Abstract
Evolving or stagnant immigration laws and policies may distinctly shape the experiences of undocumented students by shifting access to rights or opportunities. I draw upon 30 interviews with college students in California to analyze how they encountered legal vulnerability. I argue that legal vulnerability can be dismissed, dormant, or deep-rooted, producing contrasting experiences. Inclusive state and institutional policies set the stage for some students to dismiss legal vulnerability and decouple vulnerability from their academic experiences. However, most encountered dormant legal vulnerability through awakened racist xenophobia following the 2016 presidential election and deep-rooted legal vulnerability via persistent uncertainty about their futures or worries over family. Distracted students lost focus, motivation, and study time, which impacted their classroom participation and overall academic performance. Yet, they attempted to improve their academic engagement with limited effectiveness. Altogether, I theorize the relationship between different types of legal vulnerability and undocumented students’ college experiences.
Keywords
“See, and it’s stuff like this that kind of stresses me out. ‘Urgent, new threat to Dreamers. Yesterday, ten states threatened to file a lawsuit if the federal government does not immediately repeal the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.’ So, it’s stuff like that that constantly has me preoccupied. What if this ends up happening in California or what’s going to happen to me?” – Alecx, an undocumented college student “There was a reten (immigration raid) in [the city where I’m from]. And I was calling my mom because I know that she goes in that street to buy stuff for her tamales that she sells. And she wasn’t answering so I was really worried. I was like, ‘Oh my god, what if she got detained!’ It turned out that she was just asleep. But I remember I had bio after that, so I wasn’t paying attention in class. That’s all I was thinking, my mom, my mom, my mom.” – Cassandra, an undocumented college student
Immigration laws and policies curtail undocumented students’ college access and retention across the United States (Burciaga & Martinez, 2017; Cebulko & Silver, 2016). For Alecx and Cassandra, California’s policies paved access (Enriquez, Morales Hernandez, et al., 2019): they applied to college, received financial aid, and attended a University of California campus. However, Alecx worried about the turbulence of the DACA program (Burciaga & Malone, 2021), which provides deportation protection alongside a work permit, and researched immigration news while he studied or during class. Immigration policies permitting the surveillance of undocumented immigrants in public space (Armenta, 2017; McDowell & Wonders, 2009-2010; Rosales, 2020) intensified Cassandra’s worries about her mother and affected her focus. These are examples of how undocumented students encounter legal vulnerability, defined as the connection between immigration laws or policies and marginalization, and become distracted (Chavarria et al., 2021; Enriquez, Morales Hernandez, et al., 2019)—despite attending a supportive university (Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018) in a relatively inclusive state for immigrants (Colbern & Ramakrishnan, 2020). Alecx’s and Cassandra’s narratives suggest a nuanced relationship between how legal vulnerability can contract or persist (Millán, 2021) and shape undocumented students’ academic experiences.
Dimensions of legal vulnerability are sustained by immigration laws and policies (Velarde Pierce et al., 2021) but can fluctuate in magnitude. For instance, legal vulnerability can contextually depend on whether a state has integrative laws and policies that generate rights and opportunities for undocumented immigrants (Cebulko & Silver, 2016; Silver, 2018). Moreover, some dimensions of legal vulnerability can be pervasive, such as financial precarity (Gleeson, 2016), whereas others arise during risky situations, including deportability (Armenta & Rosales, 2019; Enriquez & Millán, 2021). The trajectory of DACA is an example of how legal vulnerability can be lessened with a dissipating effect following legal threats that jeopardize the program (Patler et al., 2019). Social locations like their immigrant generation, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and class can also shape the extent immigrants are susceptible to legal vulnerability (Enriquez, 2017).
Contrary to popular depictions of high-achieving undocumented students, studies indicate their academic experiences are shaped by immigration issues. Analyses of administrative and survey data illustrate variation in their academic outcomes (Hsin & Reed, 2020; Patler, 2018a). In some cases, undocumented students can do well before college but make limited academic gains during college (Kreisberg & Hsin, 2021). They can encounter the impact of their legal status via elements that can hinder their academic performance: a lack of financial aid, anti-immigrant hostility, and institutional neglect. Media coverage consistently relays how undocumented students can feel discouraged and disengaged as they ponder the future of DACA or a bleak immigration policy landscape (Preston & Medina, 2016). The back and forth between promising policies and setbacks is likely also distracting, including the University of California Board of Regents’ decision to table employment opportunities for undocumented students (Board of Regents, UC, 2024). Therefore, in this article I ask: how do distinct types of legal vulnerability shape the experiences of undocumented college students?
To answer this question, I draw upon 30 interviews with undocumented college students at a University of California campus over Spring 2017. This unique period encompasses momentum behind inclusive state policies against a backdrop of uncertain federal policies following the 2016 election. I adopt a legal vulnerability lens (Chavarria et al., 2021; Enriquez, Chavarria, et al., 2021; Velarde Pierce et al., 2021) to outline students’ academic experiences. In my analysis, I uncovered three salient legal vulnerability types: dismissed, dormant, and deep-rooted. Dismissed legal vulnerability was explained by inclusive state and institutional policies alongside social locations that created the possibility that legal vulnerability was no longer as relevant—this type resonated with eight students who felt their legal status was not strongly tied to their academic experiences. Dormant legal vulnerability reflects a heightened, but temporary, period of racist xenophobia that awakens via a sudden change in the political context. The 2016 presidential election results and aftermath were associated with hostility on campus and anti-immigrant discourse. Deep-rooted legal vulnerability captures the entrenched consequences of exclusionary policies that threaten undocumented immigrants’ safety and futures. Dormant and deep-rooted legal vulnerability resonated with 22 students who reported strained academic experiences. I illustrate this connection via immigration distractions. Like general distractions which precede disengagement (Lyubomirsky et al., 2003; Parks-Stamm et al., 2010), immigration distractions are harmful but tied to legal vulnerability.
Distracted students lost focus, motivation, and study time, which often impacted their classroom participation, grades on assignments or exams, and overall academic performance. I also found that some attempted to manage immigration distractions on their own, or by relying on social support, with limited effectiveness, which emphasized the salience of legal vulnerability in their academic worlds. I contribute to analyzing the academic experiences of undocumented college students by theorizing distinct legal vulnerability types and their relationship to immigration distractions.
