At the end of the 19th century, when the United States and Mexico defined the current border, the line between them had no barriers — just a few small obelisks like landmarks to signal the division of the two countries. The idea of putting up a fence came in 1909, not to contain people, but the flow of cattle, in order to prevent them from carrying disease from one place to another.
The history of building on the border —and of it itself— is detailed in the exhibition “The Wall/El Muro: What is a Border Wall?”, which opened in November at Washington’s National Building Museum, a space dedicated to debating architecture.
Throughout the 20th century, the exhibition points out, border control grew and became a structure that is not limited to the border, but spreads across the interior of the US: there are barriers at airports within the country and teams that work in the search for irregular immigrants living in cities, as well as detention centers dedicated to them.
The main symbol of immigration policy, however, turned out to be the border wall, placed as a goal of Donald Trump’s campaign and government. The former president expanded and reformed a little more than 700 km of barriers, on a border of 3,142 km in length, but left the work incomplete.
Several sections of the wall were left loose, unconnected, like monuments in the desert. Upon taking office after Trump in January, Democrat Joe Biden halted construction of the wall.
The exhibition shows a timeline of the border, with photos and text affixed to a full-size representation of the current barrier. It also brings models of the models of railings and walls adopted over time, as well as audio reports from teenagers who crossed it irregularly.
A life-size replica of the installation by the studio Rael San Fratello was also placed there, which set up makeshift swings in the cracks of a section of the boundary, so that children on both sides could play together, even if separated. The action, questioning the existence of the barrier, received the Design of the Year award, in 2020, by the London Design Museum.
“Borders are invented, they are imaginary places that change over time. What happens on the border matters, and that’s what museums should be for: leading this type of conversation”, says Sarah Leavitt, curator of the exhibition.
The museum intends to carry out an interactive program on the subject, over the course of a year, to discuss issues such as the impact of the barrier on the environment and nearby communities, and ethics in the work of designing structures designed to guarantee exclusion.
“The idea of the exhibition is to open up the conversation and offer more context, but not to have a polarized debate. The questions are not yes or no or good or bad. Everything is much more complex”, says the curator.
“The border is a kind of place where Americans put a lot of their fears about immigration. But there are many misunderstandings. Most people in the US don’t have a good understanding of what our border control is and how our border is physics looks like.”
Leavitt started working on the show before the pandemic: he had the idea five years ago and gradually gathered information. During this period, it traveled three times to the border region and visited cities in the four states it passes through (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California).
The exhibition also addresses the economic integration that exists at the site. Since the end of the 19th century, there has been a large influx of Mexicans heading to the US to work on plantations, on a seasonal basis, and then returning to their home country.
Agricultural integration later evolved into industrial partnerships, which gained traction in the 1960s, in which US companies set up factories on the south side of the barrier to take advantage of low wages and tax breaks, and then easily export the products to the US.
Leavitt assesses that, despite technology increasingly integrating people around the world, physical barriers should continue to gain strength. “I don’t see international borders becoming obsolete or anything like that, but rather becoming stronger and more opaque and harder to cross, contrary to increased connectivity via social media and other channels.”
.
