This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 28 November 2014, At: 10:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The New EducatorPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utne20

Creating Opportunities forUndocumented Youth: A Review of theLiteratureAlejandra M. Varela aa The Graduate Center, City University of New York , New York, USAPublished online: 18 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Alejandra M. Varela (2011) Creating Opportunities for Undocumented Youth: AReview of the Literature, The New Educator, 7:1, 87-102, DOI: 10.1080/1547688X.2011.551738

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2011.551738

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The New Educator, 7:87–102, 2011Copyright © CCNY and ATEISSN: 1547-688X print/1549-9243 onlineDOI: 10.1080/1547688X.2011.551738

Creating Opportunities for UndocumentedYouth: A Review of the Literature

ALEJANDRA M. VARELAThe Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, USA

The increasing number of undocumented immigrants comingto the United States has created serious socioeconomic, sociocul-tural, and socioeducational challenges for the communities inwhich these immigrants settle. Minors represent over 1.3 millionof the 10.8 million unauthorized immigrants presently living inthe United States. Given the secretive nature of this population, thisliterature review uses critical theory as a theoretical framework tohighlight the inner workings of the political structures impedingundocumented youth from legalizing their status and contribut-ing fully to American society by attending college and obtaininghigher paying jobs. Presently, no matter how hard these youths tryto assimilate into their communities, their unauthorized status for-ever brands them as violators of the law, even if the decision to enterthe United States was not theirs to make. This review calls upon pol-icymakers to mobilize and create pathways leading to educationalaccess, legalization, and full participation in American democracyfor undocumented youth.

I can’t travel, you know, I can’t drive, I can’t vote, I can’t be involvedin many social activities because of it [her undocumented status], I can’tapply for scholarships, I can’t apply for financial aid, I can’t apply forloans, I can’t buy a home, I can’t do anything, you know, I’m just like,like I’m non-existent in a way, you know what I mean? As my senioryear approaches, I’m like, what am I gonna do? (Huber & Malagon,2007, p. 857)

Americans’ reactions to immigration have become a constant fixture ofpopular discourse and the national media. As border states and the country

Address correspondence to Alejandra M. Varela, 709 Allwood Rd., Clifton, NJ 07012, USA.E-mail: alejandra.seides@gmail.com

87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

88 A. M. Varela

as a whole grapple with what to do with undocumented youth and theirfamilies, waves of future immigrants continue to eagerly plan their journeyto the United States, envisioning a life rife with opportunity similar to thehundreds of thousands of immigrants that came to the United States throughthe ports of Ellis Island more than 100 years ago. While sharing some similar-ities with previous generations of immigrants, the challenges facing recentimmigrants are also unique. Today’s immigrant population in the UnitedStates enters an economy that is in transition, from a primary driving forceof global capitalism to a slowly declining hegemonic power presently char-acterized by stagnant wages and growing unemployment (Massey, 2008;Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Hence, the transformation of the United States’economy from that of an industrialized nation—a manufacturer of goodsand services—to an outsourcer and technologically globalized economy hascaused many immigrants to financially struggle and/or to socioeconomicallylanguish, since their skills are no longer congruent with the needs of anincreasingly knowledge-based economy.

Underscoring the importance of education, Secretary of Education ArneDuncan asserts, “the education that millions of Americans got in the pastsimply won’t do anymore. . . . Even workers with high school diplomas butwithout college degrees are going to find they have limited opportunities ina competitive economy” (2009, para. 4). In short, immigrants to the UnitedStates are entering a nation in which the American dream is out of reach forthose with limited access to postsecondary education. This article reviewsthe present state of affairs for undocumented youth in public schools and asthey pursue a postsecondary education and analyzes some of the challengesthese youth face as they graduate high school and attempt to enter the labormarket.

UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS IN THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY

The current backlash against unauthorized1 immigration— “defined as allforeign-born non-citizens . . . who entered the United States without inspec-tion or who were admitted temporarily” but stayed (Hoefer, Rytina, & Baker,2010, p. 1), —is evident in the recent passage of Arizona’s SB 1070 leg-islation aimed at curbing the tide of illegal immigration to the state. Thislaw was passed in order to make it even more difficult for undocumentedimmigrants to find employment. Under this law it is illegal to transport daylaborers —to give a ride to and/or harbor an undocumented immigrant.

