Latinos' deportation fears by citizenship and legal status, 2007 to 2018

Immigration Status, Legal Vulnerability, and Suicidal/Self-harm Ideation Disparities Among Immigrant-Origin Latinx Young Adults in the U.S

Theories of suicidality typically center intrapersonal processes, with limited attention to social determinants of mental health disparities. Using a legal vulnerability framework, we examined the association between self/parental immigration status and suicidal and self-harm ideation (SI) disparities in three groups of immigrant-origin Latinx young adults attending college in the USA: undocumented students (n = 564), US citizens with undocumented parents (n = 605), and US citizens with lawfully present parents (n = 596). We also evaluated whether self/parental immigration status differences in SI could be accounted for by six dimensions of legal vulnerability and, based on prominent theories of suicidality, explored the role of campus belongingness as a protective factor. Participants completed self-report measures, and SI was assessed using one item from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, a screening tool that assesses the severity of depression symptomatology. Rates of SI were significantly higher among undocumented students (23.1%) and US citizens with undocumented parents (24.3%) compared to US citizens with lawfully present parents (17.8%). Immigration policy-related social exclusion and discrimination-mediated self/parental immigration status differences in SI. Although food insecurity did not differ by self/parental immigration status, greater food insecurity was associated with higher likelihood of SI. Greater campus belongingness was associated with a lower likelihood of endorsing SI for all students regardless of immigration status or legal vulnerability factors. Findings underscore the importance of examining self and parental immigration status as a social determinant of SI and the value of investigating aspects of legal vulnerability as explanatory factors.

Time-Trends in Food Insecurity Among US-Born and Foreign-Born Hispanic Adults by Language Use: An Analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data, 1999-2018

BACKGROUND

Historically, food insecurity prevalence has been higher in Hispanic households than in non-Hispanic White households. Food insecurity prevalence among Hispanic adults, US-born and foreign-born, may vary by language use.

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether or not the relationship between language use and food insecurity varied over time (1999-2018) among US-born and foreign-born Hispanic adults.

DESIGN

Trends analysis and multivariable logistic regression modeling using pooled cross-sectional data.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Fifteen thousand sixty-two Hispanic adults participating in the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2018).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Food insecurity prevalence, assessed with the US Household Food Security Survey Module.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Unadjusted food insecurity trends from 1999 to 2018 by language use (mostly English, both languages equally, or mostly Spanish) among US-born and foreign-born Hispanic adults were analyzed using piecewise-linear regression of log prevalence rates. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and with an interaction term between language use and time were used to determine if odds of food insecurity among US-born and foreign-born Hispanic adults varied by language use between 1999 and 2018.

RESULTS

Hispanic adults' food insecurity prevalence followed an upward linear trend from 1999 to 2018; this was significant for US-born mostly English-speakers (P < 0.001), US-born mostly Spanish-speakers (P = 0.013), and foreign-born mostly Spanish-speakers (P < 0.001). In fully adjusted logistic regression models, foreign-born Hispanic adults who spoke both languages equally (odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.6) and those who spoke mostly Spanish (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.8) had significantly higher food insecurity odds, compared with mostly English-speakers. No variations in associations across time were observed between language use and food insecurity (interaction P value > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Hispanic adults' unadjusted food insecurity trends from 1999 to 2018 varied by language use. When adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and compared with mostly English-speakers, food insecurity odds were significantly higher only among foreign-born Hispanic adults who spoke either both languages equally or mostly Spanish. Food assistance programs should linguistically adapt their services for Hispanic adults.

Immigrant-blind care: How immigrants experience the "inclusive" health system as they access care

A growing body of scholarship examines the varying impact of legal status and race on accessing healthcare. However, a notable gap persists in comprehending the supplementary mechanisms that hinder immigrants' pathway to seek care. Drawing on ethnographic observations in various clinical settings and in-depth interviews with 28 healthcare professionals and 12 documented Haitian immigrants in a city in Upstate New York, between 2019 and 2021, I demonstrate the tension between the conceptualization and implementation of inclusive care practices by healthcare providers. I argue that the mere expansion and adoption of inclusive discourse among providers do not inherently ensure equity and the removal of barriers to healthcare access. This work contributes to the social study of medicine and race and ethnic studies by introducing the innovative concept of "immigrant-blind." Through this concept, the research sheds light on how providers' conceptualization of inclusivity proclaims medical encounters to be devoid of stratifications and rationalizes their practices which mask the profound impact of immigration status and immigration on immigrant health. Furthermore, these practices reinforce existing divisions within care settings and medical encounters, where immigration laws and enforcement practices operate and further exacerbate stratifications. By examining providers' uninformed implementation of culturally competent care practices, the findings reveal that providers stigmatize and essentialize immigrants during medical encounters. This highlights the imperative for a more nuanced and informed approach to healthcare provision, where genuine inclusivity is upheld, and barriers to access are dismantled to foster equitable and dignified healthcare experiences for all.

