UNTAPPED: A Critical Look at the US-Mexico Border Fence by Paulina Reyes

untapped*

* :a critical look at the US/Mexico border fence, its impact on binational flow and architectural proposals towards change paulina reyes, b. arch 2014

â&#x20AC;&#x153;for every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, clear, and wrong.â&#x20AC;?

- hl menken

untapped* Paulina Reyes

primary advisors

secondary advisors

b.arch undergraduate thesis 2013-2014 Carnegie Mellon

Paul Eiss Jonathan Kline Christine Mondor Rami El Samahy

Mary-Lou Arscott Dana Cupkova Kai Gutschow

table of contents part I Dialogue

part II inquiry

history and context 3 5 7 9 11 13 17 21 23

quoted sources project abstract assumptions + premises what is the fence? selected fence typologies where is the fence? historical context globalization and exchange paradox, illusion and utopia

human flow 29 31 35 37

summary apprehension data sister cities and urbanization ingoing v. outgoing flow

economic flow 39 41 43 45 47

summary gdp growth rate chart us trade with mexico remittances remittance distribution

cultural flow 49 summary

ecological flow 51 53 55 57

iii

summary border region ecology water on the border migrating species

part IIi response spatial studies 61 63 65 67

existing conditions generative flow diagram speculative conditions site designation and criteria

wall as habitat 69 site abstract 71 experiential render

wall as biofilter 73 75 77 79 81 83 85

site abstract rio grande border condition phytoremediation hyperaccumulators hydro v. aeroponics morphological development rendered section

wall as housing 87 89 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111

site abstract north v. south aerial conditions large-scale urban analysis site selection aerial render market render scaffold render overall plans unit plans phasing and development

115 selected bibliography 117 acknowledgements

about me My name is Paulina Reyes and as of May 2014, I will hold a Bachelors degree in Architecture from Carnegie Mellon University. In May 2013, funded on a small summerlong research grant by the university, I began research into the contextual premises of this thesis, including filmed documentation and interviews of various academics in Austin, TX and Brownsville, TX. I not only spoke critically with academics in the fields of Policy, Environmental Science, Hydrology, and Architecture., but I also interviewed members of my own family including my father who had himself immigrated to the US with his family during the late sixties as a teen. The experience, as

a result, enlightened me both to the broader impacts of the border fence outside of its typically discussed role in public policy, and the intangible threads which have linked my familial roots and my identity to such a prominent and nakedly divisive icon. The border fence lies at a facinating confluence of infrastructure, politics, culture, architecture, and philosophy, and it is ultimately this what drew me to explore such a project, using the critical knowledge and tools Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve developed as an architecture student. Through this thesis, I hope to project my voice into a larger public discourse, and via design, reveal the problematic, contradictory, and at times absurd reality of the wall.

cargocollective.com/untapped

Above: Images taken during summer research, May 2013

part i

dialogue

It is with deliberate and conscious awareness that this thesis positions itself within a larger public discourse, one

which

lies at the confluence

of politics, academia, architecture, economics, philosophy, and the personal narratives of countless individuals. The subject contains both ties to current politics and a broader historical narrative of immigration policy within the US which in and of itself necessitates understanding and sensitivity. It is not my intention that all of these facets be addressed with equal intensity, but rather as integral parts to a whole, such that informed understanding can be reached surrounding the contextual contingencies of the border fence and the collective reactions which have imbued this barrier with meaning.

“Any border fence can be no less than a symbol of all that is right and wrong with contemporary immigration policy.”

“The state of the border and the methods for resolving its problems have become the interests of everyone.”

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, clear, and wrong.”

“We have put a man on the moon, we can build a fence.”

“Every wall is a door.”

“The border’s transformation from light to solid is exactly opposite the trend in recent architecture, which has moved from solid to light. .”

“I think we are sophisticated enough to think of alternatives that don’t necesarrily divide but bring people together.”

“Deterretorialization, in general, is one of central forces of the modern world.”

“The US-Mexican border, like most borders, was established by violence — and its architecture is the architecture of violence.”

“I have been against the fence, I thought it’s a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion.”

“Since 1986, the US has pursued a policy of contradiction with regard to Mexico.”

“They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”

on the radar selected voices of influence, appeal, or intrigue during the process of research

robert lee maril

francisco romero

ronald rael

nancy pelosi

author

architect

minority leader

hl mencken

herman cain

arjun appadurai

douglas massey

journalist

republican presidential candidate

author

ralph waldo emerson

teddy cruz

noam chomsky

barack obama

philosopher

architect

linguist, philosopher

us president 2008-

For every problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

“

- hl mencken

abstract The US/Mexico border fence is often perceived at best as a necessity of national security, and at worst, a vessel for political deceit and cultural burden. Beyond these definitions, the fence is also a profoundly symbolic spatial division between our two countries, one which defies the cultural, economic, and ecological continuity of the border region. Architects are taught to design holistically, addressing a myriad of factors in order to produce a contextually responsive object. Among these factors are climate, environmental conditions, occupancy, use of materials, cost, and meaning or experience. Construction of the fence broadly ignores these contextual contingencies, in spite of its profound effect on them. The wall might not be an occupiable building, but its physical presence impacts a wider arena of politics, economics, culture, even life-or-death scenarios of crossing migrants. Articulated (particularly) militarized international boundaries inherit a salient set of symbolic connotations much larger than their physical actualities. The US/Mexico border fence, the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall of China, the border between Israel and Palestine, theese are all examples of how 5

physical borders define international relationships and how people from adjoining countries define one another. Continued construction of the fence is an inevitability, enabled by post- 9/11 reactionary legislation, and political apathy. The relentless construction of this barrier forces us to confront the reality of the wall, and potentially envision alternatives for its future use. Ultimately, my aim with this research is to demonstrate the potential of a “responsive” barrier which acommodates and the complexity of flow along the border. Moreover, a barrier which facilitates everyday cultural contact, and in the longer term, can lead to some form of integration. The wall raises the question of what kind of alternative urbanism can be envisioned, a system capable of providing for development, flow, and programmatic insertion, yet responding to the different characters of the existing edges and voids: a new strategy of the linear.

Above: Southern side of the border fence, Brownsville TX 2013

ASSUMPtions + premises Based on the culmination of my research, both observational and secondary, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve established a set of constraints with which to base an overall design process. These constraints are by no means objective, but rather reflect my informed position on the social and political efA2 ficacy of the border fence. Furthermore, these premises frame a theoretical set of circumA3 stances for design, both utopian and grounded in the realities of the current political landscape.

This thesis is premised on the existence of the fence and its continued construction despite political opposition. This assumption is employed with the notion that there are valuable design opportunities in confronting the fence as a socio-political architecture. Moreover, preservation of the fence, however spectulative, is to root design strategies within the broader set of political and cultural contingencies which have led to

its existence, contingencies which form the basis of

The Fence Exists

public debate. A2

The stated mission of the fence as a tactical infrastructure is the deterrence and prevention of illicit crossborder activity, including illegal entry, smuggling, and international terrorism. However, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the construction of the fence

To clarify, this project is not about the erasure of the wall, nor does it envision alternatives as if wall never existed on were to somehow A1 be disassembled today. Instead, I wish to understand and deconstruct the wall as a political tool, a cultural icon and an impediment to binational exchange. In turn, I aim to design ways in which this deeply symbolic and politically telling piece of tactical infrastructure can respond to the types of flow it was erected to prevent, and in doing so, perhaps subvert its underlying intent or reveal the absurdity of its presence. Ultimately, this thesis is sheds a critical eye on the origins and the inevitable consequences of building and mantaining such a barrier.

has lessened illicit cross-border exchange, including the flow of illegal immigrants, drugs, or guns.

it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t work

The construction of a physical international barrier is a largely outmoded (even archaic) idea which is being quickly superceded by alternative technology and internalized cultures of surveillance. Currently the wall, based on similar historical precedents, is headed towards a state of complete obselecence as a tactical infrastructure.

it wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t work (as is)

+ +

2 cultural _(value

+ 3 economic _generator

1 ecological (((((mediation

EMBEDDED VALUE potential facets on embedding value into the border fence.

When politics enters infrastructure, there is an interference in the balance between limits - infrastructure becomes architecture.

