The Youth Vote and Latin America: A Missed Opportunity at Last Night's Debate

Last night at Florida International University (FIU), we held a debate watch session sponsored by Pi Sigma Alpha and the Latino Public Opinion Forum. We've done this before, but this time was different. Typically, our turnout is modest—between 15 and 20 students, reflecting the general apathy that permeates political engagement among younger voters. But last night, something shifted. Crammed into SIPA 100 were approximately 90 students, a crowd representing the rich diversity of our student body and a palpable hunger to engage with the political moment.

Before the debate began, we asked the students who they thought would win. The result was divided, with many still on the fence, reflecting the ambivalence that often marks younger voters. However, once the debate started, the engagement was undeniable. The students remained glued to their seats for the entire event. Ultimately, the vast majority said that Kamala Harris had won the debate.  A few noted that the debate made them change their minds and that they would now vote.  They even stayed on for an additional half-hour to engage with Professor Daniel Pereira and me, asking questions and offering reflections.

Does this mean something? On the surface, it's a small sample, but it could point to something bigger. Young people made a noticeable difference in the 2022 elections and will almost certainly be a deciding force in 2024. This generation, shaped by social media and global movements, is not as easily swayed by the political establishment, and their willingness to stay informed and engaged signals that candidates can no longer afford to ignore them.

But despite the passion and attentiveness in the room, there was a troubling undertone in the debate itself, especially regarding Latin America and immigration—a region and an issue deeply connected to many of our students. The mentions of Latin America were, frankly, mind-boggling. For Donald Trump and his movement, Latin America was nothing more than a convenient scapegoat. Immigrants from the region were depicted as criminals, pet eaters, gangsters, and threats to the fabric of American society—rhetoric dangerously reminiscent of the dehumanization that has been used to justify atrocities throughout history.

Trump's dire warning was that, under Kamala Harris, the United States would devolve into "Venezuela on steroids." This fear-mongering, aimed at a country grappling with political turmoil and authoritarianism, played into the hands of those looking for easy answers and convenient enemies. Yet, even Harris missed a crucial moment. Rather than rise above the immigrant-bashing, she doubled down on her promise to sign a harsh bipartisan immigration bill that Trump himself had blocked. In doing so, she missed an opportunity to defend migrants and champion the cause of democracy, especially when Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime in Venezuela is a clear example of the threats to democracy worldwide.

In a room full of Hispanic students, many of whom either have family ties or direct connections with the very countries being discussed, it was disheartening to see such a narrow view of Latin America. The students' concerns about their futures and heritage were not addressed except for how they could be blamed for the country's problems.

There was no mention of the rich, complex realities of Latin America beyond the lens of immigration or crime—no mention of the struggles for democracy, human rights, or these communities' economic and cultural contributions to the U.S. Instead, both candidates leaned into a tired, xenophobic narrative that only deepened the divide. Harris could have easily used her platform to condemn Maduro’s coup against democracy in Venezuela, but instead, she allowed the conversation to remain fixated on punitive immigration policies.

As the debate ended, some of our students expressed frustration. For them, Latin America is not just a talking point—it’s home. For many, their families fled violence, corruption, and instability in hopes of finding a better future in the United States. But last night, their stories and struggles were reduced to caricatures, used as political fodder in a battle for votes.

The energy in SIPA 100 last night suggests that young voters are paying attention and ready to make their voices heard. But if the candidates don’t speak to their realities—especially when it comes to issues like immigration, democracy, and U.S.-Latin American relations—they risk alienating a key demographic. In 2024, young voters, particularly young Hispanics, will play a crucial role. It’s time for the candidates to start treating them as such.

Eduardo Gamarra
Director, Latino Public Opinion Forum
Professor of Politics and International Relations at FIU