Castillo: Why the border wall fences us in

From atop a dusty bluff on the U.S. Mexico border in deep South Texas, the mighty Rio Grande commands the panoramic vista below. Its waters a muted hue of green, the river courses wildly in every direction, zig-zagging here, straightening out there for about a mile due south before making an impossible hairpin turn due north, then zig-zagging again. With its bedeviling twists and turns, the Rio Grande is God’s work or Nature’s work, or both.

This is the border.

The border fence, however, is far from the river’s edge in many places, up to a mile in some spots, leaving many Texans and their way of life caught in something of a no man’s land, as reporter Jeremy Schwartz noted in last Sunday’s American-Statesman.

In communities up and down the Rio Grande Valley, people’s homes, their farmlands, nature trails and wildlife sanctuaries, cemeteries and soccer fields are caught in the space between. Intended to keep people out, the fence instead cuts off sizable pieces of Texas from the people who live there. Even some homeowners have been cut off from their own land.

Then there’s the case of Greg Garcia. To get to his classes at Texas Southmost College in Brownsville, Garcia regularly passes through an opening in the 18-foot-high border fence. To get home, he drives south past the fence, where U.S. Border Patrol agents let him through.

Large numbers of people make similar everyday adjustments to get to school, jobs and their homes. It’s an alternative universe not like the way of life people along the border knew for generations before: a carefree existence that allowed children to frolic in the river’s cool waters on scorching summer days.

I grew up in the Valley and consider myself a son of the border. When I was a kid, crossing the border meant a Sunday afternoon outing with your parents, strolling the plaza, getting your shoes shined, stocking up on cookies and candies and enjoying a Mexican coke before it became hip.

Only about 10 percent of the border in Texas is currently fenced in, but President Trump has promised to build 1,250 miles of new border wall — most of it in Texas. A Department of Homeland Security report puts the price tag at a staggering $21.6 billion. If Trump fulfills his vow, it’s likely that much more of Texas will be caught in no man’s land because unlike many parts of other border states, in this state the Rio Grande hugs residents’ back yards and vast parcels of private land.

The madly winding shoreline made building a wall a maddening experience for federal officials a decade ago. They learned that fencing along the river’s banks would exacerbate flooding. And most riverfront land in Texas is in private hands, forcing the government to negotiate rights of way or claim eminent domain in the courts.

The prospect of extending the existing wall should lead Texans to ask if building more will expand the No Man’s Land beyond just South Texas.

A border wall is President Trump’s answer for solving illegal immigration. His campaign rhetoric stirred up fear, painting a portrait of a sievelike border overrun by criminals and rapists. Trump would have you believe that the estimated 11.1 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S. all sneaked across. He would have you think they’re all from Mexico, and that illegal immigration is growing.

A new study by the Center for Migration Studies, however, separates hot rhetoric from cold reality. The report found that fully two-thirds of immigrants who joined the undocumented population in 2014 did not sneak across, but instead entered the country legally with a valid visa and then overstayed.

No amount of border fencing will stop people from entering the U.S. legally.

And the current reality is that the number of Mexicans apprehended by the Border Patrol has plummeted from a peak of 1.6 million in 2000 to about 193,000 in 2016, a near-historic low. Pew also found that the number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. illegally has declined by more than 1 million since 2007. More recently, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly touted a 40 percent drop in the number of illegal border crossings through Mexico this year.

And then there’s this nugget from Pew: The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. has not changed since 2009.

Facts can be inconvenient — and I doubt politicians have those figures at their fingertips when they parachute in, donning body armor to ride speedboats down the Rio Grande, flanked by law enforcement officers brandishing high-powered rifles. Fleeting moments made for television campaign commercials.

The Texas border wall fences us in, corralling too a reality that’s as murky as the Rio Grande after a summer thundershower. For every Rio Grande Valley resident who has had it with illegal immigration — and there are many — you can find at least one other who says a border fence doesn’t make them feel any safer. Some fear an expanded wall will destroy communities, and that money for it would be better spent on motion sensors and technology.

As we all question whether an expanded wall will be efficient and useful, we should glean what we can from life in the shadow of the patchwork border fence in South Texas, and we should ask, “At what cost?”

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Facebook comments: March 23, 2018
Facebook comments: March 23, 2018

Austin-based Bumble is being sued by Match Group, Tinder’s parent company, which accuses it of patent infringement and stealing trade secrets, according to a report by 512tech reporter Lori Hawkins. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges that Bumble’s app is virtually identical to Tinder, which...
Opinion: Did Putin order the Salisbury hit?

Britain has yet to identify the assassin who tried to murder the double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England. But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knows who ordered the hit. “We think it overwhelmingly likely that it was (Russian President Vladimir Putin’s) decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the...
Opinion: The principle behind anti-Trump pragmatism

WASHINGTON — Former Rep. Barney Frank and the writer William F. Buckley Jr. could hardly have been more at odds in their political views. The Massachusetts Democrat remains a staunch liberal while Buckley was the intellectual founder of modern conservatism. But they had something important in common: Each wanted his side to win elections and...
Bomber is dead, but case not over with many questions that linger
Bomber is dead, but case not over with many questions that linger

Central Texans are exhaling a collective sigh of relief at the news that suspected serial bomber Mark A. Conditt is dead. For much of March, the 23-year-old Pflugerville resident held the city captive as it held its breath awaiting the next explosion. In all, five bombs detonated, not counting the one he turned on himself early Wednesday morning. Add...
Young: This week on: ‘(U.S.) House Makeover’
Young: This week on: ‘(U.S.) House Makeover’

The Republican Party just spent $10 million on one congressional election in Pennsylvania and reaped nothing but agony. What it spent amounted to $100 per vote cast for the loser (Donald Trump). You might claim that the loser in Pennsylvania’s congressional District 18 was Rick Saccone, who lost to Democrat Conor Lamb. That’s true technically...
More Stories