Deportation threat predicts Latino US citizens and noncitizens' psychological distress, 2011 to 2018

The national context of deportation threat, defined as the federal government's approach to deportation and/or deportation's salience to the US public, fluctuated between 2011 and 2018. US Latinos across citizenship statuses may have experienced growing psychological distress associated with these changes, given their disproportionate personal or proximal vulnerabilities to deportation. Drawing on 8 y of public- and restricted-access data from the National Health Interview Survey (2011 to 2018), this article examines trends in psychological distress among Latinos who are US-born citizens, naturalized citizens, and noncitizens. It then seeks to explain these trends by considering two theoretical pathways through which the national context of deportation threat could distress Latinos: 1) through discrete dramatic societal events that independently signal a change to the country's approach to deportation and/or that render deportation temporarily more salient to the public or 2) through more gradual changes to the country's everyday institutional (i.e., quotidian efforts to detain and deport noncitizens) and social (i.e., deportation's ongoing salience to a concerned public) environment of deportation threat. We find that, though both pathways matter to some degree, there is more consistent evidence that the gradual changes are associated with Latino US citizens and noncitizens' overall experiences of psychological distress. The article highlights how, even absent observable spillover effects of dramatic societal events bearing on deportation threat, the institutional and social environment in which they occur implicates Latinos' well-being.

"We have to lie low … that sort of poisons me more and more": A qualitative study of violent political rhetoric and health implications for Spanish and Chinese speaking immigrants

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the historical legacy of anti-immigrant sentiment in the US has resurfaced, fueled by a new wave of anti-immigrant political rhetoric. Violent political rhetoric, defined as either explicit or metaphorically targeted language to dehumanize targeted groups, can incite discriminatory treatment of immigrants at both interpersonal and institutional levels, shaping their health and healthcare experiences. This qualitative study explores and compares how Spanish- and Chinese-speaking immigrant populations in Chicago make sense of violent political rhetoric against their racial and ethnic identities, utilize coping strategies to maintain their sense of belonging, and experience downstream health consequences.

METHODS

In 2019, 14 semi-structured focus groups were conducted among immigrants to the U.S. (n = 79). Participants were recruited from four community sites in either Hispanic/Latino or Chinese neighborhoods in Chicago. Focus groups were conducted by racially- and linguistically concordant interviewers in Spanish, Mandarin, or Cantonese. The research team developed a codebook iteratively and analyzed transcripts using grounded theory and the constant comparison method.

RESULTS

Participants included Chinese (61%) and Spanish-speaking immigrants (39%), with an average age of 61.4 years (sd = 13); the majority were female (62%), unemployed (68%), and attained less than a high school diploma (53%). Self-reported stress due to political rhetoric was more pronounced among Spanish-speaking participants (93%) than Chinese participants (39.6%). Immigrants responded to manifestations of violent political rhetoric in numerous ways including mobilizing the model minority myth with internalized racism, anticipatory stress, and "high effort" coping mechanisms (John Henryism), all with downstream health effects.

CONCLUSION

Violent political rhetoric is one of the mechanisms by which racism and xenophobia exacerbate a toll on the health of racialized immigrant groups. These processes have implications for both interpersonal and institutional experiences, as well as health and healthcare interactions. We propose a conceptual model that outlines these mechanisms and points to potential areas of intervention to ameliorate immigrant health inequities.

Sociopolitical stressors are associated with psychological distress in a cohort of Latina women during early pregnancy

Research suggests that the 2016 US election was a potential stressor among Latinos residing in the United States. Sociopolitical stressors targeted toward ethnic minority communities and become embodied through psychosocial distress. The current study investigates if and how sociopolitical stressors related to the 45th President, Donald Trump, and his administration are associated with psychological distress in early pregnancy of Latina women living in Southern California during the second half of his term. This cross-sectional analysis uses data from the Mothers' Cultural Experiences study (n = 90) collected from December 2018 to March 2020. Psychological distress was assessed in three domains: depression, state anxiety, and pregnancy-related anxiety. Sociopolitical stressors were measured through questionnaires about sociopolitical feelings and concerns. Multiple linear regression models examined the relationship between sociopolitical stressors and mental health scores, adjusting for multiple testing. Negative feelings and a greater number of sociopolitical concerns were associated with elevated pregnancy-related anxiety and depressive symptoms. The most frequently endorsed concern was about issues of racism (72.3%) and women's rights (62.4%); women endorsing these particular concerns also had higher scores on depression and pregnancy-related anxiety. No significant associations were detected with state anxiety after correction for multiple testing. This analysis is cross-sectional and cannot assess causality in the associations between sociopolitical stressors and distress. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the 2016 election, the subsequent political environment, and the anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies of former President Trump and his administration were sources of stress for Latinos residing in the United States.

Validation of the Family Fear of Deportation Scale for youth

Objective

This study reports on the psychometric properties of a new instrument to assess family fear of deportation in two versions (binary and polytomous response options).

Background

The impact of fear of deportation extends beyond foreign-born youth to U.S. citizen children in families with unauthorized members, and negatively affects their academic achievement and their physical, mental, and behavioral health. A measure assessing levels of fear of deportation among youth is lacking.

Methods

Participants were first- and second-generation Latino immigrant youth (N = 145 in Study 1 and N = 107 in Study 2). Item response theory (IRT), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlation analysis, and reliability tests were used to assess the scale's psychometric properties.

Results

The results supported a five-item binary version and a six-item polytomous version of the scale. Both demonstrated excellent model fit, good reliability, and criterion validity.

