Family legal status and health: Measurement dilemmas in studies of Mexican-origin children

US public opinion about interior border checkpoints and health care access for undocumented immigrants

Legal status is an important social determinant of health. Immigration enforcement policies may be an important contributor to health disparities in the form of interior border checkpoints (IBCs). These checkpoints may prevent immigrants and their families from seeking needed medical care. Currently, we do not know how these barriers are perceived by the public. We administered a survey of 6,178 respondents from 13 November to 19 November of 2023 that contained a survey experiment to assess public attitudes on the issue. Respondents were generally not supportive of detaining individuals at IBCs or medical facilities for emergencies regardless of characteristics of the care-seeking individual. A majority was supportive of detention when medical treatment was complete. Respondents were generally more sympathetic towards children and pregnant women. Partisanship and sympathy expressed towards immigrants influenced attitudes towards detention. Findings based on race and ethnicity showed inconsistencies. A majority of Americans did not believe that IBCs should impede undocumented immigrants from accessing medical care, especially in emergency situations and for children and pregnant women. Our findings indicate that there is broad public support for expanding existing policies to allow for undocumented individuals to pass through IBCs to access medical care.

Immigrant Legal Status Disparities in Health Among First- and One-point-five-Generation Latinx Immigrants in California

Restrictive US immigration laws and law enforcement undermine immigrant health by generating fear and stress, disrupting families and communities, and eroding social and economic wellbeing. The inequality and stress created by immigration law and law enforcement may also generate disparities in health among immigrants with different legal statuses. However, existing research does not find consistent evidence of immigrant legal status disparities in health, possibly because it does not disaggregate immigrants by generation, defined by age at migration. Immigration and life course theory suggest that the health consequences of non-citizen status may be greater among 1.5-generation immigrants, who grew up in the same society that denies them formal membership, than among the 1st generation, who immigrated as adolescents or adults. In this study, we examine whether there are legal status disparities in health within and between the 1st generation and the 1.5 generation of 23,288 Latinx immigrant adults interviewed in the 2005–2017 waves of the California Health Interview Survey. We find evidence of legal status disparities in heart disease within the 1st generation and for high blood pressure and diabetes within the 1.5 generation. Non-citizens have higher rates of poor self-rated health and distress within both generations. Socioeconomic disadvantage and limited access to care largely account for the worse health of legally disadvantaged 1st- and 1.5-generation Latinx adults in California.

Health Power Resources Theory: A Relational Approach to the Study of Health Inequalities

Link and Phelan's pioneering 1995 theory of fundamental causes urged health scholars to consider the macro-level contexts that "put people at risk of risks." Allied research on the political economy of health has since aptly demonstrated how institutions contextualize risk factors for health. Yet scant research has fully capitalized on either fundamental cause or political economy of health's allusion to power relations as a determinant of persistent inequalities in population health. I address this oversight by advancing a theory of health power resources that contends that power relations distribute and translate the meaning (i.e., necessity, value, and utility) of socioeconomic and health-relevant resources. This occurs through stratification, commodification, discrimination, and devitalization. Resurrecting historical sociological emphases on power relations provides an avenue through which scholars can more fully understand the patterning of population health and better connect the sociology of health and illness to the central tenets of the discipline.

The Health of Hispanic Children from Birth to Emerging Adulthood

This article summarizes frameworks for understanding Hispanic children's health, sources of national data available to evaluate their health, and variations in health among Hispanic children. Following ecological and life-course perspectives, we organize our review of the literature on Hispanic children's health and development according to three key stages of child development (zero to three, early to middle childhood, and adolescence to emerging adulthood) with attention to how each stage influences the next. Within each stage, we consider how social position (i.e. skin color, social class, gender, and nativity), social contexts (i.e. family, school, and neighborhood), and political and legal contexts influence Hispanic children's health and development. To improve the health and development of Hispanic children, federal, state, and local policies must address social and economic injustices that lead to declines in health across immigrant generations and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities.

Perceived structural vulnerabilities among detained noncitizen immigrants in Minnesota

Across several decades there has been an unprecedented increase in immigration enforcement including detention and deportation. Immigration detention profoundly impacts those experiencing detention and their family members. An emerging area of research has found that immigrants experience a number of challenges which constrain and limit their decisions, choices, and options for security and integration in the United States due to social, political and structural determinants. These determinants lead to greater structural vulnerabilities among immigrants. The purpose of the current study was to illuminate the perceived vulnerabilities of detained noncitizen immigrants as they are raised and described while attending case hearings at the Bloomington, Minnesota immigration court. Through conducting a thematic analysis of notes derived from third party immigration court observers, three areas of perceived vulnerability were identified. These perceived vulnerabilities include 1) migration and motivations to migrate, 2) structural vulnerabilities (e.g., discrimination, financial insecurity, social ties and family support, stable or fixed residence, English language proficiency, health and mental health) in the US, and 3) challenges in navigating immigration detention. These findings demonstrate that noncitizen immigrants who are undergoing immigration detention are experiencing multiple intersecting vulnerabilities which profoundly impact their lives. Collaborative efforts across sectors are needed to work towards comprehensive immigration reforms including both short-term and long-term solutions to address pressing issues for noncitizens undergoing immigration detention.

Policies of Exclusion: Implications for the Health of Immigrants and Their Children

Public policies play a crucial role in shaping how immigrants adapt to life in the United States. Federal, state, and local laws and administrative practices impact immigrants' access to education, health insurance and medical care, cash assistance, food assistance, and other vital services. Additionally, immigration enforcement activities have substantial effects on immigrants' health and participation in public programs, as well as effects on immigrants' families. This review summarizes the growing literature on the consequences of public policies for immigrants' health. Some policies are inclusive and promote immigrants' adaptation to the United States, whereas other policies are exclusionary and restrict immigrants' access to public programs as well as educational and economic opportunities. We explore the strategies that researchers have employed to tease out these effects, the methodological challenges of undertaking such studies, their varying impacts on immigrant health, and steps that can be undertaken to improve the health of immigrants and their families.

