Immigration Detention in the United States: Identifying Alternatives That Comply With Human Rights and Advance Public Health.

Under international law, the United States is obligated to uphold noncitizens' fundamental rights, including their rights to health. However, current US immigration laws-and their enforcement-not only fail to fulfill migrants' health rights but actively undermine their realization and worsen the pandemic's spread. Specifically, the US immigration system's reliance on detention, which precludes effective social distancing, increases risks of exposure and infection for detainees, staff, and their broader communities. International agreements clearly state that the prolonged, mandatory, or automatic detention of people solely because of their migration status is a human rights violation on its own. But in the context of COVID-19, the consequences for migrants' right to health are particularly acute. Effective alternatives exist: other countries demonstrate the feasibility of adopting and implementing immigration laws that establish far less restrictive, social services-based approaches to enforcement that respect human rights. To protect public health and realize its global commitments, the United States must shift away from detaining migrants as standard practice and adopt effective, humane alternatives-both amid COVID-19 and permanently.

The Health of Undocumented Latinx Immigrants: What We Know and Future Directions.

Undocumented Latinx immigrants experience unique factors prior to migration, during migration, and after migration that shape their health. Our review summarizes the limited but growing literature highlighting how exposure to trauma, immigration enforcement, changes to social networks, and discrimination negatively affect the mental and physical health of undocumented Latinx immigrants. We also discuss how policies and social ties can promote their health. We focus on areas of particular concern, including health care, mental health, and HIV. Future research should use interdisciplinary approaches and intersectional frameworks to understand and address health inequities. Conducting research with undocumented Latinx immigrant communities requires community engagement, assurance of confidentiality, and creative recruitment and retention strategies. Recommendations for public health practice include investing in community health centers and organizations to ensure access to health and social services; presenting results with sufficient contextualization to interpret their generalizability; and advocating for federal-, state-, and local-level policy changes that reduce the negative health consequences associated with being undocumented.

Unspoken inequality: how COVID-19 has exacerbated existing vulnerabilities of asylum-seekers, refugees, and undocumented migrants in South Africa.

An estimated 2 million foreign-born migrants of working age (15-64) were living in South Africa (SA) in 2017. Structural and practical xenophobia has driven asylum-seekers, refugees, and undocumented migrants in SA to abject poverty and misery. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) containment measures adopted by the SA government through the lockdown of the nation have tremendously deepened the unequal treatment of asylum-seekers and refugees in SA. This can be seen through the South African government's lack of consideration of this marginalized population in economic, poverty, and hunger alleviation schemes. Leaving this category of our society out of the national response safety nets may lead to negative coping strategies causing mental health issues and secondary health concerns. An effective response to the socioeconomic challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic should consider the economic and health impact of the pandemic on asylum-seekers, refugees, and undocumented migrants.

Barriers to providing optimal dialysis care for undocumented immigrants: Policy challenges and solutions.

Access to hemodialysis for undocumented immigrants with end stage renal disease (ESRD) is widely variable across the United States and highly dependent upon state policy. Some states have enacted policies to provide coverage for standard dialysis to undocumented immigrants, while other states do not provide coverage. Patients living in some states which do not provide coverage rely on emergency federal coverage through the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. However, this act requires that patients present with an acute, life-threatening condition in order to receive dialysis, which is then referred to as "emergency-only hemodialysis" (EoHD). Because EoHD requires patients to present in life-threatening condition, patients who rely on EoHD suffer from debilitating physical symptoms and psychosocial distress. Undocumented immigrants who receive EoHD also have staggeringly higher mortality rates than those who receive standard hemodialysis. Moreover, in comparison with standard dialysis, EoHD results in greater health care utilization and higher health care costs. Therefore, EoHD represents a very low value care practice, providing substandard care at a greater cost. Policy change is urgently needed to provide undocumented immigrants with ESRD access to the standard of care; that is, three-times weekly standard hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.

Health care for undocumented immigrants during the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic in Lombardy, Italy.

