The Gulf of America? Mexico as the Next Puerto Rico? A Bold Hypothesis

Although plausible deniability is how I get through watching my FSU Seminoles plunge for another season, it won't help me ignore the relationship between the US and cheap labor. So whenever I see a bureaucratic outrage towards a less developed country one has to wonder if it is the typical, grab the fish and take it up the tree to keep it from drowning speech all over again.

There are plenty of countries to choose from: Venezuela, Mexico, DRC and many more but today we will focus our attention on Mexico and how it can succumb to the same fate as many “Geopolitical Strategic partners”.

What if Mexico were to become a U.S. territory, not a U.S. state, but a territory under U.S. jurisdiction, much as Puerto Rico has been since 1898? I’m not arguing this will happen, but exploring what it could mean: for labour, borders, trade, manufacturing, and geopolitics.

Let’s unpack the idea, starting with the historical lens of Puerto Rico.

Although plausible deniability is how I get through watching my FSU Seminoles plunge for another season, it won't help me ignore the relationship between the US and cheap labor. So whenever I see a bureaucratic outrage towards a less developed country one has to wonder if it is the typical, grab the fish and take it up the tree to keep it from drowning speech all over again.

There are plenty of countries to choose from: Venezuela, Mexico, DRC and many more but today we will focus our attention on Mexico and how it can succumb to the same fate as many “Geopolitical Strategic partners”.

What if Mexico were to become a U.S. territory, not a U.S. state, but a territory under U.S. jurisdiction, much as Puerto Rico has been since 1898? I’m not arguing this will happen, but exploring what it could mean: for labour, borders, trade, manufacturing, and geopolitics.

Let’s unpack the idea, starting with the historical lens of Puerto Rico.

The Puerto Rico precedent: sugar, territory & U.S. trade

After the Spanish–American War, Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States and became a U.S. territory. One important economic thread: sugar production.

Puerto Rico had sugar plantations and cane cultivation under Spain; after U.S. control, sugar producers in Puerto Rico gained access to the U.S. tariff-free market. (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)
For example: “Beginning in the early 1900s, Puerto Rican sugar has entered the U.S. mainland tariff free. Given this new status, the Puerto Rican sugar industry grew dramatically…” (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)
The economic effect: The U.S. effectively gained preferential access to tropical sugar-production via a territory.
That means that territory status created an economic arrangement in which U.S. firms and U.S. consumers could benefit from lower-cost production outside the continental states but within U.S. jurisdiction/trade zone.

In short: territory + favorable trade/tariff access = U.S. economic advantage (in that case sugar) via lower-cost agricultural production.

The Puerto Rico precedent: sugar, territory & U.S. trade

After the Spanish–American War, Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States and became a U.S. territory. One important economic thread: sugar production.

Puerto Rico had sugar plantations and cane cultivation under Spain; after U.S. control, sugar producers in Puerto Rico gained access to the U.S. tariff-free market. (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)
For example: “Beginning in the early 1900s, Puerto Rican sugar has entered the U.S. mainland tariff free. Given this new status, the Puerto Rican sugar industry grew dramatically…” (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)
The economic effect: The U.S. effectively gained preferential access to tropical sugar-production via a territory.
That means that territory status created an economic arrangement in which U.S. firms and U.S. consumers could benefit from lower-cost production outside the continental states but within U.S. jurisdiction/trade zone.

In short: territory + favorable trade/tariff access = U.S. economic advantage (in that case sugar) via lower-cost agricultural production.

The Mexico-territory scenario: What might it solve (in theory)

If Mexico were to become a U.S. territory (again: hypothetical), here are some of the claimed benefits, arranged by theme.

Border & citizenship

Residents of Mexico would become U.S. citizens or at least under U.S. territorial jurisdiction. That reframes the “border crisis” migration from Mexico into the U.S. becomes internal movement within U.S. territory rather than a foreign-entry problem.

The U.S. would shift from managing a long, porous international border to governing a unified territory.