“

- Jonathan D Solomon

What is the fence? Although militarized barriers have been erected along the border as early as 1990, the border fence as it’s known today was officially mandated in 2006 under the Secure Fence Act, signed by former President Bush. The wall was to be constucted under the pretense of mantaining homeland security and advancing anti-terrorism measures in the wake of 9/11. Originally slated to run 850 miles of the 2,000 mile southern border, this figure was later modified to 700 miles under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007, although the Republican Party mantains the position that the wall should run the entirety of the border. The stated objectives of the wall’s proponents are securitybased, and include the prevention of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and international terrorism. Contrary to popular belief, the physical wall is a discontinuous patchwork of fence typologies of various scale, materiality, cost, and function. Functionally, the fence is divided into two general typologies: vehicle and pedestrian fencing. Pedestrian fencing is often 10’-18’ high, and deters pedestrians from walking into the US by foot. Vehicle barriers, while permeable to people and animals, prevent drivers from crossing the border, although these two typologies are sometimes hybridized and/or layered along various stretches of the border, typically 9

within urbanized or densely populated areas. This physical infrastructure is also bolstered by a “virtual” fence, composed of a system of cameras and ground sensors monitored by the US Border Patrol (USBP). Most notably, construction of the border fence is granted special legislative circumvention as a result of the REAL ID Act passed in 2005. In a distinctly post-9/11 fashion, this little-known piece of legislation authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law which might impede the “expiditious” construction of the wall. By way of this clause, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Cherthoff waived over 35 laws, mostly environmental, in constuction of the fence including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Cost of construction for the fence ranges anywhere between $400,000 per mile to $16 million per mile. Excluding the cost of land aquistion and labor, costs can exceed $70 million per mile over a twenty-five year lifespan according to the Army Corp of Engineers. The total accumlated cost of constructing the fence is unclear, but could cost up to $60 billion over 25 years, again excluding labor and land (Brown).

a b c

pedestrian fence vehicle barrier hybrid fence

Lan

din

ste

aT F

*m a car de fr o *w bon s m vie e t t bur lded eel s nam -e t t * 3 ied 8’ o ste rips ra 080 in t el pan he g pipe el rou s = 1 nd $40 mil ($ e 25 5.4 - 0,o yrs 8 o o . 3 ma m int ill / m ain io enc n/ ile 12’ e) mil

enc

ing

pic

ket

*bu hid ilt th r a *fo lgo c ough o l ma ded s unty nd te *in ato el p clu ry ipe gat de 18’ s a es d op tal t (tb er l c) ati ona $2. l 8

20”

mil

fen

cin

lio

12’

fte

bol

lar

ste

mil

enc e

lio

mil

selected fence typologies Existing fence types constructed along the border, pedestrian, vehicle, and hybrid.

10’

pic

ket

18’

mil

*s t bol agger l the ards ed co n *an grou sunk cret n 5’ i e nto cli gled d mb pan *pe ing el t od $1. rmane ete 25 nt r

*bu ero ilt th r *st n cou ough e n c tor el pi ty amy p *in 18’ es at clu tal ma gat de l nd aes d op era tio na $2 l

.8 m

ill

fen

ion

cin

ile

g 18’

san

dia

sec

ond

ary

*lo c ped ated e *an stri behin a d * p gled n fen prim oss to ce ar y me ibi det nt lit er aft y o cli er f re mb fiv pla $9 e y ce ear ($ mi s aft 11.1 llio er - 6 25 1. n / yrs 6 m m ma ill ile int ion ain /

Fen

enc mil e) e

10â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

pu s

fen

*d iv ca ides m *r pus ut-br e ow *g -neg ns r o vil minown tiate le e v wit d d ine h c esi s ar gn o $1 lin .04 aj as m -

cin g

ill

ion

10â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

/m ile

nor barmand rie y ve r hic *te

m *w por a e *m lded ry o m dep ved b etal loy y fo hig ed rk h s to lif mu ar t/ ggl eas ing of $u pat nk ter no n

ile

california arizona

pedestrian barrier VEHICLE barrier lighting 2

baja california

sonora

to the complexity of the * Due South Texas border, as articulated

sister cities 1

san diego, ca/ Tiujuana

by the Rio Grande, the border

Calexico, ca/ mexicali

fence is constructed at an offset

yuma, az/ San luis rio colorado

in linear segments, sometimes as

nogales, az/ nogales

naco az/ naco

This condition results in stranding

douglas az/ agua prieta

significant portions of Texas land

columbus nm/ las palomas

in between the fence and the river,

el paso, tx/ cuidad juarez

presidio tx/ ojinaga

In addition to this strategic offset,

eagle pass tx/ piedras negras

the fence is purposfully construct-

laredo, tx/ nuevo laredo

ed in discrete, disconnected por-

mcallen, tx/ reynosa

brownsville, tx/ matamoros

far as a mile and a half away from the actual international boundary.

a so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;no-manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s landâ&#x20AC;? belonging neither here nor there.

tions. Although the gaps, according to Border Patrol are intended to funnel illegal migrants to specific portions of the border where they can be more easily apprehended,

adjacent county

us border patrol station

the gaps correspond statistically to wealthier, whiter, and more educated populants.

where is the fence? Fence typology, locations, and total built length (May 2013) along the border

new mexico

texas

6 9

chihuahua 10

coahuila 11

nuevo leon

12 13

tamaulipas

infrastructure becomes architecture.

combined pedestrian fence vehicle barrier lighting

where is the fence? - a linear diagram

Where is the fence? Linear diagram of fence construction and total built length ( as of May 2013)

co xi

iz ar

- jonathan d solomon

mileage totals 115 mi.

* the us/mexico border is 1,954 miles (3,145 km) long,

light

607 mi.

veh

417 mi.

ped

“

It doesn’t really matter by what means Mexico is taken, as it contributes to the mission of ‘civilizing the world’ and in the long run, will soon be forgotten. - ralph waldo emerson

“

historical context 1848-1965 Construction of the border wall is but a fragment in a broader historical thread of the political and cultural tension between the US and Mexico. The existing border was originally established in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, marking the end of the MexicanAmerican War, otherwise known as “La Invasion” by Mexican nationals. From roughly 1910 through 1929, a historical chapter of immigration which Douglas Massey refers to as “The Era El Enganche (the Hook)” Mexicans were actively recruited as temporary farmworkers in order to fill the void in labor left by Chinese and Eastern European immigrants. In the wake of the Mexican Revolution (1913-1917), political instability further fueled an explosion of labor-driven migration to the US. Concurrently, the US Border Patrol was officially founded in 1924 as an agency to prevent illegal entry along both the Mexican and the Canadian borders. By the start of the Great Depression in 1929, Latin immigrants were maligned as cultural and economic threat to the US, substantiated by a growing nativist movement throughout the US. Over the course of the decade, Mexican laborers were exported in significant numbers, 17

reducing the Mexican immigrant population by forty percent. As a part of an agenda of economic restructuring in the wake of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt launched the Bracero Program in 1942, a bi-national treaty for the temporary importation of Mexican farmworkers. Originally intended to last four years, the program extended well into the sixties. Due largely to the civil rights movement, by the mid-sixties, the program was seen as discriminatory and exploitative, and eventually dismanteled in 1965.

1965-1992 Between 1965 - 1992, despite the end of the Bracero Program, Mexicans and other Latin Americans continued to migrate illegally to the US, due in part by the lasting reliance of the agricultural industry on cheap immigrant labor. Illegal migration to the US had by this point become a self-perpetuating force of cumulative causation, further incited by the collapse of the Mexican economy in 1982. In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), at once a paradigm in immigration reform and emblematic of the US political stance on immigration for the coming two decades. The law criminalized the act of hiring or knowing recruitment undocumented immi

point, the status of the border“Atlanda certain simply becomes a yestion of military

“

and political power...Mexican national power might reemerge, and the demographic of the borderland of the side may have - American ralph waldo emerson

grants while allocating additional resources to the US Border Patrol and granted legal status to roughly 3 million immigrants residing in the states since before 1982. In January, 1994 former President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) uniting the US, Canada, and Mexico in an economic treaty which eliminated barriers of trade between the three countries, and ultimately leading to a dramatic increase in subsidized US exports to Mexico and severely impacting small Mexican farmers.

Mexico barrier including a secondary layer of fencing and security roads to bolster the existing fence. However, due to environmental concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and the concerns of other uncooperative land owners, construction was quickly stalled. These impediments were later superseded with the passing of the REAL ID Act in 2005 which authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law which might prevent construction.

1992-2005

In the years since the Secure Fence Act was passed, roughly 700 miles of border fence have been completed along the southern border, the majority of which has been constructed along California, New Mexico, and Arizona. Fence construction has continued well into the Obama Administration, as of May 2014, amounting to about 700 miles of fence. As far as his stance on immigration and legislative reform, Obama believes in a “pathway to citizenship” for immigrants in good standing with the law, although he advocates having undocumented immigrants pay a fine, learn English, and go “to the back of the line” behind those already in the system legally.

In 1992, faced with increasing numbers of illegal migrant traffic, USBP implemented “Operation Gatekeeper” as a preventative measure which erected 5 1/2 miles of tactical fence along the western-most end of the border extending from the San Ysidrio Port of Entry to the Pacific Ocean. The measure represented a shift in ideology in policing illegal immigration and similar operations were subsequently carried out in other border cities by USBP including Operation Hold-the-Line in El Paso, TX, and Operation Safeguard in Nogales, AZ. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act which authorized the extension of the US19

2006-

Today’s world involves interactions of a new order and intensity.

