If the US had no immigration restrictions, how large could certain ethnicities be in the US?

Like, how big would Russians, Italians, Chinese, and Japanese be if there weren't any restrictions on Eastern/Southern Europeans and East Asians. I am under the impression that these groups and others would be much larger without immigrant restrictions. How large could other groups that I didn't mention also be without the US restrictions on immigration that specifically targeted certain ethnicities.
 
pre-Internet, kind of have to come up with a way of giving people timely information.

For example, yes, there was plenty of farmland before, but now, not so much.

=======

Major Bonus Points: Do the above and still give American Indians a fair shake!
 
The interesting thing is that the restrictions made some groups probably larger than they would be. Chinese migration for instance was overwhelmingly composed of single males, with men outnumbering women 28 to 1. Most came as temporary workers, hoping to return with savings, and this was also the case with other destinations for Chinese migrants. The result was with the exclusion act, many stayed and began to bring over wives and children as part of family reunification. The same was largely true for Mexican Migration, which up until the 1960s much of it was seasonal. The restrictions only made more stay in larger numbers and bring in families. For Italians this too was the case as during the pre-World War I period Italian migration was 70% male and many were only temporary migrants, often migrating to the U.S. more than once. Once the doors closed in the 1920s, they began bringing over family members, and established more permanent communities.

For Russians, there were very few ethnic Russians coming to the U.S., but there were large numbers of Jews and Poles from the Russian Empire. The Jews had to obtain permission to emigrate, and did so in increasing numbers until World War I. After the War, many of the Russian Empire's Jews were located in what was now the Polish Republic, but the immigration restrictions in 1924 reduced their migration to a trickle. Without the Immigration Act, Jewish migration from Poland and Romania will continue in large numbers, making the Jewish community much larger.
 
The interesting thing is that the restrictions made some groups probably larger than they would be. Chinese migration for instance was overwhelmingly composed of single males, with men outnumbering women 28 to 1. Most came as temporary workers, hoping to return with savings, and this was also the case with other destinations for Chinese migrants. The result was with the exclusion act, many stayed and began to bring over wives and children as part of family reunification. The same was largely true for Mexican Migration, which up until the 1960s much of it was seasonal. The restrictions only made more stay in larger numbers and bring in families. For Italians this too was the case as during the pre-World War I period Italian migration was 70% male and many were only temporary migrants, often migrating to the U.S. more than once. Once the doors closed in the 1920s, they began bringing over family members, and established more permanent communities.

For Russians, there were very few ethnic Russians coming to the U.S., but there were large numbers of Jews and Poles from the Russian Empire. The Jews had to obtain permission to emigrate, and did so in increasing numbers until World War I. After the War, many of the Russian Empire's Jews were located in what was now the Polish Republic, but the immigration restrictions in 1924 reduced their migration to a trickle. Without the Immigration Act, Jewish migration from Poland and Romania will continue in large numbers, making the Jewish community much larger.
So, Jews would be a larger ethnic group, while Italians and Chinese would be smaller. I thought that a lot of the Italians who went to the Southern cone in South America would have gone to the US, but were rejected so they took the next best option.
 
So, Jews would be a larger ethnic group, while Italians and Chinese would be smaller. I thought that a lot of the Italians who went to the Southern cone in South America would have gone to the US, but were rejected so they took the next best option.

During the 1880s larger numbers of Italians went to Brazil rather than the U.S. and both had open immigration policies. The migration was overwhelmingly from Northern Italy, as most migration occurs in chains. That is people migrate where their friends and family are, or they can meet up with someone whom already lives in the area. The migration to Argentina was also larger before 1900, and again had a larger predominance of Northern Italians. Between 1900 and 1914 almost half of Italians migrating to Argentina were from the South or Sicily, but in the U.S. over three-quarters were from the South and Sicily. However, there were cases in certain years where one country attracted more than the others (mostly economic), there were also instances of people migrating temporarily to more than one country. For instance in 1908 more Italians left the United States than entered, mostly due to the economic downturn. The numbers to Argentina shot up as a result. Unfortunately, the seasonal nature of migration during the pre-World War I period is ignored in the U.S. (and Argentina and Brazil) as it does not fit into the narrative.

