I've been reading a lot about Biden's new cabinet and the people of color he's appointing. It's both interesting and frustrating to hear so much excitement about the promise of representation in high offices. As an immigration scholar, I've been particularly interested in the discussion surrounding Alejandro Mayorkas who has been nominated to lead the Department of Homeland Security and Cecilia Muñoz who was named to serve on his transition team. So many assumptions are embedded in these stories, so let me break it down.
1) That immigration is a Latino issue. First of all, unsaid, is the assumption that immigration enforcement is understood politically as an issue of Latino civil rights. Why? Well, because the majority of undocumented immigrants are categorized as Latino and secondly, because immigration enforcement is primarily targeted at immigrants, legal residents, and US citizens who are classified as Latinos. So unwritten already is the racialization both of the "problem" (undocumented immigration) and of the "solution" i.e. restriction and enforcement.
2) That Latinos are politically aligned. That they share not only language and cultural traits, but also economic and political interests. This one is interesting, because to account for their political importance, the term Latino includes immigrants as well as citizens, AND people from a variety of different countries. So that includes: people whose ancestors or who themselves were born in Mexico, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico (a US territory), Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, etc. The idea is that all of these people have something in common, some type of shared interest in the US. Despite the fact that people from Cuba and Guatemala do not have the same right to enter the US and one's country of origin greatly influence's one's legal status in the US. Why? well, a lot has to do with diplomacy. Because the US government has pronounced itself against Communism and socialist governments, we have granted permission to people fleeing those governments: Cuba and Venezuela. Because the US government was not friendly with Castro or Chavez, it accepted that people from those countries were fleeing dictatorship. Not so with the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, or El Salvador. First of all, we have close economic and military ties with those countries. Heck, in many instances, the US government helped choose their leader, so no, you can't claim to be fleeing persecution or state violence in those countries, even if you are, because traditionally, we support those leaders. So if you come from those countries, it's more likely that you come to this country without authorization or "undocumented" and are classified as an economic migrant only fleeing poverty. So this idea that all Latinos share any type of political interest in common is kind of a huge assumption. In my opinion.
3) That this is unprecedented. Yes and no. Here is where I have something to add. Any immigration scholar will know that this is not unprecedented. First of all, DHS is only 18 years old. It was established in 2002 after 9/11. Before that we had the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Leonel Castillo was appointed in 1977 to lead that agency under President Jimmy Carter. Castillo was Mexican American and took office during an era when government officials argued that undocumented immigration was out of control and something had to be done about it. It's in this context that Castillo was tasked with the difficult task of on the one hand "doing something" about immigration restrictions and enforcement, but on the other hand, making sure these restrictions and enforcement mechanisms did not threaten or straight up violate the civil rights of US citizen Latinos who were becoming more and more vocal and politically organized. I understand the argument that DHS is different than INS, because it's more focused on terrorism and what have you, which is fine. But the claim that Alejandro Mayorkas would be the first Latino to lead the US agency dedicated to immigration, is incorrect. He is however, the first immigrant to lead the agency. Mayorkas is a refugee to the US whose family fled Cuba under Castro.
4) That a Latino will do it better. That regardless of generation, class origin, immigration status, or country of origin, a Latino will be able to lead DHS better than a non-Latino, because they are closer to immigration and this experience will better inform their policies.
Maybe a better explanation is that a Latino will be signing off on US immigration policy, and in essence, become the face of immigration policy, absorbing any shocks that come with that. Depending on how you look at it, a Latino will either "be forced to" or "have the opportunity" to respond to Latinos as a political bloc, who will press them in ONE or more directions, depending on if you believe assumption #2 above, which I don't. Let's break this down more because it gets tricky.
Latinos come in all shapes, colors and sizes. Some are pro-immigrant and some are anti-immigrant. Many live in mixed-status families that include citizens as well as immigrants. Many have one parent who is Latino and another parent who identifies as something else. Maybe they grew up with Latino culture or maybe they didn't. Maybe they speak Spanish or maybe they don't. Some are first generation and some are fifth generation. Some are dirt poor and others are filthy rich. So what does it even mean to respond to "Latinos"? You would most likely be responding to several different groups. This might include people who support a path to legalization and an end to immigrant abuse as well as those who believe in building "the wall" or those who don't really care about immigration, or think it doesn't affect them, and are more focused on other issues like healthcare or the economy.