Conclusions

The six-item polytomous version is slightly more parsimonious than the five-item binary version scale, has better internal consistency, and captures a modestly wider range of the construct. The binary version may be preferable for immigrant youth who prefer straightforward response options.

Implications

Researchers and practitioners can use either version of the Family Fear of Deportation Scale with confidence to assess deportation-related fear among Latino immigrant youth.

"It felt like hitting rock bottom": A qualitative exploration of the mental health impacts of immigration enforcement and discrimination on US-citizen, Mexican children

Latino immigrant families in the United States were disproportionately affected by intensified interior immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. US-citizen children are victimized by policies targeting their immigrant parents; research is sparse regarding how these polices affect children who experience parental deportation and children who are at risk for parental deportation. Additionally, anti-immigrant rhetoric can result in increased discrimination that also threatens children's psychological health. This qualitative study (N = 22) explores children's lived experiences of discrimination, parental deportation or threat of parental deportation, and perceived impacts on mental health. Interviews conducted from 2019 to 2020 revealed that children who are directly affected by or at risk for parental deportation experience detrimental impacts to their psychological well-being. Children experience discrimination as Latinos and children of immigrants, which is also detrimental to their mental/emotional health. Incorporating children's perspectives is critical to informing public health interventions. Findings demonstrate the need for family-friendly immigration reform.

Fear of Deportation and Associations with Mental Health Among Michigan Residents of Middle Eastern & North African Descent

Anti-immigrant rhetoric and immigration policy enforcement in the United States over the last 2 decades has increased attention to fear of deportation as a determinant of poor health. We describe its association with mental health outcomes among Middle East and North African (MENA) residents of Michigan. Using a convenience sample of MENA residents in Michigan (n = 397), we conducted bivariate and multiple variable regression to describe the prevalence of deportation worry and examine the relationship between deportation worry and depressive symptoms (PHQ-4 scores). We found that 33% of our sample worried a loved one will be deported. Deportation worry was associated with worse mental health (p < 0.01). Immigration policies are health policies and deportation worry impacts mental and behavioral health.

State Categories, Bureaucracies of Displacement, and Possibilities from the Margins

In this presidential address, I argue for the importance of state-created categories and classification systems that determine eligibility for tangible and intangible resources. Through classification systems based on rules and regulations that reflect powerful interests and ideologies, bureaucracies maintain entrenched inequality systems that include, exclude, and neglect. I propose adopting a critical perspective when using formalized categories in our work, which would acknowledge the constructed nature of those categories, their naturalization through everyday practices, and their misalignments with lived experiences. This lens can reveal the systemic structures that engender both enduring patterns of inequality and state classification systems, and reframe questions about the people the state sorts into the categories we use. I end with a brief discussion of the benefits that can accrue from expanding our theoretical repertoires by including knowledge produced in the Global South.

Cultural care needs of Spanish speaking parents with limited English proficiency whose children are hospitalized: An ethnonursing study

PURPOSE

Parents' inability to speak English proficiently is associated with communication barriers in the care process of their children, social determinants of health, and poor child health outcomes. Research exploring perspectives of Spanish speaking parents with limited English proficiency (SSP-LEP) whose children are hospitalized in the context of culture is lacking in the literature. The purpose of this study was to explore the cultural experiences, values, and beliefs of SSP-LEP, of Mexican origin, whose children were hospitalized and to understand nurses' roles in providing culturally congruent care.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Leininger's qualitative, ethnonursing method was used for this study. The Theory of Culture Care Diversity and Universality provided a guiding framework. Eleven SSP-LEP, of Mexican origin, participated in interviews conducted in-person and via Zoom. Data was analyzed using Leininger's four phases of qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged: 1. role of the mother as an ever-present manager of care for the hospitalized child and family, 2. parents' difficult, fearful, stressful, and unknowing experiences in the presence of a language barrier, and 3. expected nursing care that was kind, respectful, compassionate, and attentive.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of knowledge creates hardships for parents who desire to be involved, informed caregivers. Communication in Spanish language is integral to parents' understanding and expected nursing care. SSP-LEP may have negative feelings; yet describe a positive care experience.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Culturally congruent care should incorporate language services for information sharing that facilitates parent participation and decision-making; be kind, respectful, compassionate, and attentive; and promote maternal role maintenance.

Omnibus or Ominous immigration laws? Immigration policy and mental health of the Hispanic population

This study examines the impact of Omnibus Immigration Laws on the mental health of the Hispanic populations in the U.S. We use a Difference-in-Differences framework and data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the 2000-2016 period that contains information on more than 400 thousand Hispanics residing in the U.S. We find that the most stringent provision, namely, "show me your papers" laws, adversely affects the mental health of Hispanics and contributes to an increase of 12%-16% in the number of unhealthy mental days and an increase of 13%-18% in the probability of having frequent mental distress in the states with "show me your papers" laws. OIL provisions that enforced the use of E-Verify or limited the use of public benefits to unauthorized immigrants did not have any effect on mental health. The study also examines (1) police stops, (2) physical health, insurance, and employment status, (3) co-ethnic density, and (4) immigration enforcement awareness as potential mechanisms that could lead to a deterioration in the mental health of Hispanics. The evidence indicates their vulnerability to strict immigration enforcement. The social and public health cost should be carefully evaluated when formulating and implementing immigration policies.