“

- arjun appadurai

globalization and Exchange Globalization Since the Civil War, the border has been a site of surreptitious exchange and flow, particularly during prohibition, during which Mexican border communities transformed into staging areas for bootlegging and diversion. The development of binational railroads in the early 1900’s further initiated and sustained the growth of border communities, ultimately making mass migration between the US and Mexico possible. As the Mexican Revolution coincided with the US economic boom of the 1920’s, some 500,000 Mexican citizens emmigrated to the north, initiating the first mass migration of Mexican laborers to the US. This catalyzing event in the history of the border represents but a small degree of the symbiosis managed between the US and Mexico today. Since NAFTA, the rate of economic exchange between our two countries has boomed, exceeding $500 billion in annual trade (2011) despite having the highest income per capita differential of any two bordering countries in the world. Concurrently, Mexican nationals represent the single largest immigrant population in the US at nearly 11.7 million people, and continues to grow. Drugs, firearms, and other illegal contraband feed a growing demand on both sides of the border, fueling an unprecedented level of violence in Mexican border states which 21

at times bleeds northward. In the recent decades, escalating numbers of environmental crisis have incited a growing public conciousness on the nature of ownership and shared resources along the border. The political boundary inevitably divides a contiguous ecological region of flora, fauna, and natural resources of which both countries depend on. Water as a shared resource, in particular, has been a contentious political issue for both countries almost since the inception of the border, a conflict which has intensified in recent years due to the decline in overall availability and the elevated degree of pollution and contamination in burgeoning border communities. Water allocation and contamination between the border is overseen by both goverments at multiple levels and in addition by several binational organizations, but remains fundamentally flawed as a process for mediating such issues.

Above: Otey Mesa Border Crossing, 2012

means... you’ve been given “ Sovereignty sovereignty... and you’re viewed as a

“

sovereign nation.

- george w. bush

paradox, illusion and utopia The Economy The historical relationship between the US and Mexico is characterized by contradiction and illusion, one which describes a clear cyclical demand for immigrant labor, coupled with a fundamental discomfort with outside influence and cultural integration. It is these two forces which culminate in the contradictory and ultimately destructive political policies of the US. During economic bull markets, Mexican immigrants are exploited as an opportune form of labor while in times of economic straits, are repelled not only as laborers, but as a percieved societal threat to US nationhood and political sovereignty. In most cases of US nativism, increased homeland security, or isolationism on a large-scale, commonality originates from economic decline rather than cultural siege. Even in cases where security and welfare seem to be fundamental issues, it could be argued that debates about defense and cultural preservation are in fact functional spin-offs of arguments that are substantially about economic health and labor. In an era of economic integration, however, legitimized by legislation as influential and farreaching as NAFTA and activated by the global economy, these debates are radically flawed at best, and at worst, deliberately misleading and/ 23

or illusory. At the same time that policy makers have sought to restrict the movement of labor across the border, they have constructed a framework to integrate the economies of the US and Mexico which would “facilitate the cross-border movement of goods, capital, commodities, and information” (Massey). The apparent contradiction of promoting integration whilst actively insisting on separation with regard to Mexico appears to have been characteristic of US policy as early as the 1920’s, but particularly after 1986 with the implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

sovereign preservation The act of international wall-building in and of itself is latent with tension and paradox. In her book Walled States, Waning Sovereignty author Wendy Brown addresses the visual contradiction presented by the image of the wall: “The new walls project an image of sovereign jurisdictional power and an aura of the bounded and secure nation that are at the same time undercut by their existence and also by their function inefficacy.” (Brown 24). Moreover, contemporary binational walls are by their nature impotent against the forces they are built to impede as physical responses to often informal or immaterial powers. In a time when

contemporary threats to nation-state security have evolved to become exceedingly potent, miniature, mobile, even incorporeal, these threats are “perversely answered by the stark physicalism of walls.” Walls nowadays tend to target non-state, informal, transnational actors rather than international threats or military undertakings. Nevertheless, the construction of international barriers has accelerated globally in the past few decades, even as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and apartheid South Africa are actively celebrated. As a result, walls tend to act “theatrically” being ultimately symptomatic of declining sovereign influence rather than of its continued preservation in contemporary society.

“no-place” In keeping with Brown’s stance on the paradoxes of wall-building, I’ve associated the USMexico barrier with what I see to be a broader utopian vision constructed by the US pro-wall policy. By its definition, “utopia”, literally means “no-place” or belonging nowhere. It can also mean “every-place”, in either sense lacking ties to where its place of belonging. I find the fence to be emblematic of this idea, whether in the description of its idealized form, in its actual constructed form. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, in a now infamous public speech to his supporters in 2011, claimed that if elected, would promote the construction of a 20’ fatally electrified fence for the entirety of the border (later elaborating on the addition of a moat filled with alligators to this design). While extreme, and claimed later to have been a joke, this vision is surprisingly in keeping with the official conservative platform, which promotes a doublelayered fence for all 2,000 miles of the southern border. Besides being completely infeasible economically, the position is oddly ignorant of the contingencies, both physical, and immaterial which would prevent and/or completely undermine such an undertaking. Finally, this

position is utopian in the pure descriptive sense of the word, through its implied suggestion of a monolithic, homogenous border, deserving of a singular, homogenous response. The portions of the fence which stand today regardless of where they depart from the ideal envisioned border-fence, are nonetheless built in alarming opposition to their relative context. Due to the REAL ID Act, portions of the wall have been successfully constructed through contiguous wildlife habitat, through historical sites, native settlements, even through the UTBrownsville campus in South Texas. The wall as it exists today is utopian, because it is built for a political unreality which precludes the degree and magnitude of exchange taking place across the border today. In this imagined reality, the wall reinforces a clear, static, and understandable spatial division between two functionally separate countries. In this imagined reality, human motivation and ingenuity are readily deterred by a 12’ barrier.

Ultimately, this use of utopian political rhetoric isn’t destructive in and of itself, merely in how it’s deployed to manipulate public opinion, or else simply substituted for a nuanced understanding of the problem. The design responses outlined in this thesis are in fact, also governed my own distinct utopian vision, albeit one which opposes the popular political model of easily deterred flow and unquestioned security. Utopia can either be employed as substitution for reality or as a method of revealing pertinent aspects of reality through a critical lens. This thesis attempts to do the latter.

utopia A drawing rendition of GOP Candidate Herman Cainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed border fence.

part II inquiry

To understand the absurdity of the border fence is to understand the physical and the immaterial space it attempts to divide. The border region is among the most unique and complex regions of exchange in the world, one which alludes to the sheer power of globalizing forces which continue to erode the autonomy, the legibility, and sovereignty of nation-states. The following portion of research investigates the different types of bilateral flow which take place across the border, from human flow, economic exchange, and ecological flow, to the relative inflences of culture on both countries. By quantifying or at least understanding these types of exchange, one can begin to envision the ways in which the physical expression of the fence should facilitate, reveal, or express these flows.

human flow Patterns of human flow across the US/Mexico border are generally characterized complex patterns of flow, both monitored and undetected. While illegal or covert human flow dicates much of the political debate surrounding the border, hundreds of thousands of people cross legally, as temporary visa holders, visitors, workers, tourists, students, or dual citizens. Rates of illegal immigration, typically extrapolated from Border Patrol apprehension rates, are notoriously difficult to quantify as itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impossible to identify specifically how many migrants evade apprehension every year, and often those who are apprehended at the border will attempt to cross multiple times. Moreover, although rates of apprehension have dropped significantly during the past decade, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unclear whether or not this is attributed to a decrease in attempts to cross the border, or simply a greater number of illegal immigrants evading detection. Of all of the border patrol sectors, the Tuscon sector has consistently held the highest number of migrant apprehensions per year, perhaps due to the relatively uninhabited stretches of desert and the lack of natural barrier, like the Rio Grande. Nonetheless, the Sonoran Desert and the Chihuahan Desert are among the most treacherous zones to cross, and since the imple29

mentation of the border fence in more easily traversed areas such as San Diego, migrant deaths have increased significantly (Massey). Quantification of these various types of human flow ultimately reveals the ways in which the political border dictates and regulates flow, as well as the failures of the border to counter larger forces of continuity and exchange.

Patterns of migration between the U.S. and Mexico are varied. Many immigrants come from Mexico to settle permanently, but large numbers also move both ways across the U.S.-Mexico border throughout the year, sometimes staying for only a few months, a pattern known as circular migration. Mexican-U.S. migration also tends to be seasonal, with larger northbound flows in the spring and summer and larger southbound flows in the fall and winter.

Urbanization + “Sister Cities” US

C G EL PASO

F DOUGLAS

E NOGALES

SAN LUIS

B CALEXIO

SAN DIEGO

D YUMA

MEX

H RIO

IDEL

PRESIDIO

1 4

J LAREDO

MCALLEN

BROWNSVILLE

CIUDAD ACUNA

OJINAGA

AGUA PRIETA

NOGALES

YUMA

CIUDAD JUAREZ

TOTAL Apprehensions (FY 2012)

MATAMOROS

23,916

REYNOSA

NUEVO LAREDO

28,461

SAN LUIS

MEXICALI

TIJUANA

EL CENTRO

SAN DIEGO

6,500

9,678

YUMA

EL PASO

3,964 BIG BEND

21,720 120,000

DEL RIO

TUCSON

44,872 LAREDO

Border Patrol Sector

97,762 RIO GRANDE VALLEY

United States Border Patrol “Total Illegal Alien Apprehensions By Fiscal Year” - cbp.gov

Top 20 OTM countries of origin

Apprehension demographics

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Demographic data of apprehension rates reveal that migrants are still overwhelmingly adult males from Mexico, although illegal migrants attempting to cross via the US-Mexico border originate from all over the world, referred to in TOP 25 OTM Countries of Origin Border Patrol shorthand as OTM’s or “Other Than a Mexican”. In 2012, the highest rates of OTM’s apprehended at the border travelled through the Mexican border state of Tamaulipas, or the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol, making up over half of apprehended migrants. Honduras - 36,118 Brazil - 27,396 El Salvador - 27,317 Guatemala - 14,866 Nicaragua - 2,498 Cuba - 2,144

