Sibling Relationships in Mixed‐Status Immigrant Families: A Qualitative Interpretive Meta‐Synthesis

ABSTRACT

This study examined how legal status differences shape comparison, caregiving, emotional strain, and solidarity among siblings in mixed‐status immigrant families. Siblings play a critical role in immigrant family life, yet research has largely focused on parent–child dynamics. In mixed‐status households, siblings hold different legal statuses, creating unequal opportunities and responsibilities that shape their relationships. A qualitative interpretive meta‐synthesis was conducted on 13 studies of US‐connected mixed‐status and transnational families, identified through systematic searches of four databases and forward and backward citation searching. Eligible studies used qualitative or mixed methods and reported on sibling experiences. Analysis involved quotation‐level coding, constant comparison, and the development of third‐order constructs. The evidence spanned the life course and predominantly represented families of Mexican origin, with Central American, Colombian, and Brazilian families also represented across U.S. and transnational contexts. Four overarching themes emerged: (a) legal status awareness and sibling comparisons; (b) emotional burden and relational strain; (c) parentification and unequal responsibilities; and (d) sibling solidarity, support, and adaptation. Sibling relationships in mixed‐status families are shaped by legal status in ways that generate both strain and resilience. Siblings act as key agents of documentation status socialization, caregiving, and advocacy. Programs that include siblings, not only parents, are needed. Community‐based supports can build on sibling solidarity while addressing emotional strain tied to status disparities. Clinical interventions should attend to power, privilege, and loss linked to unequal mobility.

1. Introduction

Sibling relationships are among the longest and most consequential bonds in family life, shaping identity, resource sharing, and emotional regulation across the life course (Jensen et al. 2022; McHale et al. 2012). For this reason, they are particularly important to examine when families are stratified by unequal legal statuses. Mixed‐status siblings, where siblings hold varying legal statuses such as birthright citizenship, temporary protections like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), permanent residency, or lack documentation entirely, constitute a substantial and often overlooked segment of immigrant communities in the United States. Research highlights various factors in mixed‐status families, such as immigration policies, economic instability, and physical separations, that influence family dynamics (Abrego 2016; Cross et al. 2021; Rafieifar et al. 2025). Immigration policies not only create instability for parents but also shape the everyday lives of children and youth, limiting access to services and generating fear that permeates sibling dynamics (Rafieifar and Held 2022). While sibling bonds in these families offer comfort, security, and resilience, they are also burdened by systematic inequities tied to legal status and mobility. These disparities manifest in conflict, role strain, or feelings of inequity (Jewers and Ku 2021). Birthright citizen children often benefit from essential resources like healthcare, access to public higher education, and employment opportunities, while their undocumented or conditionally documented siblings are systematically excluded, leading to complex intrafamily disparities (Rodriguez 2016; Zayas and Gulbas 2017). These disparities become particularly pronounced when younger, citizen siblings surpass older siblings in milestones such as college access and job security, not because of motivation or ability, but because of immigration status (Abrego 2019; Delgado 2023; Romero Morales and Consoli 2020).

Sibling relationships have long been recognized as important resources in adversity (Pasteuning et al. 2024). Across childhood and adolescence, siblings are frequent companions, co‐regulators of emotion, and informal teachers, and the sibling subsystem often provides a relational holding space when parental resources are stretched (Milevsky 2020; Whiteman et al. 2011). In mixed‐status households, however, immigration policy enters this subsystem directly, sorting siblings into differently resourced categories. Dreby (2015) documented that undocumented children in mixed‐status households spent less time outdoors and more time on household chores than their documented siblings, patterns that foreshadow the caregiving and mobility asymmetries found in the qualitative record. Developmentally, many undocumented youth do not learn of their legal status until late adolescence, when access to driver's licenses, federal financial aid, and employment surfaces the status divide. This adolescent recognition of undocumented status (Abrego 2011; Gonzales 2011) is often first processed within the sibling subsystem, making sibling relationships a critical context for meaning making during a period of acute identity disruption.

Recent scholarship has shown how these inequalities extend into health, education, and parental investments. Quantitative evidence demonstrates that noncitizen children face higher health harms compared to their US citizen siblings due to stratified access to healthcare and insurance (Jewers and Ku 2021). Studies of parental time use reveal that parents in immigrant families may distribute attention and resources unevenly across children depending on their citizenship, sometimes reinforcing and other times compensating for status differences (Wikle and Ackert 2022). Research in Europe adds further weight to these findings. Evidence from Germany shows that the introduction of birthright citizenship significantly improved immigrant children's educational integration across preschool, primary, and secondary school, and influenced parental choices in ways that benefited siblings (Felfe et al. 2020). In the Netherlands, evidence suggests that the timing of naturalization influences sibling trajectories, with children who obtain citizenship earlier outperforming their later‐naturalizing siblings, particularly in disadvantaged families (Labussière 2024). These studies underscore that citizenship and documentation status shape family processes in ways that ripple across siblings, influencing not only access to external resources but also intra‐household dynamics.

While research on mixed‐status families has examined the barriers they face, particularly in parent–child dynamics, limited attention has been given to mixed‐status siblings and the nature of their bonds. For example, a qualitative synthesis (Rafieifar et al. 2025) explored how undocumented parental status affects family relationships, disclosure, and coping. That study highlighted the importance of parent–child relationships but did not explore sibling bonds. The sibling relationship is a unique and influential part of the family system. This qualitative interpretive meta‐synthesis (QIMS) seeks to synthesize research on sibling relationships within mixed‐status families, aiming to illuminate the collective patterns and lived experiences that emerge across studies.

1.1. Knowledge Gaps Addressed by This Synthesis

Despite growing interest in mixed‐status families, several sibling‐specific questions remain underexplored in the empirical literature. First, we know relatively little about how siblings emotionally and practically navigate asymmetrical legal statuses in everyday life. Second, it is unclear when siblings move toward one another in solidarity versus when they distance themselves and what conditions shape either response. Third, the redistribution of family roles (caregiving, advocacy, and financial responsibility) under conditions of status asymmetry has been described unevenly across studies. Fourth, although documentation status socialization has been studied as a parent‐to‐child process (Chavez‐Dueñas and Adames 2022; Cross 2022; Rafieifar and Huang 2026), the extent to which siblings socialize one another about status has not been systematically examined. This QIMS is positioned to address these gaps by reanalyzing the available qualitative evidence at the level of sibling dyads and subsystems and by integrating findings that were secondary or subsidiary in the original studies.

2. Theoretical Underpinnings

This study is guided by two complementary frameworks: the concept of migrant illegality (De Genova 2002; Menjívar and Kanstroom 2014) and Bowen Family Systems Theory (Bowen 1993). These frameworks help explain how immigration policies and family dynamics intersect to shape sibling relationships in mixed‐status families. Because they operate at different analytic levels (structural and relational), we combine them deliberately: migrant illegality theorizes the policy and enforcement conditions that stratify what is possible for siblings, whereas Bowen Family Systems theorizes how families organize roles, boundaries, and emotional processes in response. Using them together allows us to connect immigration law to kitchen‐table interaction.

