Increased European migration to Latin America in the 1800s?

[Corocora]

Hi! How are you?

Well, I've been thinking (let's call it, a mental exercise) in the history of European emigration to Latin America; more specifically, the factors that led it and how these could change in a way that migration increases.

Well, I correct. I don't know what those factors are. Obviously institutional stability, economic opportunity and simple "facility" (miscellaneous: similar climate, similar language, presence of a migrant community already established, cost of the trip) all affect in how a greater or smaller number of Europeans move to certain countries, but it's one thing to have that information and another thing to be able to draw conclusions from it, right?

And that's why I came here! I want to ask you about what changes do you consider should happen in order to European migration to Latin America (Colombia if possible, but if it's easier to imagine it with another country, or with the region in general, then it's also valid) increase. The point is not that it reaches a specific figure, although the more the better, of course.

I have to assume that, unless your solution is to directly increase the global number of European emigrants, the change in Latin American net migration will be due from a decrease in the U.S.' numbers in favor of going south. The U.S. would still be the #1 destiny (I don't think that fact can change), but not by that much of a landslide. At least that's the way I've thought of it.

Well, yeah! What do you think? Could migration to Latin America increase? If so, by how much and given which new events?

Thank you for your time!

 

[Nivek]

Well, yeah! What do you think? Could migration to Latin America increase? If so, by how much and given which new events?

I think we get whwat we could, in Colombia is easier to get a coast but take to acclimated the hot weather, and going inland was difficult, the other was heavy competition USA and Canada..and later even australia.

Another one was Argentina but that even got the maximum as OTL possible.

 

[Byzantion]

Hi! How are you?

Well, I've been thinking (let's call it, a mental exercise) in the history of European emigration to Latin America; more specifically, the factors that led it and how these could change in a way that migration increases.

Well, I correct. I don't know what those factors are. Obviously institutional stability, economic opportunity and simple "facility" (miscellaneous: similar climate, similar language, presence of a migrant community already established, cost of the trip) all affect in how a greater or smaller number of Europeans move to certain countries, but it's one thing to have that information and another thing to be able to draw conclusions from it, right?

And that's why I came here! I want to ask you about what changes do you consider should happen in order to European migration to Latin America (Colombia if possible, but if it's easier to imagine it with another country, or with the region in general, then it's also valid) increase. The point is not that it reaches a specific figure, although the more the better, of course.

I have to assume that, unless your solution is to directly increase the global number of European emigrants, the change in Latin American net migration will be due from a decrease in the U.S.' numbers in favor of going south. The U.S. would still be the #1 destiny (I don't think that fact can change), but not by that much of a landslide. At least that's the way I've thought of it.

Well, yeah! What do you think? Could migration to Latin America increase? If so, by how much and given which new events?

Thank you for your time!

Maybe radical WASP/ nativist Immigration laws in the US lead to an increased immigration of Poles, Jews,Russians, Italians, Greeks, Germans and Irishmen to South America.

 

[Corocora]

I think we get whwat we could, in Colombia is easier to get a coast but take to acclimated the hot weather, and going inland was difficult, the other was heavy competition USA and Canada..and later even australia.

Another one was Argentina but that even got the maximum as OTL possible.

Well, to be fair, Argentina got a lot of migrants. A total of 6.6 million in the Republican Era, in a country that had 22 million inhabitants when the last migration waves ended - so close to 1/3 of the population was directly foreign-born (Well, really less considering most would have already died, but I think it's an useful metric nevertheless). By comparison, Colombia has only had 300k at best, if you are really optimistic about the Basque and Lebanese numbers. To have the same proportion as Argentina, we should have gotten 4.8 million.

Homewer, I do see your point; settling in Colombia would be more difficult and/or inconvenient than in the U.S. or Argentina, that's a deterrent to count for. But still, there's the Magdalena river to go inland, it's not impossible: given the neccesary economic conditions, I think an alternative Colombia could surpass OTL's number very easily.

Maybe radical WASP/ nativist Immigration laws in the US lead to an increased immigration of Poles, Jews,Russians, Italians, Greeks, Germans and Irishmen to South America.

That's an option, too.

From what I understand, there are three ways to increase migration, one actively and two passively:
1. Make the United States' conditions worse, so that North America doesn't monopolize migrants as much, and eventually some change their destination. That's a passive way.

