Comments
BOTTOM LINE - When Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass recently characterized it as “sad” that Hispanics are joining the U.S. Border Patrol—suggesting they are doing so out of desperation for money, she revealed more than perhaps she intended. What was framed as empathy landed instead as condescension, stereotyping, and a troubling dismissal of the agency and autonomy of Hispanic Americans who choose public service in federal law enforcement.
Words from elected officials matter. They shape public perception, legitimize certain viewpoints, and marginalize others. When a mayor of one of the most diverse cities in the nation speaks in a way that reduces an entire group’s career choices to economic desperation, it sends a message—not just about Border Patrol, but about who is allowed dignity, agency, and respect in civic life.
Let’s be clear: Hispanics join the Border Patrol for the same reasons people of all backgrounds join law enforcement. Some are motivated by a desire to serve their country. Some want stable careers with benefits. Some seek professional advancement, training, or retirement security. Others are driven by personal experience with border communities, migration, or public safety. None of those reasons are “sad.” They are rational, responsible, and human.
What is troubling is the underlying assumption that Hispanic Americans lack agency—that when they make choices some political leaders or activists disagree with, those choices must be explained away as coercion, poverty, or moral compromise. That mindset echoes a softer form of paternalism: the idea that certain communities are only acting freely when they conform to an approved political narrative.
The Border Patrol is a lawful federal agency charged with enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress. Those laws can and should be debated, reformed, or improved through the democratic process. But they are not enforced in the abstract. They are enforced by people many of them Hispanic who operate within the boundaries of the law and under civilian oversight. Shaming the workforce does nothing to advance reform; it only deepens division and resentment.
If the concern is with federal immigration policy, then the debate should be directed at lawmakers and legislation, not at the men and women who put on a uniform and report to work. Criticizing policy is fair game. Questioning the legitimacy or motives of those who enforce it is not.
Mayor Bass’s comment also risks alienating the very communities she claims to stand with. Hispanic Americans are not a monolith. They hold diverse views on immigration, border security, enforcement, and reform. Many supports stronger borders and humane immigration solutions at the same time. Suggesting that joining Border Patrol is inherently tragic or suspect ignores that complexity and replaces it with a caricature.
There is also an uncomfortable double standard at play. When individuals from marginalized communities enter professions like medicine, engineering, or politics, their success is celebrated as empowerment and upward mobility. But when they enter law enforcement or border security, they are often portrayed as betraying their community or acting under economic duress. That is not solidarity—it is selective approval.
Economic stability itself should not be treated as shameful. Wanting a steady paycheck, healthcare, or retirement benefits is not desperation—it is responsibility. In a city and state struggling with affordability, rising costs, and economic insecurity, dismissing stable employment as something “sad” rings hollow, especially coming from political leadership.
Los Angeles, of all cities, should understand this. Our city depends on people of every background choosing to serve as police officers, firefighters, sanitation workers, teachers, nurses, and yes, federal agents. We do not get to praise service when it aligns with our politics and demean it when it doesn’t.
If Mayor Bass believes Border Patrol practices are flawed, unjust, or in need of reform, she should articulate those concerns directly and propose solutions. Leadership means engaging policy honestly, not projecting assumptions onto the people doing the work. Implying that Hispanic agents are victims of circumstance rather than professionals exercising choice is not reform-minded—it is dismissive.
At a time when trust in institutions is fragile and rhetoric is increasingly polarized; leaders should be careful not to deepen divisions by questioning the legitimacy of entire professions or communities. Respectful disagreement is the foundation of democracy. Moralizing people’s career choices is not.
Hispanic Americans do not need their motivations interpreted for them. They deserve the same respect, complexity, and presumption of agency afforded to everyone else.
Calling their service “sad” says far more about the speaker than about those who choose to serve.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