7. China - 1,653 8. Ecuador - 989 9. Dominican Republic - 969 10. Costa Rica - 700 11. Canada - 697 12. Peru - 388

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Columbia - 308 India - 235 Jamaica - 162 Bolivia - 161 Albania - 155 Argentina - 138

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Haiti - 131 Poland - 122 Romania - 103 South Korea - 98 Pakistan - 91 Venezuela - 88

Similarly high rates of minors and women were apprehended in this Border Patrol sector, although again, compose a small minority of overall apprehensions. Of the minors apprehended at the border, the majority were unaccompanied, a number which has risen sharply in the past few years., due in part to increased drug violence in Central America, particularly Mexican border states. 31

2012 apprehension demographics)

OTM (”Other Than a Mexican”)

4.1%

5.9%

8.9% 14.7%

7.9% 42.9%

13.9% 29.3%

MEX

51.1%% OTM

Women

8.5%

11.1%

10.3% 12.1%

12.3%

6.8% 9.4% MALE

14.9%% FEMALE

21.6%%

Minors (0-17)

3.0%

4.1%

9.4% 7.8%

8.7%

5.3% 8.6% ADULT

8.2% MINOR

12.9%% accompanied unaccompanied

apprehension trends Large-scale statistic data reveals a profound decrease in the inbound numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal, particularly after 2005. However, the overall population of unauthorized immigrants in the US has continued to grow. This disparity can be attributed to a number of factors. As a consequence of heightened security and immigration policy, migrants are forced to live and work for longer durations in the US in order to make worth the risk of illegal entry. Established immigrant communities also perpetuate continued flows of immigrants into the US as families attempt to reunite with one another.

Apprehension rates (00-11) Apprehension Statistics (2000-2011) 2000 2000

2001 2001 2001

2002 2002 2002

2003 2005 2005

2004 2004 2004

2005 2005 2001 2005

2006 2006 2002 2006

2007 2007 2005 2007

2008 2004 2008 2008

2009 2005 2009 2009

2010 2006 2010 2010

2011 2007 2011 2011

time spent in us before repatriation

b/w a week and a year

2000

1995

2005

2010 27.0

5.0

6.0

one year or more less than a week

PASO

IDEL RIO

PRESIDIO

4 2

J LAREDO

5 3

G EL

MCALLEN

BROWNSVILLE

SAN LUIS MEXICALI

7 CIUDAD JUAREZ

8 CIUDAD ACUNA

OJINAGA

AGUA PRIETA

NOGALES

YUMA

Selected description and relative location of sister cities along the border.

6 TIJUANA

Sister cities

F DOUGLAS

E NOGALES

SAN LUIS

CALEXIO

SAN DIEGO

D YUMA

San Diego/Tijuana

McAllen/Reynosa

Pop. 1,338,000 / 1,301,000

Pop. 134,719 / 589,466 (2010)

The San Diego- Tijuana region is the largest bi-national conurbation shared between the United States and Mexico, and the third largest in the world. Both centers of San Diego and Tijuana mantain global city status, hosting consulates from Asian, European, North American, Oceanian, and South American nations.

Reynosa-McAllen is one of the six bi-national metropolitan areas along the Mexico-US border. This area has a population of roughly 1,700,000, making it the largest and most populous in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas and the third most populous in the US-Mexico border. The Reynosa-McAllen metropolitan area has been the first, second, and third fastest growing areas in the United States over the past few years.

Over forty million people cross the border each year between Tijuana and San Diego, giving the region the busiest land-border crossing in the world. The region consists of heavy urban development with the highest population densities located in the northern reaches of Tijuana.

El Paso/CD Juarez

Brownsville/Matamoros

Pop. 672,538 / 1,500,000 (est.) El Paso - Juarez is the largest port of entry on the US/Mexico border. A major center for manufacturing and international trade, the region holds offices for more than 70 Fortune 500 companies as well as over 320 maquiladoras or manufacturing plants.

Brownville is the 16th most populous city in the state of Texas and is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. In addition, Brownsville’s climate has often been recognized amoung the best pro-buisiness climates in the US, and one of the least expensive places to live.

Violent crime has been an increasingly serious issues in Cd. Juarez since the 1990’s although El Paso remains one of the safest large cities in the country. As of 2010 the situation of drug-related crime continues to be an area of intense focus for the governments of Mexico and the U.S.

Brownsville and Matamoros are naturally separated by the Rio Grande (aka Rio Bravo), but are connected by four international bridges.

Nogales/Nogales Pop. 20,751 / 212,533 (2010) Nogales is Arizona’s largest international border town and is also the beginning of the Sun Corridor, an economically important trade region stretching from Nogales to Prescott, AZ, including the Tuscon and Pheonix metropolitan areas. Nogales is home to four international ports of entry. Due to its ideal location on the border and its major ports of entry, Nogales funnels $26 billion worth of international trade into Arizona.

Laredo/Nuevo Laredo Pop. 244,731 / 373,725 (2010) This metropolitan area is also known as the Two Laredos or the Laredo Borderplex. More than 47% of United States international trade headed for Mexico and more than 36% of Mexican international trade crosses through the Laredo– Nuevo Laredo port of entries. This is the reason that the borderplex's economy rotates around commercial and industrial warehousing, import, and export.

7 repeat

1700

1637

1523

1500

1300

APPREHENSIONS (thousands) 1000

900

1000

700

ESTIMATED POP OF UNAUTH.IMMIGRANTS (millions)

5.7

770

IMMIGRATION 500

370 300

EMMIGRA

ingoing + outgoing Rates of human bilateral movement, both legal and illicit (1991 - 2010)

00 20

99 19

98 19

97 19

96 19

95 19

94 19

93 19

92 19

100

ued flows of immigrants into the US as families attempt to reunite with one another.

12.2

AVERAGE

882

662

AVERAGE

140 AVERAGE

10 20

09 20

08 20

07 20

06 20

05 20

04 20

03 20

02 20

ATION

Economic flow Perhaps the most clearly defined and quantifiable means of understanding the extent of mutual influence between the US and Mexico is through measures of economic exchange. The US and Mexico have the highest GDP differentials of any two bordering countries in the world, yet the highest rates of trade. In 2012 alone, the US engaged in over $500 billion of trade with Mexico, the majority of which totalled from Mexican imports to the US. The implementation of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in 1994, an economic alliance among the US, Mexico and Canada, catalyzed an unprecedented degree of economic integration, and has since dominated the economic landscape. Ironically, politically mandated motions for economic integration have coincided with increasingly draconian immigration reform to stem the associated flow of labor, what author Douglas Massey refers to as â&#x20AC;&#x153;a policy of contradictionâ&#x20AC;?. Nevertheless, flow of capital has continued to increase bilaterally, including migrant remittances to Mexico, cumulatively composing a significant portion of the Mexican economy.

gdp

gdp per capita

2012

trade

(%of gdp) 2011

mex

15.68 trillion mex 1.17 trillion

$49,965.27 mex $9,741.79

what if... if... the economic relationship b/w what Average cost of border cross 2008

31.73% mex 64.43% US

the us and mexico were reversed? Border crossings would cost Americans

$12,765.36

$2600.00

mexico gdp per capita

2008

$9507.83

27.3% annual income

us gdp per capita

2008

where they would earn an average of $107,501.88 /year in Mexico.

$46759.56 meaning...

mex 1.17 trillion

gdp growth rate, us/mexico

mex $9,741.79

mex

64.43%

Mexico’s domestic banks aquired by multinational banks

1991-2012 6.78

NAFTA installed

6% 5% 4%

3% 2% 1%

0 -1%

-.26

-.16

-2% -3% -4% -5%

mexico

-6%

-6.22

-7%

Comparative diagram of gross domestic product for US and Mexico (1991-2012)

20 01

00 20

19 99

19 98

7 19 9

19 9

95 19

94 19

93 19

2 19 9

1 19 9

gdp growth rate, us/mex

“El Error de Deciembre” devaluation of peso

-8%

united states

2001 Recession

-3.11 2008 Recession

20 12

1 20 1

0 20 1

9 20 0

20 08

07 20

06 20

05 20

04 20

20 03

20 02

-5.95

us trade with mexico

1991-2012

IIRIRA Act

NAFTA

operation blockade

175

NAFTA

200

blockade

IRCA Act (1986)

225

IRCA Act (1986) operation

250

operation gatekeeper

275

IIRIRA Act

300

imports (billions)

150 125 100 75 50

40.5

25 5.4

net

-25 -50 -75

us trade with mexico Trade with Mexico juxtaposed with pertinent immigration legislation (1991-2012)

20 01

00 20

99 19

19 98

97 19

96 19

19 95

94 19

93 19

19 92

19 91

-100

138

97.4

BSEPIM Act (2013)

Secure Fence Act

Real ID Act

277.6

215.9 215.9

176.6

151.2 128.9 AVERAGE

exports AVERAGE

AVERAGE

-61.6

-74.7

$300 or more

8% or more

$200-$300

6-8%

$100-$200

4-6%

less than $100

less than 4%

gross migrant remittances

1990-2009

remittances

: “the sum of personal trans the US from foreign-born w countries of origins.”

