Immigration, Environment, and Security

on the U.S.-Mexico Border 1st ed. 2020

Edition Lisa Meierotto
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/immigration-environment-and-security-on-the-u-s-me
xico-border-1st-ed-2020-edition-lisa-meierotto/
Immigration,
Environment, and
Security on the
U.S.-Mexico Border

Lisa Meierotto
Immigration, Environment, and Security
on the U.S.-Mexico Border
 Lisa Meierotto

Immigration,
Environment, and
Security on the
U.S.-Mexico Border
Lisa Meierotto
School of Public Service, Global Studies
and Environmental Studies
Boise State University
Boise, ID, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-31813-0    ISBN 978-3-030-31814-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31814-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
­institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Zoe, Dimitri, and Lukas. May you always find the passion to pursue your
dreams, the drive to stick with your goals, and the support of family, friends,
and community throughout your lives.
In Memory of my father, Kenneth Elmer Meierotto, 1943–2019
 Preface

The first time I crossed the U.S.-Mexico border was in December 1997. I
had graduated from college the previous spring and was feeling bored and
unsatisfied with my nine-to-five job. I wanted to do something “more”
with my life. To quell the boredom and in search of a grand adventure, my
sister and I planned an odyssey of sorts. We decided to retrace the immi-
gration route of our maternal grandparents from northern Mexico and
Texas to southern Idaho some 50 years earlier. I named the trip the descu-
brimiento de mis raíces tour. Technically, my grandmother was an “illegal”
Mexican immigrant. However, back in the 1920s, when she crossed the
border with her siblings, perceptions of “illegality” were more fluid.
Family lore has it that my grandmother, along with her brother and sister,
crossed the border together. They brought along a “pretty friend” to flirt
with the border guards, and then they simply walked through the border
turnstile to begin their new life in San Antonio, Texas.1
From San Antonio, my sister and I took a Greyhound bus to Bracketville,
Texas. Bracketville at that time was a dusty, empty, quiet town near the
border. It was home to our maternal grandfather. From there, we took a
bus to Del Rio/Ciudad Acuña, Mexico. We were the only people on the
bus that hot afternoon. In a funny twist of fate, my sister and I had failed
to secure proper travel visas to enter Mexico. Thus, we were illegal border-­
crossers in the opposite direction, and we had to pay a hefty fine to the
Mexican government before we could travel home three months later.

1
Thank you to my cousin and author Teresa Funke for documenting and our sharing our
family stories!

vii
viii PREFACE

I was struck by the amount of garbage and the pollution, and the num-
ber of armed guards on the Mexican side of the border. The dramatic
juxtaposition of wealth and poverty, order and chaos, cleanliness and filth
that demarcates the international border was striking. Since that first trip
over 20 years ago, I have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border at many differ-
ent times and in several different locations—from San Diego, California,
to Tijuana, from Nogales, Arizona, to Nogales, Mexico, and from
Lukeville, Arizona, to Sonoyta, Mexico.
Prior to beginning my dissertation research, all of my border-crossings
were through urban areas along common transit routes. In these urban
crossings, border-crossing is not subtle, one is able to immediately observe
differences in wealth, lifestyle, and economic opportunity.
However, in rural Southern Arizona, the dichotomy between rich–poor
and polluted–clean is not so distinct. For example, the Pinacate Biosphere
Reserve—the protected area south of Cabeza Prieta in Mexico—is actually
less threatened environmentally, than the wilderness protected areas north
of the border in the U.S. This is primarily because the vehicle and foot
traffic coming out of Mexico into the U.S. travels on the main roads and
highways until reaching the international border. When immigrants and
smugglers reach the international border, they fan out into the Arizona
desert, north, east and west, disrupting plant and animal life, and some-
times leaving garbage, footprints, and tire tracks behind. But it is not just
immigrants and smugglers who cause environmental degradation in the
desert. The massive Homeland Security response to undocumented immi-
gration and smuggling (of both humans and drugs) leaves a heavy envi-
ronmental footprint. The impact of Border Patrol vehicles, in particular, is
ubiquitous and environmentally destructive in Cabeza Prieta.
When I began my doctoral research at the U.S.-Mexico border, I
started with a single objective: I hoped to better understand how envi-
ronmental issues relate to immigration concerns. I was drawn to the
isolated, desolate desert region of Southern Arizona after observing
media coverage that was hyper-focused on the ways in which “illegal”
Mexican immigrants were trashing the natural desert landscape in
Arizona. My research began with a simple question: Are undocumented
Mexican immigrants “trashing” the border, as is often suggested in the
popular media? Web-­based news sources such as CNN and Fox News
regularly show images such as discarded clothing, backpacks, and other
 PREFACE ix

immigrant “trash.”2 Media reports describe this trash as an environmen-

tal problem. In addition to studying the trash issue, I sought to better
understand the impact of Border Patrol on conservation efforts. In par-
ticular, I wondered how the extreme build-up of Homeland Security
post 9/11 had impacted wilderness areas along the border. I thought it
possible that security efforts might protect the environment from undoc-
umented border-crossers and smugglers. I also thought it possible that
all of the fences, walls, and vehicle traffic must likely leave a heavy envi-
ronmental footprint in the deserts of the Southwest. Lastly, I wondered
about the relationship between the militarization of the border and bor-
der conservation. How could these two seemingly different national
policy objectives (border security and border conservation) coexist in
the same space?
My dissertation fieldwork, followed by several years of archival research
and media review, resulted in this book. In the chapters that follow, I pres-
ent an analysis of how conservation efforts in the stunning Sonoran Desert
have been impacted, in both positive and negative ways, by its remarkable
geopolitical position at the frontlines of immigration battles, militaristic
pursuits, and Homeland Security development. While many of the com-
ponents of the story are particular to this specific place, there are lessons
that can be learned relevant to conservation in borderlands around
the world.
In today’s globalized world, unprecedented flows of people and contra-
band cross international borders. Many of these borders are home to envi-
ronmentally sensitive and protected areas. Scientists have identified
242,843 protected areas around the globe (https://www.iucn.org/
theme/protected-areas/our-work/world-database-protected-areas).
Further, according to the last inventory, in 2007, on global transboundary
protected areas, there are over 200 transboundary conservation sites
(TBPA.net). Given the importance of the location of many protected areas
in border regions, we must consider the question: How can we protect the
natural environment in unstable and politically charged border regions?
It is worth noting that this work itself is situated in an academic border-
land, as it is theoretically and methodologically located at the edges of
disciplinary boundaries. My training is in anthropology; as such, a good
portion of the book is based on ethnographic fieldwork. However, much

2
Several scholars discuss and deconstruct the idea of immigrant trash. I discuss this in later
chapters.
x PREFACE

of the book is written from a historical perspective, and several of the early
chapters in the book are more akin to environmental history than anthro-
pology. I also focus on geopolitical spatial concerns, an approach typically
favored in political ecology. Lastly, I utilize discourse analysis of popular
media, personal discussions, and archival materials throughout. The book
is simultaneously a case study of a specific place, Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge, and a broader analysis of the general U.S-Mexico border
region. I hope that students, scholars, and anyone with an interest in the
U.S.-Mexico border and global border conservation will gain a deeper
understanding of border history, border conservation, and the politics of
undocumented immigration.

Boise, ID Lisa Meierotto

 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my dissertation advisors at the University of

Washington: Drs. Ben Fitzhugh, Miriam Kahn, and Celia Lowe. Dr. Jason
De León offered advice to me while working on this project and I appreci-
ate his time. I worked at the School of Human Evolution and Social
Change at Arizona State University when I began this research, and I
thank the school for their support and encouragement.
On a personal level, I thank Michail Fragkias for his support over the
many years it took for this project to finally come to fruition—you have
been there since day one and I couldn’t have done this without you! I
thank my children Zoe, Dimitri, and Lukas for their patience while writing
this book as this has taken up some of our precious time together. Thank
you to my cousin Teresa Funke, who inspires and motivates me (and has
taught me so much about our family history in Mexico). Thank you to
Amy, Jim, Ken, and Rose Marie Meierotto for your support over the years.
Thanks also to Anastasia and Dimitrios Fragkias for many years of support.
Two drafts of this manuscript were revised in your home in Athens!
The amazing, efficient, and productive skills of assistant editor Jennifer
Morales cannot be overstated. She helped me breathe life into this work
once again and helped me to re-envision (and strengthen!) the entire
manuscript. She offered astute insight, tough criticism, and constant sup-
port. Dr. Anca Pusca and Katelyn Zingg at Palgrave Macmillan have been
a wonderful team to work with! My appreciation is also extended to an
anonymous reviewer for very constructive and extensive insightful feed-
back. Elizabeth Ramsey, Librarian at Boise State University, provided
assistance with obtaining archival materials, and librarians at Arizona State

xi
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

University also assisted with archival research. Kay Wingert in Foundational

Studies at Boise State University helped me navigate submitting the man-
uscript while living abroad.
Lastly, I want to thank my colleagues and friends at Boise State
University for their continued steadfast support. To all my colleagues in
the School of Public Service and across campus, as well as our amazing
students—please know that I appreciate your support and collegiality and
I am so grateful to be a part of this vibrant community.
 About the Book

The research presented in this book is based, in part, on ethnographic

fieldwork that I conducted in the Arizona borderlands between 2007 and
2010. It is also based on archival, historical, and media review conducted
between 2006 and 2019. The story centers on Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge, a federally protected Wilderness Area in southern Arizona.
I am immensely grateful to the people of Ajo, staff at Cabeza Prieta NWR,
and Border Patrol agents for giving of their time while I was conducting
the ethnographic portion of this research. Nonetheless, it is important to
note that the observations and analysis presented in this book are mine
alone and not representative of any individual or agency.
In addition to ethnographic observation, I tell the story of Cabeza
Prieta through an examination of historical archives, government reports,
and media accounts. I then draw upon scholarly literature in political ecol-
ogy and environmental justice, along with race and place-based studies to
analyze the roles and relationships in conservation efforts along the bor-
der. Cabeza Prieta NWR is a fascinating place to explore, as we can gain
insights into the ways in which border security and border conservation
have co-evolved on the U.S.-Mexico border. Perhaps, most importantly,
this book offers insights in the ways in which the politics of race and
nationalism are subtly, but significantly, interwoven into border environ-
mental and security policy.

xiii
 Contents

1 Introduction: Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge  1

2 A Disciplined Space 17

3 The Environmental and Political History of Cabeza Prieta:

People in Wilderness 33

4 Perceptions of Environmental Degradation 71

5 Human Rights in Border Conservation: Access to Water

at Cabeza Prieta 97

6 Saving Sonoran Pronghorn: Science, Policy, and

Endangered Species117

7 The Future of Cabeza Prieta and Significance for Global

Conservation141

Afterword157

References163

Index181

xv
 About the Author

Lisa Meierotto is an assistant professor in the School of Public Service at

Boise State University. She teaches in the Global Studies and Environmental
Studies Programs. Dr. Meierotto earned a Ph.D. in Anthropology from
the University of Washington, which she completed in 2009. She also
holds an M.A. in International Development, Community Planning, and
the Environment from Clark University. She attended Pacific Lutheran
University as an undergraduate, completing a B.A. in Anthropology and
Global Studies. Her research interests center on global migration, human
rights, and environmental justice.

xvii
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Map of Cabeza Prieta (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 3
Fig. 2.1 Map of protected areas (USGS National Map Small-Scale
https://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/atlasftp.html)20
Fig. 2.2 Map of the Sonoran Desert (Courtesy of the Sonoran Desert
Museum, used with permission. https://www.desertmuseum.
org/)21
Fig. 2.3 Number of deaths reported by Border Patrol, 1998–2017
(based on data from U.S. Border Patrol) 24
Fig. 3.1 Number of apprehensions in the Tucson and Yuma sectors
(based on data from U.S. Border Patrol) 44
Fig. 3.2 Original map of Cabeza Prieta NWR (U.S. Department of the
Interior 1974, p. 1) 54
Fig. 3.3 Extent of military withdrawal lands in 1974 (U.S. Department
of the Interior 1974, p. 17) 57
Fig. 3.4 Number of Border Patrol agents on Southwest border (data
source: U.S. Border Patrol, “Staffing” https://www.cbp.gov/
sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Mar/Staffing%20
FY1992-FY2018.pdf)62
Fig. 3.5 A moveable watchtower 65
Fig. 4.1 Example of soil compaction and widening roads 77
Fig. 4.2 Widening roads 79
Fig. 4.3 Illegal roads 80
Fig. 4.4 North offshoots 81
Fig. 4.5 One style of border vehicle barrier 85
Fig. 4.6 A second type of border vehicle barrier 86
Fig. 4.7 Deflated balloon in a creosote bush in wilderness area 90

xix
xx List of Figures

Fig. 4.8 Volunteers working to remediate an off-road turn-around site

in Cabeza Prieta 91
Fig. 5.1 Rescue beacon 106
Fig. 7.1 Proximate causes of environmental degradation at Cabeza Prieta 143
Fig. 7.2 Web of relations 144
 List of Tables

Table 3.1 Outline of key events in coevolution of conservation and

militarization north of the U.S.-Mexico border 53
Table 4.1 Actors and scales of access in Cabeza Prieta 72

xxi
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Cabeza Prieta National

Wildlife Refuge

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is a federally protected

wildlife refuge located in southern Arizona. The southern border of
Cabeza Prieta stretches 56 miles along the U.S.-Mexican border. The des-
ert landscape in and around Cabeza Prieta is stunningly beautiful. It is no
surprise, then, to learn that when the well-known environmentalist and
author Edward Abbey requested to have his body buried in a desolate,
remote, wild land, his friends allegedly chose Cabeza Prieta for his final
resting place. It would, however, likely come as surprise to Edward Abbey’s
fans1 that the area where his body rests today is simultaneously a conserva-
tion site, a military training grounds, and an immigration and smuggling
corridor. It is not desolate, nor quiet, nor devoid of human impacts. In
fact, Cabeza Prieta has become so central to the international flow of peo-
ple and goods across the U.S.-Mexico border that one local conservation-
ist I spoke with described the refuge as the “doormat” of entry into the
U. S. (personal communication 2007).
A few snapshots to begin: a wildlife refuge employee driving around
with a large automatic rifle in the back seat of his truck; Border Patrol
agents “rescuing” wildlife refuge staff and volunteers when they get stuck
in the sand, become lost, or are otherwise in need of assistance; refuge

1
There is an interesting resurgence of interest in the work of Edward Abby that is relevant
to this book. See, for example, “Dumping Grounds: Donald Trump, Edward Abbey and the
Immigrant as Pollution” by Michael Potts (2017) and “Goodbye Abbey, Hello Intersectional
Environmentalism” by Sarah Krakoff (2018) among others.

