Beyond the Wall: Rethinking the Purpose and Design of the U.S.-Mexico Border
The border between Mexico and the United States is a stark dividing line; a visual and ideological representation of two politically, linguistically, culturally, and economically distinct nations. In the wake of heightened post-9/11 national security concerns, the border has become increasingly militarized, serving as a strictly managed checkpoint to police flows of goods and people. Though this regulation is now standard practice, the border serves many purposes beyond just security. It functions as a key channel of international trade and a symbol of both division and unity, a place where people from both nations are separated and brought together. Many scholars and activists are drawing attention to these complexities, advocating for a reimagining of the space.
Ending the Mexican-American war in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo stipulated that Mexico would cede Texas and over half of its northern land holdings to the U.S., solidifying the international boundary as we know it today. The 20th century brought a surge of immigration to the United States, and the federal government began to concern itself more with monitoring and regulating the flow of people entering the country. As early as 1904, U.S. Immigration Service watchmen in Texas patrolled the border, targeting Chinese immigrants illegally entering through Mexico. In 1924, the Labor Appropriation Act established the U.S. Border Patrol, which rapidly expanded and initially dealt with issues of liquor and “alien” smuggling.
Over time, Border Patrol has become a key player in regulating migration and enforcing policy at the border. During the mid-1950s, the Eisenhower Administration announced Operation Wetback, a mass deportation program designed to return Mexican immigrants to Mexico. Facing a labor shortage, the Mexican government aided Border Patrol officials in a strategic, militaristic effort to remove hundreds of thousands of immigrants, only some of whom entered the U.S. legally. The border continued to serve as a site of tension into the 1960s and 70s, with President Nixon’s War on Drugs raising concerns about drugs illegally entering the country. Without consulting Mexico, the U.S. implemented an aggressive counternarcotics offensive at the border, employing thousands of agents in a search-and-seizure operation that impeded trade and upset relations.
First Lady Pat Nixon at Friendship Park, 1971.
Image credit: The Cultural Landscape Foundation
Despite the increase in military ideology and tactics, this era also witnessed significant strides toward making the border a more open and cooperative space. First Lady Pat Nixon celebrated the opening of Border Field State Park in 1971, proclaiming her hope that “there won’t be a fence too long here” and expressing the government’s desire to develop an international park. Since the establishment of the official border line in the 19th century, this site, known today as Friendship Park or El Parque de la Amistad, has served as a gathering site where people from both nations can visit with friends and loved ones.
However, this symbol of international unity has undergone drastic transformations in recent years. Since the attacks of September 11th, the DHS has erected a thick, fortified fence in addition to the preexisting barrier, keeping people from touching and exchanging items as they had been able to do before 2009. These heightening restrictions culminated in Customs and Border Protection’s decision to close down Friendship Park in January 2019, citing safety issues due to deteriorating barriers as their primary concern. CBP aims to “provide the public with access to the Park, when it is operationally safe to do so,” though their construction project to replace those barriers with a taller, reinforced wall has alarmed those who previously relied on the Park to connect with their families.
Dr. Lawrence Herzog, a lecturer in UCSD’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning works directly with challenges of cross-border development and design. In an interview with Prospect Journal, Herzog shared his experiences collaborating with a group of local designers in response to these challenges. He helped to present a proposal to Border Patrol and the DHS in response to their plans to construct a 30-foot high fence along the San Diego-Tijuana border and through Friendship Park. Citing the effectiveness of the park’s pre-existing security and surveillance measures, they argued that “in Friendship Park, [a 30-foot wall is] really not necessary because there’s been virtually no crime” and that “[the area is] very well controlled”. For Herzog, the gradual intensification of fencing and restrictive architecture at the border is reflective of a larger trend in which “the federal government no longer seems to be that concerned about creating a space for friendship”.
Indeed, the 21st century has seen an unprecedented increase in funding, rhetoric, and policies directed at creating a more “secure” border with Mexico. Implemented in 2005, the Secure Border Initiative was a multibillion-dollar program aimed at solving issues of unauthorized immigration and border security. The SBI focused on constructing vehicle barriers and hundreds of miles of additional fencing, as well as a “virtual fence” of cameras and surveillance technology, despite a lack of evidence that these programs improve security or prevent immigrants from crossing into the U.S. illegally. Border militarization actually creates even riskier conditions, as those who migrate are channeled into more remote regions and face increased rates of death at the hands of smugglers.
According to Herzog, “The wall is really a symbol. And that’s the problem— it’s a symbol that’s being exploited by political interest groups to try to pander to certain voters… unfortunately, the idea of being tough on crime is completely different from handling the much more complex problem of poverty and immigration.” Employing military tactics as a catch-all solution overlooks the complexity of the issues that both the United States and Mexico find themselves facing at their shared boundary. Heightened concerns over illegal border crossings and increasing cartel-related violence present a mutual challenge, with 88% of migrants citing violence in Mexico as their primary motive for migration in 2023. This space functions as an imagined front line for wars against drugs and illegal immigration, seemingly leaving behind the image of the border as a transnational frontier.
San Diego-Tijuana border crossing.
Image credit: Americas Society– Council of the Americas
However, the border need not continue serving such a restrictive, militaristic function. “If two countries are friendly with each other…” Herzog posits, “why not make the [border] crossing experience more positive?”. He sees the potential for the border to be a more welcoming place, one that strikes a balance between a necessary degree of security and functional, user-friendly design. “I use the airport metaphor,” he says, describing his vision of the border’s potential. “[W]hen you go to the airport… you go through a machine that makes sure you don’t have… anything that’s not allowed… Once you go through that, the rest of the airport is a pretty friendly place. There are restaurants, bookstores, places to shop, places to eat, places to relax… it’s a livable space.” Though the U.S. may be hesitant to challenge its long history of militarization, this alternative presents a unique opportunity for reimagining U.S.-Mexico relationships, creating a space to facilitate greater international cooperation.
The U.S.-Mexico border at the site of Friendship Park.
Image Credit: Build that Park!