University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Undocumented student organizations: navigating the sociopolitical context in higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

Undocumented student organizations: navigating the sociopolitical context in higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Undocumented Student Organizations:
Navigating the Sociopolitical Context in Higher Education
by
Arely L. Acuña Avilez
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(URBAN EDUCATION POLICY)
Degree Conferred in December, 2019
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS ii
Dedication
To all students who are undocumented living, advocating, and fighting.

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS iii
Acknowledgments
My educational upbringing, graduate school, and dissertation journey were made
possible through the support of many who uplifted me, celebrated me, and believed in me.
It took a village to support me. I first want to acknowledge my family – my mom Lety,
sister Ania, and dad Carlos. As an immigrant family, our presence has and continues to be
challenged in this country. I am so grateful for the values my family instilled in me, and for
challenging me to be the person the world tells me I can’t be. Thank you for your sacrifices,
and your unconditional love. Thank you tía Irene, tío Gabriel, and my primas Aida,
Gabriela, and Evelyn for your love and support. I also want to thank the Pineda family who
took me in as part of their own for so many years. Thank you Betty for being a motherly
figure – to Frank, Fran, Gabbie, and Adrian. Thank you for being the family I needed when
I moved away from home.
My friends have also played a significant part in this journey. I am also blessed to
have found an academic familia while in graduate school. Thank you to my sister scholars
Dr. Marissiko Wheaton and (soon to be Dra.) Cynthia Villarreal. You of all people know
what this journey was like for me inside and out. If it were not for the both of you, I might
not have accomplished this milestone. You pulled me through, kept me grounded, and you
both inspire me so much with your resilience and love. To my amazing friends Giovanna
and Josue – thank you for listening, for being there for me, for cheering me on, and for
keeping me positive in all aspects of my life.
I also want to acknowledge my mentors and my academic community. Thank you to
my advisor Dr. Adrianna Kezar for your guidance and confidence in my abilities. I am
grateful for your patience, encouragement, and all of the opportunities you made accessible
to me. Thank you to my committee members Dr. Charles H.F. Davis III and Dr. Jody
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS iv
Vallejo for believing in me and encouraging me to pursue my topic of study. Your
contributions were invaluable and allowed me to develop as a scholar. To my
undergraduate mentors Dr. Jeanett Castellanos (Dr. C), and Dr. Thomas Parham (Dr. P)
from UC Irvine – thank you for your time, dedication, inspiration, and love. In an academic
world that reminds me I am not welcomed, you made me believe I was worthy. Six years
ago you were the first to call me Dr. Acuña. At the time, I would giggle, and today I can
smile with confidence when I hear those words. Thank you to my professors, staff, peers,
the Brownies, and the Latinx Collective at USC. You all contributed to this journey in
specific and fundamental ways, and I am forever thankful.
And last but certainly not least, I want to thank the participants of my study who
ultimately made this dissertation possible. Thank you for trusting me, for welcoming me
into your spaces, and for sharing your experiences, struggles, and desires. Your stories
motivated me to write every word of this dissertation. Your resilience is inspirational.

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS v
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................ viii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
National Sociopolitical Context ......................................................................................... 1
State Context ...................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Undocumented College Student ................................................................... 7
Study Focus and Research Questions .............................................................................. 10
Study Significance ........................................................................................................... 11
Organization ..................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2: Literature Review & Theoretical Framework ............................................ 14
Review of the Literature: Undocumented Student Experiences in Higher Education ..... 14
Student Support and Empowerment.............................................................................. 19
Student Organizations in Higher Education .................................................................. 22
Undocumented Student Organizations .......................................................................... 26
Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 29
Political Opportunity Theory ....................................................................................... 29
Nested Contexts of Reception ...................................................................................... 33
Campus Culture and Climate ....................................................................................... 36
Undocufriendly Campus Characteristics ...................................................................... 42
Political Opportunity Structures Nested in Contexts of Reception (POSNCR) Model 44
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methods ...................................................................... 48
Qualitative Comparative Case Study ............................................................................... 48
Selecting Cases ............................................................................................................. 51
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 56
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 63
Validity and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................... 65
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 4: The Case of the Friendly Public University (FPU) ..................................... 70
Friendly Public University (FPU) .................................................................................... 71
Undocufriendly Culture “By the Books” ...................................................................... 72
Justice for Undocumented Students (JUSt) ..................................................................... 79
Post-Elections Efforts and the Undocu Climate at FPU .................................................. 81
University of California Response ............................................................................... 82
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS vi
Institutional Response .................................................................................................. 83
The Undocu-Climate for Undocumented Students ...................................................... 85
Institutional Interactions with the Environment ............................................................... 89
Navigating Political Opportunities: Pushing the Undocufriendly Campus ..................... 92
1. Advance what it means to be Undocufriendly ......................................................... 93
2. Foster Inclusivity of all Undocumented Students .................................................... 98
3. Flex Campus Structures ......................................................................................... 115
4. Re-Group after the Elections .................................................................................. 117
Summary of Political Opportunities at FPU .................................................................. 122
Chapter 5: The Case of the Conservative Private University (CPU) .......................... 124
Conservative Private University (CPU) ......................................................................... 124
Undocu Culture: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ................................................................. 126
United Undocumented Students (UUS) ......................................................................... 135
Post-Elections Efforts and the Undocu Climate at CPU ................................................ 138
Grassroots Resistance ................................................................................................. 139
Institutional Response ................................................................................................ 144
The Undocu-Climate for Undocumented Students at CPU ....................................... 148
Institutional Interactions with the Environment ............................................................. 152
Navigating Political Opportunities: Building an Undocufriendly Campus ................... 154
1. Build an Undocufriendly Campus .......................................................................... 155
2. Use the Available Networks ................................................................................... 162
3. New Leadership, New Opportunities ..................................................................... 168
4. Re-Build the Organization ..................................................................................... 172
Summary of Political Opportunities at CPU .................................................................. 179
Chapter 6: Discussion of Findings, Implications, and Conclusion............................... 180
Summary of Major Findings .......................................................................................... 181
Research Question 1 .................................................................................................... 182
Research Question 2 .................................................................................................... 185
Research Question 3 .................................................................................................... 187
Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................ 191
Review of the POSNCR Model ................................................................................. 191
Theoretical Contributions ........................................................................................... 193
Implications for Policy, Practice, and Student Organizations ....................................... 196
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS vii
Policy Recommendations ........................................................................................... 196
Recommendations for Practice .................................................................................. 198
Recommendations for Student Organizations ............................................................ 201
Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................... 203
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 204
References ......................................................................................................................... 207
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 222
Appendix A: Observation Protocol ................................................................................ 222
Appendix B: Student Interview Protocol ....................................................................... 223
Appendix C: Institutional Agent Interview Protocol ..................................................... 225

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS viii
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Undocufriendly Characteristics Comparison between FPU and CPU................ 52
Table 2: Interview Sample ............................................................................................... 60
Table 3: Student Sample Demographics .......................................................................... 60
Table 4: Political Opportunities of JUSt at FPU .............................................................. 93
Table 5: Political Opportunities of UUS at CPU ........................................................... 155

Figures
Figure 1: The Political Opportunity Structures Nested in Contexts of Reception
(POSNCR) Model ............................................................................................................ 45

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS ix
Abstract
Our immigration system continues to fail to create a pathway towards citizenship
for undocumented youth. Today, the current presidential administration perpetuates a
heightened wave of anti-immigrant sentiments and policies that threaten the stability,
safety, and prospects for this population. Though largely understudied, research shows that
undocumented student organizations in colleges and universities are critical sources of
information, support, and advocacy for students that challenge racist and nativist rhetoric
Utilizing a model created from political opportunity theory and nested contexts of
reception, this comparative case study explored how undocumented student organizations
navigate a heightened anti-immigrant sociopolitical climate in higher education in a campus
that is “undocufriendly” and one that is not. The study examined the ways that campus
climates nested within the larger sociopolitical context shape undocumented student
organizations, how the organizations navigate threats and opportunities created by their
environment, and they continue to support and advocate for their members. The findings
point to the ways that the larger sociopolitical environment permeated both campuses and
shaped the collective efforts of the student organizations according to their respective
intuitional environment. Overall, the elections created an opportunity for students to
challenge their institutions and either demand the development of essential resources and
services for undocumented students, or expand what it means to be an “undocufriendly”
campus.

1
Undocumented Student Organizations:
Navigating the Sociopolitical Context in Higher Education
Chapter 1: Introduction
While undocumented
1
immigrants have been a part of the United States for many
years now, recent political debates and the media have escalated the topic to a bitter debate
on issues of legalization, criminalization, border protection and access to resources
including higher education (Aceves, 2017; Alvord, Menjívar, & Gómez Cervantes, 2018).
In the last three years, the Trump administration has advanced an agenda that dehumanizes
and criminalizes undocumented immigrant experiences and erodes their protections. Given
the heightened anti-immigrant rhetoric of the 2016 presidential elections and recent attacks
on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
2
and Temporary Protected Status
(TPS)
3
(Costello, 2016; Miranda, 2017; Negrón-Gonzales, 2017), undocumented college
students have to be knowledgeable and keep up-to-date with any policy changes that can
affect them. The unstable sociopolitical environment on immigration under the Trump
administration makes higher education unpredictable for current and college-going
undocumented students.
National Sociopolitical Context
Historically, the varied broader political landscape at the national, state and local
levels in terms of supportive and welcoming laws and policies towards undocumented
communities create a complex environment that undocumented students must navigate. At

1
Undocumented refers to individuals who entered the U.S. illegally and/or overstayed their visas.
2
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an executive order by the Obama administration that
allows certain undocumented individuals brought to the U.S. as children to receive protection from
deportation, and receive a renewable work permit.
3
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a humanitarian program developed in 1990 that offers temporary legal
status to individuals from countries affected by war, natural disaster, or catastrophe such as from El Salvador,
Honduras, Haiti, etc.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 2
the national level, the contemporary criminalization of immigration policies is often traced
back to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 (Alvord et al., 2018;
Flores & Chapa, 2009; Gonzales, 2016). Under IRCA, employers would be sanctioned for
hiring undocumented workers, even though enforcement was minimal until more recently
(Alvord et al., 2018; Flores & Chapa, 2009). IRCA was also the first of subsequent national
policies to impose increasing immigration restrictions and tighter border security, many of
which often targeted immigrants of color, especially those from Latin American countries
who as less favorable than those from Asian and European countries (Alvord et al., 2018;
Shelton, 2018). This widespread anti-immigrant sentiment that emerged in the 1980s can be
associated with the national and state-wide resistance to extend higher education for
undocumented students today.
Efforts to create a pathway to legal residency for undocumented youth have been
extended through different version of the federal Development, Relief, and Education for
Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act which was first introduced in 2001.
The DREAM Act would grant legalization to those who grew up in the U.S. if they
graduate from college or serve in the military, but it continues to fail its passage. Over 10
versions of the DREAM Act have been introduced. As of now, undocumented college
students have no guaranteed pathway to legal residency, as well as no permanent legal job
security.
In 2012, President Obama announced DACA, a national effort to relieve
unauthorized immigrants who were brought into the country as children that grants
temporary deportation and a renewable work permit for those who qualify. As of 2016,
820,000 immigrants applied for DACA, and 728,285 were approved (Hipsman, Gómez-
Aguiñaga, & Capps, 2016). Overall, DACA resulted in recipients’ greater sense of
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 3
economic and social integration (Gonzales, Terriquez, & Ruszczyk, 2014; Hipsman et al.,
2016; Pérez, 2015). In a 2015 survey, over 75% of recipients said they obtained a job after
enrolling in DACA, and over half reported getting a higher-paying job (Pérez, 2015).
Additional benefits noted by the literature include increased high school graduation rates, a
decline in teenage births, greater access to bank accounts and credit development, and an
increase in job opportunities (Hipsman et al., 2016; Kuka, Shenhav, & Shih, 2018). DACA
also had substantial impacts on the experiences of undocumented college students. For
example according to a UCLA report on DACA, undocumented college student recipients
in some states were able to apply for a driver’s license, which eased the commute to and
from campus for many college students (Suarez-Orozco, Teranishi, & Suarez-Orozco,
2015). The survey noted that 85.5% of respondents with DACA expressed it had a positive
impact on their education, and they reported higher rates of employment, receiving grants
and scholarships, and participating in internships than those without it. DACA also reduced
college students’ feelings of shame, allowing them to navigate simple daily interactions
with a reduced sense of stigma (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2015). Even though DACA is a
stepping-stone which gave some relief to undocumented college students amidst anti-
immigrant rhetoric, it is only a temporary solution, and it is currently contested under the
Trump administration.
Although President Obama pushed for important legislation in support of
immigrants like DACA, there were also some troublesome setbacks. Under the Obama
administration, immigrants were deported in historical record numbers with over 3 million
undocumented immigrants forcibly removed between 2009 and 2016 (Gidda, 2017). The
new Trump administration further exacerbated the criminalization and deportation of
immigrants. After his election, Trump continues to dehumanize the experiences of
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 4
immigrants in the U.S. by disseminating false narratives that overlook their positive
contributions (Shelton, 2018). Trump’s messages target immigrants from Mexico, claiming
that the country sends “crime,” “rapists,” and “bad hombres.” Most recently, his efforts to
end DACA have led to long and heated discussions over its validity and constitutionality
(Shelton, 2018). Even though DACA continues to stand for those who benefited from it, it
has not stopped ICE from detaining DACA recipients like college student Daniel Ramirez
Medina (Shelton, 2018).
Recent literature notes the adverse effects that the 2016 elections and the current
presidential actions had on different populations including communities of color and
immigrants (Alvord et al., 2018; Costello, 2016; O’Connor & Mangual Figueroa, 2017). In
schools, teachers and students experienced a rise in hate speech, bullying, and violence
(Costello, 2016). An online survey found that the 2016 election produced an alarming fear
and anxiety among immigrants and children of color, and many students worried about
being deported (Costello, 2016). According to Alvord et al. (2018), Trump’s executive
orders on immigration created a hyper-criminalization of immigrants at the federal level.
These executive orders are marked by an increase in deportations, a rise in border security,
and an expansion of deportable crimes. Alvord et al. (2018) further argue that these federal-
level actions affect immigrants regardless of their local contexts (i.e., “welcoming” versus
“hostile” immigrant locations). Given the heightened national anti-immigrant rhetoric,
undocumented students and their families are experiencing unprecedented hyper-
criminalization that penetrates even the most immigrant-friendly states and cities.
State Context
The unresolved national policy regarding immigration leave states with some
discretion in regards to how their policies and resource allocation affect undocumented
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 5
immigrants (e.g., access to driver’s license, in-state tuition, state financial aid). In regards to
education, even though the Plyler v. Doe (1982) court decision entitled undocumented
students access to K-12 public education, access to higher education was not addressed, and
equal access to education ends upon high school graduation (Muñoz, 2013; Pérez, 2012).
Access to in-state tuition rates and state-funded financial aid is up to each state. Currently,
at least 18 states
4
offer in-state tuition rates for undocumented students, at least 6 states
provide state financial aid (“Undocumented student tuition: Overview,” 2019). Alabama
and South Carolina prohibit undocumented students from enrolling at any public college or
university, and 3 states – Arizona, Georgia, and Indiana – prohibit in-state tuition rates for
undocumented students. California was among the first states to grant undocumented
students access to in-state tuition.
California is perceived as one of the most welcoming states in the U.S. towards
immigrants and undocumented individuals. The state is home to more than 10 million
immigrants, which is about a quarter of the foreign-born population in the U.S and the
largest number of any other state (Johnson & Sanchez, 2018). In 2016, almost a third (27%)
of California’s population was foreign-born, and from this population it is estimated that
25% is undocumented. Despite its large immigrant and undocumented population,
California had a bumpy road to establishing its support for this population. In the 1990s,
California passed Proposition 227, which severely limited bilingual instruction for
immigrant children (Urteaga, 2011), and Proposition 187—though eventually found
unconstitutional—which banned all undocumented people from accessing public education,
health, and other related social services (Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007). Today, California

4
See http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/undocumented-student-tuition-overview.aspx for a full list of
states that offer in-state tuition and state financial aid for undocumented students
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 6
offers driver’s licenses, in-state tuition, and state and private financial aid to undocumented
immigrants (Burciaga & Martinez, 2017). In 2016, an amended professional code allowed
undocumented immigrants to access professional licenses such as attorneys, further
expanding college students’ professional options. California continues to pave the way for
other states on immigrant-friendly policies.
In regard to higher education, California has struggled to offer undocumented
students access to in-state tuition and financial aid. Even though undocumented students
had access to in-state tuition in 1985 through Leticia A. vs. Board of Regents, this tuition
break was overturned five years later. The passage of Assembly Bill 540 (AB 540)
5
in 2001
gave qualifying undocumented college students access to in-state tuition once again.
However, AB 540 does not provide access to federal financial aid. A decade after the
passage of AB 540, the California DREAM Act was passed, which allowed AB 540
students to apply for and receive private scholarships and state financial aid (Golash-Boza
& Valdez, 2018). Together, AB 540 and the California DREAM Act made higher education
much more affordable for qualifying undocumented students, but the lack of access to
federal aid continues to limit their ability to do so.
Though no exact numbers exist on the impact of in-state tuition and state aid in
California across all institutions of higher education for undocumented college students,
limited data suggest that these policies have a positive impact on college enrollments and
persistence (Flores, 2010). For example, Flores (2010) finds that that there is a significant
positive effect on the odds of college enrollment after the enactment of such policies. She

5
The criteria set by AB 540 in 2001 was expanded by AB 200 in 2014, and most recently by Senate Bill 68
(2017) allowing students to count full-time attendance at California Community College, adult school, high
school, or a combination of these schools to meet the three years required to be eligible for in-state tuition.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 7
estimates that students are 1.54 times more likely to enroll in states with in-state tuition
policies compared to their legal peer counterparts in states without the tuition relief. In the
University of California (UC) system, the number of undergraduate students registering
under AB 540 more than tripled between 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 from 722 to 2,572
students (University of California Office of the President, 2013). However, the data also
illustrates that the majority (64%) of registered AB 540 students are “documented,”
suggesting that U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and/or holders of an immigrant visa are
the primary beneficiaries AB 540. Additionally, the Vice Chancellor of Student Services
for California’s Community Colleges (CCC) estimated that up to 90% of AB 540 recipients
might be undocumented (Rich, 2010), which is not surprising given their accessibility in
both cost and location (Perez, 2010). Despite its initial struggles to support a booming
immigrant population, California is now a leading state that shows a commitment to its
undocumented youth and their pursuits for higher education.
Overview of Undocumented College Students
Even though there is a significant undocumented youth population in the country,
very few pursue higher education. Approximately 11.3 million undocumented immigrants
lived in the U.S. in 2014, making up about 3.5% of the total national population (Migration
Policy Institue, 2014). A recent report by the Migration Policy Institute estimates that
98,000 undocumented students graduate from U.S. high schools every year (Zong &
Batalova, 2019). Twenty-seven percent of these high school graduates reside in California
and another 17 percent in Texas. Most college-bound undocumented students have lived in
the U.S. most of their lives, and they are fluent English speakers. Despite the rising
demands for a college-educated workforce, only about 7,000 to 13,000 undocumented
students will attend a college or university (“Fact sheet: An overview of college-bound
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 8
undocumented students,” 2012) In total, it is estimated that about 200,000 to 225,000
undocumented immigrants are enrolled in college, comprising about two percent of all
college students, and about ten percent of all undocumented immigrants (Suarez-Orozco et
al., 2015).
Even though the passage of DACA, and in-state tuition policies made higher
education more accessible to qualifying undocumented students (Flores, 2010; Gonzales et
al., 2014; Hipsman et al., 2016; Pérez, 2015) and seemed to relieve some of the stigma
associated with being “illegal” (Abrego, 2008), research demonstrates that undocumented
students continue to experience barriers to access and navigate postsecondary institutions
(Suarez-Orozco et al., 2015; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). The main challenges
undocumented students face include accessing information relevant to their legal needs,
financing their college education, and navigating adverse campus environments that often
lack the appropriate resources and support needed for students to succeed academically
(Contreras, 2009; Flores, 2010; Pérez, 2012; Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007).
Research continuously points to financial constraints as a primary barrier to
pursuing higher education (Contreras, 2009; Flores & Chapa, 2009; Garcia & Tierney,
2011; Gonzales, 2009; Teranishi et al., 2015). Poverty rates are high among undocumented
immigrants. Passel and Cohn (2009) estimate that 21% of undocumented adults are poor,
compared to 13% for legal immigrant adults and 10% for U.S.-born adults. Undocumented
immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 11% of people below the federal
poverty line, which is twice their representation in the total population. Even though many
undocumented students are admitted to top four-year universities, they are often forced to
decline these offers because of financial constraints related to their lack of eligibility of
financial assistance (Abrego, 2006; Flores, 2010; Gonzales, 2009), and thus may opt to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 9
attend community colleges for their economic accessibility or end their pursuits for a higher
education altogether (Pérez, 2012). Despite the fact that students who are undocumented
graduate successfully from highs schools across the U.S., their educational careers are cut
short due to financial constraints, and sometimes due to changing immigration policies at
the state and national levels.
On par with these findings, research also illustrates vital sources of support for
undocumented students such as their families, institutional agents
6
, and peers which can
serve as social networks that facilitate students’ academic persistence and educational
attainment in higher education (Contreras, 2009; Enriquez, 2011; Pérez et al., 2009). I
further expand on these sources of support in Chapter 2. Given the adverse campus climate
that undocumented college students experience and the lack of access to formal institutional
services and agents on campus that they can trust and refer to for accurate information,
peers and student organizations are particularly important for this student population
(Contreras, 2009; Enriquez, 2011; Garcia & Tierney, 2011; Hallett, 2013; Pérez Huber &
Malagon, 2007; Teranishi, Suárez-Orozco, & Suárez-Orozco, 2015). While in school, peers
often serve the role of emotional support for undocumented students as well as critical
providers of relevant informational resources (Enriquez, 2011), guidance, and advocacy
(Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007). Associating themselves with other academically
successful undocumented peers can serve as a motivating factor, particularly for those who
feel alienated and frustrated on campus (Pérez, Cortés, Ramos, & Coronado, 2010).

6
According to Stanton-Salazar (2011), institutional agents are “high-status, non-kin, agents who occupy
relatively high positions… and who are well positioned to provide key forms of social and institutional
support” (p. 1066). For this paper, institutional agents may include staff, faculty, and/or administrators who
offer key information and support for undocumented students.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 10
Despite the large role these organizations play in mediating many of the negative
experiences undocumented college students experience and shaping policies within
intuitions as well as the state and national level, there is minimal research about them. Little
is known about the undocumented college student organizations are formed and sustained,
how the broader sociopolitical contexts influence them, what conditions enhance or inhibit
their collective pursuits, and how they navigate their respective institutions. This may be
attributed to the fact that research on undocumented students often focuses on the
experiences of the individual, and not the collective group (Hallett, 2013).
Study Focus and Research Questions
Even though student organizations are important for undocumented college
students, most research on this student population focuses on the individual student
experience. While individual narratives are important to understand the diversity of
undocumented college students’ unique experiences, they do not help us understand the
collective. Current research rarely looks at the experiences of undocumented student groups
as a unit (Hallett, 2013). This misses the opportunity to examine the ways that student
organizations navigate their environment collectively.
This study moves beyond the individual experience of undocumented college
students and explores their collective experiences through student organizations. The study
is situated after the 2016 presidential elections and examines the ways that the broader anti-
immigrant sociopolitical environment influences undocumented student organizations. I
explore the ways that undocumented student organizations perceive and navigate
opportunities and threats in their environment in order to continue to support and advocate
for this student population in their respective college campuses. In particular, this study is
guided by the following research questions:
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 11
1. In what ways does context at the national, state, local, and campus-level influence
undocumented student organizations?
2. How do undocumented student organizations navigate threats and opportunities
created by their environment?
a. In particular, how do undocumented student organizations navigate threats
and opportunities within a campus climate that is undocufriendly and one
that is not undocufriendly?
3. How do undocumented student organizations continue to support and advocate for
their members within a heightened anti-immigrant sociopolitical context?
Because this study examines one form of collective movement for undocumented youth –
college student organizations – particular attention is given to explore the role of the
immediate institutional environment, including its type (private v. public), culture, and
climate (undocufriendly v. non-undocufriendly) on undocumented college student
organizations. This study further proposes a theoretical model to examine the ways that
sociopolitical contexts shape collective student organizing in college campuses as described
later in Chapter 2.
Study Significance
Examining how the current sociopolitical and institutional environments shape
undocumented college student organizing sheds light on understanding how student
organizations collectively overcome internal and external barriers in order to continue to
support and advocate for their undocumented peers. This study explores the conditions that
advance or inhibit undocumented collective efforts, how threats and opportunities are
perceived and the processes that lead to collective action. Particular attention is given to
how the immediate institutional environment (type, culture, and climate) influence
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 12
undocumented student organization’s efforts in order to understand how colleges can
mediate the broader anti-immigrant contexts within their respective boundaries.
Additionally, by focusing on the heightened anti-immigrant sociopolitical rhetoric
after the 2016 elections, this study points to the ways that the current racist and nativist
environment influences undocumented college students experiences and their collective
organizing efforts in the form of student organizations. The study explores the ways that
governmental policies at the national, state, local, and institutional level which may not be
uniform in welcoming and supporting undocumented and immigrant populations influence
that conditions that inhibit or enhance undocumented student organizing in college
campuses. It complicates the narratives of undocumented students who often experience
conflicting contexts within a college environment that may be supportive and welcoming,
while also navigating a broader federal context that is hostile and criminalizes their
presence in this country.
Ultimately, this study seeks to understand the navigational strategies of
uncommented college student organizations in different environments, and the role
institutions can play in supporting and advocating this student population within a
heightened anti-immigrant context.
Organization
In the remaining chapters, I describe the relevant literature, the theories and
theoretical framework that guided the study, the study’s methodology, findings, and
implications. In Chapter 2, I first describe in more detail the existing literature on
undocumented students in higher education, as well as literature on undocumented student
organizations and other similar identity-based college student organizations. In the second
part of Chapter 2, I describe the theoretical framing for this study, including political
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 13
opportunity theory and nested contexts of reception (Burciaga & Martinez, 2017; Golash-
Boza & Valdez, 2018), and explain how the literature on campus culture and climate was
used to frame the immediate institutional environment that undocumented students
experience. I also introduce and describe a theoretical model used in this study to examine
how undocumented student organizations navigate their sociopolitical environment and
engage in collective action. Chapter 3 describes the study’s methodology: a qualitative
comparative case study of an undocumented student organization located in an
undocufriendly campus, and one in a non-undocufriendly one. I describe the research
design and methods, including the selection of each case, data collection and analysis, and
strategies for validity and trustworthiness.
The study’s findings are presented by case in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 presents
and describes the findings for the undocumented student organization at Friendly Public
University (FPU), and Chapter 5 presents the findings for the organization at Conservative
Private University (CPU). The chapters offer a description of each campus, including their
culture and climate towards undocumented students, as well as a description of their
respective undocumented student organizations. I explain the ways that the institutions
experience their sociopolitical environment based on their type, culture, and climate, and
describe the various political opportunities that the undocumented student organizations
navigated. And lastly, Chapter 6 discusses implications for policy, practice, and student
organizations, the study’s limitations, and suggestions for future research.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 14
Chapter 2: Literature Review & Theoretical Framework
This chapter reviews the relevant literature and theoretical frameworks utilized in
this study to examine undocumented student organizations. In the first section of this
chapter, I discuss the main strands of literature on undocumented students in higher
education. I first describe research related to access to and challenges in higher education
for students who are undocumented. I highlight the different forms of institutional and
social systems that support undocumented college students and their academic success. I
also briefly describe literature on other identity-based student organizations and their
experiences that may be similar to undocumented student organizations. And lastly, I
describe the emergence of undocumented student organizations, their role in supporting and
advocating for undocumented students, and the need to further study these groups.
In the second section of this chapter, I explain the theories I utilized for this study,
including political opportunity theory and nested contexts of reception (Burciaga &
Martinez, 2017; Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018). I also describe campus culture and climate
literature I used to frame the institutional environment and conclude with a description of a
proposed theoretical model. The review of the literature and theoretical framing shaped the
methods for this study, which are later described in Chapter 3.
Review of the Literature: Undocumented Student Experiences in Higher Education
As described in Chapter 1, undocumented students experience a myriad of obstacles
related to policies and social perceptions that continue to exclude them from higher
education. Once they reach college, undocumented students continue to face challenges that
threaten their academic persistence and degree completion. A UCLA report that surveyed
909 undocumented college students across two-year and four-year public and private
colleges identified a number of barriers that impact students’ college experience (Suarez-
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 15
Orozco et al., 2015). The report highlights that over half (56.7%) of the undocumented
students reported feeling extremely concerned about financing their college education, and
69.4% of students attending four-year colleges worked while in school which inhibited
their ability to succeed academically. Among the undocumented student respondents who
reported stopping-out, 73.9% indicated that it was due to financial difficulties. Of the
undocumented students that are able to persist long enough to obtain a degree, they are
often faced with limited employment opportunities within the U.S. because they cannot
legally work (Pérez et al., 2009) unless they qualify for a renewable work permit under
DACA. While policies such as in-state tuition, the California DREAM Act, and DACA
increased college enrollments for qualifying students, they mask accessibility by excluding
those who do not meet a specific outlined criteria, and for those fortunate enough to
qualify, they continue to face unmet economic needs that lead to financial stress.
Studies on the educational experiences of undocumented college students highlight
a negative and exclusionary campus environment (Contreras, 2009; Muñoz & Vigil, 2018;
Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). Students describe a campus
environment that is discriminatory, marked by fear and isolation of who to trust (Contreras,
2009; Muñoz, 2013; Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012; Pérez et al., 2010). The UCLA report
identified that addition to feeling isolated due to their fear of who they could trust on
campus, undocumented students were also treated unfairly or negatively because of their
legal status by key institutional agents such as faculty, counselors, financial aid officers,
campus police, and other peers (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2015). The fear of exposing their
identities to individuals who may reject their presence on campus contributes to an
exclusionary campus environment for undocumented students.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 16
In addition to facing an unwelcoming and exclusionary campus environments,
studies also point to the constant fear and anxiety undocumented students’ must navigate
while in college (Contreras, 2009; Muñoz, 2013). Undocumented students report high
levels of stress, anxiety, and fear associated with their status (Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012;
W. Pérez et al., 2010). Within classrooms, undocumented college students may fear to take
part in discussions about immigration, which could risk exposing their undocumented status
(Contreras, 2009; Muñoz, 2013; Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012). A constant feeling of
interrogation can make students feel isolated when dealing with their status and question
their sense of belonging on campus (Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012).
A study by Muñoz (2013) examined the stress factors associated with college
persistence among four undocumented Mexican women. She found that students felt
ashamed about their immigration status and feared to expose their identities to individuals
they did not trust. The women in the study often lied about their legal status and felt
anxious about dealing with their immigration status in isolation. Abrego (2008) notes that
undocumented college students’ status is a “constant reminder that they [are] different,
vulnerable, and considered suspect” (p. 723). Fearing the repercussions of opening up to
others about their legal status, students choose to reveal their status when it worked in their
favor and concealed it when it could be used against them (Pérez, 2012). This is
exacerbated by undocumented college students’ fear of deportation, which is often a central
aspect of their daily experiences that affects almost every aspect of their lives (Abrego,
2008; Contreras, 2009; Gonzales, 2016; Pérez, 2012). Living under the shadows and lying
about their legal status leads students to feel isolated and fearful while navigating their
educational experiences, which could ultimately influence their academic performance and
well-being.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 17
Immigrants of color, and in particular those of Latinx and Mexican descent, often
experience nativism that is also intersected with racism on college campuses
7
. Phenotypes
such as dark skin color or a linguistic accent can serve as markers of “illegality” and
deportability for college students (Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012). Muñoz and Maldonado
(2012) pointed to the ways that Mexican undocumented college women navigate their
institutions carefully and remained “under the radar” so as to not display their ethnic
identities since it was not deemed acceptable within their college campus. The study
highlights how different immigrant cultures are disproportionately represented and valued
in colleges and universities. Similarly, Pérez Huber and Malagon (2007) describe the ways
that undocumented students experienced racist nativism, rooted in dominant narratives
about Latina/o immigrants in the U.S. that “dehumanize and marginalize this group.”
Students in the study expressed the emotional consequences of racist nativism on campus,
which often led to constant feelings of fear, criminality, invisibility, and being the “other.”
When institutions fail to acknowledge the presence of undocumented students on campus
and offer the resources and information they need to succeed academically, this translates
into an institutional climate that perpetuates the feelings of fear, criminality, and
invisibility.
The pervasive negative campus environment that undocumented college students in
these studies experience stress the important role that institutions and key actors play in
creating a campus that is conducive to enhancing students’ experiences and academic
success in colleges and universities (Muñoz, 2015; Nienhusser, 2018) . Research shows how

7
Racist nativism is a conceptual framework created developed from critical race theory (CRT) and Latina/o
critical theory (LatCrit) used to understand “the institutionalized ways people perceive, understand and make
sense of contemporary U.S. immigration, that justifies native (white) dominance, and reinforces hegemonic
power” (Pérez Huber, 2011, p. 379).
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 18
institutional agents often have limited knowledge about in-state tuition policies for
undocumented students or their general needs in higher education (Albrecht, 2007; Muñoz
& Vigil, 2018). In the UCLA report, more than half of all undocumented college student
participants (53%) said they did not have a staff or faculty member with whom they could
openly discuss financial issues related to their documentation status. This is troubling given
that institutional agents have been found to be key in offering advocacy, support, and
information for undocumented college students, particularly as it related to admission,
financial aid, graduate school, and careers (Contreras, 2009; Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012).
A recent study by Nienhusser (2018) on institutional agents at community colleges
shows how agents must keep up-to-date with the ever-changing policy landscape related to
undocumented and DACAmented students
8
, as well as deal with policy vagueness. For
example, some institutional agents described how they utilized vagueness in policies to try
and provide as much access and support within the confines of the law to undocumented
students, even in states with exclusionary policies such as by offering in-state tuition to
some students. While policy vagueness can be a blessing, it can also be a challenge when
institutional agents choose to restrict educational access to undocumented students.
In addition to not having access to knowledgeable institutional agents,
undocumented students have limited access to resources and services across the country. A
campus-level analysis of the UCLA report found that only 14% of the 264 colleges in the
sample had offices designated for undocumented students. The most common type of safe
spaces identified were on-campus undocumented student organizations, which were found
at 47% of the campuses, followed by student centers (28%), and student affairs offices

