Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 9, 2019)
Saturday, February 9, 2019 VIEWPOINTS East Oregonian A5 Border security will always be elusive By ADAM M. SOWARDS High Country News W ith their armed guards and imposing structures, Ameri- can border crossings symbol- ize permanent frontiers. Boundaries are defi nitional places, lines that demarcate this side as different from that side. From a longer view, though, they look sur- prisingly transitory, governed by shift- ing policies and constantly modifi ed and breached. Today’s incessant nationalist rhetoric concerning the border wall imag- ines a permanently secured boundary, but actual historical borders and policies have proven impermanent over time, a fact that should dampen expectations. U.S. borders shifted regularly from American independence in 1783 through the fi rst half of the 19th century, as the young, grasping nation bought, con- quered and manipulated its way across much of the continent. The imperial- ist, racist ideology of Manifest Destiny fueled this constant border redrawing, a reminder that boundaries are neither nat- ural nor permanent. The 1854 Gadsden Purchase added southern Arizona and a sliver of New Mexico and established the continental borders of the United States. They have remained the same ever since, though a waterway between Washing- ton state and Vancouver Island remained in dispute until resolved in favor of the United States in 1872. Although the United States gained overseas acquisi- tions in the 1898 Spanish-American War, few Americans sought to extend conti- nental territory during the last quarter of the 19th century. Once the boundaries seemed stable, Congress moved to restrict immigration, a process that changed the very nature and meaning of those borders. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act sym- bolized this shift. The law was the fi rst to restrict immigration based on racial, or national, categories, in line with resur- gent segregation in the American South and reservation policies in the West. The exclusion act all but stopped emi- gration from China. It also made depor- tation a policy enforcement option and led to racialized policing, a practice that hung over all Chinese communities here and created a “shadow of exclusion” or a “shadowed existence” for Chinese in the United States, according to historian Erika Lee. By enacting this law, the U.S. govern- ment created illegal immigration and the resulting market for doctored papers and guides for illicit movement. Most illegal border crossings happened in the North- west, sometimes through the same waters that caused the dispute between Washing- ton and British Columbia, as members of Canada’s substantial Chinese immigrant population crossed over. By 1890, govern- ment agents estimated that 2,500 laborers a year were illegally moving from Canada into the United States. But surreptitious migration quickly grew along the south- U.S. Army/Wikipedia Commons American and Mexican soldiers guard International Street in Ambos Nogales during the Mexican-American War. The obelisk in the center is a border marker, which still stands. A Mexican border post is in the middle foreground of the image. The Americans had a similar one on their side. ern border as well, as historian Patrick Ettinger has shown, as migrants adapted to changing conditions. Chinese laborers in Mexico learned how to cross with false papers or sneak over the border and qui- etly blend in. The few U.S. offi cials man- aging the southern border called for more money, more people and more technology, initiating a strategy and mantra that con- tinues more than a century later. The fed- eral government bulked up its border per- sonnel and turned back many people, but by the 1920s, offi cials recognized their basic failure to stop illegal migrations. The U.S. did not build its fi rst border fence to keep the fugitive crossers out, though; it built it to stop tick-infected cat- tle. Ticks had infested the Western cat- tle industry for decades. Northern states aimed to confi ne the problem to the Southwest by halting infected cattle, but the insects persisted, spreading Texas fever among cattle who had not devel- oped immunity from exposure as calves. In 1906, the U.S. Department of Agricul- ture launched a massive eradication cam- paign and began quarantining cattle from Mexico. In 1911, the fi rst fence funded by the federal government went up to stop “Mexican” cattle from infecting “Amer- ican” cattle. As the historian Mary E. Mendoza, who unearthed this episode, has pointed out, it took no great leap for discourse to shift from pestilential ani- mals to pestilential people, feeding on the common rhetoric that associated foreign- ers with dirtiness and disease. The fences grew and changed in their purpose. “Fences previously used for cattle became tools used to control and herd humans,” explained Mendoza. By the mid-20th cen- tury, American offi cials saw the border as a biological barrier, a place to stop both diseased animals and people perceived as a threat. Racism and indifference fed this formula. As a result, migrants shifted to more dangerous routes, resulting in greater risks and higher death totals. The ramifi cations are ongoing: Over time, fences designed to prevent cattle from dying became barriers that increased human mortality. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act further transformed the legal regime for the border. Although it widened opportunities for immigration from much of the world, the law, for the fi rst time, established quotas from within the West- ern Hemisphere. As a result, Congress produced a system that guaranteed more immigrants fl owing outside legal chan- nels. Immigration policy in the 20th cen- tury followed narrow nationalist frame- works and generally failed to reckon with larger contexts, according to historian Mae Ngai’s brilliant book “Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America” (2004). “That national- ism,” she wrote, “resists humanitarianism and remains blind to the causal connec- tions between the United States’ global projections and the conditions abroad that impel emigration.” Ngai points out how deeply entwined the past and pres- ent of the United States are with the rest of the world, especially with Latin Amer- ica, where the U.S. has protected its own material interests for two centuries. Occasionally, American offi cials have recognized the folly of border control. In 1927, an exasperated secretary of Labor, James Davis, declared, “Not even a Chi- nese wall, 9,000 miles in length and built over rivers and deserts and mountains and along the seashores, would seem to per- mit a permanent solution.” His remarks stand as a prescient assessment of the futility of “securing” the border by phys- ical obstacles. Trying to stop movement there is much like clenching a handful of sand: The harder you squeeze, the more sand escapes. National lines of exclusion and control — represented today by steel walls — seem destined to fail in a world where capital, labor, ideas and cultural infl uence ping across boundaries as eas- ily as opening an app on a smartphone. Entrenching those national(ist) walls can only lead to more dangerous and inhu- mane results. ——— Adam M. Sowards is an environmen- tal historian, professor and writer. He lives in Pullman, Washington. Reckon- ing with History is an ongoing series that seeks to understand the legacies of the past and to put the West’s present moment in perspective. Toppling Maduro must come with goal of rebuilding Venezuela The New York Times T he tense standoff in Venezuela between Nicolas Maduro and Juan Guaido has morphed into some- thing far larger than a contest for power between a failed leader still supported by parts of the army and die-hard leftists, and a young legislator propelled to the front by popular demonstrations. In part because of the Trump administration’s all-in support for regime change, the crisis has become a dangerous global power struggle. That’s the last thing Venezuelans need. There is no question that President Mad- uro must go, the sooner the better. Heir to the socialist rule of Hugo Chávez, he has led his oil-rich country into utter ruin. Its currency is useless, basic foods and med- icines have disappeared and more than three million people have fl ed, foment- ing refugee crises in Colombia, Brazil and Ecuador. The only solution is an interim government under Mr. Guaido, who as the head of the National Assembly has a legit- imate claim to the presidency under the Venezuelan Constitution. It would lead to new presidential elections and a fl ood of emergency aid. Pope Francis said Tuesday that he was willing to help mediate an end to the con- fl ict if both sides agreed. He said he had received a plea from Mr. Maduro to help start a new dialogue. “There needs to be the will of both parts,” Francis said. He suggested begin- ning with small concessions from both sides, working toward a more formal negotiation. In hopes of a peaceful resolution, many democratic governments have thrown their support behind Mr. Guaido. Twelve Latin American countries, the Organization of American States, Canada and more than a dozen members of the European Union have so far crowded into Mr. Guaido’s cor- ner alongside the United States, recogniz- ing him as the interim president. Mr. Mad- uro’s primary backers are Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and Turkey. These are not entirely alliances of the like-minded. As in any geopolitical strug- gle, disparate interests are at play, and many include a suspicion or fear of Presi- dent Trump’s motives and potential means. For the hard-core conservatives in the Trump administration, Mr. Maduro is the failed standard-bearer of the scourge of socialism in Latin America and the beach- head for Russian, Cuban and Chinese infl u- ence. Mr. Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out a military option. The prospect of a proxy war that could spill over Venezuela’s borders horrifi es most Latin American leaders, as well as Canada and the Europeans. The Lima Group, which brings together Canada and a number of Latin American countries with the aim of fi nding a nonviolent solution to the Venezuelan crisis, held an emergency meeting in Ottawa on Monday at which it unequivocally rejected any foreign mili- tary intervention. “This is a process led by the people of Venezuela in their very brave quest to return their country themselves to democracy in accordance with their own constitution,” declared the Canadian for- eign minister, Chrystia Freeland, in a state- ment echoed by most Latin American and European supporters of Mr. Guaido. In Mr. Maduro’s camp, the motives are also mixed. China has huge loans out to Venezuela but has kept a low profi le in the struggle, perhaps in the hope of cultivating a relationship with Mr. Guaido, should he prevail. Turkey’s increasingly authoritar- ian president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has long embraced Mr. Maduro as a comrade against Western, and especially American, hegemony. Russia has been his strongest supporter, channeling billions in aid and arms to Mr. Maduro, and has been most vocal in warning the United States to stay clear. It is very much in American and West- ern interests to free Venezuela from such unholy alliances through negotiations between supporters of Mr. Guaido and Mr. Maduro. But the goal must be to do so in order to give the long-suffering Venezue- lans a chance to freely choose their govern- ment and start the arduous task of rebuild- ing their economy, not to score a victory in an ideological struggle.
