Two sisters are separated by a wall. While they are told to stay away and hate each other, the sisters know they cannot survive without the other’s love and support. Calexico and Mexicali reside on opposite ends of a barbed-wire covered border that stretches two thousand miles starting from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. The greater area encompassing these two towns is referred to as the borderlands. Borderlands are defined as both geographic regions and zones of political influence. This paper argues that despite the intimidating wall erected separating the two countries, these border towns treat the barrier as invisible. A sense of shared community has the ability to erase borders, leaving behind any prejudices the government instills on the people. I will begin by discussing the differences between the towns, and the struggles they face with the border. Following that, I will highlight the several attitudes people have towards the borderlands and the Latino Threat Narrative presented by Leo Chavez. In the end, the paper will explore the positive relationship between Mexicali and Calexico showcasing the unbreakable bond they share.

       Calexico, California is located just an hour's drive from Yuma, Arizona. It is often seen as poor, uneducated, and polluted--a struggling market city. Paint peeling off worn facades, plenty of store-fronts available for rent... the Main Street Mall, a struggling effort housed in what looked like a department store building from the fifties. One of the main differences between 1 Mexicali and Calexico is that their allegiances lie with their home countries, creating different dynamics both economically and politically. Located in Imperial County, Calexico ranks among the worst of California’s counties in air quality, water, income, and schooling.2 Calexico was originally a tent city, made up of shanty communities that sought to spread westward of the Colorado River during the 1900s. The town slowly grew into a transportation hub for people traveling to Mexico. The foot traffic alone to get into Mexico can stretch as long as four hours nowadays. Mexican officials report nearly twenty-five thousand crossings daily.3 Calexico is more agriculturally based compared to industrialized Mexicali. While Mexicali is at a more economic advantage, receiving most of its income from American tourists, Calexico offers more of the American experience. Calexico Mayor Lewis Pacheco said, “We’ve got a million people across the border that walk across and are buying milk, eggs, fresh chicken, bologna, bread on a daily basis.”4 Laborers from Mexico stimulate the American economy by contributing their work, buying American products, filling up Wal Mart parking lots with cars that have Mexicali

plates.

     Mexicali inversely benefits economically from Calexico. While Mexicans purchase American products, Americans travel across the border for bargains. Mexicali is described as a twenty-four-hour cornucopia of dining and nightclubs, theater and concerts, the center of cosmopolitan sophistication.5 While Calexico was initially a tent city, Mexicali was an irrigation colony, providing water to the Imperial Valley.6 Now, it is home to several retail outlets, both bargain and brand name. They also offer affordable health care, Americans making the hop over the border for procedures ranging from dental operations to cosmetic surgery. The city takes advantage of the skilled laborers who stay, attracting foreign companies and tourists. While the economies of Calexico and Mexicali are different, they are both dependent on each other, clearly relying on the inhabitants of the other to energize their income.

     However, not everyone believes in the mutualistic relationship between the two cities, much less the two countries. Leo Chavez poses the fear Americans have about immigrants in his book The Latino Threat. Chavez repeats a quote made by Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist, which goes, “Mexican immigration looms a unique and disturbing challenge to our cultural integrity, our national identity, and potential to our future as a country.” 7 It is a popular belief among conservatives that immigrants steal jobs, do not pay taxes or are all criminals, and this creates the overall Latino Threat Narrative. Since this belief is so widespread, it becomes difficult for the average, hard-working immigrant to feel included in the land of the free. Additionally, these people believe that since Mexicans are unwilling to assimilate and pose a threat, why should we be having anything to do with them? Therefore, conservatives are against these communal border towns that rely on this constant back-and-forth of people. This reconquista, would lead to the creation of a separate nation due to this blurring of borders.8 This idea of a new nation is quite popular between both conservatives and liberals, yet some see it as a metaphorical third nation. Citizens of these border towns feel, “that they have more in common with one another than with citizens of their countries.” This idea of a third nation is thought of as a community shared by two nation-states due to their common interests and experiences. It is an in-between zone which has developed its own identity.9 Mexicali and Calexico do not only share trade, but citizens whose hearts are neither here nor there.

     Transborder citizens travel back and forth, having legal residence in one country, but spend half their time in another. Families live in Calexico and on weekends they go across and spend their time there, helping on their family’s ranches. Some families refuse to leave the border zones because the further you move from the border, the less likely it is you will speak

Spanish.10 The more generations that pass, the less Spanish children speak,11 and therefore to combat this trend, some families prefer to stay in these border towns, believing it is the best of both worlds.

