As far as my research goes, it doesn't include Ellis Island

will it be possible to include in this connection the kaiping towers? after all, the chinese diaspora was used as a ground (criterion iv) for the site's inscription. what makes this site different from many whs in this connection is that whereas the others are the point of destination or part of the itinerary, this one is the point of origin. so in the case of other sites, there is a movement from one place to another; in this case, it doesn't end there, with the people eventually going back to the place of origin.

There seems no doubt that Kaiping Diaolou IS "connected" with Human Migration. I just wish we could come up with a more satisfactory definition of the Connection than we have ("Process of mass migration of people") without opening up every Colonial town/religious building in the Americas!

On this subject it might be of interest to note that China also tried to play the "migration card" for Fujian Tulou, but this time (just 1 year after the successful use of it under Criterion iv for Kaiping Diaolou) by claiming it under Criterion vi
"The birth of Fujian Tulou is connected with several notable migrations of nationalities in the history of China, with the history of nomadic and farming nationalities, and with the history of the Mongol Empire. Its creators and inheritors are the descendants of Central Plains people who migrated southwards because of social upheavals and who integrated with local residents in Fujian Province"
but this time ICOMOS wouldn't accept it :-
" ICOMOS considers that the justification does not set out how the tulou and their landscape can be read for their association with exceptional migrations – rather it is the results of those migrations that are exceptional and this has been recognized by other criteria."
So ICOMOS also tried to differentiate between association with the migrations themselves and the results of those migrations. In this "Connection" we are trying to capture the former and the fact that many cities in the Americas display Iberian or even "fusion" architecture as a result of the Iberian invasions doesn't (or shouldn't) necessarily connect directly to Iberian migration per se.

Note also that the effect of migration has been used to justify criterion v in some World Heritage Sites (like Sighisoara). But in such cases, it is the negative effect of such migration as eroding the place's identity that contributed to the site's inscription. Hence, there may be cases wherein the migration connection is tricky. It is used to justify inscription (namely, criterion v) for its threat to the conservation and preservation of the place, but the migration itself does not really reflect that outstanding universal value as imbibed by the place (as part of the process of migration, or even the fusion of cultures).

I'm going to throw another one in, to make it even more difficult: what about L'Anse aux Meadows?

The ICOMOS evaluation states:
It is a precious and, up until now, unique milestone in the history of human migration and
the discovery of the universe

One could argue that in itself it isn't a sign of mass migration and more a result than a process. But being the earliest site of this kind ànd because it was labeled as a human migration example at its inscription, I would like to propose to include it in this connection.

What do you think?