48.4

AVERAGE

compensation

TotAL (billions)

37.6 AVERAGE

Congressional Budget Office (CBO

30 25 20

remittances

compensation 10.8

AVERAGE

remittances Remittances are another measure of migration flow into the US, both legal and illicit. Being by and far the largest reciever of US remittances, the economy of Mexico is profoundly impacted by remittance money, recorded to be $22.8 billion in 2012, approximately 2% of Mexico’s GDP. Remittances are considered both beneficial and detrimental for the sending and recieving countries. While remittance flow directly benefits the recieving economy as money is spent and invested in other assets like land, remittances also deter employment and incentive for economic repair, leaving some countries like Mexico, arguably over-reliant on this capital to survive.

09 20

08 20

07 20

06 20

05 20

04 20

95 19

: “the compensation of forei who were in the country for year.”

remittance estimates to mexico

1990-2009

50 global economic slowdown

45 40

27.6

35 21.5

(billions)

net flow

18.6 19.9

25 20 15

8.5 6.1

5.4

total funds

quarterly remittances to mexico

09 20

08 20

07 20

06 20

05 20

04 20

03 20

02 20

01 20

00 20

95 19

2002-2007

6,240 5,440 4,516

3,775

5,184

5,360

2006

2007

(millions)

4,065 3,372 2,509 2,174 janmar. 2002

julsep 2002

2003

2004

2005

origins of remittances Trade with Mexico juxtaposed with pertinent immigration legislation (1991-2012)

ge change in Remittances per person 2003-2009

Sonora

Baja California

Chihuahua Coahuila

Baja California Sur

Nuevo Leon

Durango

Tamaulipas

Zacat -ecas

Sinaloa

San Luis Potosi Veracruz Hidalgo

Aguas Calientes Nayarit

Yucatan

Jalisco Tlaxcala

8% or more

Michocan Guanajuato

6-8%

Guerrero

Guerretaro

4-6%

Campeche

Oaxaca

Chiapas

Quintana Roo

Mexico Morelos Puebla

less than 4%

Tabasco

percentage change in Remittan

Migrants’ remittances per person 2009 remittances : “the sum of personal transfers sent from the US from foreign-born workers to their countries of origins.”

48.4 AVERAGE

compensation 37.6 AVERAGE

: “the compensation of foreign employees who were in the country for less than a year.”

Remittances are another measure of migration flow into the US, both legal and unauthorized. Being by and far the largest reciever of US remittances, the economy of Mexico is profoundly impacted by remittance money, recorded to be $22.8 billion in 2012, approximately 2% of Mexico’s GDP. Remittances are considered both beneficial and detrimental for the sending and recieving countries. While remittance flow directly benefits the recieving economy as money is spent and invested in other assets like land, remittances also deter employment and incentive for economic repair, leaving some countries like Mexico, arguably over-reliant on this capital to survive.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report “Migrants’ Remittances and Related Economic Flows” 2012

mpensation 10.8

AVERAGE

Migrants’ remittances per person 2009

$300 or more

8% or more

$200-$300

6-8%

$100-$200

4-6%

less than $100

less than 4%

percentage change in Remittances per person 2003-2009

gross migrant remittances

1990-2009

Sonora

Baja California

48.4

Chih

remittances : “the sum of personal transfers sent from the US from foreign-born workers to their countries of origins.”

TotAL (billions)

37.6

Baja California Sur

35 30

Sinaloa Aguas Calientes

Guanajuato

6-8%

compensation

4-6%

Guerretaro

10.8

48 90

Mexi

Morelo Puebla

less than 4%

less than $100

tances and Related Economic Flows” 2012

remittances

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report “Migrants’ Remit-

8% or more

$100-$200

$200-$300

Nayarit

: “the compensation of foreign employees who were in the country for less than a year.”

$300 or more

compensation

Cultural flow Cultural influence between the US and Mexico is difficult to quantify, but can be abstracted by looking at trends in popular culture, the changing political attitudes and values of both native US citizens and latin immigrants, patterns of internet use and social media among different generations of immigrants, and general cultural acclimation. Percieved outside or foreign influence generally undergo various stages of integration into an existing society, beginning as a cultural transplant, to reappropriation, assimulation, then finally fusion. Perhaps the most interesting stage of this process lies somewhere between reappropriation and assimulation, where a symbol, a concept, or an object is adopted by another culture, yet its function or its meaning is inflected through existing cultural understandings of the adoptee. This concept is represented vicerally in the ‘Statue of Liberty’ aka ‘La Mona’, erected in the middle of a Tijuana slum community. Among the ad-hoc, distinctly Tijuana houses, it stands as a surreal icon to libertas and American freedom, yet distinguished from the original by its nudity and the impermanence of its materials. The fusion of Latino or Mexican culture in the US is tenuous, and varies considerably depend49

ing on the region. In the border region, understandably, this cultural exchange is experienced on multiple platforms, from the fusion of food (i.e. “Tex-Mex”), architecture, music and, quite literally, people.

2 reappropriation victed murdere con r

rty ibe

new york, ny

4 fusion?

x me * based in Irvine, CA

cuisine

statue of

was te

tires

3 assimulation

te x

juan so ld a

reuse

1 transplant

* based in abilene, tx

* based in san antonio, tx

rty ibe

tijuana

tRA D

ron saint pat

AL ON ITI

CUISINE

statue of

lls wa

juan so ld a

tires

ret ain i

mexico

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Juan, ayudame a cruzar.â&#x20AC;?

ages 18-29es 18-29

us born

ages 30-49es 18-29

all latinos

ages 50-64es 18-29

65 41

50-64

> 65

30-49

20 10

08 20

20 06

12 20

20 10

08 20

18-29

100

foreign born

< 18

ages 65+es 18-29

80 60 televisions 18-29

radio 18-29 newpapers

12 20

10 20

08 20

20 06

12 20

20 10

08 20

internet

ecological flow The US/Mexico border region is defined as a binational subarea, or a contiguous zone with similar hydrologic or physiological attributes. Ecological flow along the border can be characterized in terms of natural exchange or continuities (migratory animal species, plant species, water networks, soil types) and human-induced ecological impact (air-borne pollutants, contaminated water run-off, sound and light pollution). The relative impact of contamination of either side of the border varies considerably from region to region, and depends on the percentage of urbanized land, population density, and overall population, forming together what is referred to as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;pressure indexâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, a measure of how impacted the natural environment is relative to a particular area. Surprisingly, US ecological border zones are in all cases more ecologically impacted than their Mexican counterparts, suggesting either a higher level of resource consumption and/or unscrupulous environmental policies. Either way, regardless of the designated boundary between the US and Mexico, the ecology remains contiguous and therefore highly sensitive to long, impermeable barriers.

relative environmental impact

3.44 3.08 2.4

2.02

1.23

1.35

4.38

1.11

urbanized areas (

population

(% landcover)

(millions)

1.23

20.95

9.15

3.71

population density

1.57

pressure index = Urban Area + Urban Patches + Population + Population Density

Source: Environmental Services at the US Mexican Border

border region ecology US

MEX

1 2

binational subareas

1 Pacific Basin / Salton Trough

2 Colorado River / Sea of Cortez 3 Mexican Highlands 4 Mimbres / Animas Basins 5 Rio Grande - Rios Conchos to Amistad Reservior 6 Rio Grande - Elephant Butte Reservior

7 Rio Grande - Amistad to Falcon Reservior 8 Lower Rio Grande Valley

b d

4 f

ecological regions A California Coastal B Sonoran Desert C

Madrean Archipelago

Arizona/New Mexico Mountains

E Chihuahuan Desert F South Texas Plains G Sierra Madre Occidental H Western Gulf Coastal Plain

us/mexico border region border length 1,933 miles border region* 157,600 sq mi

: area delineated by the FCC Water Resources Issue Team (Woodward and Durall 1996) bifrucated by the US/Mexico political border. Surface water drainage basins were used as the primary basis for delineating the the extent of the border region from a shared-water resources perspective, including drainage basins either directly adjacent to crossing the border. “Protected areas” adjacent to the included basins were also selectively added to the border area.

binational subarea: :regions having similar hydrologic or physiographic features (Woodward and Durall 1996)

California Coastal

“This region has the Mediterranean-type climate of hot dry summers and cool moist winters; coastal sage, chaparral, and oak woodlands; grasslands in some lower elevations; and patches of pine at higher elevations. Most of the region consists of open, low mountains or foothills, but areas of irregular plains exist in the south. Much of this region isgrazed by domestic livestock; very little land is cultivated.

b sONORAN dESERT “This ecoregion contains scattered low mountains and has large tracts of federally owned land, most of which are used for military training. It contains large areas of desert shrubs, palo verde, cactus, and giant saguaro cactus.”

D MADREAN ARCHIPELAGO

“This is a region of basins and ranges with medium to high local relief, from 1000 to 1500 meters. Native vegetation is mostly shrub steppe in the basins, oak-juniper woodlands on the ranges, and ponderosa pine in the higher elevations. The region has ecological significance as both a barrier and a bridge between the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Madre Occidental.”

E cHIHUAHUAN DESERT “The region comprises broad basins and valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans and terraces. Isolated mesas and mountains are located in the central and western parts. Vegetation is mainly grass and shrubland, and oak-juniper woodlands on the highter mountains.”

