In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Just over two months after successfully implementing Operation Blockade , Chief Reyes sought to expand the operation in early December 1993 by proposing a 1.3-mile-long, ten-foot-high, solid, thin steel fence (or wall) immediately to the west of El Paso. It was to be placed near the start of the riverless, land-based section of the border in between two small poor communities, Sunland Park, New Mexico, and Colonia Anapra, Chihuahua. This measure proved to be a very controversial escalation that sparked vigorous debate and formidable opposition for most of the ensuing two years until the matter was finally settled largely (but not entirely) in favor of the El Paso Border Patrol. That it generated such divided sentiment locally was something of a surprise, given the overwhelming popularity of Operation Blockade and Chief Reyes. It breathed life back into the loosely organized opposition to Border Patrol excesses that had reached its zenith in the Bowie lawsuit but was left in disarray by Operation Blockade. Several conceptual issues aid us in examining and interpreting the struggle over this proposed border wall. First and foremost, it illustrates a new phase in the dynamic, though still unequal, relationship between the bureaucratic power structure of the Border Patrol and its surrounding social environment (Perrow 1986, 2000), especially the loosely organized opponents of its measures. Though Operation Blockade had seemingly vanquished such opposition, the wall debate shows that the wildly popular operation had not foreclosed it, nor enabled the Border Patrol to resume its pre-Bowie-lawsuit posture of ignoring its adverse impacts on the community and all related complaints. Next, in examining this case it is important to keep in mind the role of the use of myths and symbols by bureaucracies to reinforce their position (Meyer and CHAPTER 4 TheBorderWallCampaign 98 Chapter 4 Rowan 1991), as the Border Patrol invoked these to set and then shift, as needed, the terms of the wall debate to eventually overwhelm the opposition . In turn, much of the opposition to the wall can be understood in light of the proposition that groups seeking change in bureaucracies can alter them by counterposing the symbols and practices of one institution against another (Freidland and Alford 1991)—especially those of bureaucracy versus democracy in this case. This proposal for a border wall was unprecedented locally and led a broad range of actors to rise up against it and led to a rare setback for such wall proposals borderwide, in spite of the fact that the Border Patrol repeatedly portrayed it as a fait accompli/done deal. In fact, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (ins), the Border Patrol’s parent agency, had final authority over the matter and considered the proposal for nearly two years before ultimately opting instead for a chain-link/ mesh fence as a compromise—like that along much of the border in El Paso in place since the late 1970s, which had sparked a similar debate over the “tortilla curtain.”1 In contrast to Operation Blockade, the delay allowed time for significant public response to the newly proposed border enforcement measure before it was implemented. The Sunland Park border wall debate marked the only instance among nine cases during the 1990s in which a border wall proposed by the Border Patrol was not ultimately approved and built. (This stands in marked contrast to the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” calling for seven hundred miles of border walling [Mittelstadt 2006].) This outcome, and even that a debate emerged at all, is especially surprising given that the El Paso Border Patrol was riding an overwhelming wave of local popularity for its just-implemented Operation Blockade. If ever there was a favorable political context for a wall proposal, on the surface the El Paso area was it. Chief Reyes was the most popular public official in the area (subsequently confirmed in his election to the U.S. Congress in 1996), and he was the architect and leading spokesperson for both the blockade and the wall. However, the wall proposal divided opinion locally and aroused strong opposition, thereby transforming an internal bureaucratic decision-making process (entirely within the ins) into an open, democratic, and very public debate that lasted nearly two years (1993–1995) and resulted in a compromise outcome devoid of a wall per se. Here I chronicle the key developments, including: the lively early stages of the wall debate, the public hearing, the “great train robbery” bust, the hazardous materials scare, and the Mexican compromise. From...

Share