ELC 2025: The Importance of Belonging to Blue Sky Thinking by Keith H. Hirokawa
In the era of climate boiling, belonging is essential for survival. Yet, for reasons that are not understandable through a lens of history, human health, economics, community well-being, equity, or fairness, the current administration has targeted for cancellation federal programs that are designed to safeguard the most vulnerable among us. We are witnessing the normalization of unAmerican policies in which it is not just a disadvantage to be poor and/or homeless, it might even be illegal; where it is not just a disadvantage to be a person of color, it might be illegal; and where it is not just a disadvantage to be mentally or physically disabled, young, old, female, foreign, gender fluid, gay, or trans, it might be illegal. The stakes here involve the relationship between governance and belonging.
It is generally agreed that “belonging is a fundamental human need that almost all people seek to satisfy.” Belonging represents the ideal of being in a place that centers agency and authenticity, that fosters a sense of being included and supported, and establishes a place where individuals are not compelled to hide, step aside, or blend into the surroundings. Belonging is the recipe for a safe and secure community. Belonging is such an important human need that it would seem to be a central feature of governance and government. U.S. history has demonstrated a slow but steady evolution toward a civic society in which all people have an opportunity to belong: from the Civil Rights Act, DACA, USAID, rights emanating from Roe v. Wade, and other laws and programs, the United States claimed the moral high ground through progressive, inclusive politics that centered the care of people, regardless of their situation or identity. The U.S. was trending—albeit slowly—towards an inclusive society that illustrated governance for the purpose of belonging.
The current administration is aggressively revising the standards for who and when certain people can belong in the United States. The Miami Herald Editorial Board’s mock checklist illustrates the absurd approach ICE assailants use:
Does this future patriot drive a truck that does no more than 5 mpg of beautiful fossil fuel? Approve.
Did the wannabe American show up to the immigration interview in a Prius or electrical vehicle? (Please consult your supervisor regarding the status of Tesla, as the president and Elon Musk may still patch things up.) Deny.
Send applicants straight to Alligator Alcatraz if they rode a bike, because this is America, not Europe.
Was the future model citizen spotted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021? Approve.
Has this ungrateful person posted anything complaining about the cost of groceries since Jan. 20, 2025—because “inflation is down to a perfect, beautiful number,” the president has to constantly remind us? Deny.
Does this soon-to-be great American thank the president every day for protecting us from mail ballots, windmills, foreign invaders and paper straws? Approve—immediately.
This is, of course, only a partial list. The unstated but central element of belonging in the U.S. seems to be whiteness. Moreover, given the race to deport and “clean up” cities, a race in which the administration’s objective of mass deportation has been elevated over the means of accomplishing the task, we should also add other important human features that appear to be conclusive of non-belonging: country of origin, gender, sexuality, age, both physical ability and mental acuity, and, of course, those Haitians in Ohio accused of eating the cats and dogs. Notably, it appears that even operating a business that pays homage to Trump is not the safe haven we might have expected.
We might react by asking who decides who belongs, and on what basis. These might be interesting questions, and they are certain to invoke complicated legal and political answers. But the questions mask the absurdity of the challenge: how are these even serious questions in a democratic state? The absurdity is in the attempt to neutralize what should be an uncontroversial observation: every resident should have an opportunity to engage in their community and feel belonging. Denying belonging by dispossession or exclusion—also known as Othering—is a violent act that inflicts a variety of harms, including anxiety, loneliness, and lack of companionship. Denying belonging ensures that an Other does not feel part of the community and that they are not represented. We should not be so vicious. Governance should be an exercise in facilitating the well-being and belonging of all people.
This is especially the case in the climate boiling era, when the onslaught of climate impacts such as sea level rise, extreme heat, wildfires, water and food scarcity, vector-borne disease, and severe storms exacerbates vulnerabilities. Governmental support and assistance should be afforded based on our presence and our needs, and not on whether we voted for the current president.
Instead, we are witnessing an aggressive effort to reinstitute and expand what Elijia Anderson calls the White Space into the white, male, “homegrown,” heterosexual, binary, and able space. Outsiders to this framework may be allowed entry, but only if they dance: whether they are teachers conceding that Trump won the 2022 election to relocate to Oklahoma, law firms pledging not to sue the administration, or universities consenting to political demands on their curricula, the current administration taxes us for the right to belong. Yet belonging is the antidote to hate, racism, segregation, and structural bias, and it is antithetical to policies of exclusion and domination. Institutionalizing belonging is an act of governance that respects all people, regardless of their differences, and is essential to creating livable, resilient societies in the climate era.
Keith H. Hirokawa is a Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School.