F SOUTH TEXAS PLAINS

“Xerophitic shrucs and oak forest are the native vegetation. Rangeland and pastureland comprise the predominant land cover. Oil extraction has been a major activity in this region for over eighty years.”

H WESTERN GULF PLAIN “This ecoregion has a relatively flat coastal plain topography and is composed of mainly grasslands. Inland, the plains are more irregular and have mostly forest or savanna-type vegetation. A high percentage of the land is crop-land. Recent urbanization and industrialization have become concerns in this region.” Commision for Environmental Cooperation, 2006

WATER ON THE BORDER Both water quantity and quality are issues of ecological importance along the border. Water resources include surface water resources in large river systems (Rio Grande/Rio Bravo and Colorado Rivers), small river systems,, and ground water resources which lie within binationally-shared groundwater deposits. The extent of urbanization, population variables, configuration of urban zones, and population densities are also important variables to consider because they reflect the demand on regional water sources. As a consequence of integrated economic flow, border development has rapidly increased in the past twenty years, surpassing the growth of the rest of the nation by 115% and reflecting a long-term trend of migration, especially from the Mexican interior. Consequently, this rapid development has led to a series of adversities including environmental impacts on native vegetation, air pollution, and changes to natural river flows and lakes. 55

binational watershed border

region ecology 3

undivided watershed

1 2

1 divided watershed

2 adjacent watershed

binational subareas

1 Pacific Basin / Salton Trough 2 Colorado River / Sea of Cortez

major rivers and streams 3 Mexican Highlands

4 Mimbres / Animas Basins 5 Rio Grande - Rios Conchos to Amistad Reservior 6 Rio Grande - Elephant Butte Reservior 7 Rio Grande - Amistad to Falcon Reservior us born latinos

8 Lower Rio Grande Valley

< 18

foreign born

18-29

30-49

50-64

> 65

b d

Rio Grande/ Rio Bravo

4 5 The US Mexican borderlands region: A binational spatial analysis. Pick, Viswanathan, Hettrick. 2001

migrating species The number and diversity of species which migrate across the border, both airborne and land-based, allude to the ecological issues associated in the creation of an impermeable barrier as well as the arbitrary nature of the border itself. Critical migratory species within the border region include the Canada Warbler, the Ruby Throated Hummingbird, and the Purple Martin, as well as species of grey wolves, jaguar, bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, ocelot, and Mexican Monarch butterflies. While land-based migratory species are obviously affected in the construction of the fence, regional and migratory bird species are also impacted, particularly due to the artificial security lighting integrated into the fence. As a result, nocturnally migrating birds can become disoriented, losing sense of direction, or even dying due to loss of energy during long migratory journeys.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: * waived under the REAL ID Act : first enacted in 1916, this statute protects migratory bird species through federal prohibition to â&#x20AC;&#x153;pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.â&#x20AC;? (16 U.S.C. 703). This applies to birds included in international conventions between the U.S. and Great Britain, the U.S. and Mexico, the U.S. and Japan, and the U.S. and the Russia.

N.American Migration Patterns Three major corridors for bird migration across the US/Mexico border.

part III

response

Leveraging the previously elaborated modes of research, including field study, interviews, read research, and quantified ‘flow’, this next portion of the project establishes a framework for critical design responses, based on a series of ‘design operations’, or simple additive modifications to the existing conditions of the fence. Selected design responses, chosen for their compelling qualities or their applications to pertinent border issues, are further expanded on, to varied degrees of resolution. To demonstrate multiple alternatives on multiple sites, is to demonstrate both a site-specific understanding of the variability of the border, as well as the application of a larger system to address that diversity.

eXISTING BORDER CONDITIONS As stated previously, fence typologies as well as spatial conditions related to the fence vary along the border, depending on the percieved security threat, population density, and financial allocation. Diagramatically, these variations result in five distinct conditions: a single barrier, double barrier, pedestrian and vehicle barrier, a single vehicle barrier, and the redundancy of the fence and the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo. In all their simplicity, these spatial divisions again reflect a distinct utopian assumption about the nature of the border and the flow that take place across it, (that flow is unilateral and easily impeded). Using these five basic conditions, one can begin to extrapolate ways in which these spatial arrangements can be altered, augmented, or subverted, using simple physical modifications in succession.

existing conditions

Existing conditions

Existing conditions 1

single barrier

2 double barrier

This condition is found along the majority of

Located primarily within major urban cen-

the border. The single barrier represents an

ters, the double barrier impedes pedestrian

impediment to pedestrian movement although

it varies in visual permeability.

2 2

movement often with additional surveillance

and border patrol security. Although the Secure Fence Act requires layered fencing along the entirety of the border, only five percent of the constructed fence (36.3 miles) is layered fencing.

pedestrian + vehicle

vehicle barrier

Along certain stretches of the border, both

There are approximatedly 300 miles of

pedestrian and vehicle fencing are combined as

vehicle barrier along the border and simply

separate layers.

impede vehicle movement, while allowing pedestrian flow of both humans and animals. The vehicle barrier posesses the small-

est environmental impact relative to other barrier types.

5 pedestrian + natural barrier Within South Texas, the international border is articulated both by the physical fence and the Rio Grande River. This offset varies from several yards to as much as 2 miles.

2 ert

Ins

insert

array

extrude

invert

puncture

drape

ray

3 de

tru

ert Inv

ure

nct

Lif

4 ry

Ero

5 nd

Slic

(promotes) humsn flow (promotes) cultural flow (promotes) ecological flow

Wall is composed of a series of stacked units or boxes which can be physically pushed back and forth by users on either side of the fence, in effect changing the location of the border by a slight amount. Members on either side cannot see each other, but witness the otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presence by the percieved movement of the boxes.

Thickened wall plate is eroded or faceted and then sliced into variable sections. The resulting effect is a percieved â&#x20AC;&#x153;terrainâ&#x20AC;? along the wall when viewed at an oblique angle but permits visual connection perpendicular to the section cuts..

Thickened wall plate is faceted and then used as a climbing wall. Theoretical users can employ climbing wall on either side of the border.

Lifted viewing pod intersects border fence and permits users to see to the otherside from a priviliged view. This strategy is most effective for visually opaque sections of the border and can be employed in either direction. Physical barrier status is mantained.

Draped wall system covers existing portions of the fence and can provide both ecological and cultural function as seating, shade, play area, or a rigid wall system which collects water and/or grows native plants.

Wall is defined as a field rather than a singular linear division. This array can serve multiple functions as water collection, solar collection, or raised wildlife habitat. A spatial strategy like this would be defined as a vehicle barrier rather than a pedestrian barrier.

Upper portion of wall serves as raised linear landscape for native vegetation. This assemblage also provides potential for water filtration.

Specific portions of the fence are permeable to both pedestrian and/or wildlife movement. This condition is representative of both formal breaches in the fence including border crossing stations and bridges, and smaller gaps for ecological purposes.

S I T E 3 San Diego// Tijuana As one of the largest and most dynamic sister-cities along the border, cultural exchange is critical to the design of the wall and should ideally provoke interaction either through visual or physical connection. This same quality can also facilitate informal economic exchange.

site designation Design responses associated to a specific site on the US/Mexico border.

S I T E 1 Sonoran Desert This relatively uninabited stretch of the also contains critical migratory corridors for species of birds and land-based animals. As such, this zone is best addressed with a porous wall, one which allows pedestrian flow and in some way contributes to the health of the regional ecology.

The border condition of the Rio Grande Valley is one of relative use and occupation, yet deeply related to the natural conditions of the Rio Grande. Although the primary function of this design alternative is ecological, it should also contribute to the cultural value of the site.

S I T E 2 Brownsville // Matamoros 68

1 wall as habitat sonoran desert Along many stretches of the border, particularly uninhabited regions such as the Chihuahuan Desert or the Sonoran Desert, there is no constructed fence, or else the fence is constructed simply as a vehicle barrier, yet permeable to pedestrians. Concurrently, these zones record among some of the highest rates of illegal migrant traffic, and habitat destruction as a result of foot-traffic and human-induced wildfires. This alternative vision for the pedestrian fence is arranged as a field of lifted honey-comb bird habitats. Linear lights can also be substituted for small wind generators or solar panels.

Above: Initial sketch of border as habitat condition.

fence as habitat Existing fence types constructed along the border, pedestrian, vehicle, and hybrid.

elevation of various forms

2 wall as biofilter Brownsville tx/ Matamoros In South Texas, the US-Mexico border is articulated by the Rio Grande, presenting a border condition unique to that of any other US border state. In response to the complexity as well as the variability of this boundary-line, the border fence is constructed in linear segments at an offset from the actual bank of the river, sometimes as far as a mile and a half away. This decision, while a more financially fiscal option for the government, results in stranding significant portions of land in between the fence and the river, a so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;no manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s landâ&#x20AC;? that is still privately owned and mantained, but seeming to belong neither here nor there. Confounding this already ambiguous condition, the fence is purposefully constructed in discrete, disconnected portions. According to Border Patrol, the decision for a discontinous fence is strategic, funnelling illegal migrants to specific portions of the border where they can be more easily apprehended. However, in a study conducted by faculty at the University of Texas in Brownsville (UTB), these gaps are likely politically motivated as they correspond statistically to wealthier, whiter, and more educated populants. The study suggests that beyond being discriminatory in practice or by result, construction of the border fence remains unappealing and therefore avoided by border communities 73

who feel as if their land is being impeded on or devalued by the fence, or else are unconvinced by the security value of the wall. Having a river as an international boundary is problematic in the sense that it belongs to neither the US or Mexico and is therefore ecologically neglected by both governments. The water of the Rio Grande is highly contaminated with untreated industrial water, pesticides, and other agro-contaminants. Although there are binational organizations built around addressing these problems (BECC, COCEF, International Water Boundary Commission), efforts to clean the water require complex coordination among national, state, and local government. The Rio Grande, as a result is among the most contaminated rivers in the US. In response to these issues, this proposed wall system, applied to existing portions of the border fence, explores potential applications of aeroponics and biomediation systems to this region. This synthetic system would filter surface water contaminants by siphoning river water to the wall and rid contaminants via plant species known as hyperaccumulators, while creating an occupiable zone for residents and visitors alike, thus shedding many of the hostile connotations of the border.