8
“DACAmented” refers to individuals who are DACA recipients.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 19
(22%) (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). A recent report on undocumented resource centers
found that of the 56 centers identified across the country, 46 are located in California’s
colleges and universities (Cisneros & Valdivia, 2018). The data from these reports
demonstrate that undocumented students have limited access to safe spaces and relevant
services on their campuses, and most are concentrated in California. Undocumented
students’ need for specialized knowledge specific to their legal status that is often not
possessed by university actors further emphasizes the importance of peer groups as sources
of support and knowledge (Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007) to compensate for the lack of
institutional information and resources.
Student Support and Empowerment
In addition to institutional challenges to access and navigate higher education,
studies on undocumented college students also show that students receive various types of
emotional, financial, and informational support from multiple actors including family,
institutional agents, and peers (Enriquez, 2011; Pérez, 2012; Pérez et al., 2009; Pérez Huber
& Malagon, 2007). A quantitative study by Pérez et al. (2009) on the academic resilience
among Latina/o undocumented college students noted that despite the barriers that students
face such as social rejection, working while in school, and navigating a negative campus
environment, students who had environmental protective factors such as supportive parents
and peers, and those who participated in school activities reported higher levels of
academic success compared to students who did not. Institutional agents on campus who
are knowledgeable and supportive are imperative for undocumented students’ success
(Muñoz, 2015) . These key agents including counselors, staff, and teachers often serve as
role models and advocates that build students’ confidence by encouraging them to apply to
and excel in college, and help connect students to services and resources while in college
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 20
(Pérez, 2012). These forms of institutional social support are critical in offering guidance
and resources specific to undocumented college students’ needs and immigration status, but
as research suggests, they continue to be limited.
Families are often cited as undocumented students’ primary source of emotional
support while in college. Families provide sympathy, encouragement, and motivation,
which contributes to undocumented students’ academic persistence (Enriquez, 2011; Pérez
Huber & Malagon, 2007). Undocumented college students are often first in their family to
go to college, and as a result parents are limited in their ability to assist their children with
the college transition process (Pérez, 2012). Despite parents’ limited knowledge on higher
education, students mention their families as key providers of emotional and verbal support
which play a critical role in developing their aspirations and enhancing their educational
experiences (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). One of the key ways that Pérez (2012) notes
parents motivated their children was by emphasizing their own lack of educational
opportunities growing up. Even though families may have limited experience and
knowledge about colleges and universities, their sacrifices and emotional support serve as
sources of motivation for undocumented students to pursue and persist in college. However,
despite undocumented college students’ desire and those of their families to pursue a higher
education, there are structural limitations that continue to limit their ability to do so.
In addition to families, peers also provide emotional support and are key providers
of relevant information and resources for undocumented students while in college
(Enriquez, 2011). Because of the limited institutional support offered in colleges and
universities (Contreras, 2009; Enriquez, 2011; Garcia & Tierney, 2011; Hallett, 2013; Pérez
Huber & Malagon, 2007; Teranishi et al., 2015), peers often serve as sources of
information, guidance, and advocacy (Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007). Peers and peer
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 21
groups provide spaces to “stay in touch” with other undocumented students and express
their emotional stress about the myriad of obstacles they face in higher education
(Enriquez, 2011). Associating themselves with other academically successful
undocumented peers can serve as a motivating factor for students, particularly for those
who feel alienated and frustrated on campus (Pérez, Cortés, Ramos, & Coronado, 2010).
While studies highlight the supportive role of peer groups for undocumented college
students, there is still a need to further examine how they continue to support their peers
within a pervasive anti-immigrant context.
Civic participation by undocumented students is another area that has been largely
studied. Even though students who are undocumented have limited political power as non-
citizens, research shows that they are a civically engaged group (Gonzales & Chavez, 2012;
Gonzales, 2008; Muñoz, 2016; Negrón-Gonzales, 2017; Quinn & Nguyen, 2017; Seif,
2004, 2011; Spinney, 2015). Civic engagement in these studies is often conceptualized
beyond the ability to vote (Borjian, 2018). Because undocumented youth activist are unable
to vote, they often turn to other methods of political activity such as civil disobedience
strategies, join protests, educate members of the community, use social media as advocacy
platforms, and volunteer in campaigns to influence political outcomes (Gonzales, 2008;
Seif, 2004; Zimmerman, 2011, 2012). For example, Corrunker (2012) argues that it was the
pressure from undocumented youth activists that forced Congress to pass the federal
DREAM Act in 2010. Even though eventually the DREAM Act failed to pass,
undocumented youth’s continued advocacy enabled them to be visible in political activities
and be less fearful of deportation. Undocumented student organizations are often
highlighted as key collaborators with legislators and other national organizations to
advocate on behalf of immigrants and undocumented college students (Enriquez & Saguy,
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 22
2016). By participating in these forms of civic engagement, undocumented students feel
that they are contributing members of society (Pérez et al., 2010). Civic engagement is an
outlet of empowerment for undocumented college students that motivates them to not only
push for change at the institutional level and in the larger sociopolitical context.
Student Organizations in Higher Education
Literature on student involvement suggests that participation in student groups and
organizations influences student growth and development while in college (Astin, 1993).
For historically marginalized college students, finding a safe and comfortable environment
contributes to their transition and persistence (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Membership in
ethnic-specific student organizations can result in positive outcomes for students such as
enhance their persistence in college (Delgado-Guerrero & Gloria, 2013), develop cultural
awareness (Rhoads, Buenavista, & Maldonado, 2004), and help members in their social and
cultural adjustment to college (Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, & Oseguera, 2008). Serving in
leadership positions within student organization is also associated with higher levels of
developing purpose, educational involvement, life management, and cultural participation
(Cooper, Healy, & Simpson, 1994; Foubert & Urbanski, 2006; Hernandez, Hogan,
Hathaway, & Lovell, 1999; Kuh, 1995). Student organizations are instrumental in not only
offering academic and emotional support, but can also operate as outlets to develop
initiatives on retention and persistence of historically marginalized student communities
(Rhoads et al., 2004). While studies emphasize the importance of student organizations in
assisting students during their college transition and facilitating their academic success, few
examine the external challenges and inner workings that student organizations encounter,
and even fewer focus on undocumented student groups.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 23
Even though undocumented student organizations did not emerge on college
campuses until the early 2000s, parallels can be drawn with organizations that emerged in
the midst of the Civil Rights movement. The rise of identity-based student organizations in
colleges and universities emerged in the 1960s alongside student activism that reflected the
dissatisfaction with higher education and American society after World War II (Broadhurst,
2014). Drawing from the Black Power movement, college students formed Black Student
Unions (BSUs) and issued a series of demands to their institutions such as increasing Black
student enrollment, hiring more Black faculty and staff, more financial support for Black
students, increased representation on campus governance, the creation of Black Studies
programs, among others. Similarly, the Chicano Power Movement led to the development
of college student organizations such as United Mexican-American Students (UMAS) and
the Mexican-American Youth Organization (MAYO) which advocated for increasing
Chicano student enrollments, the creation of Chicano Studies programs, and improving the
campus climate toward Mexican Americans. Other identity-based student groups emerged
among women, Asian-American, and Native American student populations with similar
purposes and demands.
Perhaps the organizations with similar experiences during the Civil Rights
movement that is closest to what undocumented student organizations are experiencing
today are those from lesbian, gay, and bisexual student groups in the 1960s. Their
similarities stem from building an organization around identities that are often not visible,
stigmatized, and the process of “coming out” about their identities. Chapters of the Student
Homophile League (SHL) first emerged in Colombia University and later at Cornell
(Beemyn, 2003). Early members feared the visibility on LGBTQ students that would result
from creating an organization on campus due to the stigma associated around being gay.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 24
This fear made recruitment of members difficult, much similar to the social stigma of being
undocumented. The organizations also struggled with acknowledging the diversity within
the population outside of gay men, excluding women who identified as homosexual
(Beemyn, 2003). Internal differences around SHL’s philosophy, tactics, and activities were
common as the group expanded. For example, some members wanted a more explicit focus
on advocating for civil rights, while others wanted to focus on building a gay community
and culture on campus. This may be similar to undocumented students who feel excluded
because they do not identify with the Latinx or Mexican communities who are often seen as
the stereotypical undocumented immigrant, as well as internal group differences in
advocacy versus community development-oriented goals.
Like undocumented student organizations, student organizations in the 1960s and
early 1970s emerged from a shared identity and experience, developed communities of peer
support and networks, demanded changes to create a more inclusive campus that supported
their academic experiences, and dealt with larger sociopolitical forces that shaped their
lives as students and social individuals outside of campus. However, undocumented
students currently face immediate and unique challenges that directly threaten their safety
and those of their family, could strip them of their opportunities to pursue a higher
education, limit their job and career options, and their presence in the U.S. continues to be
criminalized. Their experiences on- and off-campus are tied to not just their social
identities, including ethnicity, race, and gender, but also their legal status. Being
undocumented within the current sociopolitical climate places legal limitations on students’
abilities to function in their everyday lives such as getting a driver’s license, traveling
abroad, applying for student loans, receiving research grants, or obtaining work-study.
Given that undocumented youth and their student organizations have shown to impact
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 25
policy at the institutional, local, state, and national level, examining how they organize
collectively within the current anti-immigrant context can offer insights into how change to
support undocumented students occurs.
As mentioned, studies on the experiences of undocumented college students briefly
mention student organizations and very little is known about how they navigate threats and
opportunities in their environment. These processes may be similar to those encountered by
other historically marginalized student organizations. A case history study by Delgado-
Romero, Hernandez, and Montero (2004) on the development of Hispanic Student
Organizations (HSOs) at universities emphasized the importance of transparent and
accessible institutional resources for student organizations. Some of the challenges HSOs
faced as they tried to develop and formalize as an organization were finding funding, the
proliferation of groups without a plan or vision, the existence of similar multiple groups
that create a sense of separatism, and lack of student involvement in the organizations. The
study ultimately suggests the need for strong leadership within the organization, access to
renewable sources of funding, and the importance of communication and negotiation skills
by the student organization to navigate the institutional system.
Consistent with the above findings, a case study that examined the conditions that
support and limit a Latina student organization at a predominantly white private institution
identified three themes that highlight the supportive nature of the organization towards its
members, as well as four prevailing challenges that limit their ability to do so (Castellanos,
2015). Aspects identified that supported members of the organization included: the use of
discussions to address members’ need for cultural validation; the creation of a network of
sisterhood with current members and alumni; and providing a nurturing environment that
supported the social, academic, and professional development of its members. The four
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 26
major challenges that the organization faced included: struggles with the existence of small
cliques within the organization; finding a balance between being a flexible and structured
organization; limited access to resources; and limited group membership that restricts their
ability to foster networks and bonds with other Latina students. While studies emphasize
the invaluable support student organizations offer to members, particularly around
academic and emotional support, and access to social networks, resources, and information,
they also emphasize the various challenges they must navigate that can inhibit their ability
to achieve their goals. Some of these challenges may be attributed to the institution’s failure
to adequately communicate existing resources to student organizations, and others can be
internal among members such as the creation of cliques, limited member participation, and
consensus on the organization’s goals and initiatives. However, the identified challenges
are limited to their respective institution, and studies do not take into account the ways that
the larger sociopolitical context influence student organizations on college campuses.
Undocumented Student Organizations
To date, there is only one study that examines an undocumented student
organization in higher education (Hallett, 2013). However, research on the experiences of
undocumented college students often briefly highlight the critical role of peer groups and
student organizations in offering relevant information and supportive social networks to
peers (Chavez et al., 2007; Contreras, 2009; Enriquez, 2011; Garcia & Tierney, 2011;
Hallett, 2013; Pérez, 2012; Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007; Teranishi et al., 2015), but they
do not explore the specific contexts that they must navigate, including potential threats and
opportunities that can emerge in light of recent anti-immigrant rhetoric (Aceves, 2017;
Alvord, Menjivar, & Gomez Cervantes, 2018; Muñoz, Jones, Muñoz, & Jones, 2018;
Shelton, 2018). This may be attributed to the fact that research on undocumented students
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 27
often focuses on the experiences of the individual, and not the collective group (Hallett,
2013). Chavez et al. (2007) note that there are over 30 identified undocumented student
groups and similar statewide networks in California. As the number of undocumented
college students enrolled in higher education continues to grow, so do the number of
organizations across campuses that continue to support and advocate for their peers on and
off campus.
Undocumented student organization in colleges and universities began to emerge in
the mid-1980s when college and university officials began to bring undocumented students
together (Gonzales, 2008; Seif, 2004). Inspired by community coalitions like the Leticia A.
Network in California which advocated for policy change, support groups and
organizations by undocumented students emerged in college campuses. Over time,
undocumented student organizations began to take ownership of their advocacy and utilized
their skills of organizing and knowledge of the immigrants’ rights movement to organize on
college campuses. These student groups often meet with key university stakeholders,
administrators, and the local community to increase awareness of policies relevant to
undocumented students, improve access to resources, and create a community of support
for other undocumented students (Chavez et al., 2007).
Even though undocumented student organizations are great sources of information
and support, the literature also suggests that accessing resources and developing peer
networks is not easy. For example, in order to access key information relevant to their
specific needs, undocumented students often engage in “patchworking,” or the piecing
together of limited resources from multiple sources to develop social networks and
knowledge that undocumented students can use to navigate their educational experiences
and achieve their academic goals (Enriquez, 2011). Through such networks, undocumented
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 28
students can develop collaborative and community-centered groups where they can share
resources and support one another “out of solidarity and commitment to empowerment and
social justice” (Enriquez, 2011, p. 496). While studies show that undocumented student
groups are a growing presence across campuses as sources of support, information, and
advocacy, they are still largely marginalized by institutions of higher education.
As stated, the only study to date that explicitly examines an undocumented student
organization in higher education is an ethnographic case study by Hallett (2013). The study
examined how an organization navigated internal group tensions to develop a network that
supported and empowered its members at a four-year public university in California.
Hallett (2013) describes that not all students have access to institutional agents, and instead,
peers serve as their own empowerment agents to navigate institutional barriers. The
findings of the study show that even though the group fostered solidarity among members,
three tensions emerged that threatened to disrupt the group’s mission including: inclusion
and exclusion of certain members such as the exclusion of non-Latina/os and non-
undocumented students; competition and support within the group over resources like
access to scholarships and financial aid; and competing member preferences regarding the
organization’s goals such as social support versus political engagement. The study
highlights that because of the competitive environment that undermines the organizations’
unity, students must navigate internal and external tensions that threatened their ability to
support one another. However, questions related to the ways that the organization perceives
and reacts to different threats and opportunities at their campus, local, state, and national
context are left unanswered, particularly in the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Even though student organizations are important for undocumented college
students, most research on this student population focuses on the individual student
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 29
experience. While individual narratives are important to understand the diversity of
undocumented college students’ unique experiences, they do not help us understand the
collective. Current research rarely looks at the experiences of undocumented student groups
as a unit (Hallett, 2013). This misses the opportunity to examine the ways that student
organizations navigate their environment collectively, including internal and external
challenges, as well as how they come together to create these social networks within
colleges and universities.
Theoretical Framework
In order to examine how undocumented student organizations in colleges navigate
opportunities within an anti-immigrant sociopolitical context, I utilize two theories –
political opportunity theory and nested contexts of reception (Burciaga & Martinez, 2017;
Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018). I also pull from campus culture and climate literature in
order to understand the influence of the immediate institutional climate on undocumented
student organizations. Political opportunity theory lends itself to understanding how
contextual factors inhibit or enhance an undocumented student organizations’ ability to
mobilize and achieve its goals, as well as its strategies employed. Nested contexts of
reception navigated political opportunity theory by examining the role of individual and
combined multiple nested contexts at the national, state, local, and campus level on the
ways undocumented student organizations navigate their environments. In addition, nested
contexts of reception further posit that undocumented youth experience distinct and
sometimes opposing contexts at the local, state, and federal levels that shape their
experiences (Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018). Next, I describe each theory and present an
emerging model developed for the study of student organizations on college campuses.
Political Opportunity Theory
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 30
Political opportunity emerged from the literature on social movements, and its
purpose is to conceptualize the political environments that shape collective movements
(Goodwin & Jasper, 1999). However, while used widely across social movement research,
there is still no agreement over its definition and basic concepts (Gamson & Meyer, 1996;
Goodwin & Jasper, 1999; Koopmans, 1999; Meyer & Minkoff, 2004). Despite its diverse
interpretations and applications, the basic premise of political opportunity is that exogenous
environmental factors can enhance or inhibit collective mobilization, and hence advance
particular claims and strategies over others (Meyer & Minkoff, 2004; Tarrow, 2011). In
other words, factors in the form of opportunities and threats that are exogenous to the social
movement can affect the group’s development and tactics (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996).
According to Kitschelt (1986), political opportunities “are comprised of specific
configurations of resources, institutional arrangements and historical precedents for social
mobilization, which facilitate the development of protest movements in some instances and
constrain them in others” (p. 58). Threats are therefore, “risks and costs of action or
inaction rather than the prospect of success” (Goldstone & Tilly, 2001, p. 160). The way
that opportunities and threats combine to shape decisions on collective action depends on
the organization’s prospect of success.
A key component of collective action is the way that a group perceives
opportunities and threats. Tarrow (2011) argues that there are no objective opportunities
that will automatically trigger collective action. Instead, a group’s interpretation of a
change in their environment will provide incentives or determents for collective action
based on their expectation of success or failure (Gamson & Meyer, 1996). Collective action
will occur if group participants believe they will succeed or that institutional channels are
less effective (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996). Therefore, an undocumented student
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 31
organization may risk high costs to engage in collective action if they believe their chances
of success are high, or they may decide to avoid such costs if they believe the chances of
success are low. Additionally, just as political opportunities can influence social
movements, social movements can, in turn, influence their environments including their
political opportunities (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996; Tarrow, 2011). For example, if the
student organization creates a petition for campus sanctuary status this may, in turn, create
an opportunity to create awareness on campus of the needs of undocumented college
students and advocate for an undocumented resource center. Thus, while political
opportunities are factors that exist outside of the social movement, they can influence a
group’s expectations for success, and ultimately lead to the creation of new opportunities.
According to Burciaga and Martinez (2017), there are four relevant elements to
political opportunity theory. First, elite support is of significant importance to create a
favorable environment for collective action, particularly if the elite control resources and
the target of change (Browning, Marshall, & Tabb, 1984; Santoro & McGuire, 1997).
Second, claims and frames are influential within and outside of a movement, and they
reflect the movement’s interests and ideologies (Koopmans & Statham, 1999; McCammon,
Newman, Muse, & Terrell, 2007). In other words, the way the movement is framed is
important. For example, undocumented youth in California associate themselves with the
AB 540 identity and appeal to their status as students to counter anti-immigrant rhetoric
which often categorizes them as criminals, while also relieving the stigma around being
undocumented (Abrego, 2008). By highlighting their identity as college students,
undocumented students adopt frames that are more appealing to the public. A third element
is the strategies and tactics of social movements (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996). Strategies
and tactics include the venues and forms of collective action that groups choose to engage
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 32
in. When groups or movements notice that their actions do not allow them to make
progress, they may shift strategies and tactics that seem to have a greater chance of success.
Lastly, political opportunity theory accounts for how internal and external factors influence
the movements’ development, particularly its goals, tactics, and strategies. Internal threats
can include disagreements over framing (Benford, 1993). For example, participants in
immigrant rights marches may be divided between radical frames and tactics, versus more
moderate ones that others may see as more appealing to the public (Martinez, 2008).
Together, these elements of political opportunity theory suggest that undocumented youth
experience different threats and opportunities which influence the movements’ claims and
frames, as well as their strategies and tactics for collective action.
Political opportunity theory’s weakness may also inform its strengths in utility for
this study. As mentioned, there is still no consensus in its conceptualization, and as a result,
political opportunity has been applied in diverse settings and in different ways (Gamson &
Meyer, 1996; Goodwin & Jasper, 1999; Koopmans, 1999; Meyer & Minkoff, 2004).
Additionally, the way political opportunity has been used is too general and descriptive,
and does not help explain how undocumented student organizations perceive threats and
opportunities or the process they engage in that results in collective action. In other words,
a refinement of its theoretical propositions is still needed. However, the general tenets of
the theory do begin to inform these processes of collective action.
An expansion of this theory and its propositions is needed for undocumented student
organizations on college campuses in light of the heightened anti-immigrant rhetoric that
threatens undocumented students’ educational pursuits. At the same time, a primary
strength of political opportunity is its focus on the interaction between changes in the
environment and the development of social movements and collective action. It is this focus
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 33
that is useful to understand how contextual factors inhibit or enhance an undocumented
student organizations’ ability to mobilize and achieve its goals. Ultimately, the general
conceptualization of political opportunity allows for the exploration of theory development
that this study contributes to.
Nested Contexts of Reception
In their recent study, Golash-Boza and Valdez (2018) developed a framework of
nested contexts of reception to argue that undocumented college students encounter distinct
but nested contexts at the federal, state, and local levels that shape their educational
incorporation. The purpose of the framework is to show how these multiple nested contexts
combine to help or hinder undocumented students’ success in higher education. The
framework builds on the work from Portes and Rumbaut's (2006) context of reception
which explains the process of incorporation for immigrants into the U.S. According to
Portes and Rumbaut (2006), contexts of reception are comprised of government policies,
societal perceptions, and institutions immigrants participate in which influence their
incorporation. For undocumented students, three salient dimensions that comprise their
context of reception include: (1) governmental policies related to their legal status, (2) the
societal reception they confront on campus and within the local community, and (3) their
involvement in an institution of higher learning (Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018). Thus,
contexts of reception can be defined as “the social and economic opportunities, openness or
hostility expressed by the local community, and social supports available for immigrants”
(Forster, Grisby, Soto, Schwartz, & Unger, 2015, p. 1811). Contexts of reception are not
consistent, they can range from positive to negative, vary between national and local
settings, and they can change over time (Stepick & Stepick, 2009). The way undocumented
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 34
college students perceive their contexts of reception is further complicated when
considering the different levels in their environment.
Golash-Boza and Valdez (2018) further argue that the surrounding contexts of
reception for undocumented students are not necessarily uniform in regards to favorable or
unfavorable conditions along the governmental, societal, and institutional dimensions, nor
at the local, state, and federal levels. Instead, undocumented students may experience a
myriad combination of circumstances based on their location. For example, an
undocumented student in California attending a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) may
experience a more receptive environment with different opportunities and challenges
compared to a student in Georgia. Currently, undocumented students in Georgia are banned
from the top five public colleges, are required to pay out-of-state tuition, and are further
criminalized through additional policies that target undocumented communities. Even
though both students share a federal context with legal exclusions and widespread national
anti-immigrant rhetoric (Burciaga & Martinez, 2017; Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018), they
experience college differently because of the differential state and local sociopolitical
contexts. However, given the heightened hyper-criminalization of undocumented
immigrants following Trump’s election, federal level actions may penetrate these contexts
regardless of their friendliness towards immigrants (Alvord et al., 2018). My aim is to
examine how an undocumented student organization is influenced by these nested and
possibly contradicting contexts, and the ways they navigate their environment.
Similar to political opportunity theory, nested contexts of reception is a very general
and descriptive framework. While there may be limited value in its use for analysis because
of its lack of explanatory nature, it is rather a useful ecological framework to trace the
distinct and sometimes opposing contexts that undocumented college students may
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 35
experience (Alvord et al., 2018; Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018; Stepick & Stepick, 2009).
Most research utilizing nested contexts of reception describes a general context without
distinguishing how differences at the national, state and local levels shape immigrant
experiences (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Stepick & Stepick, 2009). Further development is
needed to understand how the interaction of these nested contexts influences undocumented
college students. At the same time, nested contexts of reception is particularly useful for
this study as it is complementary to political opportunity theory. Nested contexts helps
frame political opportunity structures within layered contexts at the local, state, and
national contexts to understand how these layers combine to help or hinder an
undocumented student organizations’ efforts and collective movement. The framework is
also receptive to changes in context over time and triggers in the environment (i.e.
opportunities and threats) that create undocumented college students’ perceived
environment, and which ultimately determine a movements’ development.
In their study, Burciaga and Martinez (2017) begin to analyze the ways that political
contexts shape undocumented youth movements. The study shows examples of how
context influences the claims made, the targets of the claims, and strategies and tactics
adopted by undocumented youth movement in Los Angeles, Denver, and Atlanta. After the
federal DREAM Act failed to pass in 2006, undocumented youth shifted their efforts
towards local and state contexts that would have greater influence compared to the federal
level. The shift towards immediate contexts shaped the different claims, targets, tactics, and
strategies used in the different locations. For example, after achieving educational access
for undocumented youth in Los Angeles, an area that is welcoming towards undocumented
communities, the movement shifted towards advancing larger immigrant rights. In Denver,
a more moderate context towards undocumented communities, the movements evolved
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 36
from comprehensive immigration reform to student-focused. And in Atlanta’s hostile
context, undocumented youth focused on student issues, adopted frames as students that
resonated with the general public, and advocated to oppose educational bans to access
institutions of higher education. These examples show how undocumented youth
movement claims, targets of the claims, and strategies and tactics employed were
influenced by varied contexts that either facilitated or impeded their efforts. Therefore,
context plays an important role in how undocumented youth navigate their environments.
This study takes a closer look at a specific group of undocumented youth to understand
how undocumented student organizations navigate their respective contexts within their
respective campuses following the heightened anti-immigrant rhetoric of the elections, and
what role the campus environment plays in the process of collective action.
Campus Culture and Climate
Because this study examines how undocumented student organizations navigate
their respective campuses nested within the larger sociopolitical context, I turn to campus
culture and campus climate literature to understand the influence of the institutional
environment on undocumented students’ experiences. Campus culture refers to the ways
that things are typically done in school, or its set standards of behavior (Stolp & Smith,
1995). Examinations of campus culture typically seek to understand institutions from a
holistic perspective, taking into account the historical context, rituals, and traditions, as well
as any observed and unobserved values and assumptions that shape perspectives and
behaviors (Bauer, 1998). Kuh and Hall (1993, p. 2) define campus culture as:
The collective, mutually shaping patterns of institutional history, mission, physical
settings, norms, traditions, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that guide the
behavior of individuals and groups in an institutions of higher education which
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 37
provide a frame of reference for interpreting the meanings of events and actions on-
and off-campus.
The definition takes into account the complex and deeply embedded values that influence
individuals and groups in college campuses.
A useful framework for understanding organizational culture that can be applied to
institutions of higher education is offered by (Schein, 1992). The framework consists of
three levels: artifacts, values, and assumptions. The most visible element of an
organization’s culture is its artifacts, which include an institution’s history, traditions,
stories, and interactions. Values refer to espoused values, which are shared beliefs about
what is considered important by members, as well as enacted values which are manifested
actions of members. And lastly, assumptions are the least visible aspect of a culture and
include the underlying system of beliefs “that influence what people in the culture think
about, how they behave, and what they value” (Whitt, 1996, p. 191). Kuh and Hall (1993)
add a fourth level to the framework which are perspectives or shared rules and norms that
suggest how things are done, or what is widely acceptable behavior at an institution.
Together, these elements of culture interact in complex ways that may be difficult to parse
out and shape the larger culture of a campus.
The culture of a campus may influence the reputation of a campus as being
welcoming or unwelcoming towards undocumented students, and shape the way student
organizations are able to navigate spaces and processes within the university. For this
study, I examine the larger campus culture, including the different embedded elements
related to undocumented students, and how they influence their student organizations. As
detailed in the chapter findings of each case, I explain the ways that deeply engrained
values and norms set the stage for the ways that undocumented student organizations
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 38
interact with their campus environment, and how the environment, in turn, influenced the
ways they navigated political opportunities after the elections.
In comparison, campus climate refers to “the current perceptions, attitudes, and
expectations that define the institution and its members” (Bauer, 1998, p. 2). Climate is
sometimes viewed as a narrower concept of culture or an extension of the campus culture.
Within colleges and universities, climate is often used to discuss how individuals and
groups experience membership in the campus community (Williams 2010). The
experiences of individuals are shaped by real and perceived realities rooted in broader
socio-historical contexts in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and immigration
status.
Studies on campus climate typically bring to light injustices on colleges and
universities related to campus diversity, and often serve as catalysts for institutional change
(Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, & Cuellar, 2008). Much of the literature on campus climate
examines the interaction between institutional environments and racially diverse student
populations, or how campus climates pertain to race (Harper & Hurtado, 2007). Racial
climate can be defined as “part of the institutional context that includes community
members’ attitudes, perceptions, behaviors, and expectations around issues of race,
ethnicity, and diversity” (Hurtado et al., 2008, p. 205). With regards to undocumented
college students, campus climate can refer to attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors towards
individuals who are undocumented, which may also intersect with other identities such as
race, ethnicity, gender, and class. More on the undocumented campus environment is
presented in the following section.
Research on campus racial climate generally show that students of color experience
racially hostile climates at higher rates than their White peers, and that these experiences
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 39
can have adverse effects on students’ academic success (Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Harper &
Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2005). For example, Ranking
and Reason (2005) found that racial/ethnic minorities in their study perceived their campus
climate as more racist and less accepting than did the White survey participants. Multiple
studies highlight that students of color, particularly Black students, experience negative
campus climates at disproportionate levels compared to their White peers (Ancis, Sedlacek,
& Mohr, 2000; Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Hurtado, 1992; Suarez-Balcazar, Orellana-
Damacela, Portillo, Rowan, & Andrews-Guillen, 2003), which suggests that colleges and
universities are not addressing racial campus climates accordingly.
The impact of a negative campus climate can result in feelings of isolation and not
belonging on campus, low academic outcomes, and difficulties adjusting to college (Fries-
Britt & Turner, 2001; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Hurtado
& Carter, 1997; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). On the other hand, diverse learning
environments where institutions purposefully engage students with peers from different
backgrounds have positive impacts on students through cognitive, psychological, and
interpersonal gains (Harper & Hurtado, 2007). Thus, a lack of institutional commitment to
promoting a positive campus climate and diversity can have an adverse impact on students
of color, particularly those with other historically marginalized identities such as an
undocumented immigration status.
Campus climate literature is particularly useful for this study since it situates the
experiences of students within a particular frame and time, and this study focuses on the
ways that student organizations navigated their environment after the 2016 elections. There
are several theoretical models and instruments that exist to-date that conceptualize and
measure campus climate. Building on earlier work on campus climate, Hurtado and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 40
colleagues (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Walter, 1999; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-
Pedersen, & Allen, 1998) developed a framework for conceptualizing campus racial
climate, which was later advanced by Milem, Chang, and Antonio (2005). The framework
is useful because it situates the campus climate as a dimension of college students’
experiences that is shaped by variations of internal and external forces, and it is also not
limited to individual’s attitudes and perceptions, but also takes into account the institution’s
structure and history, as well as interactions between people (Milem et al., 2005).
According to Hurtado et al. (1998; 1999), campus climates are shaped by external
and internal forces. External forces include (a) the impact of governmental policy,
programs, and initiatives, and (b) the impact of sociohistorical forces on the campus
climate. Examples of the first that impact undocumented students can include policies
regarding financial aid such as in-state tuition, and programs and changes to programs like
DACA. Sociohistorical forces are events or issues in the larger society that can influence
the racial campus climate, and for undocumented students, they may include events like
9/11 and the sociopolitical rhetoric marked by anti-immigrant sentiments that emerged
from the 2016 presidential elections. These external forces interact with internal forces to
produce the campus racial climate.
The original four dimensions of internal forces that impact the campus racial
climate include: (1) compositional diversity, (2) historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion,
(3) psychological climate, and (4) behavioral climate (Hurtado et al., 1998; 1999). Milem et
al. (2005) later added a fifth dimension of organizational diversity. Compositional diversity
refers to the numerical and proportional representation of various racial and ethnic
populations. Hurtado et al. (1998; 1999) argue that institutional leaders and policymakers
must consider cross-racial interactions and processes, and not just the structural diversity
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 41
when conceptualizing and improving campus climates. The second dimension takes into
account the historical vestiges of segregation in colleges that continue to shape the campus
racial climate today. This may include the prevalence of attitudes and behaviors that serve
dominant groups and prevent cross-racial interactions on campus. Acknowledging a
historical past of exclusion demonstrates a commitment to redressing past transgressions by
institutions.
The psychological climate includes “individuals' views of group relations,
institutional responses to diversity, perceptions of discrimination or racial conflict, and
attitudes toward those from other racial/ethnic backgrounds than one's own” (Hurtado et al.,
1998, p. 289). Who the individual is and where they are positioned within the institution
will affect how they experience and view the campus climate. The behavioral dimension
includes the on-campus social interactions, and the nature and quality of the interactions
between and among individuals from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. The last
dimension refers to the organizational and structural aspects of the institution, including the
embedded ways in which some groups of people are privileged over others (Milem et al.,
2005). This can be reflected in the curriculum, budget allocations, hiring practices,
admission processes, and other day-to-day practices. These five dimensions are connected,
and they can influence one another. Even though most studies on campus climate do not
disaggregate their data to reflect the experiences of undocumented and DACA students
(Muñoz & Vigil, 2018) , general studies on the educational experiences of undocumented
college students often highlight a negative and exclusionary campus climate that students
must navigate (Contreras, 2009; Muñoz & Vigil, 2018; Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007;
Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015) as described earlier in the literature review.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 42
I utilize aspects of the campus climate model (Hurtado et al., 1998; 1999; Milem et
al., 2005) in order to understand how undocumented students experience the current anti-
immigrant sociopolitical context following the 2016 elections within their respective
institutions. I take into the account the ways that external and internal forces shape the
perceptions of undocumented students and their organizations about the larger
sociopolitical environment, and how they navigate opportunities to continue to support and
advocate for their undocumented peers. In addition to a description of the campus cultures,
I also offer a detailed description of the campus climates at each campus following the
elections, including the impact of governmental and social perceptions on the campuses,
how each campus responded to the elections, and how students described their institutions
during this time. The descriptions of the campus culture and climate facilitate an
understanding of how student organizations perceived end engaged in collective action
based on their respective institutional differences.
In order to further understand the relevant aspects of campus culture and climate on
the experiences of undocumented college students, I turn to the undocufriendly campus
characteristics.
Undocufriendly Campus Characteristics
Given that the literature on campus culture and climate suggest that the campus
environment plays an important role in student experiences and outcomes, I am interested
in examining the ways that undocumented student organizations navigate their institutions
in two different campus environments – one that is undocufriendly, and one that is not.
Examining two student organizations at different campus cultures and climates offers
insight into how the campus environment influences undocumented student experiences
and their collective organizing.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 43
In order to identify what aspects of the campus environment are relevant to
undocumented student experiences in college, as well how to select a campus that
undocufriendly and one that is not undocufriendly, I draw from Suárez-Orozco et al.'s
(2015) article on undocufriendly campuses. Using a national survey of diverse
undocumented college students attending two- and four-year public and private institutions,
Suárez-Orozco et al. (2015) use an ecological framework in order to understand the
challenges undocumented college students face and the assets they bring as they navigate
their educational contexts. From these findings, the authors provide insights and
recommendations about creating undocufriendly campuses. In the study, Suárez-Orozco et
al. (2015) list five characteristics that undocufriendly campuses have. Within an
undocufriendly campus, undocumented students should have access to the following:
1. Institutional financial aid and relevant information
2. Safe spaces (e.g., student networks or organizations, student affairs offices,
residential life and dorm space, DREAM resource centers)
3. Institutional agent support (from faculty, staff, administrators)
4. Legal and mental health services
5. Campus with long-standing undocufriendly reputation (e.g., how welcoming the
campus climate is towards undocumented students, public endorsements, ally
trainings)
For the purposes of this study, I utilize the undocufriendly model as a continuum. A
favorable undocufriendly campus may include some, most, or maybe all of the
characteristics listed. An unfavorable non-undocufriendly campus may include limited or
few of the characteristics, or just blatantly reject access to these resources. The
undocufriendly case selected for this study needed to demonstrate substantive efforts to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 44
meet most or all of the characteristics, while the non-undocufriendly case needed to show
ambivalence, limited, or full rejection regarding these characteristics in support of
undocumented college students. In Chapter 3, I further describe how I selected each case
utilizing the five undocufriendly campus characteristics.
Political Opportunity Structures Nested in Contexts of Reception (POSNCR) Model
In order to examine how undocumented student organizations navigate threats and
opportunities in their environment that can inhibit or enhance their goals and strategies
within a heightened anti-immigrant context, I propose a model that incorporates elements
from political opportunity theory, nested contexts of reception, and campus culture and
climate (see Figure 1 below). Used as an environmental framework, nested contexts of
reception situate the way that political opportunity structures surround and influence
student organizations, taking into account the distinct nature of each context at the
institutional, local, state, and federal levels (Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018; Stepick &
Stepick, 2009). I also pull from political opportunity theory and its various elements to
create a model that examines how undocumented student organizations experience
opportunities from multiple nested contexts that help or hinder their goals, frames,
strategies, and tactics. How the organization experiences these contexts will shape
member’s belief of success, determine the development of the collective movement and
how they navigate their environment, and ultimately whether their efforts will influence
their political opportunities and environment in return.

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 45
Figure 1: The Political Opportunity Structures Nested in Contexts of Reception
(POSNCR) Model

At the center of the POSNCR model is the undocumented student organization,
which is the focus of analysis for this study. The organization is nested in circles that
represent the campus, local, state, and national contexts that it experiences in its
surrounding environment. The arrows pointing inwards towards the student organization
exemplify the threats and opportunities experienced by the organization at each level of its
nested contexts. The arrows pointing outwards represent the impact the organization has on
its environment. The threats and opportunities student organizations experience can directly
or indirectly influence them across the different nested contexts. For example, a potential
termination of DACA at the federal level affects undocumented students by stripping them
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 46
from work permits, terminating their opportunities to study abroad, further criminalizing a
previously protected group, and making them vulnerable for deportation. States, cities, and
institutions of higher education may respond by developing initiatives to stop or advocate
against the termination of DACA, offer and expand resources and services for students and
their families, and even join a sanctuary movement in solidarity to show support for
immigrant communities. Even though each nested context surrounds the student
organization, they may not be uniform in their support for undocumented students.
Differences per nested layer can create complex environments that undocumented students
and their organizations must navigate within colleges and universities.
In order to explain how student organizations perceive threats and opportunities and
ultimately engage in collective action, I utilize three assumptions from the literature on
political opportunity theory:
1. Exogenous factors can enhance or inhibit mobilization, development, claims, and
strategies of an undocumented student organization
2. Collective action will occur if participants believe they will succeed or that
institutional channels are less effective
3. Collective action can result in the creation of new political opportunities
The bolded circle encompasses the processes within the student organization that lead to
collective action. As threats and opportunities are identified and perceived by the
organization, they shape the claims utilized, the strategies and tactics they consider and
determine, how members determine the likelihood of success, and ultimately whether they
will engage in action. This process can happen multiple times as a response to changes in
their environment, changes in their prospect for success and whether their actions allow
them to make progress, as well as potential internal conflicts. The model also demonstrates
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 47
bidirectional arrows to represent the ways that each element can influence each other.
Whether or not the organization decides to engage in collective action, their action or lack
of action may influence their opportunities and threats in their environment.
The possible rescission of DACA serves as an example of the application of the
POSNCR model. Following Trump’s announcement that he would terminate DACA on
September 2017 (Kuka et al., 2018), a sanctuary movement emerged across different
regions and institutions of higher education to support those who could be affected by it
(Caballes, 2018; Rice, 2018; Tierney et al., 2017). Trump’s threat to end DACA can create
a window of opportunity for undocumented student organizations to demand for much-
needed services and resources such as access to trained financial aid staff, on-campus legal
clinics, and a resource center. Students’ perceived likelihood of success may be influenced
by the support and cooperation from elite allies on campus, such as key faculty and staff.
Students may also adopt the claims and frames of the sanctuary movement in their city and
neighboring colleges and universities to pressure their institution to act in support of
undocumented students. If collective action takes place (e.g., in the form of petitions,
protests, sit-ins, coalition building) after weighing the costs and likelihood of success, as
well as addressing any potential internal conflicts, the organization’s actions could result in
desired or undesirable outcomes that ultimately influence their environment create new
opportunities. For example, if member’s actions result in the adoption of a sanctuary
campus status, students could use this momentum and campus-wide support to further push
for a resource center, and the decision-making process would begin once again.
In the following chapter, I describe the study design and methods. I explain how I
selected the cases for this study utilizing the undocufriendly characteristics, as well as how
the POSNCR model informed the type of data collected, and data analysis.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 48
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methods
Starting in the summer of 2018 through January of 2019, I conducted a qualitative
case study comparison of two undocumented college student organizations – one located at
an undocufriendly campus, and one located in a non-undocufriendly campus. In this
chapter, I describe the research design and methods I used to capture how two
undocumented student organizations experience their multiple nested contexts and the ways
they respond to their environment through collective action. First, I describe the
comparative case study design, including the selection of the two cases. Next, I detail my
research methods including data collection and analysis. I end the chapter explaining the
measures I took to ensure validation and trustworthiness, and describe the limitations of the
study.
Qualitative Comparative Case Study
The study examines how undocumented student organizations make sense of anti-
immigrant sociopolitical rhetoric and how they navigate different challenges and
opportunities within their immediate institutional environment and larger context. The
interpretive nature of qualitative research explains processes and why something is taking
place (Eisner, 1991). Given the focus on understanding the experiences of undocumented
college students and their organizations, the processes of how they perceive their
environments, and how they react to them, qualitative methods were best suited for this
study. Qualitative methods facilitated an in-depth understanding of undocumented student
organizations that statistical analysis cannot articulate (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2013). In
particular, a comparative case study allowed to examine differences in how undocumented
student organizations navigated their immediate campus environments based on
institutional type, culture, and climate.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 49
Case study methodology is used to achieve a holistic examination of a particular
case in its natural setting (Stake, 1995), to ultimately understand an issue or phenomenon
(Creswell, 2007). Case study is particularly suited for studies where it is difficult to
separate the phenomenon’s variables from its context (Yin, 1994). Although there is some
disagreement over whether case study is a method, Stake (as cited in Glesne, 2011) states
that case study is a choice of what is studied, rather than a methodological choice. Thus, the
value of a case study is its ability to focus on a particular case or set of cases to understand
the “complexity within the case, on its uniqueness, and its linkages to the social context of
which it is a part” (Glesne, 2011, p. 22). In other words, case study is used to obtain a
holistic understanding of a phenomenon through a case or cases within a particular context
of interest.
For this study, the cases are two undocumented student organizations nested with
different contexts selected to understand the influence of their environment on their
organizing efforts. This type of comparative case study allows the researcher to explore
differences both within and between cases (Baxter & Jack, 2008). In comparative case
studies, the cases are chosen carefully so that the researcher can predict similar results
across cases, as well as differences based on theory. Based on campus climate literature
which suggests that climates affect the experiences of students differently based on their
identities, and that these climates are shaped by external and internal forces (Hurtado et al.,
1999; S Hurtado et al., 1998; Milem et al., 2005), I expect to find differences based on the
type of climate towards undocumented students.
In order to understand the influence of nested environments and how undocumented
student organizations in college perceive and respond to different challenges and
opportunities within their respective institutions, I conducted an exploratory comparative
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 50
case study. A comparison between an institution that is receptive to undocumented student
needs and experiences and another that is not, or less so offers analytical power in
explaining the ways that undocumented students experience their immediate environment
nested within a larger anti-immigrant sociopolitical context. In other words, the point of
comparison for this case study is the campus environment including the institutional type
(private versus public), and campus culture and campus climate towards undocumented
students, or what Suárez-Orozco et al. (2015) termed “undocufriendly” campus.
Even though colleges and universities cannot control the larger sociopolitical
context, institutions and individual actors have some agency to implement policies and
practices that can alleviate some of the immediate concerns and challenges to best support
their undocumented student population while promoting a positive and welcoming campus
environment. For example, institutions can offer scholarships, legal services, faculty and
staff training, mental health support, undocumented resource centers, and other related
resources and forms of support (Muñoz & Vigil, 2018; Nienhusser, 2018; Suárez -Orozco et
al., 2015). A focus on the institution can show the ways that the immediate environment
influences undocumented college students, and the role that the larger sociopolitical context
plays on institutional practices and climate to better understand how students collectively
navigate their nested environments.
While a single case study may show the ways that the environment and campus
climate influence an undocumented student organizations’ collective actions in its
respective institution, a comparative case study demonstrates differences in how students
experience, perceive, and respond to their context based on institutional differences. The
comparative data offers insight into the relevance of institutional type, culture, and climate
for undocumented student organizations, as well as highlights recommended practices for
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 51
institutions and student organizations based on their location. The exploratory approach
allowed for the testing of hypothesis, development of the POSNCR model, and to begin
understanding how the current context influences undocumented students and how their
student organizations navigate their environment.
Selecting Cases
I selected two cases based on differences in institutional type (private and public)
and based on the undocufriendly campus characteristics described by Suárez-Orozco et al.
(2015). For the undocufriendly campus, I selected a public, four-year university which I
will refer to as Friendly Public University (FPU), and for the non-undocufriendly campus I
selected a private, four-year university which I will call Conservative Private University
(CPU). FPU and CPU are located in California and within the same local region (which I
will keep anonymous), maintaining the larger sociopolitical context (local, state, national)
constant, and allowing for a closer examination of the influence of the campus environment
towards undocumented students. In other words, the external forces (e.g., governmental
policy, programs, larger sociohistorical factors) remain the same, while internal forces
(type, culture, climate) are different. Both campuses have their own established
undocumented student organizations. At FPU, Justice for Undocumented Students (JUSt)
has been around for over 15 years, while United Undocumented Students (UUS) at CPU is
a relatively new organization that recently re-emerged and established itself as an official
student organization in 2017.
As described earlier in Chapter 2, undocumented students in an undocufriendly
campus (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015) have access to the following five conditions: (1)
institutional financial aid and relevant information; (2) safe spaces; (3) institutional agent
support; (4) legal and mental health services; and (5) an institution with a campus long-
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 52
standing undocufriendly reputation. For the purposes of selecting cases for this study, I
utilized the undocufriendly model as a continuum where an undocufriendly campus would
have most of the characteristics listed, while the non-undocufriendly campus would lack
many or most them. Therefore, even though I refer to FPU as the “undocufriendly” and
CPU as the “non-undocufriendly” campus, each institution is not a full personification of
each end of the continuum. Instead, they are campuses that contain or lack many of the
listed characteristics as described by Suárez-Orozco et al. (2015). For a visual comparison
of each campus based on the five characteristics of an undocufriendly campus, see Table 1
below.
Table 1: Undocufriendly Characteristics Comparison between FPU and CPU

