previous
page
Return to title page
next section
The Border region - Socio-geopolitical distinctness
Most of the 150-year history of the 2,000-mile border between
the United States and Mexico has been peaceful and free of social
and political conflict (Montoya 2). Unlike many borders in the
world, the absence of military conflict and militarization has
been the norm. Now, a new war threatens this history of peaceful
cultural mingling and coexistence. In the "fight" of
the war on Drugs and migration the Fourth Amendment has become
a casualty.
The millions of people living along the border with Mexico represent a social and cultural fluidity of the border environment. In that area a distinct cultural melding takes place. This cultural melding was the intent of the two governments that created "sister-cities" along the border. Cities like Nogales, Sonora, Mexico and Nogales, Arizona, USA line the entire (land and river) border. These fifteen or so cities along the border had the explicit intent to create a population that would share the best of both cultures. The expectation of the governments was for a fairly free movement of people, culture, language, goods and capital. (Montoya 3).
Normally the border is defined by the those cities and contain about seven million people. (Borders and Identity). Some call the area a "zone of influence" perhaps sixty miles wide on either side. With that claim the population base is doubled. While others would take border region of influence farther and include Tucson, Arizona. (Weisman 23)
Regardless of the definition of where the border begins and ends, the peaceful coexistence which has historically defined the border region has been changing; the twelve-foot wall built in many of the cities along the border with Mexico was one recent attempt to impose control over movement. Jack McGarvey, a writer for the Nogales International (a border city's newspaper) and the Arizona Daily Star, described the border wall ·
The Nogales Wall looks like indignant eyebrows on the Mexican border hills that rise above downtown Nogales, Arizona. I loathe the Nogales Wall. To me, it is a symbol that differs little from the Berlin Wall. That's because it demeans the good qualities of people who live on either side, just as the Berlin Wall did. (Arizona Daily Star 1/2/99)
The border wall now stretches for miles through most of the border
cites and has created numerous tunnels under the wall. The barrier
has moved the flow of drugs and people underground or around the
wall; it all still comes through in increasing numbers.
"Sealing the Borders," a 1988 RAND corporation study, (Miranda 7), found that interdiction does not lessen the availability of drugs. In order to work, interdiction would have to demonstrably limit the quantity, raise the costs of drugs, and/or make drug availability unpredictable.
The wall and the use of check points are the two of the methods of Border Patrol interdiction. On a daily basis persons with business pass through the checkpoints. While the drugs and immigrants go around or fool their way through the checkpoint.
The case of 23-year-old Victor Cornejo is an example of the border's
effect on the residents in the area. Cornejo is one of 1,300 Mexican
students who cross the border daily to attend the University of
Texas at El Paso. Cornejo's experience is typical for those living
on either side of the border.
His drive along the Rio Grande and over the Bridge of the Americas into Texas - normally a 10-minute trip - can take an hour or more, depending on traffic and the U.S. Border Patrol agents. Sometimes Cornejo is waved through the checkpoint after a cursory glance at his documents. On other days, agents with drug-sniffing dogs search his car for contraband. Cornejo has simply learned to allow plenty of time at the border, so as not to be late for class. (AZ Star 12/27/98)
On signs at the checkpoints, the Border Patrol each week announces
the score. The sign proudly declares the total number of illegals
captured and dollar value of drugs seized. "Fighting the
war on drugs and illegal immigration, announces the prominently
posted sign. The passengers in every vehicle must come to a stop
for a visual once-over by the armed border police. Some see that
score change daily on their way to work or home.
The irony is that in both the labor and drug markets, the demand shows no trend of changing. The U.S. Congress, supported by nearly all politicians and the courts, continues the prohibition against free immigration and the drug trade. In this prohibition lies the heart of the problem. In the attempt to control the borders against drugs and immigration, the Fourth Amendment is sacrificed. Ultimately the battle is lost because the border is so porous, the demand so great, and the history of cultural infusion from both sides is so deep.
As author Robert D. Kaplan points out in his article "Mexico and the Southwest -- Travels into American's Future,"in the July, 1998 issue of Atlantic Monthly, the true irony of this historically fluid border is that:
The factors that have kept Mexico at bay - drug profits and the wages of illegal aliens- stem from the very activities that Washington claims it wants to stop. Without the drug trade and illegal migration the United States would face what it has always feared: a real revolution in Mexico and true chaos at the border. To deprive Mexico of its largest sources of income (drug profits and money sent home form the U.S.) would hasten the collapse of its already weak central authority. Indeed, by supporting the Mexican economy, American's appetite for marijuana and cocaine protects a further flood of immigrants from a contiguous, troubled, and ever more populous country. (52-53) http://www.the Atlantic.com/issues/98jul/future.htm
It is possible, Kapland hints, that these prohibitions are the
true strategy of the U.S. government to keep Mexico from collapsing
into tyranny. Kaplan writes, "Now, as Mexico's population
climbs past 100 million, imagine the level of militarization and
domination from Washington that would be required to control a
comparable flood of refugees, were Mexico's central government
to devolve into a weak tributary state."(68)
The people living at or near the border experience the daily threat of personal intrusion from the government. Personal appearance, ancestry and the type of car one drives are the openings used to justify secondary searches and roving patrol stops. Many are accustomed to being stopped, detained and questioned by the Border Patrol on a regular basis. For all people traveling north from the border, the routine of a stop and question at the checkpoint signifies a deeper problem. The lower standard of reasonable suspicion that justifies stops at the border gives the authorities an easier means of intrusion into the citizen's free movement away from the border.