Nationalism at the US Mexico Border - Operation Gatekeeper by Nevins - Book Report/Review Example

Nationalism at the U.S. Mexico border The focus of Nevins’ book is “Operation gatekeeper”, a boundary enforcement strategy that was introduced in 1994, during the era of the Clinton administration. The focus of these operations was a 66-mile portion of the 2000 miles that comprise the border of the United States with Mexico, located near San Diego. This was traditionally the preferred site for illegal immigrants to make their way into the United States from Mexico. On the 1st of October, 1994, the San Diego sector of the Border Patrol introduced “Operation Gatekeeper”, an “enhanced boundary enforcement strategy” to deal with illegal immigrants, in which the emphasis shifted from apprehending the illegal entrants to one of “prevention through deterrence.” (Nevins 2) Nevins points out that this new plan was introduced in response to the excessive illegal immigration that was taking place in the early 1990s. It was a political response to the “unparalleled level of official and public concern” about the ability of the United Sates Government to prevent illegal immigration (Nevins 2). There was a perceived crisis situation foreseen in this area because the levels of immigration were viewed as being out of control. The border areas were chaotic prior to Operation gatekeeper. Since there was no steel fence at the time, crowds of illegal immigrants would dash onto the highways through entry ports into the United States or sneak across holes in the boundary fences at night. The public was becoming increasingly anxious about this issue as evidenced through the overwhelming levels of support from California voters for Proposition 187, which included within its provisions, the denial of public education, public social services and health care services to illegal immigrants (Nevins 3). Operation Gatekeeper resulted in miles of new fence being added, with numerous agents added at high visibility positions at the border and provided with a host of new equipment, technology and infrastructure (Nevins 61-66), including electronic sensors, infrared scopes for night time vision and four wheel drives. But as Nevins points out, these measures appear paradoxical in the wake of the economic integration and growth that has been taking place in the border region. He argues that the public panic at the influx of immigrants is the result of the language used in public discourse. He examines the rise of the “illegal” immigrant as a discursive category and argues that it cannot be viewed apart from the history of anti immigrant sentiment in the United States that is largely based on race and fuels itself on the “fear and rejection of the those deemed as outsiders.” (Nevins 96). He also points out that such anti immigrant sentiment is also associated with exploitation of the immigrants, while marginalizing them in a political sense. The reasons Nevins attributes to the emergence of “Operation gatekeeper” is the reiteration of the history of excluding immigrants which is part and parcel of the American ethos, the perception of immigrants as the “other”, thereby inspiring national sentiment against them, because they are viewed as foreign and alien. (Nevins 96-100). Nevins categorizes nationalism as “an ideology linking people with territory”, because it is this ideology, which is the basis for the existence of the State and the sovereignty of its people (Nevins 156). An encroachment of immigrants onto this territory therefore becomes an assault on sovereignty and nationalism. Values which are perceived to be inherently American, are deemed threatened by the value systems of the immigrants whose sheer numbers pose a threat. The Operation Gatekeeper is a response to such a perceived threat at a gut level, therefore it comes to the fore despite the economic growth and integration occurring across the U.S. Mexico border. As opposed to Nevins’ views, Ganster and Lorey (2008) argue that the U.S. Mexico border is an area of vibrant growth and integration. They point out that prior to 1940, the western United States as a whole, contributed only 11% to U.S. manufacturing. (Ganster and Lorey, 79). But after the Second World War, the government stimulated industrialization through the establishment of defense based industries enhanced the manufacturing base and promoted economic growth, which attracted workers from other states as well as a steady stream of immigrants from across the Mexico border. With the implementation of the NAFTA agreement in 1994, there are now more Mexicans traveling legally across the border. 300 Mexicans travel either on a daily basis or a weekly basis into the United States, to pursue employment.(Nevins 5). The Hispanic community is expanding rapidly, especially in western states such as California and Texas, and by virtue of their sheer numbers, the community is now gaining some political clout and representation. According to Martinez (1994), border lands are culturally and economically more independent a compared to the other States, so that in some instances the threat of secession may also arise. The views expressed by authors such as Ganster and Lorey (2008) and Martinez (1994) thereby appear to offer a different explanation about borderland culture and integration as compared to Nivens (2002). Nivens argues that the increased traffic across the border is being resisted by native Americans due to the perceived threat on their culture, economic well being and the very sovereignty of America and its values. His view supports the notion that increased nationalism propels the fears and panic against the influx of immigrants who are perceived as aliens with a policy of exclusion being practiced against them. But the other authors are of the view that the increased influx may in fact, have contributed to economic and cultural strength of the country. As Martinez argues, such increased immigration may in fact promote feelings of secession as the culture and economy of the border regions evolve differently as compared to the other States. Therefore, according to these authors, the border areas actually demonstrate binationalism in the dual cultures existing side by side in the border areas, i.e, Anglo and Hispanic. This produces a kind of transnationalism, where elements of culture and values from both cultures are integrated into the population. In my view, there is merit in the arguments offered by all of these authors. But in view of the globalization that is taking place, which also prompted the NAFTA agreement, transnationalism appears to be a factor that is increasingly more relevant, especially in a country like the United States, which is a melting pot of various cultures and peoples. While there has always been some initial resistance when a new community has moved into American territory, ultimately, the new communities learn to integrate into mainstream America. In the case of the U.S. border areas, the argument offered by Nivens (2002) that the threat to territorial sovereignty generates fear and exclusion, does not appear to offer adequate justification in view of the fact that most of these border areas were once territory belonging to Mexico rather than to the United States. Additionally, there are several indications that the Anglo and Hispanic cultures are integrating in the border areas. Spanish is becoming increasingly used in these areas; a large section of the population is Hispanic and their economic representation and political clout in the area is growing day by day, and is also being recognized. With the NAFTA agreement facilitating legal travel across the border for Mexicans to work in the United States, the earlier desperation of immigrants has reduced. Increased patrolling of the border through Operation Gatekeeper has also reduced the influx of illegal immigrants and ensured that only legal immigrants are able to travel across the border. With the increasing integration of Mexicans into American economy and culture, it does not appear that there is a rabid nationalistic feeling, which is manifesting as anti-immigrant sentiment. Rather, now that the number of immigrants is being controlled, the economic and cultural benefits are also being recognized. Thus, in my opinion, nationalism at the border is decreasing rather than increasing, as Nivens contends. References: * Ganster, Paul and Lorey, David E, 2008. “The U.S. Mexican border into the twenty first century”, Rowman and Littlefield * Martinez, Oscar J., 1994. “Border People”, University of Arizona Press. * Nevins, Joseph, 2002. “Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the "Illegal Alien" and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary”, Routledge Read More