperceptibly."

-Nell Irvin Painter, The History of White People

Makeup from brushesbykaren

Some chapters from the book "Modernizing the U.S. Census"

Modernizing the U.S. Census

Chapter 7: Data on Race and Ethnicity

Modernizing the U.S. Census

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Frank W. Sweet, author of Legal History of the Color Line

The earliest mention of the need to classify free Americans by “race” was in the late 17th century, long before the census (or the nation) was founded). At that time (1691-1723), the reason given was that: (1) Racial classification was necessary to prevent intermarriage, (2) Intermarriage had to be prevented to stop the birth of Americans of mixed Euro-Afro ancestry, (3) The existence of mixed-ancestry Americans would enable alliance between European and African involuntary forced laborers, and (4) Such alliance would overthrow English rule and turn colonies into free maroon communities.[19] In fact, Latin American colonies encouraged intermarriage (and consequent mixed-ancestry colonists) and yet were not overthrown. In the 1830s, as a consequence of the Nat Turner incident, free African Americans came to be seen as a threat. The justification for “racially” classifying Americans on the census was to prevent African-American migration to the free states. Several Midwestern states’ constitutions forbade African-American immigration.[20] In fact, no evidence ever emerged that free African Americans were a threat. In the 1850s, intermarriage was believed to produce mentally defective offspring. Census “scientists” published findings that mixed-ancestry children were usually born retarded or insane. And so, the justification for “racially” classifying Americans on the census was to prevent intermarriage and thus protect public health.[21] In fact, even cursory examination of the data shows it to be falsified, since many communities reported more insane mixed-race individuals than their entire population. In the Jim Crow era (1900-1965), the elites in power argued the importance of preserving “White racial purity.” The justification for “racially” classifying Americans on the census was that it helped to prevent contamination of the White “race.”[22] In fact, liaisons between White males and Black females were encouraged while the reverse was often punished with death by public torture.[23] Since 1970, U.S. society has tried to atone for slavery and the state-sponsored terrorism of the Jim Crow era by enforcing laws, regulations, entitlements, policies, and practices that favor African Americans. Since that time, “racially” classifying Americans on the census has been justified on the grounds that such classification is needed in order to fight “racism.”[24] In fact, no “anti-racist” or civil rights federal regulation or law enforcement over the past 30 years has ever used census data.[25]

-Frank W Sweet, A Brief History of Census “Race”

Multiracialism In America - Jane Junn

Choose one or more: ☐ Mixed ☐ Other ☐ Unsure ☐ Don't know ☐ None of your business

Snoop finds out what percentage of Native American, European and African he is.

Should I stop using the word "race"?

Unless you are a physical anthropologist, or discussing the word itself, the word 'race' should be avoided.

Replace the word 'race' with ethnicity. True, the meaning is different, but conversations about human differences usually revolve around ethnic differences.

The term 'race' equates to the noun 'breed'. Humans do not want to be thought of as breeds.  -getgln Nell Irvin Painter Professor of American History, Princeton Speaking about the History of White People

Using the term 'race' runs the risk of sounding uneducated, and worse, the risk of sounding racist.

‪NYTimes.com - Being Multiracial in America‬

‪Mixed‬ Listen at 3:20