Contrary to popular belief, not all undocumented immigrants enter thecountry illegally or through the Mexican border; many enter thorough theCanadian border since it is less secure, while many others enter legally but

1The terms unauthorized and undocumented are used interchangeably in this article.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Undocumented Youth 89

overstay their visas because they fear that they will not be able to comeback (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001). Those who enter through theCanadian border do so because it is so porous; before 2008, all that wasrequired to enter the United States was an open declaration of citizenship(Drogin, 2009). Those who overstay their visas represent approximately 40%of the illegal population (Passel, 2006). The resulting shadowy existenceof unauthorized immigrants makes it particularly difficult to determine theirnumbers with a high level of reliability. Nevertheless, the Department ofHomeland Security estimates that the unauthorized immigrant population inthe United States was approximately 10.8 million as of January 2009 (Hoeferet al., 2010). Of the 10.8 million undocumented immigrants, it is estimatedthat roughly 1.3 million are minors, of which, 710,000 are males and 620,000are females (Hoefer et al., 2010). Of the aforementioned number of minors,the Immigration Policy Center estimates that “approximately 65,000 undoc-umented children who have lived in the United States for five years orlonger graduate from high school each year” (2007, p. 1). Additionally, of theundocumented youth population presently in the United States, 80% havemigrated from Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean.2 In this sense,Latin@s represent a statistically high number of the total undocumentedyouth population (Perez, Espinosa, Ramos, Coronado, & Cortez, 2009).

Similar to the way federal agencies can only estimate the numberof unauthorized persons living in the country, schools cannot legally askand/or disclose the immigration status of their students, making it impossi-ble to obtain extensively reliable data on the true number of undocumentedschool-age children in the United States. Data from the U.S. Census Bureauof 2000 shows that well over 300,000, almost 6% of all children attendingpublic school in the state of California, the largest immigration state in theUnited States, were undocumented (Passel, 2005a, 2005b). Correspondingly,the state of New York, the second largest immigration state in the UnitedStates, had around 88,000 undocumented children attending public schools(Green, 2003, p. 56). The third largest immigration state, Texas, had around94,000 undocumented children attending school (Green, 2003). While thesenumbers are not exact, they clearly show that public schools in statesin which immigration levels have exponentially increased in the past 30years have an undocumented population of students whose needs are notadequately addressed.

2Since most undocumented youth are from Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean,whenever undocumented youth are mentioned in this article, the reference is associated withthis group, more specifically those coming from Mexico. Mexican immigrants account for64% and other Latin American countries account for 22% of the undocumented immigrantsin the United States. Therefore, this article focuses on the undocumented Latin@ population ofMexican descent (Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Office of Immigration Statistics, 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

90 A. M. Varela

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The high numbers of undocumented youth, the increasingly negativerhetoric in public forums about unauthorized immigration, as well as thelack of discussion about the future of undocumented minors calls for areview of the present state of affairs for undocumented immigrant youth.This literature review highlights the gap between what public schoolslabel unlimited opportunities for those who work hard and the realitiesof life-after-graduation, which unauthorized youths must face when theyare discarded into a society oblivious to their needs. To provide a criticalanalysis of this situation, this literature review uses a critical theory lens toemphasize that at the heart of the “undocumented youth problem” there isan isolationist-deficit-process at work in both schools and society.

Critical theory has a specific practical purpose because it seeks toprovide a broader understanding of oppressive conditions in order “to liber-ate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer,1982, p. 244). Critical theory allows for an analysis of social oppression anddomination while advocating for the centrality of initiating the public pro-cesses of self-reflection and liberation from oppressive structures. In otherwords, critical theory develops a praxis that is centered on emancipation.Therefore, this article examines Plyler v. Doe, Proposition 187, the IllegalImmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), and thePersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)in order to highlight the exclusionary and limiting nature of immigration poli-cies and laws. Examining these rulings and acts using critical theory enablesthe unidirectional and monolithic nature of debates about undocumentedyouth to be challenged. Because of its focus on power relations, criticaltheory also helps to identify and confront the inner workings of powerstructures, the particular divisions within/among society, and the differentinterests and disparate allocations of power “that cultivate an elitism of insid-ers and outsiders” (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2008, p. 409) and which are oftenmediated by the “social relations of capitalist production and consumption”(p. 405). Critical theory also takes into account the consequences of ignoringthe needs of unauthorized youth, and most importantly, it ultimately helps inproposing an emancipatory project that would begin to socially deconstructcommonly held misconceptions about this group of youth.

