Undocumented immigrants and their children have worse self-reported health than documented immigrants and US citizens do. Evidence suggests that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) pr...

Scholars have documented strong anti-immigrant bias in mainstream media portrayals and public sentiment, especially associated with notions of “illegality.” Yet certain groups of undocumented immigrants have been able to defend their continued residency. How are undocumented immigrants, as marginalized subjects, able to make claims for legal and social recognition? Through an analysis of 125 anti-deportation campaigns led by undocumented youth organizations in the United States, I show how organizations developed a nationally coordinated model using citizenship frames to challenge deportations and build support for pro-immigrant legislation. Citizenship frames are based in legal and normative ideologies of citizenship that underscore acculturation, civic engagement, and humanitarian concerns. The campaigns highlight undocumented immigrants’ social integration, deservingness, and practice of citizenship, therefore contesting the boundaries between citizen and noncitizen, and between lawful and unlawful. Though citizenship frames are used across cases, campaign tactics vary: students are portrayed as high-achievers who would suffer greatly if deported, while campaigns for non-students emphasize the detrimental effects of deportation on others. Importantly, citizenship frames are bounded by the government’s priorities for immigration enforcement, with potentially negative consequences for those immigrants considered less than model citizens.

Existing literature illuminates the multiple barriers young undocumented immigrants face, yet we know little about how these challenges vary among undocumented youth. This article explores variation in how undocumented youth “manage” their legal status in the educational context. Drawing on interviews with Latina/o, Asian American and Pacific Islander (API), and black undocumented young adults in California, I analyze the factors influencing when and how youth decide to reveal or conceal legal status from school personnel or peers, and the educational consequences of such decisions. I find undocumented students’ decisions to hide legal status, while practical, can constrain social network formation and limit access to academic resources. However, decisions to reveal or conceal legal status are not made uniformly but vary by political and social context, and access to support within co-ethnic social networks. Finally, knowing other undocumented immigrants is an important resource for undocumented youth as they navigate the educational system.

Policies that expand the rights of marginalized groups provide an additional level of structural integration, but these changes do not always come with broad social acceptance or recognition. What happens when a legally marginalized group attains increased rights but not full political or social inclusion? In particular, what are the mental health implications of these transitions for impacted groups? We bring together theories of liminal legality and stress process to offer a framework for understanding how expansions in the legal rights of a highly politicized and vulnerable social group can be initially beneficial, but can attenuate due to renewed or new stress events, chronic stressors, and anticipatory stressors. We use the case of Latina/o immigrant youth who transitioned from undocumented legal status to temporarily protected status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Analyses of representative California statewide survey data from 2007 to 2018, combined with surveys and in-depth interviews with DACA recipients, suggest that without full social and structural inclusion, legal transitions that expand rights will produce short-term psychological benefits that do not hold up over time.