No mass immigration to USA after 1880s

In 1860, the USA was already a significant industrial power. Their population was 31.4 million, and 8.2 million in Mexico. But the US territory was much larger than the territory of Mexico. Also, the majority (2/3) of the Mexican population focuses on the central part of the country (the area surrounded by a red line):
d9eb43fbb1005989gen.png

This area has always been more densely populated than any part of the USA.

the image you give is from the late Twenty century, this one is from 1900 Mexico (source)

population_1900.jpg


this one from USA 1860
ch12_02.gif

Look the more densely populate regions are the one that historically were industrialized, SURPRISE!!!

and The regions USA was more densely populates in the 1850-1860 than Mexico in the 1900 are the one that are the source of that country industrial power. basically new England and the northern territories
 
Look the more densely populate regions are the one that historically were industrialized, SURPRISE!!!

and The regions USA was more densely populates in the 1850-1860 than Mexico in the 1900 are the one that are the source of that country industrial power. basically new England and the northern territories
Well, I still think that population size and population density is not the most important factor in industrial development. If that were the case, China should become industrialized already in the 19th century.
 
@Lenwe Those maps always makes me wonder how the core area would progress if it were somehow separated from the rest. It would be interesting to overlay a drainage basin map over that density map. And that leads me to an important point, water power. There were a lot of water mills in New England, and I don't know if the core area of Mexico had a comparable hydraulic situation. Touching on environment, there may have even been other climactic and vegetative differences which benefited New England over central Mexico.
 
Well, I still think that population size and population density is not the most important factor in industrial development. If that were the case, China should become industrialized already in the 19th century.
Is one of the most Important Factors, not the only one obviously, But with enough population density, all your industrialization attempts get easier, look how easily north Italy industrialized in Comparation to Austria, hell look Austria-Hungary, the more industrialized part of the empire was the most populous one Bohemia(Czechia).

So if we going with my theory that a close immigration to the USA in 1880, mean more immigrants to Latin america in general, that means that the Industrialization process in Latino america get Easier, not that is fact, it´s only get easier
 
@Lenwe Those maps always makes me wonder how the core area would progress if it were somehow separated from the rest. It would be interesting to overlay a drainage basin map over that density map. And that leads me to an important point, water power. There were a lot of water mills in New England, and I don't know if the core area of Mexico had a comparable hydraulic situation. Touching on environment, there may have even been other climactic and vegetative differences which benefited New England over central Mexico.
If anything the climatic Benefits áre in México, they have milder Winters,sunny summers, and a good arable land.
About the Rivers, I don't know, I know México city Is build in a formar lagoon, but that it is
 
In 1860, the USA was already a significant industrial power. Their population was 31.4 million, and 8.2 million in Mexico. But the US territory was much larger than the territory of Mexico. Also, the majority (2/3) of the Mexican population focuses on the central part of the country (the area surrounded by a red line):
fd6c143b276a40ffgen.png

d9eb43fbb1005989gen.png

This area has always been more densely populated than any part of the USA.

The question becomes whether or not there were opportunities for mass immigration on the model of Argentina and Brazil anywhere, whether in the north or even in the centre of the country.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The question becomes whether or not there were opportunities for mass immigration on the model of Argentina and Brazil anywhere, whether in the north or even in the centre of the country.
The problem with northern Mexico is ability to support large population in the Arid and semi desert areas which have the lowest population desnsity
 
If anything the climatic Benefits áre in México, they have milder Winters,sunny summers, and a good arable land.
About the Rivers, I don't know, I know México city Is build in a formar lagoon, but that it is
That might be a double edged sword with increased spoilation and a loss of thermodynamic efficiency.
 
How do you predict the size of the US population, Latin American countries and the countries of the British community around 1914? I predict that in South Africa 8-9 million people can live (instead of 6.4 million), in Australia it can be 7 million (instead of 4.9), in Canada maybe 12-15 million (instead of 7.8), in Argentina over 10 million (instead of 8.1), in Brazil 26 million (instead of 24.6), Uruguay 3 million (instead of 1.3) 7 million in French Algeria (instead of 5.6) and in the US about 85 million (instead of 99 1).
 

Lusitania

Donor
How do you predict the size of the US population, Latin American countries and the countries of the British community around 1914? I predict that in South Africa 8-9 million people can live (instead of 6.4 million), in Australia it can be 7 million (instead of 4.9), in Canada maybe 12-15 million (instead of 7.8), in Argentina over 10 million (instead of 8.1), in Brazil 26 million (instead of 24.6), Uruguay 3 million (instead of 1.3) 7 million in French Algeria (instead of 5.6) and in the US about 85 million (instead of 99 1).
I think Brazil and Argentina could increase more, they have the capacity. It really depends if those two countries are capable of industrializing earlier. Plus Chile and Peru have opportunity to take in more immigrants. Paraguay took in thousands of Mennonite and other Russian emigrants who helped develop the country. It really depends on the political environment.