Legal Vulnerability and Undocumented Immigrants
An immigrant illegality framework first centered how immigration laws and policies generate inequality by limiting immigrants’ rights, opportunities, and mobility based on their legal status (De Genova, 2002; Menjívar & Kanstroom, 2013). Refined frameworks explored liminal legality when immigrants hold temporary rights and protections (Menjívar, 2006); or legal violence through interactions with the state, or institutions, which reinforce illegality (Menjívar & Abrego, 2012) and impact entire families (Enriquez, 2015). These analytical shifts nuanced how legal status imparts social stratification.
In line with this shift, Velarde Pierce et al. (2021) argued that multiple dimensions of legal vulnerability shape the lives of undocumented immigrants since laws and policies impose marginalization and reproduce inequities based on a person’s legal status. For instance, undocumented immigrants can experience financial precarity as employment opportunities and mobility are often bound to their legal status (Gleeson, 2016). They can also encounter policing and immigration enforcement without legal protections, elevating detention and deportation risks (Armenta, 2017). Moreover, immigrants’ access to social services is often set by legal status requirements that can inadvertently impact their wellbeing (Fox, 2012; Hacker et al., 2011). Altogether, legal vulnerability can compromise immigrants’ livelihoods.
Notably, exposure to legal vulnerability varies by state and local context (Cebulko & Silver, 2016; Flores et al., 2019; Martinez & Salazar, 2018). Though the federal government ultimately creates and reshapes immigration laws and policies (Colbern & Ramakrishnan, 2020), states, cities, and institutions increasingly influence the immigration-policy landscape (de Graauw, 2021; Silver, 2018). Xenophobic state laws exacerbate legal violence (Cebulko & Silver, 2016; Menjívar & Abrego, 2012) whereas inclusive laws can facilitate integration (Colbern & Ramakrishnan, 2020). Cities can enact policies to provide undocumented immigrants rights or protections (de Graauw, 2021) and institutions, including universities, can also deploy integrative policies (Enriquez, Morales Hernandez, et al., 2019).
An immigrant’s exposure to legal vulnerability can also vary by the social locations they occupy. For instance, gendered inequities compound legal vulnerabilities and shape educational, employment, dating, and family formation experiences (Enriquez, 2020). Racial/ethnic identities also interact with legal vulnerability. Presumptions about Latinxs as the sole undocumented group (Lachica Buenavista, 2016) intensify their criminalization (Armenta, 2017). However, social locations that dampen legal vulnerability include age and immigrant generation (Abrego, 2011) since young adults are typically considered deserving and receive greater support compared to first generation immigrants (Patler & Gonzales, 2015). Even in the same state or local context, immigrant experiences vary.
Importantly, some dimensions of legal vulnerability are not omnipresent, which suggests that legal vulnerability is dynamic. Enriquez and Millán (2021) argue that deportation fears are situationally triggered when young adults anticipate interactions with police. Undocumented immigrants’ encounters with legal vulnerability can also depend on whether they attempt to access services or navigate institutions (Cebulko & Silver, 2016; Gonzales, 2016). Moreover, anti-immigrant rhetoric is rooted in U.S. politics (Minian, 2018) but can balloon following political shifts, including new presidential administrations (Nguyen & Kebede, 2017).
Lastly, since undocumented immigrants do not passively experience illegality (Menjívar & Abrego, 2012) they can mitigate legal vulnerability (Velarde Pierce et al., 2021). This includes self-advocacy in the absence of inclusive state or local policies (Terriquez et al., 2018) and managing dimensions of legal vulnerability, like deportability, by identifying spaces where enforcement is less likely (Minian, 2018). They can also rely on support from peers, family, or organizations (Abrego, 2019; Enriquez, Morales Hernandez, et al., 2019; Nájera, 2020; Rodriguez, 2016) who share resources, create safer spaces, and promote community.
Legal Vulnerability in the California and University of California Context
California shifted from an exclusionary context, where opportunities were largely unavailable for undocumented immigrants, to one of the most inclusive state contexts following policies that increased access to rights and opportunities like driver’s licenses and medical care (Colbern & Ramakrishnan, 2020). Education-access policies and institutional initiatives facilitated enrollment and introduced funding, staff who work with undocumented students, programming, legal services, and student centers (Enriquez, Morales Hernandez, et al., 2019; Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018; Nájera, 2020). In turn, college and university spaces can double as protective spatial locations which mediate illegality (Enriquez & Millán, 2021; Enriquez, Morales Hernandez, et al., 2019). Moreover, undocumented young adults have, at times, benefited from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) which provides a two-year work permit and deportation protection for those who immigrated to the United States before the age of 16, were under 31 when the program was announced in 2012, continuously lived in the United States for at least five years, and lacked a disqualifying criminal record (USCIS, 2022). Most DACA recipients live in California, which reinforces the state as a more inclusive context.
Despite these shifts, undocumented students encounter legal vulnerability. Across the University of California, they reported barriers accessing campus services, held limited career preparation opportunities, and worried about their lack of work authorization or DACA (Enriquez, Burciaga, et al., 2019). They also belong to families where members have disparate access to rights and protections (Abrego, 2019) since immigration policies largely criminalize, restrict social services, and limit mobility (Enriquez, 2020; Rodriguez, 2019; Rosales, 2020).
In summary, legal vulnerability depends on state and local contexts but can vary depending on social locations. Moreover, some dimensions of legal vulnerability may be mitigated by policies whereas others arise depending on the political context. Legal vulnerability can be minimized, may be heightened over periods, and persist despite policy changes at the state or local level. Hence, different types of legal vulnerability may be parsed by analyzing how undocumented immigrants process immigration issues.
Legal Vulnerability and Immigration Distractions
In this study, I analyze how legal vulnerability shapes the academic experiences of undocumented college students by analyzing their encounters with immigration distractions. In academic contexts, detrimental distractions are tied to factors like preoccupation with non-academic concerns (Lyubomirsky et al., 2003) and chronic stress (Parks-Stamm et al., 2010). Distractions precede a loss of concentration when students do not effectively study or disengage if they have a lot on their minds (Carini et al., 2006; Fredricks et al., 2004; Stoeber et al., 2011). Immigration distractions are similar but linked to legal vulnerability. For example, students who use cellphones during class can be distracted and under-perform (Lepp et al., 2014). However, undocumented students may use their phones to read immigration news or monitor traffic checkpoints targeting unlicensed drivers (Armenta, 2017).
