If there's no immigration regulations throughout the 19th and 20th century that passed, how many people will there be in the United States?
I don't know about how much, but there will be a lot of Chinese/Jewish people. Maybe the Chinese population even exceeds 40% of total US population by 1990?If there's no immigration regulations throughout the 19th and 20th century that passed, how many people will there be in the United States?
I don't know about how much, but there will be a lot of Chinese/Jewish people. Maybe the Chinese population even exceeds 40% of total US population by 1990?
The USA might be 10-15% Chinese.
The most realistic way to make this happen would be to make the US economy a lot more successful throughout the 19th and 20th century. More and bigger economic booms.The US population would have to be psychologically changed to accept unlimited immigration, which seems pretty much ASB.
Go to the source of American racial self-consciousness.
Somehow butterfly the events leading up to the War of 1812.
John R. Loewens (Lies My Teacher Told Me) lays out a convincing case that it was the War of 1812 and events leading up to it that crystallized race consciousness in the new United States. Prior to the War of 1812 (which was a war against Tecumseh's Native American Confederation that was backed by the British), according to Loewens, it was not uncommon to find towns on the Western frontier in which Native Americans and Whites were living together in harmony, often intermarried and often intermarried with African-Americans.
Tensketwah (the Prophet) and Tecumseh's mobilization of Native American tribes in the lead-up to the War of 1812 put an end to all that and created battle lines on both sides. And yes, Tensketawah and Tecumseh engaged in terrorism, which is what burning white farms and killing and torturing people certainly amounted to, just as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri 's Al Qaeda has done (though Al Qaeda has the technology to do it on a larger scale). And it was state sponsored terrorism, sponsored by the British, in an effort to contest the Mississippi Basin with the new United States.
So from Loewens's point of view, whose arguments I find compelling, we should refrain from romanticizing Tecumseh and Tensketawah. Unlike in our time, in which policymakers have worked very hard to prevent Al Qaeda's activities from translating into bigotry against Muslims in the US, after 1812, American politicians such as John C. Calhoun were more than willing to maintain and enhance the racial divides that 1812 opened up and to use those racial divides to create a racially bifurcated, White Supremacist society.
And just as after 9/11, American's civil liberties suffered after 1812. Americans might not be subject to the degree of surveillance that we see after 9/11 after 1812, but it is after 1812 that the US sees it's first local police forces--in the South, out of fear of slave insurrection. And new restraints on press freedom. And of course on intermarriage between African-Americans, whites and Native-Americans--which is one of the things Tensketawah and Tecumseh were fighting for.
And this of course is where all of our racial restrictions on immigration come from because this is the historical POD from which our self-consciousness as a race to be kept pure seems to have come from. Before the lead-up to the War of 1812, it was "you have some Indian blood--so what? Who cares?" After 1812, everybody cared.
So if Tecumseh and Tensketawah can be somehow butteflied away (maybe some native American raid kills one or both of their parents) or the British can be butteflied away from access to the Mississippi Basin after the American Revolution (making Tecumseh easier to put down a lot earlier) the US might see a far more laid back attitude toward race at least North of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers. (Though whether a racially conscious South could coexist as part of the same country with a North that ISN"T RACIST AT ALL is another question. Secession might happen much sooner). And that North would likely be far more accepting of immigrants of whatever race, bringing us back to our original topic.
OK! The Australians DID limit the number of migrants they accepted even from the UK at different times in their history either because they were afraid of wages being driven down or because of a subjective wish to keep Australia from "getting too crowded". This belief continues to the present day based on the widespread belief (in my opinion erroneous and proven erroneous by the economic success of wave action water desalinization) that Australia can only support around 20 million people.This doesn't do it. Any existing population is going to limit immigration if its hurting their own prospects economically, whether or not they're racially conscious or not. The immigrants could all be Brits or something, and if the economy was constrained there would be found reasons to to exclude them. The racial consciousness, if it didn't already exist, would be invented. You know, Americans are a different race from Britons because of the eugenic effect of the harsh early colonial environment and the admixture with the most vigorous native Indian stock, blah, blah, blah, etc.
Easy.....Have the Chinese tend to vote for one party that is in charge ( maybe the Dems) that one party will want as many of these voters as possible.