Migrant illegality highlights how legal status is not simply a matter of documentation but a condition created and maintained by immigration laws, enforcement practices, and broader social systems. This condition determines access to rights, services, and social acceptance. Illegality affects entire families, not only individuals without status (De Genova 2002). More recent scholarship has extended this concept to include liminal and stratified legalities: states of partial or conditional legal belonging (e.g., DACA, Temporary Protected Status) that produce ongoing precarity even among those with some form of documentation (Menjívar 2006; Menjívar and Kanstroom 2014). Related work documents the racialization of immigration enforcement and the compounding effects of “looking Mexican” on encounters with immigration authorities (Gómez Cervantes 2021). These extensions are particularly relevant to mixed‐status siblings, who may occupy different points along the status continuum and whose shared household absorbs the cumulative effects of legal violence, surveillance, and constrained legality. In households where some siblings are US citizens or legal residents and others are undocumented, legal status becomes a defining factor in everyday life. This divide may lead to unequal access to resources, emotional strain, and shifting family roles. Scholars describe this as a stratification of belonging (Yuval‐Davis 2011), in which siblings experience different levels of safety, opportunity, and inclusion. Even those with legal status may carry the emotional weight of family vulnerability, secrecy, or fear of separation. One limitation of the migrant illegality framework is that it was developed primarily within US borders and does not fully theorize transnational family forms; transnational family scholarship (Baldassar et al. 2014; Parreñas 2005) offers complementary concepts of care circulation, mobility asymmetries, and cross‐border kin work that inform our reading of the synthesis.

Bowen Family Systems Theory provides a relational lens to understand how family structure and sibling position influence patterns of interaction and emotional development (Bowen 1993). This theory suggests that birth order shapes expectations and behavior within the family. For example, older siblings are often seen as leaders or caregivers, while younger siblings may be more protected. In families affected by immigration enforcement or legal status differences, these roles may shift. An undocumented oldest sibling may still carry caregiving responsibilities but with added legal and emotional risks. A younger sibling with citizenship may become the functional oldest when better able to navigate systems such as school or healthcare. Bowen's concept of differentiation of self also helps explain how siblings develop a sense of autonomy while remaining emotionally connected to their family. In mixed‐status households, legal status may disrupt this balance, with some siblings feeling the need to emotionally distance themselves or to carry extra responsibility.

We acknowledge several critiques of Bowen Family Systems Theory. Developed in a predominantly White, US‐based clinical context, the theory's individualist emphasis on differentiation of self does not translate neatly to Latino familismo or to collectivist family forms in which interdependence, confianza, and lifelong kin loyalty are organizing values (Bermudez et al. 2010; Falicov 2014; Knudson‐Martin 2012). Bowen's model was also not designed to theorize structural or legal inequality between family members, nor to account for transnational family configurations. Despite these limitations, Bowen's family systems theory remains useful for understanding sibling relationships in mixed‐status families, because it offers a framework for examining emotional processes, relational patterns, and role differentiation within the family system, dynamics that are central to the sibling experiences we examine here. This is why we complement Bowen with De Genova's (2002) framework of migrant illegality, which supplies the structural vocabulary that a family‐systems lens alone does not provide.

By integrating these two perspectives, this study explores how structural inequalities and internal family dynamics together influence sibling relationships. Mixed‐status households create a complex environment in which siblings navigate roles, expectations, and emotional ties shaped by both their legal identities and family positions. This framework allows us to examine not only how sibling bonds form and evolve but also how they reflect broader systems of power, exclusion, and resilience.

3. Method

In this study, we employed Qualitative Interpretive Meta‐Synthesis (QIMS), a method developed in social work to facilitate the synthesis of findings across different qualitative studies. QIMS centers participants' voices and experiences and considers the social and cultural settings in which each study was conducted (Aguirre and Bolton 2014). QIMS helps researchers find deeper meaning by bringing together ideas from different studies rather than listing them. It looks for patterns across various groups, places, and times. This method is particularly well suited for the current study, as there are existing qualitative studies on sibling relationships in mixed‐status families but no prior synthesis has brought these findings together to provide a broader understanding of the phenomenon. Instead of focusing on a single immigrant group or family role, this synthesis draws from diverse contexts to examine how siblings experience legal precarity, separation, and transnational family life.

Following QIMS guidelines, the process began with a focused qualitative research question about sibling relationships in the context of mixed‐status and transnational family structures. The research team then conducted a systematic review of qualitative literature and used a multi‐step analysis to build new thematic insights across the included studies.

3.1. Literature Search and Selection

A comprehensive search strategy was developed in consultation with the research question. In October 2024, we searched four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Social Service Abstracts) using variations of keywords such as sibling, mixed status, undocumented, immigration status, and qualitative. We used Covidence to manage the screening and selection process. To address completeness, we also performed backward citation searching of the reference lists of included studies and forward citation searching of included studies via Google Scholar and Web of Science; no additional studies met our inclusion criteria.

A total of 842 records were retrieved. After removing duplicates, 759 unique records remained. Two team members screened titles and abstracts for relevance, resulting in 714 exclusions. The remaining 45 full‐text articles were reviewed, and 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Included studies (a) used qualitative or mixed methods with qualitative findings, (b) focused on sibling relationships in mixed‐status or transnational families, (c) were based in the United States or included US‐connected families, and (d) were published in English as peer‐reviewed journal articles, dissertations, or theses. A summary of the search process is shown in the flow diagram (Figure 1, constructed following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines; Page et al. 2021).

FIGURE 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the study selection process. Adapted from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Page et al. 2021). Backward and forward citation searching of included studies yielded no additional eligible studies.

Consistent with QIMS as articulated by Aguirre and Bolton (2014), the method does not require formal quality appraisal of the type conducted in effectiveness reviews (e.g., CASP or JBI checklists), because QIMS privileges interpretive depth and participant voice rather than effect estimation. We nonetheless reviewed each included study for methodological transparency, including presence of a clear research question, sampling description, stated analytic method, and reflexivity, and we flag where studies fell short of these markers. Lambrinou (2026) combines a conceptual framework with three empirically collected testimonios; we include it because its testimonios speak to sibling and family responsibility dynamics relevant to our themes, while acknowledging its more limited empirical base. Coleman‐Minahan and Scandlyn (2017) operationalized mixed status through a generational proxy (first‐ vs. second‐generation Mexican‐origin women) rather than through participant‐reported legal status; we retain this study because its content is directly relevant, while acknowledging this measurement difference.

3.2. Theme Identification

In line with QIMS procedures, we extracted original published themes from each study using the authors' exact wording. This helped ensure transparency and preserved the interpretive lens of the original researchers. These themes were treated as a source of data in their own right and informed later stages of the synthesis. Extracted themes are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Themes extracted from reviewed studies.

