Communicating allyship according to college students with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Given the stress that college students with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) experience and their minoritized status, some colleges have offered allyship training that informs campus personnel of the unique experiences of DACA and DACA-ineligible students. Although such trainings are promising, limited research has explored what actions communicate allyship to undocumented college students, including those with DACA. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 DACA college students and identified six themes: (a) allyship as an action-oriented, lifelong learning process, (b) allyship through supportive communication, (c) allyship without judgment or abnormal treatment, (d) visible allyship through the creation of safe spaces, (e) allyship as advocacy, and (f) allyship without self-promotion. Academics and activists have conceptualized and critiqued allyship. Nevertheless, this study extends past work by considering how DACA college students view the communication of allyship, which is important if allyship is to be encouraged or challenged in higher education and elsewhere.

DACA Funds of Knowledge: Testimonios of Access to and Success in Higher Education

Using testimonios, we highlight six current university Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) students’ funds of knowledge, or the lived experiences and culturally developed skills, specific to being DACA recipients, that these students leveraged in the past, currently lean on now for continued success, and learn what resources are lacking at university. Sharing these students’ “DACA funds of knowledge,” of navigating public education to successfully attend institutions of higher education, provides insight into equitable educational paths for those who follow.

“We are not the people they think we are”: First-generation undocumented immigrant belonging and legal consciousness in the wake of deferred action for parents of Americans

On 20 November 2014, President Barack Obama introduced Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) as a temporary relief for undocumented immigrant parents raising citizen children in the United States. DAPA’s implementation stalled indefinitely following a court-issued injunction in 2015, subsequent legal contestation, and a Supreme Court decision in 2016 upholding the original injunction. I purport that both DAPA and its failure to implement constitute sites from within which to critically examine the legal consciousness and sense of belonging of undocumented participants. By bridging scholarship on legal consciousness and belonging, this article examines how Latino first-generation undocumented immigrants from Los Angeles, who considered DAPA, understand their unlawful presence and assert belonging in the United States (US). This article draws on participant observation in Los Angeles, California, including four DAPA legal information forums and 24 in-depth interviews following DAPA’s court injunction with undocumented parents who intended to apply to DAPA. Data reveal a legal consciousness imbued with normative and value-based notions of substantive citizenship including parenthood, law-abidingness, and contribution. In light of DAPA’s failure, participants draw on these narratives to counter-assert their belonging and deservingness of DAPA. Ultimately, this case draws attention to how undocumented, first-generation immigrant legal consciousness is more complex than previously ascertained, and how DAPA shapes immigrants’ claims to a lawful presence.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) medical students – an examination of their journey and experiences as medical students in limbo

Background Although the value of DACA medical students has been hypothesized, no data are available on their contribution to US healthcare. While the exact number of DACA recipients in medical school is unknown, DACA medical students are projected to represent an increasing proportion of physicians in the future. The current literature on DACA students has not analyzed the experiences of these students. Methods A mixed-methods study on the career intentions and experiences of DACA medical students was performed utilizing survey data and in-depth interviews. The academic performance of a convenience sample of DACA medical students was compared to that of matriculated medical students from corresponding medical schools, national averages, and first-year residents according to specialty. Results Thirty-three DACA medical students completed the survey and five participated in a qualitative interview. The average undergraduate GPA (SD) of the DACA medical student sample was 3.7 (0.3), the same as the national GPA of 2017–2018 matriculated medical students. The most common intended residency programs were Internal Medicine (27.2%), Emergency Medicine (15.2%), and Family Medicine (9.1%). In interviews, DACA students discussed their motivation for pursuing medicine, barriers and facilitators that they faced in attending medical school, their experiences as medical students, and their future plans. Conclusions The intent of this sample to pursue medical specialties in which there is a growing need further exemplifies the unique value of these students. It is vital to protect the status of DACA recipients and realize the contributions that DACA physicians provide to US healthcare.

Beyond undocumented: Differences in the mental health of Latinx undocumented college students

Undocumented college students face several threats to their well-being and mental health. Different social locations, including whether students have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) status, students’ gender, and family factors may shape students’ ability to be well. How these factors work together to shape mental health outcomes among undocumented Latinx college students is not well understood. This study examines several factors (demographic, familial, immigration, and socioeconomic factors) associated with anxiety scores of undocumented Latinx college students who participated in the UndocuScholars Project national online survey in 2014. We observe three notable findings: (1) DACA recipients report heightened levels of anxiety, (2) women with DACA status report higher levels of anxiety compared to non-DACAmented undocumented college students and men with DACA, and (3) students whose families motivate them report lower levels of anxiety. Latinx undocumented college students are not a monolith; demographic, family, and socioeconomic factors matter.

U.S. immigration and media bias surrounding the reporting of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) immigration policies

In 2012, President Barack Obama used his executive power to bypass Congress and unilaterally pass a controversial immigration policy called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and two years later its successor, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents immigration policy. This MRP explores whether a media slant is salient in the editorial reporting surrounding these policies from two major U.S. political networks‐‐ The FOX News Channel (FOX) and the Cable News Network (CNN). Previous academic research (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009; Stroud, 2007) has indicated that CNN’s audience tends to be left-leaning favoring the Democratic Party, while rightleaning conservative Republicans tune into FOX for their political information (Gil de Zúñiga, Correa and Valenzuela, 2012). Keeping this in consideration, would the political networks tailor its digital editorial content to mimic its audiences’ political preference? Borrowing from Benson and Wood’s (2015) media frames surrounding undocumented immigration, a framing analysis and a textual content analysis were employed on the digital editorial content published by FOX and CNN from July 2014 and February 2015. The findings revealed that both networks published messaging aligned with its audiences’ political affiliation. The FOX News Channel emphasized how undocumented immigrants were a problem for society and authorities and published content which contained anti‐Democrat rhetoric and was acutely critical of President Obama. Conversely, the framing analysis revealed the Cable News Network was more likely to accentuate the problems for immigrants and defend President Obama and his unilateral exercises of constitutional powers.

U.S. immigration and media bias surrounding the reporting of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) immigration policies

In 2012, President Barack Obama used his executive power to bypass Congress and unilaterally pass a controversial immigration policy called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and two years later its successor, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents immigration policy. This MRP explores whether a media slant is salient in the editorial reporting surrounding these policies from two major U.S. political networks‐‐ The FOX News Channel (FOX) and the Cable News Network (CNN). Previous academic research (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009; Stroud, 2007) has indicated that CNN’s audience tends to be left-leaning favoring the Democratic Party, while rightleaning conservative Republicans tune into FOX for their political information (Gil de Zúñiga, Correa and Valenzuela, 2012). Keeping this in consideration, would the political networks tailor its digital editorial content to mimic its audiences’ political preference? Borrowing from Benson and Wood’s (2015) media frames surrounding undocumented immigration, a framing analysis and a textual content analysis were employed on the digital editorial content published by FOX and CNN from July 2014 and February 2015. The findings revealed that both networks published messaging aligned with its audiences’ political affiliation. The FOX News Channel emphasized how undocumented immigrants were a problem for society and authorities and published content which contained anti‐Democrat rhetoric and was acutely critical of President Obama. Conversely, the framing analysis revealed the Cable News Network was more likely to accentuate the problems for immigrants and defend President Obama and his unilateral exercises of constitutional powers.