In recent years, immigration, especially concerning those individuals immigrating from Central America and Mexico, has become increasingly controversial. Within the last five presidents, policies concerning immigration have shifted. Under President Bill Clinton in 1997, the Flores Settlement, an agreement between immigration activist organizations and the government that created standards for detaining accompanied and unaccompanied minors was made. Following 9/11, in 2005, President George W. Bush increased the amount of money spent on immigration enforcement in an effort to deport more immigrants. President Barack Obama increased the number of deportations from President Bush during his first term. However, in 2014, an already imperfect immigration system was disrupted by an influx of child immigrants. As a result, detention centers were at capacity and unable to accommodate the increasing numbers of immigrants. Child migrants were placed in caged-areas, immigration lawyers and courts quickly became overwhelmed with cases, and children were alone and could barely communicate. This thesis explores the various relationships between accompanied and unaccompanied minors from Central America, the American legal system, and the media and broadcast news outlets’ rhetoric concerning child migrants. Focusing on the ways in which immigrant minors are objectified by the legal system and the framing of immigrants in the media, it is evident that their complex interaction allows for the oppression of the child migrants. Since the American legal system and the media influence and respond to each other, the responsibility of the child migrants’ dehumanization is on both the legal system and the rhetoric of the media and broadcast news outlets.

The oppressive legislative policies and polarizing media narratives of undocu/DACAmented Latinx im/migrants in the United States have created unfavorable campus climates, which have further marginalized those students in higher education who fit into this category. As a result of Donald Trump’s presidency and rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that soon followed, undocu/DACAmented Latinx students are experiencing an increase in stress, anxiety, and fear to the point that they become silent, depressed, and feel the need to advocate more for their existence and worth on campus. My critical ethnographic case study investigates the everyday experiences of Mexican undocu/DACAmented students enrolled at a public university in Arizona – a state that borders Mexico – as they pursue their undergraduate degrees in the Trump era. This study is guided by critical race theory and LatCrit, sense of belonging, and resistance capital theoretical frameworks, and seeks to answer the following: (a) how race and racism shape their collegiate experiences, (b) where these collegians find belongingness to persist towards graduation while navigating an anti-im/migrant sociopolitical climate, and (c) how these students exercise agency via their activism efforts. The broader case study includes individual collaborative interviews, twelve months of participatory field observations, and a collection of documents. This study aims to expand the field of higher education’s understanding of how federal, state, and institutional policies and policymakers affect undocu/DACAmented students’ experiences in and persistence through college, highlight the agency exercised and assets these collegians bring with them to college, and offer research, policy, and practical recommendations for higher education and student affairs institutional agents.