Buscando la Calma Dentro de la Tormenta: A Brief Review of the Recent Literature on the Impact of Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric and Policies on Stress Among Latinx Immigrants

The mental health burden associated with anti-immigrant rhetoric and ever-changing immigration policies is undeniable, though the psychological and emotional sequalae may remain invisible for years to come. Exclusionary immigration policies, as a form of structural racism, have also led to an epidemic of stress-related health within the Latinx community, particularly the Latinx immigrant community, across the United States. Recent examples of anti-Latinx and anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies include the 45th President's implementation of the Zero Tolerance policy, Migrant Protection Protocols, and Title 42. The recognition of previous and existing anti-immigrant policies, and the impact on Latinx immigrants, is critical in understanding the manifestation of psychological stress to prevent it from becoming chronic. For mental health providers, attention to existing policies that can be detrimental to the Latinx immigrant community is essential to understanding their mental health trajectory and applying frameworks that honor an individual's psychological stress to prevent pathologizing the immigrant experience and negative health outcomes. The objective of the present brief review is to shed light on recent research and offer recommendations for practice (eg, educating the Latinx community about the link between the immigrant experience and psychological stress) and policy (eg, drafting of legislation aimed at rescinding harmful immigration policies) regarding the relation between aggressive anti-immigration rhetoric and psychological stress among Latinx immigrants in the United States.

Self-rated health of both US citizens and noncitizens is associated with state-level immigrant criminalization policies

Evidence shows that state-level restrictive immigrant policies are associated with health disparities between noncitizens and citizens. Most research has focused on Latinos and there is limited knowledge of the relationship between restrictive policies and citizenship status among other groups, particularly Asian and Pacific Islanders (API). We examined whether state-level criminalization policy contexts (e.g., law enforcement collaboration with immigration authorities, E-Verify employment authorization) were associated with self-rated health (SRH) by citizenship, with a focus on Latinos and APIs. We expected that criminalization policies would be associated with worse health for noncitizens and citizens, but with a more negative influence for noncitizens; and that this pattern would be the same for Latinos and APIs. We merged a state-level immigrant criminalization policy database with a multi-racial/ethnic sample from 2014 to 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, n = 70,335). We tested the association between SRH and the number of state-level criminalization policies and generated predicted probabilities of noncitizens and citizens reporting excellent health in states with the most and fewest criminalization policies for the full sample, Latino, and API respondents. In states with the most criminalization policies, all noncitizens had a higher and all US-born citizens had a lower probability of excellent health. In states with the fewest criminalization policies there were no differences by citizenship status. Findings provide new evidence that state-level immigrant policies may harm the health of US-born citizens. As immigrant policymaking at the state level continues, understanding the relationship between state-level immigrant policies and health inequities across citizenship statuses will continue to be critical to improving population health.

•

State policies that criminalize immigrants may harm the health of both noncitizens and citizens of different races/ethnicities.

•

More state immigrant criminalization policies are associated with health inequities between US citizens and noncitizens.

•

Immigrant criminalization policies are associated with worse self-reported health for US born citizens.

Family Matters: Modeling Naturalization Propensities in the United States

Despite the benefits of gaining citizenship, many eligible immigrants in the United States are not naturalizing. In this article, we examine factors that lead to naturalization in the United States, finding that immigrants’ pathways to citizenship are simultaneously shaped by individual characteristics, place-based attributes, and family dynamics. Of notable significance, and largely omitted from previous empirical work on naturalization, we find that having a naturalized spouse prior to one’s own naturalization is associated with a higher probability of naturalization, whereas being married to an undocumented immigrant reduces the probability of naturalization. Similarly, having a naturalized adult in the family other than a spouse improves the odds of naturalization, but having an undocumented family member other than a spouse reduces the odds. These findings suggest that while eligible immigrants with naturalized family members are more likely to improve their access to naturalization through pooled resources and increased information sharing, eligible immigrants with undocumented family members are more likely to avoid the naturalization process entirely, likely due to chilling effects from immigrant enforcement and policies that target close ties with liminal legality. These findings suggest that immigrants’ access to citizenship could be improved by (1) reaching immigrants who are the first in their families to naturalize and (2) improving the context of reception for undocumented immigrants and mixed-status families. More broadly, while individual factors play a role in naturalization, complex contextual factors, including place and family, shape immigrants’ pathways to citizenship and provide opportunities for new policies to promote immigrant integration.

Do sanctuary policies increase crime? Contrary evidence from a county-level investigation in the United States

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has rolled out a series of programs that leverage local and state resources to detain and deport undocumented immigrants. There is little understanding, however, about the public safety consequences of mobilizing local police to enforce immigration law. I use ICE administrative records, Uniform Crime Reports, and American Community Survey population estimates to investigate whether and under what circumstances local immigration enforcement is associated with property crime and violent crime. Results show that crime trends in sanctuary and non-sanctuary counties were not significantly different in the first decade of the 2000s. However, after the proliferation of sanctuary practices around 2014, both property crime and violent crime decreased more in sanctuary counties than non-sanctuary counties, net of other predictors of crime. Further, a pooled cross-sectional analysis of 2013-2016 data shows that sanctuary practices strengthen the inverse relationship between proportion foreign-born Latino and property crime, and reverse the positive relationship between proportion native-born Latino and property crime. I theorize that this occurs because sanctuary practices encourage immigrant political integration, have positive spillover effects to non-immigrant Latinx communities, and increase social harmony.