Latinos' Connections to Immigrants: How Knowing a Deportee Impacts Latino Health

This manuscript examines how personally knowing a deportee and/or undocumented immigrant affects the mental health of Latina/o adults. Utilizing a new survey sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy at the University of New Mexico (n=1,493), we estimate a series of logistic regressions to understand how personal connections to immigrants are affecting the mental health of Latinos using stress process theory. Our modeling approach takes into consideration the socio-political, familial, cultural, and personal contexts that make up the Latina/o experience, which is widely overlooked in data-sets that treat Latinos as a homogeneous ethnic group. Our findings suggest that knowing a deportee increases the odds of having to seek help for mental health problems. The significance of this work has tremendous implications for policy makers, health service providers, and researchers interested in reducing health disparities among minority populations especially under a new administration, which has adopted more punitive immigration policies and enforcement.

Who loses public health insurance when states pass restrictive omnibus immigration-related laws? The moderating role of county Latino density

In the United States, there is widespread concern that state laws restricting rights for noncitizens may have spillover effects for Latino children in immigrant families. Studies into the laws' effects on health care access have inconsistent findings, demonstrating gaps in our understanding of who is most affected, under what circumstances. Using comparative interrupted time series methods and a nationally-representative sample of US citizen, Latino children with noncitizen parents from the National Health Interview Survey (2005-2014, n = 18,118), this study finds that living in counties with higher co-ethnic density placed children at greater risk of losing Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program coverage when their states passed restrictive state omnibus immigrant laws. This study is the first to demonstrate the importance of examining how the health impacts of immigration-related policies vary across local communities.

U.S. Citizen Children of Undocumented Parents: The Link Between State Immigration Policy and the Health of Latino Children

We examine Latino citizen children in mixed-status families and how their physical health status compares to their U.S. citizen, co-ethnic counterparts. We also examine Latino parents' perceptions of state immigration policy and its implications for child health status. Using the 2015 Latino National Health and Immigration Survey (n = 1493), we estimate a series of multivariate ordered logistic regression models with mixed-status family and perceptions of state immigration policy as primary predictors. We find that mixed-status families report worse physical health for their children as compared to their U.S. citizen co-ethnics. We also find that parental perceptions of their states' immigration status further exacerbate health disparities between families. These findings have implications for scholars and policy makers interested in immigrant health, family wellbeing, and health disparities in complex family structures. They contribute to the scholarship on Latino child health and on the erosion of the Latino immigrant health advantage.

How does legal status matter for oral health care among Mexican-origin children in California?

This research examines the relationship between legal status and oral health care among Mexican-origin children. Using the 2001–2014 California Health Interview Surveys, the objectives are: (1) to demonstrate population-level changes in the legal statuses of parents, the legal statuses of children, and the likelihood of receiving dental care; (2) to reveal how the roles of legal status boundaries in dental care are changing; and (3) to determine whether the salience of these boundaries is attributable to legal status per se. The results reveal increases in the native-born share and dental care utilization for the total Mexican-origin population. Although dental care was primarily linked to parental citizenship early in this period, parental legal statuses are no longer a unique source of variation in utilization (despite the greater likelihood of insurance among citizens). These results imply that future gains in utilization among Mexican-origin children will mainly come from overcoming barriers to care among the native born.

•

Speculation exists on the importance of documentation status for dental care.

•

Parental documentation has not been uniquely important for dental care.

•

Parental citizenship predicted differences in child dental care in the early 2000s.

•

These differences subsequently decreased by 2014 when dental care rose for all children.

•

Increases were especially prominent among categories of non-citizens.

•

Declines in immigration imply that increasing attention to the native born is needed.

Protecting unauthorized immigrant mothers improves their children's mental health

The United States is embroiled in a debate about whether to protect or deport its estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants, but the fact that these immigrants are also parents to more than 4 million U.S.-born children is often overlooked. We provide causal evidence of the impact of parents' unauthorized immigration status on the health of their U.S. citizen children. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program granted temporary protection from deportation to more than 780,000 unauthorized immigrants. We used Medicaid claims data from Oregon and exploited the quasi-random assignment of DACA eligibility among mothers with birthdates close to the DACA age qualification cutoff. Mothers' DACA eligibility significantly decreased adjustment and anxiety disorder diagnoses among their children. Parents' unauthorized status is thus a substantial barrier to normal child development and perpetuates health inequalities through the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage.

Legal Status and Health Care: Mexican-Origin Children in California, 2001-2014

Using restricted data from the 2001-2014 California Health Interview Surveys, this research illuminates the role of legal status in health care among Mexican-origin children. The first objective is to provide a population-level overview of trends in health care access and utilization, along with the legal statuses of parents and children. The second objective is to examine the nature of associations between children's health care and legal status over time. We identify specific status-based distinctions that matter and investigate how their importance is changing. Despite the continuing significance of child nativity for health care, the descriptive analysis shows that the proportion of Mexican-origin children who are foreign born is declining. This trend suggests a potentially greater role of parental legal status in children's health care. Logistic regression analyses demonstrate that the importance of parental legal status varies with the health care indicator examined and the inclusion of child nativity in models. Moreover, variation in some aspects of children's health care coalesced more around parents' citizenship than documentation status in the past. With one exception, the salience of such distinctions has dissipated over time.