Catholic Migration to Mexico

Stabilize the country, have a program and political willingness to promote immigration, and don’t execute a European Archduke in your country.

Mexico not only had very little political willingness to welcome immigration, especially after the Mexican American War and the French Interventions, but after the Reform War it also gained a very bad rap in Europe as a generally lawless place. It really took 30 years of the porfiriato to clean up its image and begin attracting immigration. But just at that was happening the revolution struck and we weee back in square one.
 
How to stimulate Catholic European migration to Mexico?

So Italians, French, Irish, Albanians, Croats, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Polish, Spanish etc.

PoD is 1820
With a POD of 1820, no santa ana and better early mexico, so if they try to fillibuster texas they can expell all those back to america and later on foster inmigration during alternate 1848 and irish famine
 
I think 1820 may be too late for it, but I'd say: screw USA, so they are unable to take Texas and California. Texas and California, being underpopulated and with climate more suitable for Europeans than Central/Southern Mexico could attract massive Italian/Spanish/German immigration like Southern Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina did.
 
Stabilising the country in the '20s could possibly have the additional impact of leading to a draw or similar in the US war, provoking an even stronger backlash against Catholics in the States. Furthermore, if Mexico can keep California and Colorado, they will benefit from the gold rushes and the immigrants hence attracted.
 
Stabilising the country in the '20s could possibly have the additional impact of leading to a draw or similar in the US war, provoking an even stronger backlash against Catholics in the States. Furthermore, if Mexico can keep California and Colorado, they will benefit from the gold rushes and the immigrants hence attracted.
a stable Mexico sets up a situation where it won't look like easy pickings to a greedy US, and likely butterflies the OTL war. An alternate war might erupt over more serious border disputes, but with a stronger Mexico, the US won't be so bellicose.

OTL, Mexico attracted Irish. Stability fosters economic growth, and jobs attract immigrants.
 
A POD that allows the insurgents to win without having royalists like Iturbide co-opt independence would go a long way to promoting stability, I think. That means many of the conservatives who were also officers in the Royalist armies until the very last minute would be out of the running for government...people like Iturbide and Santa Ana, and Bustamante. You'll still have some, but not enough to press for a monarchy that further drained Mexico's coffers and resulted in one revolt. Maybe more liberal bishops who would be more willing to play ball with the liberals and thus not be so quick to backing conservative coups.

That would go a long way to providing for stability and economic growth.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Immigrants flow respond to incentives. You need to provide jobs/land and free steerage passage, that is all. Just really deciding to spend the budget differently. Look at NZ immigration flows for a clear example.
 
Immigrants flow respond to incentives. You need to provide jobs/land and free steerage passage, that is all. Just really deciding to spend the budget differently. Look at NZ immigration flows for a clear example.

You also need some sense of security, iOTL Texas was hard to settle for the Comanche regularly giving Mexico a bloody nose and running the region like a racket. There were also still the elite who were running haciendas and other large coercive labor enterprises who were not keen on seeing labor cheapens by the import of new immigrants. They however are probably an easy roadblock to mow down depending on the POD
 

Deleted member 67076

Stabilize the Mexican government early on and establish a land grant program in conjunction with the standard incentives of high wages from a growing economy.

Now, as for the Comanche you may need to preserve the Mexican Empire (the original one) for this- the initial Mexican Empire continued the Spanish policy of paying off the Comanche and that allowed for some substantial settlement in the North during the 1700s. Well, before the Comanche stopped getting their money and proceeded to depopulate El Norte with brutal efficiency.

So I'd say the Mexican Empire survives and Mexico is broadly stable throughout the 19th century, opening itself up to large amount of Catholic immigration (possibly subsidized by the government at some point as in Brazil).
 
I feel like a gold Rush would be a double edged sword. It'll just make the US want to manifest its destiny.

Maybe in TTL their destiny is to overextend their supplies lines, get encircled and defeated... I think that there is no problem in them manifesting it...
 
Maybe in TTL their destiny is to overextend their supplies lines, get encircled and defeated... I think that there is no problem in them manifesting it...

Russian claims might also come into play. Russia cant project power in California but a ripple effect could well occur.
 