Immigration distractions have been identified in the literature. A high proportion of surveyed undocumented students at the University of California reported distractions in class because of immigration issues (Millán, 2018). Chavarria et al. (2021) used latent profile analysis to chart how students in California experienced distractions with profiles ranging from infrequently distracted to highly distracted via personal and familial immigration issues. Students could be in class but cognitively distracted. Nguyen and Kebede (2017) and Andrade (2017) argued that xenophobic discourse during the Trump administration fueled uncertainty over immigration policies that likely distracted students. Undocumented students can also lose motivation, and presumably become distracted, when they do not envision using their college degrees without work permits (Gonzales, 2016). However, these studies did not analyze how distractions functioned and shaped students’ academic engagement.
Data & Methods
Data for this article consists of 30 interviews tracing undocumented students’ academic experiences at a single University of California campus over Spring 2017. This period is a unique window into dynamic legal vulnerability since California policies had become more inclusive for undocumented immigrants. Yet, the 2016 presidential election represented a possible change in federal policies. A retrospective analysis can highlight how legal vulnerability can shape undocumented students’ experiences during tumultuous periods. This campus was selected because it offered mid-tier levels of institutional support among all nine University of California campuses with undergraduate students. The campus had hired an undocumented student coordinator but did not have an undocumented student center. Moreover, the surrounding community was not a sanctuary city and housed a detention center, though the campus did not collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Conversations with undocumented students across California also helped place this campus in the middle, including discussions about why they attended one UC campus over others.
The data collected comprise my involvement on the Undocumented Student Equity Project (USEP), a collaboration between undocumented and allied undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty to examine students’ experiences and develop equitable practices (Enriquez, Burciaga, et al., 2019). Recruitment occurred through USEP research team networks and a campus list-serv managed by the undocumented student coordinator. Purposive outreach was used to recruit students in a range of years in college, majors, gender, and with or without DACA. Given the overall demographics of undocumented students, some social locations were overrepresented in the final sample, particularly Latinx students. Interviews averaged an hour and students received $20 for their participation. Questions focused on their access to academic resources and academic barriers. Participants were also asked to reflect on descriptive results from a 2016 online USEP survey that focused on how immigration issues shaped students’ campus experiences. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, de-identified using pseudonyms, and coded using HyperResearch.
Table 1 includes participant information collected while scheduling interviews. Participants were undocumented young adults between 18 and 25 years old who immigrated to the United States as children. They all qualified for in-state tuition after submitting AB-540 affidavits and were mostly from low-income households. The sample included 19 students with DACA and 11 undocumented students. Nineteen women participated, ten men, and one gender non-conforming person. Most were Latinx with 24 Latinx students, 5 Asian Pacific Islander students, and one Black student. The sample reflected varied academic performance. The average overall GPA was 2.98, with a low of 1.33 for a recently enrolled student, a high of 3.93, and no transcript data from one student. Students’ majors, level of activity in the undocumented student community, and openness about their status are also included.
Student Characteristics and Social Locations
Note. NR = Not Reported. Bryan and Dae did not submit a pre-interview survey response. Dae did not submit a transcript. Missing data was added using information ascertained from interview transcripts wherever possible.
Coding focused on how, and whether, legal vulnerabilities emerged via immigration distractions. This included code categories that distinguished between personal and familial immigration issues. Personal issues included campus experiences, access to employment and academic opportunities, and reactions to the political climate. Familial issues centered on family members’ access to rights and protections. Table 2 represents counts of prevalent distractions mentioned during interviews which captured a trend—students who recounted few to none and students who recounted many—resonating with distinct legal vulnerability types.
Prevalent Distractions by the Number of Times Discussed During Interviews
Note. Nari mentioned immigration issues but expressed that they did not shape her academic experiences.
Though this data nuance analyzing how differing types of legal vulnerability shape students’ academic experiences, there are limitations. The overrepresentation of Latinx students in the sample limited substantive comparisons by race/ethnicity. I also addressed experiences in a single university over a fixed period, which prohibits cross-comparative or longitudinal analyses. The experiences of college students vary by state context (Burciaga & Martinez, 2017; Flores et al., 2019; Silver, 2018), which may shape the severity of immigration distractions. For instance, Arizona had been a more restrictive state with negative implications for students’ academic engagement (Rubio-Hernandez & Ayón, 2016; Santos & Menjívar, 2013) though novel state policies allow undocumented students to access in-state tuition and aid. Whereas Georgia continues to ban undocumented students from attending selective public colleges (Flores et al., 2019) which may result in more frequent immigration distractions.
Immigration Distractions and Academic Experiences
Interviewed students encountered differing types of legal vulnerability I categorized as dismissed, dormant, and deep-rooted, which mapped onto the frequency and severity of reported immigration distractions. Eight out of thirty students dismissed legal vulnerability and felt their academic experiences were largely unaffected by immigration issues, at least when interviews occurred. In contrast, 22 students encountered dormant and deep-rooted legal vulnerability through campus hostility and anti-immigrant discourse, uncertainty about their futures, or worries over family. Table 2 illustrates that on average, students who dismissed legal vulnerability reported 3.25 distractions, compared to 11.4 among students who recognized legal vulnerability. These findings corroborated Chavarria et al.’s (2021) quantitative analysis of variable immigration distractions while revealing distraction origins and impact.
Dismissed Legal Vulnerability: Students Least Likely to Recount Immigration Distractions
Legal vulnerability remained in the lives of students who reported very few, or no, immigration distractions. Dismissing legal vulnerability paralleled how oppression, or discrimination, is sometimes minimized but does not disappear. This includes how people can dismiss racism by focusing on their lack of racist interpersonal interactions, despite living in a society shaped by structural racism (Flores-González, 2017). Students whose experiences aligned with dismissed legal vulnerability were keenly aware of their legal status and generally knew about how it can be detrimental to immigrants in the United States—however, they felt this was less applicable in the context of higher education. I address how state and institutional policies created the atmosphere to dismiss legal vulnerability, unpack the role of social locations, and present illustrative examples.
