I wish I were born in another time: Unintended consequences of immigration enforcement on birth outcomes.

This paper studies the effects of Secure Communities (SC), a wide-ranging immigration enforcement program, on infant health outcomes in the United States. Using administrative birth certificate data together with event study and triple-differences designs, I find that SC increases the incidence of very low birth weight by 21% for infants of foreign-born Hispanic mothers, who were most likely to be affected by immigration enforcement. There is suggestive evidence that the results are consistent with (i) changes in maternal stress induced by deportation fear and (ii) inadequate prenatal nutrition. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that this unintended social cost of immigration enforcement ranges from $872 million to $1.59 billion annually.

"I Can Never Feel Safe": Latinx Youth Voices on Psychosocial Impacts of 287(g) in Georgia.

Increasingly, immigration policies are understood as structural determinants, rooted in racism, nativism, and ethnocentrism, which raise serious public health concerns for Latinx adolescents' mental health. Our objective was to examine how immigration policy enforcement affects mental health of Latinx youth raised in a county with an aggressive interior immigration enforcement program. From 2009 to 2021, Gwinnett County, GA, led the nation in deportations under the 287(g) program as a "universal enforcement model," where local law enforcement were deputized to detain undocumented immigrants, primarily through traffic violations. From June to July 2022, we followed a participatory action research approach with two groups of Latinx youth who grew up in Gwinnett County. In total, 10 youth took photos related to the research question, and engaged in facilitated dialogue using photovoice guide SHOWED/VENCER for four, 2-hour sessions that were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed following grounded theory principles to arrive at a conceptual model codeveloped and validated by youth. Youth described how 287(g) led to policing and deportation in their communities, fueling stereotypes, and discrimination that criminalized Latinx immigrants. Youth linked immigration enforcement policies like 287(g) to exclusionary systems that contributed to fear, marginalization, and loss in their communities, bringing experiences of sadness, grief, isolation, hopelessness, and low self-worth. From youth-driven research, we identified mental health implications of the 287(g) program among Latinx youth. The cascading harms of immigration enforcement policies highlight the need to address these policies and identify immediate strategies to promote Latinx youth mental health.

The Impacts of Inclusionary State Immigrant Policies on Psychosocial Outcomes Among Latinx Adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: State-level policies that exclude immigrants, primarily undocumented, from public services and benefits have been found to have negative psychosocial impacts on Latinx adults, regardless of nativity. The effects of inclusionary policies-that is, extending public benefits to all immigrants-remain underexamined, as well as the impacts on adolescents. METHOD: We used data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey from 2009 to 2019 to examine the association between 7 state-level inclusionary policies and bullying victimization, low mood, and suicidality among Latinx adolescents via 2-way fixed-effects log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: Banning the use of eVerify in employment was associated with decreased bullying victimization (prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.53-0.74), low mood (PR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.98), and suicidality (PR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62-0.86). Extending public health insurance coverage was associated with decreased bullying victimization (PR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49-0.67), and mandating Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) training for health care workers was associated with decreased low mood (PR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69-0.91). Extending in-state tuition to undocumented students was associated with increased bullying victimization (PR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.30), and extending financial aid was associated with increased bullying victimization (PR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.08-2.19), low mood (PR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.08-1.40), and suicidality (PR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.01-1.89). CONCLUSION: The relationships between inclusionary state-level policies and Latinx adolescent psychosocial outcomes were mixed. Although most inclusionary policies were associated with improved psychosocial outcomes, Latinx adolescents residing in states with inclusionary policies related to higher education had worse psychosocial outcomes. Results suggest the importance of elucidating the unintended consequences of well-intentioned policies and the importance of continued efforts to reduce anti-immigrant sentiment.

County- and state-level immigration policies are associated with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation among Latino households.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between county- and state-level immigrant criminalizing and integrating policies and Latino household participation in the largest safety net program against food insecurity in the U.S., the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Our outcome, county-level proportion of SNAP-participating Latino households, and county-level covariates were obtained from the American Community Survey 1-year county files (N = 675 counties) for 13 years (2007-2019). Our exposures were county-level presence of sanctuary policies and a state-level immigrant friendliness score, created based on 19 immigrant criminalizing and integrating state-level policies obtained from the Urban Institute's State Immigration Policies Resource. We classified every county in the sample as 1) sanctuary policy + immigrant friendly state, 2) sanctuary policy + immigrant unfriendly state, 3) no sanctuary policy + immigrant friendly state, and 4) no sanctuary policy + immigrant unfriendly state. Using multivariable generalized linear models that adjusted for poverty levels and other social composition characteristics of counties, we found that county-level SNAP participation among Latino households was 1.1 percentage-point higher in counties with sanctuary policies (B = 1.12, 95%CI = 0.26-1.98), compared to counties with no sanctuary policies, and 1.6 percentage-point higher in counties with sanctuary policies in immigrant friendly states (B = 1.59, 95%CI = 0.33-2.84), compared to counties with no sanctuary policy in immigrant unfriendly states. Local and state immigration policy, even when unrelated to SNAP eligibility, may influence SNAP participation among Latino households. Jurisdictions which lack sanctuary policies or have more criminalizing and less integrating policies should consider adopting targeted outreach strategies to increase SNAP enrollment among Latino households.