The size of the country a doesn't really matter, Uruguay and Paraguay both received significant amounts of European immigration and they're relatively small and relatively poorer countries than Mexico. Political stability is also not a dealbreaker; in the case of Paraguay post-war of triple alliance, you can't argue for stability. Mexico could have still lost all the northern territories to the US and attract immigration. I'd say, you basically need two things:
  • Political willingness to promote immigration; Brazil subsidized it at some point, Argentina welcomed pretty much anyone, Paraguay (after losing the war of triple alliance) was desperate to grow its male population.
  • Good PR; people need to want to come to set roots in your country. The US had the American dream, Brazil and Argentina had similar promises. Even Peru had a pretty good rep and attracted quite a bit of Asian immigration. A gold rush or rubber boom helps here, but even in OTL Mexico has plenty of both and a shit ton of silver and yet a "rush" never happened because it wasn't promoted as such.
Mexico had neither one of these. After the Mexican-American War and the Fist French Intervention (AKA Pastry War), immigration lost all of its supporters; like most countries rather than looking at its internal faults, Mexican politicians blamed both issues on foreign encroachment and immigration (there was an argument to be made, but as usual it is only a distraction of the main problem).

And after sentencing an Austrian Archduke to death by Mexican law, Mexico gained a really bad rep in the popular mind. It wasn't seen as an exotic land to tame and settle like the American West or the Argentinan Pampas, Mexico was a lawless barbarous nation. And while other countries had issues with the Catholic Church the confiscating of Church land and the liberals ardent anti-Catholic stand during the Reform War made it worse. As I mentioned above, it really took a generation under Porfirio Diaz to change the international perspective on Mexico, but the Revolution and Cristero War happened almost immediately after ruining what would have been a perfect time to receive European immigration post WWI. Afterward and through much of the post-WWII period Mexico mostly attracted and welcomed political assailants (mostly from the left) fleeing Europe.

Although a few Italians, Germans, Irish did trickle down they never made it in the numbers they did in other Latin countries, not to mention the USA. It seems that the one exception to the rule were Catholic Arabs, mostly Lebanese who did settle in numbers similar to other places and kinda became a "model immigrant minority".

Honestly, to really change this you need to change Mexico's fate quite a bit. You need either a POD pre-Texas and Pastry Wars (getting rid of Santa Anna helps) or an earlier stable Porfiriato style government post-Mex-American War; ideally avoid the Reform War altogether and keep Farias, Juarez, Lerdo, and Iglesias as far away from a position of power as possible. We romanticize them quite a bit today, but their lot was a bit too extreme.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
There were also still the elite who were running haciendas and other large coercive labor enterprises who were not keen on seeing labor cheapens by the import of new immigrants.

I think they would be delighted for labor to be cheapened.

Mexico had neither one of these. After the Mexican-American War and the Fist French Intervention (AKA Pastry War), immigration lost all of its supporters;

It took me a minute to figure out how this related, but I guess if immigrants become a pretext for invasion or rebellion three times within 15 years, they would be seen as a security risk.

It seems that the one exception to the rule were Catholic Arabs, mostly Lebanese who did settle in numbers similar to other places and kinda became a "model immigrant minority".

And became an immigrant community producing models, ie Salma Hayek. (or, although its Colombia, Shakira)

keep Farias, Juarez, Lerdo, and Iglesias as far away from a position of power as possible. We romanticize them quite a bit today, but their lot was a bit too extreme.

Do you think more low key reformers would not spark violent conservative reaction.
 
Do you think more low key reformers would not spark violent conservative reaction.

There's a better chance of no revolt to a smaller more easily contained revolt. If reformers played nice with the Archbishop it would certainly go a long way

You simply need a las radical and militant approach to what Juárez and company were attempting; some of the laws/decrees they enacted definitively went a bit too far. Allowing the Church to keep some of its privileges, including some form of limited immunity, and properties would have gone a long way.

For example, The Ley Lerdo, which dealt with nationalizing Church property included the nationalization of “civil corporations”, referring to communal lands and holdings (not private corporations); this pissed off an unnecessary amount of people. A subsequent decree further nationalized and secularized cemeteries… Why? What political and/or practical purpose could this have served beyond satisfying some philosophical “religion is the opiate of the masses” itch?

I understand the reason for nationalizing large Church holdings; the Church owned an unreasonable amount of land across Mexico at the time, including large estates and plantations that reaped enormous profits. But why take it to the extreme and also confiscate cemeteries? and why bundle communal land holdings into the same decrees?

Slower nationalization of the lands, and general low key reforms around other civil issues would have very likely gone a long way.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How to stimulate Catholic European migration to Mexico?

So Italians, French, Irish, Albanians, Croats, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Polish, Spanish etc.

PoD is 1820

You know, to head off American takeover, Mexico should have encouraged immigration from almost any non-American source. Basically any group except English-speaking, and white, Protestants would do. Catholic Europeans, maybe even Protestant Germans, and if Amerindians or free blacks want to migrate they should not be turned away if they're non-Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Top