The University of California campus where interviews occurred was a space where policy changes and institutional support was transformational. A coordinator had been hired to work with undocumented students, new programming was introduced, and undocumented student enrollment increased year-over-year. Interviewed students entered college under a different premise compared to earlier cohorts who struggled to remain enrolled (Abrego, 2011; Negrón-Gonzales, 2015). This created a dynamic where entering undocumented students averted overt legal exclusion that set the stage for dismissing legal vulnerability.
Social locations were linked with dismissing legal vulnerability. Gender, age, and educational trajectories mitigated legal vulnerability, whereas majors, levels of involvement in the undocumented community, openness about legal status, and scarce cognizance of immigration laws and policies in undocumented communities limited their exposure to the consequences of legal vulnerability.
The eight students who dismissed legal vulnerability did not all have DACA. Many career building or educational opportunities required a work permit, and DACA would presumably permit students to more readily dismiss legal vulnerability. Undocumented students indeed held an awareness of how lacking DACA could reproduce barriers accessing resources or opportunities. Yet, substantive shifts in educational policies overcame complete exclusion, and these students could dismiss legal vulnerability.
Gender mattered since six out of eight identified as male, which represented most of the ten male students interviewed and reflected a gendered dynamic identified in the immigration and education literature. Enriquez (2020) demonstrated that undocumented men can downplay how their legal status has been consequential and avoid seeking support. Scholars have also noted gendered patterns that shape whether male college students acknowledge struggling (Brown et al., 2021). In this case, male students felt their legal status was not strongly tied to their academic experiences—a position predisposed to dismissing legal vulnerability.
Younger students tended to dismiss legal vulnerability more readily since they had spent less time in college. Most whose experiences aligned with dismissed legal vulnerability were 18 or 19 years old. Additional years in college can increase experiences with legal vulnerability as students attempt to access support or opportunities (Nájera, 2020). With the exception of Dae, seven out of eight did not transfer from community college which likely also minimized negative experiences. Undocumented community college students can have less access to support and face barriers in the transfer process (Terriquez, 2014), both of which increase their exposure to legal vulnerability. This aligned with research on how navigating institutions, like higher education, can expose immigrants to legal vulnerability in ways that can be absent for immigrants who do not navigate these institutions (Gonzales, 2016).
Multiple social locations limited students’ awareness of the consequences of legal vulnerability, which allowed them to more readily dismiss legal vulnerability. For instance, they had majors, such as Biological Sciences or Business Information Management, that did not cover immigration issues. In the absence of experiential knowledge, majors that cover immigration issues can help students analyze and unpack critical issues (García Peña, 2022). As I later address, students who reported immigration distractions often felt that harmful conversations arose in courses where immigration issues were part of the curriculum.
Students who reported low levels of involvement in the undocumented student community were also less likely to learn about the consequences of legal vulnerability. Involved students more readily recognize legal status as a marginalizing social location (Nájera, 2020). Similarly, students who were less open about their legal status were more dismissive of legal vulnerability, which signaled that they did may not have regularly disclosed their legal status to access educational opportunities. In contrast, openness about legal status can create the room to experience the consequences of legal vulnerability.
Lastly, these students were typically less informed about local and national immigration issues and thereby less aware of the consequences of legal vulnerability. This included students who did not know about a detention center near campus or anti-immigrant actions on campus. Similarly, because of their age and educational trajectories, they did not have personal experiences behind how undocumented students have been excluded from higher education. In contrast, interviewed students who kept up with immigration developments, like Alecx from the introduction, or had spent more time in higher education had less space to dismiss legal vulnerability.
State and institutional policies created an atmosphere for dismissing legal vulnerability in educational contexts and influenced how students approached prescient legal vulnerability. Novel support for undocumented students followed the 2016 presidential election results. At the time, it was unclear if immigration enforcement officials would target young adults, if DACA would stand, or whether campuses could declare sanctuary. Jordan, an 18-year-old Latino undocumented student, answered a question about undocumented students’ safety on campus and focused on the validating role of the university: I’m mostly optimistic about the security of students. I see it a bit unlikely for the immigration officers to come to campus . . . I think the university is pretty good about making me feel safe here. The city overall is pretty safe and campus as well. And I do recall right after the election, they sent out different emails to students who felt like the incoming [Trump] presidency could be harmful to them and letting them know the university was on their side.
Jordan’s response contrasted with that of students who felt unsafe despite campus messaging (as I later detail). Yet, Jordan was unaware of nearby immigration detention facilities, in line with his low involvement in the undocumented community and chemical engineering major. Immigrants faced deportation in a city he considered safe. Jordan was asked whether his legal status shaped his academic experiences and shared “I would say that it’s probably nonexistent, the effect that it has. And if it does, it’s probably unnoticeable, at least for me.” Students like Jordan were in a transformed educational context and occupied social locations that created a sense of security and permitted dismissing legal vulnerability.
These students also held narrower views of policy developments and awareness of how educational inequities remained. Years of student, educator, and policymaker advocacy led to policy changes. However, they entered college in an already transformed context that encouraged them to believe that barriers to college access and success had been mostly eliminated. In each of their interviews, Emma, a Latina student with DACA, and Abel, a Latino undocumented student, demonstrated how they dismissed legal vulnerability:
Many people have the misconception that you can’t go to college because you won’t be able to pay for it and because you’re an immigrant. But now, I remain optimistic only because I was an immigrant, I didn’t let that stop me from graduating from high school. Which many Latinos don’t really do because they fear that they won’t receive financial aid . . . even if I had to take out a loan, it doesn’t matter to me because to me, education doesn’t have a price . . . So I feel like my immigration status really hasn’t pulled me down.
My immigration status doesn’t really determine my grades . . . I know that a lot of people, because of their immigration status, they are forced to work or find some sort of under the table job so they can help their family and because of that, they are forced to put aside education . . . For me, it’s been the other way around. I’ve been getting a lot of money and I can focus on school and leave aside work. [EQ: Both of these paragraphs should be set as block quotations.]
Emma reported average involvement, was open about her status when necessary, and majored in Environmental Science. This likely precluded her from learning about legal vulnerability in college access. Emma also conflated immigrant and Latinx identities. Latinxs face educational exclusion regardless of their legal status (Yosso, 2005). Abel felt the financial aid he received allowed him to focus academically but held an abstract awareness of barriers his undocumented peers faced. Though the majority interviewed students belonged to low-income households, it was not possible to calculate their socioeconomic status without more in-depth information (including parents’ education levels and occupations). In this case, Abel may have received more financial aid because he had lower familial contributions toward his education, but did not acknowledge how undocumented students had been excluded from receiving any financial aid just a few years prior. The social locations these students occupied limited their awareness of education-access policies and how undocumented students can experience legal vulnerability despite policy changes.
