Reimagining Otherness, Recreating the Public Space: Public Administration and the U.S.-Mexico Border

• Author: María Verónica Elías
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211059163
• Subject Matter: Perspectives

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211059163

Administration & Society

2022, Vol. 54(8) 1621 –1645

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997211059163

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Perspectives

Reimagining Otherness,

Recreating the

Public Space: Public

Administration and the

U.S.-Mexico Border

María Verónica Elías1

Abstract

How can public administrators tasked with enforcing immigration laws bring

care and commitment to human relationships and public connections? The

contemporary anti-immigrant (anti-Other) “narrative” related to immigration

policy is provided as exemplary socio-political-administrative terrain for

exploring this question. Considering the undocumented alien as the “other”

that possess a threat to the whole is problematic for democratic immigration

policy making and governance. This paper suggests that pragmatism and

Hannah Arendt’s political theory of publicness offer a theoretical groundwork

for understanding and overcoming the destructive dynamics of “othering.”

This framework can help administrators, through reflection in action and

situational awareness, make sense of their daily practice. Finally, the discussion

centers on lessons for street-level bureaucrats to reconsider the border and

“others” under a new light, as constitutive of the public space.

Keywords

otherness, U.S.-Mexico border, undocumented aliens, public administration

practice, public space, American pragmatists, reflection in action, lived

democracy

1The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

Corresponding Author:

María Verónica Elías, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 501 W. César Chávez Blvd.,

Durango Building 4.236, San Antonio, TX 78207-4415, USA.

Email: Mariaveronica.elias@utsa.edu

1059163AAS0010.1177/00953997211059163Administration & SocietyElías

research-article2021

1622 Administration & Society 54(8)

Introduction

National and state media and political discourse depict the United States-

Mexico border as a space of risk and aversion—a lawless realm of illegal

substance and people smuggling (Chavez, 2008; Farris & Silber Mohamed,

2018; Fleuriet, 2021; Fleuriet & Castañeda, 2017; Fleuriet & Castellano,

2020). The “politics of fear” fuel perceptions of this area as permeated by

terrorist threat, undocumented immigration, and border violence, while the

reality on the ground is more nuanced and complex (Correa-Cabrera et al.,

2014, p. 35; Correa-Cabrera & Garrett, 2014; Heyman, 2013). Since the turn

of the 21st century, border security in the southwest region of the United

States has resulted in immigrant criminalization and stricter immigration law

enforcement, targeting Hispanics from Central America and Mexico (Abrego

et al., 2017; Chavez, 2008; Gonzalez, 2019; Inda, 2006; Martínez et al., 2013;

Massey & Riosmena, 2010; Núñez & Heyman, 2007; Talavera et al., 2010).

Immigration policy debates paint a skewed picture of a complex socio-

economic and human rights phenomenon, portraying Hispanic immigrants—

particularly illegal aliens and asylum seekers at the southern border—as a

hindrance to an orderly society (Chavez, 2008; Dear, 2013; Durand &

Massey, 2019; Massey, 2020; Massey & Riosmena, 2010; Vulliamy, 2020).

Some have even considered Hispanic (particularly, Mexican) immigrants as

a threat to national values, societal ideals, capitalist economic interests, and

the American way of life (Chavez, 2008; Durand, 2003; Durand & Massey,

2001; Huntington, 2004; Massey et al., 2002). At the root of labeling the dif-

ferent other as “dangerous” resides the fear of usurpation of one’s cultural

identity and social and political preponderance of some groups over others.

An ideal of uniformity is troublesome for democratic governance because

exclusionary ideology justifies and perpetuates a sense of homogeneity, con-

trary to the diversity needed for a flourishing democracy. Functioning as a

well-oiled machine, the uniformity ideal moves by its own inertia, reinforc-

ing the notion that difference is pernicious and threatening to society.1 The

resultant categorization excludes and denigrates that which is different, insti-

gating suspicion and fear of others. Insofar as those claims alienate one group

or one person, they constitute an attack on humanity and its endless creativity

and political potential (Arendt, 1958).

While negative depictions continuously emphasize the costs of immigra-

tion, they seldom, if ever, mention its benefits to the receiving side; those

benefits include diverse ideas and values, a wide range of personal and cul-

tural experiences and worldviews, and their pivotal role in the U.S. labor

market and economy (Heyman, 2013; Timmons, 2018). More recently, the

vilification waged on asylum seekers has deepened during the COVID-19