UNDOCUMENTED YOUTH AND PUBLIC EDUCATION

The Supreme Court landmark case that directly addressed the status ofundocumented youth in public schools took place in Texas in 1982: a casethat stands at the apex of immigrants’ rights in the United States (San Miguel,1987). In 1975, the Texas legislature revised its education laws to withhold

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Undocumented Youth 91

state funds from local school districts who were registering children thatwere not legally admitted into the United States, authorizing local schooldistricts to deny enrollment in their public schools to undocumented chil-dren (Plyler v. Doe, 1982b). In response, Plyler v. Doe, a class-action suitchallenging the earlier ruling was filed in the United States District Court inSeptember 1977. The Supreme Court ruled, in a deeply divided decision, onthe part of the majority 5-4, that denying children public education would bea violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution, and that all children, regardless of immigration status,are guaranteed access to public education from kindergarten through 12thgrade (Plyler v. Doe, 1982a). The court held that denying undocumentedyouth such an education would punish children for the acts of their parentsand “would perpetuate the formation of an underclass of citizens” (Kaplin& Lee, 2006, p. 352). While Plyler v. Doe “smoothed the way for manyundocumented children to participate in mandatory schooling . . . for thesechildren, their lives in the shadows will likely meet the sharp light of the col-lege application process, where substantial paperwork . . . documentation[and money] are prerequisites” (Olivas, 2004, p. 437).

While Plyler v. Doe made it illegal for states to deny public educationto undocumented minors, in 1994 the state of California attempted to adoptpolicies counter to the court’s findings, framed as an effort to “save thestate” from financial ruin as a result of the economic strain many believedwas put on the state by undocumented people. California residents of theearly 1990s were tired of “illegal aliens” whom they blamed for sapping stateresources, crowding schools and welfare offices with their children, andtaking vital jobs that “real Americans” could perform (Garcia, 1995). WhileProposition 187, also known as the “Save Our State Initiative,” was sug-gested to be driven by the fiscal drain that California faced during the early1990s, this initiative conveniently found scapegoats by proposing to depriveundocumented persons of education and all other services, except emer-gency medical care. The proposed legislation also required that teachers,police officers, and welfare workers report any knowledge of unauthorizedimmigrants to the Office of Immigration and Naturalization Services for pur-poses of deportation. “This draconian measure which passed with nearly60% of the state’s electorate would have overruled Plyler and denied educa-tional benefits to undocumented youths” (Starr, 2007, p. 212). Fortunatelyfor undocumented youth and their families, almost immediately, federalcourts granted declaratory and injunctive relief, and ultimately, almost allof Proposition 187’s provisions were struck down; although the bar onpostsecondary benefits was upheld (Starr, 2007).

While Plyler asserted the right of minors to obtain an elementary edu-cation, Proposition 187 attempted to empower the state with the authorityto deny any services, including education, to all who could not provideproof of U.S. citizenship, even children. Plyler and Proposition 187 represent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

92 A. M. Varela

opposite ends of the political spectrum and clearly demonstrate the ideolog-ical discrepancies between the legislative and executive branches, as wellas the Federal and State governments’ inability to provide a fair and soundsolution to the condition of illegality that undocumented youths face.

The negative consequences of the continued failure of federal and stategovernments to find a solution for the legalization of undocumented youthhave become even more pronounced in light of the increasing importanceof postsecondary education over the past two decades. Given the dominanteducational narrative emerging from the federal government as evidencedin comments like those offered by President Obama, suggesting that thecountry promises to give “every [emphasis added] child a world class educa-tion from the day they’re born until the day they graduate from college, [aswell as expects] all [emphasis added] our children not only to graduate highschool, but to graduate college and get a good paying job, a solution mustbe found for these youth” (Obama, 2008, ¶ 23). Without sufficient atten-tion to how undocumented youth are excluded from such lofty ideals, it isclear that undocumented youth are being marginalized and pushed to theperiphery.

UNDOCUMENTED YOUTH AND POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

The issue of undocumented students attending public universities has beenaddressed in various courts since the 1970s and was given significant atten-tion in 1996 when Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform andImmigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). One of PRWORA’s provi-sions (8 U.S.C. § 1621 (c)) declares that individuals who are not “qualifiedaliens” are not eligible for certain public benefits. PRWORA clarified inSection 401 that federal public benefits are “any retirement, welfare, health,disability, public or assisted housing, post-secondary education, [emphasisadded] food assistance, [or] unemployment benefits” (Aliens and NationalityAct, 1996, 8 U.S. C. §§ 1611–46). In addition, IIRIRA (Section 505, 8 U.S.C. §1623) states that: “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United Statesshall not be eligible on the basis of residency within a State for any post-secondary education benefits,” unless those same benefits are already avail-able to U.S. citizens. But, at the same time, PRWORA dictates that states couldpass individual laws permitting undocumented youths eligibility for postsec-ondary education only “through the enactment of a state law . . . which affir-matively provides for such eligibility” (PRWORA Title IV, Section 411 (d)).

