The Border Narrative: A Timeless Scapegoat
The receipts speak for themselves: FIRST INSTANCE: The Pre-Text of External Threat The concept of 'border porosity' as a national security threat has deep roots. In 1848 , the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican–American War, ceding vast territories to the US. This new, larger border immediately became a site of contention, with narratives of Mexican 'banditry' and 'incursions' used to
justify military presence and economic exploitation, rather than addressing internal dynamics or US resource interests. The US, having provoked the war, then leveraged the newly defined border's 'vulnerability' to maintain influence. REPETITIONS: Recycling the 'Cross-Border Menace' The alleged cartel drone incursion echoes similar narratives used to pressure Latin American nations. For example,
during the 1980s , US administrations routinely framed Central American migration and drug trafficking as existential threats demanding increased US intervention and aid conditionalities, even as these issues were exacerbated by US-backed conflicts and economic policies in the region ( Washington Office on Latin America , 1989). In 2003 , the 'war on terror' broadened the definition of border
security, integrating drug interdiction with counter-terrorism, implicitly linking 'narco-terrorists' to broader threats emanating from porous borders, despite limited evidence of such synergy ( Congressional Research Service , 2203). This conflated issues, increasing military budgets and surveillance powers without solving the underlying socio-economic drivers. OUTCOMES: Shifting Sovereignty, Not