More Irish Immigration to Mexico than the USA?

What if the majority of Irish immigrants traveled to and settled in Mexico, rather than the United States as in OTL? There were a number of Irish fighters in the Mexican-American War (on the Mexican side) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick's_Battalion), and many of them were even American deserters who changed sides. For whatever reason, be it the higher wages offered by the Mexican military, the promise of more land, or a sense of Catholic comradery, what would have been necessary for a greater Irish population in Mexico? What would have been the result on the development of both the US and Mexico?
Also, forgive me if this isn't exactly the right spot for this thread, this is my first post and I wasn't exactly sure where it should go.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The biggest issues are:

What if the majority of Irish immigrants traveled to and settled in Mexico, rather than the United States as in OTL? There were a number of Irish fighters in the Mexican-American War (on the Mexican side) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick's_Battalion), and many of them were even American deserters who changed sides. For whatever reason, be it the higher wages offered by the Mexican military, the promise of more land, or a sense of Catholic comradery, what would have been necessary for a greater Irish population in Mexico? What would have been the result on the development of both the US and Mexico?
Also, forgive me if this isn't exactly the right spot for this thread, this is my first post and I wasn't exactly sure where it should go.

a) English is a common language in the US and Ireland (UK);

b) There is a pattern of Irish emigration to what became the US even before independence; as with every immigrant group, previous emigrants are a pull for the following generations, and there is a natural affinity;

c) The US was open to Irish emigration from 1775 to 1824; New Spain was not;

d) The US was always cheaper to get to than Mexico;

e) The US had both a wide open frontier of arable land and a number of rapidly growing cities where work could be had for Irish emigrants; Mexico did not really have either;

f) Politically, the US was always more stable than Mexico in the Nineteenth Century, even in the 1860s - at which point, both the US and Mexico were in the middle of internal wars; the difference is the US ports were open;

g) The famine years drove Irish emigration to the US in the late 1840s, at a time when Mexico was at war with the US or in dealing with the aftermath of the war;

Quite a few issues to deal with, at least in terms of history as was experienced.

Best,
 
I think the San Patricio Batallion is a good staring point. If Mexico does better in the MAW or outright wins, then the San Patricios could lead a movement to attract more Irish to move to Mexico and settle the northern territories. Coupled with a much worse Know-Nothing movement in the United States, then you'd easily see more Irish Catholics choose Mexico over the US.
 
Last edited:
In 1815 the Spanish government did publish Royal Decree of Graces allowing non-Spanish Europeans to immigrate to the new world. There were Irish who settled in small numbers in Puerto Rico along with Cuba. Also, there were some Irish who settled in Mexico. Mexican President Álvaro Obregón (O'Brien) was of Irish ancestry. Argentina recorded the arrival of 7,160 Irish immigrants between 1822 and 1829, out of a total of 45-50,000 throughout the 19th century. However, it was a much more developed country than Mexico (at least by the late 19th century).

Early Irish immigrants to the United States tended to be Protestants whose ancestors came from Scotland or England and settled in much of the South. After 1830, Catholic immigrants tended to be predominant and settled in Boston, New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia etc. Mexico lacked heavy industry so it did not have much pull, even with Spaniards. Below is a number of Spaniards living in various countries, and one can see it ranked #8 for Spaniards. Interestingly enough, they were the largest immigrant group in Mexico.

1920-1921
Argentina 829,701
France 254,980
Cuba 245,644
Brazil 219,142
Algeria 144,328
Uruguay 54,885
USA 49,535
Mexico 26,675
Chile 25,962

So clearly you'd need a pod, where Mexico was more prosperous and stable to attract not just more Irish immigrants, but more immigrants period. During the 19th the immigrants that arrived were small in number (however they did often have a significant effect on the country).
 
You could try something with the United States excluding non-Protestant immigrants permanently.


Virtually nobody advocated anything like that--including the Know Nothings. See Joseph P. Ferrie, "The Impact of Immigration on Natives in the Antebellum U.S. Labor Market, 1850-60" http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~fe2r/papers/impact.pdf

"As was noted above, the staunchest of nativists in the years between 1850 and 1860, the Know Nothings, never advocated a solution to the 'immigration problem' more radical than lengthening the time until immigrants could become naturalized. Nothing like the outright restriction of immigration imposed after 1921 was even considered. The isolated impact of immigration found here may explain why: with immigration's negative effects limited to one occupation group (skilled workers) in urban places in one region, it was difficult to make the case for restriction to a nation that otherwise derived significant benefits from immigration."
 
One big problem is that the political/economic set up in Mexico incorporated almost everything the Irish hated about English riule in Ireland absent religious issues. Large landowners with tenant farmers, with the upper class have all political power the tenant farmer none, and small landowners not much. Also as noted, the US had lots of decent land available for free basically and while there was prejudice, the Irish had way more political say as workers or small farmers in the USA than they equivalent classes had in Mexico (IMO up until today). Also the Mexican economy was much worse than USA most of the 19th century in all ways another big negative.

To make Mexico more attractive than the USA 1800-1900 requires huge ASB stuff to combine making the USA much worse and Mexico much better
 
One big problem is that the political/economic set up in Mexico incorporated almost everything the Irish hated about English riule in Ireland absent religious issues. Large landowners with tenant farmers, with the upper class have all political power the tenant farmer none, and small landowners not much. Also as noted, the US had lots of decent land available for free basically and while there was prejudice, the Irish had way more political say as workers or small farmers in the USA than they equivalent classes had in Mexico (IMO up until today). Also the Mexican economy was much worse than USA most of the 19th century in all ways another big negative.

To make Mexico more attractive than the USA 1800-1900 requires huge ASB stuff to combine making the USA much worse and Mexico much better
Maybe have Benito Juarez's Mexico last longer.
 

Deleted member 67076

Make Mexico have a better start right off the bat with the liberals managing to at least partially get their way and institute good land reform to attract immigrants. Latifunda and control by the conservative criollos is not attractive to immigrants.

Then, combine that with a government policy that actively seeks to get Catholic immigrants; perhaps offer free aid and cheap land to those in the Potato famine? The North was wide and empty for the most part.

Eventually Mexico may be seen as a better alternative than the US as there would be a vibrant Irish community that does not suffer prejudice like that in its northern neighbor.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Famine was in the late 1840s, however;

Make Mexico have a better start right off the bat with the liberals managing to at least partially get their way and institute good land reform to attract immigrants. Latifunda and control by the conservative criollos is not attractive to immigrants.

Then, combine that with a government policy that actively seeks to get Catholic immigrants; perhaps offer free aid and cheap land to those in the Potato famine? The North was wide and empty for the most part.

Eventually Mexico may be seen as a better alternative than the US as there would be a vibrant Irish community that does not suffer prejudice like that in its northern neighbor.

The Famine was in the late 1840s, however; Mexico had a few other things to worry about at the time.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure, but more of them spoke English than Spanish

Many of the Irish who went to American during the Famine of 1840s and after did not speak English.

Sure, but more of them spoke English than Spanish...and Boston is a lot closer to Dublin than Veracruz is...

Best,
 
It's not like Mexico didn't attract a fair amount of non-Spanish immigrants anyway. Why else are accordions featured in many styles of Mexican music?
 
Top