In Venezuela : Immigration Goals and Reality, 1936-1961
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1980 The "Musiues" in Venezuela : immigration goals and reality, 1936-1961. Susan. Berglund University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Berglund, Susan., "The "Musiues" in Venezuela : immigration goals and reality, 1936-1961." (1980). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1383. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1383 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE "MUSIUES" IN VENEZUELA: IMMIGRATION GOALS AND REALITY, 1936 - 1961 A Dissertation Presented By SUSAN BERGLUND -THOMPSON Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 1980 History Susan Berglund-Thompson 1980 All Rights Reserved li THE "MUSIUES" IN VENEZUELA: IMMIGRATION GOALS AND REALITY, 1936 - 1961 A Dissertation Presented By SUSAN BERGLUND- THOMPSON Approved as to style and content by: /ofessor Jane ij). Loy Chairperson of Committee Professor Robert A. Potash, Member Professor Roland Sartl, Member bMi^ Processor Richard W. Wilkie, Member / rfessor Leonar Chairman, Department ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many persons have helped me in one way or another during the five years it has taken to produce this study. My sincere thanks to all of them, particularly to those who have given me so much of their time and counsel. To Professor Robert A. Potash, who more than anyone guided my graduate course work and gave me the opportunity to learn more about immigration in Latin America than I thought I would ever want to know; to Professor Lewis U. Hanke, who opened many doors for me in Caracas, allowing me to benefit from friendships made and maintained over the years; and most of all, to Professor Jane M. Loy, who has so ably and patiently directed this dissertation and who has so often and consider- ately aided this graduate golondrina . In Venezuela, after so many years, it is difficult to know where to begin. Profesora Marisa Vannini de Gerulewicz, whose intro- ductions to the Italian community were invaluable, has been a good friend, excellent counselor and esteemed colleague at the Universidad Central de Venezuela. Dr. Enrique Tejera Paris made me welcome in his home and gave me access not only to his personal archive on immigration but also his judgments as an active participant in developing immigration and in Venezuela. Don Nicholas Perazzo also provided me with papers firsthand information. specific The original data which form the basis for much of the v information on immigration was facilitated by the cooperation of offi- cials of the Direccion General de Identif icacion y Extranjeria. I am indebted to Dr. Luis Lander of CENDES for the introduction he gave me; to Dr. Carlos Delgado Chapellin and Dr. Ramon I. Velasquez, former directors of the DIEX, for giving me permission to use the archives there; and especially to Dr. Humberto Hernandez Caliman, who understood the value of such a study, who facilitated my work there and who co- authored with me the Estudio analitico de la polltica inmigratoria en Venezuela (Caracas, 1977), thus allowing me to share with Venezuelans the initial fruits of my investigations. I would also like to thank the many persons who worked with me in the Extranjeria. 1 would also like to thank and to compliment the staff of the Biblioteca Nacional, the Biblioteca del Banco Central, the library of Publicaciones Oficiales of the Biblioteca Central of the Universidad Central de Venezuela and the Archive del Ministerio de Relaciones Ex- teriores, particularly Sr. Jesus Maria Ramirez. There can be no repayment of my debt of gratitude to Professor Manuel Perez Vila of the Fundaclon John Boulton. He not only has guided in times me in this study, provided essential introductions, supported me his of crisis, but also has been a true good friend. I greatly value advice, understanding and patience. being family. To Lilla Wyszkowski and her family, my thanks for appreciation to the As a final note, I would like to express my for the years University of Massachusetts for providing a fellowship computer use. My 1974-75 and 1975-76 and for a generous grant for vi special thanks to Robert Gonter and the staff of the University Computer Center for their unstinting help in processing all 6,000 plus cards. vii . ABSTRACT The "Musiues" in Venezuela: Immigration Goals and Reality, 1936 - 1961 September 1980 Susan Berglund-Thompson B.A. (cum laude) , Boston University M.S., Simmons College M.A. , University of Massachusetts Ph.D. , University of Massachusetts Directed by: Professor Jane M. Loy Encouragement