© The Author(s) 2020 1

L. Meierotto, Immigration, Environment, and Security on the U.S.-Mexico
Border, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31814-7_1
2 L. MEIEROTTO

biologists notifying Border Patrol on the radio whenever they spot a “an
undocumented alien (UDA)”; Navy and Air Force personnel working
alongside state- and federally supported biologists in endangered species
preservation. Each of these scenarios represents the day-to-day reality of
conservation in Cabeza Prieta. As the chapters of this book unfold, the
reader can see that Cabeza Prieta is not a typical conservation site. Rather,
Cabeza Prieta is a “militarized wilderness area” and occupies a complex
space where militarization and conservation exist side by side, in a tense,
often productive, but uneasy marriage.

Geo-spatial Context
There are over 500 federal wildlife refuges in the U.S., comprising over
150 million acres of protected land. Wildlife refuges are managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All wildlife refuges are mandated to “con-
serve fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fundamentals 2013).
In addition to being recognized as a wildlife refuge, Cabeza Prieta is a
federally designated wilderness area. The National Wilderness Preservation
System (NWPS) “preserves the wildest of our wild lands with the highest
level of government protection” (The Wilderness Society https://www.
wilderness.org). There are currently 762 federal wilderness areas across
the country, totaling more than 100 million acres.
Cabeza Prieta (Fig. 1.1) was established in 1939 for the protection and
management of desert resources, especially endangered and threatened
wildlife like Sonoran pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, and lesser long-­
nosed bats. Cabeza Prieta means “Dark Head” in Spanish and refers to a
dark-colored mountain on the western side of the refuge. At 860,010 acres,
it is the third largest wildlife refuge in the continental U.S. (outsized by
the Desert Wildlife Refuge in Nevada and the Charles M. Russell Refuge
in Montana). A variety of other types of federally and state-managed land
areas surround the refuge: to the east lies Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument (a National Park) and the Tohono O’odham Nation. To the
west, one encounters the massive Goldwater Air Force Range, and to the
south, there is a large patchwork of wildlife conservation areas in Mexico.
Mexican Highway Number Two roughly parallels the international border.
Cabeza Prieta bears the unfortunate stamp of being one of the most
degraded wilderness areas in the U.S. A 2008 report by Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility, a political action group, listed the ten
most “imperiled” wildlife refuges in the U.S. (imperiled in the sense that it
 1 INTRODUCTION: CABEZA PRIETA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 3

Fig. 1.1 Map of Cabeza Prieta (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

is difficult to achieve its mission as wildlife refuge). Their list was compiled
using data collected from interviews with refuge managers across the coun-
try. Cabeza Prieta was listed as the number one most threatened refuge. The
root cause of the threat, according to the report, is border fencing (the
33-mile vehicle barrier, constructed in 2009) and, in more general terms,
border “control issues.” This book explores ways in which conservation in a
border context is impacted by immigration. I also find that the existence of
the conservation site shapes the public perceptions of immigrants. Border
conservation takes place within a myriad of social, political, and economic
contexts. Studying these various contexts is more than just an academic
exercise. The greatest risk of ignoring the social and political context of
border conservation is that conservation programs could unwittingly con-
tribute to the scaling back of basic human rights for border-crossers.

Accessing Cabeza Prieta

The Cabeza Prieta refuge itself is quite difficult to access, so it is surprising
to learn it faces such dire environmental challenges. To enter the refuge,
one must first obtain a permit from the military as the airspace over the
refuge is an active training zone for the U.S. military. Access permits can
4 L. MEIEROTTO

be obtained at the Visitor’s Center in Ajo, Luke Air Force Base, or at a

Marine Corps office in Yuma. To visit the refuge, one must be well pre-
pared for a harsh and unforgiving desert environment. Visitors are
instructed to have a truck or sports utility vehicle (SUV) with high clear-
ance, four-wheel drive, and good shocks. Roads on the refuge range from
bumpy to extremely uncomfortable to outright impassable. Visitors must
carry large quantities of water as water resources on the refuge are very
limited. During the monsoon seasons of winter and summer, one might
be fortunate enough to stumble upon a small pool of water, and there are
a few tanks of putrid water scattered around the refuge for wildlife, but
these sources are neither reliable nor sufficient for survival. It is recom-
mended that visitors carry several gallons of water for each day they will be
on the refuge. The climate is so hot and dry that severe dehydration
occurs quickly.
Because access to the refuge is so limited, much of the refuge-related
activity (ranging from management to education and outreach activities)
takes place in the small town of Ajo, Arizona. Ajo is about 40 miles north
of the U.S.-Mexico border and 30 miles from the nearest official refuge
entrance. Once a booming mining town, it is organized into planned con-
centric neighborhoods, with larger, nicer houses located near the mine
headquarters and progressively smaller houses as you move further to the
outskirts of town. The copper mine closed in 1985. While no longer in
operation, the mine remains a central component of the town’s history and
landscape. Many residents of Ajo today are retired “snowbirds” who come
to Ajo on a seasonal basis for the mild winters. The town is also home to
Border Patrol agents stationed in the area and staff who work at Cabeza
Prieta or nearby Organ Pipe National Monument. There is a small but
vibrant artist community in Ajo, and increasing number of Latinx families
with children. Native Americans currently make up about 10% of the town’s
population and the Latinx community makes up approximately 40% of the
population (https://www.arts.gov/exploring-our-town/ajo-masterplan).
Each week during my fieldwork season, I loaded up the car before dawn
and headed south out of Phoenix toward Ajo. I preferred to drive along
the quieter rural roads, leaving the sprawl of suburbia behind. I came to
love this two-hour drive, a time of peace and tranquility that left me f­ eeling
unplugged and ready for a new adventure. Driving on the colloquially
named “Dead Cow Road” offered a remarkable sense of isolation, even
though the sprawling Phoenix metro area was never far away, as the crow
flies. Over the course of my fieldwork, a thrilling diversity of wildlife
 1 INTRODUCTION: CABEZA PRIETA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 5

crossed my path: a mountain lion, mule deer, coyotes, lizards, owls, and
numerous other species of birds. But one wildlife sighting always felt omi-
nous to me: the vultures. As soon as the weather warms up, the vultures
are everywhere, circling in small and large groups, sometimes near the
highway, sometimes off in the distance. The first few times I drove down
to Ajo, I was convinced that each group of vultures I saw was circling a
deceased immigrant’s body. It was incredibly unsettling.
It wasn’t until a few months into my fieldwork that I came to under-
stand that the human cost of smuggling and immigration is not so public,
not so transparent. During my fieldwork, I never once ran into a smuggler
on the refuge, nor did I directly observe someone crossing the border,
though certainly evidence of border-crossing are abundant. Of course, I
limited my time spent in isolated areas; I never traveled alone or on foot,
and I was always vigilant about my safety. During my fieldwork, I queried
visitors, staff, and volunteers at Cabeza Prieta, and they all confirmed that
it is rare to see immigrants or smugglers in the light of day while partici-
pating in common refuge activities like hiking or viewing wildlife. However,
it is important to point out that while border-crossing may not be visible at
first glance, the human and environmental impact of border activities is
significant. Chapter Four explores the causes of environmental degrada-
tion related to border-crossing and border security. Chapter Five dis-
cusses the loss of human life on the U.S.-Mexico border. The loss of
human life at the border is a significant and pressing human rights issue.
While it is rare to see border-crossers while recreating in the area, images
and representatives of the U.S. military and security complex are omnipres-
ent in Ajo and the surrounding area. Gila Bend, the closest town north of
Ajo, is home to Luke Air Force Base. While I was doing fieldwork, pilots
were conducting their flight training nearly every day. Within the boundar-
ies of the refuge, military debris is scattered everywhere, including live ord-
nance (unexploded weaponry previously used in training exercises).
Border Patrol is also visible everywhere, including the occasional young
man holding a large automatic weapon walking alongside the road. There
are often Border Patrol helicopters flying overheard, as well as the occa-
sional drone. But, by and large, Border Patrol operates out of their
­vehicles. At least one in every ten cars I passed each week while driving on
Highway 85 was a law enforcement vehicle of some sort. A couple of
months into my fieldwork, a temporary vehicle checkpoint was built on
the highway between Gila Bend and Ajo that remains today. At the time it
went up, many local people despised this checkpoint and viewed it as an
6 L. MEIEROTTO

infringement of their privacy. Today, these interior checkpoints are found

across the southern border. But it is important to document that the initial
installation of the Ajo checkpoint was contested by local residents. I also
will note that as a Mexican-American woman, I did feel nervous every
time I went through the checkpoint. At each passage going north, Border
Patrol agents would ask, “Are you a U.S. citizen?” I was personally never
detained nor harassed, but of course there are many ways in which racial
bias is employed at the checkpoint. People can be subject to further inquiry
if they look “suspicious”2 (i.e., have an accent or look Mexican). These
checkpoints are part of a “layered” approach to border security, which
states that checkpoints are allowable up to 100 miles from the border
(U.S. Customs and Border Protection). The layered approach has been a
central strategy in Homeland Security post 9/11.
The rate of undocumented immigration through Arizona has ebbed
and flowed over the past few decades, typically in line with economic and
political trends. Recent immigration policy, championed by the Trump
administration, will undoubtedly have an effect on future immigration
rates. It is too soon to understand the long-term impacts of the Trump
administration’s anti-immigrant hysteria. The humanitarian crisis at the
border continues to grow as more Central Americans flee poverty and
violence in their home countries; this too will affect both immigration and
border environmental policy in the years to come. I believe that the story
of Cabeza Prieta becomes more important in today’s context of increasing
political polarity. I hope this book will inform future environmental and
immigration policy along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Research Methods
My ethnographic fieldwork began in September 2007, primarily based in
Ajo, Arizona. Over a ten-month period, I spent hundreds of hours con-
ducting participant observation with refuge staff, local community groups,
Border Patrol, and humanitarian groups. I spent much of my time at the
refuge headquarters and visitor center, volunteering on various projects.
2
While Border Patrol is a federal organization, not a state-managed one, it is worth pointing
out that the State of Arizona has a well-documented history of using racial bias. The most well-
known example is Senate Bill 1070. Passed in 2010, the law allows law enforcement officers
ascertain immigration status when there is “reasonable suspicion” that someone is an undocu-
mented immigrant. While officially law enforcement personnel are not supposed to use race in
their determination of a “suspicious person,” in practice, it is a form of racial profiling.
 1 INTRODUCTION: CABEZA PRIETA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 7

This vantage point offered great access to a broad spectrum of people

involved with conservation projects in the border region. Other fieldwork
excursions took me around the region, including the border towns of
Lukeville, Nogales, and Sasabe, the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation,
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and Buenos Aires National
Wildlife Refuge. After my intensive fieldwork was completed, I remained
connected to the area, visiting often over the next several years and follow-
ing conservation efforts I also carefully followed media and scholarly work
centered on human rights concerns on the U.S.-Mexico border.
All research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach. I am trained
as a cultural anthropologist, so much of the research is based on participant
observation and traditional ethnographic methods. After obtaining permis-
sion from the refuge director, I spent many hours volunteering in the main
office and riding along with refuge staff, biologists, and security officers. I
conducted both semi-structured and open-ended interviews with staff,
Border Patrol agents, local residents, and humanitarian aid groups. I also
conducted archival research to inform my understanding of the environmen-
tal history of the refuge. This included researching U.S. Fish and Game doc-
ument archives and reports and reviewing the local newspaper, Ajo Copper
News. I observed volunteer meetings, and I administered a questionnaire to
a small group of volunteers (n = 13). I observed Sonoran pronghorn (an
endangered species) recovery meetings over the course of two years.

