Negative Turn in Diaspora Relations with the Breaking of Revolution

In the early periods of the revolution, where the regime was not stable and the administration was continuously facing coup d’états; migration flows were considered as a ‘safety valve’ for between revolutionary disorder and political opposition and enemies. Thus, the first governments after the Revolution did not oppose migration, did not try to prevent leaving or return of the emigrants. Post-revolutionary Mexican state depended on emigration as a development strategy and a political safety valve, a position enshrined in Article 11 of the 1917 Mexican constitution, which forbids exit restrictions (Cardoso, 1979, p.20). However, in the upcoming times of the Revolution, the attitude towards those Mexicans in the United States have changed significantly, especially with the effect of political endeavors of Juarez Clubs.

105

However, when President Venustiano Carranza (1917-1920) managed to establish the order in the country, his administration tried to dissuade people to leave the country and persuade emigrants to come back home. He had three policy objectives; dissuasion of Mexicans from leaving the country, protecting workers’

contracts and ‘Mexicanize’ the immigrants in the northern neighbors (Delano, 2011, p.69). The nationalist propaganda called for the return of ‘hijos de la patria’

(sons of the nation) to the homeland, and administrative controls tried to prevent the Mexican farm workers from leaving the country. As an effort of dissuasion, Mexican immigrants in the United States were started to be called as ‘pochos’ and

‘traitors’ who left their home country when the things were not going well and when they were needed the most. Also, they tried to strengthen the bonds with the previously gone and settled Mexican migrants in the United States by promoting

‘Mexicanidad’ among them as part of Mexicanization policy. Mexicanidad emphasis was a political discourse targeting nationalist feelings of people with Mexican ancestry and this campaign of ‘Mexicanidad’ was used broadly during Carranza rule in order to bring emigrants together regardless of their location.

In the next decade, Mexican government tolerated and encouraged more social and organizational proactive efforts (Gonzalez, 1999). Mexican state established Honorary Committees and ‘Brigadas de la Cruz Azul’ (Blue Cross Brigades) which were community-based groups aimed both at civil rights problems and cultural problems of the migrants. They were supported by Mexican consulates during 1920s and 1930s. These institutions tried to develop community unions, organize repatriations, promote ‘Mexicanidad’ (Mexican nationhood) and organize fundraising events in order to find resources for community projects. President Alvaro Obregon (1920-1924) is considered as the most active president in terms of seeking solutions to migration pressures and protecting the emigrants (Cano &

Delano, 2007, p.14). Mexican state increased the number of its consulates in the U.S. There were over 50 consular agencies in the U.S., including ‘abogados consultores’ (consulting lawyers) and comisiones honorificas (Gómez-Quiñones, 1983). Along with these improvements in consulate support for civic projects and trying to cherish the nationhood feeling among Mexicans, diaspora efforts also

106

focused on Mexican workers and business, hence labor unions and business associations started to be established in the U.S.

Labor unions such as La Sociedad Progresista Mexicana y Recreativa’ (The Mexican Progressive and Recreational Society, established in 1924) and

‘Confederación de Sociedades Mexicanas’ (CSM - Federation of Mexican Companies, established in 1927) and ‘Confederacion de Uniones Obredas Mexicanas’ (CROM – Mexican Workers Unions Confederation, established in 1928) started to gather and seek for Mexican workers rights in the United States and even organized several strikes against unjust conditions and unequal payment.

Also, Mexican business associations started to be established in the U.S. ‘La Camara de Comercio Mexicana’ (Mexican Chamber of Commerce) was found in 1924, which was a big step in institutionalization of Mexican business in the northern neighbor.

Another important attempt was on the cultural side. During the 1930s, ‘La Sociedad Mutualista Mexicana’ (Mexican Mutualista Society – community based organizations) and also ‘Congreso de Pueblos Que Hablan Espanol’ (Spanish Speaking Towns Congress) were founded. These cultural reflections emerged in the 1930s; they aimed at improvement of civic rights of migrants, advocated for their humanitarian rights and hoped for softening the immigration laws in the United States mostly due to deportation and exclusion of Mexicans after the Great Depression. Mexicans emerged as ‘favorite scapegoats’ and deported from United States in big groups (Henderson, 2011). Mexican immigrants in the United States were exposed to harsh repatriation campaigns during Great Depression (Lessard, 1984).

The general attitude towards the Mexicans in the United States have had changed in the short period between the Mexican Revolution of 1910 and the Great Depression of 1929, which affected the worker flow directly. While the Mexican emigrants were considered as safety valve in the early revolutionary period, they started to be called as traitors when the administration stabilized under nationalist

107

administration. The migrants were called to come back home and to support their homeland, the migrants who did not were labelled as ‘traitors’. Promotion to spread Mexican nationhood feeling via the consulates was on the agenda for a few years and with the effect of another perspective, another president, Mexican state started to pursue the protection and well-being of the Mexican emigrants against discrimination and ill-treatment. “From 1910-1939 the main reasons for the formation of Mexican community-based organizations were their defense against discrimination, protecting labor rights and problems related to deportations and repatriations” (Cano & Delano, 2007, p.16). And the transnational relation between Mexican state and their emigrants developed in this period. Moreover, in the forthcoming term, the picture shifted towards another way with the effect of Great Depression and World War II in the next decade, because Mexican state gained an advantageous position in the new era, when the Mexican workers turned out to be important sources for United States under tough circumstances. Once the

‘unwanted low-level workers’ have become important sources for United States under bad economic circumstances at the are of the Second World War and this situation gave a leverage to Mexico. Within this picture, the Mexican emigrants have become a source for both sides and gained importance as a usable and governable population.

The intriguing thing is that; the position of these people, their involvement in the community, their attitudes towards the homeland have not changed dramatically.

Foucault’s nominalist perspective, his understanding of history as not a fixed entity forms the philosophical framework that can explain the position of Mexican case. The role of these emigrants has not changed; but the position of Mexican state towards the diaspora has changed significantly. Hence, not the name or concept ‘diaspora’ has changed but the practices have changed. These people were

‘sons of the nation’, they were ‘traitors’, once they were ‘heroes’, then they became ‘sources of bargaining’, policies of ‘Mexicanisation’ were introduced and later ‘nation beyond borders’. The name has changed and created new discourses for the same people who were continuing to do their jobs and pursuing their lives.

This position supports the idea of Foucault that “state does not have an essence”

108

(Foucault, 2004, p.90) thus, “we must examine power relations where the state seems to emerge in ‘transactions which modify, or move, or drastically change’

(Sawyer, 2015, p.143). Likewise; diaspora does not have an essence either;

practices build the state, the diaspora, migrant community, network etc. These concepts did not exist in history naturally, but the events in the Mexican past have shaped them and carved it into today’s structure.

It is important to look at Mexican diaspora not as a strictly-defined phenomenon but to examine its practices, the events and discourses that bring these people together, diaspora’s agenda and dynamics of the relation between the diaspora and Mexican state. This structure has changed dynamically and dramatically, but the people involved were the same. Names given to them were different in accordance with different dynamics. That position changes continued under the effect of newly emerging dynamics.

3.3.3. Diaspora Relations under the Effects of World War II and the