Despite concern on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on undocumented immigrants, quantitative evidence on the issue is scant. We analyze socioeconomic and health conditions of 1590 undocumented immigrants in Milan, Lombardy, one of the regions with the highest COVID-19 clinical burden in the world that does not guarantee access to primary care for these individuals. We document a sharp reduction in visit number after lockdown, with 16% frequency of acute respiratory infections, compatible with COVID-19. Moreover, housing conditions make it difficult to implement public health measures. Results suggest the need to foster primary care by undocumented immigrants to face COVID-19 emergency.

Clinical Ethicists Awakened: Addressing Two Generations of Clinical Ethics Issues Involving Undocumented Patients.

Because the United States has failed to provide a pathway to citizenship for its long-term undocumented population, clinical ethicists have more than 20 years of addressing issues that arise in caring for this population. I illustrate that these challenges fall into two sets of issues. First-generation issues involve finding ethical ways to treat and discharge patients who are uninsured and ineligible for safety-net resources. More recently, ethicists have been invited to help address second-generation issues that involve facilitating the presentation for care of undocumented patients. In the current environment of widespread fear of deportation in the immigrant community, ethicists are working with health care providers to address patient concerns that prevent them from seeking care. I illustrate that in both generations of issues, values implicit within health care, namely, caring, efficiency, and promotion of public health, guide the strategies that are acceptable and recommended.

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. 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.

Why we dehumanize illegal immigrants: A US mixed-methods study.

Dehumanization is a topic of significant interest for academia and society at large. Empirical studies often have people rate the evolved nature of outgroups and prior work suggests immigrants are common victims of less-than-human treatment. Despite existing work that suggests who dehumanizes particular outgroups and who is often dehumanized, the extant literature knows less about why people dehumanize outgroups such as immigrants. The current work takes up this opportunity by examining why people dehumanize immigrants said to be illegal and how measurement format affects dehumanization ratings. Participants (N = 672) dehumanized such immigrants more if their ratings were made on a slider versus clicking images of hominids, an effect most pronounced for Republicans. Dehumanization was negatively associated with warmth toward illegal immigrants and the perceived unhappiness felt by illegal immigrants from U.S. immigration policies. Finally, most dehumanization is not entirely blatant but instead, captured by virtuous violence and affect as well, suggesting the many ways that dehumanization can manifest as predicted by theory. This work offers a mechanistic account for why people dehumanize immigrants and addresses how survey measurement artifacts (e.g., clicking on images of hominids vs. using a slider) affect dehumanization rates. We discuss how these data extend dehumanization theory and inform empirical research.

Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric, Deteriorating Health Access, and COVID-19 in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.

The Rio Grande Valley of Texas has an exceptionally high number of COVID-19 cases and case fatality rate. The region makes up only 3% of the Texas population but, as of April 2021, accounted for 9% of the state's COVID-19 deaths. Additionally, during the summer of 2020, the Rio Grande Valley had one of the highest per capita infection rates in the United States. This paper explores the social-ecological elements that impact health-seeking behaviors in this community using interviews conducted with healthcare personnel and nonprofit leaders in the Rio Grande Valley between 2019 and 2020. Using this data, we found that anti-immigrant rhetoric has increased levels of fear among immigrants and mixed-status families, which has made them less willing to access healthcare. Additionally, we found that changes in the public charge rule has led to a decreasing number of children accessing government-provided health insurance. Our findings suggest that these outcomes likely contributed to the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak in the Rio Grande Valley.

Are the Undocumented Deserving? Health Workers' Views of Immigrants in Alabama.

Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for many public benefits and often rely on safety-net clinics, such as community health centers, for health care. Using in-depth interviews, we explored attitudes about undocumented immigrants' deservingness of health care among staff and professional health workers (n=31) at two safety-net clinics in Alabama, which passed a restrictive immigration law in 2011. We used content analysis to examine frequently used frames to describe health deservingness. Overall, a total of 27 frames were used by health workers. They most frequently justified their views using frames of medical humanitarianism (i.e., health workers should care for those in need) and equality (i.e., people should not be treated differently from one another). Several respondents used multiple, conflicting frames that simultaneously supported and questioned immigrants' deservingness of care. The diverse ways in which health workers in this sample framed undocumented immigrants' health deservingness may affect provider-patient interactions.