Notably, these students lacked high academic performance records, suggesting that dismissed legal vulnerability and high academic performance were disconnected. Their median overall GPA was 2.93 with a low of 1.33 and a high of 3.62 for two recently enrolled students (Carl and Abel, respectively). Since they decoupled their legal status from their academic experiences, they may have overlooked academic support for undocumented students and diverted explanations to factors beyond their legal status.
Students More Likely to Recount Immigration Distractions
Unlike students who dismissed legal vulnerability, 22 students recognized dormant and deep-rooted legal vulnerability and tended to occupy social locations susceptible to legal vulnerability. This aligned with how repeated experiences with legal vulnerability can transform how immigrants psychologically process and internalize their legal status (Menjívar & Kanstroom, 2013), including attempting to adjust their legal status or violence during immigration processes, such as detention. Though students in this study were not in such positions, they encountered immigration issues (Table 2). They reported greater involvement in the undocumented student community, were older and had been on campus longer, and held majors more likely to cover immigration (Table 1). There was also a higher proportion of transfer and female-identifying students. A transformed educational context did not overcome how their social locations were linked to exposure and awareness of legal vulnerability.
Dormant Legal Vulnerability: Campus Hostility and Anti-Immigrant Discourse
Dormant legal vulnerability captures how the 2016 presidential election engendered a heightened period of racist xenophobia. Spikes in racist xenophobia have occurred previously, including California’s proposition 187 in the mid-1990s, which sought to limit undocumented immigrants’ access to social services, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security following September 11, 2001, and the response to the 2006 immigrant rights protests. Anti-immigrant rhetoric in the United States is longstanding (Minian, 2018), but not ever-presently heightened; “dormant legal vulnerability” captures this dynamic.
In the moment, these periods appear like a monumental shift in undocumented immigrants’ access to rights and opportunities but because of checks behind state, executive, or congressional power, proposed changes are scaled back, reversed, or abandoned (Silver, 2018). This occurred during Trump’s presidency. Yet, students’ narratives nevertheless demonstrated a negative impact as they encountered racist xenophobia over the fall of 2016 and spring of 2017 following the national centering of immigration issues (Rogers et al., 2017).
The 2016 presidential election kindled uncertainty as students questioned the future for undocumented immigrants. These students recognized Trump’s racist xenophobic rhetoric through promises to build another U.S-Mexico border wall, increase immigration enforcement, and rescind DACA (Preston & Medina, 2016). Unlike students who dismissed legal vulnerability, they were highly aware of how harmful Trump’s election could be. In each of their interviews, Amy, a Latina with DACA, and Breanna, a Latina with DACA, recalled:
For the first two weeks after [the 2016 presidential election], I was really distracted because I was like shit, what’s going to happen? You know. And even just like the night of, I stayed up late to watch it. And then I stayed up even later because I was crying. And then the next day, I was dead. So, it took a few days to like, level off. But even after that, I was still distracted.
There’s always that worry of am I going to be able to finish school? So sometimes, for example, when the new president, Donald Trump, came in, and all the policies started being made, there was a moment where I was like, am I going to be able to continue? Should I just stop trying hard? There’s times where I would be studying for a test and a thought would come in like this is not worth it. I’m going to end up being deported et cetera, so why break my head now? [EQ: Set as block quotations.]
Amy’s questioned her future and though she gradually processed, she remained distracted after election night. Students like Amy reported difficulties completing assignments, concentrating during tests, or studying in the days and weeks surrounding the election. During the interview, Breanna shared how she doubted completing college because of financial constraints. Yet, discussions around new restrictive policies were unsettling and took time to taper off.
The 2016 election results also influenced the campus climate, despite a transformed educational context. Undocumented students in California generally have access to safer spaces, including student centers (Nájera, 2020). However, during this period they often encountered hostility. For instance, Kim, who identified as Latinx and used gender-neutral pronouns, shared: The conservative college Republicans group wanted to build their wall, their figurative wall on campus . . . And then also I see every once in a while, people’s car stickers that say oh, in America, we only speak English. Or Trump for president . . . I always knew these things existed but then to have to see it repeatedly and repeatedly, it kind of takes its toll. It’s very tiring. And you kind of do get a bit pessimistic. You’re like nothing’s ever going to change.
Kim relayed how a student group adopted Trump’s rhetoric whereby they read English-only messaging as anti-immigrant. Likewise, a plethora of drawings and signs across campus reinforced xenophobia. Students witnessed anti-immigrant actions, including protests, around campus and felt a change in the campus climate, indicating their awareness of legal vulnerability. Veronica, a Latina with DACA, communicated “I feel like it just sucks that our campus is not where it should be in terms of being open-minded.” Indeed, some felt Trump’s election encouraged people to openly express their anti-immigrant views.
Because of a spike in racist xenophobia, anti-immigrant discourse and hostility also surfaced in classes. This occurred in courses with immigration topics but was striking when unexpected. For example, Melody, a Latina with DACA, described a class session and underscored how these moments raised awareness about legal vulnerability: For my social psychology class, we had a huge discussion about the [election]. And that to me was just very surprising. I didn’t expect that. I just expected to go in there and learn material and get out. And that’s honestly, if I would’ve known that that discussion was going to happen, I wouldn’t have gone. Because it was emotionally, mentally, and physically draining to just be there and sit and listen to all of these people debating. I feel like discussions of immigration in the classroom can really affect academic performance . . . I heard immigrants should or that word . . . “illegal aliens” should go back to their country. And I heard “Trump has the right plan. He’s gonna build a wall.” And . . . something else about us stealing jobs.
Melody’s professor could have prefaced the discussion, practiced inclusive pedagogy, and created a safer space for undocumented students (García Peña, 2022). As Melody implied, some students choose silence to avoid antagonism in a hostile setting. Despite the common belief that current events are learning moments, they can unearth dormant legal vulnerability, marginalize undocumented students, and discourage their participation.
