The US has a lot less people per square kilometre than many populous countries. Is there anyway for the CULTURE and POLICY in the US to favour immigration rather than restrict it? Maybe lowering the labour week from 40 hours to say 20?
AHC: Pro-Immigration United States
- Thread starter Divergent54
- Start date
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
We could have gone the Argentina route and passed laws encouraging immigrants without even considering laws that might restrict immigration (Chinese Exclusion Act, the Gentleman's Agreement, Quota Acts from 1920 to the 1950s, etc.). Of course, that didn't work out so well for Argentina...
The reason the US has much less people per sq mile is that it is massive only Russia, Canada, and maybe China are bigger in terms of area and it already has the third largest population in the world.
And lowering the work week to 20 hours that would be just weird how would anything get done.
And lowering the work week to 20 hours that would be just weird how would anything get done.
jahenders
Banned
The US DID have such a culture for much of the time before 1900. Since then, it's become clear that:
A) Our society/economy/freedom is one of the most sought after in the world, such that many will leave their homeland for it
B) The social structures we've built (welfare, free schools, etc, etc) are very expensive and every immigrant adds to that.
C) Most of our land is, at least, "comfortably occupied" and some it crowded, so there's little need for immigrants to help properly "use" the land
D) Our we've lost lots of jobs of certain kinds (especially in the last 30 years or so), mainly to overseas companies.
Taken together, these things have made our culture less pro-immigrant, though I think most favor immigration at some reasonable level. The frustration and contention comes in when people feel that the current level of immigration is well above what's considered reasonable.
A) Our society/economy/freedom is one of the most sought after in the world, such that many will leave their homeland for it
B) The social structures we've built (welfare, free schools, etc, etc) are very expensive and every immigrant adds to that.
C) Most of our land is, at least, "comfortably occupied" and some it crowded, so there's little need for immigrants to help properly "use" the land
D) Our we've lost lots of jobs of certain kinds (especially in the last 30 years or so), mainly to overseas companies.
Taken together, these things have made our culture less pro-immigrant, though I think most favor immigration at some reasonable level. The frustration and contention comes in when people feel that the current level of immigration is well above what's considered reasonable.
Memphis
Banned
Wasn't there a point where anyone on a boat could come?!?!
How many millions saw the Stature of Liberty as their first peak of America?
For a long time, the United States was the most pro-immigrant country on Earth.
You could have the US annex Canada early, and need even more people to settle. And then get Australia, and ask for people all over including Asia to settle the outback.
And once they get Alaska, try to populate it.
How many millions saw the Stature of Liberty as their first peak of America?
For a long time, the United States was the most pro-immigrant country on Earth.
You could have the US annex Canada early, and need even more people to settle. And then get Australia, and ask for people all over including Asia to settle the outback.
And once they get Alaska, try to populate it.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
And I suppose the British are just going to hand it over to us if we ask nicely?
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
But by that point, we wouldn't have wanted those territories anyway. It's the great paradox that ruins many Ameriwank scenarios.
Lateknight
Banned
That's true. Well there are ways for that not to be the case most of them involve changing the fundamental fabric of America.
Can we get a list of how many countries are more pro-immigration than the US? The United States is incredibly pro-immigration. There are ways for it to be more pro-immigration, but not by much.
Anyway, the best way to change the culture about immigration is post-1900, and that is to avoid large-scale federal welfare. The two policies are generally mutually exclusive.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
IIRC, Argentina and Chile both explicitly encouraged immigration and did their best to attract Europeans to their countries. So you can put them on the list too.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
The US didn't really explicitly encourage it. The federal government just sort of let it happen, and didn't really take any action until the 1880s (when it started restricting East Asian immigration).
Nerf the Chinese Exclusion Act and the immigration quotas of the 1920s that were in place until the 1960s. That means having to change some things about US society or the economy at the time.
Lateknight
Banned
How many chinese actually would stay? If remember right most planned on going back to china, obviously there would be more but to what degree.
While I'll concede the US, historically, has proven to be rather pro migration, more so than most, the existence of exclusion laws does show it doesn't only go one way.
But to be fair to the US, that kind of exclusionary law was pretty common in Anglo countries. Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa all instituted similar anti Chinese rules, for similar reasons around the same time period.
NZ and Australia were incredibly pro migration and still are (IIRC both countries have around 20% of the population as foreign born residents). We also sponsored migrants at government cost (although that as much speaks to the need to attract people who would otherwise go to say the US or Canada).
But to be fair to the US, that kind of exclusionary law was pretty common in Anglo countries. Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa all instituted similar anti Chinese rules, for similar reasons around the same time period.
NZ and Australia were incredibly pro migration and still are (IIRC both countries have around 20% of the population as foreign born residents). We also sponsored migrants at government cost (although that as much speaks to the need to attract people who would otherwise go to say the US or Canada).
Is this DBWI? If we count most of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century the US has receved more than 30 million immigrants, whereas the second most succesful immigration country, Argentina, has receved "only" 6 and a half million.
Chile didn't do a great job. It has receveid less immigrants than, let's say, Cuba.
Why it didn't work so well? Argentina has received more immigrants than Canada, Australia and South Africa TOGETHER with much worse economy.
Nowadays, 20 hrs standard workweek would probably have around the same efficiency as 40 hrs standard.
That said, this sounds like a DBWI.