Labour & cost structure

U.S. firms seeking lower-cost labour would have access to a large workforce under U.S. jurisdiction, but potentially with lower cost of living and regulatory arbitrage.

The argument goes: we already rely on cheap labour from Mexico (via manufacturing, agriculture, guest-worker programs); if Mexico were a territory, that dynamic could be more formalized and integrated.

Given the large Mexican population and proximity to the U.S., logistic and supply-chain costs could fall.

Trade, sanctions & supply-chain control

Currently, as a sovereign state, Mexico has its own trade regime; foreign actors (e.g., China or Russia) might try to route goods via Mexico to avoid U.S. tariffs or sanctions. If Mexico were a U.S. territory, U.S. customs/trade policy would apply directly, closing off such routes.

Manufacturing and assembly (e.g., via the maquiladora zones) could be brought under U.S. territorial control, reducing dependence on distant overseas manufacturing (China, etc). This could be seen as a reversal of globalization: instead of outsourcing to foreign countries, bring production into the U.S.-controlled territory on the continent.

Drug trafficking & sovereignty

One of the more contentious claims: because Mexico would be under U.S. territorial law, the U.S. could exercise direct oversight over law-enforcement, customs, border control, and supply chains. This would (in theory) reduce opportunities for illicit trafficking across an international border (because it would be internal).

Cartel-state interactions, corruption, and transit zones might be diminished if Mexico’s institutions were subsumed into U.S. territorial governance.

Façade of the cheap-labour / manufacturing argument & historical parallel

The U.S. already benefits from the H‑2A visa (agricultural guest workers) and similar programs. But these programs have been criticized for exploitation. For example: “Based on in-depth interviews … it documents discrimination, sexual harassment, wage theft, and health and safety violations by their employers.” (CD Migrante)

Thus, the assertion: “cheap labour we have fallen in love with from the Mexican people” links to an existing reality of low-cost labour flows into the U.S.

The argument also draws on the history of the maquiladora program in Mexico (assembly plants mostly for export to the U.S.), which could be seen as a precursor to China-type global manufacturing outsourcing. If Mexico were a territory, that manufacturing advantage would shift from a foreign sovereign to U.S. domestic territory.

The sugar analog: Territory status -> lower-cost production

Using the sugar case: in Puerto Rico, after becoming U.S. territory, sugar production grew rapidly because sugar could enter the U.S. from the territory tariff-free. (American Economic Association)

The analogy: Mexico becoming U.S. territory could allow U.S. firms to tap Mexican production (agricultural, manufacturing, etc) under favorable access to U.S. markets, thus lowering cost of production for the U.S. economy.

One might say: just as Puerto Rico’s being a territory was leveraged for sugar, Mexico as a territory could be leveraged for labour/manufacturing/trade.

The Mexico-territory scenario: What might it solve (in theory)

If Mexico were to become a U.S. territory (again: hypothetical), here are some of the claimed benefits, arranged by theme.

Border & citizenship

Residents of Mexico would become U.S. citizens or at least under U.S. territorial jurisdiction. That reframes the “border crisis” migration from Mexico into the U.S. becomes internal movement within U.S. territory rather than a foreign-entry problem.

The U.S. would shift from managing a long, porous international border to governing a unified territory.

Labour & cost structure

U.S. firms seeking lower-cost labour would have access to a large workforce under U.S. jurisdiction, but potentially with lower cost of living and regulatory arbitrage.

The argument goes: we already rely on cheap labour from Mexico (via manufacturing, agriculture, guest-worker programs); if Mexico were a territory, that dynamic could be more formalized and integrated.

Given the large Mexican population and proximity to the U.S., logistic and supply-chain costs could fall.

Trade, sanctions & supply-chain control

Currently, as a sovereign state, Mexico has its own trade regime; foreign actors (e.g., China or Russia) might try to route goods via Mexico to avoid U.S. tariffs or sanctions. If Mexico were a U.S. territory, U.S. customs/trade policy would apply directly, closing off such routes.

