Skip to main content
  • 253 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the relationships among immigration, conservation, and security efforts in Cabeza Prieta. Security and conservation programs have coevolved through connections among shared actors, physical space, and efforts to control the landscape. Each process—conservation and security—derives from a perception of threat and contributes to the belief that the threat from the south is increasing. Thus, it is important to pay attention to the ways in which racial and ethnic stereotypes affect conservation science and policy in border regions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 3.

    Geiser is referring to the forest bureaucracy in northwest Pakistan in this quote but I find it relevant to border conservation in the United States.

References

  • Annerino, J. (1999). Dead in Their Tracks: Crossing America’s Desert Borderlands. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cederlof, G., & Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2006). Ecological Nationalism: Nature, Livelihoods and Identities in South Asia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavez, L. (2008). The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, P., Cole, T., Dudley, M., & Pearson, C. (2011). Defending Nation, Defending Nature? Militarized Landscapes and Military Environmentalism in Britain, France and the United States. Environmental History, 16, 456–491. https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/emr038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conca, K., & Dabelko, G. (2002). Environmental Peacemaking. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, W. (2001). Death at the Border: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of U.S. Immigration Control Policy. Population and Development Review, 27(4), 661–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De León, J. (2015). The Land of the Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, T. (2009). Blockading the Border and Human Rights: The El Paso Operation That Remade Immigration Enforcement (1st ed., Inter-America Series). Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiser, U. (2006). Contested Forests in Northwest Pakistan: The Bureaucracy Between the “Ecological,” the “National,” and the Realities of a Nation’s Frontier. In G. Cederlof & K. Sivaramakrishnan (Eds.), Ecological Nationalisms: Nature, Livelihoods and Identities in South Asia. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuletz, V. (1998). The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the American West. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, O. J. (2006). Troublesome Border. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (2001). States of Nature and Environmental Enclosures in the American West. In N. Peluso & M. Watts (Eds.), Violent Environments. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mccombs, B. (2010, September 4). 55-gallon Drums for Migrants Are OK’d, but Rules Will Be Strict US Allows New Water Stations by Border. Arizona Daily Star.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, D., & Weeks, J. (2002). Environmental Impacts of Illegal Immigration on the Cleveland National Forest in California. The Professional Geographer, 54(3), 392–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R. (2005). Making Political Ecology. London: Hodder Headline Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, J. (2002). Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirages, D., & Manley DeGeest, T. (2004). Ecological Security: An Evolutionary Perspective on Globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, M. (2010). The Death of Josseline: Immigration Stories from the Arizona Borderlands. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • St. John, R. (2011). Line in the Sand: A History of the Western U.S.-Mexico Border. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sundberg, J. (2008). ‘Trash-Talk’ and the Production of Quotidian Geopolitical Boundaries in the USA–Mexico Borderlands. Social and Cultural Geography. https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rscg20.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007). Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Wilderness Stewardship Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Government Accountability Office. (2017, February). Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contribution to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps (GAO-17-331). https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682838.pdf.

  • Urban, J. L. (2008). Nation, Immigration and Environmental Security. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Urrea, L. A. (2004). The Devil’s Highway: A True Story. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Meierotto .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Meierotto, L. (2020). A Disciplined Space. In: Immigration, Environment, and Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31814-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics