NIK PARMEN
Banned
What if during the 19th century Mexico had encoureged a more European immigration like Argentina? The impact?
If Mexico hadn't lost Texas (and its other northern territories), it is doable, because:
a) Immigrants will have a place to go
b) Mexico wouldn't fear immigrations as much, as it wouldn't Texas precedent, Mexico might not be afraid of immigrants comming in, outnumbering there the locals and seceding to join the USA. If, for example, in 1870 the Welsh in Patagonia had seceeded to join the British in Malvinas, asking to be part of the UK, and had succedeed, Argentina might have had a more restricted policy towards immigration from 1880 onwards.
The problem is how to avoid the lose of Texas...
Anyway, if Mexico wants immigrants, it'd have to change its laws. For example, Argentina allows foreigners to own land, something Mexico's laws forbid, IIRC. The constitution of Argentina grants foreigners almost the same rights as citizens, something I think the Mexican constitution doesn't (or at least didn't do in the period in question).
If Mexico hadn't lost Texas (and its other northern territories), it is doable, because:
a) Immigrants will have a place to go (1)
b) Mexico wouldn't fear immigration as much, as without the Texas precedent, Mexico might not be afraid of immigrants comming in, outnumbering there the locals and seceding to join the USA. If, for example, in 1870 the Welsh in Patagonia had seceeded to join the British in Malvinas, asking to be part of the UK, and had succedeed, Argentina might have had a more restricted policy towards immigration from 1880 onwards.
The problem is how to avoid the lose of Texas...
Anyway, if Mexico wants immigrants, it'd have to change its laws. For example, Argentina allows foreigners to own land, something Mexico's laws forbid, IIRC. The constitution of Argentina grants foreigners almost the same rights as citizens, something I think the Mexican constitution doesn't (or at least didn't do in the period in question).
(1) There were always, however, places for immigrants to go in great numbers (enought to form a majority) during the XIX century even with OTL borders: Bja California, and Northern Mexico's states
1. I can't imagine anyone wanting to move to Sonora or Chihuahua. It is damn hot, dry and just generally inhospitable. Also until the late 1880s filled with Apaches so not exactly a place that could be filled by immigrants.
so were many parts of Patagonia (if you replace the word "hot" for the world "cold") and that didn't stop settlers from coming.
so were many parts of Patagonia (if you replace the word "hot" for the world "cold") and that didn't stop settlers from coming. True, mny more went to the pampas than to those region, but those who went there were more than enough to form a white mayority in the region.
And, if hot climate didn't stopped whites from moving to New Mexico, it won't stop them from going to Sonora. Not many would go, but these states would be whiter than IOTL.
And the Apaches? I don't think they were in Patagonia![]()