US Mexico Border

June
22, 2000 “?Corranle, all? viene la migra!”, translated into English, this
means “Run, there comes immigration!” This is what illegal immigrants shout
everyday when they are about to cross the Rio Grande in search for better lives.

Unfortunately, not many get through alive because of the militarization that has
developed on the U.S. border with Mexico. Operation Rio Grande continues a
process put in motion over a century ago by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. It
tries to erase the reality of a social geographical order that defies neat
national divisions and impose a narrow notion of citizenship on people on both
sides of the international boundary. In the process, the U.S., like all
countries to varying degrees, elevates national citizenship to a position of
primacy and lessens the inherent humanity of those on the wrong side of the
social and territorial boundaries. Operation Rio Grande, launched in August
1997, in Brownsville, Texas, was a special multi-year operation designed to gain
and maintain control of specific border areas through a combination of new
technology and additional staffing. At the start of the operation, 69 Border
Patrol agents were detailed to Brownsville to intensify existing enforcement
effort. In September of that same year, the Border Patrol deployed special
response teams to those ports-of-entry where increased numbers of fraudulent
entry was expected. In the Fiscal Year of 1998, 260 new Border Patrol agents
were added to the McAllen Sector and 205 to the Laredo Sector. An important
feature of Operation Rio Grande has been the integration of a broad range of INS
enforcement operations. Studies show that the crime rate in Brownsville alone
dropped by more than 20% in 1998. (U.S. INS) The origins of the U.S. Mexico
boundary are to be found in the imperial competition between Spain, France, and
Britain for possessions in North America. Lack of agreement between the three
imperial powers over the location of the boundaries separating their territories
in North America led to disagreement between Mexico and an expansionist U.S.

After Mexico gained its independence in 1821, many U.S. leaders argued for
taking part or all of Mexico’s territory. Numerous prominent U.S. politicians,
driven by the ideology of Manifest Destiny, considered taking Mexico “a divine
right.” (Acuna, 1988) As tensions mounted between the U.S. and Mexico over
Texas, the U.S. deliberately provoked Mexico by sending troops into territory
claimed by Mexico in early 1846. Battles between U.S. and Mexican troops ensued,
quickly resulting in full-scale war. The war raged on for two years, largely in
favor of the U.S., and ended with the U.S. taking over Mexico City. On February
2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed, and Mexico was forced to
cede half of its territory to the U.S. Under the treaty’s terms, the U.S.

annexed a territory equivalent in size to that of Western Europe, and absorbed
100,000 Mexican citizens and 200,000 Native Americans living in the territory.

(Herzog, 1990) The decades following the imposition of the new U.S. ? Mexico
boundary saw widespread violence as U.S. authorities and non-State actors
established their dominance. The Mexican Revolution and the accompanying
socio-political turmoil between 1910, and 1920, caused great concern for U.S.

authorities. Tension along the boundary with Mexico quickly subsided thereafter.

(Griswold, 1990) Pacification did not mean control by the U.S. Migration between
the U.S. and Mexico long preceded the imposition of the modern day boundary.

Mexican migration to the U.S. was not really significant in scale or in
geographical extent until the 20th Century. In 1942, the Bracero (Bra-zeh-roh)
Program was implemented. It was a contract labor program in response to labor
shortages brought about by the U.S. entry into World War II. (The Bracero
Program, 1996) Furthermore, the INS practice of legalizing unauthorized migrants
and turning them into braceros, or ?drying out the wetbacks,’ increased
unauthorized immigration from Mexico as the news spread that the easiest manner
to obtain a bracero contract was to enter the U.S. illegally. When the U.S.

Congress officially ended the program in 1964, the previously legal migratory
flow simply went underground. As the 1970’s approached, calls to enhance
enforcement along the U.S. and Mexico boundary increased significantly. (The
Bracero Program, 1996) From U.S. perspective, the modern U.S. ? Mexico border
has always represented a line of control; one that contains the national body
politic and that regulates the flow of goods and people from without. Needless
to say, there has long been a huge gap between this territorial-state-centric
ideal and the reality of a transnational world. That said, the U.S. has long
made efforts, albeit inconsistent ones, to