Undocufriendly
Characteristics
FPU (Public,
Undocufriendly)
CPU (Private, Non-
Undocufriendly)
1. Institutional
financial aid and
relevant information

 In-state tuition, state
financial aid, work-study,
and scholarships to
students who qualify based
on AB 540 criteria
 Undocumented resource
center run by full-time
staff, and online
information accessible to
perspective an current
students
 Flat-rate tuition, state
financial aid, work-study, no
formal scholarships for
undocumented students but
students often qualify for
other funds and scholarships
 Undocumented students
have access to academic
programs and funds intended
for low-income and first-
generation college students
in the local area
 No institutionally supported
resource center, no full-time
trained staff, no relevant
online-information prior to
the 2016 elections
2. Safe spaces (e.g.,
organizations,
student affairs
offices, residential
life, undocumented
resource centers)

 Designated space for
undocumented resource
center with full-time staff
offers lounge area to
convene
 JUSt student organization
active space for
 No institutionally supported
resource center, but a
department supported
resource center established
after 2016 elections
 Relatively new UUS student
organization
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 53
undocumented student
community
3. Institutional agent
support

 Access to experienced,
full-time staff
 Long-standing ally training
program, and known ally
network
 No access to experienced,
full-time staff (after
elections, only part-time and
inexperienced staff member
appointed)
 No formal ally training,
informal ally networks
4. Legal and mental
health services
 Free limited legal services
for students; recently made
available to employees and
immediate family
members
 Expanded counseling
services to students and
immediate family
members
 Free legal consultations, and
naturalization services for
students, employees,
members of their families,
and the community; DACA
renewal funds for students
 Free counseling services
5. Campus long-
standing
undocufriendly
reputation (e.g., how
welcoming the
campus climate is
towards
undocumented
students, public
endorsements, ally
trainings)
 Long-standing history of
formal, public support and
advocacy of
undocumented students
 UC advocacy in support of
undocumented students
 Undocufriendly reputation
seems to attract large
number of undocumented
student population (est.
750 students)
 History of indifference and
lack of acknowledgment of
undocumented students on
campus
 Student anecdotes of
unfriendly campus climate
(e.g., students reporting
peers to ICE)
 Limited collaboration across
campus to support
undocumented students until
after elections
 Limited undocumented
student population possibly
because of reputation, and
cost (est. 150 students )

I selected JUSt at FPU as the student organization located in the undocufriendly
campus because it meets all of the characteristics listed in the undocufriendly model. FPU
has a long-standing reputation of having a welcoming and supportive environment for
undocumented students with well-established services and resources. The undocufriendly
environment emerged from student and ally-led activism over 15 years ago when JUSt was
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 54
first established. Today, FPU has as established undocumented resource center located at
the heart of the campus run by experienced full-time staff, student interns, and access to
attorneys. JUSt is known as the central community space for undocumented students
alongside the resource center. FPU also offers ally training to students, staff, and faculty
who receive a diploma upon completion, which are often displayed around campus in
various offices. The resource center offers a comprehensive website with relevant
information for prospective and current undocumented students, including an online listing
of staff and faculty who completed ally training that students can reach out to. The center
also partners with the law school and health services to offer legal consultations and advice,
and mental health services and other related opportunities. In regards to access to financial
aid, undocumented students in California who meet the necessary criteria are eligible for in-
state tuition and state financial aid including grants and loans. FPU also offers some
institutional aid, but this is limited and only accessible to students who qualify under state
law. Over the years, FPU has shown to be at the forefront of advocacy for undocumented
students and continues to do so within the current heightened anti-immigrant climate.
Given its reputation and numerous services and resources for undocumented students, it is
no surprise that the university attracts a larger number of undocumented students with an
estimated number of 750. I provide a more extensive description of FPU’s institutional
type, culture and climate and its relevance to its undocumented student organization in
Chapter 4.
The second case study selected for this study is UUS at CPU. I selected CPU as the
non-undocufriendly campus because as seen in Table 1 above, it lacks many of the
characteristics of an undocufriendly campus. CPU has a reputation of being an affluent
university dominated by politically conservative views. The university has a history of
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 55
indifference and lack of acknowledgment of their undocumented population on campus and
in the local community. In fact, many of the students, staff, and faculty I interviewed
described racist nativist incidents on camps which fueled the anti-immigrant sentiment on
campus. Before the elections, CPU did not have an appointed staff member that perspective
and current undocumented students could refer to for help, and it also did not have an
institutionally supported resource center or website with access to relevant information.
Even though UUS had originally emerged in 2011, it collapsed for five years and did not
re-emerge until 2016. The unofficial safe space for undocumented students for many years
was the Latinx Resource Center.
It seems that the CPU offered limited legal and mental health services, but these
were not fully expanded for undocumented individuals until after the 2016 elections. In
regards to financial aid, undocumented students who qualify for state financial aid under
the California DREAM Act receive some state financial support. However, as an affluent
university with a large endowment, CPU is able to offer substantive financial aid in the
form of scholarships to students who qualify based on financial need and merit, which often
covers the majority if not all of undocumented students’ tuition. Even though CPU does not
have a formal ally training or ally network on campus, it has an unofficial network that
operates “under the radar” in order to support undocumented students without “ruffling the
feathers” of upper administration and other conservative campus members and donors.
Faculty with tenure were more vocal about their support and advocacy for students and
criticism of the university’s administration, particularly after the 2016 elections; however it
was still a limited network. If undocumented students are unaware of these ally networks or
are not connected with them, they may miss out on possible opportunities. Because of its
non-undocufriendly reputation and limited resources for undocumented students, it is no
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 56
surprise that the estimated number of undocumented students at CPU is 150-200 students.
As mentioned, more detailed information in regards to the institutional type, culture and
climate is included in Chapter 4.
Data Collection
The methods of data collection included those often used in case studies, including
document analysis, observations, and interviews (Yin, 1981). The inclusion of these
methods facilitated the triangulation of data to clarify meaning and interpretations, as well
as generate a comprehensive and accurate description of the cases (Stake, 1995). I first
began by collecting and analyzing documents in order to learn more about the context of
each undocumented student organization in their respective campuses and in the larger
context. I then conducted weekly observations of the organization’s general and board
meetings, and other related events hosted by the undocumented student organizations and
allies. After gaining a better understanding of the organizations and their campus
environment, as well as building rapport with students, I conducted interviews with student
members, and key staff and faculty identified by students. The document analysis,
observations, and interviews are further discussed below.
Document Analysis. Documents can offer descriptive information that cannot be
easily observed, and they also provide insight into various portrayals of the organization
and the campus context to various audiences (Patton, 2002). For this study, I collected two
types of documents: documents related to the student organization, and documents related
to their environment. Documents related to the environment included the university’s
newsletters and statements, relevant school website content (e.g., resources for
undocumented students), newspaper articles, publicity, and any related report by the
institution towards undocumented students. National, state, and local news articles helped
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 57
me situate the student organizations in their larger sociopolitical contexts. Documents
related to the student organization included content from their website, screenshots from
their social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), digital photos, graphic
design images, meeting agendas, weekly newsletters, news articles related to the
organization, posters, and publicity.
I began to collect documents in May 2018 before I conducted observations and
interviews in order to learn more about each case, select the cases for the study, and build a
description of each organization and campus. Early document analysis also allowed me to
situate the cases within the on-going anti-immigrant sociopolitical context. I continued to
collect and analyze documents throughout the rest of the data collection as they emerged or
were shared with me. In total, I collected 182 documents and over 115 screenshots for both
cases.
Observations. Observations are important in order to not only understand culture,
social interactions, and processes in action, but also to build rapport with participants.
Given the current heightened vulnerability of this student population and the importance of
building mutual trust, I approached this method as outlined by participant observations
traditionally used in ethnographies. Even though I was unable to spend an extensive period
of time – usually a year or more – conducting observations with each of the student
organization as is traditionally done in participant observations (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,
2011), I immersed myself in the organizations by participating in events and activities as
any other member.
All members were aware that I was the “Ph.D. student” collecting data for my
dissertation. However, entering a weekly space with few members – sometimes 5-10
depending on the meeting – it was natural for me to engage with students another student
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 58
and member. I was not much older than many of the members, and at JUSt I was younger
than several of the board members, which allowed me to fit right in as a student. As a
regular participant, I began to volunteer in different ways such as by bringing materials and
utensils for events, sign-up to table in fundraisers, participate in potlucks, offer to carpool,
and engage in various activities and conversations during the meetings. Soon after, I was
received and welcomed as a regular member in both organizations. Because I was a
consistent “member” who often volunteered and was well aware of the organizations’
initiatives, students began to include me in events and assign tasks to me. Students would
often approach me with questions about graduate school, or just wanted to “hang out” and
chat about music, social events, and other common interests after meetings. Being an
“active member” and sharing my personal anecdotes allowed me to build trust among
students and maintain the integrity of the safe spaces. Additionally, a participant
observation approach allowed me to gain a rich perspective through regular exposure and
involvement in the day-to-day routines and activities of the student members (Schensul,
Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999).
I began my observation at the beginning of the academic year in August 2018. In
order to gain a better sense of the campus environment as well as the general activities and
processes of each of the student organization, my first several observations were
exploratory in nature. This allowed me to get acquainted with the organizations and their
settings, build relationships with members, and identify areas for further exploration
throughout the data collection. Once I was familiar with the environment and the
organizations, my observations were semi-structured (see Appendix A for the observation
protocol). The observations focused on areas of interest guided by the study’s research
questions and theoretical framing, such as: member participation (e.g., number of men and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 59
women and perceived racial/ethnic diversity); in-group interactions (e.g., who seems to
participate and who is left out, ways internal conflicts are resolved); how opportunities and
threats are perceived (i.e., ways students perceive, respond, and talk about changes in their
environment, policy, and events); framings utilized (e.g., use of symbols, artifacts, words,
descriptions); and decision making processes (e.g., setting agendas, leadership structure,
strategies and tactics used). I utilized the protocol to write brief bullet point notes during the
observations. Shortly following each observation, I wrote brief memos with a summary of
what happened during the observation, my impressions, any patterns I noticed, and follow
up items that I needed to address. The data from these observations helped inform each
interview with students and other individuals of interest, and continued to shape my data
collection processes. I concluded my regular weekly observations in January of 2019. In
total, I conducted over 32 weekly observations that often included general meetings
followed by board meetings, as well as observations of 11 additional related events.
Interviews. I conducted interviews with student members of the undocumented
student organizations, as well as key institutional agents (i.e., staff and faculty). I
interviewed a total of six students per campus (for a total of 12 students), two institutional
agents at FPU, and four institutional agents at CPU. In total, I conducted 19 interviews with
students, staff, and faculty at both institutions (see Table 2). When I was ready to conduct
interviews with students, I announced an opportunity to participate in my interviews after a
general board meeting. Most of the students I interviewed approached me and expressed
interest in being interviewed. In an effort to maintain a diverse sample that was
representative of each of the organization’s members, I approached several students myself
and invited them to participate – all students I invited accepted except one student at CPU
who said she was busy preparing for an LSAT exam. Overall, the total interview sample
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 60
was representative of each of the undocumented student organizations’ demographics (see
Table 3).
Table 2: Interview Sample

Institution Students Staff Faculty
FPU 6 1 1
CPU 6 2 3
Total 12 3 4

Table 3: Student Sample Demographics
Institution Pseudonym Age Sex Race
and/or
Ethnicity
Country of
Birth
Status Board
Member
FPU Ricardo 22 M Chicanx Mexico Undocu;
DACA; AB 540
Yes
FPU Manuel 36 M Latinx Mexico Undocu;
DACA; AB540
Yes
FPU Matilda 23 F API,
Korean
Korea Undocu Newly
elected
FPU Tam 20 F Mexican Mexico Undocu;
DACA; AB540
Yes
FPU Santiago 32 M Latino El Salvador Undocu Yes
FPU Gisella 23 F Mexican Mexico Undocu;
DACA; AB540
Previous
board
member
CPU Belen 21 F Hispanic,
Latina,
Mexican
American
U.S. U.S. Born Yes
CPU Jazmin 21 F Latina,
Mexican
Mexico Undocu;
DACA; AB540
Yes
CPU Joe 26 M Southeast
Asian
Cambodia Undocu;
DACA; AB540
Yes
CPU Joy 21 F Hispanic,
Latina
El Salvador Undocu;
DACA; AB540
Yes
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 61
CPU Stephanie 21 F Hispanic,
Latina
El Salvador Undocu; TPS;
AB540
Yes
CPU Mariana 19 F Mexican Mexico Undocu;
DACA; AB540
Yes

Similar to the observations, I conducted both unstructured and semi-structured
interviews. I first conducted informal and unstructured informational interviews with key
student members in order to build relationships with students, learn more about the history
and structure of the organization, collect general and relevant information, and identify
people of interest that I would ask to interview. These initial interviews were not recorded
and were exploratory in nature. Several of these informal interviews took place in the form
of casual conversations after or in-between meetings, over the phone, or over coffee.
Depending on the location and circumstance, I was sometimes able to take notes during
these informal interviews, and sometimes I had to write summary memos after these
conversations. Subsequent interviews were semi-structured, recorded and transcribed, and
focused on gathering specific information related to the research questions of interest, while
also allowing flexibility to explore new or emerging concepts.
Semi-structured interviews primarily focused on three domains of interest: (1)
members’ participation and experience in the organization; (2) intergroup dynamics; and
(3) perceived contexts and decision-making (see Appendix B). Questions about members’
experience in the organization asked about how and why they joined the organization, their
experiences so far, any leadership roles taken, and their general participation in the
organization. Questions exploring in-group interactions included ways that students’
identities (e.g., gender, nationality, immigration status, race and/or ethnicity) influence their
participation and engagement in the group, potential internal disagreements and how they
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 62
are resolved, and whether and how they think their environment influences internal
interactions. And lastly, I also asked students about how they perceive the campus climate
and larger anti-immigrant sociopolitical context, and how the organization has responded to
potential opportunities in their environment to best support undocumented students.
Because the interviews were semi-structured, the protocol was flexible, and I asked
questions in different orders and allowed myself to ask additional questions as needed
based on the flow and direction of conversations. I concluded each interview by asking if
they had any recommendations for the university to better support undocumented students
and the organization. During the interviews, I also collected demographic information (e.g.,
age, sex, race, ethnicity, immigration status, hometown, major), and I asked students to
identify a pseudonym for the purposes of anonymity. Even though I did not conduct second
interviews with students, I followed-up a few times over text, email, or in-person requesting
additional information or clarification as needed.
Unstructured and semi-structured interviews with students allowed me to identify
key institutional agents (i.e., staff and faculty) who I contacted to request interviews with.
These key institutional agents included allies, appointees by the institution in supporting
roles on behalf of undocumented students, and an advisor to one of the organizations.
During interviews with key institutional agents, I asked about their various roles and
association with the student organization, their perception of the campus environment
towards undocumented students, as well as specific questions related to their unique
involvements and participation with the organization (see Appendix C). Interviews with
institutional agents allowed me to gain insight into ally grassroots and institutional efforts
that interviews with student members did not offer.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 63
Each of the semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and sent to an online
company for transcription. All interviews were conducted in-person in private rooms,
except for 3 interviews that reacted over the phone. During the interviews, I wrote brief
notes to remember key information and impressions. I wrote brief memos after each
interview summarizing what was discussed, noted any follow-up items, and began to
capture patterns and themes to support the on-going data collection and analysis. Interviews
lasted between 45 minutes to an hour and a half, depending on the conversation and time
availability of the individual interviewed. Students were compensated with a $25 Amazon
gift card for their time. In order to maintain anonymity, I utilized the pseudonyms that
students provided, and I assigned staff and faculty with their own pseudonyms.
Data Analysis
Because this study is exploratory in nature, data analysis was on-going throughout
the data collection process. This allowed for the collection of new data as needed to fill in
gaps, and further explore emerging patterns and themes. The data analysis was similar to
the constant comparative method, which allows the researcher to move back and forth
between old and new data, and gradually advance from coding, to conceptual categories,
and ultimately to theory development (Harry, Sturges, & Klinger, 2005). On-going data
analysis facilitated the emergence of categories and themes within cases, and across
campuses.
Before systematic data coding, all interviews were recorded, transcribed, and
supplemented with handwritten notes taken during the interviews. Memos written after
interviews and observations were cleaned and organized for analysis. Analytic memos were
also written periodically in order to capture emerging codes, patterns, themes, and to cross-
analyze information among data sources. Visual data such as pictures, flyers, videos, and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 64
audio files were summarized in written memos in order to facilitate the coding process by
using words that describe them. Documents were organized into folders according to
different aspects of the case (e.g., descriptions of the organizations, campus initiatives after
the elections, meeting agendas), and summarized in a running document to later be coded.
During the data collection process and memo analysis, I created a running document with
emerging codes and patterns to assist in the formal data coding. All raw data and memos
were uploaded to NVivo, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to code for
formal themes and interrelationships within the data.
Once all data was uploaded into NVivo, I utilized Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña's
(2014) two-cycle approach to data analysis to move back and forth between data analysis
stages, develop and test theories, and continue to engage in constant comparisons between
the cases. In the first cycle, codes were initially assigned to the data to later develop into
overarching themes within and across cases. Deductive, or a priori codes were utilized
based on the research questions, theoretical model, and previously identified emerging
codes to begin the formal process of coding. Inductive codes were also created in order to
ground the findings in the data. A codebook was created to identify and define individual
codes. I completed the first cycle of initial data coding one case at a time.
In the second cycle of coding, pattern coding was used in order to summarize
segments of data into categories, themes, and constructs. This second stage of data analysis
condensed data into smaller analytical units, allowing for cross-case analysis between each
case to identify common and different themes. I wrote additional analytic memos in order
to describe emerging themes and patterns which were utilized for the findings described in
Chapter 4. During the entire data analysis process, I moved back and forth between the
cycles of the data analysis to re-code data, identify additional patterns, and compare cases.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 65
Cross-case data analysis was on-going during data collection and analysis. Once
codes, categories, patterns, and themes were identified per campus, the second cycle of
analytic memos focused on making comparisons across cases. The replication of data
analysis strategies allowed for easier comparison of patterns (Miles et al., 2014). I also
created matrices in order to easily compare cases across different categories. These
matrices included information about intra-group dynamics, frames and claims, strategies
and tactics, institutional context, and other areas of interest. I repeated this ongoing analysis
and comparison of data until saturation was reached, or in other words when further data
analysis did not bring any new information to inform the categories and findings (Boeije,
2002).
Validity and Trustworthiness
Validity is an attempt by the researcher to assess trustworthiness, or in other words,
the accuracy of the study findings (Creswell, 2007). In order to determine the validity and
quality of the study and findings, standards of validation and evaluation are important.
Researchers can choose from multiple processes to ensure a study’s validity. For this study,
I utilized two verification strategies to ensure trustworthiness which included: triangulation
of data, and clarifying researcher bias and positionality.
As described, multiple sources of data were utilized to triangulate my findings.
Triangulation of data from the three data sources (document analysis, observations, and
interviews) not only helped develop the study findings, but I also utilized them to enhance
the credibility of the findings (Merriam, 1998). The comparison within each data source as
well as across different sources was used to verify the repeatability of an interpretation
(Stake, 2005). For example, comparisons across different student interviews in the same
organization helped identify differences in student experiences by social identities.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 66
Triangulation across data sources helped assess whether the climate described in the
interviews aligned with what the institutional documents suggested. Ultimately,
triangulation helped ensured the best accurate interpretation of student’s experiences within
the context of the campus environment.
The second method of validity is clarifying researcher biases and positionality.
Because the ethnographer is the main research instrument, positionality and personal biases
can influence data collection and analysis (Becker, 1967). Thus, it was important for me to
continuously reflect on how my biases and experiences impact the research process.
As an immigrant from Mexico who was formerly undocumented, I can relate to
some of the underlying experiences of navigating a precarious context towards people who
are undocumented. Growing up in the Tijuana-San Diego border region, I was particularly
impacted by the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric marked by the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001, which in many ways parallels the heightened xenophobic context
following the 2016 presidential elections. My experiences immigrating into this country at
a young age and navigating multiple barriers as a result of my legal status give me an
insider perspective into what college students and their families may be experiencing today.
Additionally, as a graduate student and being less than a decade older than most
undergraduate students, I can easily gain access to student organizations and participate in
regular group activities. My closeness to the topic and shared experiences facilitated my
rapport-building with student members and granted me experiential perspectives I could
draw from. However, my background alone cannot solely connote complete insider-status
to the experiences of undocumented students and their organization in their curret context.
At the same time, my background can also be a hindrance and inhibit me from
understanding the phenomena of interest with new eyes, particularly within the current
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 67
sociopolitical environment. Because I received my residency before attending college, I do
not know what it is like to be undocumented while going to college. Even though my
interest in the experiences of undocumented students partly stems from my personal
experiences and my commitment to humanize and improve their college trajectories, the
framing of this study draws from previous empirical research and data findings. I
continuously grounded the development of this study in the literature on the experiences of
undocumented college students, and the theoretical model utilized. Throughout the data
analysis and in my writing, I made connections to existing literature, including the ways
that my findings build upon or disprove previous ones. I was transparent in the process of
my data collection and analysis, as well as the limitations of this study as described in the
following section. Additionally, my analytic memos often included reflective notes about
how my personal experiences may lead me to misinterpret the experiences of students
(Gibbs, 2007). These reflexive memos helped me reflect on my preconceptions, whether
and how my interpretations and understandings changed, and any potential researcher-
participant power relations in the field.
Limitations of the Study
There are three primary limitations present in my study related to sample diversity,
generalizability, and the organization’s development. The first limitation of this study was
the limited racial and ethnic diversity of the undocumented student members interviewed.
Of the twelve students interviewed, ten were from Latin America countries (Mexico and El
Salvador), and only two students identified as API and were from Asian countries
(Cambodia and Korea). The literature suggests that non-Latinx students may feel excluded
from Latinx-centered undocumented student organizations (Hallett, 2013), and the findings
of this study support it. However, these interactions were more prevalent at FPU and very
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 68
limited at CPU. A larger and more diverse sample may have shed light into these deeper
intragroup interactions, and maybe helped explain if any institutional (e.g., number of
undocumented students, number of non-Latinx undocumented student population, climate)
or organizational characteristics (e.g., how developed the organization is, member
representation) made a difference at each campus. However, because of the limited non-
Latinx student membership, it was difficult to interview a more diverse sample, and the
sample turned out to closely resemble the representation of current members at each
organization.
The second limitation deals with the generalizability of my study findings. The two
cases were primarily chosen for their accessibility, and differences in institutional type,
culture, and climate towards undocumented students – a public undocufriendly, and a
private non-undocufriendly university. Both served as instrumental cases that offer insight
into the phenomena of how undocumented college student organizations navigate threats
and opportunities within the current sociopolitical climate, but they also have intrinsic
characteristics that are unique to each case. Some of the ways each student organization
navigated their campus environments may be unique to their specific institution (e.g.,
change in administrative leadership due to scandals, access to a larger network of
undocumented student organizations across the UC system) and not generalizable to other
student organizations. While some of these strategies may not be applicable to all
institutions, they are examples of how two student organizations utilized their environments
and situations to navigate opportunities and continue to advocate for their undocumented
peers. The POSNCR model can be used to examine student organizations located in
different areas and at different institutions.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 69
And lastly, one aspect of the study I did not foresee to emerge as an important
component before I began data collection was the influence of how developed the
organization is on the way it navigated its environment. For example, it seemed that even
though UUS wanted to take advantage of political opportunities in expansive ways such as
by reaching out to the community and collaborating with outside organizations, members
realized they were not ready to do so yet, and instead needed to focus on developing the
organization and creating a sense of community and support within CPU. In contrast, JUSt
is a well-established organization with a complex and fully developed structure and
leadership, has signature annual events, and has strong partnerships with different
organizations and schools in the area. Because it did not have to worry about focusing on
developing its presence, structure, and leadership the way UUS did, JUSt was able to push
the boundaries of what an undocufriendly campus should look like, as well as advocate for
immigrants beyond college students. The role of how developed and established a student
organization on how it perceived and reacted to opportunities could be included as an
element in the POSNCR model, and future research could explore this.

