WI :Rhodesia becomes an immgration paradise?

One way to achieve this is the 1923 referendum resulting in union with South Africa, and to basically leech a large part of the immigration to South Africa as Rhodesia is considered the 'virgin territory' of the Union.

This circumvents the problem many have pointed out, that responsible government for Rhodesia means restricted immigration, as that issue would now be dealt with at the federal level with the patricians of Salisbury having little say.

Rhodesia would become the sixth province with Botswana likely to be folded in at some point later. Fast forward to 1948 and the elections go differently with the National Party seemingly reduced to permanent opposition, as Rhodesian voters heavily favour the Union Party. This has the likely benefit of a much more moderate and gradual transition to majority rule with less racial animus.

Smuts was strongly in favour of more immigration and while most postwar immigrant flows from Europe will go to the other white dominions and the USA, there should still be enough to increase the settler population of Rhodesia. If South Africa can hold it together long enough, the 1990s and beyond will probably see a wave of Eastern European and Asian/Indian migration also grow as Rhodesia it's seen as the 'last frontier of opportunity' in an increasingly settled South Africa.
 
That’s true, I just doubt they could attract enough people to get above 20-30% of the population. If you get the UK to recognize Rhodesia’s independence, then it might be possible, but without significant outside support, Rhodesia is doomed.
Black birth rates are likely to result in greater increases than any reasonable level of white immigration.
 
Black birth rates are likely to result in greater increases than any reasonable level of white immigration.

It's true that high birthrates can be expected if the African peoples of ATL Rhodesia experience the same economic trajectory as OTL. On the other hand, if their incomes and HDI move from low to middle as a result of more inclusive social and economic policies and structures that we'd expect would be necessary in order to achieve a workable Rhodesia that lasted longer, they might undergo the demographic transition sooner. In this way, I think high birthrates are not assured because they're typically a function of poverty, which is not inevitable.

However, I wonder how this meshes with the second part of the equation re European immigration: would people still want to move there if they can't be as economically dominant? Would cheap black labour and the attainable high-class lifestyle it enabled still be a feasible drawcard or would it have to go as part of any acceptable economic settlement? In a way, you might be right that birthrate could outpace immigration, but understanding exactly the balance between the two is tricky.

It also seems a bit difficult to believe the pool of potential migrants will be very large either. After the CANZUS states, any particularly well performing European states, and potentially the Latin ABCs (in that order), I think Africa is next on the totem pole which already means a large number of potential migrants get siphoned before even considering Rhodesia.

Perhaps something OP can think about is a scenario where WWII ends differently, with the Soviets in control of much larger parts of Western Europe, causing a significant exodus of people looking to get out from under the Sword of Damocles and ensuring more candidates for immigration. Maybe toss in an Operation Unthinkable to really turbocharge this scenario?
 
Top