Above: Initial sketch of border as filter.

s. TExas border condition Zone created by duplicity of the Rio Grande and the border fence.

UNITED STATES 1

2 ert

Ins

BUFFER ZONE

RIO GRANDE

insert

ray

ert Inv

tru

BORDER WALL

array

extrude

invert

MEXICO puncture

drape

ro phytop cesses

contaminant

on cti tra n ex tio o yt ada ph egr zod i tion h r rada odeg phyt ion volatizat

hyperaccumulator

phytoremediation Phytoremediation refers to natural ability of certain plants called hyperaccumulators to bioaccumulate, degrade, or render harmless the contaminants in soil, water, or air. Phytoremediation may be applied wherever the soil or static water environment has become polluted or is suffering ongoing chronic contamination. Phytoremediation as been applied successfully in restoration of abandoned metal-mined workings, reducing the offending contaminants in soil, water, or air. Contaminants can includes metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil, and its derivatives. Phytoremediation can be a particularly valuable resource for the soil and water in border communities where resources are shared and exploited by inhabitants on both sides, and therefore mediated by separate, sometimes conflicting sets of environmental laws and restrictions.. 77

Phytoextraction

Phytoextration is the first subprocess of phytopremediation in which plants remove dangerous elements or compounds from soil or water. The heavy metals that plants extract are toxic to the plants as well, and the plants used for phytoextraction are known as hyperaccumulators that sequester large amounts of heavy metals in their tissues.

Some plants can sequester or immobilize contaminants by absorbing them into their roots and releasing a chemical that converts the contaminant into a non-toxic substance. In some cases, plant roots excrete compounds that contain organic carbon which microorganisms use as a food source. Hyperaccumulators bind contaminanted soils in place, which results in the immobilization of toxic contaminants.

Plants take up contaminants, mostly metals, metaloids and radionucleids, with their roots and accumulate them in large quantities within their stems and leaves. As an ecological precaution, these plants have to be harvested and disposed as special waste.

Potential Contaminants

Rhizodegradation

Exudates Mycorrhiza Pollutants

Exudates, emitted from the roots of the plant, consist of enzymes, alcohols, phenols, carbohydrates, or acids.

Translocation

Pollutant

Arsenic

used in a variety of pesticides, treated wood products, herbicides, and insecticides.

Cadmium (Cd)

Clean Soil

used in production of batteries, electroplating, and nuclear fission

Contaminated Soil

Lead (Pb)

used in building construction, batteries, bullets, weights, and fusible alloys

Sodium Chloride (NaCl) used in building construction, batteries, bullets, weights, and fusible alloys

Caesium-137

used to remove contaminants after the Chernobyl accident

Water Table

Uptake

Phytodegradation Plants take up and break down contaminants through the release of enzymes and metabolic processes such as photosynthetic oxidation/reduction. In this process, organic pollutants are degraded and incorporated into the plants, or broken down in the soil..

Volatization Some plants take up volatile contaminants and release them into the atmosphere through transpiration. The contaminants is tranformed or degreaded within the plant to create a less toxic substance beforehand, and then released in to the air.

Metabolic Processes

Translocation

stages of bioremediation Four stages of bioremediation from phytoextraction to volatization.

tam ina nt

Chromium (Cr)

180

Lead (Pb)

400

Mercury (Hg)

.81

.18

PCB (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

TCE (Trichloroethlene)

.47

MTBE (Methyl tertiary butyl ether)

100

.93

DDT (Dichlorophenyltrichloroethane)

7.9

1.7

.003

PCP (Pentachlorophenol)

6.7

2.4

Us e

pm Hyperaccumulator plant species and their associated treatable contaminants.

era yp lH ica Ty p

Ty p

ica

lC on

tam

ccu

ina

lev el ( p mu m Ma xi

hyperaccumulators

icul tu med ral ical ind ustr ial elec t r on ics fuel pro du c ti bld g co on nstr ucti on

agr

icul tur

mil y e fa sing l

)

ltifa

mil y

Co n Arsenic (As)

Chinese Brake Fern Pteris vittata L.

Sunflower

Helianthus annuus

Alpine Pennycress

Festuca ovina

Agrostis castellana

Giant Duckweed

Thlaspi caerulescens

Blue Sheep Fescue

Highland Bent Grass

Spirdela polyrhiza

Indian Mustard Brassica juncea L.

Common Wheat Triticum estivum

Seapink Thrift America maritima

Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Scarlet Rose Rosa

Willow Sidux

White rot fungus

Brassica olercea

Rapeseed Plant Brassica napus

Zuchini

Curcurbita pepo

Pine Pinus

Eastern cottonwoods Populus deltoides

Pumpkin Curcurbita

Crested Wheatgrass Agropyron cristaturn

lat ors

Phanerochaete chrysosporium

Common Ragweed

hydroponics v. Aeroponics Stemming from the combination of hydro, the Greek word meaing water and ponics meaning labor, hydroponics is a system in which plants are grown either in a static solution culture or a continous flow of solution culture, as opposed to soil. Today there are many different systems available on the market, some which cater to specific plants such as tomatos or lettuce, while others enable the growth of produce or water purification. Beyond the obvious advantage of not requiring soil, the water used in the system can also be recycled by using a continous flow of solution culture. Aeroponics refers to the method of growing plants in a soiless medium such as air or mist. Unlike hydroponics, however, this type of system has proven to be successful in propogation, seed germinations, and seed production, essentially the full cycle of a plants life. Aeroponics also provide significant advantages when compared to traditional farming which uses a relatively substantial about of water over the life-cycle of a crop. 81

Hydro drip manifold drip lines

grow tray overflow

reservoir nutrient pump

Aero

hung root system mist nozzle

reservoir nutrient solution

1b Surface Manipulation Swept Surfaces

18’

Manipulation 1a Surface Ruled Surfaces Rotated Curve Sweep

18’

Scaled (Rotated) Curve Sweep

1b Surface Manipulation Swept Surfaces 2 Doubled Surface

Scaled v. Rotated Edge Curve

Swept Curve axis of rotation

angle of rotation

Rail A Rail B New Swept Surface

Original Subsurface

-15

.35

.65

Plan View

Warp Ridges

Structural Layering Etc.

Composite

morphological development Surface manipulation and articulation of airflow openings and seating extrusions.

Structural Beams

Inner Surface

Outer Surface

18â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

0.0 (radians)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Ridge Torque + Extrusion Double Curve

18â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

0.0

Ridge Torque + Extrusion Single Curve

ng ati

c fen

old aff

ll wa n tio ing e ibu ain ret ran istr mb r d me wate e sil th ten wi ed ure ed ct se stru ed pip

d de ad

ing ist ex

6 5 4 3 2 1

h s bu

ati str

ni mi

3 wall as housing San Diego CA / Tijuana Housing in the San Diego/Tijuana area is a highly contentious issue, contrasted viscerally between the expansive low-density suburbia north of the border, and the informal, often adhoc neighborhoods of Tijuana. This qualitative opposition in urban development isn’t exclusive to these bordering cities, but in fact, plays out in many other cities along the border, encompassing agricultural development, city centers, and other residential zones. The prevalence of low-density housing in San Diego is a result of several different factors, in part rooted in discriminatory housing policies implemented at the onset of WWII. In spite of a severe housing shortage and an exploding population of middle-class industrial workers, San Diego city leaders refused to establish an official housing authority, instead fashioning a strategy for growth which would exclude “undesireable” populations of immigrants and the working class. This plan “was predicated on a process of urban decentralization why by the entire city, supported by extensive federal military investment, would be available for the construction of single-family housing.” These initial policies, although implemented in 1941, have had a profound and lasting impact on the urban identity of San Diego as well as Tijuana. Housing vernacular in neighboring Tijuana, by comparison, while fundamentally 87

impacted by these policies, has nonetheless inflected them in a different way. Tijuana housing construction posesses a long and rich history in the adaptive reuse of recycled or discarded materials which flow from the north. Even in 1945, after thousands of homes were declared no longer needed, many homes were dismanteled or sold in their entirety to Mexico. Today, this practice still exists, albiet reflective or a higher degree of exchange. From discarded tires, to entire homes, many houses in Tijuana are formed in some part, by materials from the north. This theoretical housing represents a hybrid of these two modes of development, regulated by grid scaffolding and prefabricated units, but flexible to growth, change, and densification over time. In turn, facing or “sister” housing developments offer a symbolic form of connectivity, one which is visual, but can become literal in time, given a slackening of immigration law and an increased permeability in the border condition. This development is intended for, and shaped by the needs of transnational families, whose lives and identities transcend the border. Transnational communities include families separated by economic immigration, deportation, or simply individuals who in some way, are affected by the pervasive political divisions of the border.

