U.S Without signigificant immigration post 1876?

Is there a way without a surviving confederacy or war with Britain or some other such great conflict to have the U.S implement an anti immigrant platform? Where the democrats of this period anti immigrant (sans Irish)?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Getting an anti-immigration policy implemented for some period of time can be done. But to have that kind of policy last forever is very difficult. Even if immigration is (or is perceived to be) causing some kind of problem, and people want it curbed... then what? Suppose they get it done, and immigration is drastically reduced. After some time, the initial problem will no longer be an issue, and the people stop caring about immigration. Eventually, the restrictions just get lifted. (Immigration also has benefits, if only in the form of cheap labour for employers: observe how many Chinese labourers worked on the construction of America's emerging network of railroads.)

To keep immigration severely restricted forever, you truly need drastic laws implemented. Likely even a constitutional amendment to make sure these anti-immigration provisions truly stick. Something like that won't happen without a world-shaking cause that makes it happen. I don't see it working out pre-1900, even if there's a succesful CSA and a war with Britain.

The only real way I see this happening is in the early 20th century, in a world where instead of Roosevelt, the American people choose an isolationist leader-- prompting the Japanese to not attack Pearl Harbor. (Hitler still loses, eventually, but the USSR now holds all of Europe, while Japan governs East Asia. The USA recedes into isolationism, essentially becoming a hermit republic that wants to shield itself from both the red menace and the yellow peril. (Anyway, that's firmly post-1900, so not fit for this subforum. But I see no other way to have the USA really go permanently isolationist & reject all or most immigration.)
 
If a socialist or communist revolution happened it would largely end immigration.
How do you figure? If anything, I suspect that an ideological US would want to encourage immigration so that more people could live under the proper system, away from the monarchs and capitalists of the Old World.
 

Deleted member 97083

How do you figure? If anything, I suspect that an ideological US would want to encourage immigration so that more people could live under the proper system, away from the monarchs and capitalists of the Old World.
State socialist or communist countries received a very low amount of immigration. As far as I know, no country with a planned economy has ever received more than a few thousand immigrants total.
 
Is there a way without a surviving confederacy or war with Britain or some other such great conflict to have the U.S implement an anti immigrant platform? Where the democrats of this period anti immigrant (sans Irish)?

I agree it's not likely overall. And I think the Democratic Party is the wrong one to rely on for taking an anti-immigrant stance. Democrats back to Jefferson had always been the party that catered to non-English but white immigrants than their opponents.

I did a scenario long ago on SHWI, and maybe here, called "1865 immigration scenario" where I had *Republicans* enact immigration restrictions based on worse New York draft riots. So for them, the Irish were decidedly not the most acceptable immigrant group. I toyed with the idea of a loophole still allowing people applying and planning to homestead, which would have been more Germans, who tended to vote more Republican when naturalized, than Irish immigrants in America's cities.
 
Getting an anti-immigration policy implemented for some period of time can be done. But to have that kind of policy last forever is very difficult. Even if immigration is (or is perceived to be) causing some kind of problem, and people want it curbed... then what? Suppose they get it done, and immigration is drastically reduced. After some time, the initial problem will no longer be an issue, and the people stop caring about immigration. Eventually, the restrictions just get lifted. (Immigration also has benefits, if only in the form of cheap labour for employers: observe how many Chinese labourers worked on the construction of America's emerging network of railroads.)

To keep immigration severely restricted forever, you truly need drastic laws implemented. Likely even a constitutional amendment to make sure these anti-immigration provisions truly stick. Something like that won't happen without a world-shaking cause that makes it happen. I don't see it working out pre-1900, even if there's a succesful CSA and a war with Britain.

The only real way I see this happening is in the early 20th century, in a world where instead of Roosevelt, the American people choose an isolationist leader-- prompting the Japanese to not attack Pearl Harbor. (Hitler still loses, eventually, but the USSR now holds all of Europe, while Japan governs East Asia. The USA recedes into isolationism, essentially becoming a hermit republic that wants to shield itself from both the red menace and the yellow peril. (Anyway, that's firmly post-1900, so not fit for this subforum. But I see no other way to have the USA really go permanently isolationist & reject all or most immigration.)
I was thinking along the lines of the Chinese Exclusion Act, I don't want it to be permanent. I just wanted a way to send more immigrants to South America, which while there are other ways to do this, I figured I could weaken the U.S and strengthen Brazil and Argentina significantly.
 
I was thinking along the lines of the Chinese Exclusion Act, I don't want it to be permanent. I just wanted a way to send more immigrants to South America, which while there are other ways to do this, I figured I could weaken the U.S and strengthen Brazil and Argentina significantly.

A one-off method to approximate these results might be the New Orleans Lynching incident of 1891 leads to an Italo-American war. There may not be much serious fighting, but one consequence is an "Italian Exclusion Act". This removes 1 major source of migration to America, and Italian emigrants excluded from the USA could be highly likely to move to Argentina and Brazil instead (but also to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and other Latin America too).
 
Just want to reinforce that it is, in fact, Republicans, who were typically anti-immigration (besides perhaps in cases of China or Japan, where everyone was anti-immigration). Which is not to say they couldn't find Democratic Allies on this issue, just that it would likely be Republican led- we might see Republicans and Southern Democrats teaming up to restrict immigration, above the protests of Northern Democrats. Or, of course, you could have completely different political coalitions of parties.