But to say that it doesn't affect you isn't necessarily true either. Because of the way the debate has been framed, many Latinos are forced at some point in their life to take a stance in response to attacks directed either at them, or at people who look or sound like them. Sometimes this experience pushes people to choose a side, either for or against immigrant rights. Some decide to pronounce themselves against immigrants, or try to differentiate themselves from immigrants, either out of opportunity, out of fear or to prove how American they really are. Others become radicalized by these experiences and decide to pronounce themselves for immigrant rights, in theory, without necessarily knowing how it all works. Let's just say that if you ever make it to high office, you obviously have to take a stance, and in practice it might be tricky if you don't have the power to carry it out. Which leads me to #5.
5) That it really makes a difference or rather that Latino officials actually have the power to shape policy.
It's been interesting to read all the articles about Cecilia Muñoz's role as Director of Domestic Policy Council under Obama and her appointment to Biden's transition team. Look up social media posts circa 2012 versus 2020. At the time, Latino organizations were proud to have one of their own, and at that an immigration activist, inside the White House. However, pretty soon though they saw the limits of representation. Why? Because power comes with responsibility and high office often comes with difficult obligations or compromises. In theory it might have been great to have an immigrant rights advocate in the Obama White House. Imagine the possibilities. But in practice, what were they? Well, Obama decided to appease immigration restrictionists (minute men, birthers, those cheering Trump to "build the wall!") and adopted an aggressive deportation policy which he believed would endear him to his opponents and help him pass a comprehensive immigration reform that included a limited pathway to citizenship, by proving to conservatives that he was tough on enforcement. Interesting plan because it didn't work. He didn't appease anti-immigrant sectors, he didn't pass comprehensive immigration reform, and probably worst of all, he separated families and became known as the "deporter in chief." But he signed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) didn't he? Well sure, but that was after years of activism by young people who fought for a much larger DREAM Act. Obama didn't "give them"anything. They earned DACA and deserve much more. What is worse is that he began deporting people who didn't fit the narrow category of Childhood Arrivals at a higher rate than his Republican predecessors. And what happened to Cecilia Muñoz? Well, she became the face of that policy and was forced to respond to it as one of the highest ranking Latino officials in the White House. That is the burden that comes with high visibility. You become associated with unpopular policies.
I'm not saying Mayorkas shouldn't lead DHS, or that Muñoz was wrong to serve under Obama and now Biden, or that their experience as Latinos in the US didn't shape their policies. All I'm saying is that representation is overrated. Check your expectations and ask hard questions. Also, be realistic.
Muñoz's family came to the US from Bolivia. She was active in helping pass and implement the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and worked for many years at the National Council of La Raza. She understands the intricacies of political compromise which helped pass IRCA. But while that may have worked in 1986, it clearly did not work under Obama to pass a new immigration reform.
This issue of representation is still going strong though. In California, Kamala Harris's seat will be filled by Governor Gavin Newsom, and a number of Latino organizations are asking that he appoint a Latino senator because 40% of the state is Latino and no Latino has served as a senator since California joined the Union. One of the biggest arguments in favor of appointing a Latino senator is to set an example for the young people of California, who are majority Latino. So it isn't just that a Latino will do it better or that their life experience will add nuance to their decision-making. That matters. But so does setting an example. This is a powerful argument and I get it. Although I don't think representation is enough. Representation without opportunity is meaningless.
What about other agencies? Joaquin Castro recently argued that the Department of Agriculture should be led by a Latino. But the headline is misleading. He's not advocating for just any Latino. He's specifically recommending that Biden appoint Arturo S. Rodriguez, who served as the president of the United Farm Workers and has extensive experience working on behalf of farmworkers. He also notes that farmworkers are predominantly Latino, and have suffered high rates of COVID 19 as essential workers. Similarly, Biden just announced he would nominate California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Becerra has been a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act. He famously sued the Trump administration over 100 times and responded to Trump's State of the Union in Spanish. He is the son of a Mexican immigrant mother and US born father.
In another post I'll explain why I have all these opinions about representation. But suffice it to say that I don't think it's wise or fair to hold people to such high expectations. Latinos are individuals too. Some don't necessarily want to represent a whole community and never really asked for it. On the other hand, I've seen people who definitely use it to their advantage and invoke a particular ethnic heritage when it suits their needs, with no interest in advocating for a larger group. But then again, Latinos are diverse not just culturally but also politically. Yes we want capable people, yes we want representation, yes we want people who's lived experience informs their work, but please, don't expect people who look like you to necessarily work for you. It's not that simple.