IMPERIAL DIVIDES: RACE, NATION, SECURITY AND THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER, 1940-1955 BY ANDREW EISEN DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2015 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Kristin Hoganson, Chair Professor Adrian Burgos Associate Professor Gilberto Rosas Professor David Roediger, University of Kansas ii Abstract Imperial Divides explores the history of border policing between the United States and Mexico from the 1940s to the 1950s. I examine the links between international security and the early efforts to militarize the U.S.-Mexico border, focusing on the cultural production of a boundary cast in perpetual crisis. This project traces the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border as a global security threat and examines how it was enforced in both countries. It studies the relationship between warfare, migration, and boundary enforcement, arguing that the deep anxieties concerning the United States’ inability to exercise complete control over its southern boundary during World War II and the Cold War were crucial in transforming the U.S.-Mexico border into a national security imperative. I contend that public spectacles of border enforcement were crafted in large part in response to global warfare, beginning with Axis nationals in the years leading up to World War II, and then shifting to Mexican nationals during the Cold War. Just as significantly, this dissertation draws attention to the opposition of the early efforts to militarize the U.S.-Mexico border. For radical artists, intellectuals, and activists, the joint policing of the border, and the Mexican state’s close cooperation with the United States during the first decade of the Cold War signaled a troubling rightward shift in the nation. As the presidential administrations of Ávila Camacho (1940-46), Miguel Alemán Valdés (1946-52), and Adolfo Ruiz Cortines (1952-58) sought greater political, economic, and security ties with the United States, a creative flurry of radical opposition emerged, insisting that the sovereignty of the Mexican nation was being undermined by its imperial neighbor. iii Acknowledgements I am pleased to finally be able to publicly thank the many people who have generously helped me complete this project. I will begin by thanking the many librarians, archivists, and professional staff members whose labor made this work possible, hunting down obscure book titles, suggesting specific collections of documents, and processing paperwork that nearly always were submitted last minute. The History Department Office Manager, Shannon Croft, deserves special mention for her assistance. Thank you. For financial support of this project, I am indebted to the Latin American Studies Program at the University of Illinois, which awarded me two Tinker summer research fellowships that were instrumental in the early development of this project and three semesters of FLAS funding. The History Department at the University of Illinois also generously provided a full year of research funding. For welcoming me into their homes with such kindness, making research trips more affordable and far more enjoyable, my sincere thanks to the MacKinney family—Mariana, Erick, J. Erick Mackinney Valencia, and Irma Rosa Fuenlabrada Velázquez. For offering me a place to stay and introducing me to many of the key questions that inspired this work, I’ll forever be grateful to the Zogbi family, Dalila, Yahi, Luis, Jose, Francisco, and Carolina, as well as Luis Alberto Ruiz Borges. Although I had no way of knowing it, this project really began during my first history course as an undergraduate student at Lake Forest College. Thank you to Steve Rosswurm for iv introducing me to the study of history, for reading chapters and providing feedback long after I graduated, and for being a tremendous educator, mentor, and friend. To the many friends that I met in graduate school, who are among the finest scholars, educators, and activists that I have had the pleasure to know. In discussion, debate, and commiseration, I learned so much and my project was improved immeasurably by: Dave Bates, Jacob Baum, Janine Giordano, David Greenstein, Kwame Holmes, Kerry Pimblott, Emily Skidmore, Troy Smith, T.J. Tallie, Alonzo Ward, and Myra Washington. For random road trips to Cincinnati, late night foot races, and too much table tennis, my thanks to Ian Hartman and Nathan Chio. A special thanks is also in order to former roommates Besset Sabourin and Doug Eddy, who are largely at fault that this project was not completed earlier. And, for the friendships that helped sustain this work, I am grateful for knowing and to be able to call dear friends: Joe Arkin, Ryan Koczorowski, Chris Lynge, Becky Smith, and Seth