ABSTRACT Title of Document: “THE SWINGING DOOR”: U.S. NATIONAL IDENTITY AND THE MAKING OF THE MEXICAN GUESTWORKER, 1900 - 1935 Linda Carol Noel, Ph.D., History, 2006 Directed By: Professor Gary Gerstle Department of History This study examines U.S. national identity in the first third of the twentieth century. During this period, heated discussions ensued throughout the country regarding the extent to which the door of American society should be open to people of Mexican descent. Several major events brought this issue to the foreground: the proposed statehood of Arizona and New Mexico in the early twentieth century, the increase in Mexican immigration after World War I, and the repatriation of Mexican immigrants in the 1930s. The “Swinging Door” explores the competing perspectives regarding the inclusion or exclusion of people of Mexican descent embedded within each of these disputes. This dissertation argues that four strategies evolved for dealing with newcomers of Mexican descent: assimilation, pluralism, exclusion, and marginalization. Two strategies, assimilation and pluralism, permitted people of Mexican descent to belong to the nation so long as they either conformed to an Anglo American identity or proclaimed a Spanish American one rooted in a European heritage, whiteness, and a certain class standing. Exclusion denied entry into the U.S., or in the case of those already there, no role in society. Marginalization, which became the predominant strategy by the 1930s, allowed people of Mexican descent to remain physically within the country so long as they stayed only temporarily or agreed to accept a subordinate status as second-class Americans. The prevailing view changed depending on the economic and political power of people of Mexican descent, their desire to incorporate as Americans, and the demand for their labor or land by other Americans. One of the most significant findings of this project is that as the marginalization strategy gained adherents, the image of Mexican immigrants as temporary workers or “guestworkers” became the primary way in which Americans, Mexicans, and the immigrants themselves regarded the newcomers from Mexico. Despite the fact that this image was often false, the notion of Mexicans as only temporarily in the U.S. proved too seductive for the many divergent voices to resist as this image theoretically allowed Mexicans to enter the country and to provide their labor without threatening extant notions of American identity. “THE SWINGING DOOR”: U.S. NATIONAL IDENTITY AND THE MAKING OF THE MEXICAN GUESTWORKER, 1900 - 1935 By Linda Carol Noel Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History 2006 Advisory Committee: Professor Gary Gerstle, Chair Professor Ira Berlin Professor Sandra Cypess Professor David Sicilia Professor Mary Kay Vaughan © Copyright by Linda Carol Noel 2006 In memory of my grandmother Susan Ethel Reynolds Noel Allin Steineke ii Acknowledgments There are many people to thank, so it is difficult to know where to begin and to end. It has been a long process and one which I would not have made without so much support from my friends, my family, and most of all my husband, Larry Nagl, who supported me, emotionally and financially, throughout this endeavor. I cannot imagine having done this without him. I also want to thank all of my graduate school friends throughout the years—Patricia Acerbi, Pablo Acuahuitl, Joe Armenio, Keila Grinberg, Herbert Brewer, Doug Bristol, Harvey Cohen, Susanne Eineigel, Claire Goldstene, Stephanie Harry, Mark Kehren, Mark Levengood, Ricardo Lopez, Matt Mason, Flavio Limoncic, Shari Orisich, Trisha Posey, Christy Regenhardt, Kelly Ryan, Sarah Sarzynski, and Rennie Scott-Childress—for being available for frequent grousing sessions, lunch and coffee breaks, and their friendship in general. Four school friends deserve special recognition: Tom Castillo for listening to my ideas, reading chapters of my dissertation, and providing helpful comments; Jeff Coster for being one of my allies from the first days of graduate school; Laura Lenci who helped me with Spanish; and Rebecca Lord who offered some assistance at our very first meeting and has been a good friend ever since. Many non-school friends provided invaluable support and a necessary break from school life: Laura and Mark Allen; Stephanie and Matt Clark; Fred Freiberg and Diane Houk; Lisa and Jaime Gleason; Terry Harris and Jim Rowader; Carla Herbig and Chris Walker; Sue and Lincoln Kallsen; Maria Morocco; Janice Popowich and Dave Griffin; Patty Tuttle and Darek Newby; Aruna Sannuti and Mohan Tatikonda; John Sprovieri; and Chris and Lauren Weiland. iii My family has been very supportive, particularly my father, Donald