Study ID	Extracted themes
Abrego (2019)	Legal consciousness of US citizens in mixed‐status families; conflicting aspirations for US citizens; keeping secrets, fearing deportation, and recognizing structural privilege; resisting citizenship; resistance to citizenship privilege
Coleman‐Minahan and Scandlyn (2017)	Older sibling responsibility; quality of sibling relationships; advice from older siblings; sibling modeling
Delgado (2023)	Siblings influence school choice; older siblings help with reading comprehension; assisting with homework assignments; post‐high school preparation
Enriquez (2015)	Sharing risks and risk‐management strategies across immigration status; children's dependence and de facto undocumented status across generations
Gallo (2022)	“It's better that you go to your country”; US papers and transborder thinkers
Lambrinou (2026)	Restrictive migration policies generating challenges to navigating daily life and adverse socio‐emotional effects; deficit‐oriented perspectives and microaggressions within North Carolina K–12 schools; intergenerational responsibility as a compass for how mixed‐status youth lead their lives
Londoño et al. (2022)	Before immigration enforcement: normal sibling stuff; silence: limited knowledge and awareness; during immigration enforcement: assumption of caregiving; silence: enforcement experience; being reunited in Mexico: continued assumption of caregiving; communication after being reunited
Lopez Hernandez (2018)	Familial hierarchy of needs; emotional consequences; sense of responsibility; being the voice; empathy/compassion
Mangual Figueroa (2012)	The planning for the future routine; the relevance of migratory status to day‐to‐day lives; family's shared conventions for talking about citizenship status
Morales and Consoli (2020)	“It has brought us closer”: Mixed feelings in the parent–child relationship; “don't take it for granted”: gratitude and frustration in the sibling relationship; “now, I am proud”: trajectory of the undocumented sibling's relationship to self
Romero Morales (2020)	Solidarity, frustration, and guilt in the sibling relationship; family roles and expectations; the sibling experience of citizenship and undocumented identity; stress, uncertainty, and relief from deportation and family separation
Sampaio and Carvalho (2022)	A traditional gendered division of transnational care; (im)mobilities and multiple constellations of care across borders; the emotional work of caring from abroad in (im)mobility; the role of gay siblings in caring for aging parents
Würfel‐Delsid (2014)	Fear; unaffordable legalization; hard working; discrimination; US‐born siblings have better opportunities; confusing immigration laws; hunger and poverty growing up

3.3. Data Analysis

Data analysis followed the structured stages of QIMS and was designed to ensure both depth and trustworthiness. In the first stage, all participant quotations from the included studies were extracted and divided among the four authors. To minimize individual bias, each quote was independently coded by two reviewers. The team met to compare codes, talk through differences, and agree on the final version together.

We treated participant quotations as first‐order data and the original authors' published themes as second‐order constructs. We extracted all quotations related to siblings, even when the study's primary focus was elsewhere. Using constant comparison, we coded quotations line by line, grouped open codes into axial categories, and generated new third‐order themes that integrate the evidence across studies. We then translated each study's reported themes into our framework to show how prior interpretations map onto our synthesis.

In the second stage, axial coding was conducted to group related open codes into broader conceptual categories. To maintain rigor, the codes were again divided among the team, with each code assigned to a reviewer who had not coded the quote in the first round. In this way, every quote was reviewed by three different people throughout the analysis. Reviewers then created axial codes by identifying patterns, recurring ideas, or significant connections across the studies.

Next, the first author developed a set of overarching themes that reflected both shared and divergent experiences. These themes were then reviewed and refined during a final team meeting. Finally, the first author matched each original theme from the studies with one of the new themes we developed. This process helped illustrate how the original ideas fit into the broader context and how the QIMS process brought together disparate studies to build a deeper understanding.

Because the included studies varied substantially in participant age (children aged 8 to adults in their 50s and 60s), national origin, geographic context, and theoretical framing, decisions about how to consolidate original themes required explicit criteria. Our rationale was as follows: (a) grouping was driven by shared underlying experience rather than surface‐level wording, using constant comparison across quotations and second‐order themes; (b) when two original themes described the same underlying process (e.g., responsibility, caregiving, parentification), they were collapsed into a single overarching theme while preserving their distinctive angles in subthemes; and (c) where diversity mattered substantively, for example transnational versus US‐based context, or child versus young‐adult age, we preserved that diversity within subthemes and returned to it in the Discussion rather than flattening it. This synthesis reflects shared relational processes across diverse samples and is not intended to erase national‐origin, age, or geographic differences; those differences are discussed substantively in the Discussion and Limitations.

3.4. Research Team and Reflexivity

In qualitative research, the backgrounds and perspectives of the research team shape how meaning is made during analysis. To promote transparency and reduce bias, we acknowledge our own positions in relation to the topic. All four authors are first‐generation immigrants. Two of us identify as Latinas and two as Middle Eastern. We draw on personal experiences of migration as well as professional involvement with immigrant communities through research, clinical work, and community engagement. Together, our team includes both shared understanding and diverse perspectives. This helped us examine the data with care, ask thoughtful questions, and make sure our findings were grounded in the real experiences shared across the studies.

4. Results

Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies, which span the life course and multiple geographic contexts. Published between 2012 and 2024, the studies included participants ranging from children as young as 8 years old (Londoño et al. 2022) to adults in their 50s and 60s (Sampaio and Carvalho 2022). Most studies were conducted in US states with large immigrant populations, including California, Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and North Carolina; two studies included participants now residing in Mexico in post‐deportation or transnational contexts (Gallo 2022; Londoño et al. 2022). The sample was predominantly of Mexican origin; studies also included families from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, and Brazil. We retain the phrase “Latin American origin” where it is accurate as a regional descriptor, but are attentive throughout to the national‐origin heterogeneity of the sample. Sampaio and Carvalho (2022) is the only included study of Brazilian transnational families; we discuss the cultural and linguistic distinctiveness of this sample in the Results and Discussion rather than absorbing it into a broader “Latin American” category.

TABLE 2.

Demographics of included studies.

Study ID	Qualitative method	Data collection technique	N	Participants	Age, gender (F)	Country of origin	Recruitment state, year
Abrego (2019)	Constructivist grounded theory	Interviews	100	DACA, US citizen, documented, undocumented	18+	El Salvador, México, Honduras, Guatemala	California, 2013–2017
Coleman‐Minahan and Scandlyn (2017)	Qualitative content analysis	Semi‐structured life‐history interviews	21	First‐ and second‐generation Mexican‐origin women (mixed status operationalized as generational proxy)	27–41, female (21)	Mexico	Colorado (Denver metro), 2013–2014
Delgado (2023)	Not specified	Interviews	25	Not specified	18–25, female (17), male (8)	Mexico	California, 2018–2019
Enriquez (2015)	Not specified	Interviews	32	Undocumented	21–34, female (23), male (9)	Mexico, Guatemala	California, 2011–2012
Gallo (2022)	Longitudinal ethnography	Participant observation, interviews, artifact analysis	10	Mixed‐status sibling families now residing in Mexico following deportation or family return migration; older undocumented/DACA siblings and younger US‐born citizen siblings	Not specified	Mexico	Puebla, Mexico, 2016–2017
Lambrinou (2026)	Conceptual framework (rhizomatic familias) combined with empirical testimonios	Testimonio	3	US citizen Mexican‐American youth with undocumented parents	18–19, female (2), male (1)	México	North Carolina
Londoño et al. (2022)	Inductive thematic analysis	Semi‐structured interviews	20	US citizen children with undocumented Mexican parent(s)	8–14 (M = 11.45); 14 female, 6 male	Mexico	Texas, California, Mexico (binational sampling)
Lopez Hernandez (2018)	Phenomenology with hybrid thematic analysis	Semi‐structured interviews	7	US citizens (with undocumented family members)	22–27, female (7)	Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala	Midwest (5) and California (2)
Mangual Figueroa (2012)	Multisited linguistic ethnography (case study of one family within broader study of four focal families)	Participant observation, interviews, artifact analysis	7 (5 siblings +2 parents in focal family)	US citizens (younger siblings), undocumented (eldest sibling and parents)	Siblings 6–13	Mexico	Pennsylvania, 2009 (fieldwork spanned 23 months)
Morales and Consoli (2020)	Inductive thematic analysis	Individual semi‐structured interviews	9	Undocumented, DACA	18–22, female (6), male (3)	Mexico	California (midsize West Coast public university), 2016
Romero Morales (2020)	Narrative inquiry	Dyadic joint sibling interviews (Life Story Interview protocol)	16	8 sibling dyads (US citizen paired with undocumented/DACA/LPR/H‐1B sibling)	18–30, female (13), male (3)	Mexico	California (Bay Area and Southern California)
Sampaio and Carvalho (2022)	Qualitative interviews with thematic analysis; participant observation	Interviews	175 interviews; sibling‐specific analytic subset not reported	Brazilian transnational migrants (~1/3 undocumented at interview; 2/3 undocumented at some point)	40–60+, female (> 60%)	Brazil	Massachusetts (Boston metro), 2019–2021
Würfel‐Delsid (2014)	Phenomenology	Interviews	10	US citizen, undocumented, documented	25–55, male, female	México	California