The ambiguous wording in these two statutes has been interpretedby several states as serving the paradoxical duality of partially giving anddenying postsecondary education to undocumented immigrants since 1996.Recently, in the Equal Access Education v. Merten (325 F. Supp. 2d 655,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Undocumented Youth 93

2004), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia clarifiedthat PRWORA “addresses only post-secondary monetary assistance paid tothe students or their households, not admissions to college or university”because it states that if undocumented students were admitted to public uni-versities, they would have to be charged the same out-of-state tuition paidby U.S. citizens (Ruge & Izza, 2005, p. 9). It is clear that the vagueness withinthese federal statutes and the inability of Congress to adequately address thequestion of postsecondary schooling for undocumented youth has left statesto decide on their own whether or not to admit undocumented students intopostsecondary education and under which conditions.

Presently, even if undocumented students enroll in college, in moststates these students do not qualify for in-state tuition because they are notlegally considered residents of the state.3 This presents yet another setbackfor undocumented youth wanting to pursue a higher education since “out-of-state-tuition fees can be more than three times the in-state tuition rates”(Ruge & Izza, 2005, p. 4). Additionally, in most states “undocumented stu-dents do not qualify for government sponsored financial aid until they haveattained legal residency” (Ruge & Izza, 2005, p. 4). To exemplify, if an undoc-umented student wishes to attend a four-year state school in New Jersey, oneof the many states that denies in-state tuition to undocumented students and1 of the 10 states with the highest number of undocumented immigration,one can expect to pay as much as $22,000 compared to $10,000 a year forresident tuition. Given undocumented youth’s inability to find high-payingemployment such tuition rates are essentially out of reach for most, if not allof them.

Fortunately, California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, NewYork, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have followedPRWORA’s provisions in Section 411 (d) and have passed laws clarifyingthe status of undocumented youths in postsecondary education.4 But evenin the face of such slow but real progress, undocumented young adultsaspiring to obtain a postsecondary education face tremendous obstacles that“range from the denial of admission, to an inability to obtain student loans,to being charged nonresident tuition, all because of lack of legal immigrationstatus” (Pabón López, 2005, p. 1373). If unauthorized students actually suc-ceed in being admitted to college, their status as “illegal immigrants” servesas an impediment in their academic and professional mobility. Their lackof legal documentation many times forces them to take jobs that pay less

3The term “residence” is defined by each state or institution and varies. See NationalImmigration Law Center: Guide to Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs, fourth ed.(2002).

4Ten states have so far passed explicit laws allowing undocumented students admission topostsecondary schools and to pay in-state-tuition rates based on residence status—California,Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington, andWisconsin.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

94 A. M. Varela

than minimum wage, require long working hours in poor conditions and, inthe end, interfere with their ability to fulfill their educational goals (Rangel,2001).

While Plyler certainly opened school doors for undocumented children,it may also be that Plyler unintentionally preserved undocumentedness as aseparate class, ensuring only students’ right to primary and secondary educa-tion and nothing more within the American diaspora (Pabón López, 2005).Writing the dissent for Plyler v. Doe in 1982, Justice Burger expressed hisconcern with the fact that the specter of this permanent caste was a “dis-turbing one”; yet it was his contention that this was but “one segment of alarger problem” for the “political branches to solve” (Plyler v. Doe, 1982b).Justice Burger clearly asserted that the quandary of undocumented immi-grant youths in the United States will not be resolved through the judiciaryprocess alone, but instead it will be resolved through policy reform at thefederal level.

Much like Brown v. The Board of Education, Plyler called for unprece-dented reforms addressing the needs of marginalized youth while imposingresponsibilities on the states regarding education. A glimmer of hope didshine upon undocumented youths during 2003 and 2004, when bills wereintroduced in both houses of Congress that would allow them to attendcollege and to begin the process of legalization. These bills were latermade part of the Senate’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006and 2007, titled The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien MinorsAct (The DREAM Act). This bill would have effectively repealed IIRIRA’s 8U.S.C. § 1623, (Section 505) and clarified for all the states in the union theresidency status for higher education admissions and for in-state tuition pur-poses (Russell, 2007, p. 2). Under The DREAM Act, undocumented studentswho entered the United States under the age of 16 would have been eli-gible for a probationary visa and a green card after 3 years, in addition tobeing eligible for federal loans and work study. But on October 24, 2007,the Senate rejected an attempt to begin a debate on The DREAM Act effec-tively derailing, yet again, the dreams of thousands of undocumented youthsacross the nation. The flame of hope has not been completely extinguished,since The DREAM Act was reintroduced in both the Senate and the Housein March, 2009.