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 70
Chapter 4: The Case of the Friendly Public University (FPU)
In the following two chapters, I present my findings for each case. Chapter 4
presents the findings for the student organization located at FPU, and Chapter 5 presents
the findings for CPU. For each case, I first offer a general description of the university to
help place the results in context, I describe the culture and climate towards undocumented
students situated within the 2016 presidential elections, and describe its undocumented
student organization. Next, I explain the ways that the institution experiences its
sociopolitical environment based on its type, culture, and climate. And lastly, I describe the
various political opportunities that members of the undocumented student organizations
navigated that were specific to their respective institution. For each political opportunity, I
describe the claims and frames utilized by students and their supporters, and the ways the
organization utilized them in order to continue to support their undocumented peers within
the current sociopolitical environment.
My findings are guided by the following research questions:
1. In what ways does context at the national, state, local, and campus level influence
undocumented student organizations?
2. How do undocumented student organizations navigate threats and opportunities
created by their environment? In particular, how do undocumented student
organizations navigate threats and opportunities within a campus climate that is
undocufriendly and one that is not undocufriendly?
3. How do undocumented student organizations continue to support and advocate for
their members within a heightened anti-immigrant sociopolitical context?
The findings of this study speak to the ways that the current sociopolitical environment
influence different types of higher education institutions with varying cultures and climates
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 71
towards undocumented students, as well as the ways undocumented students collectively
navigate opportunities in their environment.
Friendly Public University (FPU)
FPU is a selective, four-year public research university, and it is part of the larger
University of California system alongside nine other universities. FPU is an ethnically
diverse campus with an enrollment of almost 45,000 students. According to its
undergraduate student composition for the 2017-2018 academic year, the university
enrolled 27 percent White, 28 percent Asian, 22 percent Hispanic, 5 percent biracial, 3
percent African American, and less than 1 percent American Indian/Alaska Native and
Pacific Islander students. Fifty-seven percent of students were female, and 43 percent were
male. It is estimated that FPU has one of the highest enrollment of undocumented college
students across all public, four-year universities in California.
The university offers several forms of financial support for undocumented students
who meet a particular criteria. FPU offers merit- and need-based scholarships, grants, loans,
and work-study to students who qualify. According to the school’s website, 45 percent of
undergraduate students receive enough financial support to not pay tuition at all, which
means that the university is able to offer substantial financial support to students. Under AB
540, undocumented and documented out-of-state students who meet the criteria qualify for
in-state tuition within California’s public colleges and universities. In addition to AB 540,
the California DREAM Act gives undocumented students who qualify for in-state tuition
access to state financial aid and non-state funded scholarships. As mentioned earlier,
undocumented college students continue to not have access to federal financial aid across
the country. However, DACAmented students who receive a temporary and renewable
work permit are able to obtain work-study through the university.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 72
Based on state policies, financial support for undocumented college students at FPU
is subject to students meeting a set criteria. Students who qualify for AB 540 are exempt
from nonresident tuition rates, and they can access state and institutional financial grants
and scholarships. For undocumented students who do not qualify for AB 540, FPU is not
able to offer any form of institutional financial aid, and they must pay an additional almost
$30,000 more per year. As explained later, these state policies on in-state tuition and
financial aid create an AB 540- and DACA-centric institution and fuel divisions within the
undocumented student population at FPU.
Undocufriendly Culture “By the Books”
FPU is known for being one of the most undocufriendly campuses in California
with a well-established resource center for undocumented students, full time trained staff,
accessible legal and mental health services, an extensive ally network, and a number of
other resources and programs available. However, similar to other institutions, this system
of support for undocumented students emerged from grassroots student and ally efforts, and
not necessarily from the institution. Students and allies feel that the university has grown
complacent and selective with their support and advocacy for undocumented students,
creating a culture that excludes students who are not “deserving” of resources set by state
and national policies like AB 540 and DACA. A student described FPU’s support for
undocumented students as “by the book,” and unwilling to push the boundaries to expand
their efforts. Encouraged by the legacy of student activism on campus and the original JUSt
founders, undocumented students continue to pressure and advocate for undocumented
students on campus.
Undocufriendly Campus. The larger UC system that FPU is a part of contributes
to the resources and the undocufriendly culture at all of the ten campuses. In the last five
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 73
years, the UC system expanded its support for undocumented students under President
Napolitano’s launch of the Undocumented Student Initiative in 2013. The program
allocated $5 million dollars to fund a variety of services for undocumented students across
the ten campuses including advising, support services, and financial aid. Some argue that
the allocation of resources by the UC Office of the President (UCOP) was a way for
President Napolitano to outgrow her anti-immigrant reputation under her previous position
as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security where she set record numbers in
deportations of undocumented immigrants. The Undocumented Student Initiative was later
expanded following the 2016 presidential elections. FPU extensively continues to benefit
from the initiative which funds staff members, the undocumented resource center,
programming, legal services, and access to scholarships and loans.
Individually, FPU has a long-standing history of advocacy and support for
undocumented students. FPU is also hosts leading researchers on immigration. One of the
faculty I spoke with described the campus as having “established itself as one of the centers
of immigration research in the country. I always talk about our campus as having the finest
collection of immigration scholars in the world.” Having an extensive line of faculty who
are experts on immigration facilitates awareness about undocumented and immigrant
experiences, and potentially contributes to the active advocacy efforts of staff and faculty
for undocumented students.
Much of the student and ally advocacy efforts at FPU initiated over fifteen years
ago when the “Dreamer” movement emerged in early 2000s. It was during this time that
JUSt emerged. Students advocated on campus for the creation of a resource center for
undocumented students, trained staff, legal services, and access to financial aid. Many
members of JUSt were known advocates of the Dreamer movement outside of campus.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 74
Professor Juan Alvarez (pseudonym) shared that the system of support for undocumented
students at FPU is a legacy of these early student advocates “who worked for years on our
campus to educate us about their struggles and their issues, which paved the way for
today’s continued advancement on campus.”
Today, FPU has a well-established structure to support undocumented students. As
described in Chapter 3, the university checks off every characteristic of an undocufriendly
campus as described by Suárez-Orozco et al. (2015). Located in the heart of campus is the
Undocumented Resource Center (URC) run by two full-time staff and student interns. The
URC centralizes relevant information for current, and prospective undocumented students,
and offers a series of services such as book loans, and meal and travel vouchers, as well as
relevant programming such as how to apply to graduate school, career and internship
opportunities, wellness workshops, among others. On their website, the URC has a public
list of staff and faculty allies who have gone through ally training that students can reach
out to. The university also offers legal and mental health services, which were later
expanded by UCOP funding. Additionally, there is an informal, undocumented student ally
network comprised of key representatives from across the campus from various centers and
departments. The ally network meets about 3-4 times per year to share relevant resources
and information, and to strategize about how to continue to support and advocate for
undocumented students at FPU.
Because of its well-structured support system and accessibility to safe spaces, many
undocumented students are attracted to FPU. When I asked the students I interviewed why
they chose to attend FPU, many answered that in addition to being a prestigious school, the
university has extensive support for undocumented students. For example, Ricardo shared
with me his decision to attend FPU:
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 75
It was actually the top school that I got into. But, aside from that, what really drew
me to FPU was the resources and support systems for undocumented students. So I
researched a whole bunch of campuses and Cal State campuses, and I found that
FPU had the most-established resources and support services for undocumented
students, so that's what drew me to FPU. I also know there's a huge immigrant
population in [the area], so I knew that there'd be more support for me over there.
FPU has an estimated 750 undocumented student population according to students, staff,
faculty, and published documents. It seems that the campus culture and support systems
plays a substantial role in attracting a large number of undocumented students to FPU.
Complacent Role “By the Books.” Even though FPU has well-established
resources for undocumented students, is a leading institution on immigration research, and
has a reputation for being a welcoming campus, students expressed frustration about the
university’s complacent role in not fully advocating for undocumented students. Several
students felt that the university was only receptive to their needs and demands when they
pressured administration. Manuel shared that most of the resources and services that the
university offers were established because of student advocacy. The university “takes credit
for something they didn’t even do.” Santiago expressed his frustration over FPU “waving
the diversity flag,” but bringing controversial speakers that do not reflect the values of the
university. He feels that if FPU wants to be “los buenos del cuento (the heroes of the
story),” it needs to push and advocate for comprehensive and inclusive support for all
undocumented students.
One student described FPU’s approach to supporting undocumented students as “by
the books.” Students felt that the university strictly follows laws and policies, and is
unwilling to push and advocate beyond these restrictions. There is unwillingness to look for
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 76
alternative forms of support for undocumented students. For example, in order to bypass
restrictive state laws on who the university can offer financial support to, institutional
agents at other nearby public colleges and universities offer undocumented students
financial assistance in the form of stipends such as through research grants and
assistantships. Despite advocacy efforts by students and allies to use stipends at FPU, the
university is unwilling to implement them. Manuel explained the university’s complacent
role:
So at FPU, they go by the book. It's just like, “no, we can't do this because they
don't have social security.” So to me it seems like they don't come up with new
ideas. It's just like, "Let's go by the book because it's FPU… and most of our donors
they don't support undocumented students." So it's just like, "We don't want to lose
those donors." They need to be more strategic and openly state that they support
undocumented students. It's just like we do have scholarships and a resource center,
but at the same time we have a lot of limitations.
Members feel that if the university wants to embrace its role as a leading undocufriendly
institution, it needs to also expand its advocacy efforts and set new standards for other
universities.
Lack of Inclusivity. Another area of frustration for members is the AB50- and
DACA- centric culture of the university. As a public university, FPU must follow state
policies related to higher education. Access to state and institutional financial support is
contingent on students’ eligibility for AB 540, and work-study is only accessible to students
who have a work permit through DACA or TPS. In conversation with a faculty member, he
estimated that FPU has about 20 undocumented students enrolled without DACA or AB
540 status. This group of students must pay out-of-state tuition and are left with very little
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 77
to no access to financial support. Manuel explains that institutional support becomes
“selective - if you qualify for AB 540 and you're DACA, you're welcome… if you don't
have DACA and you don't have AB 540, basically you're out.” Students explained that
many of the resources, programming, and scholarships are often only accessible and
applicable to DACA and AB 540 students. This creates a division within the undocumented
student population and excludes students who do not qualify for these benefits.
Matilda, a student without DACA or AB 540 status shared her experience
advocating for herself and other students in her position, and the lack of response from
administration:
I don't think [FPU] really wants to support undocumented students, that's the feeling
I'm getting. I know our Chancellor was forced to create an undocumented resource
center and advocate for us, and then the administration has been very unfriendly to
me from my personal experiences. I've gotten Ricardo Lara and other assembly
members and representatives to write letters on behalf of me regarding my situation
and my tuition, how it’s hard for me to pay tuition, and then I sent it to the
President, the Chancellors, the registrar – I got no response until I actually went
there and followed up. So I don't think they really care for undocumented students
although they act like they do. I have no hope for FPU administration. And
regarding the URC, I'm going to be very frank and say they are very DACA-centric
and very AB 540-centric and there are few people that are willing to help me on
personal level. The URC itself is not helping me at all with my situations for being
non-DACA and non-AB 540 that's why I don't really go there for resources.
Like Matilda, several other students were irritated by the way the university claims to be
supportive of undocumented students but chooses to help only a particular subgroup who
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 78
qualifies for DACA and AB 540. Institutional financial support, programs, services, and
advocacy was often limited to students who qualified for these benefits. I could hear
Matilda’s disappointment and anger in her voice when she shared these words. The lack of
effort by the university to include all undocumented students regardless of status
perpetuated the divisions that policies like AB 540 and DACA create. More on this lack of
inclusivity for all undocumented students will be explained later in the findings.
Long-Standing History of Student Advocacy. An important element of FPU’s
culture is a strong presence and influence of student advocacy and student organizations.
Many of the organizations for students of color and other marginalized student populations
emerged from the Civil Rights era efforts to address issues related to social inequalities
experienced by ethnic and racial minorities in the late 1960s. The student organizations
were created as avenues for student retention and advocacy on- and off-campus. Over time,
these student-initiated retention efforts by student of color organizations became umbrella
organizations that represent other similar smaller organizations. Through the umbrella
organizations, student organizations are able to communicate to top administrators,
including the Chancellor about their efforts, concerns, and demands.
JUst emerged within this strong foundation of student organizing and student
organizations at FPU. However, there were still some limitations that members of JUSt
continue to navigate. Gisella explained that while there have been improvements at FPU in
regards to supporting undocumented students, they have all been student-initiated:
I think that FPU, the administration has never really shown full support for
organizations such as JUSt. We've always tried to push for support such as funding
and other things, and we've never really gotten the full support. I think that it has
shown support in the way that if we fight for it and we really put our mind and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 79
energy into things, it can happen. But it doesn't happen without the student effort.
So we know FPU has the resources. It's just a matter of us having constantly try to
fight for things that we believe are common sense for our students to have. There's
so many other students who are also fighting for similar, if not other important
resources for their communities. It's the fact that that is going on, I feel like it gives
us opportunity to also be involved, to kind of join those efforts and push
administration. It gives us the reassurance that the student group was able to do it,
and had to fight a lot to get that. We can try to do that as well. But it's not easy,
that's the thing. It's there for students to fight for, but it's not easy to get.
Gisella highlights the importance of student organizing at FPU in order to push for
institutional change. Through advocacy, student organizations have historically shown to be
influential in the decisions that affect marginalized student communities. The widespread
resistance by JUSt and other student organizations against Trump’s orders facilitates
student organizing efforts and the perspectives for change.
Justice for Undocumented Students (JUSt)
Established over fifteen years ago, JUSt was one of the early undocumented student
organizations that emerged in colleges and universities across the nation. The organization
developed in the midst of in-state tuition and DREAM Act organizing in the early 2000’s
(Seif, 2011). Given the political climate it was first situated in, civic engagement was one
of the core values of the organization. Over the years, members of UUS served in various
state and national advocacy efforts, and even testifying in Sacramento and D.C.
JUSt is a support and advocacy organization for undocumented students at FPU.
Over the years, JUSt expanded to create not only a community of undocumented students
on campus, but also serve as a space to organize advocacy efforts for immigrants, and as
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 80
liaison between FPU and the undocumented population in the surrounding area. Since the
organization has been around for a much longer period of time compared to UUS, JUSt has
an established structure and leadership, has an existing network of allies and partners on-
and off-campus, its mission and goals have remained consistent, and they have signature
events and structures that new generations of JUSt leaders continue to follow and expand
on.
While in the two years following the election JUSt was unable to fill every
leadership position, the organization has about a total of 15 position in the student board.
All board members serve a significant role in the function of the organization, and
sometimes they collaborate and share responsibilities, particularly when the board is not
full. Even though there are usually two Co-Chairs that lead and manage the general
functions of the organization, the leadership structure and decision making is communal in
nature. Board members share responsibilities and decision-making. For the purposes of
anonymity, I am unable to provide a detailed description of the organization’s structure.
The advocacy efforts of JUSt are led by an Internal and External student
representative who are responsible for raising awareness about the undocumented
community, plan advocacy events, and serve as a liaison between JUSt and other on- and
off-campus organizations and partners. The Internal Representative establishes
collaborations with student organizations and other on-campus partners. Similarly, the
External Representative ensures communication and collaboration with outside community
partners. Fundraising is also a central component of the organization. Students plan small
fundraising events like selling food on campus and organize a large end of year banquet for
private donors. The end of year banquet is JUSt’s largest source of funding, from which
they create and offer their own scholarships to all undocumented FPU students regardless
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 81
of their association with JUSt. During the 2017-2018 academic year, members gave non-
DACA and non-AB 540 priority to these scholarships.
As part of their retention efforts, the organization developed its own peer
mentorship program. The peer mentorship program is now one of the most recent and
successful initiatives developed by JUSt because of its academic focus geared specifically
for undocumented students by peers. The program is designed around a cohort model, and
it is led by peer mentors who receive financial compensation. The program is now
primarily run and funded through the URC, but JUSt continues to be involved with many of
the members participating in the program as mentees or mentors.
JUSt also has close partnerships with other local high schools, community colleges,
state universities, and community organizations. For example, JUSt offers mentorship and
workshop opportunities with relevant information to local undocumented high school and
community college students. Members ensure that students are properly informed about
policies such as AB 540, AB 60, the California DREAM Act, and DACA, which can
facilitate access to a higher education for undocumented students. JUSt also offers
mentorship and guidance to students who are interested in starting their own undocumented
student organization at their respective schools, and the organization itself often serves as a
model to new organizations.
Post-Elections Efforts and the Undocu Climate at FPU
Following the elections, institutional actors and students had a quick turnaround
with efforts to support undocumented students and their families in response to the political
climate. Because FPU already had an infrastructure in place on campus to support
undocumented students (e.g., resource center for undocumented students, full-time trained
staff, emergency funds, ally network) progress to advance efforts seemed to be difficult in
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 82
comparison to CPU which did not have such structures pre-elections. The undocufriendly
climate at FPU that had previously welcomed students to “come out” and share their
immigration status openly, was now tainted by the heightened anti-immigrant climate, and
students went back to “hiding in the shadows.” It took two years after the elections for
undocumented students in JUSt to regroup and regain motivation to organize at FPU.
University of California Response
Immediately after the 2016 elections, UC President Napolitano issued a series of
declarations denouncing Trump’s discriminatory rhetoric and targeting of immigrants, and
expanded support for undocumented students. On November 2016, the University of
California released a “Statement of Principles in Support of Undocumented Members of the
UC Community” reaffirming the university’s support for students regardless of their
immigration status. In the statement, the university stated that it would not release
confidential student records without proper documentation and that the UC police would
not collaborate with federal agencies to enforce immigration law. President Napolitano also
expanded the Undocumented Student Initiative from $5 million to $8.4 million per year to
all ten UC campuses to expand financial aid, legal, and support services for undocumented
students. Of this money, $5 million was allocated to UC’s Dream Loan Program, which
was marked as problematic among members of JUSt since most of the aid was allocated in
the form of loans. The funds are due to expire at the end of the 2018-2019 academic year,
and neither the UC President nor FPU’s Chancellor has stated that it will maintain or match
these funds to date, creating uncertainty as to the future of these existing services for
undocumented students.
The University of California made a similar statement and reiterated its support for
undocumented students after Trump announced an executive order to end DACA in 2017.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 83
UC President Napolitano denounced Trump’s rescission of DACA and urged Congress to
pass bipartisan legislation in order to protect the 800,000 DACAmented immigrants. On
September 8, 2017, the UC Regents filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland
Security. The University of California alleged that DACA’s rescission violates rights under
the Administrative Procedure Act and the right to procedural due process under the Fifth
Amendment. In its statement, the University of California added:
UC will continue to support DACA recipients by challenging the legality of the
Trump administration’s rescission of DACA, supporting congressional legislation
that would allow for permanent protection, and providing services and aid to its
undocumented students.
Due to a preliminary court injunction, the Department of Homeland Security resumed
processing DACA renewal applications. No new applications have been accepted since.
Renewals have been allowed pending a final Supreme Court decision on the case until
2020. The University of California continues to advocate against DACA’s rescission, and
for Congress to pass a permanent solution for undocumented students so that they may have
access to a pathway to citizenship. While these actions at the UC level may not directly
contribute to the campus climate at FPU, they create expectations for each of the UC
campuses in regards to supporting undocumented students.
Institutional Response
FPU mirrored the UC President’s statements. FPU’s Chancellor affirmed the
university’s opposition to Trump’s executive orders setting travel restrictions from seven
Muslim-majority countries. The Chancellor stated that the order challenged the university’s
core values to “encourage the free exchange of scholars, knowledge and ideas,” and
addressed members of the university from the countries affected by sharing that FPU
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 84
“values your presence and your vital contributions to our campus.” A similar statement was
made following the announcement of DACA’s rescission, reiterating that FPU stood in
solidarity with undocumented students. FPU’s immediate responses to Trump’s nativist
executive orders aligned with those of the University of California, and were similarly
followed by a series of institutional actions.
Soon after the statement in support of DACAmented and undocumented students,
the Chancellor established the Immigration Assembly. The Immigration Assembly
consisted of members from across FPU including campus leaders, international and
undocumented students, immigration scholars, legal experts, associate deans, faculty, and
administrators from the URC and the international student center. Members of JUSt were
later included after their new leadership request to be a part of the Assembly. According to
the Chancellor’s announcement, the Immigration Assembly was created to address the
impact of rapidly changing immigration policies on the college campus. The Assembly’s
responsibility was to recommend practical strategies to support students and the
university’s commitment to welcoming a global community for students and scholars of all
backgrounds.
Within four months, the Immigration Assembly shared a report listing a series of
actions taken and recommendations for the university. During this time, the Assembly
accomplished the following: developed an international visitor’s protocol outlining
precautions and providing emergency contact information; created a reference document
for frontline staff and faculty in case of an immigration officials visit the campus; launched
a website with resources related to immigration policy such as “Know Your Rights”
materials, emergency preparedness kits, and guidelines for students traveling abroad; and
worked with the URC to identify additional resources needed to support undocumented
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 85
students. In addition to these initiatives, the Immigration Assembly made institutional
recommendations focused on areas that deserve more resources such as counseling and
legal services, and how to mitigate the impact of immigration policy changes.
Many of the recommendations of the Immigration Assembly were accomplished by
the summer of 2018. Among these was the appointment of Dr. Juan Alvarez as the Head
Advisor to the Assembly. In my interview with Dr. Alvarez, he shared that his appointment
was strategic since he is a tenured professor, and he runs a center that is equipped with the
resources, staff, and programming necessary to accomplish the goals outlined by the
Immigration Assembly. A Fund Campaign was launched to expand financial assistance to
the URC and other student services, as well as create scholarships and stipends for
undocumented students. Additional actions taken included were encouraging departments
to enroll in the ally training program, expand free legal services, update websites with
relevant information, convene a university-wide forum with the Chancellor and experts on
immigration, and develop a quick reference detention protocol.
Together, FPU’s statements and institutional initiatives reflect a clear stance in
support of undocumented students. FPU’s actions demonstrate the commitment that an
undocufriendly institution takes when faced with a series of anti-immigrant policies. While
these actions are not exhaustive, they are efforts that show intentionality of support for
undocumented students by the institution. However, as shared by members of JUSt, there
are also deeply rooted aspects of the campus that even the most undocufriendly campuses
may not address.
The Undocu-Climate for Undocumented Students
A sense of fear and concern spread across the country following the elections,
particularly among immigrant and undocumented communities and FPU was no exception
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 86
to this. According to Tam, there was “a lot of hesitation about how to move forward and a
lot of fear.” Undocumented students and those from mixed-status families were concerned
about their future and the safety of their family. Even though some professors opened their
office hours to those affected and facilitated conversations about the elections within their
classrooms, students were unable to focus on their academics and had more immediate
safety needs that they were concerned about. Gisella shares the impact the elections had on
her well-being and sense of safety for herself and her family:
I was more concerned about my family and their safety… I had never felt so scared
and uncertain about what's going to happen… It was just a lot of conversations with
my family. A lot of what-ifs. If this happens, then you're going to stay with your
sister, or you're going to stay with your brother, or you're going to stay with your
grandma, and this is what's going to happen. So it was a lot of those conversations
that we really had never had. We had had those, but it was never taken that seriously
as they did. I was very confused and scared, and you could you feel that whenever
you spoke to other folks that were in the same situation, you could feel that fear and
that worry in their words. Just their energy, and could just see it in their faces.
After the elections, Gisella felt that she needed to step back from her involvements on
campus, including JUSt and prioritize her and her family’s safety and well-being.
Students shared a rise of racist nativist incidents on campus during and after the
elections. One student compared the climate to that of pre-DACA and AB 540 and was
concerned that the elections opened the door to further criminalize undocumented
individual’s presence in this country. As election day grew closer, students described their
peers strolling on campus wearing bright red “Make America Great Again.” One student
noticed a group of students watching the elections and celebrating the results across from
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 87
the room that JUSt uses for its general body meetings. Another student, Tam, heard of new
attacks on students by Trump supporters every week. She described an incident that
happened to her:
… at that time I was targeted on social media when I was ... it was some stupid thing
where I had gone to the URC page on Facebook. And you could leave reviews on
Facebook and I just made a brief comment about how the resources were valuable and I
would recommend other undocumented students to check it out. And then right
underneath it, a random woman had commented on it saying that I didn't belong and
that she couldn't believe how FPU was wasting money and resources on illegal citizens
like me and that we need to be focusing on our veteran students and et cetera… I don't
know, it took more of a heavier toll on me, especially because as I mentioned wasn't
really feeling like I fit in or this is a really awkward and intimidating time. So it did hurt
me, and I did have a breakdown over it.
Incidents like the one that Tam experienced fueled the sense of heightened fear and
insecurity that students experienced in the larger society and permeated the campus climate.
These experiences can impact undocumented students’ sense of belonging and safety on
campus, and ultimately their academics.
The widespread fear on campus after the elections made it difficult for students to
“come out” and share their immigration status to their peers, staff, and faculty out of
concern of who they could trust. Matilda realized she had to be careful who she shared her
status with when three of her closest friends made comments in support of Trump. This
prompted Matilda to re-negotiate some of her relationships to protect her safety.
Unfortunately, the fear of coming out and sharing their status openly with people who may
not welcome them discouraged students from associating themselves with JUSt or the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 88
URC. A URC staff member stated that there was a substantial decrease in URC program
enrollment following the elections by undocumented students. For students to physically
come in and use the resources of the URC would be like outing themselves. After the
elections, many undocumented students began to come into the office early in the morning
when there was little foot traffic in the surrounding URC area or chose to interact virtually
over email and private messaging. Ricardo explained that even though there are an
estimated 750 undocumented students enrolled at FPU, “many of them won't even touch
certain spaces for undocumented students because they don't want to be associated with
[being undocumented] or with that term.” In a campus with a long-standing history of
undocumented student presence and activism, students were now turning “back to the
shadows.”
Even though members of JUSt tried to push past the harassment and sense of
helplessness, students turned to prioritizing their safety and mental health, and some lost
motivation to continue to be involved in JUSt. Membership went from being in the high 30s
and 40s to only a handful of regular students who were also the few board members left.
Gisella shares why many members stepped back from JUSt and how it affected the
organization:
[Members] had to pull back from a lot of those spaces to gain their strength back to
really give back to the community, because as I said, if as student leaders we're not
taking care of ourselves, we don't feel well mentally, emotionally, physically, we
can't have that energy to be able to provide to others, to motivate others… So during
that time, they really did have to pull back from a lot of those conversations, and by
the time that we came into play, JUSt had been so inactive that they had lost that
communication. Even those people that we spoke to that were JUSt allies, they said,
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 89
“oh, well we haven't heard from them”… JUSt was really trying to regain its
strength more than anything.
For an organization like JUSt whose members constantly put their status out publicly to
advocate for themselves and their peers, the elections took a toll on their motivation and
sense of safety. As students burned out, they turned towards focusing on their wellbeing.
This left the organization fractured for almost two years, with only a few leaders left to
oversee their initiatives.
Finding new leadership for JUSt was a difficult task. While students wanted to be
supportive, they were aware that being on the board, particularly as co-chairs required a
substantial amount of time and energy which could hinder their academics. Co-chairs
Manuel and Gisella, alongside a few other members took it upon themselves to bring JUSt
up again and re-establish it as the organization that advocates for undocumented students at
FPU. Tam knew first-hand of the anti-immigrant rhetoric happening on campus, and she
decided to stick around because of the “strong sense of community within JUSt” which she
knew was needed more than ever in the current climate. By the time I was collecting data
during the Fall of 2018, JUSt was gaining new members with a newly motivated board who
were enthusiastic about re-building the undocumented student community with a more
expansive and inclusive agenda.
Institutional Interactions with the Environment
Given that FPU and CPU are located under the same national, state, and local
context, both campuses are surrounded by the same sociopolitical environment. The
variations lie in how these institutions perceive and experience their environment based on
their institutional differences including type, culture, and climate. FPU is a selective public
university, and according to the undocufriendly model characteristics (Suárez-Orozco et al.,
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 90
2015) it is an institution that is largely welcoming and friendly towards undocumented
students. As a public university, FPU is bound by state funding and policies such as in-state
tuition guidelines, and access to state and institutional financial aid. This means that FPU is
only able to offer in-state tuition to students who qualify for AB 540 (a criteria which has
expanded over the years most recently with SB 60), and is only able to offer financial aid,
scholarships, and loans to these students. As of today, there is no formal institutional or
state support for students who do not qualify for AB 540. FPU is also part of a larger
university system with nine other campuses across California that make up the larger
University of California (UC) system. The UC is governed by a Board of Regents and the
Office of the President, to which the Chancellor of FPU reports to. Policies and resources
are determined by multiple actors and entities. As part of a larger system with a more
complex governance system compared to private universities that often operate on their
own with minimal bureaucracy, FPU has a series of layers it must navigate in order to
advocate for and expand resources for undocumented students.
The historical legacy and advocacy of FPU creates the ideal conditions to support
the undocumented student population. While the larger University of California has
similarly been supportive of undocumented students, UC President Napolitano recently
accelerated the expansion of services for undocumented students at every UC campus
through the Undocumented Student Initiative (USI) after the 2016 elections. The support
from the Board of Regents and Office of the President further facilitates the possibilities for
FPU to continue to push and advocate for its undocumented students. In addition, FPU is
located in a region and state that is progressive and inclusive of immigrant and
undocumented communities. Together, the location and leadership support seem to be
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 91
conducive for FPU to expand support for this student population. However as a public
university, it still must operate within the boundaries of state policies.
The interactions of the larger nested contexts of FPU also play an important role that
influence undocumented students and its organization. As explained in further detail below,
the executive orders to end DACA, together with other relevant state policies for
undocumented students such as AB 540 and the California Dream Act intensified the
divisions between the “deserving” and “undeserving” undocumented immigrant. Even
though California is a progressive state with policies that seek to integrate undocumented
immigrants, it continues to perpetuate the “Dreamer” narrative through its policies. The
University of California system has recently been under pressure to combat these divisive
policies and advocate for the inclusion of non-AB540 and non-DACA undocumented
students, particularly after Trump’s executive orders on DACA. The University of
California’s lawsuit seeking to stop DACA’s rescission is a substantial step the university
took as a result of a series of executive orders on immigration by the Trump administration.
The university’s actions that halted the end of DACA influenced the larger national
political context and the futures of DACA recipients. Undocumented students and their
organizations responded to the larger national and state contexts, brought attention to the
divisions these policies create, and advocated for inclusive policies and practices. Thus,
even though California continues to support, welcome, and help integrate undocumented
immigrants in comparison to the current larger context which seeks to strip them from
protections, the state continues to play a role in creating divisions within this population.
Both contexts create the conditions that lead to undocumented students advocating for all
undocumented individuals regardless of status at FPU. More on the role that JUSt played in
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 92
advocating for non-AB540 and non-DACA student will be further explained in the
following section.
Navigating Political Opportunities: Pushing the Undocufriendly Campus
In this section, I introduce ways that the anti-immigrant sociopolitical context
marked by the 2016 elections created opportunities that facilitated or inhibited the
advancement of efforts by JUSt members to continue to support undocumented students at
FPU. These opportunities are created through the ways members of JUSt experience
changes in their nested contexts that trigger collective action. The opportunities described
are subject to the institutional context, including institutional type, culture, and climate of
the university.
Below, I describe four political opportunities specific to the context of FPU that
members of JUSt pursued (see Table 4). These opportunities emerged from external factors
that stemmed from the elections, and from existing structures within the university that
members utilized as a result of the elections. First, I explain how students advanced the
university’s claims of being an undocufriendly university by demanding that FPU give
JUSt credit for its labor and efforts, and commit its support towards undocumented
students. Second, I describe the ways that JUSt utilized the elections to challenge
detrimental narratives that create divisions within the undocumented community, and how
members advocated to create an inclusive agenda in support of all immigrants. I explain
how JUSt members strategically applied to be an Umbrella Organization as an opportunity
to raise awareness about the diversity within the undocumented student population and gain
more political clout as a student organization at FPU. And lastly, I describe how students
used the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the elections as a way to re-gain motivation among new
members and strengthen the organization. For each political opportunity, I describe the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 93
claims and frames utilized that helped JUSt move forward into collective action, as well as
the various strategies and tactics used.
Table 4: Political Opportunities of JUSt at FPU

Political Opportunity Claims and Frames Strategies and Tactics
1. Advance what it means
to be undocufriendly
A. Give credit where it is
due
B. Set the example as an
undocufriendly campus
A. Insert demands
strategically

2. Foster inclusivity of all
undocumented students
A. Shift from “me” to “us”
B. Challenge the
“Dreamer” narrative
C. Selective support
perpetuates divisions
A. Start from within
B. Students as educators
C. Intergroup
collaborations
D. Planned strategic
advocacy

3. Flex campus structures A. Need for representation A. Raise awareness
4. Re-group after the
elections
A. Now more than ever A. Guide new members
B. Re-claim seats at the
table

