Click here to read the related article.
Among the many issues that surround the issue of immigration, the one perhaps at the very foundation is the actual fence itself that the United States has constructed in order to impede the migration of “illegal immigrants”. According to the article posted above, eight Democrats in Congress wrote Obama to halt building the border fence, yet back when Obama was a senator, he voted to authorize almost $3 billion for building 670 miles of fence. This isn’t so much a critique of Obama, or the administration, but more of a way to show the duality this issue produces in our country. On one end of the spectrum officials support the building of the fence, saying it drastically cuts the number of crossings. What does this fence really mean though? The United States, as it stands in the premise of providing a wealth of opportunities to people who in other countries are perhaps not as exposed to opportunity, engages in several topics, immigration being one of them, where there are ambiguous policies. The engagement of producing an “unnatural” border on land that questionably does not “belong” to us, (but mother earth herself) lends itself to question how our country seeks to politically and socio-economically gain from the barrier in the first place. Would it be bad to truly make America the most accessible country for prosperity? Or, are American politics steeped in money, political gains and “isms” that slow the process? The idea of a fence to hold back a human being from a better life certainly serves as a dual meaning for a country whose tag line runs: “Land of the free, home of the brave.”