2. Make Europe's conditions worse, so that even more people migrate, and eventually-some-join-their-families-south-rather-than-north. That's another passive way.

3. Make Latin America itself actually better, so it can "compete" with the U.S. for their OTL's migrants and attract some new people too. That's the active way.

You don't have to just choose one; in fact, realistically, significant changes would need a combination of two (if not all three of 'em, altogether), and that combination could probably happen organically without having to force it.

That's the whole point, I guess: How to get to that optimal, sweet point without wank-ing our path to it?

 

[Nivek]

Well, to be fair, Argentina got a lot of migrants. A total of 6.6 million in the Republican Era, in a country that had 22 million inhabitants when the last migration waves ended - so close to 1/3 of the population was directly foreign-born (Well, really less considering most would have already died, but I think it's an useful metric nevertheless). By comparison, Colombia has only had 300k at best, if you are really optimistic about the Basque and Lebanese numbers. To have the same proportion as Argentina, we should have gotten 4.8 million.

Homewer, I do see your point; settling in Colombia would be more difficult and/or inconvenient than in the U.S. or Argentina, that's a deterrent to count for. But still, there's the Magdalena river to go inland, it's not impossible: given the neccesary economic conditions, I think an alternative Colombia could surpass OTL's number very easily.

The thing is Colombia is not seasonal as those two examples, and outside the cold Altiplano Cundiboyasense, the rest of colombia is tropical and something people must acount when settling, and another team...Colombia never got that Agro boom unlike USA or Argentina, that keep the economy very small and population only growth very small, he trade was done first by basque and later Syrians(and lebanese, they were still ottomans at the time too), the thing is..you a need a massive better Colombia, Ecuador, peru and centro america to push for that..and that is the difficult thing.

3. Make Latin America itself actually better, so it can "compete" with the U.S. for their OTL's migrants and attract some new people too. That's the active way.

This, the only way, you need real, atractive state for settler...ironically if the economies of the countries are far better..they will not like foreigners...

That's the whole point, I guess: How to get to that optimal, sweet point without wank-ing our path to it?

you've to wank it, OTL was worst scenario but still the most pausable one

 

[Corocora]

The thing is Colombia is not seasonal as those two examples, and outside the cold Altiplano Cundiboyasense, the rest of colombia is tropical and something people must acount when settling, and another team...Colombia never got that Agro boom unlike USA or Argentina, that keep the economy very small and population only growth very small, he trade was done first by basque and later Syrians(and lebanese, they were still ottomans at the time too), the thing is..you a need a massive better Colombia, Ecuador, peru and centro america to push for that..and that is the difficult thing

You're right. To get any significant result, there must be a serious effort at better-ing the countries. That would be hard. But, again, it is doable. The agricultural boom would be one of the first things to address. I still think there's some probability: You could exploit the snowball effect as the economic conditions are incrementally resolved, both getting fixed by the specialized (compared to us locals anyway) migrants and attracting new ones wanting to catch the golden tide.

This, the only way, you need real, atractive state for settler...ironically if the economies of the countries are far better..they will not like foreigners...

I mean, we didn't like foreigners when we were still into post-colonial feudalism either. Just like in the U.S., there would be hesitation first (and honestly a good chunk of time after, too) but given enough time the mainstream politicians would see the pros rather than the cons: Be it by noting the migrants' positive effects on the economy, be it by culturally romanticizing Europe, be it brcause of good ol' electoral politics (as in cheap votes, Tammany Hall-style).

you've to wank it, OTL was worst scenario but still the most pausable one

Hm, I don't know. We got the short-stick in some situations in which it didn't had to be that way, with a good POD things can really change.

 

[Nivek]

You're right. To get any significant result, there must be a serious effort at better-ing the countries. That would be hard. But, again, it is doable. The agricultural boom would be one of the first things to address. I still think there's some probability: You could exploit the snowball effect as the economic conditions are incrementally resolved, both getting fixed by the specialized (compared to us locals anyway) migrants and attracting new ones wanting to catch the golden tide.

Of course, better economy make it attractive not for inmigrant(i dunno the inmigrant obession this forum have..maybe a side effect my family have been colombian forever, with the spanish ones being a new addition), still a better and more prosper(and stable country) would push a demographic boom(still depends what kind of country too)

given enough time the mainstream politicians would see the pros rather than the cons: Be it by noting the migrants' positive effects on the economy, be it by culturally romanticizing Europe, be it brcause of good ol' electoral politics (as in cheap votes, Tammany Hall-style).