Above: Initial sketch of border as housing.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

Spatial order is one of the most st nise the existence of the cultural

mation and another, that is, differ

bers of those societies live out and

triking means by which we recogdifferences between one social for-

d reproduce their social existence.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

rences in the ways in which mem-

- Bill Hillier

S A N D I E G O 91

T I J U A N A 92

C A L E X I O 93

M E X I C A L I 94

E 95

P A

C D. J U A R E Z 96

Major Binational Roads

San diego/ Tijuana Large- scale urban analysis

Population Density

U N I T E D

S T A T E S San Diego

Tijuana

M E X I C O 3

Urban Extents

site selection The site identified for this project is located in a small neighborhood just south of the border called Nueva Tijuana. This particular site was chosen for its proximity to border crossing, economically promising industrial sites to the north, and the relatively flat topography. Additionally, the urban condition of the Nueva Tijuana neighborhood possesses desireable qualities for an intervention of this type and scale, in which the community is dense enough to sustain such a development, yet organized about a central grid system, unlike the informal slum communities that lie to the east and west of this neighborhood. Like the rest of the border fence separating Tijuana and San Diego, there is a double border fence with a buffer zone approximating 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; wide, allowing for potential programmatic reappropriation of this zone in the future.

805

125

Sa n

Ys id ri o

905

Pa se o

In te rn ac io na l

AQUI

I T A V E NU 100

101

Above: Aerial render of binational, facing housing units and readapted security zone.

102

103

Above: Render of ground level market and entry.

104

105

Above: Render of occupiable scaffolding and view to sister development.

106

1 Ground Level

First Level

development plans Plans depicting possible arrangements of housing units with fixed lower program.

107

8 6 7

Second Level *variable configurations

Third Level *variable configurations

10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

informal covered market zone formal market/ retail flex zone shared bathrooms shared kitchen/ dining cantilevered garden typical studio unit typical 1BR unit typical 3BR unit

108

unit plans Plans depicting various unit typologies, and potential for growth over time.

109

1 1 Bedroom un-attached to core

2 1 Bedroom attached to core

3 1 Bedroom - Living Space attached to core

110

phasing and development Design of these binational housing developments are based on the assumption (read: critical utopian vision) that construction and expansion is to take place over time in response to changing politics and border conditions. Although the image of the wall concedes to the idea of a fixed and static border condition, politics remain fluid, and are likely to change in reaction to a growing and exceedingly proactive immigrant population. In fact, the border fence as a security barrier is already being quickly superceded by alternative technologies which are capable of monitoring border activity without the need of a physical wall. The hope is that through the combination of immigration reform and technological development on the border, movement can occur more freely and openly, effectively reuniting families and forming the basis for a border urbanism which facilitates modes of flow and exchange in a healthy way.

111

+0 years existing double-barrier division

+20 years corresponding housing developments with cantilevered units + maintained security buffer

SAN TIJU

ANA

DIEG

+10 years integrated single- layer market and flexible retail.

+35 years readapted occupiable buffer zone and regulated flow via flexible border cross stations.

+40 years wall destroyed, free human flow regulated by remote and aerial technology.

112

113

point, the status of the borderâ&#x20AC;&#x153; Atlanda certain simply becomes a question of military

and political power...Mexican national power might reemerge, and the demographic of the borderland of the American side may have shifted so dramatically that the political boundaries might not be able to hold.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

- george Friedman

114

Border Protection. <http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/overview>. Brown, Wendy. Walled states, waning sovereignty. New York: Zone Books, 2010. “Commission for Environmental Cooperation.” Commission for Environmental Cooperation. <http://www.cec.org/>. De la Garza, Beatriz. Personal interview. 3 June 2013. Author, From the Republic of the Rio Grande: A Personal History of the Place and the People

selected bibliography Adams, John A. Bordering the future: The impact of Mexico on the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006. Ahumada, Pat. Personal interview. 18 June 2013. Former Mayor of Brownsville Appadurai, Arjun. The Future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. London: New York : Verso Books, 2013. Benavides, Jude. Personal interview. 21 June 2013. Assistant Professor of Hydrology and Water Resources at UT Brownsville Bennett, Vivienne, Sonia Dávila-Poblete, and Nieves Rico. Opposing currents: The politics of water and gender in Latin America. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh P, 2005. Bennett, Vivienne. Telephone interview. 12 Aug. 2013. Author, Professor of Border Studies, California State University “BLDGBLOG: Peripheral Porosity.” BLDGBLOG. Online Article. Boehm, Deborah A. Intimate migrations: Gender, family, and illegality among transnational Mexicans. New York: New York UP, 2012. “Border Patrol Overview.” U.S. Customs and 115

“Department of Geography.” , San Diego State University. <http://geography.sdsu.edu/>. Doolittle, William. Personal interview. 23 May 2013. Senior member of Geography Department, UT Austin Eaton, David. Telephone interview. 5 May 13. Professor in Natural Resource Policy Studies at Lyndon B. Johnson Fisk III, Pliny. Personal interview. 25 May 13.Co-director of the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems (CMPBS) Greene, Joshua. Personal interview. 27 June 2013. UT graduate student Public Policy, Border Environmental Cooperative Commission (BECC) Herzog, Lawrence A. From Aztec to high tech: Architecture and landscape across the Mexico-United States border. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 1999. Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. Hillier, Bill. Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.

Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Geografía (INEGI).” Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Geografía. <http://www.inegi.org.mx/>.

“The Rise of Mexico.” The Economist. 24 Nov. 2012. The Economist Newspaper. <http:// www.economist.com/news/leaders/>.

Lieberknecht, Katherine. Personal interview. 30 May 2013. Associate Professor of Architecture, UT Austin

Romero, Fernando. Hyperborder: The contemporary U.S.-Mexico border and its future. New York: Princeton Architectural P, 2008.

Lytle, Michael. Personal interview. 11 June 2013. Coordinator of Forensic Investigation Program, UT-Brownsville Malloy, Richard. Design with the desert: Conservation and sustainable development. Boca Raton: CRC P, 2013. Maril, Robert Lee. The fence: National security, public safety, and illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech UP, 2011. Martínez, Oscar J. Border boom town: Ciudad Juárez since 1848. Austin: University of Texas P, 1978. Martínez, Oscar J. Border people: Life and society in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona P, 1994.

“San Diego Geographic Information Source.” SanGIS. 12 May 2014 <http://www.sangis. org/>. Shephard, Les. Telephone interview. 19 June 2013. Professor at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at University of Texas San Antonio Stoll, Katrina, Scott Lloyd, and Stan Allen. Infrastructure as architecture: Designing composite networks. Berlin: Jovis, 2010. Tirado, Officer Daniel. E-mail interview. 11 July 2013. US Border Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector. “U.S. - Mexico Border Environmental Health Initiative.” U.S. - Mexico Border Environmental Health Initiative. <http://borderhealth.cr.usgs. gov/>.

Massey, Douglas S. Beyond smoke and mirrors: Mexican immigration in an era of economic integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002.

Waldorf, Caleb, and Teddy Cruz. “Triple Canopy; Learning from Tijuana by Teddy Cruz with Caleb Waldorf.” Triple Canopy. <http:// canopycanopycanopy.com/contents/learning_from_tijuana>.

“The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment.” : Texas State University. <http:// www.meadowscenter.txstate.edu/>.

“Water Use in the United States.” Water use in the United States, from USGS Water-Science School. <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wateruse.html>.

Montague, Renee, and Steve Inskeep. “Laredo Mayor Opposes Mexico Border Fence.” NPR. NPR. <http://www.npr.org/templates/ story/story.php?storyId=10856978>.

Wilson, Jeff. Personal interview. 10 June 2013. Assistant Dean of the College of Science, UTBrownsville

“Occidente Nuevo: Recycled Tijuana.” At the edges. <http://www.attheedges. com/2013/04/04/occidente-nuevo-recycledtijuana/>.

Wyatt, Edward. “Cain Proposes Electrified Border Fence.” New York Times. <http:// thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/cainproposes-electrified-border-fence/>.

116

117

acknowledgements I would first like to thank my thesis advisors Paul Eiss, Rami El Samahy, Jonathan Kline, and Christine Mondor for helping to shape this project from its beginnings through thoughtful feedback and insight. This project wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have been possible without it. I would also like to give sincere thanks to Mary-Lou Arscott, Dana Cupkova, and Kai Gutshow, and as secondary advisors to the project who additionally provided pertinent insight and advice. Thanks to Josh Greene and Rene Cardona, for graciously allowing me to travel with them to the border and glean experience from their research, and to Dr. David Eaton for facilitating the arrangement. Additionally, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d like to thank all of the faculty, academics, and other professionals who so willingly offered their knowledge both on-camera and off for the purposes of this project. Finally, to my family for their unrelenting love and support, and to whom this thesis is dedicated.

118

119

120