In Africa Angola and Mozambique also had potential plus Rhodesia and southern Belgium Congo. New Zealand population could also increase.
 
How do you predict the size of the US population, Latin American countries and the countries of the British community around 1914? I predict that in South Africa 8-9 million people can live (instead of 6.4 million), in Australia it can be 7 million (instead of 4.9), in Canada maybe 12-15 million (instead of 7.8), in Argentina over 10 million (instead of 8.1), in Brazil 26 million (instead of 24.6), Uruguay 3 million (instead of 1.3) 7 million in French Algeria (instead of 5.6) and in the US about 85 million (instead of 99 1).
I think you áre giving too much people to The USA, I put it more into the 70-80 range, after all,you just lost around 10- 15 million immigrants that go to the USA between 1880-1900 plus their kids, and too little to Argentina, maybe 12-15 millions, Brasil, maybe 28-30, and Chile, 3-3,5 million insted of 2.
But this Is only my opinión
 
I think you áre giving too much people to The USA, I put it more into the 70-80 range, after all,you just lost around 10- 15 million immigrants that go to the USA between 1880-1900 plus their kids, and too little to Argentina, maybe 12-15 millions, Brasil, maybe 28-30, and Chile, 3-3,5 million insted of 2.
But this Is only my opinión
A smaller inflow of immigrants to the US may cause that high birth rates of the native population will last longer, while in Europe, more difficult living conditions among European immigrants in Brazil or Argentina will translate into lower fertility rates.
 

Lusitania

Donor
A smaller inflow of immigrants to the US may cause that high birth rates of the native population will last longer, while in Europe, more difficult living conditions among European immigrants in Brazil or Argentina will translate into lower fertility rates.
While higher birthdate was typical of the time. Emigrants typically continue to have higher birthdates than 2nd and 3rd generation. So taking into consideration high birth rate of the time we could see slower natural population growth.
 
While higher birthdate was typical of the time. Emigrants typically continue to have higher birthdates than 2nd and 3rd generation. So taking into consideration high birth rate of the time we could see slower natural population growth.
Not everywhere. France had a low birth rate in the XIXth century, its population only increased by 10 million people (from 30 to 40 million), Ireland from the Great Famine of the 1940s to independence in 1922 experienced a population decline by half, from 8 to 4 million people (though partly due to emigration).
 
A smaller inflow of immigrants to the US may cause that high birth rates of the native population will last longer, while in Europe, more difficult living conditions among European immigrants in Brazil or Argentina will translate into lower fertility rates.
Áre really The living conditions in Argentina really more difficult in The 1880-1900, than, as example, Idaho in the same age? I mean a Lot of people we're living in mud-hut and log cabins in the USA until well into the 20 Century, and The standard of live between USA and Latinoamerica un The late XIX Century and estoy XX were not that different, in general The standard of living for the average, and poor people, were in genrgen better in anywhere un america, than in Europe
 
Áre really The living conditions in Argentina really more difficult in The 1880-1900, than, as example, Idaho in the same age? I mean a Lot of people we're living in mud-hut and log cabins in the USA until well into the 20 Century, and The standard of live between USA and Latinoamerica un The late XIX Century and estoy XX were not that different, in general The standard of living for the average, and poor people, were in genrgen better in anywhere un america, than in Europe
Well, in the US, immigrants could buy land cheaply and set up their own farms, and in Brazil and Argentina they had to work for landowners who often treated them badly.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Not everywhere. France had a low birth rate in the XIXth century, its population only increased by 10 million people (from 30 to 40 million), Ireland from the Great Famine of the 1940s to independence in 1922 experienced a population decline by half, from 8 to 4 million people (though partly due to emigration).
As I indicated France which experienced hardly any immigration saw a low% population increase.
 
Entertainment as we know it would be very different. Countless creators in the first half of the Twentieth Century were either immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants.

So... no Marx Brothers, no Rudolph Valentino, no Jerry Siegel (no Superman!), no Harry Houdini, no Erich von Stroheim....
 
Well, in the US, immigrants could buy land cheaply and set up their own farms, and in Brazil and Argentina they had to work for landowners who often treated them badly.
Errr no? That was The case in Brazil. But in Argentina the land was given for free and have a special law "Ley de Inmigración y Colonización Nº 817" or Avellaneda's law. With the explicit purpose yo make The immigration process to Argentine easier and Even give them free, undeveloped, land.
 
Greater white immigration to South Africa may make the National Party never come to power and apartheid is not introduced. Also, Jewish immigration to Palestine at the turn of the XIXth and XXth centuries can be greater if the Jews do not have the possibility of immigration to the USA. The Zionist movement will be stronger.
 
Top