Concurrent with the reintroduction of the DREAM Act is a reawakeningof the anti-immigrant sentiments that had been dormant in California and inother states, such as Arizona, that fueled anti-immigrant legislation. The newproposition, entitled “The California Taxpayer Protection Act 2010,” is beingsponsored by Ted Hilton, a community activist, and Bill Morrow (R-CA)and, if passed, would deny public benefits to residents of California whodo not have proof of legal residence, similar to the restrictions that werepassed but never enforced under Proposition 187 in 1994. The California

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Undocumented Youth 95

Taxpayer Protection Act seeks to go further than Proposition 187 in thatit is proposed to deny public benefits to approximately 100,000 U.S.-bornchildren of undocumented parents (Morrow, 2009). Additionally, in April2010, lawmakers in the State of Arizona voted 17 to 11 to approve SenateBill 1070, widely regarded as the toughest measure yet taken by any U.S.state to curb illegal immigration. The law requires state and local policeto determine the immigration status of people if there is any “reasonablesuspicion” that they are undocumented immigrants and to arrest peoplewho are unable to provide documentation proving they are in the countrylegally (Senate Bill 1070, 2010).

The overview of legislation targeting undocumented immigrants pre-sented thus far demonstrates “that the development of educational policyis tied to and reflects the cultural, contextual, and political dimensions ofthe community in which it is embedded” (Martinez, 2002, p. 143). The factthat increasingly rural and small towns are being impacted by immigrationand that Americans are experiencing a “Latinization” of their workforce andschool systems continue to force not only the educational system but alsopolicymakers, stakeholders, and educational researchers across the nation torespond to these changes with more than piecemeal approaches to the edu-cation, adaptation, and successful integration of all Latin@ youth (Martinez,2002, p. 143).

IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM

The starting point of analysis for undocumented students’ present con-dition at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels has beenone-sided. First, the discussion has mostly centered on providing undoc-umented youth with the right to obtain a basic public education. This issuewas addressed by Plyler v. Doe, and it is highly unlikely that the legisla-tive process or even Congress would reverse this groundbreaking decisionin the foreseeable future. As noted by Justice Brennan “the illegal alien oftoday may well be the legal alien of tomorrow, and without an education,these undocumented children, already disadvantaged as a result of poverty,lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . willbecome permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class” (Plyler v.Doe, 1982b, Id., at 577) and with the increasing emphasis placed on edu-cational achievement laws that have already given undocumented youththe basic opportunity of obtaining an equal education will not likely bereversed.

In regards to the rights of undocumented youths to obtain a postsec-ondary education, due to PRWORA’s Section 411 (d), this is now addressedon a state-by-state level with some states, especially those with a high

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

96 A. M. Varela

number of undocumented immigrants, such as California, New York, Texas,and Washington, having passed laws allowing them to attend public univer-sities and pay in-state tuition. But, while small battles have been won, suchas Lau v. Nichols declaring the provision of English-language proficiencyprograms to assist all immigrant students to learn English and Plyler v. Doeasserting the educational rights of all children to a public education, thesetriumphs do not negate the call for a national initiative aimed at creating aninclusive policy geared towards developing the educational and professionalpotential of undocumented youth: “An effort which should focus on remov-ing the legal/illegal impasse which affects a multitude of undocumentedchildren” (Hiscott, 2005, p. 4).

Efforts to address the needs of undocumented immigrants are largelyincomplete and bifurcated, often asserting the rights of unauthorized youthto obtain an education without making any reference to whether the rightto obtain an education is eventually leading them to better paying jobs.As Justice Brennan highlighted in the majority opinion in Plyler v. Doe, anundocumented status “imposes a lifetime of hardship on a discrete class ofchildren not accountable for their disabling status” (Plyler v. Doe, 1982b,Id. at 493). Clearly, refusing to provide a pathway out of their conditionof illegality, “we deny [undocumented youth] the ability to live within thestructure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility thatthey will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation”(Plyler v. Doe, 1982b, Id. at 493).

While undocumented young adults are, in some circumstances,“allowed” to continue their education in universities and/or vocationalschools, they are still not permitted to legally derive the fruits of their edu-cational efforts because they cannot obtain employment that would paythem a salary equivalent to the credentials and the education they haveearned, thus only increasing their links to the illegality chain they so desper-ately want to break away from. Continuing to ignore the fact that educationfor all students, including undocumented youth, extends beyond the realmof public education, and that it is not only how much one knows buthow much one is able to use this knowledge in the markets of society,gravely denies unauthorized youth the legal and practical tools they needto achieve their professional dreams. The rejection of proposals that couldhelp undocumented immigrant youth ultimately result in the constructionand enactment of policies (or the lack of) that are restrictive or that lookto “remedy” inadequacies by simply reproducing the local subordination ofmany immigrant groups (Murrillo, 2002, p. 217). As a result, the political still-ness with regard to unauthorized youth permanently precludes them fromthe potential of earning higher wages, from exercising their constitutionalrights as long-time residents of the country, from taking their rightful placewithin American society, and from utilizing their democratic rights in thiscapitalist nation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Undocumented Youth 97

