have you noticed how few americans.. whose ancestors emigrated to the USA.. have signed this petition? do you think there is a reason for that?
I am American and I don't think it should be hardcoded. That seriously ignores the deliberate (and very painful) choices that the US actually made. Immigration was not some freebie for the US. It was the result of the most innovative and successful (in hindsight) land distribution program in human history - and the immigration model in the game should be programmed by someone who understands it (ie not a European). It is why the US doesn't have a socialist bent today. And the arguments over it were the primary reason that the issue of slavery precipitated a civil war. It was the conflict among frontier Westerners about slavery/land (Missouri compromise, Kansas-Nebraska, Dred Scott, Texas, etc) that created the North-South split. Out West, slavery was a "property issue". Back East, it was a "moral issue". People fight over property. They merely argue over morals. Abraham Lincoln was a landgrant attorney for the railroads before he became a politico. The Free Soil party took its name from its support for homesteading and the Know-Nothings (American Party) were entirely anti-immigrant. Those two parties never won - but they were the driving force to transform the major parties. It is no coincidence that the Homestead Act (which ultimately distributed land equal in area to ALL of Western Europe) took effect the same day as the Emancipation Proclamation - during the Civil War when Southern concerns became irrelevant to US policy and Republicans could ram through policy changes. My suggestions (don't know if they are programmable but they are historically accurate):
1. There should be land reform events in non-state provinces (fixed for the US before the ACW - Foot Resolution, Preemption Act, Homestead Act, military bounty warrants, emigrant tax treaties, etc) that increase immigration to that province. These could be random for other frontier countries (maybe dependent on government type) once the US has had its first few events (ie the US still has to "invent" the idea). The downside impact would be dramatically increased militancy and consciousness among every group (aristos, military, slaves, urbans, and rurals) throughout the country - and especially in that province. Sufficient to cause a civil war if done a few times. That is the historic reason no other country implemented serious agricultural land reform. Everyone in society either resented it or wanted it desperately and there was no possible compromise. So countries either avoided the topic entirely or tried it (and went through civil wars or revolts which then determined its success or failure). For the post-Civil War US or after a full civil war elsewhere, the only downside would be provincial risk with natives.
2. There should be railroad landgrant events for every level 1 railroad built in an empty "frontier" province in the US - and random for others. Again, dramatically increased immigration in that province for awhile - and increased corruption buildings and stock market crash risk countrywide. It could also raise the cost of that first railroad.
3. Clergymen should have a purpose in a pluralist government (not a moralist or secular one though). You should be able to create them (only under a pluralist government) for ethnic/religious minorities assuming that you have the "seed" immigrant POP already there - and they should then "draw" like-minded immigrants to that province - essentially establishing immigrant communities there that don't assimilate and POP merge. Those clergymen would disappear with a change in government to moralist/secular and all the POP's would merge then. This simulates late-stage immigration into cities and non-frontier areas.
Essentially these changes would produce an alternative game for underpopulated countries. They could attract immigrants - but they'd be so busy on internal stuff that they'd be irrelevant in the foreign policy/overseas wars stuff. And there would be serious risks - akin to the "Muslim problem" that Europe is going to be dealing with for the next century. In the US, immigration forced us to deal with slavery - in Europe, it will force the issue of social welfare.
Historically that is what happened with the US. I've seen threads here that state the US is "overpowered". Not true. It's just that immigration is costless when its hardcoded. In real life, the US was the most significant power by 1875-1890. It could have chosen to do anything at that time except invade Europe or take on the British in a full colonial war to the death. But then, no one else in the world could do that either.
The US didn't get all the world's migrants during this period. But it did get the vast vast majority of the permanent migrants (settlers to citizens). In every other country, a much larger proportion of immigrants ultimately returned home or kept on moving somewhere else.
