Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along the United States and Mexican border has arguably become the most memorable talking point of his presidential campaign. While his statements have fundamentally polarized the American public, Trump’s sentiments are not unprecedented in the global context. Some may praise globalization for its unifying effects, but today’s globalizing trends have also made our societies more divisive. This is especially apparent with the rapid construction of walls and escalation of border security worldwide. To ostensibly protect domestic labor forces, governments are building more borders, thereby reinforcing national or cultural differences and fostering a culture of global suspicion and uncertainty.
There is no doubt we are living in an era of globalization. Never have so many people been connected economically, culturally, and politically. But despite the crumbling of metaphysical borders, there has been an unexpected surge in physical boundaries. An increasing number of governments, frightened by often irrationally perceived security threats, are trying to restrict migrant labor and strengthen the identity of the nation-state. In fact, since the end of World War II, 51 boundaries have been built, and approximately half of these have been constructed in the last 15 years. Most recently, in September 2015, Hungary constructed a wall along its border with Serbia; within hours of completion, nearly 60 people were arrested for attempting to cross the wall. Brazil has also made a recent move to strengthen its borders: In 2013, the government announced its plans to employ drones and satellites to create a virtual wall and secure its 9000-mile border. Within the past two decades, walls around the world have drastically increased in length, surveillance, and ambition.
In most cases, wealthier countries are building borders to isolate themselves from their poorer neighbors. Ron Hassner and Jason Wittenberg, professors of Political Science at UC Berkeley, examined this trend and found that border walls, such as the US-Mexico and Israel-West Bank barriers, have generally been constructed by the wealthier state. They were all created with the stated purpose of keeping out migrants from less wealthy nations. As a result, barriers have taken on a new meaning to become a physical representation of inequality and power dynamics.
Furthermore, some have argued that these walls are built not just for practicality, but also show. James Anderson of Queen’s University, Belfast points out that if the US were truly trying to solve migrant labor issues, it would prosecute more employers rather than build walls. It is becoming increasingly obvious that walls tend to derive their value from visual impacts and relations to political agenda. Walls act as symbols and political tools for nations that wish to secure sovereignty, sharpen their nation-state identities, and deliver a powerful political message to their neighbors.
But these trends still leave unanswered questions: Why has border construction increased exponentially in recent years, and what are the results of this escalation? To answer these, we can look to the discourse and effects surrounding two well-known border walls — the Israel-West Bank border and the proposed US-Mexico wall. Although these examples do not encompass the diverse array of issues that come along with reinforced borders, they are nevertheless representative of several cross-cutting themes.
The act of building walls is a self-perpetuating cycle, exacerbating fear in the global community and lending credence to isolationism. Borders reinforce national differences and obstruct peace-building efforts. According to Wendy Pullan, a senior lecturer at the University of Cambridge, the construction of barriers disrupts the urban order. In her view, “A divided city changes its whole metabolism. And divided cities do not flourish.” She further claims that wall-building results in a tendency to vilify the “others.” In his book Border Walls, political geographer Reece Jones adds that building physical borders bolsters ideas of inferiority and dehumanization.
The potential construction of the US-Mexico border is a textbook example of this argument. The long-standing and extensive trade ties between the two nations allow millions of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to flourish in the US. These communities in turn reinforce the US-Mexico bilateral relationship. However, if a wall is built between the countries as Trump suggests, historians believe there could be a sudden power shift between the two countries that could cultivate problematic ideas of racial inferiority. These political and racial shifts would likely shatter decades of bilateral cooperation in one fell swoop.
Similar patterns can be found between Israel and Palestine. Since the completion of the Israel-West Bank barrier, tensions have risen among the civilians of both nations. For example, the terms used to refer to the wall are politically charged on both sides. While the Israelis refer to the wall as an ‘antiterrorist fence,’ Palestinians call the security fence an ‘apartheid wall’ or the ‘colonization wall.’ To the Palestinians, the barrier is merely a land grabbing mechanism utilized by the Israeli government. Their frustration manifests itself in the frequent protests against the completion of the wall and the increased violence along the West Bank.
Not only can walls exacerbate global tensions, but they can also be ineffective in meeting their original objectives. The example of the Israel-West Bank barrier epitomizes the sheer inefficacy of border walls. Although the walls were created in part to deter Palestinian migrants, the announcement of border construction precipitated a sharp influx of Palestinians into Jerusalem. Nearly 70,000 Palestinians who had left Jerusalem immediately moved back to avoid being cut off from the services they required.
Other commentators have argued that building walls doesn’t solve the migration problem. The Christian Science Monitor Editorial Board, for instance, has written that walls “merely divert migration elsewhere and make it more dangerous.” Although Israel often cites the decrease in suicide bombings as a direct consequence of the Israel-West Bank barrier, researchers have pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the border prevented attacks; the decline may well have been caused by the increase in policing enacted by Palestinian and Israeli officials. In fact, Shin Bet, the Israel Security Agency, in its 2006 annual statistical report, stated that the drop in terror attacks in 2005 was primarily due to the Hamas-called truce in their territories. They even conceded that the “security fence is no longer […] the major factor in preventing suicide bombings, mainly because the terrorists have found ways to bypass it.”
Moreover, a common critique of the Israel-West Bank barrier is based on humanitarian grounds. The wall cuts through the cores of Palestinian villages, limiting the mobility of their citizens and dividing communities. Some portions of the border separated Palestinian farmers from their local schools, jobs, and even their fields, rupturing their ways of life. Health reports also suggest that a third of Palestinian villages located near the West Bank will be denied open access to healthcare after the completion of the barrier. The report points to Palestinian towns Abu Dis and Aizaria in particular, where the time for an ambulance to reach health facilities in Jerusalem has increased from 10 minutes to over an hour. These human rights violations are only complicating territorial negotiations and encouraging divisions.
So perhaps there is a lesson American policy-makers can learn from the ineffectiveness of the Israel-West Bank barrier. Even with the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, it seems unlikely that many immigrants would be deterred from attempting to cross over. Tightening border security would only make traversing conditions more dangerous for the immigrants. In fact, research from the University of Arizona indicated that there was a rise in migrant deaths around the border whenever there was an increase in border enforcement. It is also predicted that the more difficult the cross-border travel becomes, the more likely immigrants will rely on smuggling organizations. This would only therefore financially fuel the networks that drive illegal immigration. Experts warn that the more lucrative smuggling becomes, the more likely that other criminal organizations would get involved in the business. A close examination of the Israel-West Bank barrier could provide an enlightening harbinger for the negative implications of the US-Mexican wall.
The construction of border walls prevents countries from adequately dealing with the root causes of illegal migration by offering a temporary and symbolic solution. But the global community requires cooperation instead of isolation; after all, globalization is by definition an international problem and requires a multilateral response. Yet there appears to be hope for a solution. To circumvent the burgeoning isolationist mindset around the world, the Mexican architect Fernando Romero proposes a practical alternative: binational border cities. He suggests constructing border cities that straddle national borders and foster cross-national cooperation. The architect has already proposed a design of a master plan for a multipolar metropolis with several specialized economic sectors on the US-Mexico border. Hyper-connected cross-border cities can thus represent the future of urban centers, transforming walls from a symbol of isolation to a symbol of cooperation.