Note: Sample sizes are reported as presented in the original studies. When a study included more than one member of the same family, each participating individual was counted separately. For example, Mangual Figueroa (2012) included five siblings and two parents from the focal family, for a total of seven participants. For Sampaio and Carvalho (2022), 175 refers to the full set of interviews across the two underlying studies; the number of participants who contributed specifically to the sibling‐focused analysis was not reported.

Abbreviations: DACA, deferred action for childhood arrivals; LPR, lawful permanent resident.

From our qualitative analysis, four key themes emerged, highlighting the complex dynamics of sibling relationships within mixed‐status families, particularly between siblings with and without legal status. These themes are (a) Legal Status Awareness and Sibling Comparisons; (b) Emotional Burden and Relational Strain Among Siblings; (c) Parentification and Unequal Responsibilities Among Siblings; and (d) Sibling Solidarity, Support, and Adaptation. Together, these themes illustrate the emotional, structural, and relational dimensions shaping sibling experiences. The translation of extracted themes into these four overarching themes is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3.

Translation of extracted themes into new overarching themes.

New, overarching theme	Extracted themes
Legal status awareness and sibling comparison	Legal consciousness of US citizens in mixed‐status families (Abrego 2019); sharing risks and risk‐management strategies across immigration status (Enriquez 2015); children's dependence and de facto undocumented status across generations (Enriquez 2015); “it's better that you go to your country” (Gallo 2022); US papers and transborder thinkers (Gallo 2022); restrictive migration policies generating challenges to navigating daily life and adverse socio‐emotional effects (Lambrinou 2026); deficit‐oriented perspectives and microaggressions within North Carolina K–12 schools (Lambrinou 2026); silence: limited knowledge and awareness (Londoño et al. 2022); the relevance of migratory status to day‐to‐day lives (Mangual Figueroa 2012); family's shared conventions for talking about citizenship status (Mangual Figueroa 2012); the sibling experience of citizenship and undocumented identity (Romero Morales 2020)
Emotional burden and relational strain among siblings	Conflicting aspirations for US citizens (Abrego 2019); keeping secrets, fearing deportation, and recognizing structural privilege (Abrego 2019); quality of sibling relationships (Coleman‐Minahan and Scandlyn 2017); silence: enforcement experience (Londoño et al. 2022); familial hierarchy of needs (Lopez Hernandez 2018); emotional consequences (Lopez Hernandez 2018); “don't take it for granted”: gratitude and frustration in the sibling relationship (Morales and Consoli 2020); “now, I am proud”: trajectory of the undocumented sibling's relationship to self (Morales and Consoli 2020); solidarity, frustration, and guilt in the sibling relationship (Romero Morales 2020); stress, uncertainty, and relief from deportation and family separation (Romero Morales 2020); the emotional work of caring from abroad in (im)mobility (Sampaio and Carvalho 2022)
Parentification and unequal responsibilities among siblings	Older sibling responsibility (Coleman‐Minahan and Scandlyn 2017); advice from older siblings (Coleman‐Minahan and Scandlyn 2017); sibling modeling (Coleman‐Minahan and Scandlyn 2017); siblings influence school choice (Delgado 2023); older siblings help with reading comprehension (Delgado 2023); assisting with homework assignments (Delgado 2023); post‐high school preparation (Delgado 2023); intergenerational responsibility as a compass for how mixed‐status youth lead their lives (Lambrinou 2026); during immigration enforcement: assumption of caregiving (Londoño et al. 2022); being reunited in Mexico: continued assumption of caregiving (Londoño et al. 2022); sense of responsibility (Lopez Hernandez 2018); family roles and expectations (Romero Morales 2020); a traditional gendered division of transnational care (Sampaio and Carvalho 2022); (im)mobilities and multiple constellations of care across borders (Sampaio and Carvalho 2022)
Sibling solidarity, support, and adaptation	Resisting citizenship (Abrego 2019); resistance to citizenship privilege (Abrego 2019); communication after being reunited (Londoño et al. 2022); being the voice (Lopez Hernandez 2018); empathy/compassion (Lopez Hernandez 2018); the planning for the future routine (Mangual Figueroa 2012); mixed feelings in the parent–child relationship (Morales and Consoli 2020); solidarity, frustration, and guilt in the sibling relationship (Romero Morales 2020); the role of gay siblings in caring for aging parents (Sampaio and Carvalho 2022)

4.1. Legal Status Awareness and Sibling Comparisons

Across the reviewed studies, participants described a heightened awareness of how differences in legal status shaped both their own and their siblings' lives. Citizenship or documentation often determined access to opportunities such as jobs, higher education, and international travel, and these differences frequently served as a reference point for how siblings related to one another.

4.1.1. How Siblings Come to Know About Status

Awareness developed in different ways across the sample. Among younger children, knowledge was often partial or actively suppressed. A 9‐year‐old US citizen girl in Londoño et al. (2022), asked about her sister's feelings regarding their mother not having papers, answered simply, “I don't know. I have no idea,” and confirmed that she had never discussed it with her sister (p. 881). Older participants more often described an adolescent recognition of undocumented status, surfaced by driver's licenses, FAFSA applications, and employment (Abrego 2019). In several cases, status was explained to younger US citizen siblings by parents directly. Hector, a US citizen younger brother of an undocumented sibling, recalled his father's explanation: “My dad explained to us, ‘You guys are different… You cannot go to places that she can go. You can't do what she can do.’ And the way he explained it, he was really messed up in a way, but it was the most honest way to say it” (Abrego 2019, 651). Outside the household, teachers, counselors, and extended family members sometimes made sibling comparisons explicit before the siblings themselves had language for them, a pattern revisited later in the theme on diminished motivation imposed by others.