'Falling off the radar' of public health: The case of uninsured Chinese patients in Vienna, Austria.

In public health policy debates, the 2015-2016 refugee crisis made visible that even in European welfare states with (close to) universal health coverage there are specific vulnerable groups with highly limited access to health care. Among them is a population of so-called 'undocumented' or 'irregular' migrants who have no regular status of residence and falls off the radar of publicly funded health care services and thus from the public health surveillance systems. The aim of our study is to provide the first-of-its-kind evidence on the characteristics, health problems and health care needs of one such vulnerable group in Austria - Chinese migrants residing in Vienna without a regular status. Medical records of 74 uninsured assumingly undocumented Chinese patients were analysed. The data was provided by a Non-governmental organisation (NGO) which delivers primary care to uninsured people in Vienna. The most frequently diagnosed health problems clustered around cardiovascular and metabolic-related diseases (hypertension and diabetics) and there was a high burden of multiple chorionic non-communicable diseases. Further efforts and resources are needed for collecting more data in a systematic way. A trusting relationship between science and practice and a cooperative relationship between and among the government agencies and NGOs are essential for evidence-based public health policy making.

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Undocumented Latinx Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

This cross-sectional study examines COVID-19 infection status, vaccination uptake, and perceptions about the vaccine among Latinx patients presenting to the emergency department in California.

Effects of undocumented immigrants exclusion from health care coverage in Spain.

BACKGROUND: In 2012 the Spanish government passed Royal Decree-Law 16/2012 (RDL) aimed at containing public expenditure in response to the economic crisis. This RDL redefined just who would be entitled to public health care. As a result, a large proportion of undocumented immigrants in Spain were excluded from basic publicly financed health care with access only being granted under particular circumstances (emergency care, maternal care, children under 18, asylum seekers and victims of human trafficking). AIM: The aims of this paper are to identify the specific traits of this policy, review its impact on health and health care access, and to evaluate its economic impact. RESULTS: Most political parties and health professional groups opposed the RDL, and a large number of Spanish regions either declined to apply it or opted to apply it partially. To date, the RDL has had a considerable impact on the access of undocumented immigrants to public health care, with evidence suggesting that approximately 870,000 people have been excluded. A slight increase in infectious diseases has been reported, albeit not as high as originally predicted, and recent evidence points to an increase in mortality among this population subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Regional legislation favouring the coverage of undocumented immigrants might have acted as a counterweight and thus contained the negative health effects in this population subgroup. But the Constitutional Court invalidated all regional arrangements obliging regions to comply with the RDL.

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.

Participation in the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program as Reported by Documented and Undocumented Farm Worker Adults in the Households.

Debate surrounds the provision of Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits to undocumented immigrants. Few studies are available to estimate use of WIC services by documented and undocumented households using nationally representative data. The authors analyzed data from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) annual cross-sections from 1993 through 2009 (N = 40,896 person-years). Household documentation status is defined by the status of the adults in the household, not children. Simple mean differences, logistic regressions, and time charts described household participation in WIC over 2-year intervals. Without adjustments for covariates, 10.7% of undocumented farm workers' households and 12.4% of documented households received WIC benefits, yielding an odds ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.94). Logistic regressions revealed that for the same number of children in the household, participation by undocumented persons was higher than participation by documented persons. Time charts and logistic regressions with interaction terms showed a stronger correspondence between participation in WIC and number of children <6 years old in undocumented households than documented households. Undocumented farm workers' households were only a little less likely to participate in WIC than documented farm workers' households, and undocumented households' participation was especially responsive to the presence of children. These results are consistent with the legal requirements for WIC participation, which do not distinguish between documented and undocumented households. These results may be helpful in the debate surrounding the effects of undocumented workers on WIC participation and costs.