Border Conservation as a Disciplined Space

As the remainder of this book will demonstrate, security and conservation
efforts at Cabeza Prieta have coevolved through connections among shared
actors, physical space, and ambitions of control over the landscape. But
importantly, security and conservation efforts are also involved in the
coproduction of new social phenomena, and herein lies an interesting dia-
lectical relationship: each of the main processes—conservation and
­security—derives from a perception of threat and contributes to the belief
that the threat from the south is increasing.
The interrelated processes of conservation and security are especially
affected by shifting perceptions of immigrants and immigration. Through
an analysis of the production of space through time at Cabeza Prieta, we
find a fascinating glimpse into a unique dialectical process of conservation
and security on the border. Juanita Sundberg is a geographer who studies
power, imperialism, and hegemony in the borderlands. Sundberg explains,
8 L. MEIEROTTO

“individuals within the U.S. government sought to link terrorism with bor-
der security and immigration policy” after 9/11 (2015, p. 210). She fur-
ther argues that “the region now located at the southern boundary of the
U.S. has been constituted as a liminal space in relation to the nation-­state”
(Sundberg 2015, p. 215). But this liminal space is not a forgotten wasteland.
Another way to think about Cabeza Prieta is as a type of “ruins” (Stoler
2008). As Stoler points out—“ruin” can be both a noun and a verb (195).
Ruins are not just found, they are also made (p. 201). Cabeza Prieta can
be understood as ruins in both senses: it is in the active process of being
environmentally “ruined” by the forces of undocumented immigration
and border security. It is also already representative of a ruined landscape,
and thus easily sacrificed for military training and national security. Stoler
argues that ruin-making is often a state-run project that “may involve
forced removal of populations and new zones of uninhabitable space, reas-
signing inhabitable space, and dictating how people are supposed to live in
them” (p. 202). There is great paradox here: Cabeza Prieta is simultane-
ously protected and ruined. This paradox can be explored more deeply,
employing Foucault’s concept of a “disciplined space.”
Foucault’s work on biopolitics is not often brought into conservation
analysis, but I argue that when conservation and security efforts are con-
sidered in tandem, these processes offer a compelling example of a “disci-
plined space,” a concept he developed in series of lectures at the Collège
de France (Senellart et al. 2009). According to Foucault, “discipline func-
tions to the extent that it isolates a space. … Discipline concentrates,
focuses and encloses. The first action of discipline is in fact to circumscribe
a space in which its power and mechanisms of its power will function fully
and without limit” (in Foucault et al. 2007, pp. 44–45). While Foucault’s
work centers on discipline and power over the human body and social life,
the concept of discipline offers a compelling orientation from which to
analyze border security and conservation. In his lectures at the Collège de
France in 1977–1978, Foucault explained:

Through some texts, but also through some projects and real town plans in
the eighteenth century, I tried to show you how the territorial sovereign
became an architect of the disciplined space, but also, and almost at the
same time, the regulator of a milieu, which involved not too much establish-
ing limits and frontiers, or fixing locations, as above all and essentially, mak-
ing possible, guaranteeing, and ensuring circulations: the circulation of
people, merchandise, and air, etcetera. (in Foucault et al. 2007, p. 29)
 1 INTRODUCTION: CABEZA PRIETA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 9

Foucault looked at security as a way of ensuring the status quo for the
general population, and he identifies the circulation of goods (i.e., avoid-
ing scarcity) as a way to accomplish this. Wilderness can be thought of as
“scarce.” Conservation discourse often centers on the idea that wilderness
is running out, thus must be preserved. Similarly, scarcity can be seen in
the discourse on nature destruction by undocumented border-crossers—
the land is scarce as it faces the threat of immigrant destruction.
Ultimately, security is about control, and in Cabeza Prieta, the space is
brought under control through both conservation and militarization.
Control is a form of power, in this case the production of new relation-
ships between the state and the individuals involved in the conservation
process. These new relationships are observed in the collaborations and
conflicts among the U.S. military, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Homeland Security over the process and practice of wilderness conserva-
tion. While Foucault was not talking or writing about nature preservation
per se, his theory allows deeper insight into the connections between
social production and nature production:

The sovereign deals with nature, or rather with the perpetual conjunction,
the perpetual intrication of a geographical, climatic, and physical milieu with
the human species insofar as it has a body and a soul, a physical and a moral
existence; and the sovereign will be someone who will have to exercise
power at that point of connection where nature, in the sense of physical ele-
ments, interferes with nature in the sense of the nature of the human spe-
cies, at that point of articulation where the milieu becomes the determining
factor of nature [emphasis added]. (in Foucault et al. 2007, p. 38)

Another way of thinking about Cabeza Prieta as a disciplined space is to

bring in Stoler’s (2008) concept of “imperial formations.” “[I]mperial for-
mations” illuminate “the ongoing quality of processes of decimation, dis-
placement, and reclamation” (p. 193) along the border. Imperial formations
are indicative of imperial processes and practices, but distinct in the post-
9/11 world. The concept of imperial formations create a space for a new
vocabulary and thus new understanding of empires. Stoler argues that
imperial formations are “relations of force” (ibid.). When we incorporate
the concept and related language of imperial formations, it is clear that
Cabeza Prieta represents more than just an arbitrary space bounded by
lines on a map. Through the relations of force sparked by joint conserva-
tion and security efforts, this area has become central to the process of
nation-building at the southern border. Wilson Gilmore (2002) compels us
10 L. MEIEROTTO

to consider the “geographical imperative.” Brown (2010) also offers insight

into the paradox of sovereignty in a border context. She notes that we are
in an era of weakening state sovereignty, and this degradation of sover-
eignty is inciting the current frenzy over building border walls (24).
Bringing the literature on space, power, and sovereignty together, we
see that nature conservation at the border becomes a point of praxis,
where issues of social and environmental justice are played out. This is my
ultimate goal in telling the story of Cabeza Prieta—to promote the idea
that via environmental studies such as this we can gain insight into social
and political phenomena, and vice versa; struggles over the “environment”
are contextualized within broader social, economic, and political contexts.
One of my primary motivations for doing this research was to explore
how concepts of race and processes of racism are employed in conservation
efforts and in conservation discourse. Race is an important dimension of
conservation (Li 2009) and “imperial formations” are defined by “racial-
ized relations of allocations and appropriations” (Stoler 2008, p. 212).
Thus, if we think about border conservation lands as mere boundaries on a
map, then we miss important social/cultural constructions that are central
to the process of border conservation. As we shall see over the next few
chapters, race is a component of the history of border conservation and
remains a core issue today. We see race in the background in the ways that
blame is assigned for environmental degradation. We also see race very
clearly when we explore the dehumanization of border-crossers and the
denial of their basic human rights.
In all aspects of the story of Cabeza Prieta, I make a point never to shy
away from issues related to race and ethnicity. Specifically, I explore the
role of racial and ethnic stereotypes and how racial/ethnic constructs
affect conservation science and policy. Undocumented immigrants chal-
lenge the “line in the sand” (St. John 2011) at the U.S.-Mexico border on
a daily basis. These immigrants, primarily Latin Americans, cross the line
every day in direct resistance to current political and economic policies. It
is my hope that through an illumination of some of the cultural and politi-
cal aspects of nature conservation, the story of Cabeza Prieta will “call
attention to the broader political stakes of environmental politics” (Kosek
2006, p. 21). In other words, studies of environmental issues, especially in
contentious places like the U.S.-Mexico border, can inform us about
broader social tensions and provide a unique lens through which to ana-
lyze issues of race and ethnicity, the production of environmental science,
and nation-building. As Ruth Wilson Gilmore points out, “In times of
 1 INTRODUCTION: CABEZA PRIETA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 11

crisis, dynamics [of race and power] are particularly apparent” (2002,
p. 17). At stake is more than academic insights into border conservation
or nation-building (though this book offers insight into both processes).
Of greater significance, we are compelled to think about how environ-
mental policy might affect the lives (or deaths) of thousands of undocu-
mented border-crossers in wilderness and protected areas.
Paradoxically, the U.S. government actually helps to create the concept
of the “illegal” Mexican through the construction of fences and walls and
the build-up of Border Patrol (Nevins 2002, p. 11), Nevins explains: “In
one sense, [immigration policy], by trying to limit unauthorized entries in
the United States, is an effort to eliminate boundary-related illegality. Yet,
at the same time, the operation helps to construct and perpetuate illegal-
ity” (2002, p. 13). This process derives from and contributes to the
“Latino threat narrative” (Chavez 2008). Ultimately, immigration policies
and homeland security policies created the problem of environmental deg-
radation along the border, though the popular media tends to tell the
story from another angle: dirty Mexicans leave their trash and body waste,
and are destroying our environment.

Race and Conservation

There is a rich body of scholarship in anthropology, geography, and his-
tory that explores issues of race in conservation. Tania Murray Li (2009)
argues that “ethnic minorities are most often the ones accused of forest
destruction, and conservation becomes yet another reason to evict them”
(p. 76). Li goes on to explain, “[I]n the history of life-preserving interven-
tions, social protection has been racialized and spatialized. Not everyone
has been able to claim a ‘right to live’” (p. 79). Race is thus a “crucial
dimension” of conservation-based dispossession (p. 76), and racial politics
are always present in the policies along the U.S.-Mexico border (Hill
2006; Sundberg and Kaserman 2007; Chavez 2008; St. John 2011;
Meierotto 2012). Issues of race, ethnicity, and inequality are also always
looming under the surface (if not glaringly on the surface) in the process
of nature conservation (Peluso and Watts 2001; Brechin et al. 2003; Kosek
2004, 2006; Lowe 2006). It is imperative that environmental policymakers
and environmental social scientists always consider the history of racial
inequality and exclusion in nature conservation (see, e.g., Finney 2014
and Kosek 2004). Social scientists must also commit to methods and prac-
tices that serve to daylight sometimes uncomfortable claims of race-based
12 L. MEIEROTTO

policymaking in contemporary conservation programs. In the words of

Jake Kosek, we must “not simply call for the inclusion of racialized bodies
as another variable or factor in a pre-existing frame of analysis. Rather …
the practices, politics and effects of racial formation be examined as sites
central to the politics of nature” (2004, p. 128).
When we explore issues of race in border conservation in the American
Southwest, we understand very quickly that human rights are a central
concern. As we shall see later in the book, in Cabeza Prieta, we have an
unfortunate reality within which wildlife is preserved, but immigrant lives
are not protected. Li (2009) describes this as the politics of “making live”
or “letting die.” In the case of Cabeza Prieta, I argue that immigration
policy is at the root of human rights abuses and creates a system that ulti-
mately condones the “letting die” of undocumented immigrants. That
said, it is also worth considering how conservation policy responds to and
interacts with immigration and security policies.

Scope
While I strive to offer a comprehensive historical and contemporary analy-
sis of Cabeza Prieta, it is important to be forthright on what this book
does not address. While it is essential that scholars document and share the
experiences of modern-day border-crossers, I chose to not intentionally
interview nor observe any undocumented immigrants (noting, of course,
that I did not ask anyone about their immigration status!). I made this
decision out of a desire to not place anyone at risk. That said, the human
rights of undocumented border-crossers is a central component of the
story of Cabeza Prieta. I am well aware that undocumented immigrants
are often rendered invisible in cultural, political, and economic spheres of
American social and political life. It is not my intention to render immi-
grants invisible in this work, so I want to be explicit in the scope of this
book: this is an analysis of border conservation in the American Southwest.
Undocumented immigration influences conservation efforts in myriad
ways. While I do not tell this story from the perspective of border-crossers,
I recognize the shortcomings of this approach and absence of their voices
and opinions. I encourage readers to seek out related works that directly
address the lives, and deaths, of border-crossers. Several books are rele-
vant: The Land of Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail, by
Jason de León (2015); The Death of Josseline: Immigration Stories from the
Arizona Borderlands, by Margaret Regan (2010); The Devil’s Highway, by
 1 INTRODUCTION: CABEZA PRIETA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 13

Luis Alberto Urrea (2004); and Dead in the Tracks: Crossing America’s
Desert Borderlands, by John Annerino (1999).
I also do not delve deeply into the history of conservation on the
Mexican side of the border, nor the history nor politics of modern conser-
vation in Mexico. While I bring in examples of contemporary Mexican
conservation efforts when pertinent, my primary focus is north of the bor-
der. I would direct readers interested in Mexican conservation to a fascinat-
ing body of work related to environmental history on the Mexican side of
the border. For example, Revolutionary Parks: Conservation Social Justice,
and Mexico’s National Parks, 1910–40, by Emily Wakild (2011). Boyer and
Wakild (2012) discuss the nationalization of natural resources in 1930s
Mexico. They also advocate for the ways in which an environmental history
approach allows a better understanding of social change when studied in an
“appropriate ecological context” (2012, p. 74). Specific to northern
Mexico, a volume on Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Conservation in Northern
Mexico, by Cartron et al. (2005), offers depth on the natural environment,
conservation approaches and more recent population pressures.
Place-based studies offer unique opportunities to simultaneously
study nature and society, recognizing of course that these categories can-
not be separated from one another. Cabeza Prieta exists in an ecological
and cultural zone that is unnaturally divided by the international bor-
der. Recognizing the shared history and shared ecology of the Sonoran
Desert is important. Cynthia Radding (1997) writes that, historically,
“Northwestern Mexico … and the U.S. Southwest comprised a zone
of confluence in which political and imperial boundaries intersected
with different ecological and cultural spaces” (xvi). Andrew Matthews
also studies state-sponsored conservation in Mexico in his 2011 book
Instituting Nature: Authority, Expertise and Power in Mexican Forests.
Defending the Land of Jaguar: A History of Conservation in Mexico by
Lane Simonian offers a comprehensive history of Mexican conserva-
tion and provides insight into the rise of the environmental movement
in Mexico. This brief list of scholars of Mexican environmental history
is obviously not ­exhaustive but offers a good place to start. For read-
ers interested in more place-­based studies of the American Southwest,
I recommend Ranching, Endangered Species and Urbanization in the
Southwest, by Nathan Sayre (2002); Understories: The Political Life of
Forests in Northern New Mexico, by Jake Kosek (2006); and Landscapes
of Fraud: Mission Tumacacori, The Baca Float and the Betrayal of the
O’Odham, by Thomas Sheridan (2006).
14 L. MEIEROTTO

