WI: Third French Republic trying to boost population via immigration

Thomas1195

Banned
I did not find much information about French immigration policy during 1871-1914, however, after ww2 IOTL France clearly and actively encouraged immigration into its metropolitan to rebuild the country.

French immigration flows did increase significantly during the period, but nowhere near post-ww2 era both in absolute term and in percentage of total population.

What if the 3rd Republic, recognizing its population problem, decides to have a completely open border immigration policy, or an immigration policy at least as lax as in post-ww2 France, in order to boost its population?
 
Might allowing more immigrants from Italy to enter the country - folks who seem likely to congregate in areas where significant numbers of Italians were already present - eventually bolster Italians irredentist claims against France?
 
The question is, how many more people would come to France?

In Fight and be Right, France has one million more people by 1900 following the French government following an "Open France" policy. I think the government that implements the policy began in 1887, so that'd be another ~77,000 people a year for 13 years. That all seems kind of manageable.

If you carry forward that amount annually, you're at 2.1 million more French than OTL.

I guess the question also is, who is going to France? Are we only talking poor people or are the French taken in Armenian Merchants trying to get out of Turkey, Jewish entrepreneurs and merchants trying to get the heck out of Russia, inventors like Tesla, etc.

Come to think of it, I can see a lot of migration happening post-1900 due to the Revolution of 1905, the huge wave of antisemitic pogroms in Russia, and the anti-armenian pogroms (Adana Massacre, etc) in the Ottoman Empire.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In Fight and be Right, France has one million more people by 1900 following the French government following an "Open France" policy. I think the government that implements the policy began in 1887, so that'd be another ~77,000 people a year for 13 years. That all seems kind of manageable
I made this thread inspired by that TL, where Boulanger basically adopted an open border policy to boost manpower.

I guess the question also is, who is going to France? Are we only talking poor people or are the French taken in Armenian Merchants trying to get out of Turkey, Jewish entrepreneurs and merchants trying to get the heck out of Russia, inventors like Tesla, etc
Everyone, hence open border. Poor immigrants could be required to serve in the military to become citizens, but this is likely the same as OTL.

Might allowing more immigrants from Italy to enter the country - folks who seem likely to congregate in areas where significant numbers of Italians were already present - eventually bolster Italians irredentist claims against France?
Maybe relocating them to the North.
However, the immigration laws ITTL would aim to attract large flows of Jewish, Armenian and other Eastern European migrants, basically telling them "welcome to France".
 
Maybe have some basic requirements
People can stay for a period of 2 years but in those 2 years they must,
-learn french
-apply to the reserve army/french foreign legion and spend 6 months learning to fight
-Must be skilled professionals (? maybe tradesmen, doctors, scholars, etc.)

And more stuff along those lines. You could always have the children of those immigrants go to compulsory French schools and assimilate them.
 
It did this. The government was aware that France's demography was not very dynamic compared to its neighbors. I don't have a link but I recall reading that around WWI, about 5 % of the population was foreign-born, which was a lot for a European country at that time.

There wasn't an unlimited need for immigrants in the French economy, though. Industrialism was a gradual development in France and the urban population did not exceed the rural population until the 1930s, IIRC. If you compare this with the USA, where there is an industrial boom and lots of new western lands to be settled, most are going to choose the latter.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Industrialism was a gradual development in France and the urban population did not exceed the rural population until the 1930s, IIRC. If you compare this with the USA, where there is an industrial boom and lots of new western lands to be settled, most are going to choose the latter.
France might have stronger industrial growth if it retained Alsace-Lorraine.
 
The issue is how does the French economy absorb a lot of immigrants. Unlike the USA, Australia, Canada, and some other spots there really isn't a lot of land available for new farmers/ranchers/sheepherders for all intents and purposes all agricultural land is owned by somebody who is not some "uncivilized native" who can be readily displaced. France is not creating large industrial works needing a lot of labor that the local population can't provide, or even smaller scale enterprises like the garment industry in NYC. Until the early 1920s, unless you were Chinese or Japanese the USA had a pretty open border immigration policy, and the British "white" dominions were also relatively open. Exclusion for the chronically ill, criminal, and those who would be a public charge was pretty much the same all over, and actually disqualified very few.

For most 19th and early 20th century emigrants while escaping bad conditions whether economic or persecution at home (or both) was a reason for leaving, the choice of destination was very much based on opportunity. No matter how "welcoming" France might be, the reality is that for most immigrants economic opportunity in the USA or some of the other countries mentioned was much greater. Given the choice, folks will go to where they see the greatest opportunity. Now after the early 20s when the immigration laws changed in the USA, going to the USA becomes much less available for southern and eastern Europeans, but that is really later than discussed here.
 
Maybe have some basic requirements
People can stay for a period of 2 years but in those 2 years they must,
-learn french
-apply to the reserve army/french foreign legion and spend 6 months learning to fight
-Must be skilled professionals (? maybe tradesmen, doctors, scholars, etc.)

And more stuff along those lines. You could always have the children of those immigrants go to compulsory French schools and assimilate them.

I don't know if an early twentieth century nation would necessarily want loads of new migrants learning to fight? I'm not certain on what French attitudes were to immigrants but it seems like a government wouldn't be arming and training large amounts of people who would probably be considered not entirely trustworthy or loyal.
 
I don't know if an early twentieth century nation would necessarily want loads of new migrants learning to fight? I'm not certain on what French attitudes were to immigrants but it seems like a government wouldn't be arming and training large amounts of people who would probably be considered not entirely trustworthy or loyal.
Well the intiere point is to get a large amount of body's into the French army to fight Germany.
 
Unlike the USA, Australia, Canada, and some other spots there really isn't a lot of land available for new farmers/ranchers/sheepherders for all intents and purposes all agricultural land is owned by somebody who is not some "uncivilized native" who can be readily displaced.

Maybe Algeria is at its maximum but New Caledonia and New Hebrids are available, thought still too small to count; however, it might make for interesting butterflies to have French control cemented - the more liberal nationality laws were adopted, in part to settle Algeria.
 

kernals12

Banned
I believe France, and almost every country in the world, had open borders. And France lost a much smaller share of its population to emigration compared to Italy, Great Britain, or Germany.
 
Maybe Algeria is at its maximum but New Caledonia and New Hebrids are available, thought still too small to count; however, it might make for interesting butterflies to have French control cemented - the more liberal nationality laws were adopted, in part to settle Algeria.

Sending settlers to the Pacific doesn't fit the OP's intention of redressing demographic issues in metropolitan France.
 
I believe France, and almost every country in the world, had open borders. And France lost a much smaller share of its population to emigration compared to Italy, Great Britain, or Germany.

The revolutions of 1848 helps explain Italy and Germany. The hungry forties of course explains the surge in Irish immigration as well
 
Top