Effects of COVID-19, Discrimination, and Social Support on Latinx Adult Mental Health

We investigated the role of COVID-19 exposure and discrimination on depressive and posttraumatic stress symptoms among Latinx adults residing in the southeastern United States. Survey data were collected from 264 Latinx adults. Using structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures, we estimated a structural model for hypothesized direct and indirect relationships between the risk factors of COVID-19 exposure and discrimination, social support, and two mental health conditions: depression and posttraumatic stress. COVID-19 exposure and discrimination each had a significant and positive relationship with both depression and posttraumatic stress. Social support was found to have a significant and inverse relationship with depression and posttraumatic stress, as well as to mediate the relationship between discrimination and both mental health symptoms. Implications for service provision and program design are presented. Future studies should examine variation between southeastern states and consider the influence of documentation status among an immigrant-only sample.

Politics, Pandemics, and Trauma: Understanding and Addressing Latino Health Needs Through a Culturally-Informed Lens

Latino communities in the United States (U.S.) have long endured trauma due to multiple intersecting social and political forces. New restrictive immigration policies since 2016 and the COVID-19 pandemic have each created novel stressors for Latino communities, while escalating the risk of mental health disorders and highlighting the communities' vulnerabilities. The effects of these stressors have been particularly pronounced in southeastern states, such as Tennessee and Georgia, due to their state-level anti-immigrant legislation. Yet, we lack sufficient data to understand how these factors present among Latinos seeking services. To focus attention on the specific experiences of Latino communities living in the U.S. Southeast, the authors analyzed the perspectives of 44 service providers working with these communities in the region using qualitative data collected in an online survey administered during the COVID-19 pandemic and while President Trump's exclusionary immigration policies were in force. Four themes were identified: (1) Latino communities' strengths; (2) impact of the Trump administration on Latino communities; (3) impact of COVID-19's on Latino communities; and (4) strategies to enhance service delivery in Latino communities. Results provide meaningful data to inform micro- and macro-level service delivery in two exclusionary policy states and beyond. Findings suggest future research should include other new immigrant destinations and explore perceptions of Latino community members.

Barriers and Facilitators to Prevention and Care of COVID-19 Infection in Cincinnati Latinx Families: a Community-Based Convergent Mixed Methods Study

Background

Latinx populations have experienced disproportionately high case rates of COVID-19 across the USA. Latinx communities in non-traditional migration areas may experience greater baseline day-to-day challenges such as a lack of resources for immigrants and insufficient language services. These challenges may be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective

This article describes the results of an initial community health needs assessment to better understand the prevention and care of COVID-19 infection in the Cincinnati Latinx community.

Methods

We used convergent mixed methods to examine barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 prevention and care for those with infection.

Results

Latinx adults ≥ 18 years old completed 255 quantitative surveys and 17 qualitative interviews. Overarching mixed methods domains included knowledge, prevention, work, challenges, and treatment. Quantitative results largely reinforced qualitative results (confirmation). Certain quantitative and qualitative results, however, diverged and expanded insights related to caring for COVID-19 infection among Latinx adults (expansion). There were infrequent contradictions between quantitative and qualitative findings (discordance). Primary barriers for the Latinx community during the COVID-19 pandemic included insecurities in food, jobs, housing, and immigration. Key facilitators included having trusted messengers of health-related information.

Conclusion

Public health interventions should be centered on community partnerships and the use of trusted messengers. Wraparound services (including resources for immigrants) are essential public health services. Close partnership with employers is essential as lack of sick leave and mask supplies were more frequent barriers than knowledge. These findings emerged from experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic but likely generalize to future public health crises.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40615-022-01294-7.

The importance of race, gender, and religion in naturalization adjudication in the United States

This study examines group disparities in naturalization approvals by race/ethnicity, gender, and religion. We find that all else being equal, non-White applicants and Hispanic applicants are less likely to be approved than non-Hispanic White applicants, male applicants are less likely to be approved than female applicants, and applicants from Muslim-majority countries are less likely to be approved than applicants from other countries. In addition, we find that race/ethnicity, gender, and religion combine to produce a certain group hierarchy in terms of approval probabilities. For example, Blacks from Muslim-majority countries are much less likely to be approved than Whites from other countries. These findings underscore the continuing importance of race, gender, and religion in the making of US citizens.