Manufacturing and assembly (e.g., via the maquiladora zones) could be brought under U.S. territorial control, reducing dependence on distant overseas manufacturing (China, etc). This could be seen as a reversal of globalization: instead of outsourcing to foreign countries, bring production into the U.S.-controlled territory on the continent.

Drug trafficking & sovereignty

One of the more contentious claims: because Mexico would be under U.S. territorial law, the U.S. could exercise direct oversight over law-enforcement, customs, border control, and supply chains. This would (in theory) reduce opportunities for illicit trafficking across an international border (because it would be internal).

Cartel-state interactions, corruption, and transit zones might be diminished if Mexico’s institutions were subsumed into U.S. territorial governance.

Façade of the cheap-labour / manufacturing argument & historical parallel

The U.S. already benefits from the H‑2A visa (agricultural guest workers) and similar programs. But these programs have been criticized for exploitation. For example: “Based on in-depth interviews … it documents discrimination, sexual harassment, wage theft, and health and safety violations by their employers.” (CD Migrante)

Thus, the assertion: “cheap labour we have fallen in love with from the Mexican people” links to an existing reality of low-cost labour flows into the U.S.

The argument also draws on the history of the maquiladora program in Mexico (assembly plants mostly for export to the U.S.), which could be seen as a precursor to China-type global manufacturing outsourcing. If Mexico were a territory, that manufacturing advantage would shift from a foreign sovereign to U.S. domestic territory.

The sugar analog: Territory status -> lower-cost production

Using the sugar case: in Puerto Rico, after becoming U.S. territory, sugar production grew rapidly because sugar could enter the U.S. from the territory tariff-free. (American Economic Association)

The analogy: Mexico becoming U.S. territory could allow U.S. firms to tap Mexican production (agricultural, manufacturing, etc) under favorable access to U.S. markets, thus lowering cost of production for the U.S. economy.

One might say: just as Puerto Rico’s being a territory was leveraged for sugar, Mexico as a territory could be leveraged for labour/manufacturing/trade.

Major caveats, contradictions & moral/ethical issues

No serious essay would gloss over the dark side. Here are the crucial counter-points.

Sovereignty, identity & consent

Mexico is a large, independent sovereign nation (~130 million people). The idea of turning it into a U.S. territory raises seismic issues of national identity, self-determination, democratic representation.
Historically territory status can leave residents without full political rights (representation in Congress, etc) which leads to democratic deficits. The Puerto Rico example shows limitations of territory status.

Unequal benefits and exploitation risk

Cheap labour = risk of exploitation. The current guest-worker frameworks (H-2A/H-2B) are rife with documented abuse. (Economic Policy Institute)
If Mexico were a territory and the labour laws or cost of living were kept artificially low (to give firms advantage), this would raise huge ethical and political issues: are we essentially formalizing labour arbitrage and race-to-the-bottom?
The Puerto Rico sugar boom benefitted U.S. firms, but local Puerto Ricans did not necessarily reap equivalent benefits; the economy later fell into trouble. (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)

Globalization is more complex

The manufacturing & trade logic assumes that bringing production into a U.S. territory automatically resolves outsourcing issues. But modern manufacturing also depends on automation, skills, supply chains, logistics, raw material access, not just cheap labour or trade access.
In addition, foreign firms might continue to seek cheaper jurisdictions elsewhere; simply shifting to Mexico territory doesn’t magically make all manufacturing U.S.-based.

Illicit trade & drug trafficking: oversight ≠ guarantee

Converting an international border into an internal boundary might help reduce certain illicit flows, but it does not automatically dismantle entrenched networks, corruption, cartel power, or demand.
Moreover, U.S. territorial governance over such a large and complex country would itself be a massive challenge.

Historical precedent shows mixed outcomes

Puerto Rico’s sugar industry eventually collapsed (by mid-20th century) even though it had early growth under territory status. (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)
The territory status did not guarantee prosperity, full rights, or equal integration. Puerto Rico still faces economic struggles and limited political representation.

