Is there a “Mexican side” of the fence?
May 8th, 2008, 8:18 am · Post a Comment · posted by ksieff
It’s not surprising that the national media has taken to covering the border fence on a fairly regular basis. What is surprising is that the country’s most well-respected news outlets manage to consistently misunderstand one of the issue’s important nuances. Â
There will be–as The Herald has pointed out–houses and businesses on the south side of the border fence. But will they be on the “Mexican side of the fence?” No.
The Department of Homeland Security is not selling a sliver of the country to Mexico. The land south of the fence will not be abandoned or informally ceded. It will not become, as the L.A. Times suggests incoherently, “a holding site for prisoners of war.”Â
At April’s congressional hearing, Border Patrol chief Ronald Vitiello confirmed that the land on the south side of the fence will be patrolled by BP. In fact, the fence is being built north of the levee in order to provide BP agents with a pre-constructed road on the south side.Â
In other words, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, will not be disregarded. No land north of the Rio Grande will become Mexican territory.
Do reporters from outside of the Valley not understand these details, or are they referring to “the Mexican side of the fence” figuratively?Â
The New York Times has done this at least twice: here and here.
The L.A. Times did it here.
Newsweek did it here.
The Christian Science Monitor did it here .
Are all of these reporters intent on extending the “Mexican side” metaphor? If they are, some attention must also be paid to the dry details of sovereignty and ownership.Â
After the fence is constructed, the land south of the barrier might be mistreated and environmentally degradated. Its inhabitants might be marginalized and unfairly compensated. But it will be American soil.Â