FINAL REMARKS

Recent economic changes have ushered in a wave of educational reforms inwhich public education “has become increasingly more technical and instru-mental, with a primary focus on the economic outcomes of education, andundergirded by a resolute belief in meritocracy” (Michelli & Keiser, 2005,p. 2). It is clear that providing a basic public education as stipulated inPlyler v. Doe is no longer sufficient for undocumented youths because inthis outsourcing and technologically driven economy, obtaining just a basicpublic education does not prepare young people to be competitive membersof our global village. As these changes occur undocumented youth are per-sistently kept on the sidelines of the educational and immigration debatesand the country loses the academic and human potential of thousands ofmotivated human beings eager to contribute and move up the educationaland economic ladders.

In the present state of affairs, undocumented youth are in a dire situa-tion since politicians and stakeholders still maintain “that where one is bornor who one’s parents happen to be are not things under one’s control, andtherefore . . . should not determine where one stands in the distribution ofany good, and that surely includes the good of membership” (Cole, 2000,p. 13). At present, there are no major policies addressing the permanentlegal/illegal conundrum of unauthorized youths. This speaks of a sociallyconstructed, hierarchical, insider/outsider, hegemonized system.

Drawing on critical theory as a conceptual framework, it is evident thatundocumented youth are effectively disempowered and segregated withintheir communities due to their condition of illegality, and when they attemptto obtain a postsecondary education and/or a high-paying job, their immi-gration status is used against them as a deficit they cannot overcome. Thisprocess begins in schools, which by law must ignore immigrant students’unauthorized status and that offer no real help in advocating for these stu-dents’ rights. These combined experiences transform undocumented youthfrom everyday students to violators of the law, from stigmatized shadows tocriminals undeserving of societal incorporation further marginalizing theminto oppressive socioeconomic structures via sociopsychological means ofrepression.

In this sense, unauthorized youth by default create a new phenomenon,a caste within schools and society, a structure that is perpetuated by thesilence of the legislative and executive branches and fueled by society’smisconceptions. This system consistently ensures the outsider status ofundocumented youth in a hierarchical social structure of haves and have-nots. Resulting in separatist practices and restricting unauthorized youth’slives within their own communities in which they are forced to effectivelyenter the dominant capitalist low-waged labor market that further positionsthem as expendable commodities in a life of abuse, fear, and neglect.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

98 A. M. Varela

Hence, this article calls upon policymakers to make changes towardsaddressing the status of undocumented youth while they are still in school,to catch them early, so that they have a better chance of obtaining a highschool education and attending postsecondary school. The fact that mostadults have reached their highest level of educational attainment by the ageof 25 should be considered when gauging the economic impact of schoolingon undocumented youths (Fry, 2002; Swanson, 2009). Given the fact that “atno point in our nation’s recent history . . . has the critical role of a qualityeducation been more evident . . . it is also clear that the brunt of the crisiswill be borne by those with the least education” (Swanson, 2009, p. 30).

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that in this economy, theunemployment rate for high school noncompleters (dropouts/pushouts),as of July 2009, was 15.4%, compared to 9.4% for high school graduates,while it was 7.9% for those with some college credits and 4.7% for thosewith a bachelor’s degree or higher (Alliance For Excellent Education, 2009).Additionally, in 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the averageincome of high school noncompleters was about $17,0000 when comparedto $27,0000 for high school completers and $37,0000 to $53,000 for thoseholding an Associate’s or a Bachelor’s degree. In more concrete numbers,in 2006 for every one dollar earned by a four-year college graduate, per-sons without a college degree earned only 67 cents (Leonhardt, 2006). Whenthese figures are compared with the 2009 poverty threshold of approximately$22,050 for a family of four with two children, it is clear that only having ahigh school diploma coupled with the inability to compete for higher pay-ing jobs will likely exacerbate undocumented youths’ inability to eventuallyprovide for their own families as they toil away for substandard wages (U.S.Department of Health & Human Services, 2009). Without a doubt, the ticketneeded to pursue the American dream is a college degree, and the majorityof undocumented students will never have access to it.

As such, the present system fails to appeal to any sense of economicpracticality and even morality, denying the right of undocumented youthto become full members of society, and to be given the human dignity ofobtaining their dreams. As it stands, “ways of thinking about [undocumentedyouth and] . . . Latino students are routinized through institutional policiesand practices . . . [that are] seen as ‘common sense’ and ‘normal’ and are thusnot open to interrogation” much less negotiation (Murrillo, 2002, p. 221).However, challenging the status quo begins by compelling elected represen-tatives to publicly acknowledge the presence of unauthorized youth as anAmerican reality that must be embraced and not cast out into the futurelesspit of illegality.