In the reviewed studies, legal status differences were associated with a range of everyday experiences. In Gallo's (2022) post‐deportation transnational context (mixed‐status siblings now residing in rural Puebla, Mexico after family return migration), one father contrasted the agricultural‐work adaptability of his children who had been raised in Mexico with the difficulty his US‐born child was having with field labor: “It's one of the things that I can't get used to, to work the fields… My little sister [born in Mexico] does learn quickly. My other sister [born in the U.S.] doesn't” (p. 55). Read within the post‐deportation frame, the father is not making a flat comparison of sibling ability; he is naming the structural mismatch facing US‐born siblings whose lives were oriented to US schools and who now must meet the labor demands of rural Mexico.

For some, these differences were navigated with humor. Families sometimes joked about citizenship status as a lighthearted acknowledgment of unequal privilege, such as when a father attributed quicker service at a clinic to the fact that “she's a citizen,” or when siblings teased that one sister was “the lighter toned one” and therefore “the US citizen.” Yet these jokes often masked a deeper awareness of privilege and disadvantage. As a DACA participant in Romero Morales's (2020) dissertation admitted, “I felt a privilege because… I had that privilege to go and see him [a dying relative]… Even if it was just one last time… they didn't have that” (Romero Morales 2020, 76).

In other cases, status differences fueled direct sibling comparisons by parents, creating tension and feelings of inadequacy. A DACA participant in Romero Morales's (2020) dissertation recalled her mother's comparison to her US citizen sister: “My mom… would start comparing me to my sister and would say, ‘She's doing all these things. How could you not do these things as well?’” (Romero Morales 2020, 53). Robert, a 19‐year‐old US citizen in Abrego (2019), described the inverse realization: watching his older undocumented sister Rosa stall at community college while he prepared to transfer: “[The reality] mainly hit after [Rosa] finished high school, when she realized she was stuck because she can't get financial aid… [M]e, on the other hand, it was kind of, what are my options?” (Abrego 2019, 656). Later themes examine the emotional burdens tied to these comparisons and the ways status differences redistributed caregiving roles and fostered empathy and advocacy.

4.2. Emotional Burden and Relational Strain Among Siblings

While humor and casual remarks sometimes accompanied status awareness, differences in legal status often carried significant emotional weight. Across the reviewed studies, both documented and undocumented siblings described the emotional burdens of living in mixed‐status families, burdens that frequently strained relationships. These experiences were characterized by guilt, resentment, envy, and feelings of exclusion, which together form the overarching theme of emotional burden. This theme is explored through three subthemes: (a) guilt and diminished self‐worth, (b) resentment and envy, and (c) feeling left out and disconnected.

4.2.1. Guilt and Diminished Self‐Worth

Siblings with legal status frequently described feelings of guilt over their access to opportunities (such as higher education, travel, or secure employment) that were unavailable to their undocumented siblings. In contrast, undocumented siblings often expressed a diminished sense of self‐worth, shaped by limited opportunities and constant comparison to their documented siblings.

One of the most frequently cited sources of guilt was access to higher education. In Abrego's (2019) study of US citizens in mixed‐status Latino families, Cesar, a 21‐year‐old US citizen, reflected on the inequity between himself and his older undocumented brother Camilo:

“I've always felt a type of pressure. I have to do everything Camilo does and I have to do it better than him because I do have the resources… I always had the pressure of feeling like I have to do something because he can't do it, and I have to do it better because I can” (Abrego 2019, 661).

Daniela, a US citizen young adult Latina in Lopez Hernandez (2018), expressed the arbitrariness of citizenship at a deeply existential level: “I am undeserving… of having the privilege of being a U.S. citizen…. I did nothing different than my older sister… it's like what did I do… it's so arbitrary almost” (p. 17). Ely, another US citizen participant whose older undocumented sister attended the same four‐year university, put it more simply: “I just feel guilty when I see my tuition [and] what I have to pay and [what] she has to pay” (Lopez Hernandez 2018, 17).

For undocumented siblings, these disparities sometimes undermined self‐worth. An undocumented participant described how status differences shaped both opportunity and self‐worth: “They have it so much easier than me. They are all in college now, all receiving financial aid.… I work hard, harder than anybody I know, but I am worth less because I don't have papers” (Würfel‐Delsid 2014, 64).

Findings also suggest that parental comparisons could deepen these feelings. An undocumented participant in Morales and Consoli (2020) recalled her father's comparisons: “My dad is always kind of telling her, ‘She is so brave’… It's not that I don't want to [study abroad]. It's that […] I cannot. I don't really have […] an option” (p. 118).

4.2.2. Resentment and Envy

Although many siblings demonstrated empathy and mutual support, resentment and envy sometimes emerged, particularly when undocumented siblings felt they had worked harder but received fewer rewards, or when parental comparisons amplified feelings of inequity.

As one undocumented participant in Morales and Consoli (2020) admitted, “When I was younger, I definitely felt… envy and jealousy—like, ‘Oh, why can't I have what they have?’” (p. 119). She recalled her mother mentioning that her documented brother and sister “don't have to worry about” immigration barriers. For others, resentment stemmed from unequal challenges: “Sometimes I guess I did resent my sister that was here because she was not going through the same things I was going through, and I was having a harder time than her” (undocumented participant; Morales and Consoli 2020, 119).

4.2.3. Feeling Left Out and Disconnected

In some cases, undocumented siblings described being physically or emotionally excluded from shared family experiences, resulting in feelings of disconnection. These moments were particularly described when documented siblings could participate in activities, such as international travel or higher education, that were not available to their undocumented siblings.

One undocumented participant in Romero Morales (2020) recalled being left behind when the rest of the family traveled to Mexico: “I was the only one that stayed behind… I had to be here by myself a lot when they all went [to Mexico]” (p. 68). He added, “Even when the little one was born… my parents sent them all again and I was like ahh man.” The psychological weight of repeated exclusion of this kind extended beyond the immediate moment. Across the included studies, participants described anticipatory grief around relatives who might die abroad before they could visit (Romero Morales 2020), identity‐level shame over not belonging to family rituals and travel (Abrego 2019; Romero Morales 2020), and sadness that they actively suppressed so as not to burden their parents or siblings (Londoño et al. 2022). One older US citizen sister in Londoño et al. (2022) reflected after a parental detention, “I didn't want to worry my father and siblings. I was scared to burden them with my worries about my mother” (p. 883). A younger US citizen brother described a similar protective silence: “When I would see my mom and my sisters sad and crying a lot, I would hold in my pain and cry in silence” (Londoño et al. 2022, 883). Scholarship on documentation status socialization (Chavez‐Dueñas and Adames 2022; Cross 2022) and on sibling attachment (Pinel‐Jacquemin and Gaudron 2013) helps explain this psychological toll: exclusion is not a single event but a repeated reminder of one's position in a stratified family, and siblings absorb that reminder while simultaneously protecting younger siblings and parents from distress.

Sometimes exclusion was less about physical absence and more about emotional distance. One undocumented participant explained that repeated parental comparisons created tension with her younger siblings: “They are holding a little bit of a grudge against me maybe because they do not want to. It's not their thing [academics]” (Morales and Consoli 2020, 118).

In some cases, these feelings of disconnect were compounded by diminished motivation imposed by others. Institutional messages from trusted adults (teachers, counselors, and employers) sometimes communicated that opportunities available to documented siblings were categorically closed to their undocumented siblings, reinforcing self‐doubt and withdrawal. Ely, a US citizen participant in Lopez Hernandez (2018), described the helplessness she felt during conversations about her sister's undocumented status, recalling how she struggled to find ways to support her despite wanting to help. For undocumented siblings, these interactions were often discouraging, reinforcing the sense that key opportunities were out of reach and further deepening existing structural barriers.

