The Curious Case of Perpetual Border Violence
THE ACTORS: Who Benefits from this Narrative? The New York Times: Curiously, the "paper of record" positions itself as an objective observer, bravely pointing out flaws in an institution. Yet, by framing this as a 'history of aggressive tactics' rather than a direct consequence of escalating militarization, it maintains plausible deniability for the political establishment it often serves. They
get to appear concerned without actually challenging the underlying framework. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) / Border Patrol: They benefit from the narrative of isolated 'bad apples' or 'tactical errors' rather than systemic issues. It allows them to announce 'internal reviews' and 'training reforms' (a classic) without fundamentally altering their mandate or the aggressive ethos
ingrained in the force. Political Establishment (Republicans and Democrats): Both parties have consistently favored a strong, militarized border. Republicans play to their base with 'border security' rhetoric, while Democrats, despite occasional lip service to 'humane' policies, have largely overseen continuous or increased funding for border enforcement. This NYT framing allows them to lament a
'problem' without questioning the very policies they enacted or supported. THE FUNDING: Keeping the Boats Afloat The DHS (including CBP) budget consistently dwarfs spending on social programs. For fiscal year 2023, CBP requested a staggering $17.8 billion , a portion of which directly funds equipment, personnel, and a culture of aggressive enforcement. This is a substantial increase from just $6.9