Would they have jobs for them if they did?
And wouldn't France rather those immigrants go to Algeria or some other colony to help secure their hold?
Based on the data here:This is basically OTL. France received very substantial immigration from Italy, Spain, Portugal and Poland, as well as Armenia and a few other countries. The biggest wave came in the 1920s but there was some immigration in the pre-war period as well.
Would they have jobs for them if they did? And wouldn't France rather those immigrants go to Algeria or some other colony to help secure their hold?
Cheap or free land, perhaps?Much of the pied-noir population were descended from Spanish and Italian immigrants. Now the question is what would prompt them to go to Algeria as opposed to the metropole?
Much of the pied-noir population were descended from Spanish and Italian immigrants. Now the question is what would prompt them to go to Algeria as opposed to the metropole?
Based on the data here:
http://focus-migration.hwwi.de/typo...e/bilder/Country-profiles/cp-2/grafik4-gr.gif
The percentage of immigrants among the total population in France in the pre-World War I years and even in the post-World War I years is much lower than I would like to see; indeed, I am thinking of 13-25% here--in other words, percentages similar to the U.S.'s and Canada's percentages for this during this time.
How do you accomplish this, though?This would depend on France having a substantially stronger economy, I would think.
Actually, even right now (with a population 1.5+ times greater than in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), France still has a lot of areas with an extremely low population density:Well, I don't know if that is plausible. In North America, in addition to the growing cities, there were vast territories that were thinly populated, which the governments wanted to fill with European settlers. While France has a relatively low population density for Europe, it didn't have any regions (in the metropole) that were like that.
Actually, even right now (with a population 1.5+ times greater than in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), France still has a lot of areas with an extremely low population density:
Plus, don't many immigrants to the U.S. nowadays move to cities and suburbs? (For the record, the current U.S. percentage of immigrants is about the same as what it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.)
Well yes, the overseas possessions are another story. New Caledonia in particular could have received more settlers than it did - it could probably support a larger population. (Guiana could, too, but its climate isn't very hospitable.) Maybe in a timeline in which France conquers the island sooner, it can establish a larger population that attracts more immigrants. But non-French immigrants might just as well go to Australia or New Zealand.
It's true that now, immigrants tend to settle in cities. But 100 years ago, many were seeking farmland, which was readily available in North America but not nearly as much so in Metropolitan France.
Actually, I was talking about metropolitan France here.
So, in other words, France needs more farmland to attract more immigrants during this time? If so, it would be a bit strange that a country which is so concerned about its tiny population growth is incapable of sustaining more immigrants!
OK; understood.It's not that France was incapable of sustaining more immigrants, but that for immigrants seeking to establish their own homesteads, North America was more attractive. Land was more available and cheaper. France certainly had (and has) a rich agricultural economy, but that most of its cultivated land was already in someone's possession.