1. Advance what it means to be Undocufriendly
Over the years, FPU evolved to become a leading undocufriendly university in
California and across the nation. Not only does FPU have an infrastructure in place to
support undocumented students such as a resource center, trainings for staff and faculty, a
network of allies and alumni, and access to legal services, it also houses important research
on immigration, and serves as an advocate for this population outside of campus. Because
FPU was already a well-established undocufriendly campus, advocacy efforts did not need
to focus on establishing basic services and resources for undocumented students the way
students and allies had to do at CPU. Instead, the 2016 elections created an opportunity for
undocumented students and allies at FPU to hold the university accountable to its claims of
being undocufriendly, and expand its commitment as an undocufriendly campus.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 94
Two particular situations seemed to motivate JUSt members to pressure the
university to uphold its undocufriendly claims. First, students felt that if FPU wanted to
continue to claim being undocufriendly and “wave the diversity” flag as one student put it,
it needed to give students and JUSt credit for their advocacy efforts to create a welcoming
environment for undocumented students. The second situation involved pressuring FPU to
match the UCOP money due to expire in less than a year that funds many of the programs
and services available to undocumented students. Surrounded by the post-2016 election
threats targeting undocumented students and their families, students demanded that the
university stand by its claims of being undocufriendly, and take responsibility and initiative
to support its undocumented students.
Claims and Frames. Pushing the university to be accountable to its undocufriendly
claims meant that students had to point to FPU’s shortcomings. In order to expand what it
means to be an undocufriendly campus, members: (a) expressed their frustration by the
university in taking credit for student-initiated efforts; (b) and demanded that it set the
example to other universities by fully committing itself to supporting its undocumented
students.
A) Give Credit Where it is Due. Members of JUSt expressed frustration by the
university’s silence about the renewal of the UCOP funds, but willingness to take credit for
the work that students and allies do to create systems of support for undocumented
students. Even if the Office of the President doesn’t not renew the funds, members feel
FPU should commit itself to matching the funds to show its commitment and support for
this student population. Members feel that the university has not shown full support for
JUSt, and that most of the progress made on campus has been because of student efforts.
Gisella shared her frustration:
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 95
The administration has never really shown full support for JUSt. We've always tried
to push for support such as funding and other things, and we've never really gotten
the full support. If we fight for it and we really put our mind and energy into things,
it can happen if you push for it… But it doesn't happen without the student effort.
So we know FPU has the resources. It's just a matter of us having constantly try to
fight for things that we believe are common sense for our students to have… But it's
not easy, that's the thing. It's there for students to fight for, but it's not easy to get.
Gisella also shares that basic resources like having a trained full-time staff, ally trainings,
and the creation of the URC were all created because of JUSt and ally efforts. Students feel
the university is able to do more to support undocumented student (e.g., financially,
services and programs, advocacy), but the work often falls upon members to pressure the
university to act on it.
Not only do students have to advocate and create their systems of support for their
peers on campus, but the university also often takes credit for the labor that students put in.
A student shared that FPU loves to “wave the diversity flag” but it does the bare minimum
and takes credit for the work that students put in. For example, Gisella explained how after
the substantial drop in membership following the elections, communication between JUSt
and administrators and the URC was very limited. Many of JUSt’s initiatives such as its
retention and mentorship program were co-opted by the URC and the student-initiated
origins were lost in that process. Gisella shared that this academic year, JUSt had to make
its way back into conversations with administrators and URC staff, and take back
leadership and credit for the organization’s efforts:
Resources such as the URC, which was fought for by students, it was a student-led
effort become institutionalized. It disconnect from the essence of the student
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 96
organization, and it starts taking on its own goals, its own entity. They started doing
their own things ... It can also steal things from student organization's efforts that
they’re doing, and make it their own, and now it's a FPU thing, it's a URC thing that
they're doing, not a thing that the students are doing... People didn't understand that
the retention [and mentorship] program came from JUSt… So we had to sit with all
of these folks again to try to establish where all these projects came from, how it all
started, and why it was so important more than ever to come back under the same
organization, given that we all had the same intentions of helping the undocumented
community, but we were all doing it on our own terms, and on our own efforts.
For the new JUSt leadership, it was important that if they wanted the university to be held
accountable for claiming to be undocufriendly, FPU needed to acknowledge students’ labor
in building many of the resources on campus that it often takes credit for. By reclaiming
these spaces, students pressure the university to take responsibility of intimating their own
university-led efforts.
B) Set the Example as an Undocufriendly Campus. In conversation with several
members, I could sense the frustration that students felt about the university happily taking
on credit of JUSt and its allies and “waving the diversity flag,” but not willing to match the
UCOP funds that were due to expire that year. UC President Napolitano’s Undocumented
Student Initiative (USI) established in 2013 which provided $5 million per year for targeted
aid to expand student services for undocumented students and was later expanded to $8.4
million in 2016 will come to an end by the 2018-2019 academic year. The money from USI
was used to fund the URC, offer scholarships and loans for undocumented students, expand
legal services to offer free of charge consultations, and fund additional services for this
student population such as the retention and mentorship program. While the UCOP funding
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 97
through the initiative is due to expire soon, FPU has remained quiet in regards to whether
or not it will continue to fund USP and other services with its own money. Undocumented
students across all UC’s are pressing their respective institutions to take responsibility to
ensure that these services continue to be offered at each campus.
JUSt members feel that FPU should set the example to all UC campuses and be the
first to commit itself to matching the UCOP funds. Santiago shared how FPU wants to be
“los buenos del cuento (the heroes of the story)” but their actions and lack thereof do not
reflect this narrative, and instead only show how complacent the institution is. If the
university wants to be champion for undocumented students, then it should “push for
radical and inclusive support for all undocumented students regardless of status.” By using
the university’s own claims of support for undocumented students, members are trying to
hold the university accountable to the image it is trying to portray and undocufriendly.
Strategies & Tactics: A) Insert Demands Strategically. In order to ensure the
university upholds its undocufriendly claims, JUSt members strategically inserted their
demands in meetings with staff and administrators at FPU. In order to gain back credit and
control of their mentorship and retention program after JUSt re-grouped following the
elections, the new student leaders met with administrators and staff members to re-establish
the program’s student-initiated history. As I am writing this dissertation, JUSt is continuing
to negotiate its role in the retention and mentorship program in order to retain some control.
Similarly, during a board meeting the co-chairs explained that there was an upcoming
meeting with FPU administration about the UCOP funds. Students talked about how to
strategically present their demands and framings (as explained above) to “keep them
accountable” and push the university to commit to matching the funds. Board members
shared that they often have to repeat themselves constantly to the administration before any
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 98
action is taken, and they encouraged all members to attend to create pressure in numbers.
While students knew this was not the first or last opportunity they would have to share their
concerns and demands to the administration, students knew it was important to continue to
participate in these meetings to make sure that their needs are understood and to maintain
JUSt’s positionality as advocates for undocumented students at FPU.
JUSt members also utilized the larger UC undocumented student coalition to ensure
that their demands reached the UCOP and Regents. Each campus has a UC representative,
and they meet periodically to share resources, information, support each other, and
strategize about how to make progress on their initiatives. The UCOP funds are at the
forefront of discussion in these meetings given that all campuses will be affected by the end
of the academic year. Student representatives share updates from their respective campuses
and help each other strategize to ensure their institutions create funds to continue the
resources for undocumented students. As a coalition, students also plan ways to raise their
concerns to the UCOP, and pressure the university to take proactive action to continue and
expand their support for students.
Even though the expiration of the UCOP funds was an additional threat to the
stability of JUSt and the undocumented population at FPU after the 2016 elections,
members utilized this as an opportunity to hold the university accountable about their
undocufriendly claims. Under its new leadership, JUSt members were hyper-aware of the
ways the university institutionalized and often took credit for student-initiated efforts. If the
university wanted to continue to be the “heroes of the story,” then it needed to also set the
example to the rest of the UC campuses, break the silence, and match the UCOP funds to
ensure that the services and resources for undocumented students continue to be offered.
2. Foster Inclusivity of all Undocumented Students
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 99
The first political opportunity members of JUSt took advantage of was using the
anti-immigrant rhetoric of the elections as a way to combat narratives and policies that
create divisions within the undocumented population and advocate for an inclusive
environment for all at undocumented students at FPU. Even though FPU has a reputation
for being a leading undocufriendly campus, students expressed ways that the university felt
AB 540-, DACA-, and Latinx- centric in regards to undocumented student issues.
As shared earlier, access to state and institutional financial support at FPU is
contingent on students’ eligibility for AB 540, and work-study is only accessible to students
who have a work permit through DACA. A faculty member shared with me that faculty and
staff estimate that about 20 undocumented students are enrolled at FPU without DACA or
AB 540 status. This group of students must pay out-of-state tuition and are left with very
little to no access to financial support. Manuel, a student member explained that FPU’s
support for undocumented students is “selective - if you qualify for AB 540 and you're
DACA, you're welcome… if you don't have no DACA and you don't have AB 540,
basically you're out.” Students shared that many of the resources, programming, and
scholarships at FPU are often only accessible to DACA and AB 540 students. This creates a
division within the undocumented student population, and excludes students who do not
qualify for these benefits.
The AB 540- and DACA-centric culture of the university permeated the student
organization, influencing in-group dynamics. Given the estimated low enrollment number
of non-AB 540 and non-DACA students at FPU, it is no surprise that these experiences
were not previously represented within JUSt. Members also acknowledged the Latinx-
centric nature of the organization, despite there being a substantially large Asian Pacific
Islander (API) undocumented student population, among students from other ethnic
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 100
backgrounds at FPU. There were usually about one or two consistent API student members
at general and board meetings. When there was more than one API student, I would notice
the way the students pointed at each in excitement about being in the same room. During
my observations, I did not notice or knew of any undocumented students who did not
identify as Latinx or API. Of the few API students who would participate, most did not
have DACA or AB 540, making them one of the most underrepresented students within the
undocumented student population at FPU and JUSt.
Two elements seem to contribute to the lack of inclusivity within JUSt for non-
Latinx, DACA, and AB 540 students. First, because the organization is predominantly
Latinx-, DACA-, and AB 540-centric, students feel this could discourage potential
members from other ethnic backgrounds from participating because they may feel like they
don’t belong or their experiences and needs are not represented within JUSt. And second,
students shared how undocumented API students may choose not to participate in JUSt
because of the cultural stigma associated with not having legal status. Matilda, an API
student from Korea without DACA or AB 540 status shared the complexity of this issue:
This is really a big problem within our Asian American undocumented network.
They don't think they're undocumented, they think it's a Latinx issue and they
themselves are undocumented. I also felt that [JUSt] was very Latinx-, very DACA-
centric AB 540- centric. And JUSt should represent all members of the
community… To speak on behalf of my API and undocumented community at
FPU, I think the biggest issue we need to combat first is racism even within the
undocumented community. I see the API conduct themselves, they are scared of
coming out to these events because first, they think that they don't belong because
they don’t look like that, second they also think that being undocumented is a
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 101
Latinx issue, as in only Latinx people will go out and expose themselves to
advocates for community and we think that we don't belong in that community,
which is not true but I think that's how a lot of the people feel.
Matilda shared that previously she had chosen not to participate in JUSt because she
felt she did not belong there as an API student, and without DACA or AB 540 status. After
feeling rejected by many of her Korean friends who came out as Trump supporters, Matilda
realized that she needed to connect with other undocumented peers on campus. It was
important for Matilda to join an organization that would give her a platform for advocacy,
and to expand the representation of API students within JUSt and at FUP. Matilda was
elected as a board member while I was collecting data, and she was the only non-Latinx
student board member at the time. Next, I describe the claims and frames, and strategies
and tactics that members used in order to foster greater inclusivity for all undocumented
students.
Claims & Frames. In order to create an inclusive environment for all
undocumented students at FUP and JUSt regardless of race and quasi-legal status, students
described different ways the elections and subsequent executive orders on immigration
perpetuated pre-conceived notions about undocumented immigrants. Students brought
attention to the need to: (a) shift the rhetoric of the movement from “me” to “us” to create
an inclusive agenda for all immigrants; (b) challenge the problematic “Dreamer” narrative,
(c) and point to the ways that governmental and institutional policies and practices create
divisions within the community. Students used these claims and frames strategically in
order to bring awareness about the lack of inclusivity of undocumented immigrants, and
advocate for a welcoming environment for this student population at FUP and JUSt.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 102
A) Shift from “Me” to “Us.” The elections and subsequent executive orders on
immigration created a sense of urgency among the undocumented community in regards to
advocating for permanent and inclusive policies on immigration. Individuals who benefit
from DACA and TPS are aware that these protections are temporary and could be taken
away at any moment. Some of the students I interviewed admitted to feeling complacent
with their DACA status. While advocating for a comprehensive and permanent immigration
solution is not new, the anti-immigrant rhetoric hit DACAmented students with the reality
that not only could their quasi-legal status be stripped away, they could also be further
criminalized, persecuted, and deported under the Trump administration.
For some undocumented students, the elections were a reminder of the ways that
policies create fear and divisions within the immigrant community. Several students
developed a greater awareness of the diversity within the undocumented community and
the need to advocate for immigrants left at the margins of the larger undocumented social
movement. Recounting her reflections after the elections, Gisella shared:
I feel that in a way it kind of changed the perspective on the [undocumented
student] movement, and it made it more… people were now concerned about what's
going to happen to “us.” [Before] kind of like everybody [was] looking out for
themselves, for their own projects, goals, whatever, as opposed… we're all
undocumented, and what is going to happen? [Now] it was more of like an “us,”
like what are we going to do for the benefit for all of “us”? Whether you have or
you don't have DACA, we have to fight for these things. I came from that
movement... It was very eye-opening. And I really did feel that coming into the new
student leadership group, or the board, I felt a lot of that. I didn't feel much of a…
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 103
there's no such thing as DACA-mented, or AB 540. No. All of us are
undocumented.
The sense of urgency brought on by threats to DACA seemed to shift undocumented
students’ perspectives on the collective meaning of being undocumented towards a more
inclusive approach that includes individuals with and without DACA, TPS, or AB 540. It
was no longer about “me” who has DACA, but about “us” as undocumented. While
inclusivity of all undocumented individuals regardless of status is not new, the elections
helped fuel the need to expand advocacy efforts to those individuals left out of the
movement due to arbitrary requirements such as country of origin, age, or date of entrance
to the country.
B) Challenge the “Dreamer” Narrative. The push for shifting towards a more
inclusive agenda for undocumented students also spotlighted the problematic “Dreamer”
narrative. The Dreamer narrative emerged in the early 2000s following the introduction of
the federal DREAM Act, which would have created a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented youth who qualified under a specific criteria. “Dreamers” was a reference to
undocumented youth under 31, arrived to the U.S. under the age of 16, completed high
school, and were on their way to college. While the term was first coined by a white
legislator to create sympathy for educated undocumented youth, it also created an internal
division between those who would have qualified for the DREAM Act, and those who
would not. This division also fostered a broader social narrative of the “deserving” and
“model” child migrant brought to the U.S. by their parents at no fault of their own, versus
the “undeserving” and “unlawful” migrant. The Dreamer narrative victimized
undocumented youth who were brought into the country as children, and criminalized their
parents and family members for bringing them into the U.S. without proper authorization.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 104
Even though the Dreamer narrative has been challenged over the years, the anti-immigrant
rhetoric that characterized the 2016 election further brought attention to its problematic
assumptions about people who are undocumented.
Members of JUSt pointed to the ways that the elections brought a moment of
discomfort, particularly when Trump sensationalized stories about Latin American
countries sending their “worst,” including criminals, and rapists. The Dreamer narrative
further perpetuated divisions between the “good” and ‘bad” immigrant. Undocumented
students acknowledged that as college students at one of the top universities in the nation,
they are seen as members of the “deserving” group, and hence have access protection and a
platform that most immigrants do not. Students wanted to further combat the “deserving”
and “undeserving” narratives perpetuated by the rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric by
incorporating and elevating the narratives of undocumented individuals that are often left
out and broaden conversations on immigration within JUSt, on campus, and in their
communities.
In a conversation with Santiago, he shared that bringing these conversations into the
organization and checking each other’s privilege within the undocumented community
created discomfort. For example, incorporating the struggles of immigrants standing
outside of Home Depot waiting to get a temporary, and often underpaid job to sustain a
household broadens the conversation from the 800,000 DACAmented individuals, to the
over 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Broadening the conversation
was also viewed as necessary because many of the new JUSt leadership are non-traditional
college students – they are older, arrived into the country at later age, and several do not
qualify for DACA or AB 540. The new leadership pointed to the irony that even though as
an organization they are advocating for inclusivity of undocumented students on campus,
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 105
they themselves overlook the divisions within their own community. Students
acknowledged their own complacency with DACA, and even though unfortunately it took
threats on DACA to re-spark attention on divisions within the undocumented population
around quasi-legal status, the new JUSt leadership took on this opportunity to expand the
conversation and advocacy efforts for all undocumented immigrants.
C) Selective Support Perpetuates Divisions. Equipped with a heightened awareness
about the ways that government policies and rhetoric such as the Dreamer narrative create
fear and division within the immigrant community, members of JUSt challenged the
university about their own complacent role. In particular, members challenged the
university about being undocufriendly to a selective few “deserving” undocumented
students (AB 540 and DACA recipients), and demanded that it take on a more inclusive and
proactive role in supporting this student population. During our conversation about the
ways that FPU supports undocumented students, Manuel shared:
I know a lot of people think that FPU is just like really super supportive of
undocumented students, but it's kind of really selective. If you qualify for AB 540
and you're DACA, you're welcome. But what about if you're not, if you don't have
no DACA and you don't have AB 540. Basically you're out, they don't help you a
lot... So that's the thing. It's like you support undocumented students a unos, o a
todos (some, or all). So it's just like, I don't know, to me it can be sometimes when
they say “support undocumented students” it's just to darles credito nada mas a
ellos (give the [university] credit). “We're helping,” but at the same time it's just
like they're not really helping.
Manuel questions the university’s claim of being undocufriendly when it is being selective.
He feels that the university should support everyone, regardless of status, and not take
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 106
credit for being undocufriendly when they are not standing by it. By only offering financial
support and services to DACAmented and AB 540 students, FPU is complacent in fueling
the Dreamer narrative of supporting the “deserving.”
Students also pointed to the ways many of the services and programming offered
through the URC and the rest of the university are created for DACA and AB 540 students.
For example, a student mentioned attending a career workshop for undocumented students
hosted by URC which failed to address options for students without work permits through
DACA. After the elections, the undergraduate student government offered $100,000 in
scholarships to undocumented students at FPU from leftover surplus student fees.
Unfortunately, the scholarship money can only be offered to AB 540 recipients because of
structural constraints, and non-AB 540 students would not benefit from the funding.
Members of JUSt had to be strategic about finding ways that all undocumented students
could benefit from institutional resources, and sometimes even had to educate the
university about these issues.
The selective support FPU offers also seems to influence undocumented students’
sense of belonging. Santiago, a student who previously did not qualify for in-state tuition
until its expansion through SB 68 expressed the way that not having AB 540 status affected
him:
Entonces fue bastante frustrante y traumático al inicio porque de por si cada
estudiante que se transfiere, y de color, siempre sufre el síndrome del impostor. Sin
embargo no únicamente eso, pero también pensé que no pertenecía porque pues ni
siquiera el status de AB 540 me aprobaron. Me pusieron un estatus adicional como
internacional, y era bastante difícil. El primer año fue complicado. (It was very
frustrating and traumatic at first because when a student of color transfers, they
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 107
always suffer from imposter syndrome. Not just that, but I also felt that I did not
belong because the university didn’t even approve my AB 540 status. They gave me
international status, and it was very difficult. The first year was very complicated.)
As a transfer and student of color, Santiago’s experience was further complicated by the
fact that the university immediately excluded him from the undocumented community by
assigning him international status. Even at an institution that offers campus-wide training
and has one of the highest numbers of undocumented students in California’s public
university system, he encountered a complicated bureaucracy with individuals who were
not knowledgeable about undocumented student needs. Santiago questioned what the point
of institutionalized resources are if there continues to be so many limitations. FPU likes to
“brag about it [resources for undocumented students]”, but do not go out of their way to
advocate for students who are left out. The selective resources only further divide the
undocumented student community at FPU.
Strategies & Tactics. Creating an inclusive campus for all undocumented students
required students to engage in a series of actions that aligned with the claims students
made. JUSt members began to: (a) make changes within the organization that reflected
what they wanted to see at the institutional level, (b) served as educators of undocumented
student experiences on- and off-campus, (c) built collaborations with other peer groups, (d)
and engaged in planned and strategic forms of resistance and advocacy.
A) Start from Within. Students felt that if they wanted to expand inclusivity for all
members of the undocumented student community at FPU, they needed to start with their
own organization. One of the ways the group tried to be more inclusive was by
acknowledging the privilege within the undocumented population that are derived from
quasi-legal statuses. For example, some students admitted to feeling “too comfortable” or
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 108
complacent with their DACA status. The Trump administration’s threats on DACA and
TPS made students hyper-aware that their legal status in the U.S is temporary and can be
taken away at any time. The fear of Trump making good on his campaign promises to
rescind DACA opened up the conversation about advocating for a more inclusive solution
for all undocumented immigrants. As a non-DACA and non-AB 540 student, Matilda
expressed her frustration with the “current generation of DACA students” as being:
… real apathetic to the communities’ needs because they have their needs met…
they don't really have to care about deportation or not being able to find jobs or
having to worry about tuition, so there is a division between those students… I think
it's very important that we notice that these legislations are intently trying to create
division.
In her new leadership role within JUSt, Matilda wanted to help continue to bring awareness
about the divisions federal and state policies perpetuate within the undocumented
communities. Members and leaders of JUSt with DACA and AB 540 status wanted to do
the same.
On several occasions, I noticed the ways that members brought up the issues of
policy divisions and exclusion of non-DACA and non-AB 540 students from institutional
resources. Members were intentional about making sure that the needs of non-AB 540, and
non-DACA as well as the experiences of non-Latinx students were represented in their own
meetings, and in meetings with staff, faculty, and administrators where important decision-
making takes place For example, in a campus-wide ally meeting for undocumented students
with different staff, faculty, and students, a member of JUSt who is recipient of AB 540 and
DACA brought up the need to ensure that different departments across campus considered
ways of including students without these benefits. When preparing for these meetings,
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 109
students would strategize about making sure that they continued to advocate for a stipend
system not tied to employment which would offer some financial support to non-AB 540
and non-DACA students. By acknowledge their own privilege as DACA and AB 540
recipients, students understood the importance of advocating for their undocumented peers
that do not benefit from these quasi-legal statuses.
Another way students tried to expand their inclusivity and set an example for the
university was by being intentional about structural changes within the organization. The
year before I began to collect data, members changed part of the organization’s name in
order to reflect their efforts to advocate for equity, rather than equality for undocumented
students. For the purposes of anonymity, I am unable to provide the exact name change.
The new JUSt leadership knew that non-DACA and non-AB 540 students have the least
amount of access to financial resources, and they are often the population that need the
most support. Offering equal support to all undocumented students disregards the needs of
those who don’t qualify for DACA or AB 540. Instead, JUSt wanted to offer equitable
advocacy and support for all undocumented students.
JUSt also tried to create awareness and equitable support for all undocumented
students by giving non-DACA and non-AB 540 students priority in winning the
organization’s scholarships. Every year, JUSt gives out several scholarships to
undocumented students at FPU with varying amounts. The scholarship money is raised
from fundraising and donations from the end of year banquet, and it is open to all
undocumented students including non-JUSt members. Because the scholarships are not
offered through the university, students have full discretion for the criteria and
qualifications of the scholarships. In an effort to offer equitable support for their
undocumented peers, members gave non-DACA and non-AB 540 students priority to these
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 110
scholarships and offered a larger amount to these applicants. By making changes within
their own organization, JUSt members are disrupting complacent narratives and setting an
example to the university about what inclusive support for all undocumented students
should look like, and hence influence the larger institutional environment.
B) Students as Educators. Even though as an undocufriendly university FPU offers
multiple ally and professional development trainings to support undocumented students,
member still continued to educate staff and faculty about undocumented student
experiences and key policies. Members expressed that the university lacks a deep
understanding of the diversity within the undocumented student population at FPU, and that
it does not make an effort to connect directly with undocumented students. When talking
about the need for FPU to further educate itself about undocumented student needs, Gisella
shared:
[The university] tried to really count down to specifically how many undocumented
students [there are]. And they tried to go with that, but at the same time it's not just
about that. You also have to understand that not just because there's that many
undocumented students, it means that they're all facing the same things. There is
undocumented students that have DACA, that have no state financial aid, and then
there's also students that don't have absolutely anything to help them carry through
their journey in FPU, and a lot of them drop out of school and they never come
back. So it's really a matter of administration trying to really understand the struggle
and trying to really understand what is going on at the individual level, trying to
understand the experiences, trying to really provide the support. And it's just
providing the resources that the students themselves are expressing that are needed,
or the support that is needed.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 111
I think that they just really do have to understand that there's much more than
DACA folks and AB 540.
Gisella feels that the university should look beyond the numbers and into the complex
experiences of all undocumented students. In order to offer the necessary resources students
need, the university needs to understand and acknowledge the diversity within the
undocumented population.
Members of JUSt often find themselves doing the heavy lifting of educating staff
and faculty about undocumented students. One way JUSt tries to create awareness is by
ensuring that the narratives and needs of non-DACA and non-AB 540 students are
represented in meetings and spaces of important decision making. For example, after the
undergraduate student government offered $100,000 from student surplus fees in
scholarships to undocumented students, members of JUSt met with student government
representatives to request that a portion of the money be allocated in ways that all
undocumented students regardless AB 540 status could benefit. JUSt members had to
explain to the representatives that not all undocumented students would be able to access
the money if offered only as scholarships. In a board meeting, members of JUSt developed
a proposal for the allocation of the funds, with a portion designated to scholarships, and
another to fund resources and services offered through the URC such as meal vouchers,
textbooks and clickers, snacks, printing funds, and other resources and services. Ensuring
that all undocumented students have access to these types of funds at FPU often fell on the
shoulders of JUSt members.
The role of JUSt members as educators to support all undocumented students also
expanded beyond campus. As part of their community advocacy efforts, members go into
local high schools, community colleges, and adult schools to share relevant information and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 112
mentor other undocumented students. Members are aware and know first-hand that staff at
these schools are often not equipped with the necessary training and information to support
undocumented students who want to pursue a college degree or transfer to a four-year
university. Passed in 2017, SB 68 expanded eligibility requirements for in-state tuition in
California as previously defined by AB 540 and AB 2000. The new policy enables students
to count years spent at a California Community College and adult school for in-state
eligibility. The bill also allows the completion of an Associate’s Degree or satisfaction of
the minimum requirements to transfer to a UC or CSU to meet the degree or unit
requirements. Unfortunately, JUSt members shared that many students and staff in the
community are still not aware of SB 68, which could be detrimental for students who could
otherwise benefit from in-state tuition. Santiago, a student who could have qualified for in-
state tuition earlier had he stayed an extra year in community college explains the ways that
JUSt is trying to combat the problem in time:
Ahorita que [SB 68] ya paso, todavía los problemas siguen, y los estudiantes no
pueden concluir sus estudios porque todavía no reúnen el criterio de SB 68 por que
todavía no es tan inclusiva. JUSt está tratando de atacar el problema antes de que
el problema se genere… vamos a ir a high schools y adult schools para poder
informar a la comunidad… es impórtate ir antes de que los estudiantes se
transfieran para que en el momento que pidan la documentación tu sepas que vas a
cumplir y comprobar los requisitos. A eso me refiero con atacar el problema antes
de que se genere.
(Now that [SB 68] passed, the problems still continue, and students don’t finish
school because they can’t meet the criteria under SB 68 because it’s still not very
inclusive. JUSt is trying to attack the problem before it generates… we are going to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 113
high schools and adult schools to inform the community… it’s important to go
before students transfer so that the moment they are asked for documentation they
know they will meet the requirements. That is what I mean by attacking the problem
before it generates).
Having access to relevant information, JUSt knows that they have the power to make a
difference on- and off-campus by educating people about the ways that they can best
support all undocumented students through their academic trajectories. To members, being
undocu friendly means ensuring that the needs of all undocumented students are understood
and action is taken to address them.
C) Intergroup Collaborations. In order to recruit more non-Latinx members that
could benefit from participating in JUSt, members tried to collaborate with other student
organizations to create events that would encourage students from diverse backgrounds to
join. For example, Santiago shared that JUSt has hosted events where students from other
identities and communities would come to a meeting to collaborate on a shared effort and
vice versa. JUSt has also tried to reach out to these peer organizations to try to create
awareness of the diversity within the undocumented student population. Manuel explained
the efforts JUSt has been working on:
So we're trying to reach out to different student orgs that are from API, and Black
communities so we do collaborations together. Because I know after the Latino
population, API students are like the next biggest undocumented population. We're
trying to be more strategic in creating different projects. Even like reaching out to
[student housing] because now we have a person there that actually, she's willing to
advertise our events. So we're trying to take advantage of all the resources, all the
network that we have to advertise.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 114
As Manuel explained, JUSt is trying to use different outlets on campus to advertise their
events in order to create awareness about undocumented student issues, increase
participation in events, and recruit members from different backgrounds.
D) Planned Strategic Advocacy. Another way that students are trying to create
awareness about the diversity of undocumented students and push the university to take on
a more proactive role to support them is by engaging in planned, strategic forms of
advocacy. For example, JUST’s external representative is currently collaborating with other
undocumented student representatives from across the UC campuses in order to pressure
the UC President and Regents to modify their policy and requirements for AB 540. When
undocumented students submit their appeal for in-state tuition after being denied, it is the
UC Office of the President that has the final discretion on whether a student qualifies for in-
state tuition. Currently, undocumented students across all UC campuses and their
representatives are planning ways to create awareness about these inequalities and pressure
top administration to support initiatives that advocate for greater inclusivity of
undocumented students.
Within FPU, students are also pressuring administration to change the “by the
book” culture and implement alternate avenues of financial support for non-AB 540
students. At other public institutions in California, non-AB 540 and non-DACA students
are able to receive a limited amount of financial assistance through stipends. JUSt members
are trying to educate staff, faculty and administrators about this alternative, or “loophole”
around state and federal policies. Students feel that as a leading undocufriendly university,
FPU should have already implemented this stipend system. In my interview with Dr.
Alvarez, Advisor to the Immigration Assembly, he shared that he was already in
conversation with several lawyers and administrators to build campus-wide support to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 115
implement a stipend system for undocumented students at FPU. After a JUSt general
meeting, I spoke with a member without DACA status who shared with me that he was
planning to apply for a paid peer mentor position through JUSt’s peer mentor program. Not
only did he apply because he is interested in the position, but to him this was also a
strategic act of resistance because if offered the position, the university would be faced with
figuring out how to compensate a non-DACA student without access to a work permit.
The 2016 elections was described by a member of JUSt as a “re-awakening” among
members. The anti-immigrant rhetoric and rescission of DACA served as a wake-up call
that undocumented students’ sense of safety could be stripped away any moment under the
Trump administration. This also brought a heightened sense of awareness about subgroups
within the undocumented population that are often cast aside, and criminalized for not
meeting an arbitrary set of requirement. Under a new leadership, members of JUSt wanted
to bring awareness about the diversity of the undocumented student population within the
organization and across campus. Students are now demanding that the university take a
proactive role in supporting all undocumented students. Through a series of strategies and
tactics including making changes within the organization, taking on roles as educators,
collaborating with peer organizations, and planning strategic forms and advocacy and
resistance, students want to create greater inclusivity for all undocumented students
regardless of status, race, or ethnicity.
3. Flex Campus Structures
Opportunities do not necessarily only emerge from changes in the environment –
they can also be existing structures that groups of people use as opportunities to help them
push their initiatives forward. In order to gain more political clout within FPU to help them
advance their agenda, JUSt leadership applied to be an umbrella organization on campus.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 116
The Black Student Union movement in the 1960s paved the way for students at FPU to
exercise power on campus around efforts to support and retain students from historically
marginalized backgrounds. A particular set of umbrella organizations emerged from these
efforts to increase the representation of the students from these groups. As a primary
umbrella organization, the organization represents a coalition of similar organizations, and
representatives of the primary umbrella organization gain direct access and communication
to top administration at FPU including the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor. Student
organizations alongside their umbrella organization represent and advocate for students
from underrepresented and marginalized groups at FPU. Some of the umbrella
organizations represent Black and African students, Asian Pacific students, Chicanx and
Latinx students, Muslim students, and LGBTQ students. JUSt currently does not have
primary umbrella organization status, and this academic year they are advocating to
become one to ensure their needs are accurately represented and they can continue to make
progress on their objectives.
Claims & Frames: A) Need for Representation. With the new push to create an
inclusive environment for all undocumented students within JUSt and on campus regardless
of status, race, or ethnicity, members also want to have their own representation among the
student organizations that reflects the diversity of the undocumented student population.
Members are concerned that being housed under any one of the current umbrella
organizations compartmentalizes them into a particular identity or group, discourages
members from other communities or organizations to participate in JUSt, and potentially
further perpetuates the stereotypes about undocumented individuals (i.e., a “Latino issue”).
JUSt leadership feels that they should have their own designation since they represent many
of the populations that cut across the current umbrella organizations. Obtaining umbrella
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 117
organization status would also allow members to ensure that their experiences and needs
are properly represented and they have direct access to administration.
Strategies & Tactics: A) Raise Awareness. JUSt applied to be an umbrella
organization while I was collecting data. Unfortunately, the umbrella organization
representatives voted that they would not give JUSt the designation at the time. Members
seemed disappointed when JUSt board members announced the decision to members
during a general meeting. During one of my observations of a board meeting, leaders
discussed the potential reasons why JUSt was denied umbrella organization status. Some
members felt that umbrella organization representatives continue to believe that JUSt
should belong under the Chicanx and Latinx umbrella organization. Students feel that there
is still a lack of awareness on campus and among students about the diversity within the
undocumented student population. The board members shared that they need to continue to
create more awareness about undocumented student issues among student representatives.
“We will re-strategize and try again,” said one of the student leaders at the conclusion of
the board meeting.
4. Re-Group after the Elections
In addition to taking advantage of opportunities that helped advance their external
goals, JUSt also utilized opportunities for their own internal advancement. Even though
JUSt membership dropped substantially after the elections and almost disappeared, the new
leadership and members utilized the same anti-immigrant rhetoric as motivation to
encourage members to join JUSt, build the organization’s presence on campus once again,
and advocate for undocumented students’ needs under the current political climate.
Students described the way many members felt unmotivated, burned out, and afraid
after the elections. Even during the elections, membership was high and students wanted to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 118
be in the community to support each other. After Trump was elected, the organization’s
momentum got shut down – students would often get attacked by peers or hear about
blatant racist nativist incidents on campus. Manuel shared that many students “went back to
the shadows” and it felt as if the “undocumented students had disappeared.” Tam
mentioned how every JUSt meeting felt “pretty depressing” because students were
concerned about their future and those of their families. Slowly, members lost motivation to
continue to participate in JUSt, stopped coming to meetings, and over time dropped out of
the organization. Members prioritized their personal well-being, and for some students that
meant they were unable to attend JUSt meetings.
The elections seemed to affect JUSt’s leadership substantially. As a long-standing
organization with multiple, large-scale, and on-going programs, leaders have a lot on their
plate. Ricardo explained that “not everybody can handle that… it takes a certain type of
person to be able to commit and go through all the events and challenges… it takes a big
toll on you.” Co-chairs tend to be affected the most. Manuel, the current co-chair who
served on this role the year before shared that the position affected his academics and
personal life substantially. Despite this, he decided to remain as co-chair alongside his peer
Gisella in order to ensure that JUSt would not collapse completely, and bring it back up.
The elections elevated the stakes for student leaders, raised the expectations and
responsibilities with few members left, and elevated the emotional labor of advocating in a
hyper-hostile climate towards undocumented communities. Several board members referred
to this “toll” it took on students as the “JUSt burnout.” Despite running with a handful of
members the previous year, students gained momentum and began to build up JUSt’s
membership using claims and frames that emphasized the importance of undocumented
students’ leadership on campus and in the community.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 119
Claims & Frames: A) Now More than Ever. The few student leaders that stuck
around helped build the new sense of motivation that led to the re-grouping of JUSt and re-
establishing its presence on campus. Members shared why they decided to join and
continue to participate in JUSt after the elections. For Tam, she decided to stay as a board
member because:
I stayed because when there was a lot of anti-immigrant events being held on
campus and different students and peers who I had met through that group were
being targeted by other students, there was a strong sense of community within JUSt
and we really support each other.
For Tam, being a member of JUSt gave her access to a community of peers that understood
and supported her through the current sociopolitical climate. She applied for a leadership
position the following year because she felt it was important to continue to support the
efforts of JUSt.
Members are aware of their privilege and the platforms they have access to as
college students. Students shared that they wanted to use this privilege to continue to
advocate for undocumented and immigrant rights. Santiago shared his own passion of
participating in advocacy work:
I'm very passionate and dedicated to this type of work. I know the amount of
influence I have as a FPU student, being in such a position of privilege. So I use this
for the benefit of my community. So yeah, it just comes down to me being very
passionate about this work. I love this work. That has allowed me to keep doing this
type of advocacy as a member of JUSt… It was hard and there were many times
where I just wanted to leave but I stuck it through and I was able to see that growth
and develop myself more as a student leader being a part of JUSt.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 120
Even though Santiago was also affected by the post-election burnout, he chose to stay
because he wanted to use his privilege and advocacy avenues through JUSt to continue to
support the undocumented community on- and off-campus. For new and continuing
members, students knew that being part of a community of support and advocacy was
important if they wanted to resist and change the hostile climate towards immigrants.
Strategies & Tactics. Ensuring that JUSt remained a strong and influential
organization on campus required students to engage in a series of actions. Learning from
experience, the organization’s leadership decided to: (a) ensure that new members and
leaders had the proper guidance and support to avoid member burnout; and (b) insert
themselves back into important decision-making spaces on campus related to
undocumented student issues.
A) Guide New Members. Members and leaders utilized the new interest and
motivation by students to re-group the organization and recruit new members. Student
leaders reached out to other peer organizations, as well as transfer and first-year programs
to expand their outreach, develop interest among students, and increase participation in
JUSt. Leaders tried to be intentional about reaching a broad audience and target
undocumented students from different backgrounds, particularly in API and Black student
organizations. Slowly, JUSt’s membership increased, and new members showed interest in
joining the leadership board. However, membership seemed to continue to be largely
Latinx-dominated, with only two or three API members showing up consistently.
The older leadership wanted to avoid the “JUSt burnout” on new members, and
ensure that the new leadership had the proper guidance and training they needed to lead the
organization. The year before, co-chairs Manuel and Gisella with a few other members
were left on their own to figure how to lead the organization. None of the co-chairs had
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 121
served as board members before, and they often had to reach out to former leaders who had
graduated to get guidance. Manuel described how difficult and frustrating it was to be
responsible for all of the programs and activities of JUSt without any support. In order to
avoid this from happening again, members conducted board elections about 2 months into
the beginning of the academic year and served as co-leaders during the second half of the
quarter in order to assist new leaders and ease them into their new positions. Slowly, the old
leadership stepped back and allowed the new leadership to take on their role. However,
because not all board positions were filled the year I collected data, several old board
members decided to stay formally or informally to ensure that the organization kept up with
its events and activities and would not fall under once again. By easing the transition for
new members and new leaders, JUSt wanted to make sure that members would not lose
motivation and that the organization continued to grow.
B) Re-Claim Seats at the Table. Another way that members tried to use the new
sense of motivation to build JUSt back up was by re-claiming their role as advocates for
undocumented students at FPU. Because the previous two years JUSt had lost most of its
members and the organization’s leadership was unstable, their previous role and reputation
on campus as advocates for undocumented students had decreased. Gisella explained how
JUSt lost some of its influence after the elections:
People hadn't really been hearing much from it [JUSt] for a year. And there were a
lot of problems with the relationships that JUSt had in different spaces on campus…
They had pulled back from a lot of those seats and those tables with those
administrators, and that they kind of had a commit again and kind of win those seats
back, and bring JUSt back to the table to something relevant to say, you know
“we're here,” “this is who we are,” “this is what we need.”
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 122
Gisella felt that JUSt had been pushed aside and lost its legitimacy among top
administrators. For example, Manuel shared how JUSt had to request to be part of the
Immigration Assembly in order to ensure that students’ voices were included in important
decision-making spaces. Assembly members shared that the reason they did not extend an
invitation was because they did not know JUSt was still active on campus. Students had to
actively insert themselves back into these spaces in order to make sure that JUSt would
remain alive and relevant on campus.
Summary of Political Opportunities at FPU
After the 2016 elections, a series of political opportunities emerged for JUSt
members that facilitated the advancement of the organization’s efforts. While I am unable
to say that these political opportunities resulted from the elections, the elections and the
larger anti-immigrant sociopolitical rhetoric that emerged with it certainly played a role in
the ways that JUSt members interacted with these opportunities. The institutional type,
culture and climate also played an important role in the ways JUSt members perceived the
political opportunities.
Even though JUSt is located in what is considered to be an undocufriendly camps,
students expressed ways that it falls short from its commitment to undocumented students.
Students utilized the election rhetoric to demand the university stand by its claims of being
undocufriendly and support this student population. As a public university, FPU is
restricted by certain state policies in regards to offering resources for certain undocumented
student groups, which creates divisions among students, and perpetuates narratives of
“deserving” versus “non-deserving” undocumented individuals. JUSt members challenged
these policy divisions, and advocated for greater inclusivity for all undocumented students
regardless of status, race, ethnicity, or nationality. Members also utilized existing structures
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 123
within the university such as the umbrella organization system as a way to continue to
advance their efforts to support undocumented students. And lastly, after the JUSt burnout
following the elections, member used the interest and motivation from new members in
order to build back the organization in a way that is sustainable for new leaders, and re-
claim their role as advocates of undocumented students on campus.
Next, I will now introduce UUS, an undocumented student organization located in a
politically conservative university across town from FPU, and explain how members
navigated political opportunities at their respective institution.

