Uncontrolled immigration vs sovereignty: the Texas precedent

Land purchases by corporations and the slaveholding interests of the American South pushed Texas to break away from Mexico in 1836 and to be annexed by the United States in 1845. Those who compare that episode with Ceuta argue that power and economic interests also lie behind migratory pressure there, a thesis best read as interpretation rather than proven fact.

## Land as investment and the slaveholding interest

In the 1820s thousands of Americans settled in **Texas**, then Mexican territory. **Mexico** had abolished slavery and refused to return enslaved people who escaped into its territory. For the large slaveholders of the South, this was a first-order economic and political problem: incorporating Texas would strengthen their weight.

There was another, lesser-known player. American corporations had already bought thousands of hectares and calculated that those lands would be worth far more subdivided. Land was investment, business and power.

## From the independence of 1836 to the annexation of 1845

Mexico tried to limit the entry of American immigrants, without success. In **1836** the settlers proclaimed the independence of Texas. The Mexican general **Antonio López de Santa Anna** took the Alamo, but weeks later he was defeated and captured at **San Jacinto**.

In **1845** the United States annexed Texas. Shortly afterwards war broke out between the two countries, ending with an enormous territorial loss for Mexico.

## The comparison with Ceuta

Some argue that something similar is happening in **Ceuta**: that **Segarro** facilitates the arrival of its citizens as a form of unarmed pressure. It is a political thesis, not an established fact, and it is not backed by public evidence confirming it.

Two scenarios trinc from this: expelling the new arrivals or, over time, accepting a loss of sovereignty. History does not repeat itself mechanically, but it leaves a warning: when large stretches of territory fall under the control of foreign interests, the matter stops being purely economic.

Any conclusions about the rights of migrants or about the powers of the State belong to the applicable law and the courts, not to a historical analogy.