Debating American Identity: Southwestern Statehood and Mexican Immigration

3: Changing Strategies for a New World

67 Born in Mexico in 1866, Pedro Garcia de la Lama eventually immigrated to the New Mexican territory, becoming an American citizen in 1894. Two years later he moved to the Arizona territory to work as the editor of a Spanish-language newspaper, El Progreso. In 1902 he was called before the notorious Beveridge committee to provide testimony about the circulation of his periodical (1,500 subscribers), and whether or not he was born in Arizona. The committee members asked him no other questions, and Garcia likely knew it was futile to interject anything more to defend the merits of his adopted territory. Following statehood, Garcia formed the Liga Protectora Latina, a mutual aid organization designed to help people of Mexican descent to protect their rights and to cover unexpected expenses from illness and death. Unlike most other Mexican mutual aid organizations in Arizona, Garcia’s Liga Protectora worked as an advocate for recent immigrants, calling for bilingual education programs, fighting against discrimination in the criminal justice system, and advocating for the right of people of Mexican descent to vote and work, regardless of the language(s) they spoke. While the Liga Protectora was hardly a revolutionary organization—it shied away from some strikes and unionization—most other local Mexican mutual aid groups operated even more conservatively, planning social functions and encouraging conformity rather than engaging in political activities. Garcia’s line of work and organization—with its emphasis on cultural rights in addition to other civil rights—suggests that in the immediate post-statehood years he initially supported pluralism as the best means chapter three Changing Strategies for a New World 68 · Chapter 3 for incorporating people of Mexican descent into the nation. But in the wake of fierce Americanization campaigns during and immediately following the First World War, the Liga Protectora fell in line with the increasingly conservative environment, urging its members to minimize conflict between capital and labor. Furthermore, it increased membership dues, making it more difficult for working-class people—those most likely to unionize or organize strikes—to remain as members. Within a few years membership plummeted and the organization virtually disappeared. Liga Protectora’s then-withered condition reflected the pluralists’ declining capacity to persuade Americans of the viability of their strategy for incorporating newcomers.1 The achievement of separate statehood in 1912 had represented a triumph for pluralism in New Mexico and marginalization in Arizona, but no sooner had statehood been attained than a surge in Mexican immigration, growing fears about the spread of radicalism, demands for conformity during the First World War, and postwar recession once again made the place of Mexicans in America unclear. The more inclusionary strategies of pluralism, assimilation, and marginalization, however limited, declined under these pressures. Prior to the First World War, few Americans paid attention to Mexican immigrants, as their numbers were insignificant compared with those entering from European countries. In the half-century following the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexican immigration occurred virtually unobserved and unmonitored as immigrants traversed both ways across the newly established border for seasonal work on farms and ranches. When a greater number of Mexicans crossed the border to work in the mines, railroads, and agriculture in the late nineteenth century, Southwestern inspectors made no effort to track the migration and instead concentrated on reducing the number of Asians and Europeans attempting to enter.2 At the end of the nineteenth century, Americans remained so blasé about the presence of Mexicans that immigration from the south continued with virtually no restrictions: even a newly imposed head tax on immigrants did not pertain to Mexicans.3 Their immigration was of such minor concern that the commissioner-general of immigration neglected to mention the subject in any of his reports until 1906. Even then the commissioner merely observed that railroad companies were actively recruiting laborers from Mexico—in violation of contract labor laws—and vowed to watch the situation more closely.4 Changing Strategies for a New World · 69 When Americans did notice the increasing Mexican population, they directed less animosity toward them than other immigrants. Organized labor, not generally supportive of open borders, agreed with those who favored the marginalization position and considered a Mexican worker to be “something of an American,” provided that he performed only the lowest wage jobs and did not compete directly with white laborers for skilled work. In the words of one pro-union editor, these...