Deep-Rooted Legal Vulnerability: Uncertainty about the Future and Worries over Family
Deep-rooted legal vulnerability reflects the absence of permanent solutions that place undocumented immigrants’ futures and safety at risk. State and institutional policies are inherently limited since immigrants’ rights and opportunities are established across local, state, and federal levels (de Graauw, 2021; Silver, 2018). These students occupied social locations tied to experiencing, or learning, about legal vulnerability. They understood that their time in educational spaces was temporary and could not extend inclusion to undocumented family members.
Among the 16 out of 22 students with DACA, deep-rooted legal vulnerability was connected to uncertain mobility since DACA has never been permanent. In the California context, deportability largely faded into the background for young adults (Enriquez & Millán, 2021). Instead, students worried about maintaining work authorization since this shaped their career prospects and ability to pay for educational expenses. Stephanie, a Latina with DACA, and Lucas, a Latino with DACA, recalled in each of their interviews how DACA is intrinsically tied to legal vulnerability:
Every once in a while, I don’t feel like what I’m doing is worth it. And I kind of, you know, don’t study that day or don’t care for school . . . I guess I feel like giving up. And of course, at the end of the day, I’m still here.
I always have to think about what happens if my DACA is taken away. What am I gonna do, how am I gonna afford college. I’m always thinking about my back-up plan. How am I going to raise money to continue going to school or am I going to have to go back home, work, and save up money to come back? . . . Which might cause me to not do so well in my [school] work.
Stephanie felt unsure about investing in her academic success and questioned whether she could work and build a career. Lucas constantly worried about DACA, which shaped his ability to focus. The unpredictable trajectory of DACA reflected deep-rooted legal vulnerability when permanent solutions, such as a pathway to citizenship, do not exist.
Students without DACA experienced greater uncertainty since they already faced barriers finding opportunities. DACA raised employment rates and access to higher paying jobs (Amuedo-Dorantes & Antman, 2016; Patler et al., 2021). However, students without DACA have limited career-preparation opportunities and vague career prospects (Morales Hernandez & Enriquez, 2021). Beatrice, a Latina undocumented student, and Erika, a Latina student with a pending DACA application, shared their concerns:
I just keep thinking about what I’m going to do after I graduate and it’s even making me more stressed because I have no idea what I’m gonna do. And it all comes down to the fact that if I had DACA, at least DACA, or I was born here, I wouldn’t have to worry about the stress of graduating.
So, I don’t know, sometimes I find myself thinking what if they don’t approve [DACA] or what if they do. Other things I can do, such as get a job. I mean, I already have a job but [a job that is] not under the table. And eventually, I want to go to graduate school. I would like to continue my PhD. And if I eventually do have DACA, I can increase my opportunities to get a fellowship or scholarship with greater amounts of money. [EQ: Set as block quotation]
Beatrice and Erika were preoccupied with their options following graduation. Thinking about the future can help students plan and transition. Yet, it can be stressful when the possibility of inclusive immigration policies is low (Enriquez, 2020). Their ages and proximity to graduation made this pressing. These worries impacted their academic experiences as Megen, a Latina undocumented student, recalled “I get really insecure about myself. And what’s going to happen in the future. And I feel like, I don’t know if it was worth it to study.” Students without DACA understood how deep-rooted legal vulnerability limited their access to opportunities.
Altogether, these students vividly understood legal vulnerability in their lives. However, their awareness of legal vulnerability included family members. They recognized holding relatively more rights, or protections, because of the social locations they occupied compared to undocumented family members (Abrego, 2019; Fiorito, 2021) who encountered broader deep-rooted legal vulnerability. For example, Amy, a Latina with DACA, shared why she worried about her older brother: I’ve been reading this one book and they spelled out what the DREAM Act meant. And my brother is trying to go to college right now but he’s twenty-nine and somewhere in the word there, I believe the M stands for minor and I got so scared because I was like, what if he can’t? So, I did this whole hour of research.
A significant proportion of undocumented young adults, including the older siblings of interviewed students, graduated from high school during periods without robust education-access policies (Abrego, 2016; Enriquez, 2017). After researching at night, Amy tiredly attended class the following day and fell asleep. Students also regularly shared immigration information and resources they learned about on campus (e.g., know your rights workshops, meetings with lawyers) with their family members, often at the expense of their academics.
These students were also cognizant that undocumented family, particularly parents, faced greater detention and deportation risks compared to students. Some worried that immigration enforcement efforts introduced by Obama and continued under Trump would increase detention and deportation numbers. Citlali, a Latina student with DACA, illustrated a typical concern: I just, I don’t know if this is an irrational fear or whatever. With the whole immigration issues that are going on right now. My dad worries me a lot. Because he picks up cans, right, so he looks very dirty. And he doesn’t drive. None of us drive. He just rides his bike. Even before what’s going on now, he would get stopped a lot by the police. And thankfully, they’d just release him. They interrogated him and like okay, you’re good . . . now it just really scares me that they’re going to stop him and just take him away. So, I get very distracted.
Citlali’s father encountered police in the past. Her father’s prior interactions were consistent with how Armenta and Rosales (2019) found that undocumented immigrants can develop ambivalent perceptions about police following regular, yet inconsequential, interactions. However, after she learned about ramped-up immigration enforcement his apprehension felt more likely. Citlali questioned if her fears were rational. Yet, most deported immigrants are Latino men through what Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo (2013) called a race-gendered removal process.
Students who learned about immigration enforcement in their home communities and alerted family understood the consequences of deep-rooted legal vulnerability. Despite California policies that limited the collaboration between immigration officials and police (Colbern & Ramakrishnan, 2020), out of the top ten counties in the United States, three counties in California experienced the highest immigration apprehensions in Fiscal Year 2018 (TRAC, 2018)—around when interviews were conducted. For instance, Alyssa, a Latina with DACA, shared how she regularly warned family: My family is in LA, so they would put a lot of raids and oh, there’s a checkpoint here and there. So, I would be like checking and screenshot it and send it to my mom and my dad and be like oh, pay attention. And sometimes it would be like really close to my house . . . So, then I’d be like, try to go back to class and I’d be like shoot, I just missed ten minutes, what’s going on?
Alyssa monitored texts, social media, and emails from news and community organizations. Worries over family pressured students to take on advocate roles (Getrich, 2019). Yet, they often lost class time, did not study, or disengaged until they learned family members were safe.
