WI "ban of emigration" in Europe in 19cent onwards, potentional modern populations?

[Grumpy young Man]

Let's say that for the simplicity's sake that the states of the time discourage the emigration of its populations, no matter be they politically unfavorable, the poor or whatever rl reason was the primary incentive for them to emigrate in the first place.

Going through wikipedia's articles on Europe's nations it is clear that states would be more populous than they are today, but can we extrapolate a realistic estimate of today's pops?

So; Germans - ( all people of the stated ancestry ), approx 150 mil. people, can we say that would mean today's Germany of 120 mil people ?
French - 110 mil people, maybe 80mil people today's France?
Italians - 130 mil people, 100 mil today Italy?
....

By this way of thinking it wouldn't be odd to have a Germany that rivals Russia in modern population.

 

[Promethean]

They won't have the same growth potential in Europe as in the countries to which they emigrated.

In Germany's case preventing the 30 years war might help a lot.

 

[wolf_brother]

The simple fact of the matter is that the massive European immigration to the Americas, specifically the US, happened because the European states were typified by the exact form of repressiveness that you're looking at. The reason the US in particular has such a high percentage of Germans, Italians, and Central Europeans is due to the Forty-Eighters.

 

[Nugax]

The simple fact of the matter is that the massive European immigration to the Americas, specifically the US, happened because the European states were typified by the exact form of repressiveness that you're looking at. The reason the US in particular has such a high percentage of Germans, Italians, and Central Europeans is due to the Forty-Eighters.

No? The principle but not only cause of the movement was the changes in European agriculture and urban economy that made millions and millions of rural workers superfluous at the same time as driving up birth rates - they crowded into the cities, they crossed the oceans, anything to find a new niche.

This is why the peak of the British wave happened before the German, and the German before the Italian and Eastern European, as the new developments filtered across Europe, and states that were already at a high level of rural productivity (France, Netherlands) or were able to absorb a lot into the their cities (Belgium) did not provide as many immigrants per capita.

The 1848 revolutions was the cause of the high fraction of Germans in the US? The 1850s saw a tenth of the on-decade numbers of Germans arriving that 1880 and 1900 did.

In regards to the OP, if the emigration wave had not be able to leave their country of origin, they would have had to go to the cities and seen much poorer growth rates (due to more expensive food, overcrowding and poor hygiene).

 

[Tyr]

Its pretty ASB to do such a thing. It wasn't regarded as a problem and would be nigh on impossible to enforce.

But if it was....its impossible to say what modern populations would be.
Lots of those who emigrated were undesirables, radicals, revolutionaries, etc.... Force them to stay home and there would be a lot more unrest. Which means a lot more deaths.
European wars would change a lot too. A smaller, less populated new world would have increasingly large effects as time goes on.

 

[RPW@Cy]

Some estimates I saw on this (a while back now so no sources, sorry) said that without emigration and assuming no other changes then Britain would have had a population of about 60 million by WW1 and 120 million by the end of the 20th century(if you think Britain's crowded OTL imagine what it would look like when places like Oxford, Cambridge and Brighton are basically suburbs of London...). The United States on the other hand would have only about half it's present population without significant immigration post independence. So, a much more multipolar world without one western power overwhelmingly larger and more powerful than the rest.

 

[Falecius]

I'd say that this would cause a massive overpopulation crisis. Famines, plagues, even bloodier wars (with every country desperate for "Lebensraum"). Or else, earlier and much more massive European settlement elsewhere, probably in Africa, with worse consequences for native Africans and much more serious attempts at wiping them out the most suitable places. Native Americans might fare marginally better, thought I doubt it; at most, reserves would a bit larger. It would make for a quite dystopian TL I think.
Also, much poorer european population, with big cities more similar to "Third World" metropoleis, sprawling very poor suburbs with little state services and jobs controlled by criminal gangs.
At some point i suppose that nothing would stop emigration if things go nasty, and I see little chance they don't.

 

[wolf_brother]

I'd say that this would cause a massive overpopulation crisis. Famines, plagues, even bloodier wars (with every country desperate for "Lebensraum"). Or else, earlier and much more massive European settlement elsewhere, probably in Africa, with worse consequences for native Africans and much more serious attempts at wiping them out the most suitable places. Native Americans might fare marginally better, thought I doubt it; at most, reserves would a bit larger. It would make for a quite dystopian TL I think.
Also, much poorer european population, with big cities more similar to "Third World" metropoleis, sprawling very poor suburbs with little state services and jobs controlled by criminal gangs.
At some point i suppose that nothing would stop emigration if things go nasty, and I see little chance they don't.

Even in the late 19th century there were plenty of places in the Americas that were outside of nominal government control; some regions were still outside of the center's rule as late as the 20th century. There's really no reason for the Europeans to go to Africa, when they could easily claim Patagonia, for example, or the Oregon country, or the Guyana Shield.

 

[Nugax]

Even in the late 19th century there were plenty of places in the Americas that were outside of nominal government control; some regions were still outside of the center's rule as late as the 20th century. There's really no reason for the Europeans to go to Africa, when they could easily claim Patagonia, for example, or the Oregon country, or the Guyana Shield.

Patagonia is a desert, and Guyana is a jungle hellhole, capable of absorbing only one or two million at most. The Oregon country would fill up very fast.

 

[zoomar]

The United States, for one, would be far different. Far more English/British, far less diversity with respect to ethnicity and religion, and probably quite a bit less populous.

 

[StevoJH]

Some estimates I saw on this (a while back now so no sources, sorry) said that without emigration and assuming no other changes then Britain would have had a population of about 60 million by WW1 and 120 million by the end of the 20th century(if you think Britain's crowded OTL imagine what it would look like when places like Oxford, Cambridge and Brighton are basically suburbs of London...). The United States on the other hand would have only about half it's present population without significant immigration post independence. So, a much more multipolar world without one western power overwhelmingly larger and more powerful than the rest.

With Canada still being Colonies/Dominions at the time you could see a more populated Canada and Australia, as well.

You could also see higher white populations and investment in the African and Asian Colonies of European powers, so for France and the UK in particular you could see less of a push for decolonisation and more these countries having much larger economies and stocks of natural resources in WW1 and 2 (assuming these arent butterflied).