I think mostly 'blanqueamiento'(that was a very real phenomenon here), push and maybe romanticism, unless we change the franchise to allow more people(ie anyone, except females, but those might come later) as a lot of countries here have limited electoral franchise(i think only venezuela and argentina got the biggest one in the era)

Hm, I don't know. We got the short-stick in some situations in which it didn't had to be that way, with a good POD things can really change.

Wank is anything better that OTL, OTL as insane, is the only standard we've

 

[Deleted member 114175]

That's an option, too.

From what I understand, there are three ways to increase migration, one actively and two passively:
1. Make the United States' conditions worse, so that North America doesn't monopolize migrants as much, and eventually some change their destination. That's a passive way.

2. Make Europe's conditions worse, so that even more people migrate, and eventually-some-join-their-families-south-rather-than-north. That's another passive way.

3. Make Latin America itself actually better, so it can "compete" with the U.S. for their OTL's migrants and attract some new people too. That's the active way.

You don't have to just choose one; in fact, realistically, significant changes would need a combination of two (if not all three of 'em, altogether), and that combination could probably happen organically without having to force it.

That's the whole point, I guess: How to get to that optimal, sweet point without wank-ing our path to it?

Another option could be to remove/prevent some of the European colonies in the Old World like French Algeria and such. Or increase literacy in the Russian Empire which would accelerate emigration.

 

[galanx]

Handwave away Napoleon, have colonies evolve more along the lines of the Commonwealth. Without the nationalistic wars of the 19th C. they'd make more attractive destinations.

 

[JDF_01]

Find a way to have a better knowledge about mosquito transmitted diseases (maybe some accidental discovering involving repellents, treatments, and prevention); and better climate conditioning of buildings for warm places (there must be ways to acconditionate a building to be cooler without air conditioners). Better road networks inland so many immigrants can reach higher areas easier (thus settling temperate areas away from diseases and extreme climates). Pretty much almost all of south america can be settled if the mountain ranges are taken into account, but the golden share of immigrants will go into Mexico and Argentina...

 

[Lusitania]

The easiest and simplest would be for the 1840 anti-catholic (anti Protestant) movement in the US turn into an anti-immigration movement. Something along lines that too many “non-Americans” were already in the US and a cooling period of 20 years was needed to “assimilate” those in the country. Political party gets elected and all immigration stopped. Civil war erupts when Lincoln who is against it tried to both open us and deal with slavery. After war anti immigration policies continue till 1890s when economic stagnation and depression finally force them to change policies.

A closed US results in increased emigration to both British settler colonies and more importantly to Latin America that becomes more open to both foreign investment now frozen out of US and emigrants. Between 1850- 1900 30 -50 million Europeans fleeing economic hardships leave Europe with more than 1/2 choosing Latin America.

 

[Corocora]

Of course, better economy make it attractive not for inmigrant(i dunno the inmigrant obession this forum have..maybe a side effect my family have been colombian forever, with the spanish ones being a new addition), still a better and more prosper(and stable country) would push a demographic boom(still depends what kind of country too)


I think mostly 'blanqueamiento'(that was a very real phenomenon here), push and maybe romanticism, unless we change the franchise to allow more people(ie anyone, except females, but those might come later) as a lot of countries here have limited electoral franchise(i think only venezuela and argentina got the biggest one in the era)

Maybe it's an obvious question, but it's still worth asking: Why Argentina (and Brazil for that matter) received so many and the other countries welcomed so few? How to "argentinize" the rest of Latin America, if that is even a possibility? And yes, cultural whitening (as in, the aspiration of being more "European" - advanced, prosperous, with a national identity... and white) could be an important part of the process. However, it has its limitations, starting with the fact that Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and most of Central America are practically eliminated from the list; it would be impossible for them to really try that without galvanizing their ethnically indo-american majorities. Not that it would be easy for the rest, but they can at least make the attempt without being inmediately being caught in flames. The capability of resisting the initial blacklash is to be considered.

Another option could be to remove/prevent some of the European colonies in the Old World like French Algeria and such. Or increase literacy in the Russian Empire which would accelerate emigration.