It's not impossible to see happening, you just need all the proverbial political stars to align. There were IOTL significant anti-immigrant movements around the 1850s, 1880s, and 1920s, and only in the last one were they significantly successful. Remove certain national distractions at key times or change the timing to align with some sort of crisis, and you could see immigration restrictions being put in earlier, and possibly sticking. If they're there, they're much harder to repeal.

You may find you're going to have a hard time if your goal is just to strengthen South America and weaken the United States. For one thing, the U.S wouldn't ban all immigration- mostly just that from non-Protestant countries. This means a great deal of OTL immigration probably still goes to America, and perhaps in greater concentrations, from Germany, Britain, and Scandinavia. The biggest groups America will be missing out on are the Irish and Italians, with Eastern Europeans also missing. And while this will be a blow to the population and end up with America probably being in a worse position than IOTL, it's unlikely to hurt their growth too much- they're still a large nation with a growing industry, population, and many natural resources, that lacks many of the political and socioeconomic problems South America suffered from (start there if you want to wank South America, as while extra immigration can help growth, it will be a result, not a cause of it). It's also possible that American-born populations will have slightly higher birthrates as a result of decreased immigration, though we can't know that for sure.
 
Just want to reinforce that it is, in fact, Republicans, who were typically anti-immigration (besides perhaps in cases of China or Japan, where everyone was anti-immigration). Which is not to say they couldn't find Democratic Allies on this issue, just that it would likely be Republican led- we might see Republicans and Southern Democrats teaming up to restrict immigration, above the protests of Northern Democrats. Or, of course, you could have completely different political coalitions of parties.

It's not impossible to see happening, you just need all the proverbial political stars to align. There were IOTL significant anti-immigrant movements around the 1850s, 1880s, and 1920s, and only in the last one were they significantly successful. Remove certain national distractions at key times or change the timing to align with some sort of crisis, and you could see immigration restrictions being put in earlier, and possibly sticking. If they're there, they're much harder to repeal.

You may find you're going to have a hard time if your goal is just to strengthen South America and weaken the United States. For one thing, the U.S wouldn't ban all immigration- mostly just that from non-Protestant countries. This means a great deal of OTL immigration probably still goes to America, and perhaps in greater concentrations, from Germany, Britain, and Scandinavia. The biggest groups America will be missing out on are the Irish and Italians, with Eastern Europeans also missing. And while this will be a blow to the population and end up with America probably being in a worse position than IOTL, it's unlikely to hurt their growth too much- they're still a large nation with a growing industry, population, and many natural resources, that lacks many of the political and socioeconomic problems South America suffered from (start there if you want to wank South America, as while extra immigration can help growth, it will be a result, not a cause of it). It's also possible that American-born populations will have slightly higher birthrates as a result of decreased immigration, though we can't know that for sure.
I'm not really trying to wank South America or turn them into equals of the U.S' power. However, I'd like to strengthen their power significantly so they can actually play a part on the world stage, or at least alot more than OTL. In general for the TL that I'm writing the U.S will be militarily stronger by 1900s than OTL, significantly. However I don't want to wank the U.S, the larger military is a response to exterior factors, but I wouldn't want the U.S to just be what it is today in OTL in 1920. To do that, I'll try and chip away at things like immigration and growth of heavy industry (more agrarian economy/bimetallism).
 
To keep immigration severely restricted forever, you truly need drastic laws implemented. Likely even a constitutional amendment to make sure these anti-immigration provisions truly stick. Something like that won't happen without a world-shaking cause that makes it happen. I don't see it working out pre-1900, even if there's a succesful CSA and a war with Britain.
/QUOTE]

If a socialist or communist revolution happened it would largely end immigration.

Well... what about everyone's favorite boogeymen? The Anarchists!

Say some fairly large commune/union/fraternity of Anarchists, primarily consisting of Italian, Irish or Slavic immigrants sets itself up in New york City. They want to topple the government. So, they do what Anarchists do best-- they plant a bomb. But a really big bomb. Say they plant it in Penn Station, kill a couple hundred people.

If 9/11 rustled our jimmies to heck, something similar will sure as heck do it in the 19th century.
 
Is there a way without a surviving confederacy or war with Britain or some other such great conflict to have the U.S implement an anti immigrant platform? Where the democrats of this period anti immigrant (sans Irish)?

Hardly anyone was against all immigration. The American Protective Association for example welcomed the support of Protestant immigrants in its campaign against the Pope...
 

missouribob

Banned
I don't know how you get to this point but the outcome would be: A. A larger great migration of blacks. B. Overall poorer American than ATL. Also culturally less interesting.
 
Hardly anyone was against all immigration. The American Protective Association for example welcomed the support of Protestant immigrants in its campaign against the Pope...
I don't need them to be against all Immigration, basically just APA anti Catholic stuff, sans the Irish b/c they speak English.

I just want to know how can I lower immigration to the U.S, and hopefully bring more to South America, Africa, or Australia.
 
I don't need them to be against all Immigration, basically just APA anti Catholic stuff, sans the Irish b/c they speak English.

I just want to know how can I lower immigration to the U.S, and hopefully bring more to South America, Africa, or Australia.
You don't even need to add "sans the Irish". The US is perfectly willing to exclude the Irish, especially if it's early enough.
 
Top