As educators cultivated knowledge about these policies, they negotiated policies and created new policies that could take action to protect undocumented students. While many of these policies could be formalized there were several that could not and therefore required educators to negotiate the creation of underground policies.
Unlike previous labels, the label of underground policies was not formulated by
educators. In fact, educators seldom explicitly identified these policies. Rather educators spoke of these policies in vague and often secretive ways and simply identified that these policies were neither documented nor allowed. Educators also explained their hesitancy to share these policies, especially the risk of exposing access to these resources and in some cases implicate the
livelihood of educators who created it. Therefore, educators explained that these policies were on a need-to-know-basis. It is important to talk about these policies in order to fully grasp the lengths at which educators must go to truly provide a safe and equitable space for undocumented
students. It is also necessary to note that educators have entrusted me with this information in order to share any identifiers discreetly and share their work intentionally.
While underground policies did not follow any kind of protocol or formalization their creation follows similar tenants of the policies listed above. Educators followed the same tenants of policy as practice to cultivate underground policies; interpreted policies that impacted
undocumented students and appropriated policies to create unauthorized policies. Educators then negotiated the ways in which policies impact students in an effort to identify how to create action. Moreover, these policies were created as a response to educators’ will to support undocumented student, even in the most drastic measure possible. Looking at Benhabib’s (2004) work, educators form legislation and discursive will to adopt policies that work towards universal hospitality, in these examples educators worked towards equity and justice.
Underground Policy
Indeed, educators took action and created policy to appropriate and interpret policy, educators also began creating underground policies. In the previous section I noted that educators labeled the interpreted policies, however, the label of “underground” did not come from the participants and instead I utilize this term to describe their negotiated policies. This is because educators hesitated to speak about the policies and even more so to label them. Educators are conducting fugitive work in an effort to equitably support their undocumented students, this meant being discreet in speaking about policies. Often conversation about underground policies occurred in private informal conversations with other educators. These conversation were often initiated by higher up administration in an effort to address existing concerns on their campuses. These meetings resulted in action plans that were kept on a need to know basis. In Arizona, post 2016 election, superintendents were called into a meeting to address the concerns that students and families presented regarding the messaging of the new president and his anti-immigrant campaign. Julia recalls this meeting as the beginning of action plans that centered those most vulnerable in the state of Arizona.
After the election our superintendents, there were a group of us and our schools were directed to call the faculty meeting the morning after the election and at that time, actually at the state level, the meeting was not in support of the election results but it was to express concerns for some of our students and some of our families who might be fearful after the election and what it meant and it provided some guidance as to working with students (Interview, February 17th).
While concerns were raised and expressed by staff, Julia recalls that one particular individual was upset that this conversation was happening and demanded to know if this would have happened if the election results were different.
There was this one person we had one person who was very very angry and wanted to know that if the election had gone the other way there was going to be a meeting so I’m saying that most of the time, see this gets into my own personal values, I think most of the time we our school culture is to support all of the people within our communities as best as we can and so for that particular example (Interview, February 17th).
Despite how upset this individual was it was clear that the priority was to support students and their families. So much so that Julia was pulled aside and told that the most important thing was the student and not the concerns of people who did not care about the fear the students were experiencing.
It was determined that it was more important than the fear of some of our students was more important than stepping on the toes of people who would question why that had been necessary (Interview, February 17th).
Julia continued to explain that the educator who pulled her aside began to talk about resolutions to address the concerns of students. This educator expressed their dedication to advocating for undocumented students and taking action.
Informal conversations with him, this really does happen informally, he has said to me when we were working on the resolution for this, “if there is one issue that I’m willing to go the distance with at any cost it’s this issue,” and I agree but that is not something, again, where I talk about making formal statements or informal statements there is a pressing, there is no point for him to stand up and make that announcement unless it is connected to something (Interview, February 17th).
At this point of our interview where Julia mentioned that she would like to be identified via a pseudonym in order to protect her identity. Julia was concerned that any connection to this educator would put her job at risk.
In New York educators expressed a similar pattern of higher ups who utilized discretion to address impending concerns or actions that needed to be taken. Leo mentioned that as
President Trump continued to attack immigrants the principal would casually run into him and make a comment or suggestion that some action needs to be taken.