Mitigating Legal Vulnerability and Managing Immigration Distractions
In this section, I detail mitigation strategies among the 22 students who did not dismiss legal vulnerability. Students can preemptively identify distractions and seek support to cope (Stallman et al., 2020). Yet, they sometimes counter-productively mitigated legal vulnerability. Individual actions were limiting whereas more effective strategies involved social support but were constrained under salient legal vulnerability.
As an individual strategy, some students withdrew from spaces that reminded them of marginalization. For instance, Dolores, an undocumented Latina student, answered a question about whether she felt prepared to pursue career goals: No I don’t [laughs]. Not that I don’t want to plan, since [a] little nine digit number is gonna basically determine what I can and can’t do . . . I don’t even go to job fairs . . . People tell me, oh, you should go for practice. What’s the point? Oh hey, you got the job but you can’t work here because you don’t have a social.
Dolores had experience with plans that did not materialize because she lacked the right to work. Undocumented students who encountered status-related barriers learned to recognize deep-rooted legal vulnerability and understood their limited access to employment and career-building opportunities. Yet, individual strategies could inadvertently limit career preparation.
Some students used individual strategies during overwhelming periods. Citlali, a Latina student with DACA, shared her decision to stop writing a senior thesis on the experiences of undocumented students: I just dropped it because I couldn’t do it anymore mentally. It was just taking too much out of me . . . I feel like my problems aren’t as serious as other people’s problems and I’ve downplayed my issues a lot just because I feel privileged to be here in the first place, the institution . . . But I feel like I should just [seek mental health support] because it’s affecting me in more ways than not.
Citlali was aware of the mental health services on campus. Yet, the anticipation that her experiences would be invalidated were roadblocks and aligned with trends among undocumented students who underutilize mental health services (Cha et al., 2019). Citlali was also reluctant to meet with her thesis advisor because they were not knowledgeable about undocumented students. Her experience is an example of how social support could have been important.
Interviewed students more effectively managed legal vulnerability via individual strategies and social support. Alyssa, a Latina student with DACA, shared how she minimized her exposure to xenophobic interactions: I was kind of failing [a] class. And it was my last class for my major and I was like oh, hells no. I had to get on it. So, I ignored politics for a good while and I wouldn’t get on Facebook because I knew I would see anything. And anyone talking about Trump, I would be like, don’t talk to me. I’m trying to concentrate. And I’m like, if anything happens, it happens. But right now, my focus is to graduate, you know.
Alyssa avoided immigration discussions linked to dormant legal vulnerability. Students who unplug, or isolate, can forfeit building support systems associated with improved academic experiences (Pascarella et al., 2016; Stallman et al., 2020). However, Alyssa also relied on her support network, including the undocumented student coordinator, faculty, and family and believed “they think I can do it, I can do it.”
Students counted on family support to manage dormant or deep-rooted legal vulnerability. Families can influence the academic engagement of students (Yosso, 2005) and some students belonged to families with strategies to address legal vulnerability (Rodriguez, 2016). For example, Bryan, a Latino undocumented student, shared: There’s times where I lean really hard towards the, who gives a shit, then? He’s [Trump] going to deport everyone anyway. And when I get to that point, I try to talk to my parents. Because they’re the ones that will probably try to ground me and put me back in a more collective self. So after I talk to them it’s like yeah, he can do that definitely but he hasn’t, not to you at least . . . And if he decides to start actually deporting students, you did well while you were here.
Bryan offered an example of parents who provided motivation amid uncertainty. Students often valued family advice and encouragement to cope during these periods.
The University of California funded social support programs following undocumented student advocacy to address inequities on campuses which lacked safer spaces, dedicated staff, and resources (Enriquez, Morales Hernandez, et al., 2019). Deborah, a Black undocumented student, shared how a course for undocumented students helped her: It’s a class for undocumented incoming freshmen . . . It’s really hard to make friends first year so you’re going to make friends with also undocumented who understand the struggle. Because most of my friends that I had were documented. Now I have like six really close [undocumented] friends.
Deborah relied on campus resources and peer support to mitigate legal vulnerability, including lacking the right to work. Her academic performance improved once she was encouraged apply to scholarships to live on campus and emphasized “I think you need that backbone [support] in order to do well.”
Aside from resources for undocumented students, interviewed students often reported a general lack of institutional recognition on how legal vulnerability negatively shaped their academic experiences. Melody, a Latina with DACA, explained: If professors were at least a little bit knowledgeable on things having to do with immigration in terms of what students have to go through or issues that are affecting the community, I feel like it would help them understand a bit why sometimes we don’t really focus in class or why we sometimes need extensions on assignments. I don’t expect it to happen. But also, this happened last [term], where I saw one of my professors, she put down on her syllabus, the number for the [undocumented student] resource office and contact information for the undocumented student coordinator. In class, she verbally stated, “I am a full supporter of undocumented students here on campus.” And she showed it up on the PowerPoint. It doesn’t take much effort, but it means a lot.
Though Melody felt skeptical, she shared an example of a supportive professor. Veronica, a Latina with DACA, explained that “with professors, you never know if they’re an ally or they’re not, so it’s really hard to connect with them.” Supportive statements signal the staff and faculty who are allies, raise awareness about institutional resources, and validate how legal vulnerability strains undocumented students’ academic experiences.
Discussion and Conclusion
Undocumented students in California benefit from education-access policies that increase college access and retention (Enriquez, Morales Hernandez, et al., 2019; Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018). However, they can encounter legal vulnerability with a negative impact on their academic engagement and performance during college. I found that different types of legal vulnerability reflected the frequency and intensity of immigration distractions, contributing to distinct experiences among undocumented students.
Eight students largely minimized the role of their legal status. Education access policies allowed them to avert educational exclusion and facilitated their enrollment and retention (Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018). A range of social locations, including their age and majors, also dampened their exposure and awareness of legal vulnerability. For the time, they felt that immigration issues did not shape their academic experiences. However, their views could change in the future if they experienced acute legal vulnerability.
