The massive influx of Mexican migrants into the United States over the
past two decades has ignited fiery debate regarding immigration reform and
citizenship.
Here Miguel Levario, author of
Militarizing the Border: When Mexicans Became the Enemy (Texas A&M
University Press, 2013), explains the historical precedent for the lens through
which American policymakers view immigration – rooted in the outbreak of the
Mexican Revolution more than a century ago.
TAMU Press:
In your book you posit that current tensions
and controversy over immigration and law enforcement issues on the
US-Mexico border are historically rooted. Can you tell us more
about that?
Miguel Levario:
If we
look back to the early decades of the twentieth century we can see that the
concerns and issues plaguing the two countries are very similar to what we are
seeing today. The outbreak of the
Mexican Revolution in 1910 ignited a series of concerns for the United States
that I argue serve as parallel examples to some of the issues today.
First,
the movement of over a million refugees and migrants into the United States
filled labor pools, overwhelmed local resources, and dramatically altered the
social demographics along the U.S. side of the border.
Secondly,
the invasion by Francisco Villa of Columbus, New Mexico threatened national
security, and xenophobic nativists were concerned of ethnic Mexicans residing in
the United States that resulted in ethnic tensions and rioting, especially in major
cities like El Paso, Texas. Today, we cannot ignore the subsequent stereotyping
and racial profiling of people of Middle Eastern decent and Muslims in the
aftermath of 9/11.
Lastly,
the smuggling of illicit alcohol and the consequential violence that often
occurred during Prohibition reminds us of the dangers of today’s so-called “War
on Drugs” and its violent context.
In other
words, a historical precedent exists when dealing with today’s “hot topics” of
national security, mass migration, and smuggling. Our approach to today’s border concerns
should consider the shortcomings of interventionist and militarized methods, as
well as, the subsequent criminalization of a community of people regardless of
their innocence or guilt but simply marked by their ethnicity or religious
faith. For example, the failure of Prohibition curbing alcohol use and the
Punitive Expedition’s inability to capture Francisco Villa serve as stark
examples of how perhaps we should and should not approach today’s “War on Drugs”
and border security.
TAMUP: In a recent interview with Texas Tribune, Shannon
K. O'Neil, a senior fellow for Latin American Studies with the Council on
Foreign Relations, said the U.S.-Mexico relationship has changed dramatically
from even 30 years ago. Do you agree? Why or why not?
ML: Naturally, things have changed in Mexico in the
past 30 years with increased access to technology for many, a growing economy,
and stable economic and diplomatic relations with the United States. However, I wouldn’t say its relationship has
changed dramatically.
NAFTA continues to shortchange Mexican farmers
and is a major factor in contributing to out-migration. Mexico’s manufacturing sector, which served
as a major economic stimulant for much of the border cities, is disappearing.
Lastly, the binational anti-organized crime
program known as the “Mérida Initiative”
fails to curb much of the drug violence plaguing Mexico today and is considered
by some to be a dismal failure. It is my
contention that relations between the two countries have changed superficially
but true and equal bilateralism remains largely absent.
TAMUP: Can you tell us about "Mexicanization" in El Paso and the
racial tensions to which it contributed?
ML: "Mexicanization" references the
demographic shifts that occurred in the mid 1910s along the border, especially
in El Paso. Thousands of Mexican refugees were migrating to the
U.S.-Mexico border for safety, work, and general well-being.
The influx of refugees changed the demographic
landscape of El Paso and prompted federal authorities to quantify this influx. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson called
for a special census to quantify the number of ethnic Mexicans living in El
Paso. This was the first time ethnic Mexicans were separated as a different
race in the Census.
Prior to the 1930 Census (with the exception of
1916), ethnic Mexicans were categorized as "white." The
substantial increase in the ethnic Mexican population in El Paso triggered fear
and xenophobia from many of the Anglos living in the city. Many believed that
ethnic Mexicans would take up arms and overrun the city and Fort Bliss if
Mexican revolutionary general Francisco Villa issued the command.
Local, state, and federal authorities in El Paso
felt that punitive measures such as unwarranted neighborhood sweeps for
firearms were needed to keep ethnic Mexicans "in check" and the Anglo
population safe from suspected subversive activity.
TAMUP: What lessons might current policy makers take from your historical
perspective on US-Mexico relations?
ML: I think there are many lessons to take away from
the events of the early twentieth century because all of the same issues such
as national security, mass migration, smuggling of illicit goods, and political
subversiveness were present then as they are now.
Intense militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border
by the U.S. Army and Texas Rangers greatly antagonized ethnic Mexicans living
in the U.S. and led to racial tensions and violence. Much of this antagonism can be seen today in
places like Arizona and along the southern international boundary as ethnic
Mexicans are treated as second-class citizens or what immigration scholar Mae
Ngai calls “alien citizens” despite their innocence or length of citizenship in
the United States.
In addition, as policy makers wrestle with the
complexity and violence of the so-called “War on Drugs” we could look back to
Prohibition and its utter failure and perhaps pursue more unorthodox approaches
like legalizing marijuana, which continues to be the main cash crop for drug
cartels.
Lastly, militarization of the United States’
southern boundary in the early decades of the twentieth century proved that complete
border security was difficult if not impossible despite the massive presence of
soldiers along the border. Instead their massive presence resulted largely in
antagonizing a community of people in the United States who despite their
innocence in a large majority of cases were seen as criminals, outsiders, and
second-class citizens.
In my research of the past 100 years, the United
States’ policy towards border security and migration has changed little if at
all, thus yielding the same results over and over again. Why? In part, the United States federal
government and its people fail to acknowledge the complexity and
interdependence of the two countries.
Immigration and border security are NOT one in
the same but separate issues. Joining
the two issues with a proposed singular solution exposes its inherent
contradiction: immigration translates to open borders, and border security
suggests closed borders.
The vast majority of immigrants migrating to the
United States want to improve the country not destroy it. Those that wish to do the United States harm
do not want to stay or be an active part of its future.
Therefore, the historical evidence suggests that the
United States’ treatment of immigrants as a national security threat is
misguided and contrary to our historical roots since the United States was
founded and developed by immigrants.
In
the 1930s and 40s, Tarpon fishermen used little Farley boats, only 22-26 feet
long, and built out of mahogany or cypress. These boats contained inboard
motors and high fluted bows designed to surge through the choppy waves.
Businesses named themselves after the Tarpons, billboards were decorated with
the fish, and the tarpons were proudly displayed in restaurants or bait shops. 