4.3. Parentification and Unequal Responsibilities Among Siblings

Differences in legal status not only shaped opportunities and emotions; they also influenced how caregiving and household responsibilities were distributed among siblings in mixed‐status families. Across the reviewed studies, older siblings frequently described taking on parental roles, a phenomenon known as parentification. This role reversal often emerged as parents navigated migration‐related challenges such as limited English proficiency, demanding work schedules, and financial hardship. In Coleman‐Minahan and Scandlyn (2017), one first‐generation Mexican‐origin woman (older sister) explained, “In many ways I feel like I am a parent… I've raised my sisters, and I've fed them, and I was there when they first walked… I did all that because my mom couldn't” (p. 6).

Parentification often extended beyond emotional caregiving to include academic and financial responsibilities. Older siblings monitored school performance and encouraged younger siblings' educational aspirations. As a US citizen older‐sister participant in Lambrinou (2026) described, “I check her book bag, I check her tests, I have the codes for Powerschool and I look up her grades because I need to make sure she keeps it up” (p. 7). Similarly, an older US citizen sister in Londoño et al. (2022) described taking on household logistics after parental detention: “Sometimes I have to go run some errands and I have to take care of my little sisters. Like… paying some bills and… going to get some groceries. Stuff like that” (p. 881). A younger US citizen brother in the same study recounted his father's directive after detention: “[I] have to replace my father and help my mother as much as I can,” because, as his father told him, he was the only other “man” in the house (Londoño et al. 2022, 881). In some cases, the role included adult‐level financial duties from an early age:

I was the breadwinner of the house since my parents split up… I was going to school and working full time… We always had a good relationship, but I've always tried to mentor her [younger sibling] and been close to her and provided her with everything that she needed. (Romero Morales 2020, 53)

Results also suggest that in mixed‐status families, younger siblings with citizenship often took on a distinct form of parentification that inverted typical birth‐order expectations. Younger siblings with legal status sometimes assumed protective or advocacy roles to shield undocumented family members from risk. This was especially evident in tasks such as driving, where legal status offered a layer of safety. Lorenzo, an 18‐year‐old US citizen in Abrego (2019), described this responsibility in everyday terms: “When I got my license I would drive my dad everywhere so nothing bad would happen and I would just help them in any way I can… I just feel like I am here to help them” (p. 659). Antonio, a US citizen son who began driving at age 13 to shield his parents from traffic stops, was described by his undocumented mother in a similar way: “[The children] have had to mature, in a certain way, before their time because they've been driving since before it was their time to drive…” (Alicia, undocumented mother; Abrego 2019, 653).

Documented siblings also served as emotional protectors, offering reassurance to other family members. In Romero Morales (2020), a US citizen younger‐sister participant reflected on her relief when her undocumented mother was accompanied by her US citizen sister: “She [my mother] could go with her [my sister]… it gave me a sense of ease and just feeling more calm […] obviously that has to do with her status, the fact that she has her U.S. passport and citizenship and they can't send her anywhere” (Romero Morales 2020, 104).

In the only Brazilian transnational study in our synthesis, Sampaio and Carvalho (2022) documented gendered and queer dimensions of sibling care that reconfigured responsibility across borders. Gabrielle, a Brazilian woman in her early 40s living undocumented in the United States, naturalized gendered obligations between siblings: “Women are just more sensitive and better at this, you know, right? He [Mateus] and his brother love their parents and they give them a lot [referring to financial support], but they are not as good when it comes to dealing with emotions” (p. 3). Maria Eduarda, a US citizen Brazilian sister in her early 50s, described the inevitability of bearing the caregiving burden despite having an in‐country sister: “If she doesn't come, I might have to go and stay with her in Brazil. I'm the only one who can do it, and return. Well, my other sister [in Brazil] could do it, but I know it will come down to me” (p. 4). Tarcísia, an undocumented Brazilian sister in the US, explained why caregiving “naturally” fell to her gay brother in Brazil: “Well, I cannot physically do it [she is undocumented] and my sisters have their families to take care of. He is not getting married anytime soon anyway, so it just makes sense” (p. 5). Together, these voices show how legal status, gender, and sexuality intersect to redistribute sibling responsibility in transnational families.

In these ways, caregiving responsibilities in mixed‐status families were not solely defined by birth order or age; they were often redistributed according to legal status, gender, and sexuality, with both documented and undocumented siblings stepping into roles shaped by structural constraints and family needs.

4.4. Sibling Solidarity, Support, and Adaptation

While the previous three themes highlight the ways differences in legal status can generate inequities, tension, and shifting family roles, participants also described how these same circumstances could deepen familial bonds. Across studies, siblings shared that living in mixed‐status families often fostered emotional closeness, strengthened solidarity, and created patterns of mutual support.

For many, navigating immigration‐related barriers together brought siblings and other family members closer. One undocumented participant described family members as “all kind of coming together trying to be strong for each other” and trying to “stay strong, stay together,” which she believed had “brought us closer together” (Morales and Consoli 2020, 117). Similarly, another US citizen sibling described how shared political concerns created moments of deep connection: “When Trump won the election… I was in Barcelona (crying), but I remember like your family being the first people that you want to call… everybody was just texting, calling, Face Timing literally the whole day” (Romero Morales 2020, 86).

In the aftermath of immigration enforcement, some siblings reported newfound openness with one another. A younger US citizen brother in Londoño et al. (2022), reunified with his deported father in Mexico, described this shift: “With my brother yes, we always talk, he and I…. We tell each other that is very difficult” (p. 884). The capacity to name difficulty to a sibling (rather than silence it, as children had often done during the enforcement period) stood out across Londoño and colleagues' sample as a sign of relational repair.

Some siblings developed a collective identity around immigration status, framing it as a shared family experience rather than an individual one. One dyadic participant in Romero Morales (2020) recalled, “Instead of saying my or your status, it's our status. I thought that framing was super interesting… some experiences are shared but also seeing the divergence” (p. 93). In Abrego (2019), an older DACA sister described the family's positioning of her US citizen younger brother Lorenzo as a collective voice: “[W]e pressure him, [tell him to] ‘take advantage, don't just be like nothing.’ He is like our voice” (p. 652).

Mutual guidance and role reciprocity were also common. Siblings frequently exchanged advice and resources, drawing on their respective experiences. One participant described preserving academic materials for younger siblings: “I would keep all my notes from my class just in case my siblings needed help.… I wouldn't sell my books if I thought they were important so I can give it to them” (Delgado 2023, 632). Siblings also advocated for one another within the household. Daniela, a US citizen participant in Lopez Hernandez (2018), described pressing her parents to recognize how hard her undocumented sister Jessi was working: “‘oh, you don't understand how hard it is for Jessi…. no entiendes qué difícil es para tratar de estudiar and you know… figure it out’…. But my dad has this picture that it's easy” (pp. 23–24).

In Sampaio and Carvalho's (2022) Brazilian transnational sample, some sibling bonds deepened through queer sibling care. Marcelo, an undocumented gay Brazilian man in his early 40s, described stepping in as caregiver for his US citizen older sister Esther when their mother died in Brazil, an absence he could not attend because of his immigration status: “I felt that my sister needed my help… when I heard that she had died [their mother] I went to my sister's home. I stayed strong and I didn't want to cry, I was worried about my sister… The day after, I came to work and stayed taking care of her… taking care of her children, her husband, her home, and coming to work” (p. 5). Rogério, a gay Brazilian man in his early 50s with US citizenship, described structuring his adult life around assuming primary care for his aging mother: “I always knew that I would be the one caring for my mother… So, I bought this house already planning on bringing her… My siblings have their families, and I am single. I have no intention of getting married. So, it just made sense” (pp. 5–6). Both accounts illustrate how legal status, sexuality, and marital status jointly redistribute sibling care in transnational families and how those redistributions, while unequal, often generated durable bonds.

Still, many participants acknowledged a bittersweet aspect to this closeness, valuing the bonds forged through shared struggle while wishing that immigration status were not a source of difficulty. As one participant in Romero Morales (2020) reflected tearfully, “I can't imagine not growing up in a mixed‐status family… our family is amazing… and again I would change it because I just wish it were so much simpler and a stupid paper didn't matter” (p. 89).

5. Discussion

This synthesis illuminates how migrant illegality and family‐systemic dynamics jointly shape sibling relationships in mixed‐status families. Rather than extending either framework, we show how the structural condition of illegality, produced by immigration law, enforcement, and stratified belonging (De Genova 2002; Menjívar 2006; Menjívar and Kanstroom 2014; Yuval‐Davis 2011), enters the sibling subsystem and complicates canonical Bowenian concepts of sibling position, differentiation, and role allocation.

Through quotation‐level coding and translation of extracted themes, we generated a new thematic framework that integrates sibling experiences across contexts. Some of the included studies only touched on siblings as a subtheme, yet by reanalyzing their quotations we recovered consistent patterns and produced a broader, more comprehensive account of sibling roles, emotions, and comparisons in mixed‐status families. This synthesis shows that sibling relationships in mixed‐status families are profoundly shaped by legal status differences. Siblings are often each other's closest companions and strongest points of comparison, and our findings reveal that documentation status becomes one of the most powerful bases for comparison in these households. Across the studies, siblings described how legal categories structured everyday opportunities. Citizen siblings accessed schooling, healthcare, and work, while their undocumented siblings faced constant restrictions. These unequal conditions led to strong awareness of differences within families, mirroring broader theories of sibling social comparison (McHale et al. 2012; Whiteman et al. 2011). From a migrant‐illegality standpoint, this awareness is not a developmental artifact of sibling relationships in general; it is the local, relational expression of stratified belonging (Yuval‐Davis 2011) arriving at the kitchen table.

The emotional consequences of these differences were significant. Citizen siblings often carried guilt, while undocumented siblings expressed resentment, envy, or a sense of diminished worth. Such ambivalence reflects psychoanalytic observations that rivalry and attachment are central to sibling bonds (Colonna and Newman 1983). Yet in mixed‐status families, these emotions were not only developmental but tied to enduring structures that siblings could not control. This dynamic parallels findings in other domains of inequality. We draw these comparisons cautiously: race‐based inequality operates through racialization and phenotype‐linked discrimination; disability‐based inequality operates through bodily difference and associated caregiving burden; and legal‐status‐based inequality operates through state‐conferred documentation that can change across the life course. Evidence shows that mixed‐race siblings may experience contrasting identities and privileges depending on their phenotype or level of cultural recognition (Cardwell and Soliz 2020; Song 2010). The pattern is also visible in disability research, where one child often bears the burden of care while their sibling experiences more freedom (Avieli et al. 2019). In each case (race, disability, and immigration), siblings share parents and upbringing, yet unequal categories of belonging generate divergent life chances, though through distinct mechanisms that should not be treated as isomorphic.

This synthesis also highlights how caregiving roles are reshaped by immigration status. Older siblings, especially undocumented ones, often assumed parent‐like responsibilities when parents faced economic hardship or language barriers. At the same time, younger citizen siblings sometimes stepped into roles of protection and advocacy, such as driving, translating, or managing institutional interactions. Bowen Family Systems Theory underscores the importance of sibling position, yet these findings illuminate and complicate rather than “extend” the theory. Bowen was not designed to theorize legal or structural inequality between family members, and some of its core concepts, particularly differentiation of self, have been critiqued for importing individualist assumptions into Latino and other collectivist family contexts (Bermudez et al. 2010; Falicov 2014; Knudson‐Martin 2012). What our findings show is that structural illegality interacts with the family‐systemic processes Bowen named: sibling position is overridden when a younger citizen takes on functional oldest responsibilities, and role reversal is driven not by differentiation per se but by who can legally drive, translate, or travel. This is a descriptive illumination of Bowen rather than a theoretical extension, and we hold the two frames side by side rather than collapsing them.

Another important insight is that these roles changed over time. Early in family life, undocumented older siblings often carried heavy burdens of caregiving and financial contribution. As families aged, however, documented siblings became more responsible for supporting parents, particularly in navigating systems such as healthcare or employment. This life‐course shift is distinct from what is often observed in families with disability, where siblings without disabilities are expected from an early age to carry ongoing care responsibilities into adulthood (Avieli et al. 2019). It also differs from racialized sibling experiences, where lines of privilege and disadvantage tend to remain fixed across the life span (Song 2010). In mixed‐status families, immigration status can redistribute responsibilities as siblings and parents move through different life stages, adding a dynamic quality to inequality that is less visible in other contexts.

Transnational sibling configurations further complicate these dynamics. In Gallo's (2022) post‐deportation sample in Puebla and Sampaio and Carvalho's (2022) Brazilian sample in Boston, caregiving and belonging circulated across borders rather than being fixed in a single household or nation. Transnational family scholarship (Abrego 2014; Baldassar et al. 2014; Parreñas 2005) helps illuminate these arrangements, documenting how sibling obligation, emotional closeness, and practical care can be sustained across geographic separation through remittances, communication technologies, and rotating caregiving responsibilities. In these cross‐border configurations, sibling roles were shaped not only by who held legal status but also by those who could travel, who were required to remain abroad, and who carried the daily work of caring for kin left behind.

Despite tensions and rivalries, many siblings described their relationships as sources of solidarity and resilience. They reframed immigration status as a collective challenge, supported one another in practical and emotional ways, and sometimes created a sense of shared identity around “our status.” This dynamic reflects not only attachment perspectives that view siblings as important sources of security (Pinel‐Jacquemin and Gaudron 2013) but also documentation status socialization. Scholars describe documentation status socialization as the ways families transmit explicit and implicit messages about the meaning of status, risks of disclosure, and strategies of survival (Chavez‐Dueñas and Adames 2022; Cross 2022). While often discussed as a parent‐to‐child process, our findings suggest that siblings also socialize one another. Through jokes, warnings, and shared practices, they reinforced lessons about privilege and vulnerability and developed collective understandings of what it meant to live in a mixed‐status family. This horizontal form of documentation status socialization shows that siblings are not only shaped by structural inequalities but are also active in teaching one another how to navigate them.