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 124
Chapter 5: The Case of the Conservative Private University (CPU)
The structure of this chapter is organized similar to Chapter 4 and presents the
findings from CPU. First, I present a description of the university including its culture and
climate, as well as a description of its undocumented student organization. I explain the
ways that the university interacts with its larger sociopolitical environment based on its
type, culture, and climate, and describe the political opportunities that the student
organization navigated including its claims, frames, strategies, and tactics.
Conservative Private University (CPU)
CPU is a predominantly white, four-year private university. Similar to FPU, CPU is
a selective university and was ranked among the top 25 national universities in the nation in
2019 by U.S. News. CPU is located in the same local region as FPU, in an area populated
by diverse ethnic populations.
In comparison to FPU, CPU is less racially diverse. The total student demographics
for the same academic year consisted of 30 percent White, 17 percent Asian, 15 percent
Hispanic, and 6 percent Black/African-American. The total student enrollment for the
academic year was 47,500, with only about 2,000 higher total student enrollment compared
to FPU. The university continuously enrolls a higher number of graduate students
compared to undergraduates and one of the highest international student enrollments in the
nation. It is estimated that 150-200 undocumented students are enrolled at CPU (compared
to an estimated 750 undocumented students at FPU), many of which often are given
“international” student status by mistake when they first enroll at the university. As
described earlier, the estimated higher enrollment of undocumented students at FPU may be
due to the university’s well-established resources for undocumented students and its
undocufriendly campus reputation.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 125
As a private university, CPU is able to set its own tuition rates. CPU’s tuition was
about $55,000 per year in 2018 that is flat across students regardless of their residency or
immigration status. The tuition rate at CPU is $42,000 higher than FPU’s in-state tuition
rate, and $14,000 higher than out-of-state tuition. Because of its high cost, CPU is known
for enrolling students from affluent backgrounds who are able to afford the high tuition
price. Undocumented students who qualify for AB 540 are able to access state financial aid,
similar to students at public colleges and universities like FPU. Undocumented students
also qualify for a variety of institutional financial aid offered by CPU, which often covers
most if not all tuition and fees for students from low-income backgrounds.
The university offers two common forms of financial assistance through academic
programs that are accessible to undocumented students. One of the programs supports
students and their families from the local community starting in elementary schools. If
students and their guardians complete specific requirements, they are eligible for a full
scholarship to CPU. The second program is a student-initiated and funded scholarship
accessible to freshmen, transfer, and graduate students; priority is given to students residing
in the local community and who are first-generation college students. While neither of these
programs are catered specifically to undocumented students, they are open to them. Four
out of the 6 students I interviewed at CPU were recipients of scholarships from one of these
academic programs.
Over the last five years, CPU has been under the spotlight for a series of
investigations and scandals. For the purposes of anonymity, I am unable to provide details
on these scandals. However, these events resulted in the resignation of the President and
other top administrative leadership. The leadership changes resulted in opportunities for
UUS members to advocate for undocumented students as explained later in the chapter.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 126
Undocu Culture: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
The culture of CPU is marked by its conservative, affluent, and privileged
environment which excludes undocumented students who are often first-generation
students from low-income families, and from communities of color. Students described
navigating a culture that is unwelcoming to undocumented students, which included a lack
of campus-wide knowledge about their experiences and needs, and lack of formal
institutional services and resources. The support that is available to students is often “under
the table” and is offered by allies and supporters who do not want to “ruffle the feathers,”
with a few exceptions from tenured faculty who were often vocal about their support. The
lack of institutional transparency and decentralized nature of the university makes
collective, grassroots efforts to support undocumented students difficult to organize. After
the 2016 elections, efforts would be made led by faculty that resulted in the creation of
some resources and services for undocumented students, family members, and the local
community. Because of the historical limited student involvement in advocacy efforts,
together with an unwelcoming immigrant environment, creating communities and spaces
like an undocumented student organization is difficult for students to develop and sustain,
as well as building enough power that translates into resources.
Affluent & Privileged. Many of the members of UUS come from low-income
communities of color. Coming to a space like CPU with limited diversity, and a student
population perceived to have access to an abundance of wealth was often a cultural shock
to undocumented students. During one of my observations at a board meeting, several
members and I had a brief conversation about what coming to CPU as an undocumented
student of color felt like. In my post-observation memo, I wrote:
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 127
Before the start of the meeting, and as people trickled in, the transfer student and
new board member talked about whether you can ever get used to being a minority
at CPU. He felt that even though the campus emphasized and “tossed the word
diversity around,” in reality, all he experienced was culture shock in a “sea of white
faces.” He mentioned that even students who are racial minorities tend to come
from privilege. He gave an example of a conversation he overheard in his comedy
class. The conversation touched on post-racial beliefs, and students talked about
how “these are different times and racism is not what it used to be before.” They
talked about affirmative action, and how it favored “diverse students for the sake of
diversity.” The student shared how the conversation made him feel uncomfortable
and tokenized. He chose to stay quiet and not “educate” because he wanted to learn
where the students were coming from. The members listened closely, and they
joked and laughed about how they will never get used to the lack of diversity on
campus.
Entering a space like CPU and sitting in on a post-racial conversation that the student
experienced in his class was a reminder to students that they did not belong at this
institution. Another student, Belen shared that “administration has the tendency to turn a
blind eye to the struggles that first-gen low-income students face, students of color,” and
often disregard student demands. Students felt that university efforts to increase diversity
and inclusion were mostly “talk,” and they did not see how the efforts were put into effect.
The privilege and affluence that dominate CPU seems to also influence
undocumented students’ sense of belonging at the university. Students were often shocked
to learn that after receiving large financial aid packages, and joining an institution like CPU
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 128
with so many resources, there were no formal services, programming, or spaces for
undocumented students. Joe shared his shock coming to CPU:
Well, it's definitely interesting being a first-generation college student, as a transfer
student, being a minority who grew up pretty much impoverished, coming to a
space like CPU was definitely an eye-opener and definitely a transition, right?
Because of that, it did take me some time to develop a comfort level, at a student
level, you know? It's hard because I can tell right away coming to a school like CPU
that I wasn't going to fit in with the general student population because you felt the
privilege, the wealth. Oh, yeah, on top of that, being undocumented. Whereas
community college or being at local Cal State, UCs, it might be easier to navigate
that process because the services are better catered toward undocumented status, or
at least they're more aware of it. Nothing is perfect at their level either, but
definitely at CPU, it's not something I'm ready to or at the time, really open about
because A, I don't know how I'm going to be perceived and B, I didn't know there
were other students like me in the situation.
As a first-generation, low-income, student of color, students instantly felt that they did not
belong at the university. Being undocumented was an additional layer that students had to
navigate on their own before the re-emergence of UUS.
Students were shocked to be lured by the wealth and privilege of the campus, and
find limited to no support for undocumented students. Mariana, a first-year student shared
her surprise upon arriving at CPU:
I knew they didn't have an established Dream Center, but I was expecting a bigger
group of people. Something a little bit more established than I encountered. So that
was kind of a surprise and I think it's just a testament to the climate and the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 129
underlying assumptions of CPU being a private institution with all these wealthy
donors and all these white people in power doing all of these things that it might not
make people feel safe about coming out as undocumented. Yeah. That was a shock.
I was expecting an established group on campus, more visibility. I came across a
group that was well-developed and had a lot of roots in coming up and refurbishing
itself.
Even though Mariana arrived to CPU after the second year UUS had re-established itself,
she was still expecting to find a more “established group” with more “visibility.” Like
Mariana, several other students were surprised by the lack of campus-wide support they
were expecting to find for undocumented students.
Limited Support. As an affluent, private university, CPU is able to offer greater
financial aid to students, regardless of immigration status. Several of the students I
interviewed mentioned that one of the ways the university best supports undocumented
students is by offering a generous financial aid package based on financial need, or
academic achievement. The university also offers full-ride scholarship to students in the
local community who are members of an academic success program which is accessible to
undocumented students as well. Students mention that as great as the financial support is,
the university is not fully equipped to support undocumented students once enrolled. A
student shared with me his frustration: “I feel like if they're going to admit us and give us
scholarships, but they don't want to help us all the way through, I think that's an issue.”
Students felt that the university needed to expand its services in order to ensure that all
students are properly supported.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 130
Belen, one of the students I interviewed who is a member of one of CPU’s academic
program shared her frustration about the way the university did not commit to students’
academic success:
I feel like they have established programs like the ones that I'm in, and then just
have left it at that. I'm talking about the administration. They've just created them,
and then okay, we're doing something good. That's all we need. And they used these
poster things for recruitment purposes of oh, we do have diversity, but what good is
it to recruit a diverse student body if you're not going to assist them once they're
there?
If the university invests in getting students from diverse backgrounds into college, then it
should also make the same investment while enrolled. Many of the students who
participated in the program felt like “poster children” for an institution that did not care to
offer its full support.
Lack of Knowledge about Undocumented Student Issues. Once on campus,
undocumented students were further faced with an environment that lacked basic
understanding about immigrant and undocumented student experiences, needs, and policies.
The lack of knowledge often complicated regular, everyday student transactions such as
enrolling for classes, and accessing their financial aid. One of the most common problems
students I interviewed faced when they first arrived to CPU was removing their
“international student status” which was often incorrectly assigned to undocumented
students. Mariana described the process and problems she encountered when she was given
international status:
I had to go through many channels to get rid of my standing as an international
student, because I couldn't apply for financial aid. When I tried to contact the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 131
international student office to tell them no, I'm not an international student, they
would be like, "Oh, but it says here that you are. What's going on?" I had to explain
everything to them so that I could apply for financial aid eventually. Then when I
applied to financial aid, sign all the waivers, it still took a while to get financial aid,
so my decision to come to CPU wasn't made until I had my financial aid. Maybe a
week or so before I had to commit. Then when I was admitted in order to get my
student ID, my international student hold was still on there so I had to go ask. They
were asking for a passport with a visa to be able to get my student ID, but I had to
explain I'm not an international student, “I've already talked to this office about it,
I've talked to this office about it. What's there left to do?” Just a lot of back and
forth between that. It was a lot difficult than perhaps UC's where I just filled out one
waiver and then it was like, "Okay, you're an undocumented student. This is all we
needed.” Here, I had to go through a lot of offices, a lot of people, a lot of people
who didn't know the protocol, maybe? You could call it?
Removing their international status often took several hurdles to overcome, talking to
several departments and staff members, and having to share and explain their status
multiple times to strangers. This was usually the first obstacle undocumented students
experienced after enrolling at CPU.
Students also often faced staff and faculty who had little to no knowledge about
relevant policies that were key for students to access resources. Because CPU is a private
university that offers a flat tuition rate and does not vary depending on residency, there is
no out of state tuition option unlike public colleges and universities in California. This may
be the reason why students often interacted with staff who were not aware of AB 540 or the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 132
California Dream Act. These policies are still relevant at CPU because they offer qualifying
AB 540 students access to state financial aid. Joe shared:
I think for me, the first time around, it was really hard because in California, we're
declared AB 540, but CPU is not like that because it's across the board the same rate
tuition-wise… so for them, the term AB 540 was foreign to them. In fact, they didn't
know what I was talking about when I first came in. They put you on hold. I had to
wait for financial aid to get back to me. It was very confusing. I was confused. I'm
like, "Maybe I made the wrong decision." On top of that, there's nothing on their
admissions page. There's nothing on their website to address undocumented
students and really we're just put into this category of international.
The lack of training and knowledge about basic relevant information by staff and faculty
served as obstacles that undocumented students had to navigate. This fueled the
conservative and unwelcoming culture of CPU towards undocumented students.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Even though before the elections there was no mention of
undocumented students on the school’s website, no formal resources, or acknowledgment
of their presence on campus, there were staff, faculty, and even departments who were
individually offering their own support. Most of this support was not publicly announced or
easily accessible, and was often a matter of “knowing the right people.” Keeping
information and support “undercover” seemed to be a strategy to not bring unnecessary
attention which could jeopardize the support available to undocumented students. Robert, a
staff member described this type of underground support:
So, I'll say this because I don't want to be like I'm just going to throw CPU under
the bus. It was doing stuff, but a lot of it was on the “DL”, on the “down low.” It
wasn't anything illegal. That’s how this place functions. It's a private university that
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 133
has its pluses and its minuses. You know it functions as a solo. That's a solo college,
solo program. In many different pockets throughout the university, different chairs,
deans, faculty in particular or administrators, were finding ways to support
undocumented students, mainly through money. And undocumented students can't
get federal work-study, but they could get grants for research assistantships, for
projects, for interning for all kinds of stuff, and I know of people who were doing
that. I know that chairs and deans who were providing substantial support
financially for some of these students who applied and got into their program. That
was why we had an undocumented community. They had to get financial support
somehow. So, there was stuff going on prior, but it wasn't overt. It was very
undercover.
A few students shared that there were ways that certain institutional agents were able to
offer support for undocumented students. But again, this information was often not easily
accessible or available unless students were connected to the student organization and these
networks. The lack of accessible information for students who may not know about
unofficial resources or do not have the proper connections can heighten a sense of
unwelcoming climate for undocumented students.
In conversation with several students, staff, and faculty, it seems that some
administrators wanted to be supportive of undocumented students and expand services, but
they were often faced with limitations from the university’s administration and felt
discouraged. For example, when a student first advocated to include information for
undocumented students on the school’s website, a staff responded with, "I agree with you, I
want to, but my bosses and the [board of trustees] just won't go for it." Instead of shutting
down any effort, staff and faculty decided to offer their own avenues of support. A faculty
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 134
member described this process as the “don’t ask, don’t tell” informal policy of the
university. In other words, administrators and some staff and faculty choose not to
explicitly say or share the support they offer to undocumented students because it could
“piss people off” and potentially risk losing these unofficial avenues of support. Because of
the conservative climate, some supporters were concerned about external hostility around
people knowing there are undocumented people at CPU. A staff member stated “ruffling
the feathers too much” could result in “shooting ourselves on the foot.”
Decentralized and Lack of Transparency. CPU is widely known by faculty and
staff as being a decentralized institution, with departments and centers often operating
independently, little cross-communication, and limited transparency on behalf of
administration. As a private university, CPU is able to function in a decentralized and un-
transparent way. This culture served both for and against undocumented students. The
primary way it served in favor of undocumented students, is that it allowed informal and
underground systems and networks to support students. This is how individual schools,
departments, and faculty were often able to offer stipends and other forms of support for
undocumented students.
However, the decentralized nature of the culture at CPU often served against
undocumented students. After the elections, grassroots efforts to advocate for
undocumented students and others affected by Trump’s policies were difficult to organize
and sustain long-term. The limited collaboration across departments, centers, and
organizations often resulted in the creation of duplicate efforts that could have had a bigger
impact if organized collectively. Multiple efforts let to confusion on multiple
undocumented resource center proposals, sanctuary proposals, among other things. The
decision-making process was also difficult for many members of UUS to understand, as
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 135
well as for some faculty and staff, which often discouraged individuals from pursuing
efforts or abandoning projects altogether.
Limited Student Advocacy. Another relevant aspect of the culture at CPU is the
limited student involvement related to advocacy and social justice issues. Unlike FPU
which has an extensive and active history of student activism, CPU does not. Instead,
student involvement at CPU is dominated by Greek Life, and student government. That is
not to say that there is absolutely no form of political activism or protests happening on
campus, or that Greek Life and student government are not involved in social justice
advocacy efforts. Political advocacy and involvement at CPU is very limited, and as a result
efforts that are organized often do not gain enough support. Two CPU students published
an opinion letter in the university’s newspaper in which they highlight the lack of student
advocacy on campus. In the article, the students mentioned that CPU “students suffer from
a moral and intellectual crisis with unorthodox politics.” They explained their frustration by
the university emphasizing larger politics, but not engaging in “any substantive political
activity” within campus. When protests occur, they are “passive, temporary and even
isolated in nature.” The article published by the CPU students reflect the widespread
sentiment of the lack of political activism on campus. Limited student advocacy further
complicates the environment undocumented students experience, particularly for members
of UUS as later explained in my findings.
United Undocumented Students (UUS)
The history of UUS can be split into two periods – early emergence, and re-
emergence. According to Robert the organizations’ staff advisor, a student with “multiple
identities” which included undocumented, gay, Latino, and first-generation college student
was struggling to adjust to CPU and approached him for support. Robert suggested to the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 136
student that he start a student organization based around an identity that was salient to him.
UUS’s early emergence happened in the Spring of 2011, when that student decided to
create an organization for undocumented students in order to create a safe space on campus
for this student population.
According to student records, the first founders of UUS envisioned an organization
that offered support and information for undocumented students in order to facilitate their
educational experience and degree completion at CPU. Some of the early goals listed
included: create more awareness of undocumented students’ issues on campus, engage in
political activism regarding immigration, create a strong professional network to develop
job opportunities for graduates, and collaborate with other organizations on- and off-
campus to promote and advance the movement.
Over time, UUS struggled to formalize as a student organization and meet its goals.
Some of the challenges the organization faced were around member retention, access to
financial sources, and support from the university administration on their initiatives to
support undocumented students. At the time, DACA was just getting implemented across
the nation, and many students had to balance school and work multiple jobs to sustain
themselves, their families, and be able to afford their college tuition. This made it difficult
for members to remain active and involved, and the organization was not able to remain
stable for too long. Unfortunately due to financial difficulties, the original student founder
dropped out of CPU and with it UUS dissolved for the next five years.
During the Spring of 2016, Robert brought together a group of three undocumented
students of color who expressed interest in starting an undocumented student organization
at CPU. Robert shared the early history of UUS with the students, and shared his
commitment to helping them start an organization. The three students got together and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 137
decided to bring UUS back. With the help of other interested students, they drafted a
constitution for the organization and received official recognition by the university as a
student organization at CPU.
One of the organization’s early struggles was figuring out logistics on their own in
terms of registering the organization, creating a constitution, and developing an
organizational structure. Over time, and as their membership and leadership developed so
did the identity and goals of the organization. Their executive board evolved into eight
different positions which included Executive Chair, Vice President, Secretary, Social
Media Manager, Multimedia Historian, Treasurer, External Liaison, and Event Manager. In
order to share the responsibility and ease new leaders into their positions, the organization
tried to fill each position with two members – a seasoned, and a new member. Similar to
JUSt, the leadership is horizontal in nature, with every board member contributing equally
to the decision making of the organization.
Though not planned, the re-emergence of UUS coincided with the 2016 presidential
elections. As a result, many of their early events were focused around the elections and
subsequent policy changes. Even though the organization wanted to create a community for
undocumented students at CPU and most of their events were tailored for undocumented
students, their events were not attracting the targeted population. Instead, most of their
attendees included allies, people from mixed-status families, faculty, staff, and some
graduate students who wanted to learn about how to support undocumented students on
campus. At first, UUS tried to host events almost every week hoping to build the
undocumented student network on campus, but realized it was not sustainable. Over time,
they shifted to two to three signature events per semester that were open to anyone
interested in joining, and kept board meetings intimate for student leaders and other
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 138
undocumented peers. While their leadership remained somewhat consistent with about ten
to twelve board members, their general membership fluctuated in numbers.
Most of the organization’s events and initiatives focus on building a community for
undocumented students, and advocating for this student population at CPU. For example,
board members organize social events to develop an undocumented student network,
collaborate on efforts to expand support for students on campus, and create their own
events and participate in other organization’s events to raise awareness about
undocumented student issues and needs on campus. One of UUS’ primary long-term goal
that they continue to work on since its re-emergence is the creation of an institutionally-
supported resource center for undocumented students with trained, full-time staff. Some of
their emerging signature events include periodic legal updates in collaboration with
representatives from CPU’s Immigration Clinic, and annual events such as “To Immigrants
with Love” where people can write notes in support of immigrants in heart-shapes notes
and learn about UUS, and an end-of-year banquet with members and allies. Other efforts
outside of campus include offering a personalized tour for undocumented students
interested in enrolling at CPU, and networking with other undocumented student
organizations from different institutions.
Post-Elections Efforts and the Undocu Climate at CPU
The elections challenged CPU’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to supporting
undocumented students and its previous reserved stances on immigration. Across the
campus, students and allies brought attention to the lack of resources and infrastructure by
the institution to support undocumented students, their families, and the surrounding
community. Unlike FPU which is a well-developed undocufriendly campus, CPU had a
long way to go to become one. The pressure that students and allies created by highlighting
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 139
the university’s shortcomings towards supporting its undocumented community pushed
CPU to finally acknowledge their presence on campus, make public statements in support
of them, listen to their needs and begin to address them, and insert itself in advocacy spaces
outside of campus. Even though undocumented students at CPU were similarly affected by
the elections the way FPU students were affected, the slow progress seemed to allow some
students to “come out” on campus, begin organizing alongside allies, and develop UUS and
its advocacy role.
Grassroots Resistance
Unlike FPU which had an immediate institutional response to the elections, it took
the work of grassroots efforts first at CPU to push administration into action. A series of
grassroots organizing emerged from students, staff, and faculty in order to advocate for the
safety of DACAmented and undocumented students, expand legal services to the CPU and
surrounding community, and create other services for uncommented students. However
given the decentralized nature at CPU, it is no surprise that multiple efforts in support of
undocumented students emerged across different areas of campus. The lack of
communication sometimes resulted in duplicate efforts, which over time waned partly due
to the lack of campus-wide organized support. For example, a social media campaign led
by students and faculty in support of DACA and services for undocumented students at
CPU diminished after the campaign was unable to pick up enough campus-wide support.
There were also a series of dialogues organized by the school of education open to students,
staff, and faculty around building a safe climate for undocumented students and how to
support other students affected by the elections. Even though reports of these dialogues
were written, undocumented student felt disappointed that they had to share their personal
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 140
stories and nothing tangible resulted from these dialogues. Other campus efforts ended in
similar ways.
A particular strategy that cumulatively made an impact and pushed the university to
the edge to acknowledge and support its undocumented student population were a series of
community letters, op-eds, newsletters, and even a newspaper ad written by multiple actors
across campus. Within three months into Trump’s term, faculty members organized to write
letters in opposition to Trump’s executive orders. The first letter called upon the university
to create a plan to ensure the support of DACA students should the program be rescinded,
and to create a special fund separate from federal monies to support affected students.
A second letter was written and organized by a separate group of faculty and staff
calling for the university to adopt a sanctuary designation. The letter asked the university
that it declare its support and protection of the undocumented population at CPU, and
refuse to collaborate with immigration authorities. The letter was signed by over five
thousand students, faculty, staff, and alumni within four days of being posted. Despite the
expansive support for a sanctuary campus designation from the CPU community, there was
pushback from some faculty who questioned the meaning and functionality of it, and were
concerned that any tough stance against Trump could impact their access to federal money.
The organizers emphasized that sanctuary designation has a symbolic power and serves as a
political statement. Other faculty chose to write op-eds and newsletters expressing their
concerns for Trump’s executive orders, and the university for not committing itself to
support students affected. Some faculty called out top administrators for remaining silent
on issues that affected international and undocumented students, staff, and faculty. Even
though the university never established itself as a sanctuary, the attention and support the
letters brought to the issue further pressured administration to act.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 141
From these the organizers who wrote the two petition letters, a group of faculty
emerged who I will call RISE (Rise in Support of Equity). RISE is a group of faculty
dedicated to supporting marginalized populations and fighting controversial executive
orders such as the travel ban and the rescission of DACA. The group met several times to
strategize and provide recommendations to the Office of the Provost. One of the early
actions RISE took was raise money for a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper
which stated their support for those who engaged in resistance against oppressive policies
and committed themselves to supporting human rights. The statement expressed a clear
stance against the current political rhetoric that targets marginalized population, and it
challenged the university to do the same. The efforts of RISE which would later lead to the
creation of the Provost’s Committee on Immigration opened the way to push CPU’s
conservative stances on immigration and take on a proactive role to support its
uncommented student population.
Another major effort that emerged with the support of faculty allies was the creation
of the Department Dream Center for undocumented students. After failed attempts at
creating an institutionally-supported undocumented resource center and as a way to further
pressure the university to establish one, the department of ethnic studies alongside student
leaders from UUS created their own. One of the founders of UUS worked closely with a
faculty member from the ethnic studies department to create a center that would provide a
“one-stop-shop that can meet all the needs that all the undocumented students have.” The
purpose of the center is to centralize information for undocumented students, and create a
physical space on campus where students can converge. Since its inception in fall of 2017,
the Department Dream Center has held immigration clinics, stress management and self-
care workshops, and offers a physical space for support groups and open office hours.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 142
Because it is not institutionally funded, there is no full-time staff and instead it is run by
unpaid UUS members who offer time out of their schedules. The center was later supported
by Adrianna, who was appointed part-time as the point of contact for undocumented
student needs on campus by the provost. Given the limited resources and lack of full-time
professional staff, the center is only open twice a week for a few hours.
Ever since its inception, the Department Dream Center has brought attention to the
fact that unlike most colleges and universities in the local area and across California, CPU
still does not have its own resource center, and continues to fall behind its peer institutions
in supporting undocumented students. In the student newspaper, one of the founders of the
Department Dream Center who is a faculty member at CPU shared that the university is
falling behind all the other universities in California who have a resource center, and that if
the university was not willing to create one, it was up to the departments to build one of
their own.
Information about the Department Dream Center was shared through a community
letter by the Provost. However, the letter did not acknowledge the underlying reasons for its
emergence nor offered any financial resources to the center beside the part-time
appointment of a staff member who is not trained to address the needs of undocumented
students. The staff member would later share with me the difficulties of maintain her part-
time appointment with no resources, in addition to her usual duties which did not
previously involve working directly with undocumented students.
Additional articles by the university’s newspaper share students’ concerns that the
Department Dream Center is “too small and understaffed” and describe it as a “closet size-
space” not meant for a center, and “not what students deserve.” Students also shared that
the limited hours of operation and removed location from the center of campus make it
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 143
difficult to use, and they call upon a more permanent solution. A member of the student
government was quoted in the newspaper about the Department Dream Center. She pointed
to the anti-immigrant rhetoric and federal policies and the ways that it threatened the
academic, professional, and personal lives of undocumented students, and urged the CPU
community members to advocate for a permanent undocumented resource center. She
expressed that it was the duty of the university to ensure that all communities at CPU are
well supported.
According to several of my interviews with staff and faculty, an institutionally
supported undocumented resource center continues to receive push back because of a
combination of space and funding concerns. Administration is concerned that if the
undocumented resource center is created, they would also need to consider the creation of
other centers as well, and there is limited space and resources on campus. While the current
Department Dream Center lacks the necessary resources and may not be the ideal center for
undocumented students, its creation sparked conversations about the need for a permanent
center at CPU.
Students at CPU also developed their own student-led initiatives to expand support
for their undocumented peers. For example, student government passed a resolution calling
on administration for the creation of a permanent center for undocumented students with at
least one trained full-time coordinator. A second resolution demanded the creation of a
website with information and resources for prospective and current undocumented students.
GSG passed a very similar resolution the month before which was written in coordination
with USG. These efforts by the student government were not new to the campus, and other
actors across campus were already working on similar initiatives. The duplicate efforts
reflect the fact that despite the widespread interest on campus to support undocumented
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 144
students, coordination was limited due to the decentralized culture and lack of
administrative transparency of CPU.
Institutional Response
Before the elections, CPU had been silent about its undocumented population on
campus. Following the elections, CPU’s administration was pressured by various grassroots
efforts demanding action from the university. In an interview with Dr. Andres Gomez
(pseudonym), one of the RISE faculty organizers, he explained: “there is a cultural
disconnect between administration and the realities of students – the ‘deep existential
threat’ message didn’t get through to administrators.” Dr. Gomez recalled a meeting RISE
representatives had with the Provost in which he expressed his disappointment towards the
university for falling behind other peer institutions who had written letters denouncing
Trump’s executive orders and supporting their immigrant communities. Given CPU’s
location in the midst of a large immigrant population and its reputation for being a leading
university that welcomes a high number of international students, the faculty felt that CPU
should be leading many of the efforts to support students affected by the executive orders.
By the end of the meeting, the Provost turned to Dr. Gomez and told him “I’ve never seen
you angrier.” Without the pressure from prominent faculty members at CPU, the university
may not have felt the urge to take action and break their silence on topics of immigration.
Following the series of letters and petitions written, and after the meeting between
the Provost and RISE members, CPU sent a memo to the campus announcing a series of
efforts by the university to address the campus community’s concerns over a number of
Trump’s executive orders. One of them was the commission of the Provost’s Committee on
Immigration. The Provost’s Committee included many of the original RISE organizers, and
it was created to advise the Provost on measures the university should take in response to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 145
changes in immigration policy. The Provost also allotted funding to research on
immigration, as well as to the legal clinic to expand their legal services. And lastly, the
memo acknowledged that CPU needed be at the forefront of research and education on
issues of immigration.
A series of additional memos and letters were sent by the CPU administration as a
response to Trump’s executive orders on immigration. These statements by the Provost and
the President acknowledged the immigrant and undocumented population at CPU for the
first time, and expressed the university’s support. At first, many people across campus were
concerned by the Provosts’ statement as a response to threats on DACA which stated “as a
university, we fully comply with all laws.” Even though the Provost stated that CPU would
follow the constitutional mandate against unreasonable searches and seizures, it did not
make a clear statement about what this would mean for the undocumented community on
campus and where the university stood with regards to supporting this population.
Over time, the university’s statements and actions developed a clear opposition of
Trump’s executive orders on immigration including the travel ban and DACA, and
expressed support for its undocumented population. For example, the President announced
that CPU was one of the signatories to the “Statement in Support of the DACA Program
and our Undocumented Immigrant Students” alongside over 700 other colleges and
universities across the nation. The statement was signed by FPU earlier as well. In a
community letter, the President acknowledged the adverse impact that changes in DACA
would have on CPU’s undocumented population, and stated that the university would
continue to stand by its values and support everyone regardless of immigration status or
national origin. The Provost and President also began taking on an advocacy role outside of
campus alongside other colleges and universities in Sacramento, the White House, and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 146
Congress. For the first time, CPU took on a public position regarding immigration and its
undocumented students. However, it took extensive criticism about the university’s lack of
action and the effort of many on campus to push administration to act in support of
students.
The establishment of the Provost’s Committee allowed for direct communication
between RISE and other grassroots supporters on campus and administration. The
Committee made recommendations to the Provost that resulted in a series of institutional
efforts. One of them was the inclusion of information for current and prospective
undocumented students on the school’s financial aid and admissions website. The Provost
also appointed Adrianna part-time as the point of contact for undocumented students and
related issues at CPU. In an interview with Adrianna, she shared this is not her primary job,
and she does not have the training or resources to support undocumented students the way
she would want to. In fact, Adrianna was often given additional tasks and expectations
without taking in consideration her full-time position such as hosting office hours in the
Department Dream Center. Students expressed frustration by the lack of consideration by
the university’s administration of the need to appoint a full-time, trained professional who
could facilitate communication across campus, advocate for, and offer services resources to
undocumented students.
The office of the Provost also expanded funding to different areas around campus
involved in various efforts on immigration. For example, the Provost allotted funding to a
center that does research on immigration, and to the immigration clinic to expand their
legal services on- and off-campus. In order to push CPU to be at the forefront of research
and education on immigration, an initiative on immigration emerged as an effort to develop
and facilitate collaborations across campus and in the community on issues related to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 147
immigration. Even though CPU funded and expanded different efforts on campus, it
seemed to do so in a decentralized way. While I conducted my research and spoke to
different staff, faculty, and students, many were confused about what initiatives the
institution had developed, their purpose, who was involved, and their outcomes. Because of
the expansive knowledge I had acquired about CPU’s initiatives on immigration through
this study, several individuals approached me to help clarify information about related
events and efforts on campus. As a researcher for this study, I also struggled to identify and
trace back many of the institutional actions at CPU, which I believe demonstrate the lack of
transparency and decentralized culture on campus that seemed to limit grassroots
collaborations.
By the time I completed my data analysis in the Spring of 2019, allies and students
were frustrated by the way many of the efforts were stalled, as well as the lack of
transparency and communication about what the institution had accomplished to support
undocumented students on campus. In particular, students were frustrated by the limited
action from administration in creating a permanent resource center for undocumented
students. When I asked a faculty member from RISE about future efforts, I was told that
“the parameters of what we're going through are a little clearer… you have a sense of your
parameters of safety. And then there's all sorts of other scandals on campus to occupy
administrator time.” With the immediate threats on DACA delayed, and a series of scandals
on campus that led to changes in administrative leadership, grassroots leaders felt that they
needed to slow down their efforts. Even though these grassroots leaders felt the university
could do more, they expressed that CPU had done more than ever in such a short amount of
time for undocumented students, and they would probably re-strategize after the leadership
changes. It is important to note that unlike FPU which appointed a faculty member to lead
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 148
the Immigration Assembly, CPU’s Committee on Immigration consisted of faculty who
were not relieved of their appointments and had to organize on their own time and use their
own resources. This may have contributed to the limited continuation of organized faculty
efforts at CPU, stalling the institution’s growth as undocufriendly campus.
The Undocu-Climate for Undocumented Students at CPU
The sense of fear and concern from the larger political climate on immigration
following the elections also permeated the college experiences of undocumented students at
CPU. A TPS holder, Stephanie felt that the uncertainty of her status had become a major
stressor in her life and affected her emotional and mental well-being:
I think that the whole climate and after [the elections] it's become another big
stressor… the future is unknown and I know that it's stressed me out to an unhealthy
way. The very beginning of last semester, the very first day I woke up with the news
that TPS had been canceled... Throughout the weeks and days, I would develop
anxiety and I would think about that a lot. And I would have stressors. I couldn't
breathe and that's just me. That's just one story. Other people may have some other
stories and maybe we handled things differently and I happened to get anxiety
through it. And other people may do the same or different from me. But I do
definitely feel that it is a big life stressor that we have to worry about and think
about apart from our regular student stressors about exams and I was a first-gen
figuring everything out on our own and thinking how it's another insecurity.
Because it's actually put our lives on hold because we don't know what's coming.
We don't know the status of our situation or the political climate and how that's
gonna affect us tomorrow or a few months from now.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 149
As an undocumented, and first-generation college student of color, Stephanie has to
navigate multiple layers while in school. The anti-immigrant sociopolitical rhetoric and
political threats made Stephanie’s undocumented status a salient part of her life which she
had to constantly worry about. Other students similarly expressed that the elections brought
a hyper-awareness of their status which affected their well-being and academic success.
Unlike FPU where JUSt members were burned out and retreated “to the shadows”
after the elections, at CPU, a faculty member described post-elections as the “coming out
party” of undocumented students on campus. The re-emergence of UUS during this time
may have contributed to undocumented students coming out by creating a physical space
and community for students to connect with each other. The rise in interest by faculty and
staff to learn more about and organize in support of undocumented students on campus also
contributed to a change in climate that was previously indifferent and silent on immigration
issues. Joy shared that despite the threats of the elections on immigrants:
Our courage stemmed from that election. We started demanding to talk to the
Provost, to start an org, which is perfect timing because a lot of the discussion
around immigration was very vivid at the time, because of him… if it wouldn't have
been for those elections, I don't think we would have made a lot of noise.
Students used the momentum of the elections and attention it brought to immigrant issues
to “make noise,” come out, organize, and make demands to the university. The “coming out
party” however seemed to be limited to members of UUS, of which most were
undergraduates and students of color. While CPU does not have a significantly large
undocumented population compared to FPU, the visibility that the few students who came
out brought to undocumented student issues at CPU was unprecedented on campus.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 150
Despite undocumented students coming out and openly demanding support from the
university, students described the continued pervasive politically conservative culture and
widespread ignorance about immigration that they had to navigate. Students had to be
careful with what they said and who they came out to on campus because they never knew
if they were “sitting in a room with someone who supports Trump and believes immigrants
are criminals.” There was uncertainty as to whether CPU was a sanctuary campus, and
students were unsure about how the university would protect and support them. Joy
mentioned that after the elections, CPU’s professors continued to be “focused on
professionalism and academics, that they put aside the political climate,” perpetuating the
lack of awareness and unwillingness to engage in critical conversations around the elections
and on topics of immigration. Together, the climate and lack of clarity from the university
led students to feeling “hurt because whether it's a student or a faculty member who simply
doesn't have the awareness of these issues, or the empathy for these issues, these students
end up feeling really hurt and feeling like they don't belong.” A university that does not
acknowledge the experiences of undocumented students and does not make clear
statements in support can influence students’ sense of security and belonging on campus.
Undocumented students also shared ways in which the larger post-elections anti-
immigrant rhetoric permeated the campus and unearthed the conservative culture at CPU.
Students mentioned racist and nativist incidents such as peers getting called the “n word,”
faculty referring to undocumented immigrants as “illegals,” and Trump supporters
criminalizing the experiences of immigrants in classrooms. During a fundraising and
immigration awareness event hosted by UUS on Valentine’s Day, a group of students
confronted the members at the booth and questioned their legality and belonging on campus
and in the U.S. When describing the incident, Jazmin shared:
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 151
We had people coming up to our table saying certain things about how unwelcomed
the undocumented community is on campus and how we don't necessarily fit the
picture or the description of what CPU is. So, dealing with that also has been
challenging but after a lot of the resistance that the faculty for example, [and the
university] administration was showing against the Trump administration, we
started voicing our concerns in those meetings and the idea of establishing a more
permanent Dream Center came about and with that, the creation of this Department
Dream Center that we have now with the American Studies department.
Despite the progress on campus in creating greater awareness about immigration and
organized efforts to support undocumented students, students continued to experience an
unwelcoming campus environment which reminded them that they do not “fit the picture”
of CPU’s population.
Over time and as new changes were implemented on campus through the efforts of
allies, students, and administrators, members acknowledged the progress CPU made in
supporting undocumented students. However, members of UUS knew that the campus still
had a long way to go in creating a welcoming environment with the necessary structures to
support undocumented students. Joe acknowledged these efforts when saying:
Through UUS and the work of our allies who are helping us – now you look on the
admissions page for transfers and freshmen, they have a section on undocumented
students, blatantly disclosing that your immigration status will not affect your
admissions to CPU and that you will receive financial aid through CPU and via the
requirements met in AB 540 or California Dream Act. For me, that was like, "Wow,
did that just really happen?" That's on the admissions page and financial aid page
now. Now we have the legal clinic and the law school here helping us out. We have
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 152
admissions aware of us. We have allies who are aware of us and aware of our needs.
We even have a Provost Committee on Immigration and liaison appointed by the
provost to basically run the Department Dream Center. There has been huge steps
taken by universities. Is it perfect? No, but I do recognize the steps they have taken
and for me, it's a great start to the end goal, because you know, like I said earlier,
although we have undocumented students now, I'm sure there will be more coming
in and this problem isn't going away.
For an institution like CPU which had not previously acknowledged and supported
undocumented students explicitly before the elections, the recent efforts made were a
significant step in creating an undocufriendly campus. The attention the elections brought
upon issues on immigration and the interest on campus to address undocumented student
needs facilitated the conditions for students to “come out” and speak out about their
experiences at CPU.
Institutional Interactions with the Environment
As mentioned earlier, both FPU and CPU are surrounded by the same sociopolitical
climate. Each campus experiences their environment differently based on institutional type,
culture, and climate towards undocumented students. As described, CPU is a private
university with a culture and climate that is largely unwelcoming and can be hostile
towards undocumented students. Being a private university means that CPU is not bound
by certain state policies and restrictions that public colleges and universities must follow. In
particular, CPU is not affected by in-state tuition policies such as AB 540 because as a
private university it has the autonomy to set its own tuition rates and institutional financial
aid criteria. CPU has a flat rate for all its students regardless of residency status in
California, which means that undocumented students do not have to worry about out of
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 153
state tuition rates. One way that state policies influences CPU’s students is the access and
amount of state financial aid undocumented students qualify for under the California Dream
Act. However, CPU is a largely endowed university that is often able to offer large
financial aid packages to its students based on merit, financial need, and other criteria.
Given that CPU is not tied to these state policies, it operates as a solo institution without a
larger university system the way the University of California is set up. Hence, CPU has
greater discretion on whether or not and how to support undocumented students on campus
compared to FPU.
In regards to its undocufriendly characteristics, before the elections CPU was not
entirely located at the end of the non-undocufriendly spectrum (Suárez-Orozco et al.,
2015), but it was still a campus that lacked and continues to lack most of the characteristics
of an undocufriendly campus. Even though CPU has the potential and resources to expand
support for undocumented students, it seems that its conservative and unwelcoming
environment towards this population contributes to the lack of institutional action. Located
in one of the most progressive and welcoming states towards undocumented immigrants,
CPU still lagged behind many of its neighboring private and public colleges and
universities in offering institutional support for undocumented students. Unlike many of the
local colleges and universities, CPU still does not offer professional training, have a full-
time trained staff member, or have a resource center for undocumented students. CPU is
still dominated by a conservative Board of Trustees, donors, alumni, and students. Even
though there are supporters on campus who are advocating alongside UUS to expand
services for undocumented students, they are often faced with politics and a climate that
discourages them from continuing to push efforts, and are concerned of potentially
jeopardizing the current underground networks available to students. As described in the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 154
following section, after the elections UUS members and allies strategically pressured the
university to follow in the footsteps of other universities, the city, and the state in adopting
a sanctuary status and expanding its resources to undocumented individuals.
The interactions between and across nested contexts would influence the
university’s move towards initiating support for undocumented immigrants, and the
university itself would partake in ways that influenced the larger political context. As
explained in further detailed in the following section, staff and faculty pressured CPU to
acknowledge their undocumented student population, and take on a leading role in
supporting them at the state and national level. Staff and faculty felt that as an affluent
university located in a largely immigrant area, the university needed to take a leading role
in supporting this population. Over time, the university took on a clearer opposition to
Trump’s executive orders on immigration, participated in nation-wide initiatives in higher
education, and administrators would take on advocacy roles in Sacramento and Washington
D.C. in support of undocumented students. Despite the larger anti-immigrant sociopolitical
rhetoric, CPU followed in the footsteps of California and other sanctuary cities to support
undocumented immigrants, and eventually served in roles that would influence the national
political environment.
Navigating Political Opportunities: Building an Undocufriendly Campus
I now present the different opportunities that emerged following the 2016 elections
that facilitated or inhibited the efforts of UUS members at CPU to support their
undocumented peers. Students and supporters took advantage of four opportunities (see
Table 5). First, the elections served as a window of opportunity for students and allies to
push the university into taking clear, and public actions in support of undocumented
students. Members and advocates used the momentum and interest that the elections
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 155
brought to campus on immigrant and undocumented student issues in order begin
developing an infrastructure of support for students. Second, given the limited student
activism and student involvement on campus, members used existing structures to expand
support efforts for undocumented students, which included peer organizations, staff, and
faculty collaborations. A unique opportunity at CPU also emerged as a result of a series of
campus scandals which resulted in administrative leadership change. Encouraged by key
institutional agents, members took advantage of these opportunities in order to ensure that
undocumented student issues were included as part of the institutional changes. And lastly,
members of UUS utilized the campus and larger sociopolitical rhetoric on immigration to
bring the organization back after five years of being inactive.
Table 5: Political Opportunities of UUS at CPU

Political Opportunity Claims and Frames Strategies and Tactics
1. Build an undocufriendly
campus
A. Wake-up call for action A. Members as
representatives and
educators B. “Make noise”
2. Use the available
networks
A. Need to centralize
information and efforts
A. Partner-up with allies
3. New leadership, new
opportunities
A. Include undocumented
students as part of the
change
A. Insert themselves in the
conversations

4. Re-build the
organization
A. Need to build
community
A. Immediate needs first
B. Slow, and steady
transitions

1. Build an Undocufriendly Campus
Unlike FPU which already had a well-established system of support for
undocumented students including an institutionally supported resource center, full-time
staff, access to relevant information and support, a formal ally network of faculty and staff
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 156
from across campus, and a long-standing undocumented student organization, CPU had
much to catch up to. Even though CPU was already supporting some undocumented
students before the elections, it was doing so either indirectly through academic outreach
programs, or directly but informally by individual staff and faculty allies. Prior to the
elections, there were no formal resources for prospective or current undocumented students
at CPU, or clear acknowledgment and support of their presence on campus.
The 2016 elections served as a window of opportunity for students and allies to push
the university into acknowledging their undocumented population and develop intentional
forms of institutional support. The heightened anti-immigrant rhetoric at the federal level
which contrasted with California’s and the university’s local responses forced the
university to take a look at its own institution and what it was doing (or not) for its
undocumented and immigrant population. The “noise” that students and their allies created
on campus brought attention and interest to the experiences of undocumented college
students at CPU. This led to the development of grassroots efforts to push the institution to
support students in the face of anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Claims & Frames: A) Wake-Up Call for Action. Students and allies described the
elections as a sort of “wake-up call” for the university to act on behalf of immigrant and
undocumented individuals on campus. UUS’s re-emergence after five years further helped
bring attention to the presence and experiences of undocumented students on campus. A
few days after the elections, UUS hosted an “Horchata Talk” open to everyone on campus
to debrief about the election results and talk about its implications on immigration. Given
the politically conservative climate at CPU, members did not expect the large turnout by
faculty, staff, and students. In her reflection following the event, Belen shared:
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 157
We were a new club and the fact that a lot of Trump's rhetoric has been anti-
immigrant, creating this event was super essential in this time period. So yeah, we
had the event and we had huge attendance. I think that whole room was filled. Not
every seat, but it was scattered filled. So it had huge attendance. And I think people
started following us from there because of everything. Because of Trump being
anti-immigrant and because we were a new club and an undocumented student club.
I think that's where a lot of our following came from. So yeah, I think that's the
effect that it had.
The Horchata Talk debrief was one of the first formal and public events that UUS hosted
after its re-emergence. After the event, staff and faculty reached out to the organization to
learn about how they could best support them and their undocumented peers at CPU. The
event seemed to help solidify to everyone on campus the presence of undocumented
students, their needs, and potential threats on their academic and personal lives under the
newly elected president.
Members of UUS knew that the elections helped them get the attention they needed
to voice their concerns and be heard on campus. Students used this opportunity alongside
the efforts that faculty and staff were organizing to expand their demands. Joe, a member of
UUS explained this new sense of interest and call to action on campus after the elections:
I mean, it gave us a kick as far as notoriety is concerned and overall, we've been
getting pretty positive support. It does highlight that the service that we need here at
CPU. I think for the most part, I think before the election people weren't even sure if
there are undocumented students at CPU… All they care about is “how can you
pay” or “how can we support you via financial aid if you qualify.” I think one thing
the election has on the bright side is it brought attention to the issue and it made us
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 158
more visible, but it does also reflect on the lack of service, which they're attempting
to bridge, but nothing to where it should be.
Similarly, other members of UUS described a sense of campus-wide urgency to support
undocumented students on campus post-elections.
The new interest on undocumented student issues also brought out a deep interest
and passion to advocate for students at CPU. Jazmin, one of the early co-presidents shared
UUS “started voicing our concerns in meetings and the idea of establishing a more
permanent Dream Center came about and with that, the creation of this Department Dream
Center that we have now with the American Studies department.” Students utilized their
own platforms as a newly established organization, as well as opportunities to collaborate
with different efforts on campus. Joe felt that because of the “heightened attention to the
issue [of immigration] because of politics,” people are more aware and it helps “bring up
passion for people who may have been affected by this and hence they become more
active.” Students used this interest and passion that was brought out on campus among
students, faculty, and staff to pressure administration into taking action to support
undocumented students.
Strategies & Tactics. In order to begin building an undocufriendly campus at CPU,
members: (a) served as representatives and educators on campus to build knowledge about
undocumented student issues; and (b) “made noise” by strategically demanding the creation
of resources and services.
A) Members as Representatives and Educators. Despite the interest from campus
members to support undocumented students, students described a campus that lacked basic
knowledge about immigrants and undocumented students often rooted in stereotypes, and
misconceptions about this population. If members wanted to advocate for the creation of an
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 159
undocufriendly campus at CPU, they needed to educate campus members about their needs
and how the new president elect’s agenda on immigration could impact their academics and
personal lives in the U.S. Members of UUS took it upon themselves to educate peers, staff,
and faculty about undocumented student experiences on campus.
All of the students I interviewed at CPU shared examples of ways staff or faculty
were not properly equipped and trained, and hence lacked the necessary knowledge to
understand and support undocumented student. For example, several undocumented
students shared how they were incorrectly given “international student status” upon
enrollment despite explaining their situation to the staff. As “international students,”
students had to present a series of documents they did not have. Students had to go through
several administrative hurdles and interact with staff who were often of very little help in
clearing their international status. “They had written me up as an international student,”
shared Joy, “but then I had to do other extra paperwork, and had to just ask around for that
to be clear.” If members wanted to continue to create awareness about undocumented
student needs, it meant that they also needed to take on the role of educators to inform staff
about their legal status.
Members and leaders of UUS often participated in forums on immigration, as
speakers in lectures, as undocumented student advisors in meetings with faculty and
administrators, and any other event or avenue that they were invited to that could help
educate members of the CPU community. Sometimes, members shared taking personal
initiative by speaking up in classes or other spaces to clarify misconceptions or
misinformation about immigrants and relevant policies. Overall, students shared that their
efforts to educate and share their experiences were well-received by members of CPU.
However, I could also sense some frustration over “coming out” in public spaces, sharing
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 160
their personal and intimate experiences as undocumented individuals, and seeing very little
and slow change on campus. Jazmin shared her frustrations about constantly sharing her
story:
I have had some instances where I do take on the role of educating people about
DACA, about what it means to be undocumented on this campus and I do share my
own story. In the instances that I had done that, it's been positive, people have
received me with open arms, they have welcomed my existence you can say, but I
think it is ... it gets really tricky with who you can say these things to and maybe it's
my mentality too, I don't know but sometimes I feel like people only care for a
second but because this doesn't impact or doesn't affect them, they don't really care
that much. They'll hear and they'll welcome a good story but that's all it is, a story.
They'll probably go out after class and tell their friends, like “oh, there's a student in
my class who is this, this, this.” I'll just be a story. I haven't had anyone come up to
me after sharing my story or sharing a presentation for example my identity and say,
“oh, I would love to help UUS,” or “how can I get involved?” People don't say that.
People just want to hear, how are you different from me? And why does your
existence matter in a classroom like CPU?
Holding a constant role as educators, particularly for the students who were out about their
immigration status seemed to be a taxing experience. Jazmin was a members of UUS who
was often asked to share her experiences in various spaces. But over time, Jazmin felt
frustrated by having to repeatedly share her story and serve as a representative for all
undocumented students at CPU because “that just reminded me constantly of all the
struggles I was facing and all the struggles that I had to continue enduring in hopes that
things would change.” While requests by staff and faculty on members of UUS to share
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 161
their experiences were well-intentioned, over time students felt tokenized as having a great
story to share, and as representatives for all undocumented students at CPU.
B) “Make Noise.” Because of the new interest on campus about immigration and
undocumented students, students knew that this was the ideal opportunity to “make noise”
as one student described it and bring attention to the many ways CPU was not meeting the
basic needs of its undocumented population. Joy felt that “UUS made all the noise, without
UUS, I don't think there would have been any voice.” Members felt UUS helped advocate
to have conversations about immigration and undocumented students at CPU. Club advisor
Robert guided UUS’s leadership to strategize about taking advantage of this momentum on
campus:
[Joe] and I chatted and we talked and we strategized and we were like, "Yo, we got
to get this going again." And luckily, the new students really came in and
invigorated the group so that when Trump came and then everything happened with
the faculty and the student advocacy that eventually led to Provost and President
having to address the community – it was because that club was there. That club
wasn't there, I think it would have been much harder, so they had a huge role. I
personally think the biggest role, other than the students was the faculty. It was the
faculty who eventually created a campaign, online letter campaign and the rest is
sort of history.
“Making noise” by hosting events on campus, meeting with allies, and pressuring
administration was an intentional strategy by UUS’ members in order to continue to build
awareness about undocumented student issues and the need for institutional support.
As Robert mentioned, key to expanding the sense of urgency to support
undocumented students at CPU was the advocacy role that staff and faculty in particular
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 162
played on campus in pushing administration to act. Dr. Gomez, one of the founders of the
faculty initiative RISE and a leading scholar on immigration shared that one of the ways
faculty pressured administration to support students was by bringing up to their attention
the ways CPU was falling behind in developing efforts to support its undocumented
population compared to other colleges and universities in the area. After approaching the
university’s administration with his concerns, Dr. Gomez shared with me the Provost’s
response:
So I think that that comment captured it all, "I've never seen you this angry", which
I think was the Provost realizing, “these are the people who have responsibly
created a center [to study immigration], raised a lot of money, dialogued to the
chamber of commerce, done a bunch of civic stuff… If they're pissed, then
something is gonna happen.” So you can imagine, there's a lot of pressure.
The pressure that prominent scholars and professors created through a social media
campaign, op-eds, a public ad on the newspaper, and several campaign letters, would
eventually lead to the creation of the Provost’s Committee on Immigration and a series of
institutional efforts such as the expansion of the legal clinic, the appointment of a part-time
staff member, the creation of a center initiative on immigration, among others. Over time,
Dr. Gomez shared that CPU began to take action and “started being number 20 on the
group of 50 signatories” in support of undocumented students.
2. Use the Available Networks
Unlike FPU where there is a long-standing history of student involvement and
advocacy, CPU has a culture of limited involvement and advocacy around issues of social
justice. CPU’s student involvement is dominated by Greek Life and student government,
and student-led advocacy efforts are less prevailing. Given the limited influence an
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 163
organization like UUS has on a predominantly conservative campus compared to an
institution like FPU, students at CPU relied on their networks and allies to advocate for the
undocumented student population. Members used the surrounding existing social systems
as an opportunity to help them expand their own efforts. Staff and influential faculty helped
UUS members to “make noise” and push the university to act on behalf of undocumented
students. In particular, the collaboration between UUS and faculty from RISE from which
the Provost’s Committee on Immigration emerged served as a key element to advance
progress on campus in support of undocumented students following the elections.
Claims & Frames: A) Need to Centralize Information and Efforts. The lack of
centralized ally efforts, formal point of contact for undocumented student issues, and
decentralized culture contributed to the emergence of multiple and sometimes duplicate
efforts to support undocumented students. After the elections, members of UUS were asked
to participate in various efforts happening on campus such as collaborate on a social media
campaign for the creation of a sanctuary status, contribute to various proposals for
undocumented resource centers, speak at panels and events, collaborate with the Provost’s
Committee on Immigration, among others. Students tried to support all of the various
efforts on campus, but over time they seemed to be confusing and difficult to keep track of.
Joe shared what it was like to participate in multiple efforts:
There's some symbolism in the allies that we were able to work with. We're working
with the Provost’s Committee for sure. Through I guess our advisor, we do work
with admissions a little bit, which they produce the website and financial aid as
well. That happened really fast.
Now besides that, we're also working very closely with the School of Law because
they're trying to identify our needs as well. Then we're telling them what we need,
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 164
vice versa… We try to work with other orgs when we do events like obviously
because we have a diverse population within our population… We're also
highlighting our work for additional orgs to build partnerships because I think that
it's important to build our partnerships within our own campus, so we have done a
lot of that as well.
Then we're always looking to do more, but it is tough because at the end of the day,
we are students first. I think a lot of that falls on a few members on the org who tend
to do most of the liaison outreaching.
As a new organization in a campus where student organizing is limited, UUS took
advantage of the different existing networks on campus to advance their efforts and
continue to advocate for undocumented students at CPU.
Students described the duplicate grassroots efforts across campus they participated
in, their frustration by the limited-to-no-change they resulted in, and the lack of follow-
through by these efforts with UUS members. This created some confusion and frustration
among members of UUS. Most of the students and allies I spoke with felt that the
decentralized nature of CPU and lack of formal structures of support for undocumented
students made organizing challenging. The decentralized culture of CPU possibly
contributed to the limited impact of some of the initiatives. A member of UUS explained
the shared member frustration over the decentralized nature of CPU:
We do work with the Provost’s Committee on Immigration, which is a movement
that was brought on after the election from people who were concerned about our
population. I mean, I'll be honest. It's very symbolic because it's good to know that
people care, but as far as concrete actions, we're still not sure what's being
produced. It went from the Provost’s Committee, and then this other separate,
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 165
independent task force as well or groups, whether it's student government, different
departments, different schools, school of education, school of policy...
Then they started doing their own thing, right? Which is great, but it's confusing
because they're doing their separate thing. They're doing their own thing. That's the
way it's been designed. I get it, but sometimes it's like beating a dead horse or
sometimes it sounds like a broken record sometimes. At the end of the day, what are
we producing? In the production of the Provost’s Committee, in the separate works,
I haven't seen anyone moving the needle on campus as far as policies.
The lack of follow-through and communication across efforts to support undocumented
students created confusion and frustration by members who gave their time and energy into
these various initiatives. Members like Jazmin felt that sharing their stories over and over
again took a toll on their emotional well-being. She shared that after voicing her concerns
multiple times, “it got pointless because nothing was happening” and “I felt belittled all the
time at meetings, even though they cared to listen for a second, at the end of the day,
whatever happened in that room sort of stayed in that room.” By the time I concluded my
data collection, students acknowledged that there was substantial progress made as a result
of the various grassroots efforts after the elections, but nothing was permanent or long-
term. Students and allies knew that if they wanted to make long-lasting changes, they
needed to centralize information and create strategic and planned partnerships.
Strategies & Tactics: A) Partner-Up with Allies. Partnering with allies including
staff, faculty, peers, and other student organizations was an intentional strategy by UUS to
centralize and expand support for undocumented students. These allyships were key in
accessing information about how to navigate certain spaces and plan efforts. Members
knew that because of the limited number of undocumented students on campus, and the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 166
difficulty of coming out in the current anti-immigrant climate at a conservative institution
like CPU, UUS needed all of the ally support and attention they could get. Collaborating
with peer organizations such as by co-sponsoring or participating in events was one form of
partnership. For example, UUS was invited to participate in a Latinx student organization
ally training meeting where members got a chance to contribute and answer any questions
for attendees. UUS also co-sponsored a movie screening of “Spare Parts”
9
with the
engineering student organization. Collaborations with other student organizations helped
UUS raise awareness about their newly established organization, as well as connect with
and recruit other peers.
Another important partnership for UUS was collaborating with and supporting
efforts of staff and faculty members. Students were often invited to participate in forums
and dialogues on immigration as panelists. Several members of UUS worked closely with
faculty from RISE and the Provost’s Committee, as well as with representatives from the
Legal Clinic to identify needs and propose solutions to the administration. Joe explained the
intentional partnerships UUS secured:
I guess as far as strategically, that's something we became more ingrained in, right?
And identifying key allies. That's another thing that came out of [the elections] as
well. As far as strategy goes, that's one thing we've been working hard at is
identifying the allies and getting things on the table with certain issues and being
very strategic in who we network with outside our org, how it could benefit our org
overall, right? At CPU it's very interesting… To certain allies, they're also able to