Today, like she walked in today and said “have you read the New York Time’s article yes? Okay. Let’s set up something for that we can continue a plan of what to do to (Interview, February 17th).”
While these were examples of educators who were supported, the creation of underground systems were a result of anti-immigrant policies and individuals. Gabriela, the office manager in Arizona described that she needed to create underground resources because her administration was not supportive, especially in informal settings.
I tried to help the students, but we were doing it “under the water” before because my administrators, I heard many times saying, making comments that I knew that if they knew I was helping them helping them they would not be supportive so I had to help them under the water (Interview, March 9th).
In some other cases educators sought resources that were also underground. Kelly in Arizona connected with organizations that helped undocumented students and were not public about it in order to protect their group.
Organizations that were under the radar processed undocumented students and registered them in school and got them to go to school and they would help them with a lot of finance pieces and so then I could also figure out what scholarships are out there that can potentially support students (Interview, March 17th).
Educators took action and continued to coordinate and plan through these informal conversations. As a result, an underground system of policy took place in both Arizona and New York.
Throughout the rest of this section it is important to note that the political climate and context of each state impacted how educators could negotiate and create action to support undocumented students. In the remainder of this chapter I described the underground policies educators created in order to support and advocate for undocumented students, even after understanding the full consequences of their actions.
In-State Access
One of the most impactful policies of Arizona is proposition 300, which mandated that students can only receive in-state tuition if they could prove citizenship. This proposition terminated undocumented students’ ability to afford public education, it mandated that
undocumented students would be charged out-of-state or international rates. Prior to its passage higher education was much more accessible. Julia, a long-time educator in Arizona, described it in the following way.
Prior to the State of Arizona passing proposition 300, whether students receive residency or not, was a moot point. I know there were vast implications but by and large, as a school counselor at that time, students just went on to school if they wanted to go, so it really wasn’t an issue. I think the most that ever came up was that students were told, and I remember who told me about this perhaps another counselor at some point, that if by chance someone should ask you about residency just tell him your paperwork is in progress and it seemed sufficient at the institutions that are local, here for us in [Arizona] (Interview, February 17th).
This previous protocol allowed undocumented students to enroll and receive an education. Unfortunately, the passing of proposition 300 changed the policy field in Arizona. As a result, educators negotiated the creation of another internal policy that allowed them to appropriate policies such as their loopholes and errors in the system. This ultimately allowed undocumented students to receive in-state tuition. The policy forced educators to think creatively and ask themselves how they can support and help students enroll in college without coming across barriers at the beginning of the process. As Julia started working with students who were either already in college or about to enter, she began to think of ways in which an internal policy could help students. She identified two ways in which she could support students. The first solution focused on students who were in dual enrollment programs.
How can I enter information for a student so there is not an automatic rejection of that student’s application based on the lack of residency information? So for example right now we are a robust school district in terms of moving towards dual enrollment options for students so if there was an almost constant checking on dual enrollment, but our local community college has moved away from requiring verification of lawful residency form, but at the same time when a student is in a system they need to have their social security number attached to it at some point. However, it's not required while they are registered in dual enrollment so it might be possible that a student was in the system and is
continued to be enrolled in courses even if even, when that information is missing (Interview, February 17th).
Undocumented high school students were allowed to enroll in dual enrollment programs to take college courses. This process did not require a social security number or any other verification process. As a result, some students were already in the system when they applied to college. Matriculating them into a formal college process through dual enrollment became a fluid transition even with information missing. The next step was identifying how to enroll new students in the program. Julia addressed this by appropriating an error in the system. As
mentioned in the previous chapters when enrolling in community college students were asked to state their parent’s residency status. If students selected that their parents were born out of the country it automatically labeled them ineligible, even when the student was a U.S. Citizen. This error did not permit many students from enrolling online. Julia utilized this error to create a policy that requires everyone’s application to be submitted via paper document.
Working with the community college right now as to why are these errors happening and right now our current work around it which works for many many different students for different reasons is to have everybody do the paper application and then haven’t had entered by people who are less likely to be concerned by any missing information (Interview, February 17th).
