This is a Wisconsin dissertation, unrevised for publication. Its purpose is to explore “criollo opinion” concerning the desirability of attracting immigrants to Mexico and the characteristics all such immigrants should possess. The author disavows any intent of studying immigration itself; existing data is too limited for that. He is certain, however, that immigration to Mexico was inconsequential prior to 1860. His sources are ministerial memorias, periodical accounts of congressional debates, editorials, U.S. and British diplomatic correspondence, foreign travel accounts and correspondence of the Mexican Foreign Ministry.
Berninger searches for the origins of the idea of the desirability of immigrants, stressing the first decade as formative. Here he pays too little attention to the Spanish question and fails to note that Spaniards were prevented by Mexican law from entering Mexico (1823-1835). Early colonization projects are described, especially that of Stephen Austin, and the failure of these schemes to promote rural development or contribute to the defense of the frontiers is analyzed. The author also discusses the problem of the treatment received by immigrants and “criollo” distress concerning the prevailing xenophobia. Berninger focuses particularly on the question of religious tolerance which, he demonstrates, inhibited migration and even aborted several colonization schemes negotiated in Europe. He then follows the course of the debate from the war with the U.S. to the Reforma and examines the policies of the Liberals once in power (1855-57).
Berninger stresses the importance of popular hostility to foreigners and observes that “criollo” attitudes were inevitably consigned to the realm of ideals due to this elementary fact of national life. The Conservatives won the debate over religious toleration: they preferred to see Mexicans aided first (at least they were Catholics), rather than to invite protestants. Liberals, on the other hand, accepted the protestant ethic and hoped that foreigners would regenerate life in the countryside for the benighted Mexican “Indian.” By 1848 Conservatives had actually lost interest in immigration. The Reforma established the foundation of tolerance needed for the experiment to begin at last.
The study concludes that since the immigrants who arrived were so few, political thought concerning the question remained static and only occasionally approximated reality (p. 188). Moreover, in spite of the fact that the debate had its political uses, “el fracaso de la inmigración, que ni se desarrolló ni contribuyó al progreso de la nación, siguió siendo motivo de interés para casi todos los grupos de partido.” (p. 190, italics mine). This assertion claims much more than the research has provided. Since Berninger was not able to generate data on immigration/naturalization, and since his discussion, to the extent that it departs from the debate itself, treats exclusively colonization schemes, we learn nothing about the immigrants/naturalized citizens in the cities. In addition, the findings have not been cast in the light of what we already know about international migration, nor has Berninger utilized the theoretical works on immigration. He has, however, provided us with a survey of the migration question for the first half of the past century in Mexico, which is more than we had before.