For Jews and Irish however, that narrative of a permanent migration to escape poverty is much more true. Jews in particular, like those from the Russian Empire had a return rate of 5% rather than the 30-35% rate overall during the 1900-1913 period. For Greeks and people from the Balkans, Syrians and Turks the temporary migration was even stronger as it was overwhelmingly male, often very poor looking for seasonal work.
 
During the 1880s larger numbers of Italians went to Brazil rather than the U.S. and both had open immigration policies. The migration was overwhelmingly from Northern Italy, as most migration occurs in chains. That is people migrate where their friends and family are, or they can meet up with someone whom already lives in the area. The migration to Argentina was also larger before 1900, and again had a larger predominance of Northern Italians. Between 1900 and 1914 almost half of Italians migrating to Argentina were from the South or Sicily, but in the U.S. over three-quarters were from the South and Sicily. However, there were cases in certain years where one country attracted more than the others (mostly economic), there were also instances of people migrating temporarily to more than one country. For instance in 1908 more Italians left the United States than entered, mostly due to the economic downturn. The numbers to Argentina shot up as a result. Unfortunately, the seasonal nature of migration during the pre-World War I period is ignored in the U.S. (and Argentina and Brazil) as it does not fit into the narrative.

For Jews and Irish however, that narrative of a permanent migration to escape poverty is much more true. Jews in particular, like those from the Russian Empire had a return rate of 5% rather than the 30-35% rate overall during the 1900-1913 period. For Greeks and people from the Balkans, Syrians and Turks the temporary migration was even stronger as it was overwhelmingly male, often very poor looking for seasonal work.
So basically, besides Jews and Irish no other ethnic groups would be larger without restriction?
 
So basically, besides Jews and Irish no other ethnic groups would be larger without restriction?

It really depends on how history plays out. If there are still the World Wars and the U.S. does not have restrictive policies, I imagine the numbers will be much larger. But the initial restrictions were put in place by and large due to the trend of closed borders that came about as a result of the First World War.
 
It really depends on how history plays out. If there are still the World Wars and the U.S. does not have restrictive policies, I imagine the numbers will be much larger. But the initial restrictions were put in place by and large due to the trend of closed borders that came about as a result of the First World War.
So, let's say that history pretty much goes the same ,but the US doesn't have restrictive policies, would any other ethnic groups be larger?
 
So, let's say that history pretty much goes the same ,but the US doesn't have restrictive policies, would any other ethnic groups be larger?

Absolutely, after the destruction of World War II, you would probably see many millions of Europeans and Asians flood the U.S. if there are no restrictions. I cannot imagine the U.S. or any country not imposing restrictions. Particularly if the British Dominions and Latin America retain their restrictions in place.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
If history goes as it did in OTL, may we assume that other nations do have their OTL immigration restrictions? This is rather important, and becomes more so as we come closer to the present. Certain OTL factors influencing certain forms of migration have been very astutely described in this thread, but one thing is (I feel) missing: the rather obvious fact that migrants tend to go to where they can go. Lots of people migrate because they want a better life, and in many cases, any number of more wealthy countries look as if they might provide a chance to get that. If most countries have restrictions, many migrants will go to those countries that have fewer or no restrictions.

This becomes rather more crucial as we get to the 20th century. It has been noted in this thread that most migration restrictions came about as extensions (or re-implementations) of World War One-era wartime restrictions. That is true. But there is an underlying factor at play here. Keep in mind that during wars in the 19th century, restrictions were also put in place in certain places at certain times, but these were typically lifted after hostilities ended. This changed in the early 20th century. The reason? Well... the 19th century was over, and the first elements of (what would later become) the welfare state were taking shape in many developed Western countries (such as Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and of course the USA). At the end of the 19th century, anti-monopoly laws came about. State-organised pension schemes began to emerge. Labour laws became a thing. Stuff like that. The standard of living in the developed Western nations began to rise dramatically.

