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.

Immigration, especially unauthorized immigration, is a timely and a hotly debated issue. One of the issues that continues to challenge policy makers is what kind relief should be granted to unauthorized immigrants who entered the country as children. A few solutions have been proposed, including the 2001 Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. This bill provided a path to gaining permanent legal residence and eventually naturalization for these young immigrants. The bill failed to pass, but inspired a wave of similar legislation, to no avail. The issue remains. In 2012, however, the Obama Administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, in which childhood immigrants could apply to defer any action to deport or expel them from the country. DACA enabled nearly 800,000 eligible young adults to work lawfully, enroll in higher education, and plan their lives without the constant threat of deportation. However, on September 5th, 2017, the Trump Administration announced the gradual termination of the program. This decision was challenged in federal courts and heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2019. At the time of this study, a decision had yet to be made. This study provides an analysis of the DACA program, including the issues associated with its implementation. Furthermore, it examines the economic costs and benefits of revoking DACA and provides evidence of American public support for the program. Finally, it discusses the future implications of a Supreme Court decision, and the ways in which states and universities should respond. Future studies should examine deeper the human rights crisis created by the program’s termination. Ultimately, this study provides rationale for passing permanent legislation to significantly reform our immigration policy.