While it is also important to recognize that states dealing with severeincreases of undocumented immigration face serious strains on their localeconomies due to the difficulties in coping with uninsured emergency roomvisits, rising educational cost for children, and additional police enforcement,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Undocumented Youth 99

the United States must have an immigration reform that is in balance withthe humane side of unauthorized immigration. As a result, coping withundocumented immigrants requires an appropriate federal response. But,continuing to ignore the paradox that over 65,000 undocumented youthsface every year as they graduate high school simple won’t get us anywhere.

At this juncture, it is our collective responsibility to advance a policythat would embrace undocumented youth’s dreams of being fully recog-nized and of having the same educational and professional opportunities forsuccess afforded to all other youth. While some unauthorized youth continuetheir education at universities, colleges, and/or vocational schools across thecountry, most are still not allowed to work legally, thus only adding to a lifeof hardships and societal neglect (Hiscott, 2005). Thus, the creation of poli-cies geared towards enhancing “the potential of all our children . . . shouldfocus on removing hurdles for the disadvantaged, including undocumentedchildren . . . in regards to their legal status” (Hiscott, 2005, p. 4). As a societyif we recognize the social forces that bind us and that “we must instill asense of duty in our children” and that “every right implies a responsibility;every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty,”5 then we shouldalso ask: What are the civic responsibilities of policymakers and of society atlarge in the face of separatist and discriminatory treatment against childrenwho should be blameless for their condition of illegality?

It is time to put aside the rhetoric that implies that undocumented immi-grants should not be given preferential treatment and advance the betterqualified fact that this is a matter of economic practicality. As PresidentObama expressed in this address to the NAACP “we need a new mindset,a new set of attitudes—because one of the most durable and destructivelegacies of discrimination is the way we’ve internalized a sense of limita-tion” (2009, ¶ 38). It is my contention that undocumented youth are caughtin the middle of a war against noncitizens/immigrants. As of this writing“Latino undocumented students remain hostages in the ‘immigration crisis’siege, notwithstanding Plyler’s guarantee of a free public education and thepromise of educational equality” (Pabón López, 2005, p. 1375). But, if we aretruly part of a global village where equity, freedom, and fraternity are trulyvalued, then we must encourage policymakers to stop ignoring the needsof unauthorized youth by condemning them to the lifelong punishment ofnot belonging and of not having one’s worth ever recognized by society.In the end, it is only logical for American society to recognize the inherentvalue in permitting undocumented youth to “normalize” their immigrationstatus; the reasons should not only be pragmatic but should also take intoaccount American’s precepts of equity, civil rights, and humanitarian aid ina democratic society.

5Quote by Rockefeller (n.d.).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

100 A. M. Varela

REFERENCES

Aliens and Nationality Act of 1996. 8 U.S.C. §§1611-46 et Seq. (West 1996). Retrievedfrom http://vlex.com/vid/aliens-who-are-not-qualified-ineligible-19271652

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2009, August). The high cost of high schooldropouts: What the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Washington, DC:Author. Retrieved from www.all4ed.org

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 §§ 2-6 (Laws 2010, Chapter 113). State of Arizona forty-ninth legislature second regular session 2010. Retrieved from www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Cole, P. (2000). Philosophies of exclusion: Liberal political theory and immigration.Edinburg, UK: Edinburg University Press.

Drogin, B. (2009, May 10). U.S. gets tough on Canadian border. Los AngelesTimes. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/10/nation/na-other-border10

Duncan, A. (2009, October). Teacher preparation: Reforming the uncertain pro-fession. Remarks made by The Secretary of Education at Teachers College,Columbia University, New York.

Equal Access Education v. Merten, 325 F. Supp. 2d 655, 2004. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nacua.org/documents/EqualAccessEducation.pdf

Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Retrievedfrom www.pewhispanic.org

Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequencesof failed social practices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Garcia, J. R. (1995). Critical race theory and Proposition 187: The racial politics ofimmigration law. Chicano Latino Law Review, 17 , 118–148.

Green, P. E. (2003). The undocumented: Educating the children of migrant workersin America. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 51–71.

Guide to Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs (National Immigration LawCenter, 4th ed., June 2002). NILC Publications. Retrieved from http://www.nilc.org

Hiscott, W. (2005). Undocumented children and public education in the UnitedStates. Short Series on US Migration Topics (II). Retrieved from http://www.migrationonline.cz/e-library/?x=1963607

Hoefer, M., Rytina, N., & Baker, B. (2010). Estimates of the unauthorized immigrantpopulation residing in the United States: January 2009. Washington, DC: Officeof Immigration Statistics.

Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical theory. New York, NY: Seabury Press.Huber, P. L., & Malagon, C. M. (2007). Silenced struggles: The experiences of Latina

and Latino undocumented college students in California. The Nevada Journal,7 , 841–861.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8U.S.C. § 1632. Pub. L. No. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). Retrieved fromhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ208.104.pdf

Immigration Policy Center. (2007). Dreams deferred: The costs of ignoring undocu-mented students. Washington, DC: Division of the American Immigration LawFoundation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Undocumented Youth 101

Kaplin, A. W., & Lee, A. B. (2006). The law of higher education: A comprehensiveguide to Legal implications of administrative decision making. San Francisco,CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2008). Rethinking critical theory and qualitativeresearch. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitativeresearch (pp. 403–455). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leonhardt, D. (2006, August 16). Rank colleges, but rank them right.The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/business/media/16leonhardt.html?_r=1

Martinez, E. (2002). Fragmented community, fragmented schools: The implementa-tion of educational policy for Latino immigration. In S. Wortham, E. G. Murillo,Jr., & E. T. Hamann (Eds.), Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy andthe politics of identity (pp. 215–240). Wesport, CT: Ablex.

Massey, D. S. (Ed.). (2008). New faces in new places: The changing geography ofAmerican immigration. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Michelli, M. N., & Keiser, L. D. (2005). Teacher education for democracy and socialjustice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Morrow, B. (2009). California taxpayer protection Act of 2010. Retrieved fromhttp://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i807_initiative_09-0010.pdf

Murrillo, E., G., Jr. (2002). How does it feel to be a problem? “Disciplining” thetransnational subject in the American south. In S. Wortham, E. G. Murillo, Jr.,& E. T. Hamann (Eds.), Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and thepolitics of identity (pp. 215–240). Wesport, CT: Ablex.

Obama. B. (2008, September). A 21st Century Education. Remarks of Senator BarackObama outlining his educational campaign in Dayton, Ohio. Retrieved fromhttp://www.barackobama.com/2008/09/09/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_111.php

Obama, B. (2009, July). President’s remarks to the NAACP Centennial Convention.Hilton, NY.

Olivas, M. (2004). IIRIRA, The Dream Act, and undocumented college students’residency. Journal of College and Universities Law, 30, 435–464.

Pabón López, M. (2005). Reflections on Educating Latino and Latina UndocumentedChildren: Beyond Plyler v. Doe. Seton Hall Review, 35, 1373–1406.

Passel, J. S. (2005a). Estimates of the size and characteristics of the undocumentedpopulation. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf

Passel, J. S. (2005b). Background briefing prepared for task force on immigra-tion and America’s future. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf

Passel, J. S. (2006). The size and characteristics of the unauthorized migrants popu-lation in the U.S: Estimates based on the March 2005 current population survey.Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61pdf

Perez, W., Espinosa, R., Ramos, K., Coronado, H. M., & Cortez, R. (2009).Academic resilience among undocumented Latino students. Hispanic Journalof Behavioral Sciences, 31(2), 149–181.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104–193; 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). Retrieved from http://wdr.doleta.gov/readroom/legislation/pdf/104-193.pdf

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982a). FindLaw for legal professionals. Retrieved fromhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

102 A. M. Varela

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982b). Legal Information Institute. Cornell University.Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant secondgeneration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Proposition 187. (1994). Illegal aliens. Ineligibility for public services. Verificationand reporting. Initiative statute, State of California. Retrieved from http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=492_0_2_0

Rangel, Y. (2001). College immigrant students: How undocumented female Mexicanimmigrant students transition into higher education (Doctoral dissertation).Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses. (No. AAT 3032926).

Rockefeller, J. D., Jr. (n.d.). Center for academic integrity. Retrieved fromhttp://www.academicintegrity.org/fundamental_values_project/quotes_on_responsibility.php

Ruge, T. R., & Iza, A. D. (2005). Higher education for undocumented students: Thecase for open admission and in-state tuition rates for students without lawfulimmigration status. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 15(2),1–22.

Russell, A. (2007, August). In-state tuition for undocumented immigrants: States’rights and educational opportunity. Washington, DC: American Association ofState Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/in-state_tuition07.pdf

San Miguel, G. (1987). Let them all take heed: Mexican Americans and the Campaignfor Educational Equality in Texas, 1910–1981. Austin, TX: University of TexasPress.

Starr, K. (2007). California: A history. New York: NY: Modern Library.Suárez-Orozco, M., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2001). Children of immigrants. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Swanson, C. B. (2009). Cities in crisis 2009: Closing the graduation gap. Educational

and economic conditions in America’s largest cities. Bethesda, MD: EditorialProjects in Education.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. (2009). The 2009 HSS povertyguidelines. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:10

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14