Organization of the Book

Chapters 2 and 3 outline the theoretical scaffolding of the book and discuss
the historical development of conservation and militarization in Cabeza
Prieta. I highlight the ways in which conservation and military/security pro-
grams have evolved in tandem in the American Southwest. The chapters
include historical and contemporary analysis. I argue the synergies found
between these federal programs are not coincidental. Both conservation and
security evolve from a desire to maintain control of our national frontier.
Chapter 4 is an analysis of access to Cabeza Prieta and an exploration of per-
ceptions of environmental degradation. I look at the varying levels of access
to the refuge for a variety of user groups, including Border Patrol agents,
undocumented immigrants, and recreational visitors. I also analyze the lan-
guage employed in assessing and understanding environmental degradation
in the refuge. Undocumented immigrants are often blamed for environmen-
tal damage, but significant degradation results from Border Patrol activities.
Chapter 5 details the complexity of protecting human rights while
simultaneously protecting wildlife. In Cabeza Prieta, an extremely harsh
environment, wildlife are given supplemental food and water. But contro-
versy has arisen over humanitarian aid groups who seek to provide food
and water to undocumented border-crossers. In the most extreme cases,
charges have been brought against humanitarian activists who provide to
prevent death by dehydration (discussed in greater detail in the chapter).
After discussing the controversy, I analyze language used to talk about
immigrants and find many examples of the ways in which the discourse
surrounding the presence of border-crossing can be incredibly dehuman-
izing. Dehumanizing language is at times utilized by Border Patrol agents,
conservation staff, and local residents. It is important to note that people
often do not intend to use dehumanizing language. Rather, the language
employed is commonplace in the border region. Chapter 6 looks at endan-
gered species’ conservation and how the border context impacts the dis-
course of wildlife preservation. The chapter looks particularly at Sonoran
pronghorn, an endangered species at the center of the refuge’s work. This
chapter also offers an opportunity to explore military/conservation col-
laborations and transnational conservation efforts. The conclusion of the
book discusses the future of conservation and immigration in the border
context and, in particular, how Cabeza Prieta might be affected by chang-
ing immigration rhetoric and immigration policy. Finally, the afterword
offers some ideas on trends to watch in an increasingly polarized political
environment in which undocumented immigration is a flash point.
 1 INTRODUCTION: CABEZA PRIETA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 15

References
Annerino, J. (1999). Dead in Their Tracks: Crossing America’s Desert Borderlands.
New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
Boyer, C., & Wakild, E. (2012). Social Landscaping in the Forests of Mexico: An
Environmental Interpretation of Cardenismo, 1934–1940. Hispanic American
Historical Review, 92(1), 73–106.
Brechin, S. C., Fortwangler, P., & Wilshusen, P. W. (2003). Contested Nature:
Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Brown, W. (2010). Walled States, Waning Sovereignty. New York: Zone Books.
Cartron, J.-L., Ceballos, G., & Felger, R. S. (2005). Biodiversity, Ecosystems and
Conservation in Northern Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chavez, L. (2008). The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the
Nation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
De León, J. (2015). The Land of the Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant
Trail. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Finney, C. (2014). Black Faces White Spaces. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Foucault, M., Senellart, M., Ewald, F., & Fontana, A. (2007). Security, Territory,
Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978. New York, NY:
Picador/Palgrave Macmillan.
Gilmore, R. W. (2002). Fatal Couplings of Power and Difference: Notes on
Racism and Geography. The Professional Geographer, 54(1), 15–24.
Hill, S. (2006). Purity and Danger on the U.S.-Mexico Border, 1991–1994. South
Atlantic Quarterly, 105(4), 777–800.
Kosek, J. (2004). Purity and Pollution: Racial Degradation and Environmental
Anxieties. In R. Peet & M. Watts (Eds.), Liberation Ecologies: Environment,
Development, Social Movements. London and New York: Routledge.
Kosek, J. (2006). Understories: The Political Life of Forests in Northern New Mexico.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Krakoff, S. (2018). Goodbye Abbey, Hello Intersectional Environmentalism.
Environmental Law Prof Blog. https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environ-
mental_law/2018/08/goodbye-abbey-hello-intersectional-environmen-
talism.html.
Li, T. (2009). To Make Live or Let Die? Rural Dispossession and the Protection
of Surplus Populations. Antipode, 14(6), 1208–1235.
Lowe, C. (2006). Wild Profusion: Biodiversity Conservation in an Indonesian
Archipelago. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Meierotto, L. (2012). The Blame Game on the Border: Perceptions of
Environmental Degradation on the United States-Mexico Border. Human
Organization, 71(1), 11–21.
16 L. MEIEROTTO

Nevins, J. (2002). Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the
Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary. New York: Routledge.
Peluso, N., & Watts, M. (2001). Violent Environments. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Potts, M. (2017). Dumping Grounds: Donald Trump, Edward Abbey and the
Immigrant as Pollution. Transnational Literature, 10(1). Retrieved from
http://fhrc.flinders.edu.au/transnational/home.html.
Radding, C. (1997). Wandering Peoples: Colonialism, Ethnic Spaces, and
Ecological Frontiers in Northwestern Mexico, 1700–1850. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Regan, M. (2010). The Death of Josseline: Immigration Stories from the Arizona
Borderlands. Boston: Beacon Press.
Sayre, N. F. (2002). Ranching, Endangered Species, and Urbanization in the
Southwest: Species of Capital. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Senellart, M., et al. (Eds.). (2009). Michel Foucault Security, Territory, Population:
Lectures at the College De France, 1977. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sheridan, T. (2006). Landscapes of Fraud: Mission Tumacacori, the Baca Float and
the Betrayal of the O’Odham. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
St. John, R. (2011). Line in the Sand: A History of the Western U.S.-Mexico Border.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stoler, A. L. (2008). Imperial Debris: Reflections on Ruins and Ruination.
Cultural Anthropology, 23(2), 191–219.
Sundberg, J. (2015). The State of Exception and the Imperial Way of Life in the
United States-Mexico Borderlands. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space, 33(2), 209–228.
Sundberg, J., & Kaserman, B. (2007). Cactus Carvings and Desert Defecations:
Embodying Representations of Border Crossings in Protected Areas on the
Mexico-U.S. Border. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
25(4), 727–744.
United States Customs and Border Protection. (n.d.). Legal Authority for the
Border Patrol. Retrieved March 6, 2019, from https://help.cbp.gov/app/
answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-authority-for-the-border-patrol.
Urrea, L. A. (2004). The Devil’s Highway: A True Story. New York: Little, Brown
and Company.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Employee Pocket Guide. FWS
Fundamentals. https://www.fws.gov/info/pocketguide/fundamentals.html.
Wakild, E. (2011). Revolutionary Parks: Conservation, Social Justice, and Mexico’s
National Parks, 1910–1940. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.
Wilderness Society. (n.d.). The National Wilderness Preservation System. Retrieved
April 26, 2019, from https://www.wilderness.org/articles/article/national-
wilderness-preservation-system.
 CHAPTER 2

A Disciplined Space

Since changes to U.S. immigration policies in the 1990s and in particular

the “Prevention through Deterrence” border policy, Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge has been trampled on by a constant flow of people, agencies,
and activities. U.S.-bound immigrants cross through this desolate region.
Smugglers (of both drugs and humans) have found a wide-open range
through which to transport their goods. Since September 11, 2001, there
has been a massive growth in the number of Border Patrol agents and ever-
increasing security technology in the region, including numerous cameras
and watchtowers, trucks, helicopters, and drones. This security build-up rep-
resents an intense panopticon of the U.S. government: the land, air, people,
plants, and animals are all under surveillance. Cabeza Prieta represents what
Foucault describes as a “disciplined space” (2007); it is a landscape both
under control (by conservation and security activities) and in need of fur-
ther control. Unsanctioned activities like undocumented immigration, drug
smuggling, and unchecked off-road vehicle usage disrupt the work of land
managers and destroy natural resources, and there is a persistent quest to
exert control over the landscape in the name of environmental conservation.
Due to its geopolitical context, conservation efforts at Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge are inherently complex. Land-use managers in
the border context sometimes ascribe to a belief that “wilderness man-
agement is more about managing people than managing land” (personal
­communication 2007). But how does one “manage” people in the con-
text of rising undocumented international immigration? And what does

© The Author(s) 2020 17

L. Meierotto, Immigration, Environment, and Security on the U.S.-Mexico
Border, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31814-7_2
18 L. MEIEROTTO

­ anagement even mean? There is wildlife management, land management,

m
border security, wilderness protection, and of course “people management.”
There are three prominent themes running throughout the story of
environmental protection and management at Cabeza Prieta: human
migration through the unforgiving desert landscape; militarization and
security along the southern Arizona border, especially the increasing pres-
ence and influence of Border Patrol; and lastly, the programs and policies
promoting nature protection, that is, conservation. Rather than explore
these themes as separate political or ecological processes, throughout this
book, I explore the relationships between immigration, security, and con-
servation in this very unique geographic space. What I find is that both
historically and in modern times, these three themes intersect, overlap,
and drive one another. Focusing on the coevolution of environmental and
security policies and programs offers insight into the ways in which border
conservation zones are both strengthened and threatened by transnational
flows of people and goods.
In the case of Cabeza Prieta, the land was first demarcated as an Air
Force bombing range. Conservation programs then preserved a physical
space within which military and security projects could be implemented.
In more recent years the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants
through the region threatens the integrity of the conservation site and fan
the flames of increasing border security. The most recent iterations of bor-
der security fail to consider environmental degradation, which further
degrades wilderness. The process of gaining control of the border region
has resulted in unique relationships among environmental programs and
national security. Both nature conservation and security efforts are affected
by undocumented immigration and smuggling along the border. The rela-
tionship has also allowed for collaboration and cooperation in protecting
endangered wildlife. The following section lays out the core concerns for
each of three central issues, providing preliminary background informa-
tion and setting the stage for the rest of the book.

Brief History of Border Conservation

In the early nineteenth century, there were no border fences across the
Sonoran Desert. In fact, before the mid-1800s, the international border,
as we understand it today, with fences, police, and surveillance, did not
even physically exist. According to Rachel St. John (2011), the history of
the U.S.-Mexico border began in the early 1800s via a “collective act
 2 A DISCIPLINED SPACE 19

of imagination” (p. 2). In other words, there is no logical geographic

boundary that separates the U.S. and Mexico—the boundaries are simply
lines drawn on a map. This map that has been negotiated, renegotiated,
contested, and re-contested. Then, “with a stroke of the pen they [U.S.
and Mexican government officials] began to transform [border lands] into
sites of national significance and contested power” (St. John 2011, p. 3).
This imagined space has occupied the American psyche since the begin-
ning of the nation, representing the ultimate frontier. The border region
is a contested space that is feared, and yet still desired. The frontier is a
wild area in need of management.
Today, some of the most interesting lines on the map near the border
are those that demarcate a patchwork of environmentally protected areas
across the southernmost portions of the U.S. The protected areas are
diverse in scope and purpose and managed by a wide variety of state and
federal agencies. One wonders, how did all of these border areas come to
be regarded as biodiversity hotspots, worthy of the highest levels of federal
environmental management? Early boundary commissioners labeled the
land as “sterile waste” (St. John 2011, p. 3). However, since the begin-
ning of the twentieth century, and especially post-1990, this supposedly
sterile wasteland was reimagined as a valuable space, symbolic of nation-
hood and under threat. Figure 2.1 illustrates the predominance of envi-
ronmentally protected areas in the Southwestern U.S. Each of the
highlighted areas represents a federal- or state-designated protected area.

Sonoran Desert Region

Cabeza Prieta is just one small section of the much larger Sonoran Desert
(Fig. 2.2). The Sonoran Desert is a beautiful and intriguing landscape,
home to many threatened and endangered species, and is recognized
internationally as a biodiversity hotspot. The first time one visits the
region, it might feel barren, desolate, and lonely. But you only need spend
a short time exploring the Sonoran Desert to appreciate the beauty of this
resilient wilderness. The desert is vibrant and alive. It is a wonderful place
to observe wildlife and unique species of cacti and other desert plants.
Much of the desert is protected through a tapestry of state, federal, and
international conservation programs.
Of course, the Sonoran Desert ecosystem does not correspond with the
boundaries of nation-states; it is bisected by the U.S.-Mexico border.
Thus, it is ecologically connected across two nations, a number of American
20 L. MEIEROTTO

Fig. 2.1 Map of protected areas (USGS National Map Small-Scale https://
nationalmap.gov/small_scale/atlasftp.html)

and Mexican states and a variety of wildlife reserves, national parks, and
internationally protected biodiversity areas. The total region covers over
100,000 square miles, including the southern half of Arizona and
California, and the states of Sonora, Baja California Norte, and Baja
California Sur in Mexico.
There are several state-run Sonoran Desert conservation sites on both
sides of the international border. In Mexico, El Pinacate y Gran Desierto
de Altar Biosphere Reserve is under state protection and was named a
World Heritage Site in 2013. On the American side, impressive saguaro
cactus forests attract thousands of tourists to state and federal protected
areas each year. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, one of the most
popular areas, typically sees more than 200,000 visitors each year (National
Park Service Statistics). Numerous federal, state, and local environmental
agencies manage many different tracts of protected land in the region.
Protected areas can fall under the management of the National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), or the State of Arizona. Sometimes the boundaries of these
 2 A DISCIPLINED SPACE 21

Fig. 2.2 Map of the Sonoran Desert (Courtesy of the Sonoran Desert Museum,
used with permission. https://www.desertmuseum.org/)
22 L. MEIEROTTO

­ rotected areas are arbitrary, but occasionally they follow the contours of
p
the natural environment. The process of marking, mapping, and securing
ownership and management of the borderland region is a national project
still in the making, and the story of Cabeza Prieta offers great insight into
historical and contemporary attempts to carve up the land in the name of
management and control.