This study presents an empirical investigation of naturalization adjudication in the United States using new administrative data on naturalization applications decided by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services between October 2014 and March 2018. We find significant group disparities in naturalization approvals based on applicants’ race/ethnicity, gender, and religion, controlling for individual applicant characteristics, adjudication years, and variation between field offices. Non-White applicants and Hispanic applicants are less likely to be approved than non-Hispanic White applicants, male applicants are less likely to be approved than female applicants, and applicants from Muslim-majority countries are less likely to be approved than applicants from other countries. In addition, race/ethnicity, gender, and religion interact to produce a certain group hierarchy in naturalization approvals. For example, the probability of approval for Black males is 5 percentage points smaller than that of White females. The probability of approval for Blacks from Muslim-majority countries is 9 percentage points smaller than that of Whites from other countries. The probability of approval for females from Muslim-majority countries is 6 percentage points smaller than that of females from other countries. This study contributes to our understanding of the nature of inequalities present in agency decision-making in the naturalization process.

Parental perceived immigration threat and children's mental health, self-regulation and executive functioning in pre-Kindergarten

Many children in immigrant households endure unique stressors shaped by national, state, and local immigration policies and enforcement activity in the United States. Qualitative studies find that during times of heightened immigration enforcement, children as young as 3 years of age show signs of behavioral distress related to national anti-immigrant sentiment and the possibility of losing a parent. Using multiple sources of data from 168 racially and ethnically diverse families of children in pre-Kindergarten, the present study examined variability in perceived levels of immigration enforcement threat by parental immigrant status and ethnicity. This study examined associations between immigration enforcement threat and child mental health, self-regulation, and executive functioning and whether parent immigrant status or child gender moderates these associations. We found substantial variability in perceived immigration threat, with immigrant parents and Latinx parents reporting significantly greater levels of immigration threat compared to nonimmigrant parents and non-Latinx parents. Immigration enforcement threat was associated with greater child separation anxiety and overanxious behaviors, and lower self-regulation among boys and girls and among children of immigrant and U.S.-born parents. In contrast to our hypothesis, immigration enforcement threat was associated with higher self-regulation according to independent assessor ratings. Educators and healthcare providers working with young children from immigrant and Latinx households should be aware of the disproportionate stress experienced by immigrant and Latinx families due to a xenophobic sociopolitical climate marked by heightened immigration enforcement threat and racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

Estimating the effects of Mexico to U.S. migration on elevated depressive symptoms: evidence from pooled cross-national cohorts

PURPOSE

Migrating from Mexico to the U.S. is a major, stressful life event with potentially profound influences on mental health. However, estimating the health effects of migration is challenging because of differential selection into migration and time-varying confounder mediators of migration effects on health.

METHODS

We pooled data from the Mexican Health and Aging Study (N = 17,771) and Mexican-born U.S. Health and Retirement Study (N = 898) participants to evaluate the effects of migration to the U.S. (at any age and in models for migration in childhood or adulthood) on depressive symptom-count, measured with a modified Centers for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale. We modeled probability of migrating in each year of life from birth to either age at initial migration to the U.S. or enrollment and used these models to calculate inverse probability of migration weights. We applied the weights to covariate-adjusted negative binomial GEE models, estimating the ratio of average symptom-count associated with migration.

RESULTS

Mexico to U.S. migration was unrelated to depressive symptoms among men (ratio of average symptom-count= 0.98 [95% CI: 0.89, 1.08]) and women (ratio of average symptom-count = 1.00 [95% CI: 0.92, 1.09]). Results were similar for migration in childhood, early adulthood, or later adulthood.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of older Mexican-born adults, migration to the U.S. was unrelated to depressive symptoms.

Latino Immigrant Service Provision in Tennessee and Georgia: Provider Perceptions

Latinos and Latino immigrants are increasingly settling in new immigrant destinations, such as Tennessee and Georgia, that have historically lacked sufficient infrastructure for delivery of culturally and linguistically competent health and social services. This cross-sectional survey study was designed to assess providers' (n = 109) perspectives of the service provision landscape in each state. Descriptive analyses and t-tests (by state) were conducted to explore service concerns, access barriers, and organizational capacity to address concerns and barriers. Among most prevalently reported concerns were income/wages and fear of deportation. Key access barriers included language, lack of driver's license and insurance, and fear of deportation. Most (63%) organizations had sufficient Spanish language proficiency, though building trust was a notable barrier within 58% of organizations. Results provide meaningful data to inform existing strengths and service gaps in two exclusionary policy states. Future research should include perspectives of Latino community members.

Immigration Policy Vulnerability Linked to Adverse Mental Health Among Latino Day Laborers

Latino day laborers in the United States are socially and economically vulnerable due to exclusionary immigration policies. Using data from a multi-mode survey, we examine the relationship between immigration policy legal vulnerability and mental health outcomes among 138 Latino, male day laborers (mean age = 45.65, SD = 12.05). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models separately estimated the effect of legal vulnerability, as measured by the Perceived Immigration Policy Effects Scale, on anxiety and depression symptoms and a positive depression and anxiety screening, respectively. Approximately 26.1% and 27.9% of day laborers reported depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. In each adjusted model, we find a positive relationship between legal vulnerability and adverse mental health. Immigration policy legal vulnerability is associated with more depression and anxiety symptoms among Latino day laborers. Policies to reduce legal vulnerability, such as pathways to citizenship and employment authorization, may support Latino day laborers' mental health outcomes.

