Immigration, Voter Suppression, and Political Engagement in the 2020 Election
Introduction by series curator, Dr. Mara Ostfeld, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan
When Donald J. Trump launched his presidential campaign on June 16, 2015, there was only one issue on his website: immigration. His position on immigration was notably conservative and exclusionary, with “Build That Wall” becoming a standard chant in his rallies. In many ways, this notion of a border wall that he embraced and promoted so passionately symbolizes his approach to American politics more broadly. In Trump’s America, there are many borders and walls and their primary function is to ensure that those on his side are whiter, safer, wealthier, and healthier than those on the other side.
Since Trump’s inauguration, he has frequently shared xenophobic, discriminatory, and outright racist views. He has referred to immigrants and refugees as “rapists,” “criminals,” “animals,” “ISIS fighters,” and alleged that some immigrants come from countries where they “all have AIDS.” He has said that people living in inner-cities have no education or jobs, the majority Black 7th congressional district of Maryland is a “disgusting, rat and rodent-infested mess,” and that low-income people and racial/ ethnic minorities are “ruining” American suburbs. In contrast, he has characterized white nationalists as “very fine people”, and told their respective militia groups to stand by.
Of course, while the explicit nature of these statements marked a departure from the norms of the modern American presidency, the underlying sentiment conveyed is not at all unusual for American politics. On the contrary, Dr. Elizabeth Rule, Dr. Susana Muñoz, and Mr. Juan Escalante highlight many of the ways in which the United States was built on policies and politics that sustain the power and privileges associated with Whiteness. For example, at the same time that the U.S. federal government sought to physically, politically, and symbolically erase American Indians, they also used the nativist rationale to justify violating the basic rights of immigrants. At the same time that the U.S. has condemned genocides, the use of torture, and caste systems abroad, the U.S. has modeled some of the clearest examples of all of these against Black, Indigenous, and Peoples of Color in the U.S. Despite this long history of institutionalized American racism, historian Nell Irvin Painter characterized Trump’s 2016 win as unique in that, “[t]his time the white men in charge will not simply happen to be white; they will be governing as white”.
Consistent with Painter’s expectations, Trump’s success has been linked to a range of adverse consequences in communities of color, including bullying and hate crimes. Yet with his reelection bid in full swing, it is not yet clear how Trump’s actions as president will affect voter turnout among members of these communities. On one hand, one might imagine that Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric would heighten the desire to take action to remove him from office among those adversely affected by his presidency. To the extent that this is true, we should see a turnout spike among communities of color in the November election.
However, existing evidence suggests that it is not at all clear that this will happen. In many cases, this precise form of xenophobic rhetoric and threatening language can actually suppress political engagement among those targeted. Because of this uncertainty, the likelihood of responding to adversity with heightened political engagement hinges on group consciousness and community mobilization.
Dr. Stokes eloquently speaks to this point in his article highlighting the importance of investing in what he refers to as racial efficacy. At its core, this is the idea that structural forms of oppression can be combatted through solidarity among communities of color. While American institutions have constructed a notion of racial identity that inherently affords more political influence to White citizens, this can be countered through efforts to empower, invest in and support the agency and autonomy of non-White communities. In particular, given the history of positioning Blackness as being at the opposing end of the spectrum of privilege in America from Whiteness, Stokes notes that it is Blackness that is fundamentally at “the root of autonomy and courage.” In turn, Stokes elaborates that among Black people, “their vision of freedom was not limited by a political imagination, they were driven by a liberatory imagination.” It is imperative that educators, employers, and leaders of all forms invest into autonomous communities of Black people — as well as other historically-marginalized communities — that will enable these liberatory ideas to prosper. Their success is the only means through which America can succeed.
To the extent that effective investments into group consciousness and community mobilization are made, they have the power to be deeply consequential. Dr. Gomez-Aguinaga illustrates this point in her article exploring voter participation among Latinx immigrants. Today, there are about 7.5 million Latinx immigrants who are eligible to vote. A significant share of these voters resides in swing states, like Florida and Arizona. In fact, it is the growth in this share of voters that is partially responsible for the growing likelihood that Texas — the state with the second most electoral college votes — may go blue this year for the first time in over 40 years. Doing so, would not only transform our presidential elections but also transform standard understandings of American political power.
Of course, voting is not the only way to enact political change. On the contrary, a large share of the political change brought about by individuals raced as non-White has been achieved outside of the ballot box. The protest, in particular, has served as a powerful force of change throughout American political history and has demonstrated renewed impact over the past fifteen years. A protest is also an especially valuable tool for communities that continue to be excluded from the American electoral process, including a majority of US immigrants. Drawing upon a large original database of protest activity, Dr. Okamoto points to a significant uptick in protests organized by or with immigrants following the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Notably, she reveals that the heightened protest activity was not only a reaction to Trump but a targeted reaction to very specific threats he directed toward immigrant communities.
In doing so, she reinforces points made by both Dr. Gomez-Aguinaga as well as Dr. Stokes. Despite being repeatedly marginalized and ignored by American political institutions, immigrants and people of color are deeply aware of the intricacies of American political forces. Both parties and all candidates have an important opportunity to clearly stake their position on the issues that disproportionately affect communities of color — including policies on the criminal justice system, wealth distribution, tribal sovereignty, access to education and childcare, immigration, and the environment. While the sense of racial efficacy within these communities may determine the speed by which the distribution of political power is transformed in America, demographic shifts and recent movements have already made quite clear the direction in which power is moving.
Mara Cecilia Ostfeld is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan. Her research broadly focuses on the relationship between race, media, and political attitudes. She is currently working on projects exploring media coverage of protest activity; the implications of different methodological approaches to studying Latino public opinion; and, the attitudinal consequences of descriptive representation. Her work has been published in journals that include Political Psychology and Political Communication and been funded by places including the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics and the Russell Sage Foundation. She currently has a book project underway looking at the political, environmental, and psychological factors that shape how we identify our skin color. During national elections, Mara also works as an analyst at NBC and Telemundo.