9
The film tells the story of four Latino immigrant high schools students who attend an underfunded public
high school in Arizona, and go on to compete and win at the Marine Advanced Technology Education
Robotics Competition.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 167
spread the word of our organization. We don't have the capacity to outreach the
whole school. It doesn't function like that here unfortunately.
Building networks with student organizations, faculty, and staff was a key opportunity and
strategy UUS utilized in order to expand the interest, awareness, and advocacy efforts for
undocumented students at CPU.
A particularly important ally and supporter of UUS is the organization’s advisor
Robert. Robert meets with UUS members on a regular basis every semester and guides
them in setting realistic and strategic goals, planning steps to achieve them, and helps
connect students with opportunities. For example from its re-emergence, Robert helped
connect the three original students who had expressed an interest in developing a student
organization for undocumented students at CPU. Robert guided the students through the
process of starting an official organization on campus. Over time, Robert helped members
narrow their goals to focus on creating community and advocating for undocumented
students within CPU rather than spread themselves too thin with numerous goals. Robert
also organized and facilitated strategic meetings with top administrators to ensure that
member’s needs and goals would be heard. Robert shared how he used his networks to
connect students with administrative leadership:
A lot of people are so scared now. They really are, so for me to have a relationship
with the Provost and be able to meet with them and negotiate a meeting, that's
insane. A lot of people, they don't even talk to him. They're like scared, so these are
the walls though that does not help our students. That's the whole point. It's not
about me knowing him, it's like what does that mean to our students. It means stuff
when we can get meetings and we can get stuff done. So, anyway, but I think I'm
glad that I went in it with them and the community supported it.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 168
Robert not only serves as the organization’s advisor, but also as a cultural broker between
members and administration. As a student affairs professional, he understands the
decentralized and conservative culture of CPU, and he utilizes his networks and resources
to connect students to various opportunities on campus to continue to advance their
objectives.
3. New Leadership, New Opportunities
In the last two years, CPU faced a series of scandals and fraud cases. These
incidents were exacerbated by the lack of transparency by the institution in regards to
decision-making – a reflection of the culture described by many of the students, faculty,
and staff I interviewed. Many CPU alumni, students, faculty, staff, and influential
benefactors are concerned about the university’s ability to adequately manage
administrative oversight and accountability. The scandals resulted in a series of letters
signed by hundreds of faculty demanding more transparency and accountability from the
university, as well as demanding that the President of CPU step down. Soon after, the
President and later the Provost resigned from their positions.
The change in CPU’s administrative leadership created an opportunity for many to
raise concerns about issues that they wanted to address within the university. UUS,
alongside Robert and other allies advocated so that undocumented student needs were
brought up during the hiring search committees and forums, and included as a priority in
the new leadership’s agenda. While this opportunity may be unique to CPU and is not as
common or frequent at other institutions, it is nonetheless an example of how students and
allies created an opportunity out of a particular event at their campus. It is also an
opportunity that emerged from a largely conservative, decentralized, and non-transparent
culture that continues to be prevalent at other private universities.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 169
Claims & Frames: A) Include Undocumented Student Needs as Part of the
Change. Students knew that the university made substantial progress in shifting the climate
for undocumented students at CPU by expanding resources for undocumented students, and
acknowledging and supporting their presence at the university and in the country. Before
the leadership changes, the President and Provost eventually served as advocates for
undocumented students outside of campus in Sacramento and in D.C. However, students
still felt that most of these efforts were reactive and temporary solutions, instead of
proactive and long-term. If members wanted to continue to advocate for permanent
solutions, students needed to make sure their concerns were carried on to the agendas of the
new campus leadership. Jazmin acknowledged the progress of the university in the last
three years, but knew that it needed to do more:
We did have a couple successes. The provost did allocate money to the CPU
immigration clinic to provide funding for DACA renewals for appointments,
consultations for students to come in and ask questions about their legal status or if
there's any potential way they can become residents or even further family
members, I think that was very beneficial. It helped me to ease some of those legal
issues. He did appoint a person to assist with all the undocumented issues, but even
though we've had all of that, I feel like those have just been ways to sort of calm the
crowd, so that we don't continue demanding more things or asking for more things.
Students wanted long-term solutions. Creating a permanent and institutionally supported
resource center for undocumented students was the ideal next solution for students. In
conversation with members towards the end data collection for this study, many were
concerned that the “momentum” to support undocumented students was dying out, and they
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 170
would no longer be able to use it to continue advocating for a resource center under the
university’s new administration.
Members of UUS and Robert were concerned that after the change in administrative
leadership, their efforts to create awareness, interest, and initiative among administrative
leaders would get pushed aside. At the same time, Robert also communicated to members
that the changes could also be an opportunity to push for an undocumented resource center
under a new leadership. Joe shared what he envisioned the administration could do for
undocumented students:
What it can do overall is ultimately implement a Dream center [which] would
hopefully bridge all our needs into one space rather than having to allocate or look
for a source separately, which can be confusing and difficult to navigate and it's not
very student-centered. I think ultimately, they could implement a one-stop place,
like a Dream center to do services overall – would be amazing, you know?
Ensuring that undocumented student needs and demands were carried on to the new
administration’s agenda was key. Students felt that towards the end of their term, the
university President and Provost had been more receptive to their needs and set a good
example for the new leadership to build on.
Strategies & Tactics: B) Insert Themselves in the Conversations. In order to
make sure that UUS’s demands carried on to the new leadership, they needed to insert
themselves in important decision-making spaces. During several UUS meetings, Robert
emphasized the importance of attending the open forums hosted by the President’s search
committee and speaking up about undocumented student experiences, needs, and demands.
Robert himself shared that he made sure to bring up the topic at every open meeting, and
that he received positive feedback and encouragement from attendees.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 171
During my interview with Robert, he shared a story of a particular time he brought
up the “issue” of undocumented student during an open university forum for CPU’s new
President:
I think the incoming president, he, her, them, they, need to be ... This needs to be on
their radar and it needs to be ... So, do you remember the listening sessions and all
that stuff, frustrating as they were. You have to do what you have to ... Make
lemonade out of lemons so I forced myself to speak at it, even though I was
frustrated with it. But, one of the things that I made sure to put out was this issue
because I feel like this issue needs to continue and that's what I was trying to say
when I said what I said. It's interesting because I ran into a very high, upper official
of CPU who's Latina, who I really don't talk too often to be honest with you. She
was very happy that I brought it up… I wanted people to know, this isn't new thing.
I'm not advocating for something new. The President was already doing this and I
mentioned the Washington DC visits in Sacramento with him and the Provost and I
mentioned that a dream center is needed. I was surprised after I said it, the room
applauded. It was a big room. There was like I don't know, 350 people there, give or
take. I was surprised but then I'm like, "Okay, that's good. People know. It's not a
new thing." It was good for [the Board of Trustees] and all of his people to hear
that. So I think the thing is this needs to be on the next CPU's President's agenda.
Top five, top 10 whatever it is things. Not some side issue, not ... It needs to be
valued for the fact that the previous administration, even though it took them
forever, but hey, they were leading and so there's legacy there as he made the
commitment.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 172
As the organization’s advisor and advocate for the undocumented student population,
Robert understood that the new leadership change was an opportunity UUS could take
advantage of. As a broker between students and top administration, Robert’s strategy was
to be proactive about making sure the needs of undocumented students were considered
during the search committee and that he continue to build relationships with the new
President and Provost. Having these connections would allow Robert to continue to set up
meetings between administration and UUS leaders, and continue to advocate for a resource
center at CPU.
4. Re-Build the Organization
In addition to taking advantage of external opportunities to advocate for building an
undocufriendly climate at CPU, UUS members also utilized the elections as an opportunity
to re-build the organization after almost five years of being inactive. Even though the re-
emergence of UUS coincided with the 2016 presidential elections, students used the
attention and momentum to emphasize the importance of bringing the organization back
and create a space of community and support for undocumented students at CPU. The
elections seemed to also contribute to students’ interest in wanting to create and join an
organization like UUS, particularly for students who are undocumented, or come from
mixed-status families.
Because when UUS was first established it was not a registered student organization
at CPU, the new student leaders had very little foundation to build off of. This meant that
the new leadership had the opportunity to create its own constitution, mission, goals,
objectives, and even a brand new logo. While the flexibility of creating an almost
completely new organization was exciting, the process was also challenging for students to
navigate. Over the first three years since its re-emergence, members learned how to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 173
continue to build the identity of UUS, and ensure that its legacy continued for years to
come.
Claims & Frames: A) Need to Build Community. Before the re-emergence of
UUS, students did not have any spaces for community building among undocumented
students at CPU. Robert, Director of the Chicanx/Latinx Resource Center was an informal
advisor to many undocumented students who approached him. However, this further
alienated students who did not identify as Chicanx or Latinx from connecting with other
undocumented students on campus. Several of the initial leaders and members shared that
before UUS, there was no formal way of joining an undocumented student community at
CPU. Jazmin shared her experience on campus before the re-emergence of UUS:
So, UUS wasn't in the picture of what my college journey looked like until maybe
the end of my freshman year. I remember being approached by Joe, and I remember
sitting down and talking to him about some of the struggles that I was facing and
how I didn't really have a community that understood those struggles or a
community that I can feel safe going to. I didn't really have people that I felt
comfortable sharing my status with or seeking assistance from without having to
retell this constant story of, “oh I'm undocumented and here's a list of all the
struggles that I would like for you to take off of my shoulders.” So after conversing
with him about that, I met with other students.
For Jazmin and other students I spoke to, meeting with other undocumented students who
shared the same struggles and experiences was important to access a community of support.
Opening up about their immigration status was difficult at a place like CPU, making it
difficult to build a community for undocumented students.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 174
The elections further exacerbated the need for an undocumented student
organization. Robert connected Jazmin, Joe, and other students that had expressed interest
in starting an organization for undocumented students. As the 2016 elections were
happening, the students and Robert got together and planned the re-emergence of UUS
including creating the organization’s constitution, developing its goals, and recruiting
members. The elections seemed to intensify the need to create an organization, and
influence its goals and mission. Jazmin, one of the co-founders of the re-emergence shared:
As we were restarting this organization, the election was happening where Trump
got elected president, so that sort of fueled a lot of the conversation about what do
we want this organization to look like? What are its goals gonna be? And we ended
up deciding that we wanted to build a community, above anything else, a
community, because there was a lot of people who shared similar stories and
identities of their own but there wasn't a common space we could share or a place
we can always go to or people that we knew we can go to all the time.
While students did not plan the re-emergence of UUS as a result of the elections, the anti-
immigrant rhetoric fueled the need for a common space for undocumented students. After
Trump was elected, students knew that they needed the organization more than ever in
order to access a community of support, information, and advocacy.
Strategies & Tactics. In order to bring UUS back in sustainable and long-lasting
way, members: (a) began to prioritize the immediate needs of their undocumented peers
first; and (b) adopted strategies to ensure that new members remained motivated to
participate in UUS in order to create a solid foundation for new generations of student
leaders.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 175
A) Immediate Needs First. At first, members struggled to bring UUS back from the
ground and address various challenges and goals simultaneously, but over time they
focused on the organization’s immediate needs. Students did not have much to build off of
from the previous original leadership five years ago, and they felt they were essentially
starting from scratch. Belen shared how difficult it was at the beginning to start an
undocumented student organization at a place like CPU:
There's always the challenge of doing this work while also being a student. Because
the nature of the socio-political climate at CPU isn't too welcoming for this type of
work. I feel like it's double the work that we have to do because there's no
groundwork, there's no set thing to follow. And because we have re-emerged the
club, we don't have anything to follow off of. So we have to do everything
ourselves. We don't really know how clubs are run, there's not really anyone to tell
us how to run a club. We could just, we show up to the meetings and we do what we
have to do. So it's been very challenging not having a basis, and not really knowing
how to do this.
It took some time for leaders and members to learn about the processes of starting an
organization at CPU. In conversation with several members, students shared how
recruitment and event marketing can be difficult when they are unable to publicly share
certain events that could threaten the safety of students. Students also found it difficult to
connect with new undocumented students as they did not have a way to connect with them,
and there was no resource center that could direct them to UUS.
As students learned how to create an organization at CPU, they also struggled to
create a set of realistic, and achievable goals. At first, members felt that they were
overextending themselves trying to build a community and resources for undocumented
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 176
students at CPU, while also developing community partnerships and collaborations. For a
new and growing undocumented organization situated within a volatile sociopolitical
context, achieving both goals was a lot. Over time, members decided to focus their goals
and efforts internally in order build a community of undocumented students, and advocate
for resources and services within CPU. Stephanie describes the strategic shift in goals:
Initially, we wanted to tackle a lot. We wanted to reach out a lot to the community.
And then we sat down one meeting and realized that we have a lot that we wanna
do, we have the goals that we wanna achieve, but we don't have a lot of manpower.
It's just us and we don't have either the funds or the time, given that we're students
and we want to organize these events. So over time, we decided that we wanted to
focus it more just on the students and not reaching out so much to the community,
which we would do initially. We would hold panels for parents and people in the
community and now we mostly base it for students who are at CPU. I think that we
came to that conclusion because although we still wanted to reach out to as many
people as we would like and people in the community, we are just so few that can
do only so much. And I think the main goal of UUS was that we had to establish a
space here at school for undocumented students.
The original goal of the organization was to build a community of support for
undocumented students at CPU. With the elections, students felt the pressure to be more
involved in the community the way organizations like JUSt do. Joe shared that because of
the nature of their organization, it was inevitable that UUS become a “kind of political arm
of sorts.” He feels that deciding how “politically engaged” UUS should be in the
community will be something members will confront in the near future as it continues to
evolve.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 177
Another immediate need that members were faced with in addition to building
community was keeping up with legal issues on immigration that impact undocumented
students and their families. Even though members often wanted to do events to support the
social, educational, and professional advancement of undocumented students, UUS
constantly faced a series of legal concerns happening in the larger sociopolitical
environment. For example, the post-elections debrief that UUS hosted was originally meant
to be an Horchata Talk about career opportunities for undocumented students. On several
occasions, students had to change their plans to address the immediate legal concerns of
members. Many of their open events were “legal updates” that included a law student or
attorney to answer any questions and concerns. Joe described how UUS handled the
immediate legal needs:
Obviously [the elections] impacted our goals because we had to keep up to date
with all the ever-changing legal landscape, of the policies put on by the
administration. That's our priority, meaning we have students on DACA, TPS…
“What’s up with that? Here's what's happening, what's going on.” We have
immediate goals, right? Which is the intermediate legal issues impacting our
students and long term goals of growing a club, having social support services.
Potential changes in DACA, TPS, backlogs in applications, among other legal issues were
relevant and of immediate concern for undocumented students. If members wanted to
ensure the growth of the UUS among undocumented students, they had to prioritize
offering reliable access to information and resources for students and their families who
may be impacted by the unstable sociopolitical environment.
B) Slow, and Steady Transitions. While figuring out how to effectively continue to
develop UUS, members faced a series of challenges that made them realize they needed to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 178
“slow down” and re-strategize. When UUS was officially re-launched, leadership wanted to
quickly recruit undocumented members to grow the organization. Members hosted several
events per week, but over time the number of events became unsustainable for the few
members who had to plan and organize them. Most event attendees were not undocumented
students, but allies who wanted to learn more about UUS and how to support students.
Jazmin shared that “at the beginning we didn't really know how to approach it,” and it was
“hard to know how to reach the community that we're trying to reach.” Members organized
up to two events every week, and “it put a lot of pressure on us given that we're also
students who were juggling school work and family issues and what have you.” Instead of
planning so many events, members decided to organize a couple of signature events once or
twice a semester. This decreased the pressure that members were feeling about constantly
planning events, and it allowed them to plan for signature events they could continue to do
every year.
To avoid fast burnout by new members and keep them motivated to continue
participating in UUS, leaders tried to ease the transition of new members. The year I
collected data, many of the leaders who brought UUS back were graduating, which meant
that they needed to ensure new leaders felt confident to continue the legacy of the
organization. Joe explained that for every position, they tried to have two members – an
experienced member, and a new member. He explained that by having two members, “we
can spread the responsibilities to more than one person to get the work done and to allow
more students to get involved” and “it's a way for us to ease new members for the future as
well.” By easing-in new members, leaders want to “get people active, and not just to come
to a meeting.” Slowly and over time, the original leadership played a “behind the scenes
role” and allowed new members to take initiative as leaders of UUS. The re-emergence
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 179
leaders were concerned that the organization would dissolve again after they graduate. By
facilitating the transition of new members and potential leaders, as well as splitting the
work among two members per position, leaders wanted to ensure that UUS remained a
community space for undocumented students at CPU.
Summary of Political Opportunities at CPU
Similar to JUSt at FPU, the political opportunities of UUS at CPU following the
2016 elections were a reflection of the type, culture, and climate towards undocumented
students. The biggest opportunity that emerged was using the larger anti-immigrant rhetoric
and interest the elections brought on issues of immigration across CPU in order to
challenge the university to step up and take action in support of undocumented students.
UUS and allies pointed to the ways CPU was falling behind many of its peer universities,
and it needed to move towards a more undocufriendly campus. The largely politically
conservative climate and limited student organizing led UUS members to turn towards their
available networks and allies, and serve as centers of information to try centralize various
efforts. Another opportunity that emerged was a change of administrative leadership as a
result of a series of scandals. Students and allies strategically inserted themselves into
important decision-making spaces in order to ensure that undocumented student needs were
considered in the search process for a new President and Provost. And lastly, members used
the post-election rhetoric to re-build the organization in a sustainable way with achievable
goals that address the immediate needs of the undocumented student community.
In the following chapter, I discuss the study findings in relation to the research
questions, revisit the theoretical model, and conclude with a discussion of implications for
policy, practice, and student organizations, study limitations, and suggestions for future
research.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 180
Chapter 6: Discussion of Findings, Implications, and Conclusion
The purpose of this dissertation is to understand how the current anti-immigrant
sociopolitical context marked by the 2016 presidential elections influenced undocumented
college student organizations, how these organizations navigate threats and opportunities in
their environment, and how they continue to support their undocumented peers. For this
study, I conducted a case study comparison between two student organizations in different
universities located in the same broader context within California and Los Angeles area to
emphasize the role of institutional differences on student organizing. By focusing on the
institutional level, I examined differences by institutional type, culture, and climate
between a public, undocufriendly university (FPU), and a private, non-undocufriendly
university (CPU). A comparison at the institutional level shed light on the ways that
undocumented student organizations perceived their political opportunities, or
environmental factors than enhance or inhibit collective mobilization (Meyer & Minkoff,
2004; Tarrow, 2011), and how they navigated these spaces through various claims and
frames, and strategies and tactics.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. In what ways does context at the national, state, local, and campus level
influence undocumented student organizations?
2. How do undocumented student organizations navigate threats and opportunities
created by their environment? In particular, how do undocumented student
organizations navigate threats and opportunities within a campus climate that is
undocufriendly and one that is not undocufriendly?
3. How do undocumented student organizations continue to support and advocate
for their members within a heightened anti-immigrant sociopolitical context?
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 181
In this final chapter, I first summarize the key findings of this study. Next, I revisit
my theoretical model and share its theoretical contributions. I conclude with a discussion of
implications for policy, practice, and student organizations, study limitations, and
suggestions for future research.
Summary of Major Findings
In order to understand the influence of the broader context on undocumented
student organizations, I first had to take into consideration the ways that each campus
experiences their larger environment based on their institutional type, culture, and climate.
Located in one of the most welcoming areas towards undocumented individuals in
California and Los Angeles region, both universities are geographically situated in
environments that are progressive and receptive towards their undocumented population.
State and local policies such as in-state tuition, state financial aid, access to professional
and driver’s licenses, sanctuary status, as well as opportunities for socioeconomic
integration create a welcoming environment that both universities are a part of.
As a public institution, FPU is bound by specific state policies. For example, under
AB 540 and the California Dream Act, FPU can only offer in-state tuition and institutional
financial aid to students who qualify. Many non-AB 540 students who do not receive in-
state or state financial aid attend school part-time to save money, or will drop out entirely
because they are unable to afford the tuition without financial assistance. Because of the
limited number of non-AB5 540 and non-DACA students and the difficulty of retaining
them, much of the resources and programming created are accessible to recipients. This
fuels the creation of an AB 540- and DACA-centric institution. Even though FPU offers
some of the most well-established services and undocufriendly climates for undocumented
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 182
students in the nation, is often at the forefront of undocumented student issues, it still falls
short in creating an inclusive environment for all undocumented students.
In comparison, CPU is a private university that is not restricted by these state
policies, and as such is able to control its own tuition rates and financial assistance. CPU
currently offers a flat tuition rate regardless of residency or immigration status, and
provides extensive financial aid and scholarships to students who qualify. Based on my
interviews, many undocumented students (including students who are not recipients of AB
540 or DACA) benefit from scholarships and academic programs CPU offers to students
who are first in their family to go to college, and come from low-income households. Even
though CPU is located in a progressive, welcoming, and mostly immigrant location in Los
Angeles, it is its own politically conservative enclave dominated by a politically
conservative Board of Trustees, donors, and alumni. Much of the support was offered
“under the table” so as to not ruffle any feathers from top conservative leadership. CPU’s
location in a progressive and welcoming space for undocumented individuals seemed to
play an essential role in its initial transformation towards becoming an undocufriendly
campus.
Research Question 1
The unresolved national immigration policy and heightened anti-immigrant
sociopolitical rhetoric clashed with California’s efforts to welcome and integrate
undocumented immigrants. Even though the broader national climate permeated both
campuses, the state and local environment played an essential role in pushing each campus
to combat anti-immigrant policies and advocate for the expansion of support for
uncommented students. The interactions of FPU and CPU with their environments based on
their institutional type, culture, and climate are what set the stage for the ways that
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 183
undocumented students experience the larger sociopolitical climate. Returning to research
question 1, my findings show that despite the institutional characteristics, the larger
sociopolitical climate permeated both institutions, but influenced each undocumented
student organization differently. At FPU, the elections led to member burnout, and a
reemergence of a more inclusive agenda for all undocumented students. At CPU, the
elections coincided with the reemergence of the organization, and members strategically
utilized the interest the elections created in order to kick-start the organization and create
awareness on campus about the experiences and needs of undocumented students.
The 2016 elections created a widespread sense of concern, fear, and even anxiety
among undocumented students at FPU who were previously “out” and open about their
status. The climate after the elections and subsequent racist nativist policies under the
Trump administration created burnout among members and leaders of JUSt, which led to
the organization losing the majority of its members, being removed from important
decision-making spaces, and almost disappearing from campus. The elections intensified
the pressure on member and student leaders to continue to offer support and advocacy
avenues for undocumented students. As a result, only a handful of leaders remained and
were able to sustain the organization over the next two years. It was not until the 2018-2019
academic year when I collected data at this site that JUSt regained membership,
momentum, and relevance on campus once again.
Another way the anti-immigrant sociopolitical context influenced JUSt was through
its goals and focus. After the elections, JUSt shifted its focus to creating an inclusive
environment for all undocumented students regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or AB 540
and DACA status, and pushed the university to expand its role as an undocufriendly
campus. Following the widespread xenophobic rhetoric of the elections and attacks on
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 184
DACA and TPS, students talked about the emergence of a new sense of solidarity against
politics of fear that permeate the university and create divisions among the undocumented
student population. The elections brought a hyper-awareness of the ways anti-immigrant
sociopolitical rhetoric creates divisions among the “deserving” and “underserving”
immigrant through the Dreamer narrative, and perpetuates stereotypes such as being a
“Latinx issue” and criminalizing immigrants from Latin American countries.
Meanwhile at CPU, the attention that the elections created on issues of immigration
permeated the campus and led to a campus-wide interest on immigrant and undocumented
individuals at CPU. A series of grassroots efforts led by students, faculty, and staff
coalitions emerged to expand support for undocumented students. The elections coincided
with the re-emergence of UUS, which in turn helped boost the attention the organization
needed to grow and establish itself as advocates for undocumented students at CPU. It
seems that the support UUS received from various agents across campus after the elections
encouraged several members of UUS to come out and share their experiences as
undocumented students to create awareness and advocate for the expansion of services at
CPU.
As a newly formally established student organization on campus, UUS struggled to
create an identity on campus, and define its mission and goals. At first, members had
ambitious goals which included developing the undocumented community at CPU, and
building community partnerships. After the elections, members realized that they needed to
re-focus their efforts to address immediate community needs. The number of events
decreased to a few signature events per semester related to important pressing sociopolitical
issues, and student leaders focused on participating in on-campus coalitions like the RISE
and with other student government. Members narrowed their goals to prioritize building
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 185
community among undocumented students at CPU, as well as advocate for essential
resources such as access to relevant information, staff training, hiring of trained staff, and
the creation of an undocumented resource center.
Overall, the elections influenced each organization differently based on the campus
they were located in, how developed or stable the organization was, and the needs of
students at the time. At FPU, the elections led to member burnout and almost the complete
disappearance of the organization. Located in a DACA- and AB 540- centric public
university, the organization demanded that the university take on a more proactive role in
supporting undocumented students, and creating an inclusive agenda for all undocumented
students. In comparison, members at CPU used the attention from the elections as a way to
help them develop the organization, and advocate for the development of essential
resources and services for undocumented students. As an affluent private university, state
policies like AB 540 and the Dream Act did not have the same influence on CPU as they
did at FPU, allowing students to focus on areas of need relevant to their campus
environment.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 examines how undocumented student organizations navigate
threats and opportunities within their respective institutions. Similar to the above research
question, each organization navigated their campus environment differently based on
institutional differences and unique campus characteristics. In order to create inclusivity
and expand support for all undocumented students, members of utilized FPU’s
undocufriendly claims as a way to describe how the university fell short of them, as well as
made internal changes to reflect these aims. Members at FPU also utilized existing
structures including collaborating with the larger UC undocu-student network and applying
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 186
for umbrella organization designation. At CPU, in order to begin moving towards an
undocufriendly campus members had to educate the community about undocumented
student experiences, flex their ally networks, and strategically utilize changes in the top
administrative leadership to continue to advocate for students.
Within FPU, members pointed to the ways the university “waved its diversity flag,”
and indulged in being one of the most undocufriendly campuses across the nation, but in
reality only offers selective support for undocumented students who qualified for AB 540
and DACA. Leaders strategically raised the issue of lack of inclusivity for all
undocumented students in meetings with administrators, elevated the voices of non-AB540
and non-DACA students, and often had to educate staff and administrators about how the
policies of the university further perpetuate divisions within the undocumented population.
Members made intentional changes within the organization in order to reflect their
inclusive agenda, such as changing their name from “equality” to “equity,” and giving non-
AB 540 and non-DACA students priority to their scholarships. Students also utilized
existing structures to their advantage. For example, leaders used the larger UC network of
undocumented student leaders in order to strategically pressure their respective institutions
across all nine UC campuses to match the UCOP funding, as well as encourage the UC
Regents and Office of the President to take on a more proactive role to support
undocumented students. Leaders also applied to become an umbrella organization, an
existing system of umbrella student organizations that support the retention of historically
marginalized students at FPU, which would have given JUSt more considerable influence
and access to administrators.
Similarly, UUS also took advantage of new opportunities and existing structures to
advance their agenda. Members used the momentum and interest in immigration and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 187
undocumented students created by the elections in order to raise awareness about their
experiences and needs, as well as demand institutional services and resources. Given the
widespread lack of knowledge about undocumented student experiences, UUS also had to
do a lot of the “educating” to the campus community. Unique to CPU was a series of
scandals which tainted campus leadership. The scandals were further exacerbated by the
lack of institutional transparency and accountability on decision-making processes,
sometimes found in other similar private colleges and universities that operate as
independent units. Members of UUS and their allies utilized the unstable climate and
changes in top administrative leadership as an opportunity to insert undocumented student
issues and needs into the new institutional changes. For example, students and allies
strategically raised the need for the creation of services and resources for undocumented
students during open search committee forums for the new administrative positions, and
met with current administrators to ensure the issue continued as a priority on the new
leadership’s agenda. And lastly, given that UUS does not have the same leverage on
campus as a student organization compared to JUSt, members flexed their ally networks in
order to continue to advocate for undocumented students on campus. Collaborating with
other peer organizations, student government, and RISE were vital in helping UUS make
progress in their advocacy goals.
Research Question 3
Lastly, research question 3 points to the ways that undocumented student
organizations continue to support undocumented students in their respective institutions.
While both organizations provided overarching support in regards to offering community
space, reliable and timely information, and advocacy avenues, there were slight differences
in their approaches to supporting undocumented students
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 188
After the elections, both organizations focused on continuing to support
undocumented students by creating a sense of community, offering relevant up-to-date
information, and creating opportunities for advocacy. However, given institutional
differences based on type, culture, and climate, each organization focused on different areas
of support based on the needs of the undocumented students at their respective institutions.
As a well-established undocumented student organization in an undocufriendly campus,
JUSt pushed the boundaries to create an inclusive environment for all undocumented
students. As a newly-established organization in a campus that lacked many of the essential
services and resources of an undocufriendly campus, UUS had to focus on addressing their
immediate needs and build a long-lasting, safe community of support to advocate for
undocumented students on campus.
In line with the existing literature, both undocumented student organizations served
a critical role in offering relevant information and supportive social networks to students
(Chavez et al., 2007; Contreras, 2009; Enriquez, 2011; Garcia & Tierney, 2011; Hallett,
2013; Pérez, 2012; Pérez Huber & Malagon, 2007; Teranishi et al., 2015), particularly
within the current anti-immigrant climate. Members in both organizations engaged in
“patchworking,” or what Enriquez (2011) refers to the piecing together of limited resources
from multiple resources to develop social networks and knowledge that undocumented
students can use to navigate their educational experiences. For example after formally
establishing UUS, students often had to reach out for support from various staff, faculty,
and peers to figure out how to grow and maintain the basic functions of the organization.
Both student organizations served as centers of community-building, information,
and advocacy for undocumented students and students from mixed-status families.
Members in both organizations often shared that they joined in order to connect with other
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 189
undocumented peers, and support each other emotionally, academically, and professionally.
The organizations are also crucial spaces that offer up-to-date information that institutions
often fail to provide such as relevant policies that affect undocumented students and their
families. For example, students often organized “policy update” events with attorneys or
law students to offer accurate information about DACA and TPS. The organizations also
provided advocacy opportunities to expand support for undocumented students both on-
and off-campus.
Differences in how each organization continued to offer support for undocumented
students varied by institutional differences, and the respective needs of students.
Established over fifteen years ago, JUSt has evolved to become a well-structured
organization and advocacy hub for undocumented students on- and off-campus. As a well-
established and recognized organization in an undocufriendly university with an
infrastructure of support for undocumented students, it does not need to focus on
advocating for basic needs. Instead, members are able to advance what it means to be an
undocufriendly campus at FPU. Following the elections, JUSt focused on creating an
inclusive agenda for all undocumented students, particularly for students who do not
qualify for AB 540 or DACA. This focus may also be unique to public institutions who are
tied to state policies like in-state tuition and state financial aid. Members also explicitly
acknowledged the Latinx-centric nature of the organization, and attempted to expand their
member diversity by reaching out to other student organizations. Despite undergoing a
rough two years after the elections where the organization lost most of its members, the
new leadership shifted the organization’s focus to combat divisions that racist nativist
policies create within the immigrant population.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 190
In contrast, UUS is a relatively new student organization. The leaders struggled to
create an identity for the organization, recruit members, and establish clear and attainable
goals within a politically conservative campus climate. The climate is exacerbated by the
limited institutional resources for undocumented students, and decentralized ally networks
of support. After the elections, members of UUS focused on building a safe community for
undocumented students, and advocate for essential services and resources on campus such
as DACA renewal funds, hiring a full-time trained staff member, and creating a resource
center. Intragroup differences around race, ethnicity, and DACA/AB 540 status did not
emerge the way they did at FPU. This may be because as a private university with a large
endowment, CPU is able to offer financial aid to undocumented students regardless of AB
540 or DACA status. Differences by race and ethnicity did not emerge the way they did at
FPU possibly because members were focused on creating communal spaces for all
undocumented students, and no racial or ethnic differences were relevant in the early stages
of the organization’s development.
The heightened anti-immigrant wave brought on by the 2016 elections and
consecutive presidency brought a widespread sense of fear and instability for
undocumented college students and their families. Each undocumented student organization
in this study was influenced differently by the elections based on institutional differences in
type, culture, and climate, as well as the developmental stage of the organization. I
explained how each organization perceived and navigated different threats and
opportunities in their environment, as well as how they utilized existing structures to help
them advance their goals to support undocumented students. I also showed how the
organizations continued to support and advocate for undocumented students with the
current sociopolitical climates at their respective institutions. Next, I revisit the theoretical
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 191
model that framed the design, and data collection and analysis for this study, as well as the
theoretical contributions made.
Theoretical Implications
My study is informed by a theoretical model I created utilizing political opportunity
theory (Burciaga and Martinez, 2017; Meyer & Minkoff, 2004; Tarrow, 2011), nested
contexts of reception (Golash-Boza and Valdez; Portes and Rumbaut, 2006), and campus
climate literature (Hurtado et al., 1998; 1999; Milem et al., 2005). In this section, I briefly
describe the theoretical model. For a complete review of the theories and how I use them,
refer back to Chapter 2. And secondly, I discuss the POSNCR model’s theoretical
contributions and limitations when applied to understand the complexities of nested
contexts on institutions and their student organizations, and how student organizations
successfully navigate their campus environments to support their peers and achieve their
goals.
Review of the POSNCR Model
The POSNCR model incorporates an environmental framework and process theory
in order to understand how student organizations navigate threats and opportunities created
by multiple environmental forces that inhibit or enhance their collective aims. Nested
contexts of reception in the model take into account the numerous external layers that
student organizations experience, including the national, state, local, and institutional levels
(Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018; Stepick & Stepick, 2009). Contexts of reception refer to the
“the social and economic opportunities, openness or hostility expressed by the local
community, and social supports available for immigrants” (Forster et al., 2015, p. 1811).
For undocumented students, this may include governmental policies related to students’
status, the societal reception students confront on campus and within the local community,
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 192
and students’ involvement in an institution of higher learning (Golash-Boza & Valdez,
2018). These layers are distinct, but also nested, and they may not necessarily be uniform in
regards to favorable or unfavorable conditions for undocumented college students. For
example while undocumented students may receive state and institutional financial aid in
California, they still do not have access to federal financial aid.
Within each nested layer, student organizations experience and perceive multiple
political opportunities. According to Kitschelt (1986), political opportunities are “specific
configurations of resources, institutional arrangements and historical precedents for social
mobilization, which facilitate the development of protest movements in some instances and
constrain them in others” (p. 58). In other words, political opportunities are external factors,
such as changes in the environment, or existing structures at the national, state, local, or
institutional level that directly or indirectly influence undocumented student organization’s
collective action.
At the center of the POSNCR model within the nested layers is the undocumented
student organization, or the unit of analysis. The center of the model displays the process of
how political opportunities influence undocumented student organizations, and whether and
how the organization responds to them. Political opportunities may influence claims and
frames, as well as strategies and tactics utilized by the student organization. If after
analyzing the opportunity, members believe there is a prospect of success, the organization
will engage in collective action. If there is no prospect for success, members may analyze
alternative claims and frames, and strategies and tactics, or will choose not to pursue the
opportunity. This reiterative process can happen multiple times based on changes in the
organization’s environment, changes in prospects of success, whether actions are successful
or not, and based on internal conflict. The arrows also show a multi-directional relationship
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 193
where strategies and tactics may influence claims and frames and vice-versa. Internal
conflict may include disagreements about goals, strategies, and tactics, and can influence
how the organization perceived opportunities and whether it chooses to pursue them. By
ultimately engaging in action, the organization is able to impact its environment and even
create new opportunities for itself.
Theoretical Contributions
The POSNCR is a useful model that examines how student organizations perceive
threats and opportunities in their environment, and how they engage in collective action.
The model is particularly helpful when examining undocumented student organizations
given that it takes into account the larger sociopolitical context that affects undocumented
immigrants and permeates colleges and universities. However, if tweaked to fit the
environmental conditions, the model can also be used to examine other organizations or
movements outside of higher education. The POSNCR model served particularly helpful to
examine how undocumented student organizations navigate threats and opportunities in
following three ways described below.
First, the model takes analysis of grassroots efforts, change, and resistance out of a
single person analysis and into the collective unit. Grassroots efforts often happen in
cooperative ways, and the model places the organization at the center of analysis. Research
on undocumented college students often examines students’ individual experiences, but
misses the opportunity to understand how students collectively – such as in the form of a
student organization – navigate college and advocate for each other. Looking at the
collective offers insight into mobilizing strategies, frames and claims utilized, cross-campus
collaborations, and how members navigate internal differences or conflict. Focusing on the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 194
organization provides a comprehensive overview of collective movements, and the internal
processes that occur that eventually result in action and changes in the environment.
Student organizing and student activism often do not happen within an isolated
institution of higher education and without consideration of the broader sociopolitical
context. The POSNCR model situates undocumented student organizations within its larger
environment, and considers the interactions of the nested contexts of reception. Given the
current heightened anti-immigrant context following the 2016 elections, it is important to
consider how the different environmental layers at the national, state, local, and
institutional level create the conditions that inhibit or enhance undocumented student
organization’s abilities to continue to pursue their goals. As seen through this study,
changes in the environment influence and may shift undocumented student organization’s
goals, claims and frames, and strategies. For example, even though UUS wanted to focus
on creating a community and safe space for undocumented students on campus, it had to
shift its goals towards addressing the immediate concerns and needs of students after the
elections. Changes in the broader sociopolitical environment that impact undocumented
communities often influence the undocumented student organization itself.
Given that the center of analysis is undocumented student organizations within
colleges and universities, greater focus is given to immediate institutional context – this
includes the institutional type, culture, and climate. The POSNCR model was helpful in
examining how different institutional characteristics interact with the broader environment
and influence the undocumented student organization. For example, state policies on in-
state tuition and state financial aid were most influential at the public university, which in
turn impacted JUSt’s efforts and intragroup interactions. The model may also shed light on
the different forms of nested layer interactions at other institutional types such as state
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 195
universities and community colleges. Examining each undocumented student organization
only within its immediate campus environment could miss the ways that the larger
sociopolitical forces influence the institutions and trickle down to the student organizations.
And lastly, the POSNCR model helped to begin to understand the process of how
student organizations perceive political opportunities in their immediate environment, and
how they navigate them based on their institutional characteristics. This process involved
the interrelation of several elements including: claims and frames, strategies and tactics,
prospects of success, and whether the organization engages in action. While the model
helped to identify the different elements of how student organizations perceive and respond
to political opportunities, it was limited in understanding the actual process of going from
recognizing the opportunity, to resulting in action. For example even though the elections
served as an opportunity that led to the push of specific claims and frames, and strategies
and tactics at each institution, I was unable to examine the interrelationship of each
element. It seems that the process is not linear, and instead may result in a more complex
interrelationship that repeat itself over and over again until the organization decides on
particular claims and frames, strategies and tactics, and whether it will engage in action. A
more in-depth analysis of an organization’s decision-making is needed to continue to
understand the process of opportunities that result in collective action.
Another limitation in the model is related to the “prospects of success” element
within the inner circle process. Political opportunity theory suggests that collective action
will occur if group participants believe they will succeed or that institutional channels are
less effective (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996). You would expect that the undocumented
student organizations engage in collective action if they believe their chances of success are
high, or they may decide to avoid the costs associated with action. However, choosing to
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 196
engage in action did not seem to be an “all or nothing” decision among the undocumented
student organizations. It appeared that members knew some of their efforts would not
immediately help them achieve their intended goals, but they were worth it because it
would allow them to make progress. Prospect of success might therefore be a continuum
where students are willing to risk some costs, balanced with high perceived chances of
success. This element could be further studied to better understand how organizations
decide to act.
The proposed POSNCR model utilized a combination of theories and frameworks
that take into consideration the experiences of undocumented immigrants, and
organizations/movements. The model examines undocumented student experiences from a
collective unit, situates the organization within the broader sociopolitical context, and
offers a way to understand how the organization perceives and navigates opportunities that
lead to collective action. I encourage the future development of the model to continue to
examine other undocumented student organizations, or any type of organization within a
respective institution.
Implications for Policy, Practice, and Student Organizations
In addition to the theoretical contributions described above, this study also points to
a series of implications for policy, practice, and student organizations. The following
recommendations are grounded in the experiences of both cases.
Policy Recommendations
The following recommendations are aimed towards state and local governments and
their leaders, particularly for those that intend to expand support for undocumented students
and their families within the current broader unstable anti-immigrant climate:
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 197
1. Combat narratives and policies that further create divisions. Consider the ways
that local and state policies further perpetuate future policies and the “Dreamer”
narrative by creating divisions within the undocumented community between the
“deserving” and “undeserving” immigrant. Within higher education, these divisions
are often perpetuated by in-state tuition and financial aid policies. The requirements
for these benefits are often arbitrary and exclude undocumented students who want
to pursue higher education. Think about ways to dismantle these narratives in order
to continue to advocate for comprehensive policies.
2. Ensure greater accountability in communicating and implementing policies.
Students at both campuses shared how staff (particularly admissions and financial
aid staff) are often unknowledgeable about relevant policies for undocumented
college students, and had to seek information and guidance from other avenues. In
particular, students at FPU shared how many staff members were not aware of the
recent expansion of AB 540 through SB 68, which allows the use of some
community college credits to meet the requirements for in-state tuition. Students
who qualify for in-state tuition are sometimes turned away. Greater accountability is
needed in order to ensure that institutions are properly implementing these policies
such as by offering adequate training to staff, or even collaborating with student
organizations.
3. Importance of sanctuary status. Even though the practical value of sanctuary
status has been questioned beyond its symbolic meaning, it can also serve as a lever
for student organizations and allies. Undocumented student organizations can utilize
sanctuary status in their state or local areas as ways to pressure their institutions to
expand services and support for undocumented students and engage in advocacy.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 198
4. Strategize about supporting new non-DACA college student population.
Because no new applications are being accepted for DACA, a new generation of
coming-to-age students that could have benefited from these benefits and
protections are entering colleges and universities. Not having DACA can limit the
college options of students, make it difficult to stay in college, or simply discourage
them from pursuing a higher education because they may not be able to obtain a
work permit (Gonzales, Terriquez, & Ruszczyk, 2014; Hipsman et al., 2016; Pérez,
2015). Government and institutional leaders need to strategize about how they can
continue to support and advocate for this new wave of undocumented college
students.
Recommendations for Practice
The following recommendations are intended for colleges and universities,
especially administrators who are often able to impact institutional policies and practice
directly:
1. Create inclusive services and resources for all undocumented students.
Consider how institutional policies, practices, and even the use of specific language
and key terms (e.g., “Dreamer,” “DACAmented” in reference to all undocumented
students) create divisions within the undocumented student population. For
example, consider how certain resources and services may be AB 540- or DACA-
centric, and exclude undocumented students who do not benefit from any of these
policies. Ensure that services and resources such as programming, financial support,
are inclusive of all undocumented students.
2. Consider alternative avenues of support. A new generation of non-DACA
students are entering colleges and universities who do not have protections against
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 199
deportation, are unable to get a work permit and receive work-study, and cannot
participate in certain activities such as study abroad. Institutions need to get creative
about how to offer support to these students. For example, consider coordinating or
supporting private donations, create stipend opportunities, or provide optional
housing options that allow students to remain at the university if they are unable to
travel back home on the weekends or holidays.
3. Create sustainable, timely, and clear solutions. Reactive solutions to changes in
the environment such as threats on DACA and TPS, and travel bans are only
temporary and sometimes not effective because they are not offered in a timely
fashion. Given the rapid political changes that affect undocumented communities
under the current President, institutions need to plan ahead for possible changes and
threats that impact this student population. Institutions can develop a reference
protocol in case of federal immigration enforcement actions with a designated
emergency number, offer professional and ally training, create emergency funds for
students affected by immigration policies, offer naturalization services for students
and their families, and even create a long-term plan for advocacy outside of the
university. Undocumented students need information in a timely fashion given rapid
changes in the environment.
4. Facilitate grassroots collaborations. Staff and faculty are vital supporters of
undocumented college students that can facilitate change. However, staff and
faculty often have full schedules within their respective positions which limit their
ability to dedicate time and resources to support undocumented students and their
organizations. These key supporters must often advocate for students at their own
time, and are sometimes discouraged to continue to advocate because of the limited
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 200
institutional support. Institutions should consider creating task forces to address the
needs of undocumented students that meet on a regular basis whose responsibilities
are either incorporated into staff and faculty’s existing commitments, or compensate
them for their additional work.
5. Collaborate with undocumented student organizations. Because student
organizations host information about undocumented student experiences and needs,
building collaborations with organizations that center student voices can create
opportunities for research and improve the conditions of this student population. For
example, institutions can include undocumented student leaders as advisors in
advisory boards and other relevant meetings, extend invitations to participate in
panels on immigration, and fund student-led research or in collaboration with staff
and faculty. However, institutions also need to be wary of tokenizing undocumented
students as all-knowing and representatives for all undocumented college students,
demanding free labor from students, and co-opting efforts and initiatives by student
organizations. Undocumented student leaders often experience additional
responsibilities as student advocates and risk themselves and their families by
“outing” themselves. Institutions need to adequately compensate students for their
time and labor such as through work-study, stipends, internship or college credit, as
well as protect student identities as appropriate.
6. Center undocumented student voices. In line with the above recommendation to
collaborate with undocumented student organizations, institutions need to find ways
to center student experiences and voices, particularly those that are often silenced
and excluded (e.g., non-AB540, non-DACA, non-Latinx). Administrators often
receive recommendations from researchers or individuals who may be disconnected
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 201
from the undocumented student community, which may result in a lack of adequate
representation of undocumented student experiences. Survey data also often misses
the opportunity to understand the nuanced student experiences and needs. For
example, counting how many students visit an office to use a service may not
adequately represent the need for this resource, because students may be afraid to
“out” themselves and instead choose to call, email, or utilize online information.
Institutions need to ensure that student experiences and needs are well-represented
for all undocumented students.
Recommendations for Student Organizations
Given that this study examines how two undocumented student organizations
engage in action and change to support their undocumented peers, the following
recommendations are for other college student organizers and organizations that seek to do
the same:
1. Utilize existing structures in your favor. Consider how you can use existing, and
accessible structures in your institution in your favor, particularly in combination
with changes in your environment. For example, applying for umbrella or mother
organization designation may be strategic to do so after an event like the 2016
elections in order to emphasize the need for representation of a diverse
undocumented student population that often encompass a variety of social identities.
2. Turn threats into opportunities. Use potential threats in your environment such as
budget cuts on undocumented student services, changes in immigration policy, and
others as leverage to push for change and advocacy. The 2016 elections were turned
into two different forms of opportunities at UUS and FPU based on their needs and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 202
campus environment. Using the attention and momentum that these threats create
can serve as opportunities to jumpstart initiatives by the organization.
3. Create realistic and sustainable goals. Consider what your organization can
realistically accomplish given the time and resources accessible at your institution.
For new organizations, you may need to adjust your goals as needed as the
organization continues to develop and establish itself on campus and among the
undocumented student community. For well-established organizations, beware of
potential burnout when trying to accomplish signature events and meet previous
goals that may be difficult to achieve when you have less access to resources. An
unstable sociopolitical environment on immigration sometimes requires that
undocumented student organizations be flexible to changing needs.
4. Be strategic about collaborations. Build strategic cross-campus partnerships and
collaborations with other student organizations, staff, faculty, administrators, as
well as local organizations. These collaborations can be helpful when trying to
expand efforts, combat stereotypes, recruit new members, access new resources, etc.
For example, members can partner with faculty who may be able to alleviate some
of the responsibilities of students and offer guidance, collaboration, college credit,
and research or internship stipend.
5. Be aware of intra-group dynamics. Even though the student organization and
members are not a complete representation of all undocumented students in a given
campus, it often serves an advocacy role. Consider how specific identities and
experiences within the undocumented community at your campus get left out, which
voices are not represented, and how they can be included in the organization’s
efforts. Make the same assessment within the student organization, thinking about
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 203
what practices, goals, or interactions create these divisions within the organization
(e.g., speaking in a particular language, the implications of the organization’s name,
potential cliques, where recruitment happens). Be intentional about creating an
inclusive organization, and maybe even include it as goal.
Suggestions for Future Research
There are several ways this study could be expanded in order to further understand
undocumented student organizations in higher education. The study examined two student
organizations located in the local, and state environments within Los Angeles and
California. Keeping the location constant allowed for a more in-depth analysis of
institutional differences. In order to examine differences in the broader context and the role
of local and state layers, this study could be expanded into other areas. The location of the
student organizations in a largely undocufriendly environment seemed to facilitate the
organization’s efforts to build networks and demand institutional attention and change to
support undocumented students. This may not be the case for student organizations located
in areas with more restrictive state policies towards undocumented college students such as
Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. Student organizations at states with restrictive
policies may experience added layers that they have to navigate or perceive the political
opportunities differently compared to the organizations in this study. Similar studies at
other locations can also continue to redefine the POSNCR model.
Similarly, this study could also be expanded to other institutions based on type,
culture and climate. For example, the experiences of undocumented student organizations
may look differently at a state or community college with varied cultures and climates
towards undocumented students. The needs of students at these institutions may be
different, hence the organization’s goals may also be different. As mentioned earlier, the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 204
influence of how developed an undocumented student organization is on how it perceives
and reacts to political opportunities may also be an additional component that can be
studied. It would be interesting to further examine the intersection of the organization’s
development with its environment.
Another area that could be further examined is intragroup interactions. According to
the literature on political opportunities, in addition to external factors, there are also internal
ones that influence the movements’ development, particularly its goals, tactics, and
strategies (Bedford, 1993). These internal factors could be disagreements over framing,
how opportunities are perceived, and differences based on members’ identities and
backgrounds. Similar to Hallet’s (2013) study on an undocumented student organization,
this study similarly found intragroup differences related to the organization’s goals, access
to limited resources, and feelings of exclusion by non-Latinx members. A more extensive
and more diverse sample is needed in order to further examine these intragroup interactions
and how they relate to the campus and broader sociopolitical environment.
Conclusion
This work examines how two undocumented student organizations navigate threats
and opportunities in their respective institutions nested within a lager heightened anti-
immigrant sociopolitical rhetoric marked after the 2016 presidential elections. Through a
qualitative comparative case study design, I collected data in the form of document
analysis, interviews with student members and key staff and faculty, as well observations of
meetings and related events. The findings of this study point to the ways that two
undocumented student organizations located in different types of institutions utilized threats
and opportunities in their environment to engage in collective action and ultimately
continue to support their undocumented peers. Overall, both student organizations used the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 205
2016 elections as an opportunity to expand their efforts. The student organization at the
private, non-undocufriendly campus utilized the post-election climate as an opportunity to
demand the creation of institutionalized resources and services for undocumented students
and the overall improvement of its climate. At the public, undocufriendly university,
members utilized the elections to create a more inclusive agenda for all undocumented
students, and demand that the university take on a more proactive role to support this
student population.
In addition to exploring undocumented student organizations, this study also
proposes a theoretical model utilizing political opportunity theory, nested contexts of
reception, and the literature on campus climate. The POSNCR was created to examine how
student organizations perceive threats and opportunities in their environment, and how they
engage in collective action. The model has the potential to be expanded into other types of
student organizations at different institutions, or other forms of grassroots movements
outside of colleges and universities. The model is useful when considering an
organization’s relation to its broader environment, how an organization perceives threats
and opportunities, and how it organizes.
This study takes a step back and instead of further examining individual
undocumented college student experiences, it explores a collective of undocumented
students in the form of a student organization. Exploring the collective offers insight into
how student-led grassroots change is generated within institutions of higher education.
These forms of collective efforts can result in the creation or expansion of institutional
resources and services, and even further expand more substantial advocacy efforts in the
broader sociopolitical environment. As one student described it, the current sociopolitical
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 206
climate served as an opportunity for student organizations to advocate for resources and
services:
There's so many other students who are also fighting for similar, if not other
important resources for their communities. It's the fact that that is going on – it gives
us opportunity to also be involved, to kind of join those efforts and push the
university administration… it's not easy, that's the thing. It's there for students to
fight for, but it's not easy to get.
Despite the unstable and racist nativist sociopolitical climate that undocumented
individuals are experiencing, colleges and universities have the potential to contribute and
improve the conditions that students and their families are faced with on- and off-campus.
For institutions, the current climate is also an opportunity for them to establish essential
resources and services for undocumented students, or expand them and push the boundaries
of what it means to be an undocufriendly campus. Empowering students to organize and
promote collaborations with student organizations is critical for the continued improvement
of a campus culture and climate that is welcoming and receptive to all undocumented
students.