Legal Status, Worries About Deportation, and Depression Among Asian Immigrants

Although legal status and worries of deportation have been identified as key factors in immigrant health inequities for Latinx immigrants, how they impact health of Asian immigrants is largely unknown. Using 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey, we used sets of logistic regressions to examine the relationships among legal statuses, worries about deportation, and depression for Asian immigrants (n = 1371). Asian immigrants who are in the process of applying for citizenship, those with visas, and those who are ineligible to apply for citizenship were significantly more likely to be depressed compared with naturalized citizens. The significant associations between legal status and depression were mediated by worries about deportation. Legal status and worries of deportation are important determinants of health for Asian immigrants. The results point to a critical need for systematic investment in data collection for data disaggregation.

Pushing them to the edge: Suicide in immigrant detention centers as a product of organizational failure

In this paper, we argue that the U.S. immigrant apparatus is a racial project that jeopardizes immigrants' wellbeing through organizational failure (Omi and Winant, 2014; Meyer & Rowman, 1977; Mellahi and Wilkinson, 2004). We utilize Provine and Doty's (2011) work as a foundation to understand how this racial project is systemic and multifaceted in nature. It begins with the negative characterization and criminalization of certain immigrants, mostly Latinx, followed by a poor infrastructure of processing and detention riddled with impediments to their wellbeing, which ultimately pushes detainees to the edge, to poor mental health, and suicidality. ICE's system of detention consistently operates poorly and normalizes organizational failure, jeopardizing immigrant lives through basic human rights violations, family separation, substandard living conditions, and minimal consideration to poor mental health, suicide prevention, and prompt and adequate intervention. Utilizing qualitative data from ICE inspection reports, contracts, and detainee death reports, we examine suicide policies across 116 detention facilities in the United States to highlight how detention facilities supervised by ICE unsuccessfully prevents detainee suicide due to organizational failure. Under ICE's oversight, facilities are inadequately staffed and resourced, resulting in the failure to implement federally mandated protocols regarding detainees' well-being competently and promptly. Their organizational failure leads to unequal health outcomes for Latinxs who are overrepresented across immigrant detention.

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.

Anti-immigrant Rhetoric and the Experiences of Latino Immigrants in the Emergency Department

Introduction

Anti-immigrant rhetoric and increased enforcement of immigration laws have induced worry and safety concerns among undocumented Latino immigrants (UDLI) and legal Latino residents/citizens (LLRC), with some delaying the time to care.1 In this study, we conducted a qualitative analysis of statements made by emergency department (ED) patients – a majority of whom were UDLI and LLRC – participating in a study to better understand their experiences and fears with regard to anti-immigrant rhetoric, immigration enforcement, and ED utilization.

Methods

We conducted a multi-site study, surveying patients in three California safety-net EDs serving large immigrant populations from June 2017–December 2018. Of 1684 patients approached, 1337 (79.4%) agreed to participate; when given the option to provide open-ended comments, 260 participants provided perspectives about their experiences during the years immediately following the 2016 United States presidential election. We analyzed these qualitative data using constructivist grounded theory.

Results

We analyzed comments from 260 individuals. Among ED patients who provided qualitative data, 59% were women and their median age was 45 years (Interquartile range 33–57 years). Undocumented Latino immigrants comprised 49%, 31% were LLRC, and 20% were non-Latino legal residents. As their primary language, 68% spoke Spanish. We identified six themes: fear as a barrier to care (especially for UDLI); the negative impact of fear on health and wellness (physical and mental health, delays in care); factors influencing fear (eg, media coverage); and future solutions, including the need for increased communication about rights.

Conclusion

Anti-immigrant rhetoric during the 2016 US presidential campaign contributed to fear and safety concerns among UDLI and LLRC accessing healthcare. This is one of the few studies that captured firsthand experiences of UDLI in the ED. Our findings revealed fear-based barriers to accessing emergency care, protective and contributing factors to fear, and the negative impact of fear. There is a need for increased culturally informed patient communication about rights and resources, strategic media campaigns, and improved access to healthcare for undocumented individuals.

Violence, Place, and Strengthened Space: A Review of Immigration Stress, Violence Exposure, and Intervention for Immigrant Latinx Youth and Families

Latinx immigrant families are greatly impacted by US policies and practices that limit immigrant families' and children's rights. This article reviews the effects of such policies and the growing literature examining migration experiences. Latinx immigrant youth and parents may encounter multiple stressors across the stages of migration, including physical and structural violence, fear, poverty, and discrimination, which contribute to higher rates of mental health problems in this population. Despite significant trauma exposure, immigrants demonstrate incredible resilience within themselves, their families, and their communities and through movements and policies aimed at protecting their rights. Numerous culturally relevant universal, targeted, and intensive interventions were developed to magnify these protective factors to promote healing, advance immigration reform, and provide trauma-informed training and psychoeducation. Psychologistsplay a crucial role in implementing, evaluating, and advocating for accessible and collaborative approaches to care so that Latinx immigrant families have the resources to combat the harmful sequelae of immigration stress.

