The Latino community is growing throughout the United States. With that growth comes electoral power. Aspiring politicians and paranoid vets seem to believe the best way to influence this voter bloc is to lay out an immigration platform anytime a Latino is spotted at a town hall. But does it make sense?
Data from Pew suggests the inflow of Asian immigrants has overtaken the inflow from Mexico and any other Hispanic country every year since 2010. China and India lead the charge yet immigration is inextricably linked to Latinos who care more about the economy or health care.
Although it may seem like a harmless and misguided political pandering, by portraying Latinos and Latinas as voters concerned mostly with immigration, we craft a legislative environment where the concerns of Latinos relating to jobs, small business, and healthcare are diminished. Undoubtedly, this is legislative discrimination and exclusion.
The catalysts for such an environment are expansive. Narrowing the focus away from the federal government, the lack of general diversity within state legislatures and municipal bodies contributes to the dilemma. In counties across the United States, people vote in accordance to an at-large format. At-large voting dilutes the voices of minority voters, particularly Latinos throughout Southern California cities. This is why a Malibu law firm is suing various cities, and winning, on the grounds that the at-large elections system disenfranchises Latino voters. Kevin Shenkman and Mary Hughes, the leading lawyers in this venture, ultimately hope for cities to adopt a by-district voting structures that give enhance the opportunities of Latino candidates.
But this shift alone will not equip minority candidates with the legitimacy needed to alter the national discourse. In fact, Latino candidates are often minimized to mere supplements by the leaders of their own party. One only needs to look as far as the Clinton campaign’s consideration of then HUD secretary Julian Castro for VP. Castro’s sole duty would have been to secure the Hispanic bloc for Clinton while serving as a token reminder that Clinton favored comprehensive immigration reform. Tokenism runs rampant in the political world in a variety of ways, but the kind that diminishes the potency and constituents of minority politicians exacerbates the vices of a systemic deficiency that already works against Latino candidates.
We these two systemic factors in mind, another problem remains in our own backyards. If your political voice is not being heard, you showcase more voices. In the political arena, this is done through the presentation of able community leaders, not just candidates. Unfortunately, Latino communities are encumbered by a poverty rate of 23.5 percent, outpaced only by Black communities. Communal poverty is parasitic, infecting every facet of societal life. When resources are limited in a world where median household incomes remain stagnant, particularly for minority households, creating and maintaining a powerful bloc of community leaders dedicated to advocating the interests of Latinos at all stages does not seem like a priority. Nevertheless, it is crucial as 62 percent of Latinos cannot even name a Hispanic leader within our country.
More importantly, 75 percent of Latinos believe their community needs a leader. In this situation, necessity needs to be the mother of political representation. The power to solve this piece of the puzzle lies within our own communities. Large national and statewide organizations for Latinos exist, but they lack the scope necessary to impact every single community.
We need advocates, activists, politicians, school-board members, council people, and state senators. Bottom line is we need communities to mobilize and leaders to guide them. The seeds must be planted within our youth to fix their perspective, helping them understand that they can see themselves and their communities move forward for better days and full representation. It is time to live up to the moniker of ‘representative government.’