A policy sketch of how this could happen

If one were to write a policy roadmap (hypothetically), here are the steps that would need to be addressed:

Legal/constitutional mechanism: U.S. Congress would need to pass legislation; Mexico and its people would need to consent (treaty, referendum).
Citizenship and rights: define whether Mexican residents automatically become U.S. citizens, or U.S. nationals, and what their political representation would be (territorial delegate, state path).
Labour and regulation regime: Decide whether U.S. federal labour laws fully apply in the territory, or if differentiated regional regulations exist. Mitigate risk of labour exploitation.
Trade and customs integration: Formalize Mexico into the U.S. customs/trade zone; align tariffs, import/export rules, define how manufacturing under territory status competes globally.
Manufacturing & economy strategy: Create incentives for U.S. firms to invest in the territory, ensure skills/training for local workforce, mitigate automation displacement, protect local industries.
Security, law-enforcement and border dynamics: Convert current border enforcement structures into internal U.S. territorial security mechanisms; coordinate with existing Mexican institutions.
Social & environmental safeguards: Ensure protections for the local population, environment, and that benefits aren’t just captured by U.S. firms.
Geopolitical consequences: Consider how Latin American neighbors, China, Russia, and international law will respond. Manage diplomacy, trade treaties, and regional stability.

Conclusion: Vision, caution & the path ahead

Imagining Mexico as a U.S. territory is a dramatic vision, a radical reshaping of North American geography, economy and politics. On the one hand, it evokes a future where the U.S. internalizes its nearest major neighbor: labour, manufacture, trade, security become intra-territorial rather than cross-border. On the other hand, the moral, social, political and economic risk is vast: exploitation, democratic deficit, identity erasure, and geopolitical backlash.

The Puerto Rico example gives both inspiration and warning. It shows how territory status can facilitate economic advantage (sugar for U.S. markets), but also how local populations can end up with limited agency and how the boom can fade. Mexico is far larger and more complex than Puerto Rico, so the analogy only goes so far.

If the U.S. ever seriously entertained this path (unlikely in the short term, but perhaps as a thought experiment), the key questions would become: Who truly benefits? How are rights protected? What happens to local identity and democracy?Can the economic advantages be realized ethically, sustainably, and equitably?

But let’s cut to the chase. America has a history of doing such and with AGI near but not near enough we still need cheap labor to suppress already high prices at registers. And you my friend would be exercising plausible deniability if you don't see the recent political footprints as a set up for a take over. But you didn’t hear that from me.

Major caveats, contradictions & moral/ethical issues

No serious essay would gloss over the dark side. Here are the crucial counter-points.

Sovereignty, identity & consent

Mexico is a large, independent sovereign nation (~130 million people). The idea of turning it into a U.S. territory raises seismic issues of national identity, self-determination, democratic representation.
Historically territory status can leave residents without full political rights (representation in Congress, etc) which leads to democratic deficits. The Puerto Rico example shows limitations of territory status.

Unequal benefits and exploitation risk

Cheap labour = risk of exploitation. The current guest-worker frameworks (H-2A/H-2B) are rife with documented abuse. (Economic Policy Institute)
If Mexico were a territory and the labour laws or cost of living were kept artificially low (to give firms advantage), this would raise huge ethical and political issues: are we essentially formalizing labour arbitrage and race-to-the-bottom?
The Puerto Rico sugar boom benefitted U.S. firms, but local Puerto Ricans did not necessarily reap equivalent benefits; the economy later fell into trouble. (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)

Globalization is more complex

The manufacturing & trade logic assumes that bringing production into a U.S. territory automatically resolves outsourcing issues. But modern manufacturing also depends on automation, skills, supply chains, logistics, raw material access, not just cheap labour or trade access.
In addition, foreign firms might continue to seek cheaper jurisdictions elsewhere; simply shifting to Mexico territory doesn’t magically make all manufacturing U.S.-based.

Illicit trade & drug trafficking: oversight ≠ guarantee

Converting an international border into an internal boundary might help reduce certain illicit flows, but it does not automatically dismantle entrenched networks, corruption, cartel power, or demand.
Moreover, U.S. territorial governance over such a large and complex country would itself be a massive challenge.

Historical precedent shows mixed outcomes

Puerto Rico’s sugar industry eventually collapsed (by mid-20th century) even though it had early growth under territory status. (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)
The territory status did not guarantee prosperity, full rights, or equal integration. Puerto Rico still faces economic struggles and limited political representation.

A policy sketch of how this could happen

If one were to write a policy roadmap (hypothetically), here are the steps that would need to be addressed:

Legal/constitutional mechanism: U.S. Congress would need to pass legislation; Mexico and its people would need to consent (treaty, referendum).
Citizenship and rights: define whether Mexican residents automatically become U.S. citizens, or U.S. nationals, and what their political representation would be (territorial delegate, state path).
Labour and regulation regime: Decide whether U.S. federal labour laws fully apply in the territory, or if differentiated regional regulations exist. Mitigate risk of labour exploitation.
Trade and customs integration: Formalize Mexico into the U.S. customs/trade zone; align tariffs, import/export rules, define how manufacturing under territory status competes globally.
Manufacturing & economy strategy: Create incentives for U.S. firms to invest in the territory, ensure skills/training for local workforce, mitigate automation displacement, protect local industries.
Security, law-enforcement and border dynamics: Convert current border enforcement structures into internal U.S. territorial security mechanisms; coordinate with existing Mexican institutions.
Social & environmental safeguards: Ensure protections for the local population, environment, and that benefits aren’t just captured by U.S. firms.
Geopolitical consequences: Consider how Latin American neighbors, China, Russia, and international law will respond. Manage diplomacy, trade treaties, and regional stability.

Conclusion: Vision, caution & the path ahead

Imagining Mexico as a U.S. territory is a dramatic vision, a radical reshaping of North American geography, economy and politics. On the one hand, it evokes a future where the U.S. internalizes its nearest major neighbor: labour, manufacture, trade, security become intra-territorial rather than cross-border. On the other hand, the moral, social, political and economic risk is vast: exploitation, democratic deficit, identity erasure, and geopolitical backlash.

The Puerto Rico example gives both inspiration and warning. It shows how territory status can facilitate economic advantage (sugar for U.S. markets), but also how local populations can end up with limited agency and how the boom can fade. Mexico is far larger and more complex than Puerto Rico, so the analogy only goes so far.

If the U.S. ever seriously entertained this path (unlikely in the short term, but perhaps as a thought experiment), the key questions would become: Who truly benefits? How are rights protected? What happens to local identity and democracy?Can the economic advantages be realized ethically, sustainably, and equitably?

But let’s cut to the chase. America has a history of doing such and with AGI near but not near enough we still need cheap labor to suppress already high prices at registers. And you my friend would be exercising plausible deniability if you don't see the recent political footprints as a set up for a take over. But you didn’t hear that from me.

The Gulf of America? Mexico as the Next Puerto Rico? A Bold Hypothesis

The Gulf of America? Mexico as the Next Puerto Rico? A Bold Hypothesis

The Puerto Rico precedent: sugar, territory & U.S. trade

The Puerto Rico precedent: sugar, territory & U.S. trade

The Mexico-territory scenario: What might it solve (in theory)

Façade of the cheap-labour / manufacturing argument & historical parallel

The sugar analog: Territory status -> lower-cost production

The Mexico-territory scenario: What might it solve (in theory)

Façade of the cheap-labour / manufacturing argument & historical parallel

The sugar analog: Territory status -> lower-cost production

Major caveats, contradictions & moral/ethical issues

A policy sketch of how this could happen

Conclusion: Vision, caution & the path ahead

Major caveats, contradictions & moral/ethical issues

A policy sketch of how this could happen

Conclusion: Vision, caution & the path ahead

Subscribe to E-Motion

Subscribe to E-Motion