So if you're a migrant... do you go to country X, which does not have those benefits, or to county Y, which does? Spoiler: it's country Y, ten out of ten times. And that's only natural. The only way for country Y to prevent this (provided it wants to prevent it) is to restrict immigration somehow. Most such developed countries have done this, because they have found that utterly unfettered migration + a welfare state = not really all that fuctional. Many European countries were rather lax about migration in the 19th century, because the government was nothing but a night watchman anyway, and almost no one got any state-funded benefits. But that began to change at the end of the 19th century, and became a completely different situation throughout the 20th. There are various views concerning the costs and benefits of migration. Most people do recognise, however, that totally free migration and a welfare state will not work. Because either you apply the welfare benefits to all newcomers... or you don't.

- If you do, you'd better pray that the majority of them will be net contributors to the treasury, because otherwise, your funds will run out and your system will go bankrupt. Most people, even those who generally favour tolerant migration policies, agree that totally free migration will draw in a truly vast number of unskilled migrants, the large majority of which will not be net contributors to the treasury. There will not be enough jobs for all these newcomers, so... they end up on welfare. (To avoid a flamewar: I stress that this will in most cases be against their will! They will want to work, but will not be able to find any.) So including them in the welfare system will drain the treasury on rather short notice. The rich country receiving all these migrants, more likely than not, will end up getting poorer. A lot poorer, even. If this policy is perpetuated indefinitely, I predict economic collapse.

- If you don't apply the welfare scheme to migrants (or perhaps apply it only to migrants who have become net contributors first, or some other selective method like that) you will most likely still get an enormous number of unskilled migrants, simply because wealthy countries offer more opportunities. (Mexican illegal immigrants to the USA in OTL do not come to get benefits, after all, because they are not eligible for those; they come in the hope of a better life than the one they can hope for in Mexico.) These migrants will be faced with a very difficult situation. Imagine that you are an unskilled migrant in a country with a rather high minimum wage and other such laws, and there are a lot of autochtonous people and a lot of better-skilled migrants there... the chances of finding an above-board job are negligable. Employers will have a lot of candidates to choose from, and they'll only choose the best candidates. So the country ends up with an underclass of unskilled migrants with no prospects. That's not as economically disastrous as the other scenario, but still pretty terrible for a lot of people.

And all these factors are put into overdrive in this particular AH scenario, which is that things go basically as in OTL... except the USA has no immigration restrictions at all. For the reasons outlined above, such restrictions (in one form or another) are pretty much unavoidable for a country that is becoming a welfare state. So other developed Western countries will have such restrictions. And the USA does not. And migrants will go (as I pointed out) where they can go. And particularly the unskilled migrants with few prospects will be the ones refused elsewhere. Those are the ones who will come to the USA in droves. So if the USA doesn't have any restrictions, that leaves two options:

- The USA begins to become a welfare state as in OTL, and due to it having no restrictions while all other developed nations begin to implement them, it becomes the nation that pretty much every desperate immigrant in the world is drawn to. Those who are skilled have a much better chance of getting into other countries, so the USA will largely get the masses that other countries do not want. If it attempts to still develop a welfare state, this will end very poorly. (In actual practice, this scenario is very unlikely, because the implementation of immigration restrictions is a very obvious step, and will be taken.)

- Or the USA doesn't attempt to develop a welfare state at all, and retains free immigration because there is no danger of vast numbers of migrants overextending the system. Nativists will still hate immigrants (mostly because they are competition for low-skill jobs), but all in all, it will work much as it did in the 19th century. (This is really the only way I see this happening.)
 
Last edited:
Top