What if America had never allowed any immigration? (Britain, Lincoln, economy)

[HstoryBooks]

If America had never allowed immigration (after the 60s) then there would be more emphasis on European ancestry. He or she is German or Irish etc.

Italians might be looked down on because of darker complexions.

[Cocoricoco]

I heard somewhere in the South that most descendants of the oldest settlers are now Trailer Trash, Rednecks and WT.

According to this Southern barfly, "them foreigners" (immigrants arrived during the last 200 years) were responsible for pushing "real Americans" out of the way.

Following the thread, then America would be just the 13 colonies with no big cities and a lot of trailer parks?

[tom77falcons]

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

I was thinking of all of North America..you are probably right it was less than my number but not that much less..anyway 30 million is a lot...the population of Canada is now pushing about 35 million..That's a whole nation.

In the last 100 years my family has migrated from the boarder of China..all though Russia...into Europe and England...to Canada...into the states...central America...and now my youngest son recently wed a young girl from Chile...He will eventually end up there I am sure.

Just goes to show you how far people spread in just 3 generations. Due to war- revolution and general social unrest and famine (artificial and natural)..some in a way are on the run.

Genetically speaking some families are highly independent..and it is sometimes the non compliant that are the biggest re-locators...Look at America it was a nation filled with those who refused to bow and submit..THAT trait...is what made the empire great. Now all immigration seems to be based on common economics..that is what is now making AMERICA not so great..

I've never heard estimates as high as 30M. Any links? From what I've seen the estimates range from a low of 2M to a high of 18M in Pre-Columbian USA. All of the Americas may have had up to almost 100M total.

[tom77falcons]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

The great westward expansion in the first half of the 19th century happened before much immigration took place. It was those same Brit blooded folks who moved through and conquered the West, not so much the immigrants who came after 1850 to territory that already had been claimed by the U.S.

Very good point. Louisiana Purchase gave the US a huge chunk of territory well before massive immigration. And the war with Mexico was in 1845. Am curious why are Australia and Canada so large without massive immigration? I think the US would have expanded without it. For the people claiming the US would be 13 small states on the eastern seaboard I think they are missing the fact that one of the reasons for the break with the UK was because the king restricted westward expansion of the colonies.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by tom77falcons

Very good point. Louisiana Purchase gave the US a huge chunk of territory well before massive immigration. And the war with Mexico was in 1845. Am curious why are Australia and Canada so large without massive immigration? I think the US would have expanded without it. For the people claiming the US would be 13 small states on the eastern seaboard I think they are missing the fact that one of the reasons for the break with the UK was because the king restricted westward expansion of the colonies.

Australia and Canada both had massive immigration.
And if the US didn't allow immigration Canada would have had even more.

[tom77falcons]

Originally Posted by majoun

Australia and Canada both had massive immigration.
And if the US didn't allow immigration Canada would have had even more.

No where near the numbers the US received.

[Trimac20]

Food would be a lot duller, that's for sure.

It'd be cool if Native Americans still accounted for 10% of the population at least though.

[Deezus]

Here's the estimated totals for number of immigrants and total population of each ethnic group in 1790, not counting Native Americans. Until the western expansion took over the Spanish and French territories in the West, you'd have to assume that the ethnic makeup of a US with no immigration would look like this.

U.S. Historical Populations
Country Immigrants Before 1790 Population 1790

Africa[19] 360,000 757,000
England* 230,000 2,100,000
Ulster Scot-Irish* 135,000 300,000
Germany[20] 103,000 270,000
Scotland* 48,500 150,000
Ireland* 8,000 (Incl. in Scot-Irish)
Netherlands 6,000 100,000
Wales* 4,000 10,000
France 3,000 15,000
Jews[21] 1,000 2,000
Sweden 500 2,000
Other[22] 50,000 200,000

British total 425,500 2,560,000

Total[23] 950,000 3,900,000

[majoun]

Originally Posted by tom77falcons

No where near the numbers the US received.

Relative to the population, the percentages were much higher.

And the numbers would have been even higher if the US and Argentina hadn't been so willing to accept immigrants.

[Cocoricoco]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

The great westward expansion in the first half of the 19th century happened before much immigration took place. It was those same Brit blooded folks who moved through and conquered the West, not so much the immigrants who came after 1850 to territory that already had been claimed by the U.S.

---


Let's say that immigration stopped in 1800.

No American California without millions of immigrant squatters attracted by the gold rush.

No "El Alamo", a lot of them were illegal immigrants from Europe on Mexican soil.

No American Florida, English would have taken Florida from the Spain.

No Louisiana, Napoleon III would have invaded the place instead of invading Mexico.

As to the remainder, who knows?

The XIXth was the age of the Empires, you had English, French, Russian and Prussians prowling for virgin lands....

An empty North America was TOO appetizing...

Look what happened to Mexico for having scarcely populated territories!!!