Prior research has established that undocumented immigrant experiences are dynamic, reflecting the complex web of immigration-related policies that create legal vulnerability. As such, undocumented college students' experiences must be situated in their current policy context. Drawing on descriptive analyses of a survey of 1,277 undocumented 4-year college students in California, we examine how undocumented students are faring in a relatively inclusive policy context. Results demonstrate the heterogeneity of undocumented student experiences and unpack the challenges they confront while also demonstrating the ways they thrive. We document how respondents are performing across a variety of academic, well-being, and civic and political engagement outcomes. We also show that undocumented students' perceptions of legal vulnerability are complex and varied, taking into account family-level legal vulnerability and individual protections. Further, students perceive campuses as fairly welcoming spaces, with some differences arising across the two university systems. Ultimately, we argue that undocumented college students' experiences merit more nuanced and contextualized analysis.

This article examines the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on undocumented college students. Deploying an ecological framework, we situate students’ experiences within their families, communities, and educational institutions. We draw on qualitative and quantitative survey responses from 1,067 undocumented students attending California 4-year universities. Qualitative findings show that immigration status exacerbated the negative economic effects of the pandemic, leading to severe financial strains that had cascading negative effects on undocumented students’ academics and health. Regression analyses confirm the strong association between students’ preexisting economic insecurity and negative effects of the pandemic. Legal vulnerability and family strains moderated this relationship, but campus environment had little effect.

Prior research suggests that hostile immigration policies can motivate undocumented immigrants' political engagement, but may also create unique risks that limit their willingness to participate. We examine how perceptions of the immigration policy context may help or hinder undocumented college students' political engagement. Using data from an online survey of 1,277 undocumented college students attending California 4-year public universities, we conducted regression analyses to examine the extent to which perceived discrimination, social exclusion, and threat to the family due to current immigration policy affects three forms of political engagement: political voice, collective action, and individual action. We then examined potential factors that may facilitate engagement, including participation in campus and community-based organizations and legal protections. Results show that perceived discrimination and threat to family due to the immigration policy context are positively associated with all forms of political engagement, while social exclusion is negatively associated. Campus and community engagement weakly moderate these relationships. Comparisons across immigration status suggest that many of these relationships are unique to students who have legal protections like DACA. Ultimately, we argue that undocumented students' political engagement is shaped by nuanced manifestations of a hostile immigration policy context.

In this Comment, I examine federal courts' hesitation to apply the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 to address the consolidation of the meatpacking industry. A currently pending case, Pickett v. IBP, represents an opportunity for federal courts to apply the Act to combat that consolidation, and I argue that Pickett-the first class action suit granted class certification under the antitrust provision of the Act-represents an opportunity for the judiciary to reform the meatpacking industry by addressing issues of equal access to the market.

This chapter interrogates the impacts of mass deportation for people recently removed from the U.S. to Mexico. It draws from a novel survey conducted in 2018 with 128 individuals at a migrant shelter in Nogales, Mexico to assess factors impacting intentions to re-migrate the U.S. after removal. Far from deportation preventing remigration to the U.S., the authors found most individuals planned to return to the U.S. at some point. The number of deportations a person experienced did not influence their future migratory plans. Rather, individuals were motivated to attempt another migration based on the location of their subjective belonging, family ties, and nature of their interactions with the U.S. legal system prior to deportation. These findings contribute to research suggesting that migratory decisions are socially embedded, opening up new areas for research on the impact of institutional processes on re-migration plans.