of Immigration became the official policy of the Venezuelan government after the death of the dictator Juan Vicente Gomez in December 1935. Between 1936 and 1961, a total of some 850,000 foreign- ers entered the country, giving Venezuela its first experience with massive immigration. The purpose of this study is to provide a macro- history of this immigration process, utilizing previously unused source materials In 1936, Venezuela presented a bleak image. The small population malnutrition, (3,491,159), physically debilitated by chronic diseases and had largely illiterate, lived in a country which, economically speaking, prof- one foot in the past and the other in the future. The government, while the people iting from the expanding petroleum industry, was rich, of modern- were poor. Concerned Venezuelans, recognizing the necessity one means of izing and developing the country, viewed immigration as viii doing so. Advocates of inunigration asserted that immigrants would foster demographic growth, populate uninhabited rural areas, spur agricultural and industrial development, expand and diversify the work force and foster new skills and habits. A few proponents, influenced by Spencer- iaii social positivism, felt that only with the massive arrival of Euro- peans, those exemplars of modern civilization, would the country be able to overcome the defects Inherent in a mestizo population. An analysis of the immigration laws and the circulars issued clearly reveal how each administration brought immigration policy into line with its other goals. The limited published data on the foreign population resident in Venezuela between 1936 and 1961 made it necessary to take samples of thi' personal information records of the foreigners on file in the Ex- triinjeria (Alien Office). These data, denominated VENIMSTATS, include such items as nationality, sex, age, civil status, occupation, address, naturalization and permanency. The most interesting analyses focused on permanency. Only about fifty percent of the foreigners stayed in Venezuela, ranging from a low of 41.7% in the 1948 sample to a high of 57.6% in the 1961 sample. Nationality was the determining factor in most cases, significantly affecting other variables. Of the five major nationality groups, the Portuguese were the most likely to stay (73.1%), Italians followed by the Colombians (65.6%), the Spanish (58.2%), the (41.3%) and the Americans (6.7%). showed An analysis of the short-term impact of the immigrants least not as immigration that most immigration goals were not achieved, at ix advocates had envisioned. Demographic growth was an autochthonous phenomenon, resulting from significant improvements in health care and sanitary conditions. Two-thirds of the immigrants settled in urban areas instead of populating uninhabited regions. Industrial growth, fueled by petroleum revenues, was capital intensive. Immigrant partic- ipation in the labor force was primarily in the service sector. Their activity in the secondary sector was mostly limited to construction and artisan workshops. A comparison of Venezuela's immigration experience with that of other countries indicates that it was an amalgam of the traditional and the modern. Venezuela received "traditional" immigrants, mainly from Italy, Spain and Portugal, with low and middle occupational skills. Temporal or "transilient" migrants, mostly Americans, with professional or managerial skills, were brought in by the transnational companies. The latter have had a corporate impact on the economic development of the country, while the former, more fully integrated into the Venezuelan milieu, have seen their impact limited by social, economic and demo- graphic factors. X TABLE OF CONTENTS ^^AP Frontispiece ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v LIST OF TABLES xil LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv INTRODUCTION 1 Cliapter I. PRECONDITIONS FOR IMMIGRATION: VENEZUELA IN 1936 9 II. ADVOCATES OF IMMIGRATION 22 III. IMMIGRATION LAWS AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES 41 IV. THE IMMIGRANT POPULATION: THE PRELIMINARY YEARS, 1936-1947 . 66 V. MASSIVE IMMIGRATION: 1948-1961 81 117 VI. IMMIGRATION GOALS AND REALITY: THE INITIAL CONSEQUENCES . 158 VI 1. SOME milGRATION HYPOTHESES AND THE VENEZUELAN EXPERIENCE . BIliLIOGRAPHY Appendix A. OFFICIAL VENEZUELAN STATISTICS 208 B. VENEZUELAN IMMIGRATION STATISTICS (VENIMSTATS) xl LIST OF TABLES Tables in the Text p^g^ 1. 1941 Tabulation of Foreigners by Numerically Predominant Nationalities ji 2. Time-lag in the Registration of Foreigners 82 3. Foreign Migratory Movement, 1948-1961