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 207
References
Abrego, L. (2008). Legitimacy, social identity, and the mobilization of law: The effects of
Assembly Bill 540 on undocumented students in California. Law & Social Inquiry,
33(3), 709–734.
Abrego, L. J. (2006). “I can’t go to college because I don’t have papers”: Incorporation
patterns of Latino undocumented youth. Latino Studies, 4(3), 212–231.
Aceves, M. (2017). Security and uncertainty among U.S. college students after the 2016
presidential election. McNair Scholars Journal, 18, 1–24.
Albrecht, T. (2007). Challenges and service needs of undocumented Mexican
undergraduate students: Students’ voices and administrators’ perspectives. University
of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/3542/albrechtt61669.pdf?seq
uence=2&isAllowed=y
Alvord, D. R., Menjívar, C., & Gómez Cervantes, A. (2018). The legal violence in the 2017
executive orders: The expansion of immigrant criminalization in Kansas. Social
Currents, 1–10.
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural
climate by race. Journal of Counseling and Counseling Development, 78, 180–185.
Astin, A. (1993). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 25(2), 44–49.
Bauer, K. W. (1998). Campus climate: Understanding the critical components of today’s
colleges and universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 208
Becker, H. S. (1967). “Whose side are we on?” Social Problems, 14, 239–247.
Beemyn, B. (2003). The silence is broken: A history of the first lesbian, gay, and bisexual
college student groups. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 205–223.
Benford, R. D. (1993). Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social
Forces, 71(3).
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the
analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36(4), 391–409.
Borjian, A. (2018). Academically successful Latino undocumented students in college:
Resilience and civic engagement. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(1), 22–
36.
Broadhurst, C. J. (2014). Campus activism in the 21st century: A historical framing. In New
Directions for Higher Education (pp. 3–15).
Browning, R. P., Marshall, D. R., & Tabb, D. H. (1984). Protest Is Not Enough: The
Struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for Equality in Urban Politics. University of
California Press.
Burciaga, E. M., & Martinez, L. M. (2017). How do political contexts shape undocumented
youth movements? Evidence from three immigrant destinations. Mobilization: An
International Quarterly, 22(4), 451–471.
Caballes, R. (2018). Sanctuary campuses: To be or not to be, that is the question. Retrieved
from https://ggulawreview.org/2018/01/26/sanctuary-campuses-to-be-or-not-to-be-
that-is-the-question/
Cabrera, A. F., & Nora, A. (1994). College students’ perceptions of prejudice and
discrimination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validation approach.
Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, 16(3), 387–409.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 209
Castellanos, M. (2015). Sustaining Latina student organizations: An exploratory
instrumental case study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 1(20), 1–20.
Chavez, M. L., Soriano, M., & Oliverez, P. (2007). Undocumented students’ access to
college: The American Dream denied. Latino Studies, 5, 254–263.
Cisneros, J., & Valdivia, D. (2018). Undocumented student resource centers: Institutional
supports for undocumented students. University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of
Education: Center for MSIs.
Contreras, F. (2009). Sin papeles y rompiendo barreras: Latino students and the challenges.
Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 610–632.
Cooper, D. L., Healy, M. A., & Simpson, J. (1994). Student development through
involvement: Specific changes over time. Journal of College Student Development,
35, 98–102.
Corrunker, L. (2012). Coming out of the shadows”: DREAM Act activism in the context of
global anti-deportation activism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 19(1), 143–
168.
Costello, M. B. (2016). Teaching the 2016 election: The Trump effect. Montgomery, AL.
Retrieved from https://www.splcenter.org/20160413/trump-effect-impact-presidential-
campaign-our-nations-schools
Creswell, J. W. (2006). Philosophical, paradigm, and interpretive frameworks. In
Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (pp. 15–
33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Delgado-Guerrero, M., & Gloria, A. M. (2013). La importancia de la hermandad Latina:
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 210
Examining the psychosociocultural influences of Latina-based sororities on academic
persistence decisions. Journal of College Student Development, 54(4), 361–378.
Delgado-Romero, E. A., Hernandez, C., & Montero, H. (2004). Mapping the development
of Hispanic/Latina/o student organizations: A model at the University of Florido.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(3), 237–253.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192704264441
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of
Educational Practice. New York: MacMillan.
Enriquez, L. (2011). "Because we feel the pressure and we also feel the support ":
Examining the educational success of undocumented immigrant Latina/o students.
Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 476–617.
Enriquez, L. E., & Saguy, A. C. (2016). Coming out of the shadows: Harnessing a cultural
schema to advance the undocumented immigrant youth movement. American Journal
of Cultural Sociology, 4(1), 107–130.
Fact sheet: An overview of college-bound undocumented students. (2012). Educators for
Fair Consideration. Retrieved from http://www.e4fc.org/images/Fact_Sheet.pdf
Flores, S. M. (2010). State dream acts: The effect of in-state resident tuition policies and
undocumented Latino students. The Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 239–283.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0134
Flores, S. M., & Chapa, J. (2009). Latino immigrant access to higher education in a bipolar
context of reception. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(1), 90–109. Retrieved
from http://jhh.sagepub.com/content/8/1/90.abstract
Forster, M., Grisby, T., Soto, D. W., Schwartz, S. J., & Unger, J. B. (2015). The role of
bicultural stress and perceived context of reception in the expression of aggression and
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 211
rule breaking behaviors among recent-immigrant Hispanic youth. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 30(11), 1807–1827.
Foubert, J. D., & Urbanski, L. A. (2006). Effects of involvement in clubs and organizations
on the psychosocial development of first-year and senior college students. Journal of
Student Affairs Research and Practice, 43(1), 166–182.
Fries-Britt, S. L., & Turner, B. (2001). Facing stereotypes: A case study of Black students
on a White campus. Journal of College Student Development, 42(5), 420–429.
Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing Political Opportunity. In D. McAdam, J.
McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements:
Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing (pp. 275–290).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Garcia, L. D., & Tierney, W. G. (2011). Undocumented immigrants in higher education: A
preliminary analysis. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2739–2776.
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing Qualitative Data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Gidda, M. (2017). Obama vs. Trump: Who has deported more immigrants? Newsweek.
Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigration-undocumented-
migrants-obama trump-585726
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (4th ed.).
Golash-Boza, T., & Valdez, Z. (2018). Nested contexts of reception: Undocumented
students at the University of California, Central. Sociological Perspectives, 1–18.
Goldstone, J. A., & Tilly, C. (2001). Threat (and opportunity): Popular action and state
response in the dynamics of contentious action. In R. R. Aminzade (Ed.), Silence and
Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gonzales, R. (2016). Lives in Limbo: Undocumented and Coming of Age in America.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 212
Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Gonzales, R. G. (2009). Young lives on hold: The college dreams of undocumented
students. College Board Advocacy. Retrieved from https://secure-
media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/professionals/young-lives-on-hold-
undocumented-students.pdf
Gonzales, R. G., & Chavez, L. R. (2012). “Awakening to a nightmare”: Abjectivity and
illegality in the lives of undocumented 1.5-generation Latino immigrants in the United
States. Current Anthropology, 53(3), 255–281.
Gonzales, R. G., Terriquez, V., & Ruszczyk, S. P. (2014). Becoming DACAmented:
Assessing the short-term benefits of DACA. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(14),
1852–1872.
Gonzales, Roberto. (2008). Left out but not shut down: Political activism and the
undocumented Latino student movement. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social
Policy, 3(2), 219–239.
Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (1999). Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias
of political process theory. Sociological Forum, 14(1), 27–54.
Hallett, R. E. (2013). Undocumented student success: Navigating constraints related to
retention. Journal of Latin/Latin American Studies, 5(2), 99–112.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and
implications for institutional transformation. In S. R. Harper & L. D. Patton (Eds.),
Responding to the Realities of Race on Campus: New Directions for Student Services
(120th ed., pp. 7–24). Wiley-Blackwell.
Harry, B., Sturges, K., & Klinger, J. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process
and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 213
Hernandez, K., Hogan, S., Hathaway, C., & Lovell, C. D. (1999). Analysis of the literature
on the impact of student involvement on student development and learning: More
questions than answers? Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 36, 184–
197.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hipsman, F., Gómez-Aguiñaga, B., & Capps, R. (2016). DACA at four: Participation in the
Deferred Action program and impacts on recipients. Washington, DC.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539–569.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of
Education, 70(4), 324–345.
Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college:
Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher
Education, 37(2), 135–157.
Hurtado, S., Griffin, K. A., Arellano, L., & Cuellar, M. (2008). Assessing the value of
climate assessments: Progress and future directions. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 1(4), 204–221.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Walter, A. (1999). Enacting diverse
learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher
education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(8), 3–140.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 214
Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302.
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251.
Johnson, H., & Sanchez, S. (2018). Immigrants in California. Public Policy Institute of
California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/jtf-immigrants-in-
california.pdf
Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2013). Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative
Research in Higher Education: Fundamental Elements and Issues. Routledge.
Kitschelt, H. P. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear
movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57–85.
Koopmans, R. (1999). Political. Opportunity. Structure. Some splitting to balance the
lumping. Sociological Forum, 14(1), 93–105.
Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (1999). Political claims analysis: Integrating protest event
and political discourse approaches. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 4(2),
203–221.
Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student
learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123–155.
Kuh, G. D., & Hall. (1993). Using cultural perspectives in student affairs. In G. D. Kuh
(Ed.), Cultural perspectives in student affairs work (pp. 1–20). Lanham, MD:
American College Personnel Association.
Kuka, E., Shenhav, N., & Shih, K. (2018). Do human capital decisions respond to the
returns to education? Evidence from DACA (No. 24315). Cambridge, MA.
Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of
campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 215
Education, 31(3), 257–285.
Martinez, L. M. (2008). The individual and contextual determinants of protest among
Latinos. Mobilization: An International Quarterly2, 13(2), 180–204.
McCammon, H. J., Newman, H. D., Muse, C. S., & Terrell, T. M. (2007). Movement
framing and discursive opportunity structures: The political successes of the u.s.
women’s jury movements. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 725–749.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, D. S., & Minkoff, D. C. (2004). Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social
Forces, 82(4), 1457–1492.
Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure
of political opportunity theory. American Journal of Sociology, 101(6), 1628–1660.
Migration Policy Institute. (2014). Profile of the unauthorized population: United States.
Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-
population/state/US#
Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association American Colleges and
Universities.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miranda, C. P. (2017). Checks, balances, and resistance: The impact of an anti-immigrant
federal administration on a school for immigrant teenagers. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 48(4), 376–385.
Muñoz, S., & Jones, T. (2018). A conversation with Susana Muñoz. Journal of Critical
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 216
Thought and Praxis, 7(1), 196–200.
Muñoz, S. M. (2013). “I just can’t stand being like this anymore”: Dilemmas, stressors, and
motivators for undocumented Mexican women in higher education. Journal of Student
Affairs Research and Practice, 50(3), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-
0018
Muñoz, S. M. (2015). Identity, Social Activism, and the Pursuit of Higher Education: The
Journey Stories of Undocumented and Unafraid Community Activists. New York, NY:
Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Muñoz, S. M., & Maldonado, M. M. (2012). Counterstories of college persistence by
undocumented Mexicana students: navigating race, class, gender, and legal status.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(3), 293–315.
Muñoz, S. M., & Vigil, D. (2018). Interrogating racist nativist microaggressions and
campus climate: How undocumented and DACA college students experience
institutional legal violence in Colorado. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1–
16.
Negrón-Gonzales, G. (2017). Political possibilities: Lessons from the undocumented youth
movement for resistance to the Trump administration. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 48(4), 420–426.
Nienhusser, H. K. (2018). Higher education institutional agents as policy implementers:
The case of policies that affect undocumented and DACAmented students. The Review
of Higher Education, 41(3), 423–453. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0014
O’Connor, B. H., & Mangual Figueroa, A. (2017). A time to keep silence and a time to
speak. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 48(4), 411–419.
Passel, J. S., & Cohn, V. (2009). A portrait of unauthorized immigrants in the United
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 217
States. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Pérez Huber, L. (2011). Discourses of racist nativism in California public education:
English dominance as racist nativist microaggressions. Educational Studies, 47(4),
379–401.
Pérez Huber, L., & Malagon, M. C. (2007). Silenced struggles: The experiences of Latina
and Latino undocumented college students in California. Nevada Law Journal, 7, 841–
871.
Pérez, W. (2012). Americans by heart: Undocumented Latino students and the promise of
higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Pérez, W., Cortés, R. D., Ramos, K., & Coronado, H. (2010). “Cursed and blessed”:
Examining the socioemotional and academic experiences of undocumented Latina and
Latino college students. New Directions for Student Services, 131, 35–51.
Pérez, W., Espinoza, R., Ramos, K., Coronado, H. M., & Cortes, R. (2009). Academic
resilience among undocumented Latino students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 31(2), 149–181.
Pérez, Z. (2015). A portrait of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients. United
We Dream. Retrieved from https://unitedwedream.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/DACA-report-final-1.pdf
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second
Generation. Berkeley & Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A Portrait (3rd ed.). Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 218
Quinn, R., & Nguyen, C. (2017). Immigrant youth organizing as civic preparation.
American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 972–1005.
Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and
white students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of
College Student Development, 46(1), 43–61.
Rhoads, R. A., Buenavista, T. L., & Maldonado, D. E. Z. (2004). Students of color helping
others stay in college: A grassroot effort. About Campus, 9(3), 10–17.
Rice, J. (2018). Looking past the label: An analysis of the measures underlying “Sanctuary
Cities.” The University of Memphis Law Review, 48.
Rich, B. N. (2010). Tracking AB 540’s potential resilience: An analysis of in-state tuition
for undocumented students in light of Martinez v. Regents of the University of
California. Review of Law and Social Justice, 19(2), 297–330.
S. 68 (2017). Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB68
Santoro, W. A., & McGuire, G. M. (1997). Social movement insiders: The impact of
institutional activists on affirmative action and comparable worth policies. Social
Problems, 44(4), 503–519.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential ethnographic
methods. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Seif, H. (2004). “Wise up!” Undocumented Latino youth, Mexican-American legislators,
and the struggle for higher education access. Latino Studies, 2, 210–230.
Seif, H. (2011). "Unapologetic and unafraid”: Immigrant youth come out from the
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 219
shadows. In C. A. Flanagan & B. D. Christens (Eds.), Youth civic development: Work
at the cutting edge (Vol. 134, pp. 59–75). New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development.
Shelton, L. J. (2018). “Who belongs”: A CRT and LatCrit analysis of the United States
immigration climate for undocumented Latinx college students. Journal of Critical
Thought and Praxis, 7(1), 123–147.
Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American
college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1), 60–73.
Spinney, S. A. (2015). Effects of participation in immigration activism on undocumented
students in higher education. George Mason University.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The
SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional
agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth &
Society, 43(3), 1066–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877
Stepick, A., & Stepick, C. D. (2009). Diverse contexts of reception and feelings of
belonging. Qualitative Social Research, 10(3).
Stolp, S. W., & Smith, S. C. (1995). Transforming school culture: Stories, symbols, values,
and the leader’s role. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Orellana-Damacela, L., Portillo, N., Rowan, J. M., & Andrews-
Guillen, C. (2003). Experiences of differential treatment among college students of
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 220
color. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(4), 428–444.
Suarez-Orozco, A., Teranishi, M., & Suarez-Orozco, R. (2015). In the Shadows of the
Ivory Tower: Undocumented Undergraduates and the Liminal State of Immigration
Reform Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2hq679z4 Publication Date. Los
Angeles, CA: The Institute for Immigration Globalization & Education, UCLA.
Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2hq679z4
Suárez-Orozco, C., Katsiaficas, D., Birchall, O., Alcantar, C. M., Hernandez, E., Garcia,
Y., … Teranishi, R. T. (2015). Undocumented undergraduates on college campuses:
Understanding their challenges and assets and what it takes to make an
Undocufriendly campus. Harvard Educational Review, 85(3), 427–463.
Tarrow, S. G. (2011). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tierney, W. G., Ward, J. D., Corwin, Z., Ngo, F., Cadena, M., Acuña, A., … Lanford, M.
(2017). The university as a sanctuary. Los Angeles, CA: Pullias Center for Higher
Education, University of Southern California. Retrieved from
https://pullias.usc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/The_University_as_a_Sanctuary_Final.pdf
Undocumented student tuition: Overview. (2019). National Conference of State
Legislatures. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/undocumented-
student-tuition-overview.aspx
University of California Office of the President. (2013). Annual report on AB 540 tuition
exemptions: 2011-12 Academic year. Retrieved from https://www.ucop.edu/student-
affairs/_files/ab540_annualrpt_2012.pdf
Urteaga, D. (2011). California dreaming: A case to give states discretion in providing in-
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 221
state tuition to its undocumented students. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 38,
721–746.
Whitt, E. J. (1996). Assessing student cultures. In Assessment in student affairs: A guide for
practitioners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26(1), 58–65.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Method (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Zimmerman, A. M. (2011). A dream detained: Undocumented Latino youth and the
DREAM movement. NACLA Report on the Americas, 44(6), 14–17.
Zimmerman, A. M. (2012). Documenting DREAMs: New media, undocumented youth and
the immigrant rights movement. Los Angeles.
Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2019). How many unauthorized immigrants graduate from U.S.
high schools annually? Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/unauthorized-immigrants-graduate-us-high-
schools

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 222
Appendix A
Observation Protocol

Date & Time:
Location:
Type of Observation:

Member Participation
(e.g., approx. number of men and women and perceived racial/ethnic diversity)

Description of Event/Meeting/Observation
(e.g., agenda, goals, structure)

Campus Climate & Larger Environment
(e.g., perceptions of campus climate, effects of new or changing policies, impact of deportations)

In-Group Interactions
(e.g., who seems to participate and who is left out, ways internal conflicts are resolved)

Opportunities & Threats
(i.e., ways students perceive, respond, and talk about changes in their environment, policy, and
events)

Framings Utilized
(e.g., use of symbols, artifacts, words, descriptions)

Decision-Making Processes
(e.g., setting agendas, leadership structure, strategies & tactics)

Other Notes/Things to Follow-Up On

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 223
Appendix B
Student Interview Protocol

Basic Demographics:
Pseudonym:
Age:
Sex:
How do you identify racially?
How do you identify ethnically?
Hometown:
Nationality/immigration status:
Major:
Year in school/standing:

Introduction/Rapport Building
 Why did you decide to attend [university]?
 What has your experience been like at [university] so far?

Participation & Experiences in SO
 What has your experience in the SO been like?
o How did you first learn about the SO?
o Why did you get involved?
 What did you think participating in the organization would be like?
o Was it what you expected?
 How often do you participate in SO meetings and events?
 Have you ever held a leadership position in the SO?
o What was that experience like?
o What are the general goals of the SO? Have they changed in the last year or so?
o How does decision-making taking place?

Intergroup Dynamics
 What kinds of students do you think the SO attracts?
o Why do you think some students who identify as undocumented do not
participate in the SO or get involved in events and activities?
 Are there any other parts of your identities (e.g., gender, nationality, immigration status,
race/ethnicity) that are significant to you? How do they play a role in your participation
in the SO if at all?
o How has this affected your engagement in the SO?
o How has this affected your interactions with other student members?
 Can you think of an example when there might have been a disagreement within
members of the organization?
o What was that like?
o Why do you think it happened?
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 224
o How was it resolved?
o Can you think of other examples where that there have been disagreements or
conflicts in the SO? What were the outcomes?
 Have you noticed any immediate concerns, issues, or events that have affected the SO
and its members?
o If so, how do you think these concerns have impacted the organization and their
goals?
o How do you think these concerns have affected interactions among members?

Perceived Contexts & Decision-Making
 How would you describe the campus climate towards undocumented students?
o What do you think are some of the ways the university best supports
undocumented students?
o What are some of the ways you think the university can better support
undocumented students?
 How has the university responded, if at all, to some of the recent anti-immigrant
policies and social rhetoric in the last two years? (probe about resources, public
statements, legal clinics, etc.)
o What kinds of collaborations have happened between the SO and the university
administration in the past? What about in the last two years?
 Have they been successful?
 Has there been any challenges the organization has had to navigate with
regards to collaborating with the university administration? How were
they resolved?
 How has the SO responded to some of the recent anti-immigrant policies and social
rhetoric in the last year? (if needed, give specific examples like attacks on DACA,
increased border protection, deportations, family separations)
o Are there any particular changes or events on- or off-campus that have served as
opportunities for the SO to pursue certain goals?
o Have there been any changes in the goals, activities, and events of the SO as a
result of the recent anti-immigrant sociopolitical climate? (probe about
community outreach, civic engagement, campus events, etc.)
 How were these decisions made? (probe about processes, how the SO
makes decisions, probability of success)
o Have there been any strategies used by the SO as a result of these changes to
achieve their goals?
 Can you think of an example? Have they been successful?

Closing Questions
 Are there any recommendations you have for the university to better support their
undocumented student population given the current anti-immigrant climate?
o To better support the SO?
 Is there anything else you would like to share that maybe we didn’t get a chance to
discuss?

UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 225
Appendix C
Institutional Agent Interview Protocol

Basic Demographics:
Pseudonym:
Position/department:
Sex:
How do you identify racially?
How do you identify ethnically?
Nationality/immigration status:

Introduction/Rapport Building:
 Is there anything in particular that brought you this university?
 How long have you been at [university]?

Association with SO
 What is your association with the student organization?
o How did you first learn about the SO?
o How did you get involved?
 Have you attended or participated in any of the SO’s meetings or events? (Probe about
collaborations with the SO, advocacy on campus, etc.). What was that like?

Perceived Context
 How would you describe the campus climate towards undocumented students?
 What do you think are some of the ways the university best supports undocumented
students on campus given the current anti-immigrant sociopolitical climate?
o What do you think are the biggest unmet needs of students who are
undocumented on campus?
o Why do you think the university has been unable to meet these needs?
o What do you think the university can do to support undocumented students on
campus?
 How do you think the SO has been impacted by the current anti-immigrant
sociopolitical climate? (probe about activities, events, goals, etc.)
o How do you think the university supports the SO given the current anti-
immigrant sociopolitical climate?
o What do you think are some of the challenges the SO has had to navigate on
campus in the last year?
o What do you think the university can do to support the SO?
 Have you experienced any challenges in supporting the undocumented student
population campus? What was that like? How did you navigate it?

Closing Questions
 Is there anything else you would like to share that maybe we didn’t get a chance to
discuss?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Broken windows on campus: Policing and racism in higher education

PDF

Into the wildfire: campus racial climate and the Trump presidency

PDF

Stories of persistence and courage: undocumented students' educational experience enrolled at a 4-year institution

PDF

No bodies wasted: undocumented community college student experiences of hope and the chameleon phenomenon

PDF

Finding academic success during political times of uncertainty for undocumented students in California state community colleges

PDF

Assessment and teaching improvement in higher education: investigating an unproven link

PDF

Finding home: the migration and incorporation of undocumented, unparented Latino youth in the US

PDF

Breaking the silence: testimonios of undocumented Latino men of color students navigating higher education in California

PDF

Hope and higher education: undocumented students and the legacy of U.S. immigration policy

PDF

Undocumented college students: pursuing academic goals against the odds

PDF

Program customization in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income students

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college

PDF

Making sense of trusteeship: examining the construction of roles among public higher education governing boards

PDF

UndocuStrength: testimonios from undocumented Latinx students financing their education at a community college in Southern California

PDF

Big dreams: a multi-case examination of institutional support for DACA students in California community colleges

PDF

Three essays on the high school to community college STEM pathway

PDF

The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions

PDF

Effects of teacher autonomy support with structure on marginalized urban student math achievement

PDF

Leading from the margins: exploring the perspectives of Black women in leadership roles at predominantly white institutions

Asset Metadata

Creator Acuña Avilez, Arely Lizeth (author)

Core Title Undocumented student organizations: navigating the sociopolitical context in higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Urban Education Policy

Publication Date 10/10/2019

Defense Date 07/19/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag nested contexts of reception,OAI-PMH Harvest,political opportunity theory,student organizations,undocufriendly campus,undocumented students

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna (committee chair), Davis, Charles III (committee member), Vallejo, Jody (committee member)

Creator Email acunaavi@usc.edu,are.acuna@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-224439

Unique identifier UC11673710

Identifier etd-AcuaAvilez-7847.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-224439 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AcuaAvilez-7847.pdf

Dmrecord 224439

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Acuña Avilez, Arely Lizeth; Acuña Avilez, Arely Lizeth

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA