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.If a socialist or communist revolution happened it would largely end immigration.
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.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.
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 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.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'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).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.
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)?
I don't need them to be against all Immigration, basically just APA anti Catholic stuff, sans the Irish b/c they speak English.Hardly anyone was against all immigration. The American Protective Association for example welcomed the support of Protestant immigrants in its campaign against the Pope...
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.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.
If it is early enough, however I was thinking more along the lines of the 1880s. At which point it is a little late to exclude the Irish.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.