Immigration
The southern limit of Cabeza Prieta spans a large portion of Arizona’s
border with Mexico, placing it at the fore of contemporary immigration
conflict. But Arizona wasn’t always at the center of the immigration and
smuggling battle along the U.S.-Mexican border. The isolated deserts of
Arizona only became popular crossing routes for undocumented immi-
grants and smugglers beginning in the 1990s. Changes to immigration
policy at that time resulted in increasing levels of undocumented border-­
crossing and smuggling across Arizona’s desert wilderness (Cornelius
2001; De León 2015; Nevins 2002; Martínez 2006; Regan 2010). The
shift in immigration policy is commonly known as “Prevention Through
Deterrence” and the idea was that if it became too hard to get into the
U.S., fewer people would attempt to enter illegally. The Prevention
Through Deterrence policy of the 1990s effectively sealed border-crossing
points in urban areas in California and Texas (Cornelius 2001). But what
was not intended was the subsequent “funneling” effect. In other words,
as urban crossing zones were shut down, immigrants and smugglers were
forced to develop new northward routes, and the desolate deserts of the
Southwest provided vast, open expanses of land to cross. To be clear,
undocumented immigrants did not stop crossing the international border,
they simply began to cross in different places. There is no evidence that
Prevention Through Deterrence succeeded in reducing undocumented
immigration. Rather, we continue to see that immigration rates follow
political, economic, and employment trends (in both sending and receiv-
ing countries). Nonetheless, the Prevention Through Deterrence policy is
central to my study on nature conservation. And as more immigrants and
smugglers began to cross through the wide and fragile desert, there was a
corresponding increase in the number of Border Patrol agents in the
region. The security influx was further accelerated by the creation of
Homeland Security and related policies after September 11, 2001 (Chavez
2008; Urban 2008). Each policy evolution has resulted in an ever-­
increasing human impact on fragile desert ecosystems.
 2 A DISCIPLINED SPACE 23

Obviously, there are repercussions of desert border-crossing beyond

the environmental impact. Border-crossing in the Arizona desert is a com-
plicated and dangerous affair for the people involved. It is difficult, expen-
sive, risky, and often deadly. Each year, it is estimated that hundreds and
perhaps thousands of people cross through this refuge from Mexico, en
route to economic opportunity in the U.S.1 Media and literary documen-
tation of the dangers of border-crossing is plentiful (see De León 2015;
Urrea 2004; Reagan 2010, among many others). These works provide
insightful background and perspective on the humanitarian aspect of des-
ert border-crossing. Later in this book, I discuss how immigration policy
has collided with wilderness conservation resulting in a failure to provide
basic human rights to border-crossers.
Immigration through the desert is brutal and often fatal. The Camino
del Diablo (a historic dirt road that crosses the refuge) has been described
as the “deadliest immigrant trail in North America” (Annerino 1999).
While authors like Annerino (1999), Urrea (2004), and Regan (2010)
have tried to humanize the experiences of undocumented border-crossers
in the region, the brutality of a trek through the Arizona desert is difficult
to describe in text and not widely understood by people outside of the
immediate locale. Because so many crossings and deaths happen in remote
locations, accurate statistics will likely never be available. One estimate
from No More Deaths (cited in Regan 2010) is that more than 5000 bod-
ies were found in the Southwest between 1994 and 2009. Border Patrol
keeps their own data on the number of deaths recorded on the U.S. side
of the border. In Arizona, deaths are tracked for both the Tucson and
Yuma sectors. Figure 2.3 shows the annual variation in the number of
deaths. It is important to note that human rights groups assert that the
number of deaths is much higher than what the Border Patrol reports.
We can see in Fig. 2.2 that, in the Border Patrol’s Southwest Region,
deaths increased in the first decade of the 2000s. Interestingly, during the
same period of time, the number of apprehensions of border-crossers
declined. Border Patrol claims that the drop in apprehensions is a sign of
policy success. From their perspective, the desert deterrence policy resulted
1
Note that this book is based on a research between 2007 and 2009. The number of
border-crossings dropped substantially during the recession years (until 2011) began to rise
again in the following decade, then leveled off in the Trump era. There are currently no
known measures of the actual number of people crossing through Cabeza Prieta each year,
only estimates. Typically, the number of the border-crossers tracks with the strength of the
U.S. economy.
24 L. MEIEROTTO

Border Patrol Number of Deaths 1998-2017

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Tucson Yuma Sector Total Recorded Deaths Southwest Border

Fig. 2.3 Number of deaths reported by Border Patrol, 1998–2017 (based on

data from U.S. Border Patrol)

in fewer attempted crossings. Of course, no one can truly prove that fewer
apprehensions mean fewer attempts, since the cause could just as easily be
that people are better at crossing without getting caught. This brings us to
an important unfortunate reality of desert deterrence policy: since policy
changes in the 1990s, an individual’s chance of dying while crossing the
U.S.-Mexico border is much higher. By one estimate, a border-crosser was
17 times more likely to die crossing in 2009 than in 1998 (McCombs 2010).
Border Patrol’s policy of “prevention through deterrence” has had serious
humanitarian consequences (see Dunn 2009 and De León 2015 for a com-
pelling review of humanitarian consequences of post-1990s border policies).

Environment
Prior to the 1990s, the environmental impact of human migration was rela-
tively insignificant in the desert regions of Arizona. I will discuss the history
of migration through the region in the next chapter. Immigration policy
changes in the 1990s led to a new and unprecedented environmental deg-
radation in the borderlands. While the success of the 1990s immigration
reforms in the U.S. is still unclear in terms of reducing undocumented
entry, the environmental impacts are “unmistakable” (McIntyre and Weeks
2002, p. 403). Cabeza Prieta experiences significant degradation directly
related to immigration policy changes. However, as this book shows, it is
an oversimplification to blame undocumented immigrants exclusively for
 2 A DISCIPLINED SPACE 25

environmental impacts. There is also a significant impact from the federal

response to undocumented migration. An immigration policy that pushes
people to remote desert locations inherently negatively impacts the envi-
ronment (through activities such as fence or wall building, increased vehic-
ular traffic in protected areas, new road construction, surveillance, etc.).
The geopolitical situation of Cabeza Prieta affects conservation efforts
on a daily basis. Because the international border essentially bisects the
Sonoran Desert, the “line in the sand” has very tangible physical effects,
such as the installation of fences and vehicle barriers which can alter or stop
the flow of wildlife. It also has policy-level effects, which impact the way in
which management and conservation decisions are made. Protected areas
can be employed as a tool for greater surveillance and control over an oth-
erwise “wild” landscape. With such a high level of governmental ownership
of protected areas, the state also (perhaps unwittingly) plays a central role
in protecting biodiversity through land and water conservation programs.
Looking at conservation on the border highlights intersections between
state sovereignty and environmental politics and provides insight into the
ways in which nature conservation is interconnected with nation-building.
Neumann argues that “present-day biodiversity conservation is founded on
a historical process of state-making that spatially segregated society from
nature, wilderness from civilization, conservation from development”
(2005, pp. 120–122). The predominance of protected areas on the U.S.-
Mexico border, illustrated in Fig. 2.1, highlights the importance of the
intersection of the practices of state sovereignty, nation-building, environ-
mental politics, and biodiversity conservation. While it is impossible to
argue intent (i.e., that the protected areas were created in an attempt to
build state capacity), it is possible to argue effect—the existence of these
protected areas does increase state control in the border region.
Local, national, and international news stories about the U.S.-Mexico
border region tend to focus on concerns about immigrants’ impact on
the economy and cultural life, while the issue of environmental degrada-
tion resulting from immigration policy is often ignored. As the story of
Cabeza Prieta unfolds throughout the book, I explain the ways in which
environmental issues are related to immigration, both literally and symboli-
cally, often through the politics of fear—specifically the fear of a Mexican
invasion. I offer examples throughout the book of ways in which invasion
fearmongering draws upon a narrative of environmental destruction. Anti-­
immigrant sentiment can easily wrap into environmental preservation in
the border region. However, as this book shows, the relationship between
immigration, environmental protection, and nation-building is complex,
26 L. MEIEROTTO

and there is no linear relationship between undocumented immigration

and environmental degradation. On the contrary, we will see many exam-
ples of ways in which border security directly degrades the environment.

Security
A militarized landscape is defined as a place that is home to “simultaneously
material and cultural sites that have been fully or partially mobilized for
military purposes” (Coates et al. 2011). At Cabeza Prieta, the land that is
now a wildlife refuge has been a military training grounds equally as long
as it has been an environmental conservation site. In addition to sharing its
southern border with Mexico, Cabeza Prieta also shares its northern bor-
der with a military agency. The Barry M. Goldwater Range borders Cabeza
Prieta to the north. This military range is used by the U.S. Air Force and
U.S. Marine Corps for aerial combat training (air-to-air training today, and
air-to-ground training in past years), as well as for land-based combat-train-
ing operations. The total area of the range encompasses about 1.7 million
acres of withdrawn public land and Department of Defense-owned land
(Global.security.org). The range was originally established in 1943 and
included larger portions of land that were then part of the “Cabeza Prieta
Game Range.” The range is an active military training grounds today, with
plans to continue using the space for many years to come.
The bombing range is not the only military/security program taking
place within the boundaries of Cabeza Prieta. Since the changes to federal
immigration policy in the 1990s, a new military/security actor has entered
the scene: Homeland Security. While technically not administered by the
Department of Defense like other military agencies, I consider it linked
into the greater process of militarization of Cabeza Prieta. Both the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense
possess the ability to use force to protect the nation.
The impacts of the two military/security agencies (U.S. Air Force and
Border Patrol, i.e., Department of Homeland Security) utilizing this con-
servation site vary across the refuge. For example, on the southern border
of the refuge, Border Patrol security efforts have manifested in the build-
ing of an actual fence (more specifically a vehicle barrier).2 On the other

2
As of March 2016, 652 miles of fencing exist on the U.S.-Mexico border and 300 miles
are vehicle barriers. Vehicle barriers typically stand 3–4 feet high. “Vehicle fencing, which is
intended to resist vehicles engaged in drug trafficking and alien smuggling operations, is
typically used in rural or isolated locations that have a low occurrence of illegal pedestrian
traffic” (U.S. GAO 2017).
 2 A DISCIPLINED SPACE 27

refuge borders, staff of the refuge are working hard to demarcate bound-
aries with Air Force training grounds, through increased signage and
markers, and through the publication and distribution of maps. These
walls and boundary markers run contrary to biological ideas about ecosys-
tems and fragmentation of the natural environment but are an important
aspect of wilderness designation and administration.
Land in the American West has always been a “vital component of
United States military supremacy” (McCarthy 2001, p. 119; see also
Kuletz 1998). Protected areas along the U.S.-Mexico border are one of
the most explicit sites of the expression of military supremacy, and while it
may seem that this is a relatively new phenomenon, it has been going on
for decades. In this final section of the chapter, I take some time to explore
the story of Cabeza Prieta through the theoretical lens of ecological secu-
rity and ecological nationalism.
Ecological security involves the anticipation of “the violent results
that might flow from pollution, resource scarcity or ecosystem degrada-
tion” and the adaptation of “traditional military and intelligence tools to
counter these threats” (Conca and Dabelko 2002, p. 1). Security at the
national level has traditionally emphasized protection from invasion and
other types of struggles for control. Security in this sense is “the effort
to protect a population and territory against organized force while
advancing state interest through competitive behavior” (Pirages and
Manley DeGeest 2004, p. 9). But in the wake of events like September
11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, we entered into a new age of
environmental and social insecurity. Today, with imminent concerns over
global climate change, the concept of security has continued to expand.
A broader definition of security considers not just warfare, but also ter-
rorist attacks, natural disasters, sea-level rise, infectious disease, and
other global problems. Ecological security expands more traditional
approaches to security, and includes the promotion of environmental
sustainability as well as the protection of a nation’s natural resources. For
example, large-scale global migration is identified as one of four current
demographic changes disrupting ecological security around the globe
(Pirages and Manley DeGeest 2004, p. 29). Global migration, whether
from rural to urban areas or between countries, creates a myriad of polit-
ical, economic, and social issues and affects both sending and receiving
locations.
28 L. MEIEROTTO

While the process of conservation on the border can politically be

understood within the ecological security paradigm, it is possible to take
this line of thinking one step further. That is, beyond mere ecological
security (which embodies a sense of protection), we can also consider con-
servation at the border as a type of action—and ultimately a form of
nation-building. As this chapter has demonstrated, both processes, con-
servation and militarization, result in increased control by the nation-state.
In this way, a conservation site can be conceived as a “space of security”
(Foucault et al. 2007, p. 25).
Conservation activities often result in increased influence and power of
the nation via a process termed “ecological nationalism.” Ecological
nationalism “links cultural and political aspirations with programs of
nature conservation or environmental protection” and is a “part of the
process of legitimizing and consolidating a nation” (Cederlof and
Sivaramakrishnan 2006, p. 6). Conservation, then, becomes a way to both
mediate and construct nationalism in the sense that “terrestrial entities
[become] the space or reference point for national aspirations” (2006,
p. 2). Militarization results in increased influence in a less symbolic and
more tangible way—increased surveillance activity, a fence along the bor-
der, and influence over activities not traditionally within the realm of the
military (e.g., endangered species conservation).
Ecological nationalism can manifest itself in multiple ways, for example,
by building national pride in wilderness areas, and perhaps even using
nature reserves as a way to buffer the impact of unwanted immigrants. In
this way, “the landscape becomes the place for contested identities”
(Cederlof and Sivaramakrishnan 2006, p. 9). This approach is easier to
understand when one thinks about a developing, postcolonial nation
which may be more obviously in the process of creating a national identity.
But I argue that this process is playing out along the U.S. southern border
as well, in the sense of protecting a national identity that is currently per-
ceived as under threat by illegal immigration.
Links between nation-building and nature conservation at Cabeza
Prieta are complex. There is no undisputed, direct evidence that the U.S.
government is developing wilderness or protected areas in a conspiratorial
sense in order to secure the land. However, even without this causal direc-
tionality, nature protection in a border area necessarily contributes to
nation-building through an inflow of resources, infrastructure, and sur-
veillance. At the same time, it is unlikely that it is purely coincidental that
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Hän otti poveltaan poikansa pienen nauhakevyön ja alkoi siihen
vilkaistuaan heti vavista nyyhkytyksistä ja pani silmiensä eteen
sormensa, joitten lomasta vuolaina virtaavat kyynelet alkoivat tippua.