These two policies allowed undocumented students to attend a local community college. The process itself was created by utilizing internal errors, such as incorrectly identifying U.S citizens and Arizona residents as out of state or international. Ultimately, the final step became informing educators of this process in a discreet and safe way. Often networks of educators were utilized to share these resources. Kelly recalls when she found out about these resources in order to provide undocumented students with access to college.
The network of high school counselors and teachers that were meeting periodically I got information on how to navigate and how to get students access to Community College ...There was a processing place in which certain people in the county would help say that they were able to get in-state tuition. I didn’t know how they would make that happen, but I just knew they were there to help them (Interview, March 17th).
With state policy that is currently impacting undocumented students, educators were able to appropriate errors in the system to create loopholes for their students. These underground policies are continuously shared, which allowed folks to be directed to someone who can provide them with access. While educators in Arizona dealt with their state policy, New York educators navigated district protocol and federal policy to address student concerns.
Disciplinary actions
In New York, educators and students participated in civil disobedience in an effort to take political action. This increased with the post 2016 presidential administration. As a result,
students continued to participate in protests. Disciplinary action at the district level impacted students differently. While U.S. citizen students would be reprimanded by receiving a call home, depending on the amount of absences, undocumented and immigrant students could interact with the school to deportation pipeline. Educators therefore had to be creative in order to give students the space to participate while being mindful of the district policy. To prevent any calls home or documentation, Educators decided to give space and time at the school for students to prepare for the protest and walk together. Leo shared how he negotiated this with students during a large protest in New York.
So that day we just kind of, it must have been some classes doing work, but a lot of the classes that were Yemeni heavy they were just doing signs for the rally. We kind of came to a verbal agreement with the students that you don’t have to cut class to get ready, to get your scarf, and get your sign you can do it here and then wait till 2:45 and then we can all go together. So that was kind of like the unspoken verbal agreement. And yeah everybody went, and 100 kids came to the rally from the school with a bunch of teachers (Interview, July 11th).
The negotiated unspoken agreement with the students was not much different than the informal conversations that educators had to create policy. This effort allowed students to participate and not face the consequences of cutting class to attend a protest. Additionally, the principal was also strategic and supportive of educator efforts. Leo recalled that the principal left early in order to avoid seeing the students leave for the protest, which prevented her from having to report the informal protest field trip.
The principal is being smart, as she is, she just left a little bit early that day, so she doesn’t have to know that something happened. I don't know then; she wasn't even here. So, you can see it as “oh man she's a traitor” or you can see it as “well she does have to look out for the whole school, and she has to look out for the Feds not coming in here and shutting it down (Interview, July 11th).”
Leo highlighted the point that educators grappled with. In addition to taking care of students’ educators also needed to keep in mind the school and resources as a whole. Even when they answered these questions educators were mindful of what resources could be lost if the wrong people witnessed or heard of these actions. In another school in New York, Anthony navigated the same process, how to create more intentional policies when the existing policies can impact the livelihood of undocumented students. Anthony brings up an example of a student in the process of asylum who is living with a relative waiting for the court case. The unaccompanied youth moved to this country and expected to work to support his family back home, therefore he could not engage in school. As a result, district policy mandates that he get several calls home to address this situation.
Lots of school policies are if you miss class, you get a robocall but then the student’s advisor also calls and like I mean regardless of immigration status there are families that are like more supportive and able to help bring student back into engagement. But sometimes my calling the family can be more trouble (Interview, March 21st).
Anthony explained that in this case a call home, as a response to ditching school, would have exacerbated the situation. It may have led to impacting his asylum case or further impacting the relationship between the students and his temporary guardian.
We also had a student that was cutting a lot and he was living with his aunt that’s part of his placement applying for Asylum, some to accompany the minor. But the question is just like what to do in terms of normal school procedures with the students in that precarious position. Like certainly getting with trauma support and we don’t want to just allow them to disengage with school but like coming home and telling an aunt who is like getting increasingly frustrated with him does not help. It’s on something that was helpful, so I think having those kind of situations are a lot of why we are interested in restorative justice (Interview, March 21st).
Rather than calling home Anthony went to look for the student when he ditched class. He