5.1. Current Evidence Base and Remaining Gaps

As a qualitative synthesis, we are positioned to reflect on both what the existing literature tells us and where it is silent. The available evidence centers predominantly Mexican‐origin families in California, Texas, Colorado, and the Northeast, with a smaller representation of Central American, Colombian, and Brazilian families. Several populations and experiences remain notably underrepresented: (a) non‐Latin American mixed‐status families (e.g., Asian, African, Middle Eastern); (b) LGBTQ+ siblings in mixed‐status families beyond the queer Brazilian voices in Sampaio and Carvalho (2022); (c) siblings in rural and Southern US contexts; (d) longitudinal sibling trajectories that track how roles shift across adulthood; (e) mixed‐status families in which the parent holds status and the child does not; (f) adult sibling relationships after decades of differential opportunity; and (g) sibling experiences during the adolescent recognition of undocumented status. These gaps shape our implications for future research.

5.2. Implications

The implications of this synthesis reach across policy, practice, and research. Large‐scale immigration reforms remain politically uncertain, making it unlikely that structural barriers facing mixed‐status siblings will be resolved quickly. While advocacy for inclusive policies such as access to higher education, health coverage, and driver's licenses remains essential, immediate solutions are more likely to emerge from local and community‐based responses. Community‐based organizations (CBOs), especially immigrant‐ and refugee‐led groups, are central actors in this space. Research shows that these organizations serve as trusted providers and cultural brokers, offering supports that mainstream systems often fail to deliver, yet they remain underfunded and undervalued within the human service sector (Kirsch et al. 2023). Investing in the capacity of CBOs can strengthen family resilience by creating safe spaces for siblings to process unequal opportunities, access mental health resources, and receive guidance in navigating education, healthcare, and legal systems.

For practitioners, these findings call for approaches that treat siblings as part of the care unit, not only focusing on parent–child relationships. Educators, clinicians, and social service providers should adopt trauma‐informed and culturally responsive frameworks that acknowledge the guilt, resentment, or secrecy that can arise when siblings hold different statuses. Collaboration with CBOs can expand the reach of such practices and ensure they are rooted in the lived realities of immigrant families. Programs that bring siblings together for peer support, mentoring, or skill building can transform potential sources of strain into opportunities for resilience.

5.2.1. Toward Sibling‐Focused Clinical Interventions

To our knowledge, no clinical intervention has been designed explicitly for mixed‐status siblings. Drawing on our findings, such an intervention would need to address at least five substantive domains. First, psychoeducation about documentation status socialization is needed so that siblings can name the differential opportunity structure in their family and distinguish it from individual deficit or fault. Second, interventions must create space to process guilt, resentment, and grief tied to differential privilege without reframing these emotions as pathology; siblings' ambivalence is a reasonable response to structural inequality, and clinical work should validate it. Third, interventions can scaffold strengths already evident in the synthesis: shared language about status (“our status”), reciprocal advocacy, and collective planning, so that sibling solidarity practices are named, practiced, and generalized. Fourth, attention to loss is essential: anticipatory grief around deportation and family separation, disenfranchised grief over restricted mobility and relatives dying abroad, and ongoing grief around diminished motivation and occupational foreclosure (Sanchez et al. 2021; Smid et al. 2018). Fifth, clinicians must engage in deliberate reflection on their own positioning, especially when they hold citizenship while serving undocumented clients; the synthesis's accounts of counselors and institutional adults imposing diminished motivation on undocumented youth are a reminder that well‐intentioned helpers can reproduce the hierarchies siblings are attempting to navigate. Where possible, these interventions are best delivered through or in partnership with immigrant‐ and refugee‐led CBOs (Kirsch et al. 2023), whose cultural and linguistic embeddedness makes sibling‐level engagement feasible in a way that mainstream clinical systems rarely achieve.

For researchers, this study demonstrates the value of examining siblings alongside parents in immigrant family research. Future research should use longitudinal designs to explore how sibling roles evolve across the life course, as caregiving responsibilities and advocacy may shift from undocumented to documented siblings. Comparative studies across immigration, race, and disability can also clarify how categories of belonging create both privilege and disadvantage within families. Partnering with CBOs in research design and dissemination will ensure that findings are grounded in practice and useful for communities. Priority populations for future research include non‐Latin American mixed‐status families, Black immigrant families, LGBTQ+ siblings, siblings in rural and Southern US contexts, and adult sibling relationships across decades of differential opportunity.

Ultimately, reducing the inequities faced by mixed‐status siblings requires both structural change and immediate community investment. In the absence of sweeping policy reform, CBOs represent the most practical and effective pathway to supporting siblings and strengthening immigrant families.

6. Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting this synthesis. First, as with all qualitative interpretive meta‐syntheses, our findings depend on the availability and quality of existing studies. Because some studies addressed siblings only as a secondary theme, the depth of quotation‐level evidence varied, which may have limited how fully certain themes could be developed. In addition, one included study (Lambrinou 2026) is primarily a conceptual contribution with three empirically collected testimonios rather than a full qualitative dataset; we retained it because its testimonios speak directly to intergenerational responsibility within mixed‐status families, but its empirical base is narrower than that of other included studies. The included research varied in sample size, methodological rigor, and theoretical framing, which may have influenced the kinds of sibling experiences documented. Second, the majority of studies focused on Mexican‐origin families in the United States, with smaller representation of Central American, Colombian, and Brazilian families. While this reflects the demographic realities of immigration enforcement in the United States, it limits the transferability of findings to families from other regions or to global contexts. We are especially cautious about over‐generalizing across national origins: Sampaio and Carvalho's (2022) Brazilian transnational sample is the only non‐Mexican/Central American sample, and its distinct linguistic, racial, and migration‐regime context cannot be collapsed into a single “Latin American” category. The study also reported 175 interviews, although the number that contributed specifically to the sibling‐focused analysis was unclear. Third, many of the included studies were cross‐sectional, making it difficult to capture how sibling roles and relationships evolve over the life course. Although our synthesis highlighted patterns of shifting responsibilities between undocumented and documented siblings, longitudinal research is needed to confirm these dynamics.

Additionally, the synthesis relied on published themes and participant quotations as reported by original authors. This means that certain nuances may have been filtered through the interpretive lens of prior researchers. Relatedly, many quotations in the primary studies do not carry individual‐level age, gender, or status identifiers; published aggregations make quote‐by‐quote attribution incomplete. Where available, we included participant identifiers (pseudonym, status, age, gender); where the source study did not link demographics to quotations, we described participants as the original authors did. This is a limitation of working with secondary qualitative evidence rather than primary data, and it should be kept in mind when interpreting developmental or gender‐patterned inferences. While our systematic coding and translation process helped minimize this concern, we acknowledge that some experiences may remain underrepresented. We were also unable to access full‐text versions of two included studies (Delgado 2023; Enriquez 2015) during the revision window; for these studies we relied on the original authors' published themes and secondary descriptions of participant quotations rather than extracting new quotations directly. Finally, because QIMS emphasizes shared meaning across studies, there is a risk of smoothing over unique or context‐specific differences. These limitations point to the need for further qualitative work that engages diverse immigrant communities, employs longitudinal designs, and incorporates participatory methods that center the voices of siblings themselves.

Funding

The authors have nothing to report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The authors have nothing to report.