Boosting immigration to home country

[binTravkin]

Hi!

I'm new to this so bear with me.

There are a few of nations in the game which control large and populous overseas colonies whose populations could provide massive economic boost by immigrating to colonial overlord:
Great Britain
Netherlands
Portugal

However, their population exists in colonial states which means they are only really usable for their own RGOs and for soldiers, although am not sure how "safe" it is to have large number of troops be of colonial culture.

I understand from what I have read is that I need to make a colonial state into state.
For this to happen I have to have 1%+ bureaucrats of my own culture.
This seems extremely hard to achieve for these reasons:
1. There are some provinces with millions of native population, 1% would mean 10s of thousands of bureaucrats, a large number.

2. Immigration focus doesn't seem to do anything. I had researched education techs all the way down to Biologism. Ran the focus for 2 years and 0 people migrated.

3. My colonial states have some initial bureaucrat pops, however it's difficult to make them stay put. If I don't have enough administrative funding they will slowly demote. And regardless of funding (I never put it <50%) they will usually promote. So at best I can keep them from demoting, but not promoting. An example is Java, which has ~2300 Dutch Bureaucrat pops and if I set the funding to 90%+ they will not demote, but will promote at a rate of 1 per month, which is half or more of their pop growth.

Am I being too impatient?
What else I could to encourage the bureaucrats actually get there?
Unemployment at home to force colonial migration doesn't seem like a good option at all.

I've read social reforms increase the need for bureaucrats but I wonder if even with increased need they would get there as currently the colonial states have <100% administrative efficiency anyway, so some need is already present.

From what I read in Migration topic (section "Internal Migration") in wiki, it seems that even without turning colonies into states, I may get some immigration in the end, as they will eventually exceed the size of their RGOs, become unemployed and look for work elsewhere:
http://www.victoria2wiki.com/Migration
But then I would still have to have 50%+ unemployment as the other positive modifiers seem unattainable and negative ones almost a given.
So perhaps maxing out pop growth and waiting for them to overflow from their states is the only option?


My RP aim is to model something similar to recent events with large populations from poor colonies migrating to home countries to boost their lives and the economy of immigration targets by providing cheap labor.

 

[binTravkin]

Ok, so I found a province which seemingly fits the above conditions.
Dutch Borneo, 1865.
RGO size: 40k (full)
Has 3 farmer pops, a 41k protestant one, a sunni one and a 500 animist one.
First one exceeds the RGO, has 7.5% and growing unemployment, but is not migrating anywhere, just promoting/demoting slowly.
Animist one ticks almost all the boxes for Internal Migration according to wiki, but still would not.
It has 100% unemployment and gets 0% of all the needs, which should translate to
1%(base) - 0.3%(con) - 2%(colonial) +0.3%(needs) + 1.8%(unemployment) = 0.8% emigration (monthly?).

I ran the game a couple of months to see if this would happen, but I only saw them demoting and converting to protestant..

I can only assume Internal Migration requires the source state to be a non-colonial one.

So there is really no way to migrate people out of colonial states other than making them non-colonial?

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

Apparently there is not, I think Paradox should address this for Vicky 3, or maybe there is a mod that solves that issue.

 

[binTravkin]

I wonder if there is a mod with more sensible migration policies?
Historically immigration from colonies did not amount to much mostly because locals would protest and enact various legislation.
Every country where I've read up about significant immigration ended up enacting restrictions that (almost) prevented immigration from colonies.
Britain had rule that ship crews had to be British, putting a significant suffering to their own people who often were involuntarily "recruited" instead of using willing Indians, also every colony had some kind of rule(-s) against immigration by non-european peoples - South Africa, US, etc.

I think the motivation for a person living in 17th century to migrate would be pretty similar to what it is nowadays - lack of work, lack of opportunity, prospect of improved livelihood.
In that light migration from many places, even not that poor would not be an exceptional decision (and we can see this in the few cases were immigration was allowed even if only temporarily).
E.g. if an Indian shackled by the local hierarchy and caste system would be willing to take the plunge for a chance of better life, the other factors would either have changed little between 19th and 20th century or they would have changed in a predictable way (transport costs were not an issue with not well off Chinese getting into California, local "openness" would be something modelled by Vic2 laws/reforms/policies, etc.).

 

[grimkm]

It is quicker towards the end of the game to turn the colonial holdings into states..but the problem is, the UK covers most of the world, and Netherlands and Portugal have fairly small native pops. Treat your own citizens bad enough, and I guess they will have reasons for internal migration.

What should be allowed should be inter colonial movement though..Or perhaps give boosts to specific countries/policies as you suggest? Indians, as an example, are to be found around anywhere the brtish empire set foot, more or less..be that south america or africa in particular.

 

[binTravkin]

I think it has to do with Indians enjoying less restriction of movement than other colonial nations. The reasons for migrations are well known and straightforward and if these conditions are met, the migration should happen unless there is something (like a law) holding it back. For the most part of 19th/20th century there were multiple countries with highly restrictive immigration laws.
Similarly, the immigration to USA is almost solely attributed to it's "attractiveness", but the harsh reality is that most migrants simply had literally nowhere else to go as they would not be accepted either by law or by community restrictions to outsiders (often based in religious bigotry).
Had there been another country which was relatively prosperous, allowed immigration legally and encouraged it through advertising, similar immigration would have happened there.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Err..no, to bascially everything you said.
Just my 2cents and opinion.

 

[binTravkin]

I didn't touch any subject that can not be verified by simple lookup.
Migration causes are well studied and restrictions are well documented.

For a person living in a "colonial state" there is no "colonial state modifier" when they make decision to emigrate or not.
The local main cause of emigration may differ from a person living in non-"colonial state", but it would still be some environmental factor like economic circumstance, freedom/oppression or instability.