How did immigration work in pre-modern times? Was it common? Was it regulated?
Usually involved massive migrations of entire populations due to environmental factors, rather than the choices of individuals deciding to move to another place for the sake of a better life.
See "wandering of the peoples", otherwise known as Europe's migratory period.
Where, and when? There are differences between time periods and regions, as in everything. How often people took shit before today would be equally intelligent question
Yes, it was heavily regulated. There was no welfare system other than the church and so you had to work for a living while paying a shit ton of taxes to the government. I can imagine immigrants and dindu gypsies that didn't pay taxes were probably beheaded
>>1383855
>source: my ass
>>1383858
Common sense you ass. There were obviously no SJWs back in the day so immigrants had to either actually work for a living or convert to that area's religion and get support from the church's charity. This why the Jews had to adapt and become successful in order to survive, because they didn't get free handouts from the church
>>1383878
>Common sense
lol kys idiot, don't reply if you don't know anything
>>1383818
Borders didn't really amount to much in pre-modern times, free people generally could do whatever they wanted (keyword: free). What actually was enforced and regulated heavily were customs fees because shekels have always been important.
>>1383922
Not an argument
>>1383922
Great refutation
>>1383922
>lol kys
Fuck off normalfag scum.
>>1383818
at leat in post roman europe borders were nebulous things that were never set in stone and often lawless buffer zones due to each country not wanting to piss the other off by regulating the border.
Example being the marches of medieval Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_(territorial_entity)
>inb4 wikipedia
>>1383818
Most invasions by relatively unorganized peoples into more sophisticated polities would be seen today as a wave of migrants (the ones that weren't just raids).
>>1383818
They came in huge numbers and with weapons
>>1383878
You know for such a bold claim it would be pretty easy to find some historical evidence to back up those claims.
I'll be waiting.
>>1383818
The Romans tried to regulate it in 376 and failed hard. Normally it worked though. It was extremely common.
>>1383855
>>1383878
what the fuck are you talking about?
>>1383818
isn't that how the "journeyman" got started.
person would apprentice under a master or journeyman for a trade.
Once he reached an adequate skill level he wold get papers.
these journeymans papers allowed the man to travel between cities giving him a right to work his trade as a craftsman in that city.
you'd also have to pledge allegiance to the new king/dietiey, and hope the new king doesn't just kill you for appeasement or you previous lord takes over and kills you for being a traitor.
>>1383818
Border security as we know it is a very modern idea. Until the 18th century, states had no real way of preventing migration. However, mass migration rarely happened because there has historically been more international equality.
>>1383855
/pol/ in charge of history, everyone
>>1383944
Basically this.
But, first of all immigration is a modern term. We should be talking about human migrations. Which varied depending on the era and place. Usually, in pre-modern times borders were loosely defined and most empires and kingdoms were multi-ethnic. Meaning for instance, in Europe, if you were a Christian and weren't there to loot and pillage you were more then welcome to settle. Now, that doesn't mean it was as easy as packing your belongings and moving away. Under the feudal system you had obligations to your lord, and your movement was restricted. But that had little to do with migrations and everything with the fact you had to serve your feudal master and he wanted your goods/money. With the rise of cities and the bourgeoisie, movement of people and labor became much easier. Also, over time even peasants weren't as restricted as before and got more rights to move. Not only were migrations poorly regulated, in most cases they were encouraged by kings and the lords by giving them privileges. The logic was simple, more people meant more money and larger armies. If you look at the demographics of most larger cities in Europe through history, they were filled with different kinds of ethnicities. In fact that's part of the reason why Europe and especially central Europe is such a patchwork of etnicities even today. For instance, when the Habsburgs were fighting the Turks their borders got underpopulated over time, so they started settling Serbs and gave them privileges in exchange for their services. Its the same for Germans, central Europe was filled with them. They settled all over the place because they brought with them money and expertise.
>>1386078
Some /pol/tard going on about "the good old days" when "people worked for a living" or some other such nonsense.
>>1386973
Leftist detected, people without skills didn't get free money for doing nothing back then. Infact there was no welfare at all.
Wonder why the nigger population was so low in the medieval ages? Because they didn't get free food just so that they could multiply like insects.
>>1387116
Besides the point moron. You have no clue about shit, go back to /pol/.
>>1387163
Great argument.
>>1387116
There were no niggers because Africans couldn't get into Europe silly.