The 22 students who recounted immigration distractions felt unmotivated to study and often struggled to envision their futures. They encountered dormant legal vulnerability via hostility and anti-immigrant discourse following a spike in racist xenophobia surrounding the 2016 election. Though racist xenophobia was widespread, a part of many news cycles, and embedded across campus, it did not linger intensely for long. Yet, because of a lack of permanent policy solutions they also felt unsure about future immigration laws and policies, including the DACA program. Undocumented students without DACA could not envision using their degrees after college and struggled to access academic and career-building opportunities. The legal vulnerability undocumented family members encountered was also impactful and tied to immigration distractions.
Students who encountered dormant and deep-rooted legal vulnerability managed the consequences of immigration distractions by relying on individual or support-based strategies. Individual strategies included avoiding hostile interactions and withdrawing during overwhelming periods. However, these strategies could inadvertently shape their academic engagement since they can forfeit maintaining connections with peers and professors (Stallman et al., 2020; Vaquera et al., 2017). Students who relied on peer, family, or campus support more effectively managed the consequences of immigration distractions. They received advice or guidance and accessed resources that mitigated the impact of immigrant distractions. Yet, without institutional recognition of the relationship between legal vulnerability and students’ academic experiences these efforts were also limited.
Theorizing dynamic legal vulnerability can capture the ebb and flow of how laws and policies shape the lives of undocumented immigrants. State and institutional polices in states like California made it possible for undocumented students, who previously experienced near-total exclusion, to enroll and graduate from college. Yet, undocumented immigrants overall continue to experience marginalization or criminalization without substantive relief from illegality in over three decades. Dismissed legal vulnerability reveals the pockets of time and space when undocumented immigrants, depending on social locations, can feel their legal status is less salient. This undermines inaccurate depictions of undocumented immigrants as people living in perpetual fear (Enriquez & Millán, 2021), whereas dormant legal vulnerability can unpack the periods when undocumented immigrants are attacked, often to score political points (Del Real, 2019). Lastly, deep-rooted legal vulnerability can uncover the harmful effects of ingrained legal vulnerability on immigrants. Indeed, the long-term impact of illegality over years and decades is not well understood (García et al., 2024).
Theorizing dynamic legal vulnerability can also help analyze the impact of changing laws and policies for various groups. The scaling back of rights for LGBTQ people, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the undermining of voters’ rights all represent rights that have been limited or eliminated. This back and forth may create uncertainty while driving repressive state policies. Therefore, analyzing how people contend with legal vulnerability can shed light on the necessity of permanent and protected rights across federal, state, and local levels.
Implications for Practice, Research, and Policy
Educational institutions can more intentionally address the consequences of legal vulnerability through inclusive practices. They can support students facing personal or familial immigration emergencies. For example, the University of California Immigrant Legal Services Center provides legal support to students and their families (UC Davis School of Law, 2024). Campuses can also create infrastructure for undocumented students to meet and support each other, including hiring coordinators, implementing transition programs, and opening resource centers. Undocumented student coordinators can refer students to appropriate support, including mental health counseling and academic advising. A concerted approach would involve maintaining safer spaces alongside hiring institutional agents who acknowledge the harmful consequences of legal vulnerability.
Educators can also create inclusive learning spaces. Undocumented students who are distracted may inadvertently signal to peers or professors that they are disinvested in their education. This may negatively impact their academic performance if, for example, active participation is graded. Undocumented students can also conceal their legal status if they want or need to (Enriquez & Millán, 2021; Patler, 2018b), which may further prevent them from accessing support. Instead of placing the onus on undocumented students, educators can learn about the relationship between legal vulnerability and their academic experiences. Many hold misconceptions of undocumented students as high-achieving “dreamers,” which neglects and invalidates how they face challenges.
Analyzing immigration distractions motivates further research on how legal vulnerability impacts undocumented students’ mental health. They can experience stress, anxiety, and suicidal ideation when they encounter barriers, feel hopeless, or worry about family (Cha et al., 2019; Del Real, 2019; Enriquez et al., 2018; Talleyrand & Vojtech, 2019; Vaquera et al., 2017). In turn, strained mental health can have a negative impact on students’ academic performance if they are unable to complete academic tasks or lack adequate access to mental health support. Future research can address how frequent and severe immigration distractions may be a gateway to chronic health issues. Students who often worry about themselves or their family may develop anxiety, sleep disorders, or other conditions that require treatment.
Theorizing how people connected to undocumented immigrants experience legal vulnerability can also contribute to research on overarching legal vulnerability. For example, citizen students at multiple stages of the educational pipeline can worry about the safety of their undocumented parents and academically disengage (Dreby, 2015; Ee & Gándara, 2019; Huang & Cornell, 2019; Rogers et al., 2017). They may also experience immigration distractions and take on advocate roles. Enriquez (2020) addressed how citizen children in California experienced multigenerational punishment via immigration policies aimed at regulating their parents access to rights and mobility. These dynamics are also present for adult children who can feel compelled to address the illegality their undocumented family members encounter (Getrich, 2019; Rodriguez, 2019).
Ultimately, undocumented immigrants will encounter legal vulnerability in the absence of transformative policies. Governors in states like Florida or Texas continue to demarcate belonging and restrict undocumented immigrants’ access to opportunities, movement, and social services. Federally, there has been little progress toward immigration reform that ensures that deep-rooted legal vulnerability persists alongside dormant legal vulnerability with the 2024 presidential election. DACA was rescinded in September 2017. However, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2020 that the Trump administration did not adequately follow procedures to end the program. As of 2024, new DACA applications are not accepted following another legal challenge under the Fifth Circuit and the case will likely return to the Supreme Court. Most undocumented students now transition to college without DACA and may be susceptible to legal vulnerability in ways that mirror earlier student cohorts (Hamilton et al., 2021). Undocumented immigrants’ incorporation hinge on inclusive federal, state, and local policies and permanent rights and opportunities.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I thank Laura E. Enriquez for comments on previous drafts. Special thanks to participants who shared their experiences, community partners, Undocumented Student Equity Project collaborators (Dr. Laura E. Enriquez, Dr. Edelina Burciaga, Miroslava Guzman Perez, Dr. Martha Morales Hernandez, and Daisy Vazquez Vera) and research assistants (Tadria Cardenas, Yareli Castro, Maria Mireles, and Estela Ramirez Ramirez).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was provided by the UC Irvine School of Social Sciences, UC Irvine Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, and the UC San Diego Center for Comparative Immigration Studies California Immigration Research Initiative.
Author
DANIEL MILLÁN is an independent researcher in Los Angeles, CA. Email: