This paper analyzes interviews with residents of the Spanish enclave of Melilla in the North of Africa to examine common assumptions about the border in their speech. Following Wendy Brown (2010), its main aim is to challenge the assumption that the border fence is a symbol of state sovereignty. To do so, it draws on Balibar’s (2002) tripartite conceptualization of the border: overdetermination, polysemy, and heterogeneity. The conclusion reached is that la valla (the fence) in Melilla, rather than reflecting state power, security, or sovereignty, actually signals the decline of sovereignty and the state’s inability to address the complexities of the globalized world. The border not only fails to protect but also causes isolation, economic and social suffocation, and disrupts everyday ties with those on the other side. This conclusion is supported by a review of the evolution of Melilla’s fence, the rhetoric of protection used by the nation-state, and an analysis of the metaphors and analogies employed by the interviewees. The paradox of a border that does not protect is reflected in memories of a time when crossing was less restricted. These stories question the supposed threat from the other side and the claimed safety of this one. Finally, the idea that Melilla’s future lies in a stronger relationship with Spain and Europe is rejected for the vicious cycle it produces.