Aging and undocumented: The sociology of aging meets immigration status

Being undocumented is strongly correlated with low wages, employment in high risk occupations, and poor healthcare access. We know surprisingly little about the social lives of older undocumented adults despite the vast literature about youth and young undocumented migrants. Literature about the immigrant health paradox casts doubts on the argument that unequal social conditions translate to poorer self-reported health and mortality, but few of these studies consider immigration status as the dynamic variable that it is. Reviewing research about older migrants and minorities, I point to the emergence of undocumented older persons as a demographic group that merits attention from researchers and policymakers. This nexus offers important lessons for understanding stratification and inequality. This review offers new research directions that take into account multilevel consequences of growing old undocumented. Rather than arguing that older-aged undocumented migrants are aging into exclusion, I argue that we need careful empirical research to examine how the continuity of exclusion via policies can magnify inequalities on the basis of immigration status and racialization in older age.

(Il)legality and psychosocial well-being: Central Asian migrant women in Russia

Legal status has shown far-reaching consequences for international migrants' incorporation trajectories and outcomes in Western contexts. In dialogue with the extant research, we examine the implications of legal status for subjective well-being of Central Asian migrant women in the Russian Federation. Using survey data collected through respondent-driven sampling in two large cities, we compare migrants with regularized and irregular legal statuses on several interrelated yet distinct dimensions of subjective well-being. We find that, regardless of other factors, regularized status has a strong positive association with migrants' perception of their rights and freedoms but not with their feeling of being respected in society. Regularized status is positively associated with self-efficacy and negatively with depression. Yet, no net legal status difference is found in migrants' views on their relations with other migrants or on treatment of migrants by native-borns. The findings are situated within the cross-national scholarship on the ramifications of racialized immigrant (il)legality and its implications for membership and belonging.

Cultural Stress in the Age of Mass Xenophobia: Perspectives from Latin/o Adolescents

During the last four years, xenophobic rhetoric directed toward Latino immigrants in U.S. media outlets and political forums has greatly increased. Using a general inductive approach, this qualitative study examined the forms of cultural stress, with a focus on discrimination and xenophobia, experienced by Latino adolescents in urban U.S. settings in 2018 and 2019. Six focus groups were conducted in Miami and Los Angeles (three groups per city) with first- and second-generation tenth-grade Latino students (n = 34). The following four themes emerged from the data: perceived discrimination from other Latino subgroups (in-group discrimination), perceived discrimination from non-Latino groups (out-group discrimination), internalization of stressors and discrimination experienced by participants' parents, and the current U.S. political rhetoric surrounding immigration. Understanding cultural stress among Latino adolescents provides valuable insight for future interventions to offset negative health outcomes associated with cultural stress.

The 2016 presidential election and periviable births among Latina women

OBJECTIVE

Research suggests that sociopolitical stressors connected with the 2016 presidential election were associated with increases in preterm birth among Latina women. This study determined whether periviable births (<26 weeks gestation), which exhibit extremely high rates of infant morbidity and mortality, among US Latina women increased above expected levels after the 2016 US presidential election.

METHODS

We assigned singleton live births among Latina and non-Latina white women in the US to 96 monthly conception cohorts conceived from January 2009 through December 2016. We constructed risk ratios by dividing the rate of periviable birth among Latina women by the rate among non-Latina white women. We used time-series methods to determine if the risk ratio of periviable births in cohorts conceived by Latina women and exposed to the election of 2016 exceeded those expected from autocorrelation and calendar effects.

RESULTS

We found an outlying sequence of risk ratios among Latina women starting with the cohort conceived in April and ending with that conceived in November 2016. Increases in the ratios ranged from 0.07 above an expected of 1.61 for the cohort conceived in June, to 0.39 above an expected of 1.27 for the cohort conceived in April.

CONCLUSION

We find that pregnancies in gestation at the time of the 2016 election among Latina women yielded more than expected periviable births. These findings support the argument that the prospect of anti-immigrant policies promised by the Trump campaign sufficiently stressed Latina women to affect the timing of birth.

Sanctuary policies reduce deportations without increasing crime

The US government maintains that local sanctuary policies prevent deportations of violent criminals and increase crime. This report tests those claims by combining Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation data and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime data with data on the implementation dates of sanctuary policies between 2010 and 2015. Sanctuary policies reduced deportations of people who were fingerprinted by states or counties by about one-third. Those policies also changed the composition of deportations, reducing deportations of people with no criminal convictions by half-without affecting deportations of people with violent convictions. Sanctuary policies also had no detectable effect on crime rates. These findings suggest that sanctuary policies, although effective at reducing deportations, do not threaten public safety.

Latinos' deportation fears by citizenship and legal status, 2007 to 2018

Deportation has become more commonplace in the United States since the mid-2000s. Latin American noncitizens-encompassing undocumented and documented immigrants-are targeted for deportation. Deportation's threat also reaches naturalized and US-born citizens of Latino descent who are largely immune to deportation but whose loved ones or communities are deportable. Drawing on 6 y of data from the National Survey of Latinos, this article examines whether and how Latinos' deportation fears vary by citizenship and legal status and over time. Compared with Latino noncitizens, Latino US citizens report lower average deportation fears. However, a more complex story emerges when examining this divide over time: Deportation fears are high but stable among Latino noncitizens, whereas deportation fears have increased substantially among Latino US citizens. These trends reflect a growing national awareness of-rather than observable changes to-deportation policy and practice since the 2016 US presidential election. The article highlights how deportation or its consequences affects a racial group that the US immigration regime targets disproportionately.