You need to know the figures for non-American European migration. By 1960, Algeria hosted some 1.6 million europeans, mainly colons. Suppose France never colonizes Algeria; how to make the OTL's colons go to Latin America? That change in Russia would also help (especially with the Volga Germans and the Jews), but in and of itself it doesn't guarantee our "objective".

Handwave away Napoleon, have colonies evolve more along the lines of the Commonwealth. Without the nationalistic wars of the 19th C. they'd make more attractive destinations.

Welp, that is certainly a good option. But the liberalism required to reform Spanish America (or mainland Spain) won't arise without Napoleon, at least not for some decades. Also, criollo unrest was a force to be reckoned with even before Spain got French'd. Things wouldn't go specially smooth.

Find a way to have a better knowledge about mosquito transmitted diseases (maybe some accidental discovering involving repellents, treatments, and prevention); and better climate conditioning of buildings for warm places (there must be ways to acconditionate a building to be cooler without air conditioners). Better road networks inland so many immigrants can reach higher areas easier (thus settling temperate areas away from diseases and extreme climates). Pretty much almost all of south america can be settled if the mountain ranges are taken into account, but the golden share of immigrants will go into Mexico and Argentina...

Makes sense to me!

The easiest and simplest would be for the 1840 anti-catholic (anti Protestant) movement in the US turn into an anti-immigration movement. Something along lines that too many “non-Americans” were already in the US and a cooling period of 20 years was needed to “assimilate” those in the country. Political party gets elected and all immigration stopped. Civil war erupts when Lincoln who is against it tried to both open us and deal with slavery. After war anti immigration policies continue till 1890s when economic stagnation and depression finally force them to change policies.

A closed US results in increased emigration to both British settler colonies and more importantly to Latin America that becomes more open to both foreign investment now frozen out of US and emigrants. Between 1850- 1900 30 -50 million Europeans fleeing economic hardships leave Europe with more than 1/2 choosing Latin America.

That is pretty much the easiest way. I was hoping not to use that one because of how changed the U.S. can get in that scenario. But it's very helpful, tho.

 

[Nivek]

Maybe it's an obvious question, but it's still worth asking: Why Argentina (and Brazil for that matter) received so many and the other countries welcomed so few? How to "argentinize" the rest of Latin America, if that is even a possibility? And yes, cultural whitening (as in, the aspiration of being more "European" - advanced, prosperous, with a national identity... and white) could be an important part of the process. However, it has its limitations, starting with the fact that Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and most of Central America are practically eliminated from the list; it would be impossible for them to really try that without galvanizing their ethnically indo-american majorities. Not that it would be easy for the rest, but they can at least make the attempt without being inmediately being caught in flames. The capability of resisting the initial blacklash is to be considered.

Two Words...Climate and the economical type was closer to europe(Argentina for farms to export and brazil for coffee and later their proto industry first in agricultural and later in heavy one) in few words brazil and argentina(and chile too) climate was closer to the one europeans like that is why and that helped was more 'empty' that Colombia or Venezuela at the time.(or Brazil case,a very well stablize caste system with slaves/blacks at the bottom and later pushing blanqueamiento) comparing the more mixed blooded Andean or carribean latin america.

 

[David II]

For Argentina, you'll need to end civil wars and stabilize the country before 1860, so they get more decades to attract immigrants.

Chile did well after the 1830's but they were too far away for any european power and only managed to attract a few thousands of immigrants; maybe if chileans invested more in immigration programs and cared to "sell" their image as a stable and prosperous nation...

 

[Nivek]

Wonder why this forum think migration is a panacea? in local case that might not help at all the latifundia problem or the underperfoming economy colombia got per decades...worse more people might means more ammunition to the political violence, Venezuela the mantuanos rules till chavez, Ecuador the same till Correa. Bolivia the white elite till Evo, the only examples was positive might be argentina(and argentina economy is on shambles and the worst in the continent)

 

[deathstrokenorris]

I can only speak about Argentina (well, maybe about the rest of the Souther cone and other surrounding countries too) but it is like this:

• Avoid period of deaces long civil unrest (with civil wars intermixed). Maybe have federalization work or have Buenos Aires win early.
• Push for more economical diversity. Maybe have a few of the Land owners think that "hey, maybe I could diversify into other sectors of the economy?".
• Better land distribution for the recently arrived.
• The Panama channel is never built.