      Big businesses contribute to this idea of a shared world as well. In one example, author Peter Laufer speaks about his personal experience visiting both towns and finds a beer advertisement. Behind the scantily clad women was a map showing both Calexico and Mexicali. However, “there was only one dot on the map representing both cities. In the Bud Light world, Calexico and Mexicali were one. No border formalities. No artificial line. No Berlin wall-type fortifications keeping beer drinkers apart.”12 The slogan across the poster read “Aqui y Alla. Las raices se comparten.”13 Aside from this dual-marketing effort, it is recognized that both towns share a heritage and a culture. Despite rhetoric thrown by politicians and the presidential administration enforcing the Latino Threat Narrative, these towns defy all odds and thrive by helping each other, becoming one people. Occupants, “have no choice but to shoulder the burdens of our nation’s obsession with immigration, drugs, and national security.”14

      While some people treat the border as blurred, others want to get rid of it altogether. This is a reference to the No Borders Movement camp that was first established in the United States in 2007. Originating in Germany, the No Borders Movement, “seeks the removal, rather than refashioning, of all immigration controls and other methods in which freedom of movement is

denied, challenging the conception of such controls and fortifications of border zones.”15 In November 2007, the movement established their first camps in the Americas in the towns of Calexico and Mexicali. This attempted to accomplish several goals which included to build a community, challenging the United States Border Patrol, and raising awareness to the

metaphorical and literal divisiveness of the wall. The outcome organizers wanted “was to create one autonomous camp/space that would...allow activists to flow freely back and forth—erasing the line, at least temporarily.”16

     The camps were situated near opposite ends of the fence and would hold activities that were aimed to unite both sides, such as a “cross-border breakfast.” Demonstrations of solidarity also took place at detention centers and cross-border kissing booths.17 The No Borders Movement was focused on showing how much of a barrier the border was, often times preventing the camps from following through with their activities. The United States Border Patrol would constantly attempt to shut down demonstrations, further enforcing the No Border Movement’s belief that the border is divisive. Also, it proved difficult to run cohesive sister camps since participants would only be able to have activities at either camp since it was impossible to be in the middle of the border. Those on the Calexico side were hardly in danger of getting into trouble by border patrol agents, yet the Mexicali participants had agents hovering over them and essentially keeping them away from Calexico. Agents would only care about the Mexicans entering the United States, and therefore it gave those from Calexico a certain

privilege.18 This distinction became an internal conflict in the No Borders Movement. These hurdles organizers and activists had to face represented the difficulty of border citizens to overcome this forced border culture. Though the No Borders Movement had good intentions, referred to as utopianist, internal and external barriers made organizers struggle.19 However, while some people vow to totally eradicate the border, others find ways to benefit from it.

      Some believe the border is an opportunity, a friend, a love, everything.20 While it is preferable the border not be there, residents of the border zones treat the barrier as fluid. These people live day by day, carrying on and relying on one another. Deep down, they all know that eventually the wall must come down, but until then, they make the best out of the situation.

Residents prefer that the funds that would be redirected into making more points of entry and community projects that remove the atmosphere of fear, instead of making the wall larger.21 The wall isn’t just an exaggerated boundary, but a symbol of racism and segregation. However no matter how ugly, monstrous, and insulting, the wall is ultimately doomed for failure because every wall that has ever been built has come down.22 The towns have clearly bonded over their shared opinions about the border. In a recent survey, both borderland towns believed they are “one giant economically integrated, bicultural society.”23 Calexico and Mexicali residents have become one people, blending into each other just like their names. At times, some people forget what side of the border they are on because they are constantly flowing between the two. The distance between Mexicali and Calexico is so close, that some families refuse to move because they can “country-hop” when they like to visit relatives and help them when needed. Mexicans are able to enjoy certain American amenities with just a quick trip to a superstore like Walmart. Meanwhile, Americans may travel for cheaper, better prices when they cross the border.

       At the end of the day, both towns share a common area, culture, economy and most importantly a common people. Though they are in two different countries, they are not really that different. These border towns are often linked together: San Diego-Tijuana, Tucson-Nogales, El Paso-Ciudad Juárez, and Calexico-Mexicali. When all is said and done, border or not, these towns treat it like there is nothing between them. Their relationship is too precious to either to let a wall cut their ties. This relationship brings them closer together, defying the odds and creating an unbreakable bond showing that community can blur borders.

 

 

1 Laufer, Peter. Calexico: Bordering on a State of Mind , 4th ed. Vol. 45. Southern

Review. 2009.

2 Laufer. p.671.

3 Jackson, Joe. ¢Calexico and Mexicali, twin cities separated at birth.¢ Al Jazeera . 21

February 2015. http:..www.aljazeera.com.indepth.features.2015.02.calexico-mexicali-twin-cities

-separated-birth -150219133329144.html£. ®10 May 2017©.

4 Laufer. p.679.

5 Laufer. p.671.

6 Jackson. Al Jazeera.

7 Huntington, Samuel. “Who Are We.” The Challenges to America’s National Identity .

®Simon ¶ Schuster, 2005©.

8 Chavez, Leo R. The Latino Threat. ®Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003©, 42.

9 Dear, Michael. ¢Americans and Mexicans living at the border are more connected than divided.¢ The Conversation . 5 March 2017. http://..theconversation.com.americans-and-mexicansliving-at-the-border-are-more-connected-than-divided-72348.

10 Dear. The Conversation.

11 Chavez. p.60.

12 Laufer. p.674.

13 Translation: “On this side and on that side, we share a heritage.”

14 Dear. The Conversation .

15 Burridge, Andrew. “Youth on the line and the No Borders movement” Children’s

Geographies 8, no. 4 ®November 2010©.

16 Burridge. p. 405.

17 Burridge. p. 406.

18 Burridge. p. 406.

19 Burridge. p. 409.

20 Jackson. Al Jazeera.

21 Dear. The Conversation .

22 Laufer. p.672. p.682.

23 Dear. The Conversation.