Abstract
Immigration and border security policies provide vivid illustrations of antiessentialism in the administration of public policy. For generations the U.S.-Mexican border has largely been open to transnational labor and capital. Though anti-immigration groups have at times attempted to stop undocumented workers from emigrating to and from the United States, typically proimmigration forces on behalf of big business win out. Since 9/11 there has been a predictable reaction from government to impose bureaucratic "rationality" on border policy in the name of "homeland security." These efforts to revert to administrative orthodoxy have failed to enhance security, and by some reports have likely increased the number of undocumented migrants in the United States. Instead, I argue that a third, more constructivist point of view can show us the way toward a viable policy solution. The nodes of policy discourse facilitated by the Humane Borders—Fronteras Compasivas organization provide a useful illustration of constructivism in practice.