— Tämä on, — sanoi vanhus, — tuo vanha: »Raakel itkee

lapsiaan eikä saa lohdutusta, sillä heitä ei ole», ja tämmöinen määrä
on teille äideille maan päällä pantu. Älä lohduttaudu eikä sinun
pidäkään lohduttautua, älä lohduttaudu, vaan itke, mutta muista joka
kerta itkiessäsi, muista järkkymättömästi, että pikku poikasi on yksi
Jumalan enkeleitä, katselee sinua sieltä ja näkee sinut ja iloitsee
kyynelistäsi ja osoittaa Jumalalle niitä. Ja kauan sinulla vielä on
oleva tätä suurta äidillistä itkua, mutta se muuttuu lopulta sinulle
hiljaiseksi riemuksi, ja katkerat kyynelesi ovat silloin vain hiljaisen
liikutuksen ja synneistä pelastavan sydämenpuhdistumisen kyyneliä.
Mutta pienokaisellesi toimitan sielumessun. Mikä oli hänen nimensä?

— Aleksei, isäkulta.

— Herttainen nimi! Aleksein Jumalan Miehen mukaanko?

— Jumalanpa, isäseni, Jumalan! Aleksein Jumalan Miehen!

— Millainen pyhimys! Toimitan sielunmessun, äiti, toimitan, ja

suljen rukoukseen sinun murheesi ja pyydän puolisollesi terveyttä.
Mutta sinun on synti jättää hänet. Mene miehesi luo ja varjele häntä.
Kun poikasi sieltä näkee, että olet hylännyt isän, niin hän alkaa itkeä
tähtenne: miksi häiritset hänen autuuttaan? Hänhän elää, elää, sillä
sielu elää iankaikkisesti, ja vaikka hän ei ole kodissanne, niin hän on
näkymättömänä vierellänne. Kuinka hän voi tulla kotiin, jos sinä
sanot vihaavasi kotiasi? Kenen luo hän sitten tulee, jos ei löydä teitä,
isää ja äitiä, yhdessä? Katsohan, nyt hän näyttäytyy sinulle unessa
ja sinä olet tuskissasi, mutta silloin hän lähettää sinulle lempeitä
unia. Mene miehesi luo, äiti, mene jo tänään!

— Menen, isä, käskysi mukaan menen! Sinä olet ymmärtänyt

sydämeni! Nikituškani, Nikituška, sinä odotat minua, kultaseni,
odotat! — alkoi eukko puhella, mutta vanhus oli jo kääntynyt erään
vanhan ämmän puoleen, joka ei ollut pyhissäkävijän puvussa, vaan
kaupunkilaisvaatteissa. Hänen silmistään näki, että hänellä oli jotakin
asiaa ja että hän oli tullut kertomaan jotakin. Hän sanoi olevansa
aliupseerin leski, ei kaukaa, vain meidän kaupungistamme. Hänen
poikansa Vasenjka palveli jossakin komissariaatissa, mutta oli
lähtenyt Siperiaan, Irkutskiin. Kaksi kertaa hän oli sieltä kirjoittanut,
mutta nyt hänestä ei ollut vuoteen mitään kuulunut. Äiti oli koettanut
ottaa hänestä selvää, mutta ei oikeastaan tietänyt, mistä olisi
tiedusteltava.

— Niinpä sanoo minulle jokin päivä sitten Stepanida Iljinitšna

Bedrjagina, hän on kauppiaan rouva, rikas ihminen: »Ota sinä,
Prohorovna», sanoo hän, »ja tilaa pojallesi sielumessu, mene
kirkkoon ja pyydä se! Hänen sielunsa», sanoo hän, »rupeaa
ikävöimään ja hän kirjoittaa kirjeen. Ja tämä», sanoo Stepanida
Iljinitšna, »on varma keino, monesti koeteltu». Mutta minä epäilen!…
Armas ystävämme, onko se totta vai eikö ja tuleeko sillä tavoin
hyvä?

— Älä ajattelekaan semmoista! Häpeä on moista kysyäkin. Kuinka

voikaan, vieläpä oma äiti, pyytää sielumessua elävälle ihmiselle? Se
on suuri synti, noituuteen verrattava, mutta tietämättömyytesi tähden
se annetaan sinulle anteeksi. Rukoile sinä mieluummin Taivaan
Kuningatarta, ainaista Puolustajaa ja Auttajaa, antamaan hänelle
terveyttä sekä antamaan myös sinulle anteeksi väärät ajatuksesi. Ja
kuule, mitä minä vielä sanon sinulle, Prohorovna: sinun poikasi joko
kohta itse palaa luoksesi tai lähettää varmasti kirjeen. Tiedä se!
Mene ja ole tästä lähin rauhallinen! Poikasi elää, sanon sen sinulle.

— Rakkaamme, palkitkoon sinua Jumala, sinä hyväntekijämme,

sinä meidän kaikkien ja meidän syntiemme puolesta rukoilija…

Mutta vanhus oli jo huomannut joukossa riutuneen,

keuhkotautisen näköisen, mutta vielä nuoren talonpoikaisnaisen
kaksi hehkuvaa, häneen suuntautunutta silmää. Nainen seisoi
äänettömänä, katse pyysi jotakin, mutta näytti kuin hän ei uskaltaisi
lähestyä.

— Mitä asiaa sinulla on, ystäväni?

— Vapahda sieluni, isä, — sanoi nainen hiljaa ja kiirehtimättä,

lankesi polvilleen ja kumartui hänen jalkojensa luo.

— Olen tehnyt syntiä, isäni, pelkään syntiäni.

Vanhus istuutui alimmalle portaalle, ja nainen lähestyi häntä

polvillaan.

— Olen kolmatta vuotta leskenä, — alkoi nainen puoleksi

kuiskaten ja ikäänkuin hätkähtäen. — Vaikeata oli naimisissa, hän oli
vanha, pieksi, niin että teki kipeätä. Hän oli sairaana. Katson häntä,
ajattelen: »Jos hän tulee terveeksi, nousee taas vuoteesta, niin mitä
seuraa sitten?» Ja silloin nousi mieleeni tuo ajatus…

— Odotahan, — sanoi vanhus ja asetti korvansa aivan hänen

huuliensa eteen. Vaimo jatkoi puhettaan hiljaa kuiskaten, niin että
siitä ei voinut kuulla juuri mitään. Hän lopetti pian.
 — Kolmatta vuotta? — kysyi ukko.

— Kolmatta vuotta. Ensin en ajatellut, mutta nyt olen alkanut

sairastella, murhe on tullut mieleen.

— Oletko kaukaa?

— Viidensadan virstan päästä täältä.

— Oletko puhunut siitä ripissä?

— Olen, kolmasti olen puhunut.

— Onko päästetty herranehtoolliselle?

— On. Pelkään. Pelkään kuolemaa.

— Älä pelkää mitään äläkä pelkää koskaan ja älä myöskään

murehdi. Kunhan vain katumus sinussa ei loppuisi, — niin Jumala
kyllä antaa kaikki anteeksi. Eikä ole eikä voikaan olla koko maan
päällä sellaista syntiä, jota Jumala ei antaisi anteeksi todellisesti
katuvalle. Eikä ihminen voi ollenkaan tehdä niin suurta syntiä, että se
kuluttaisi loppuun Jumalan rajattoman rakkauden. Vai voiko olla
sellaista syntiä, että se olisi suurempi kuin Jumalan rakkaus?
Huolehdi vain katumuksesta, alinomaa, ja karkoita pelko kokonaan.
Usko, että Jumala rakastaa sinua niin, että sinä et osaa semmoista
ajatellakaan, rakastaa sinua synteinesikin ja synnissäsikin. Mutta
yhdestä katuvaisesta on taivaassa enemmän iloa kuin kymmenestä
vanhurskaasta, on jo ammoin sanottu. Mene äläkä pelkää. Ihmisiä
kohtaan älä ole katkera, loukkauksista älä suutu. Anna sydämessäsi
vainajalle kaikki anteeksi, millä hän on sinua loukannut, tee hänen
kanssaan todellinen sovinto. Jos sinä kadut, niin sinä rakastatkin.
Mutta kun sinä rakastat, niin sinä jo olet Jumalan oma…
Rakkaudella kaikki sovitetaan, kaikki pelastetaan. Kun jo minäkin,
samanlainen syntinen ihminen kuin sinä, olen sinua armahtanut ja
säälinyt, niin kuinka paljon enemmän sen tekee Jumala. Rakkaus on
niin äärettömän kallisarvoinen aarre, että sillä voi ostaa koko
maailman sekä sovittaa ei vain omat, vaan toistenkin synnit. Mene
äläkä pelkää.

Vanhus teki kolmasti ristinmerkin hänen ylitseen, otti kaulastaan

jumalankuvan ja pani sen hänen kaulaansa. Vaimo kumarsi hänelle
ääneti maahan asti. Vanhus nousi ja katseli iloisesti erästä terveen
näköistä eukkoa, jolla oli rintalapsi sylissä.

— Vysegorjesta olen, rakkaani.

— Olet siis kuitenkin vaivautunut kuuden virstan päästä tänne

lapsen kanssa. Mitä tahdot?

— Tulin näkemään sinua. Olenhan ollut luonasi, etkö muista? Et

ole kovin hyvämuistinen, jos olet jo unohtanut minut. Meillä kerrottiin,
että olet sairas. Ajattelin, että menenpä itse häntä katsomaan: nyt
näen sinut, ja mikä sairas sinä olet? Elät vielä kaksikymmentä
vuotta, toden totta, Herra nähköön! Ja vähänkö on niitä, jotka sinun
puolestasi rukoilevat! Sinäkö joutaisit sairastelemaan?

— Kiitos sinulle kaikesta, ystäväni.

— Samassapa esitän pienen pyyntöni: tässä on kuusikymmentä

kopeekkaa, anna ne, armas, jollekulle, joka on minua köyhempi.
Tulin tänne ja ajattelin: annan mieluummin hänen kauttaan, hän kyllä
tietää, kenelle on annettava.
 — Kiitos, ystäväni, kiitos, hyvä ihminen! Minä pidän sinusta.
Täytän ehdottomasti toivomuksesi. Tyttökö sinulla on sylissä?

— Tyttö, ystäväiseni, Lizaveta.

— Jumala siunatkoon teitä molempia, sekä sinua että pikku

Lizavetaa. Olet ilahduttanut sydäntäni, äiti. Hyvästi, rakkaat ystävät,
hyvästi, rakkaani!

Hän siunasi kaikkia ja kumarsi syvään kaikille.

4.

Heikkouskoinen rouva

Luostariin saapunut tilanomistajatar oli seuratessaan vanhuksen

keskustelua rahvaan kanssa ja katsellessaan siunaamistoimitusta
vuodattanut hiljaisia kyyneliä ja pyyhki niitä nenäliinallaan. Hän oli
tunteellinen maailmannainen, ja hänellä oli monessa suhteessa
todella hyviä taipumuksia. Kun vanhus lopulta astui hänen luokseen,
otti hän hänet innostuneesti vastaan.

— Minä sain henkisesti niin paljon, niin paljon, kun katselin tuota
liikuttavaa kohtausta… — sanoi hän voimatta lopettaa lausettaan
liikutukselta. — Oi, minä ymmärrän, että kansa teitä rakastaa, minä
itsekin rakastan kansaa, tahdon sitä rakastaa, ja kuinka voisikaan
olla rakastamatta kansaa, ihanaa, kaikessa suuruudessaan
avomielistä Venäjän kansaa!
 — Kuinka tyttärenne voi? Tehän halusitte taas keskustella
kanssani?

— Oi, minä pyysin sitä hartaasti, minä rukoilin, olisin ollut valmis
lankeamaan polvilleni ja olemaan siinä asennossa vaikka kolme
päivää ikkunoittenne edessä, kunnes olisitte päästänyt minut
puheillenne. Me tulimme luoksenne, suuri terveeksitekijä,
lausuaksemme teille innostuneen kiitoksemme. Tehän olette tehnyt
Liseni terveeksi, aivan terveeksi, ja miten? Siten, että torstaina
rukoilitte hänen puolestaan, panitte kätenne hänen päällensä.
Riensimme suutelemaan noita käsiä, tuomaan esille tunteemme ja
hartaan kunnioituksemme.

— Miten olen tehnyt hänet terveeksi? Hänhän loikoo yhä

lepotuolissa?

— Mutta yölliset kuumekohtaukset ovat kokonaan kadonneet;

kahteen vuorokauteen, torstaista saakka, niitä ei enää ole ollut, —
sanoi rouva hermostuneen kiireesti. — Eikä siinä kyllin: myös hänen
jalkansa ovat vahvistuneet. Tänä aamuna hän heräsi terveenä, hän
nukkui koko yön, katsokaa hänen punaisia poskiaan, hänen loistavia
silmiään. Ennen hän aina itki, mutta nyt nauraa, on iloinen ja
riemukas. Tänään hän tahtoi välttämättömästi, että hänet pantaisiin
seisomaan jalkojensa varaan, ja hän seisoi kokonaisen minuutin
yksin, kenenkään tukematta. Hän tahtoo lyödä kanssani vetoa, että
hän kahden viikon kuluttua tanssii katrillia. Kutsutin luokseni
täkäläisen Herzenstuben. Hän kohotteli olkapäitään ja sanoi:
ihmettelen, tämä menee yli ymmärrykseni! Ja te tahdotte, että me
emme vaivaisi teitä, että voisimme olla lentämättä tänne, jättää
kiittämättä? Lise, kiitä, kiitä!
 Lisen kauniit, nauravat kasvot muuttuivat äkkiä vakaviksi, hän
kohottautui lepotuolissaan niin paljon kuin voi ja katsoen vanhukseen
pani hänen edessään kätensä ristiin, mutta ei voinut hillitä itseään,
vaan purskahti äkkiä nauramaan…

— Hänellehän minä, hänelle! — sanoi hän osoittaen Aljošaa ja

harmistuneena kuin lapsi itseensä sen johdosta, että ei ollut voinut
hillitä nauruaan. Ken olisi katsonut Aljošaan, joka seisoi askelen
päässä vanhuksen takana, olisi nähnyt hänen poskiensa nopeasti
sävähtävän punaisiksi. Hänen silmänsä välähtivät, ja hän loi ne alas.