L. Noel, who read every word of the dissertation (including the footnotes) and provided useful editorial comments. My mother, Virginia Lee Noel, my siblings Glen, Nancy, and Doug Noel, and other family members Camille, Bob, Nikolai, and Misha Auskalnis, Sue Eastes, Debbie, Dorothy, and Nannette Nagl, and Sally O’Connor all helped me through the process as well. Special family members of the warm and furry variety, Spro, Teddy, Milo, and Sasha, provided constant companionship during the often lonely process of writing at home. I appreciate very much the help I received from many of my professors. From my first days in graduate school, the faculty members at the University of Colorado-Boulder were very supportive and deserve recognition. In particular, I want to thank my first advisor, Ralph Mann, as well as professors Virginia Anderson, Lee Chambers-Schiller, and Patty Limerick. At the University of Maryland, I especially want to thank my advisor Gary Gerstle for being enthusiastic about my project from the beginning and helping me to see it to fruition. In addition, the other members of my committee—Ira Berlin, Sandra Cypess, David Sicilia, and Mary Kay Vaughan—deserve much commendation since they all actively and generously participated in the process and provided constructive advice. Many others in the history department also helped me to attain my goal by encouraging me along the way: Elsa Barkley Brown, James Henretta, Ken Holum, Lisa Mar, Al Moss, Robyn Muncy, Alison Olson, Keith Olson, Whit Ridgway, Howard Smead, Barbara Weinstein, Daryle Williams, and Madeline Zilfi. Thank you all so much! iv Table of Contents Dedication………………………………………………………………………………....ii Acknowledgments.. ...……………………………………………….……………………iii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………….v Note on Terminology……………………………………………………………………..vi Introduction. Chapter One: .……………….……………………….…………………………...2 Part I. The Statehood Years, 1900 to 1912 Chapter Two: The Door is Shut: Exclusion Reigns Over Assimilation........…..30 Chapter Three: The Door Swings Open?: Pluralism and Marginalization..........62 Part II. Transformations in the World War I Era, 1917 to 1922 Chapter Four: Changing Strategies for a New World……....................……….97 Chapter Five: The Marginalization Strategy Evolves: Origins of the Temporary Worker Image……......…………….............120 Part III. Immigration Restriction Debates, 1926 to 1930 Chapter 6: Closing the Swinging Door?........…...............................................146 Chapter 7: “Nómadas:” The Promotion of the Temporary Worker .......... ......170 Part IV. Repatriation, 1930 to 1935 Chapter Eight: “To Keep America American”: The Temporary Worker is Sent Away…...............................................199 Conclusion...............................................................................................……………….236 Bibliography.. ....................................................................................................................241 v Note on Terminology The United States has appropriated the word “American” for its citizens. While many North, South, and Central Americans object to this imperialistic decision—and I understand why—I continue to use American because it is commonly used in the United States and other terms seem too cumbersome or equally problematic, such as North Americans. I use Anglo Americans or simply Anglos to refer to persons considered to be “white” Americans—regardless of their actual ethnicity—during the time period studied. While it is becoming more common to use Euro American, I avoid this term to eliminate confusion since a part of my argument involves people of Mexican descent claiming a Spanish or European identity. I analyze the views of Anglo Americans since they held the vast majority of the political and economic power in the nation during the first third of the twentieth century. I also analyze the views of people of Mexican descent—mostly those of middle-class standing. I use “people of Mexican descent” to signify people who have this ethnicity, regardless of their citizenship status. Sometimes I make further distinctions such as “immigrant” or “Mexican American” when the need to differentiate is particularly relevant. I use the terms “Mexican” or “Mexican national” to refer to someone from Mexico. This could include Mexicans still residing in Mexico or Mexican immigrants in the U.S., depending on the context. I use the term “nativos” to refer to people of Mexican descent in the territories during the era of the statehood debates since that was the language typically used for them, regardless of citizenship status. I also use the term “American,” without quotes, when I mean Americans