Introduction Politicians love the border. Some use it to get elected, to get campaign money, and to get voters all riled up. They demand more border walls and more boots on the ground to stop illegal immigration and protect American citizens from cross-border violence. They portray the border, especially the South Texas border, as a wild and dangerous place where US citizens cower in the shadows as Mexican cartels carry out kidnap- pings, murders, and open violence. And it is not just US politicians getting in on the act. In the United Kingdom, a 2015 conservative British newspaper ran a headline that proclaims, “Revealed, America’s Most Fearful City Where Texans Live Next to a ‘War Zone.’” The article is about the border city of Mc Allen, Texas, and claims that it is “a 10-minute drive from Reynosa,” Mex- ico, and that McAllen residents “can hear gunshots all hours of the day and spot drug smugglers in their streets.”1 In 2014, Governor Rick Perry called for “a show of force” on the Texas border to deter the vio- lence and stop the illegal border crossings. At one point he donned a fl ak jacket and wraparound sunglasses to join state police on a river patrol. Soon after that, Perry ordered the Texas National Guard and a large contingent of Highway Patrol offi cers to South Texas.2 A few years earlier, Governor Perry and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (2009–2015) warned the citizens of their respective states about beheadings and bombings in the border zones of each state. In both cases, the violence they reported happened not in their states but across the border in Mexico. Nevertheless, these politicians chose to portray their own border communities as lawless and violent.3 The portrayals of Texas border cities as dangerous are not supported by the FBI’s 2014 ranking of most dangerous cities as measured by vi- RRichardson_6442-final.indbichardson_6442-final.indb 1 44/18/17/18/17 110:350:35 AAMM 2 Introduction olent crime per 100,000 inhabitants. Of twenty-one Texas metropoli- tan statistical areas (MSAs) on the list, Brownsville-Harlingen (less than sixty miles downriver from McAllen and just across the river from Matamoros, Mexico) was ranked as the least dangerous. McAllen- Edinburg-Mission was also far down the list (16th), as were the other two border MSAs, El Paso (12th) and Laredo (9th). At the top of the FBI list were metropolitan areas that are not on the border: Lubbock (1st), Dallas-Fort Worth (3rd), and Houston (5th). Indeed, all of the Texas border metropolitan areas had violent crime rates below the Texas state average.4 Other data fl y in the face of the characterization of border cities as dangerous places to live. A Gallup-Healthways annual report ranks the largest 190 American cities or communities in terms of how their citi- zens feel about and experience their daily lives. This survey measures how residents from each community evaluate their sense of purpose, so- cial relationships, fi nancial security, connection to their communities, and physical health. In the 2016 Gallup-Healthways poll, apparently cit- izens of the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission MSA, counted as one commu- nity, were not really bothered by hearing those gunshots all day long or stumbling over drug smugglers in their streets. Indeed, the community of McAllen-Edinburg-Mission scored close to the top (11th best out of 190) in the nation and beat out every other Texas community in the study in relation to community well-being scores. Other Texas cities (El Paso, on the border in West Texas, and Corpus Christi in South Texas had strong rankings as well, scoring 31st and 25th, respectively). A closer look at the fi ve categories that produced this ranking is even more revealing. The McAllen MSA was ranked 2nd nationally in rela- tion to respondents’ sense of purpose (defi ned as liking what one does each day and being motivated to achieve one’s goals). Corpus Christi (also within the Nueces Strip) was ranked 1st in this category. McAllen came in 7th in the social category (having supportive relationships and love in one’s life). McAllen was 11th in its sense of community (defi ned as liking where one lives, feeling safe, and having pride in the com- munity). McAllen was still near the top 10 percent, or 20th, in physi- cal well-being (defi ned as believing one has generally good health and enough energy to get things done). Nevertheless, with regard to the fi fth variable (fi nancial), McAllen ranked 140th, much closer to the bottom. The aspect of fi nancial well- being was defi ned as being able to manage one’s economic life to reduce stress and increase stability. Since South Texas has some of the highest RRichardson_6442-final.indbichardson_6442-final.indb 2 44/18/17/18/17 110:350:35 AAMM Introduction 3 rates of poverty in the nation, this result is not particularly surprising. What is surprising to many is that a community with such a high degree of poverty can have residents ranking at the top in feeling good about their lives and their community. In addition to measuring the preceding fi ve aspects of community well-being, the researchers examined several measures of access to food, medicine, and basic health care services. Since these variables are closely related to a family’s fi nancial status, the McAllen community again scored at or near the bottom. It ranked dead last (190th), for ex- ample, in food insecurity (experiencing times in the preceding twelve months when respondents did not have enough money to buy food that their families needed). Also, it ranked last (190th) in the proportion of residents who reported having health insurance.5 Finally, this commu- nity, because of the very poor economic situation of its residents, again ranked last in the number of respondents reporting they had personal doctors.6 So how can these border residents rank so low with respect to fi nan- cial well-being,7 food security, health insurance, and access to personal doctors and yet score so highly in community well-being? The short an- swer represents the fi rst major aim of this volume—to show that South Texas residents are amazingly resilient in the face of intense diffi cul- ties and are highly adept at leveraging their social relationships, con- nections to family and community, and even proximity to the United States-Mexico border to overcome these defi cits. A second and related aim is to explain how, despite the decline in ex- treme racism and exploitation that predominated throughout the region in earlier times, South Texas remains at the bottom in socioeconomic measures like those just mentioned. We will show that far less obvious forms of discrimination—structural and cultural bias—today perpetu- ate much of the inequality in this South Texas borderland. Our third aim is to let the people of South Texas tell their own sto- ries through their own words—and by so doing, help outsiders under- stand their life situations and the innovative ways they fi nd to meet life’s diffi culties. One person interviewed, for example, relates, “If we have to leave our house, I usually inform one of my neighbors. We usually keep watch for one another. You will not see any policemen coming into our neighborhood to keep an eye on things. That is why we have to count on each other.” Another resident of a South Texas colonia (impoverished rural border neighborhood community) said, “People here take turns keeping an eye RRichardson_6442-final.indbichardson_6442-final.indb 3 44/18/17/18/17 110:350:35 AAMM 4 Introduction on the kids after they come home from school. They also know who is good at certain tasks. For example, Juana, the one that lives in number 3 makes excellent tortillas. Everyone comes to me when they need work done on their car. Carlos, the one in number 7, knows a little about elec- tricity. We don’t hesitate to help each other out. Our colonia is a little world on its own. We all help each other in any way we can.” One of our student interviewers was impressed with the pattern of unity she observed in low-income neighborhoods. “Six out of my seven interviewees,” she writes, “got along really well with their neighbors. When something was needed, all they needed to do was ask someone in the neighborhood. One of them told me, ‘Whenever we need something like an ingredient to make a meal or some building material, our neigh- bors help us out. We do the same for them when they are in need.’” Sometimes, getting assistance utilizes not only neighbors but infor- mal and cross-border resources. One woman recalled, One day, my husband got very sick and my neighbor offered me some medication she had purchased at the fl ea market.8 As time passed, my husband got worse until he was not able get out of the bed. I was so wor- ried that we decided to go to Mexico. The doctor there told me that the medication our neighbors had given us was causing an allergic reaction. I am glad I took him to Mexico, even though I put us both at risk by having to sneak across the river to get back. Though some may condemn this woman for accepting prescription drugs from a neighbor and crossing the border to see a Mexican doc- tor, her decisions make sense in light of very limited income and reg- ulations that put health insurance out of reach for people like her.