Watts. For the good folks at the Education Justice Project who helped me better understand the power of higher education to change lives. I’ll always be grateful for learning from the brilliant work and kindness of Rebecca Ginsburg, director of EJP. And, for the Language Partners, who are among the most compassionate and talented educators I have ever met, thank you for welcoming me into your classroom: Ramón Cabrales, Joseph Mapp, Orlando Mayorga, Erick Nava, Élfego Núñez, Otilio Rosas, Andre Slater and Augie Torres. I continue to draw inspiration from your work and the model of education that you so painstakingly created. A thank you to my new friends at Stetson University who provided important moral support in the final stages of this project, especially Jelena Petrovic and Rajni Shankar-Brown. v And of course, none of this would have been possible without the help of committed scholars and educators at the University of Illinois. I owe a great debt to Mireya Loza, who was incredibly gracious with her time and energy, offering advice on perplexing archival evidence and key insights into the Bracero Program. Also, I was very fortunate to have the wisdom and guidance of my dissertation committee. Thank you, Adrian Burgos, Dave Roediger, and Gilberto Rosas for reading drafts, providing invaluable feedback, writing letters of recommendation, and always pushing me to improve my scholarship. Kristin Hoganson, my dissertation chair and advisor, endured many drafts and partially formed ideas, while always offering unmatched feedback, advice, and support. Finally, for debts that will never be repaid, I thank my family and especially my mother, father, and grandma for always stressing the importance of education. For always encouraging, believing, and supporting my work. I am tremendously grateful and profoundly fortunate. I only wish that my dad and grandma would still be with us to see this work completed. Despite my very real concerns, they never doubted that this day would come. For one of the newest members of my family, Smokestack, who has been a wonderful friend, companion, and running partner, despite being a poor conversationalist. And finally, for Pamela, for your insights into my project, for helping see the larger picture, and for the laughter and jokes, as bad as most of them were—thank you. vi Table of Contents INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1 CHAPTER 1 ENTANGLING BOUNDARIES: HEMISPHERIC DEFENSE AND WARTIME BORDER SECURITY, 1940-1945……………………………………...................21 CHAPTER 2 COMBATTING A “WETBACK INVASION” ALONG A COLD WAR DIVIDE…………………………………………………………………………………………..63 CHAPTER 3 DRAWN INTO THE COLD WAR: ANTI-IMPERIALISM AND BORDER ANXIETIES IN MEXICO…….………………………………………………………………..105 CHAPTER 4 “NOSOTROS SEMOS EL PAIS”: RACE, NATION, AND THE ANTI- IMPERIAL IMAGINATION…………………………………………………………………..153 EPILOGUE TOWARD A MILITARIZED BORDER…..……………………………………..197 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………200 Introduction On September 20, 1955, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, met with members of President Dwight Eisenhower’s cabinet to discuss the upcoming Geneva Summit, an important diplomatic initiative between the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. State Department officials were deeply skeptical about the prospects of forging meaningful agreements on the issues at the conference, which centered on nuclear disarmament, European security, and German unification.1 In discussing a list of items that had the potential to provoke controversy, Dulles pondered the repercussions of the United States openly criticizing the Soviet Union’s construction of watchtowers and deployment of guards along the border separating East and West Germany. Based on conversations with retired General Joseph Swing, acting director of the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), Dulles suspected that the Soviets would respond by highlighting the recent militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border. Dulles’ main concern was that “the Communists” had created a film about the increased police presence along the U.S.-Mexico divide, documenting the Border Patrol’s use of bloodhounds to track down Mexican migrants, the installation of sharp barbed wire fences to deter would-be crossers, and the increased presence of armed guards patrolling the international boundary. In all likelihood, Dulles conceded, the United States would have any criticisms it levied at the Soviet military presence along the East-German border “thrown back at us.”2 1 Both Dulles and Eisenhower doubted the wisdom of participating in the conference and would have avoided it altogether if not for pressure from Western European allies. Richard H. Immerman, “‘Trust