No mass immigration from the third world

Replicator

Banned
What if there would have been no mass immigration into the US and especially Europe from Africa, the muslim world and Asia after WW2?Either because it simply does not take place or because Europe and the US have an immigration policy as tough as Australia?
 
"Mass" immigration? The Asian/African population of France is only around 7%, that of the UK is around 6%, the Asian population of the US is around 5%. Hardly mass immigration.
 
Well you'd need to have those kind of people in high places.

For Britain maybe if during the 1966 Tory leadership election, Powell siphons more votes from Heath and Maudling does a slightly better campaign having this as the result.

Maudling-134
Heath- 128
Powell- 30

According to his biography, Powell was rumoured to be moved to a higher cabinet position, even Chancellor, but I think it would be ASB for him so perhaps he's moved to somewhere safer. Home Secretary at the highest, but his position makes him difficult to remove and when he makes RoB, Maudling can't get rid of him since he's too popular and his gaffe's have been too damaging so he simply condemns the language used in the old lady story but slowly adopts it, gaining Hogg's resignation but the poll rise is enough.

When the Tories win 1968, Powell is able to set up his ideal immigration policy and 'mass' immigration is stopped.

Does that work?
 
"Mass" immigration? The Asian/African population of France is only around 7%, that of the UK is around 6%, the Asian population of the US is around 5%. Hardly mass immigration.

Also, in the United States atleast a good chunk of our Asian population is the result of natural growth from immigration in the 19th and early 20th century.
 

MSZ

Banned
"Mass" immigration? The Asian/African population of France is only around 7%, that of the UK is around 6%, the Asian population of the US is around 5%. Hardly mass immigration.

By 1950, European population in Africa reached about 10 mln, with the whole continent having about 230 mln peoples. After centuries of colonialism, the whites made only about 5% of Africa's population. The African/Asian/Middle Eastern population reached a similiar percentage in a few decades. So it is justified to call it "mass imigration".

And if it hasn't occured? Propably would mean labour being more expensive in Europe in the post-war decades, hampering reconstruction. Higher wages in France and Germany might attract more escapees from the second world. Population decline would occur earlier, making the capitalist world looking as if it is loosing the cold war demographicaly. West European nation-states would be more homogenous.

I don't predict them collapsing because of it, nor being in a significantly worde position. Perhaps without immigration coupled with granting citizenship, Gastarbeiters would be given some kind of different status? "You did your job, here is the money, now get lost" without a chance of permanent residentship?
 
By 1950, European population in Africa reached about 10 mln, with the whole continent having about 230 mln peoples. After centuries of colonialism, the whites made only about 5% of Africa's population. The African/Asian/Middle Eastern population reached a similiar percentage in a few decades. So it is justified to call it "mass imigration".

That completely ignores both that you're talking about different population levels, that is it's easier for a group to become 5% of a population of 100,000 than it is of a population of a million, and the fact that a significant amount of Europeans only went to Africa in the last two decades of the 19th and first few of the 20th centuries.
 
Last edited:

Replicator

Banned
That completely ignores both that you're talking about different population levels, that is it's easier for a group to become 5% of a population of 100,000 than it is of a population of a million, and the fact that a significant amount of White Africans went to Europe in the last two decades of the 19th and first few of 20th centuries.

Afro/Asian population of France in 1950: ca 60 000; 2010: ca 6 MillionAfro/Asian population of Britain in 1950: ca 50 000; 2010: ca 5 MillionI call that mass immigration
 

Hendryk

Banned
What if there would have been no mass immigration into the US and especially Europe from Africa, the muslim world and Asia after WW2?Either because it simply does not take place or because Europe and the US have an immigration policy as tough as Australia?
That's not a What If, that's an AH challenge. You can't just ask "What if the immigration policies of the entire First World had been completely different for the past six decades?" because that's not a single event--it involves complex societal and political factors in dozens of different countries. Especially if "because it simply does not take place", which means a completely different demographic and economic evolution in the Third World. You're effectively positing a world that suddenly becomes different from our own, without explaining how.

And having said that, I will add that I get a bad vibe from the wording of your question. The word "tough" applied to immigration policy connotes an ideological agenda.
 
Afro/Asian population of France in 1950: ca 60 000; 2010: ca 6 MillionAfro/Asian population of Britain in 1950: ca 50 000; 2010: ca 5 MillionI call that mass immigration

The large majority of the African population in France is a result of immigration from the states that made up the French portions of Northern Africa (particularly Algeria) during the independence period, and they only constitute around 4 million.

I'd also point out that of that just as many European descended Africans moved to France as did Arab Africans.


In the case of Britain only 4.7% of the population is Asian (the vast majority of which are from the Indian Sub-continent) while only .8% are African.

A good deal of that to is something that has happened over the last 20-30 years, not something that happened right after WW2.

Also, like the United States, Britain has a long history of immigration, with African and Asian populations that go back three centuries, so natural growth plays a factor in it to.


In general I also question the accuracy of those numbers, and really, an increase of 3 million over half a century is not mass immigration, if you want mass immigration look at American history, where we saw the population increase, which in a single 50 year period saw a population increase of roughly 53 million people, the majority of which was the result of immigration.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
What if there would have been no mass immigration into the US and especially Europe from Africa, the muslim world and Asia after WW2?Either because it simply does not take place or because Europe and the US have an immigration policy as tough as Australia?

It's funny you should refer to Australia. Despite the White Australia policy, which legally ended in 1973 and had been becoming more relaxed since the end of WW2, Australia has since ended up with over 8% of the population being of Asian descent.
 
The reasons why immigration from the third world to Europe took place are very complex, usually interlinked and cannot be drawn to a single cause.

It is also worth remembering in the case of France that a lot of 'Black' immigrants, ar ein fact Antillean and comes from the overseas departements of France. They are thereofre as French as someone from Brittanny or Normandy and while their regional cultures certainly have an exotic tinge, they are nevertheless very French too in a lot of respects.

To say that no immigration from the third world to Europe would weaken Europe's position economically and demographically is very wrong. A lot of industries which required cheap labour from North Africa or the Asian subcontinent, where on the decline and dying. Unlike what many hoped, the cheap migrant workforce, did not save the textile industry of France and Britain. Large capital investments in machinery and in using synthetic fibres instead of natural ones, would have paid off. But hey lobbying to government to invite cheap manpower to undercut the present wages, is less riskier in a lot of respects after all.

Another way to reduce immigration from the third world, especially from former colonies to former motherlands, would be a much thougher attitude of European states towards their once former colonies. Instead of maintaining informal links, think about a "you are now independent so just sod off" attitude.
 
Top