— Hän on saanut toimittaakseen teille, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, erään

asian… Kuinka te voitte? — jatkoi äiti kääntyen äkkiä Aljošan
puoleen ja ojentaen hänelle hienosti hansikoidun kätensä. Vanhus
katsahti taakseen ja katsoi äkkiä tarkkaavaisesti Aljošaa. Tämä
lähestyi Liseä ja ojensi hänelle kätensä omituisesti ja kömpelösti
hymähtäen. Lise tekeytyi arvokkaan näköiseksi.

— Katerina Ivanovna lähettää teille minun kauttani tämän, — hän

antoi Aljošalle pienen kirjeen. — Hän pyytää erityisesti, että
pistäytyisitte hänen luokseen, mutta pian, pian, ja että ette narraisi,
vaan välttämättömästi tulisitte.

— Hän pyytää minua pistäytymään luokseen? Hänen luokseen,

minua… Miksi? — mutisi Aljoša hyvin ihmeissään. Hänen
kasvoihinsa tuli äkkiä hyvin huolestunut ilme.

— Oi, se on kaikki Dmitri Fjodorovitšin johdosta ja… kaikkien

noitten viimeisten tapahtumien johdosta, — kiiruhti äiti selittämään.
— Katerina Ivanovna on nyt tehnyt erään päätöksen… mutta sitä
varten hänen täytyy välttämättömästi nähdä teitä… miksi? Sitä en
tietysti tiedä, mutta hän pyysi tulemaan mahdollisimman pian. Ja te
teette sen, teette aivan varmaan, tässä siihen käskee
kristillisyyskin…

— Olen nähnyt hänet kaiken kaikkiaan vain yhden kerran, — jatkoi

Aljoša ollen yhä ymmällä.

— Oi, hän on niin korkea, niin saavuttamaton olento!… Jo

yksistään kärsimystensä takia… Ajatelkaahan, mitä hän on kärsinyt,
mitä hän nyt kärsii, ajatelkaa, mikä häntä odottaa… se kaikki on
kauheata, kauheata!

— Hyvä on, minä tulen, — päätti Aljoša lukaistuaan lyhyen ja

arvoituksellisen kirjelapun, jossa oli vain harras pyyntö, että hän
tulisi, eikä minkäänlaisia selityksiä.

— Ah, kuinka se on teidän puoleltanne kaunista ja suurenmoista!

— huudahti äkkiä Lise innostuen. — Minäpä sanoin äidille: hän ei
mene sinne missään tapauksessa, hän vetäytyy pois. Oi, kuinka
hyvä te olettekaan! Olen aina ollut sitä mieltä, että te olette hyvä,
minusta on mieluisaa saada se nyt sanotuksi.

— Lise! — lausui äiti vakavasti, mutta hymähti samassa.

— Te olette unohtanut meidätkin, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, te ette

ollenkaan tahdo käydä meillä. Mutta Lise on kahdesti sanonut
minulle, että hänellä on hauskaa vain teidän seurassanne.

Aljoša kohotti alasluodun katseensa, punastui taas äkkiä ja

naurahti taas tietämättä itsekään mille. Luostarinvanhin ei muuten
enää tarkannut häntä. Hän oli ruvennut puheisiin matkustavan
munkin kanssa, joka, kuten jo sanoimme, odotti Lisen lepotuolin
vierellä hänen saapumistaan. Tämä munkki oli nähtävästi kaikkein
yksinkertaisimpia, t.s. arvoltaan alhaisimpia, mies, jolla oli ahdas ja
järkkymätön maailmankatsomus, mutta uskovainen ja omalla
tavallaan luja. Hän ilmoitti tulevansa jostakin kaukaa pohjoisesta,
Obdorskista, pyhän Sylvesterin luostarista, joka oli pyhä luostari ja
jossa oli kaikkiaan vain kymmenkunta munkkia. Vanhus siunasi
häntä ja kutsui käymään kammiossaan, milloin hän itse vain halusi.

— Kuinka te rohkenette tehdä tuollaisia tekoja? — kysyi äkkiä

munkki vakavasti ja juhlallisesti osoittaen Liseä. Hän tarkoitti tämän
»terveeksitekemistä».

— Siitä on tietysti vielä liian aikaista puhua. Helpotus ei ole vielä

samaa kuin täydellinen tervehtyminen ja voi johtua muistakin syistä.
Mutta jos jotakin on ollutkin, niin ei kenenkään voimasta, vaan
Jumalan sallimasta. Kaikki tulee Jumalalta. Käykää luonani, isä, —
lisäsi hän munkille, — sillä enpä voi kaikkina aikoina ottaa vastaan.
Olen sairas ja tiedän, että päiväni ovat luetut.

— Oi, ei suinkin, Jumala ei ota teitä meiltä pois, te elätte vielä

kauan, kauan, — huudahti äiti. Miltä sairaus teitä vaivaa? Te näytätte
niin iloiselta, terveeltä, onnelliselta.

— Minulla on tänään harvinaisen helppo olo, mutta minä tiedän,

että sitä kestää väin vähän aikaa. Ymmärrän nyt tautini erehtymättä.
Jos taasen teistä näytän niin iloiselta, niin ettepä millään ettekä
milloinkaan olisi voinut minua ilahduttaa niin paljon kuin nyt,
tekemällä tuon huomautuksen. Sillä ihmiset ovat luodut onneen, ja
ken on täysin onnellinen, se saattaa suorastaan sanoa itselleen:
»Minä olen täyttänyt Jumalan käskyn täällä maan päällä.» Kaikki
oikeamieliset, kaikki pyhät, kaikki pyhät marttyyrit ovat olleet
onnellisia.
 — Oi, miten te puhutte, kuinka rohkeita ja yleviä sanoja! —
huudahti äiti, — Te puhutte ja ikäänkuin tungette olemuksen läpi. Ja
kuitenkin onni, onni, — missä se on? Kuka voi sanoa olevansa
onnellinen? Oi, kun kerran olitte niin hyvä, että tänään päästitte
meidät vielä näkemään teitä, niin kuulkaa kaikki, minkä viime kerralla
jätin teille puhumatta, en uskaltanut sanoa, kaikki, mistä kärsin, ja
niin kauan, niin kauan jo olen kärsinyt! Minä kärsin,-suokaa minulle
anteeksi, minä kärsin… — Ja jonkin äkillisen kiihkeän tunteen
valtaamana hän pani kätensä ristiin vanhuksen edessä.

— Mistä te erikoisesti kärsitte?

— Kärsin… epäuskosta…

— Ette usko Jumalaan?

— Oi, ei, ei, sitä en uskalla ajatellakaan, mutta tuleva elämä — se

on semmoinen arvoitus! Eikä kukaan, ei kukaan anna siihen
vastausta! Kuulkaa, te olette terveeksitekijä, te olette ihmissielun
tuntija! Minä en tietysti uskalla vaatia, että täydellisesti uskoisitte
minua, mutta vakuutan teille kaikkein pyhimmällä sanallani, että en
puhu nyt kevytmielisyydestä, vaan että tuo ajatus tulevasta
haudantakaisesta elämästä vaivaa minua kärsimykseen asti,
pelkoon ja kauhistukseen asti… Enkä tiedä, kenen puoleen
kääntyisin, en ole uskaltanut koko elämäni aikana… Ja nyt rohkenen
kääntyä teidän puoleenne… Oi, hyvä Jumala, mimmoisena te minua
nyt pidättekään! — Hän löi käsiään yhteen.

— Älkää olko huolissanne siitä, mitä minä ajattelen, — vastasi

vanhus.
— Uskon täydellisesti murheenne vilpittömyyden.
 — Oi, kuinka kiitollinen olenkaan teille! Nähkääs: suljen silmäni ja
ajattelen: jos kaikki uskovat, niin mistä tämä on tullut? Mutta nyt
vakuutetaan, että kaikki tuo on saanut alkunsa pelosta
kauhistuttavien luonnonilmiöitten edessä ja että mitään tuommoista
ei ole olemassakaan. No niin, ajattelen, olen uskonut koko elämäni
ajan — kuolen ja yht'äkkiä ei olekaan mitään, vain »takiaisia kasvaa
haudalle», niinkuin olen lukenut erään kirjailijan teoksesta. Se on
kauheata! Miten, miten voi saada takaisin uskon? Muuten uskoin
vain ollessani pieni lapsi, mekaanisesti, mitään ajattelematta…
Miten, miten tuon voi todistaa? Olen nyt tullut langetakseni eteenne
ja pyytääkseni teiltä vastausta tähän. Jos päästän käsistäni nyt
tämänkin tilaisuuden — niin ei minulle koko elämäni aikana enää
kukaan anna vastausta. Miten voi todistaa, miten voi tulla
vakuutetuksi? Oi, tämä on onnettomuuteni! Seison ja huomaan, että
ympärilläni tämä on kaikille samantekevää, melkein kaikille, ei
kukaan siitä nyt huolehdi, minä yksin vain en voi sitä kestää. Se on
kauheata, kauheata!

— Epäilemättä se on kauheata. Mutta todistaa tässä ei voi mitään,

tulla vakuutetuksi — se on mahdollista.

— Kuinka? Millä tavoin?

— Toimivan rakkauden kautta. Koettakaa rakastaa

lähimmäisiänne toimeliaasti ja väsymättä. Sikäli kuin edistytte
rakkaudessa, te myös tulette vakuutetuksi sekä Jumalan
olemassaolosta että sielunne kuolemattomuudesta. Jos taas
pääsette täydelliseen itsekieltämykseen lähimmäisenrakkaudessa,
niin silloin uskonne on aivan varma eikä mikään epäilys voi
noustakaan sieluunne. Tämä on koeteltua ja tämä on varmaa.
 — Toimivan rakkauden? Kas siinä on taas kysymys ja millainen
kysymys onkaan! Katsokaahan, minähän rakastan ihmiskuntaa siinä
määrin, että toisinaan, uskotteko, haaveilen siitä, että jätän kaikki,
kaikki mitä minulla on, jätän Lisen ja menen sairaanhoitajaksi. Suljen
silmäni, ajattelen ja haaveilen, ja niinä hetkinä tunnen itsessäni
lannistumatonta voimaa. Eivät mitkään haavat, eivät mitkään
mätäpaiseet voisi minua peloittaa. Minä ne sitoisin ja pesisin omin
käsin, minä hoitaisin noita kärsiviä, minä olisin valmis suutelemaan
noita haavoja…

— Sekin on jo paljon ja hyvä asia, että ajatuksenne askaroivat

tuommoisessa eikä muunlaisessa. Ei, ei, odottamatta te todellakin
teettekin jonkin hyvän työn.

— Niin, mutta kauanko jaksaisin elää tuommoista elämää? —

jatkoi rouva kiihkeästi ja ikäänkuin raivostuen. — Se on tärkein
kysymys! Se on kaikkein piinallisin kysymys minulle. Suljen silmäni
ja kysyn itseltäni: kauanko jaksaisit kulkea tuota tietä? Ja jos sairas,
jonka haavoja sinä peset, ei heti osoita sinulle kiitollisuutta, vaan
päinvastoin kiusaa sinua oikuillaan, pitämättä arvossa ja
huomaamatta sinun ihmisrakasta toimintaasi alkaa huutaa sinulle,
esittää epähienosti vaatimuksia, vieläpä valittaa jollekulle esimiehelle
(kuten hyvin sairaat usein tekevät) — kuinka käy silloin? Jatkuuko
sinun rakkautesi vai eikö? Ja, ajatelkaahan, olen jo vavisten
todennut: jos on jotakin, mikä voisi jäähdyttää »toimivan» rakkauteni
ihmiskuntaan heti paikalla, niin se on kiittämättömyys. Sanalla
sanoen, minä teen työtä palkan tähden, minä vaadin heti palkkaa,
toisin sanoen kiitosta itselleni, ja rakkauden maksettavaksi
rakkaudella. Muulla tavoin en kykene ketään rakastamaan!
 Hän syytteli itseään aivan vilpittömästi ja katsoi päätettyään
puheensa vanhusta uhmailevan päättävästi.

— Tämä on aivan täsmälleen samanlaista kuin minulle kauan

sitten kertoi eräs lääkäri, — huomautti vanhus. — Hän oli jo ikämies
ja kieltämättä älykäs mies. Hän puhui yhtä avomielisesti kuin tekin,
vaikka leikkiä laskien, katkeraa leikkiä laskien. »Minä», sanoi hän,
»rakastan ihmiskuntaa, mutta ihmettelen itseäni: kuta enemmän
minä rakastan ihmiskuntaa yleensä, sitä vähemmän rakastan eri
ihmisiä, yksilöitä. Haaveissani usein olen saanut päähäni kiihkeitä
aikeita palvella ihmiskuntaa, ja ehkäpä todellakin olisin antanut
ristiinnaulita itseni ihmisten tähden, jos se yht'äkkiä olisi ollut
tarpeellista, mutta samalla en kuitenkaan voi asua kahta päivää
toisen kanssa samassa huoneessa, kuten kokemuksesta tiedän. Jos
toinen on läheisyydessäni, niin hänen persoonansa jo rasittaa
itserakkauttani ja rajoittaa vapauttani. Yhdessä vuorokaudessa voin
ruveta vihaamaan parhaintakin ihmistä: yhtä sen takia, että hän syö
liian hitaasti päivällispöydässä, toista sen vuoksi, että hänellä on
nuha ja hän niistää yhtä mittaa nenäänsä. Minusta», sanoi hän,
»tulee ihmisten vihaaja heti, kun vain joudun tekemisiin heidän
kanssaan. Sen sijaan on aina käynyt niin, että kuta enemmän olen
vihannut ihmisiä erikseen, sitä hehkuvammaksi on tullut rakkauteni
ihmiskuntaa kohtaan yleensä.»

