merely holding real estate or having Mexican children, has until lately been little sought for, owing to the prevalent disorder and insecurity. Foreigners found themselves safer under their own flag, which protected them against seizures, arbitrary contributions, and other ills afflicting citizens. Residents can now enjoy unmolested their property, though subject to restriction on land holdings within a certain range of coasts and borders, and transients can move freely without passports.[1]
The reasons that discouraged naturalization operated also against colonization, to which must be added intolerance and jealousy of foreigners, manifested in a too narrow-minded form by early legislators in seeking only catholic settlers, and in limiting the extent and ownership of land.[2] The result was the failure of the few attempts made,[3] the military colonies, as on the
- ↑ Landed property cannot be held by persons who reside abroad, or are absent for over two years. Formerly, restrictions were more severe with regard to estate and trade privileges, and foreigners had to obtain annually a letter of security, against a fee of $4, besides a permit to carry weapons, in order to be able to claim the derecho de estrangería; yet their real protectors or derecho lay with the ministers, if they had any; and these found it necessary to exercise their power energetically, as events indicate, in a manner that often assisted a weak government. Even Mexicans found it prudent to place capital under foreign names and firms. The levy of forced contributions was nevertheless long applied to foreign residents, on the plea that they must share in the cost of protecting their property. For number and condition, see the later chapter on society. The intensity of feeling, which in 1828 and following years led to the expulsion of Spaniards, was hurtful to industries. Decrees in Arrillaga, Recop., 1828, 35-204; 1829, 47-195, passim. Lament, in Zamacois, Hist. Mex., vi. 706-13. Earlier naturalization was more troublesome. See Dublan y Lozano, Leg. Mex., v. 161.
- ↑ It was feared that a colony, if allowed to grow strong, might prove a thorn by objecting to arbitrary and unjust interference, and aim at independence, or bring foreign intervention. The ownership of land was also in dispute between the states and general govt. For earlier laws on colonization, see Cortés, Diar., x. 9-11; Mex., Mem. Sec. Estado, 1823, 52-3, and later dates, under fomento, finance, and interior ministries; Coloniz. Regla., 1846, 1-22; Rockwell's Span. Law, 630; Mex., Proyect. Colon., 1849, 1-12; Pap. Var., liv. pt 8, cxiv. pt 5; Mex. Legis., 1856, 60-1; Arch. Mex., Col. Ley., iii. 108. Comments on narrow policy, in Rosa, Ensayo, 25 et seq.; Zavala, Rev., ii. 129-30; Ortiz, Espos., Sartorius, Import. Mex., 34–7; Bustamante, Mem. Hist., MS., v. 230; Coloniz. Progreso, 1843, 1-40.
- ↑ Notably by the French on the Goazacoalco, in 1830-1, and at Nautla in 1832-35. Fossey, Mex., 4-62, passim, 318. The blame is laid on the managers by Mex., Mem. Rel., 1832, 13. Grants made to Baring and others by one govt were annulled by another. Such irregularities were enough to deter settlers. On other colonies, see Becher's Mex., 259; Drake's Grants, 1-70; Rosa, Ensayo, 30–2; Ratzel, Mex., 373-80.