— Mutta mitä on tehtävä? Mitä on tämmöisessä tapauksessa

tehtävä? Onko tässä jouduttava epätoivoon?

— Ei, sillä sekin jo riittää, että te olette siitä huolissanne. Tehkää

mitä voitte, ja se lasketaan teille hyväksi. Te olette jo paljon tehnyt,
koska olette voinut niin syvästi ja vilpittömästi oppia tuntemaan
itsenne! Jos taas te nyt puhuitte minunkin kanssani niin vilpittömästi
vain saadaksenne minulta, kuten saittekin, kiitosta
rehellisyydestänne, niin ette tietysti pääse mihinkään toimivan
rakkauden töissä. Kaikki jää näin vain omiksi haaveiluiksenne, ja
elämänne vilahtaa ohi kuin harhakuva. Silloin tietysti unohdatte myös
tulevan elämän ja rauhoitutte lopulta jotenkuten omia aikojanne.

— Te olette musertanut minut! Vasta nyt, juuri sillä hetkellä kuin te

puhuitte, minä ymmärsin, että todellakin vain odotin teiltä kiitosta
vilpittömyydestäni, kun kerroin teille, että en voi kestää
kiittämättömyyttä. Te olette osoittanut minulle olemukseni laadun, te
olette täysin ymmärtänyt minut ja selittänyt minut itselleni!

—— Puhutteko tuota tosissanne? No niin, nyt tuon

tunnustuksenne jälkeen minä uskon, että te olette vilpitön ja että
sydämenne on hyvä. Jos ette saavuta onnea, niin muistakaa aina,
että te olette hyvällä tiellä, ja koettakaa sillä pysyä. Tärkeintä on, että
vältätte valhetta, kaikkea, valhetta, varsinkin valehtelemista
itsellenne. Pitäkää silmällä valhettanne ja tarkastakaa sitä joka tunti,
joka hetki. Välttäkää myös sekä toisten että itsenne inhoamista: se,
mikä teistä sisällänne näyttää huonolta, puhdistuu jo sen kautta, että
te olette sen itsessänne huomannut. Karttakaa myös pelkoa, vaikka
pelko on vain kaiken valheen seurausta. Älkää koskaan pelästykö
omaa arkuuttanne rakkauden saavuttamisessa, älkää edes kovin
paljon pelästykö tällöin huonoja tekojanne. Olen pahoillani, että en
voi sanoa teille mitään lohdullisempaa, mutta toimiva rakkaus on
haaveilevaan rakkauteen verrattuna ankara ja peloittava asia.
Haavemielinen rakkaus haluaa pikaista sankaritekoa, joka pian
palkitaan ja jonka kaikki näkevät. Tässä mennään todella niinkin
pitkälle, että uhrataan henkikin, kunhan vain kaikki kävisi nopeasti ja
pian täyttyisi aivan kuin näyttämöllä, ja että kaikki näkisivät ja
kehuisivat. Mutta toimiva rakkaus on työtä ja kestämistä, monille
kenties myös oppimista. Mutta sanon edeltäpäin, että samana
hetkenä, jolloin te kauhuksenne näette, että kaikista
ponnistuksistanne huolimatta ette ole lähestynyt päämäärää, vaan
päinvastoin tavallanne siitä loitontunutkin, — sinä samana hetkenä,
ennustan sen teille, te yht'äkkiä saavutattekin päämäärän ja näette
selvästi yllänne Jumalan ihmeitätekevän voiman, Jumalan, joka koko
ajan on teitä rakastanut ja huomaamattanne johdattanut. Pyydän
anteeksi, että en voi olla kanssanne kauempaa, minua odotetaan.
Näkemiin.

Rouva itki.

— Lise, Lise, siunatkaa toki häntä, siunatkaa! — sanoi hän äkkiä

touhukkaasti.

— Häntä ei kannata edes rakastaakaan. Minä näin, miten hän

koko ajan kujeili, — sanoi vanhus leikillään. — Miksi te koko ajan
nauroitte Alekseille?

Lise oli todellakin kaiken aikaa tuolla tavoin kujeillut. Hän oli jo
pitkän aikaa, viime kerrasta asti, huomannut, että Aljoša joutuu
hänen seurassaan hämilleen ja koettaa olla häneen katsomatta, ja
tämäpä häntä oli alkanut suuresti huvittaa. Lise katseli Aljošaan
kiinteästi ja koetti saada heidän katseensa sattumaan yhteen. Aljoša
ei voinut kestää häneen itsepintaisesti suunnattua katsetta ja alkoi
äkkiä tahtomattaan, vastustamattoman voiman pakosta, itse katsella
tyttöä, mutta silloin tyttö samassa alkoi hymyillä voitonriemuista
hymyä katsellen suoraan hänen silmiinsä. Aljoša oli yhä enemmän
hämillään ja harmissaan. Viimein hän kääntyi kokonaan pois ja
piiloutui vanhuksen selän taakse. Muutaman minuutin kuluttua hän
taas saman vastustamattoman voiman pakottamana kääntyi
katsomaan, katsooko tyttö häntä vai eikö, ja näki, että Lise melkein
riippuen ulos lepotuolistaan katseli häntä sivulta päin ja odotti kaikin
voimin, milloin hän katsoo. Mutta kun Aljošan ja hänen katseensa
sattuivat yhteen, alkoi tyttö nauraa ääneensä, niin että vanhus ei
malttanut olla sanomatta:

— Miksi te, veitikka, tuolla tavoin koetatte saada hänet

häpeämään?

Lise punastui äkkiä aivan odottamatta, hänen kasvonsa tulivat

hyvin vakaviksi, ja hän alkoi äkkiä puhua nopeasti ja hermostuneesti
valittaen kiihkeästi ja paheksuvasti:

— Miksi hän sitten on kaikki unohtanut? Pienenä ollessani hän

kantoi minua käsillään, me olimme leikkitovereita. Hänhän kävi
meillä opettamassa minua lukemaan, tiedättekö sen? Sanoessaan
kaksi vuotta sitten jäähyväiset hän sanoi, että ei unohda koskaan,
että me olemme ikuiset ystävät, ikuiset, ikuiset! Ja nyt hän on
yht'äkkiä ruvennut minua pelkäämään, ikäänkuin minä hänet söisin.
Miksi hän ei tahdo tulla luo, miksi hän ei tahdo puhella? Miksi hän ei
tahdo käydä meillä? Tekö muka ette häntä päästä? Mehän
tiedämme, että hän käy kaikkialla. Minun ei ole sopivaa häntä
kutsua, hänen olisi ensimmäisenä pitänyt muistaa, jos ei ole
unohtanut. Eipäs, hän etsii nyt pelastusta! Miksi te olette pukenut
hänen ylleen tuon pitkäliepeisen pappisviitan… Kun hän lähtee
juoksemaan, niin hän lankeaa…

Ja yht'äkkiä hän voimatta, hillitä itseään pani käden kasvojensa

eteen ja alkoi nauraa hirveästi, hillittömästi pitkää, hermostunutta,
ruumista värisyttävää ja kuulumatonta nauruaan. Vanhus oli
kuunnellut hänen puhettaan hymyillen ja siunasi häntä hellästi. Mutta
alkaessaan suudella hänen kättään tyttö äkkiä painoi sen silmilleen
ja alkoi itkeä.
 — Älkää suuttuko minuun, minä olen hupakko, minä en ole
minkään arvoinen… ja Aljoša on ehkä oikeassa, aivan oikeassa, kun
ei tahdo käydä näin naurettavan ihmisen luona.

— Minä lähetän hänet ehdottomasti, — päätti vanhus.

5.

Niin tapahtuu, tapahtuu!

Luostarinvanhin oli ollut poissa kammiostaan noin viisikolmatta

minuuttia. Kello oli jo yli puoli yhden, mutta Dmitri Fjodorovitš, jonka
takia kaikki olivat kokoontuneet, ei vieläkään ollut saapunut. Mutta
hänet näyttivät toiset ikäänkuin unohtaneen, ja kun luostarinvanhin
taas astui kammioon, niin hän tapasi kaikki vieraansa mitä
vilkkaimmin keskustelemassa keskenään. Keskusteluun ottivat osaa
ennen kaikkea Ivan Fjodorovitš ja molemmat pappismunkit.
Keskusteluun yhtyi, nähtävästi hyvin kiihkeästikin, myös Miusov,
mutta hänellä oli taaskin huono onni: Hän oli ilmeisesti syrjähenkilö
ja hänelle vastailtiin vähän, niin että tämä uusi seikka yhä vain lisäsi
hänen mieleensä kertynyttä ärtyisyyttä. Asian laita ali niin, että hän ja
Ivan Fjodorovitš ja ennenkin olivat jonkin verran pistelleet toisiaan
kilpaillen tiedoissa, eikä hän voinut kylmäverisesti sietää tämän
hänelle osoittamaa eräänlaista yliolkaisuutta. »Tähän asti sentään
olin kaiken sen huipulla, mikä Euroopassa on etevintä, mutta tuo
uusi sukupolvi ei piittaa meistä kerrassaan mitään», ajatteli hän
itsekseen. Fjodor Pavlovitš, joka; itse oli luvannut istuutua tuoliinsa ja
olla vaiti, oli todellakin jonkin aikaa ääneti, mutta tarkkasi ivallisesti
hymyillen naapuriaan Pjotr Aleksandrovitšia ja ilmeisesti oli iloissaan
hänen äreydestään. Hän oli, jo kauan aikonut maksaa hänelle minkä
mistäkin eikä nyt tahtonut jättää tilaisuutta käyttämättä. Viimein hän
ei enää jaksanut hillitä itseään, vaan kumartui naapurinsa olkapäätä
kohti ja ärsytti häntä vielä kerran puoliääneen:

— Miksi te ette äsken mennyt pois tuon »suuteli rakkaasti»

jälkeen, vaan suostuitte jäämään näin huonoon seuraan? Siksi vain,
että tunsitte tulleenne halvennetuksi ja loukatuksi ja jäitte
näyttämään älyänne saadaksenne siten hyvitystä. Nyt ette enää
lähde, ennenkuin olette antanut älynne loistaa heille.

— Joko te taas? Lähden päinvastoin heti pois.

— Myöhemmin, myöhemmin kuin muut lähdette! — pisti Fjodor

Pavlovitš vielä kerran. Tämä tapahtui melkein samalla hetkellä kuin
vanhus palasi.

Kiista loppui hetkeksi, mutta vanhus istuutuen entiselle paikalleen

katsoi kaikkiin aivan kuin tahtoisi kohteliaasti kehoittaa jatkamaan.
Aljoša, joka oli oppinut tuntemaan melkein kaikki hänen kasvojensa
ilmeet, näki aivan selvästi, että hän oli hirveän väsynyt ja ponnisti
kestääkseen. Viime aikoina sairastaessaan hän oli saanut
pyörtymiskohtauksia, jotka johtuivat voimien loppumisesta. Melkein
samanlainen kalpeus kuin pyörtymyksen edellä levisi nytkin hänen
kasvoilleen, ja hänen huulensa tulivat valkeiksi. Mutta nähtävästi hän
ei tahtonut hajoittaa kokousta, vaan hänellä oli siinä jokin oma
tarkoituksensa, — mutta mikä? Aljoša piti häntä tarkasti silmällä.

— Me keskustelemme heidän perin mielenkiintoisesta

kirjoituksestaan, — lausui pappismunkki Josef, kirjastonhoitaja,
kääntyen vanhuksen puoleen ja osoittaen Ivan Fjodorovitšia. —
Paljon uutta he esittävät, mutta perusajatus näyttää menevän
kahteen eri suuntaan. Kysymyksen johdosta, joka koskee
kirkollisyhteiskunnallista tuomioistuinta ja sen oikeuksien laajuutta,
he ovat vastanneet kirjoitelmalla aikakauskirjassa eräälle
hengelliseen säätyyn kuuluvalle henkilölle, joka on kirjoittanut tästä
kysymyksestä kokonaisen kirjan…

— Valitettavasti en ole lukenut kirjoitustanne, mutta olen kuullut

siitä, — vastasi vanhus katsellen kiinteästi ja terävästi Ivan
Fjodorovitšia.

— Heidän kantansa on sangen mielenkiintoinen, — jatkoi isä

kirjastonhoitaja. — Nähtävästi he kysymyksessä kirkollis-
yhteiskunnallisesta tuomioistuimesta kokonaan hylkäävät kirkon
erottamisen valtiosta.

— Se on mielenkiintoista, mutta miltä kannalta te näin ajattelette?

— kysyi vanhus Ivan Fjodorovitšilta.

Tämä vastasi hänelle viimein, mutta ei kohteliaalla ylemmyydellä,

kuten Aljoša vielä edellisenä päivänä oli pelännyt, vaan
vaatimattomasti ja hillitysti, ilmeisen kohteliaasti ja nähtävästi ilman
pienintäkään salaista ajatusta.

— Lähden siitä väitteestä, että tämä peruskäsitteitten

sekoittaminen, toisin sanoen kirkon ja valtion olemuksen
sekoittaminen, kun otamme kummankin erikseen, jatkuu tietysti
ikuisesti siitä huolimatta, että se on mahdottomuus ja että sitä ei
koskaan voi saattaa normaaliseen eikä edes jossakin määrin
yhteensopivaan tilaan, sillä asian koko perusta on valheellinen.
Kompromissi valtion ja kirkon välillä sellaisissa kysymyksissä kuin
esimerkiksi kysymys tuomioistuimesta on mielestäni täydellisesti ja
puhtaasti ottaen pohjaltaan mahdoton. Hengelliseen säätyyn kuuluva