The role of states in U.S. immigration: A study of population dynamics and subnational immigration laws.

Legislative action on issues of immigration emerged prominently across and within US states throughout the 2000s. The emerging literature on this topic demonstrates the political motivations driving anti-immigrant laws that negatively impact the mobility of Hispanic/Latino and Foreign-born populations across US states. Considerable research identifies the political mechanisms driving restrictive state-level immigration policies. Despite the growth of this scholarly work, the impact of these laws within states requires further study. This paper broadens the approach to the study of restrictive state-level omnibus immigration laws (OILs) using a rich dataset to uncover the effects of these laws on compositional change for undocumented, foreign-born, and Hispanic/Latino populations from 2005 to 2017. Using a quasi-experimental design, I show that by passing omnibus immigration laws, states shape demographic patterns of Foreign-born populations. Specifically, I find that states that pass omnibus immigration laws experience a decrease in undocumented and Foreign-born populations relative to states that did not pass similar laws. Effects are estimated each year after the passage of OILs, providing additional insight into the temporal impact of omnibus immigration laws on the settlement patterns of these groups. I conclude by discussing the theoretical implications of the multiple interior immigration law and policies, specifically at the state level, and their salience in shaping population dynamics across the United States.

Immigration Enforcement Climate in Georgia and the Mental Health of Latinx Immigrants.

INTRODUCTION: Immigrant-related social policies and immigration enforcement contribute to a sociopolitical environment that affects immigrants' health. This exploratory study in six metro-Atlanta counties examined associations among immigrants' perceived vulnerability to harmful immigrant-related social policies and county-level 287(g) agreements (which facilitate cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities), county-level immigration enforcement levels (arrests, community arrests, detainers, and removals), and immigrants' mental health. METHODS: Using data from a 2020 study among Latinx parents who were undocumented or members of mixed-status families (N = 140), we merged data on individuals' perceived policy vulnerability and depressive and anxiety symptoms with county 287(g) status and immigration enforcement levels. RESULTS: Perceived policy vulnerability was not associated with county-level 287(g) status or immigration enforcement levels. Greater policy vulnerability and Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests were associated with higher depressive and anxiety symptoms, but 287(g) status was associated with lower depressive and anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSION: Perceived policy vulnerability, 287(g) status, and immigration enforcement levels do not always align and can have different associations with mental health.

Beyond "Chilling Effects": Latinx and Asian Immigrants' Experiences With Enforcement and Barriers to Health Care.

OBJECTIVES: Immigration enforcement policies are associated with immigrants' barriers to health care. Current evidence suggests that enforcement creates a "chilling effect" in which immigrants avoid care due to fear of encountering enforcement. Yet, there has been little examination of the impact of immigrants' direct encounters with enforcement on health care access. We examined some of the first population-level data on Asian and Latinx immigrants' encounters with law and immigration enforcement and assessed associations with health care access. METHODS: We analyzed the 2018 and 2019 Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy survey in which Asian and Latinx immigrants in California (n=1681) reported on 7 enforcement experiences (eg, racial profiling and deportation). We examined the associations between measures of individual and cumulative enforcement experiences and the usual sources of care and delay in care. RESULTS: Latinx, compared with Asian respondents, reported the highest levels of enforcement experiences. Almost all individual enforcement experiences were associated with delaying care for both groups. Each additional cumulative experience was associated with a delay in care for both groups (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.10-1.50). There were no associations with the usual source of care. CONCLUSION: Findings confirm that Latinx immigrants experience high levels of encounters with the enforcement system and highlight new data on Asian immigrants' enforcement encounters. Direct experiences with enforcement have a negative relationship with health care access. Findings have implications for health systems to address the needs of immigrants affected by enforcement and for changes to health and immigration policy to ensure immigrants' access to care.

Immigration Policy is Health Policy: News Media Effects on Health Disparities for Latinx Immigrant and Indigenous Groups.

Legal exclusions and cultural factors reproduce barriers to health care by enforcing boundaries between citizens and immigrants, leading to a range of health risks and disparities for Latinx immigrant and Indigenous communities. This study utilized a mixed-methods examination of news media and ethnographic interviews guided by a decolonial-inspired framework to demonstrate the linkages between policy discourse and health behaviors. Both newspaper articles and interviews with affected stakeholders show how immigrants and their families experience more significant health risks because of policy changes and proposals. Regardless of the political regime, media discourses that promote fear and threat sustain the overall effects of immigration policy enforcement strategies on health. Immigration policy is health policy, and these laws should be evaluated in terms of their impact on public health, in addition to other factors. Furthermore, the news media is a contextual factor for health promotion strategies and a target for health advocates working with immigrant and Indigenous communities.

International migrants' right to sexual and reproductive health care.

International migration puts people's sexual and reproductive health (SRH), particularly those of women and children, at increased risk. However, many international migrants are denied access to timely and adequate SRH information, goods, and services by governments and/or service providers. This article reviews relevant international human rights treaties to argue that the barriers faced by migrants in accessing SRH care constitute violations of international law. It is well established that migrants are guaranteed access to SRH care as a part of their right to health, as well as the rights enjoyed by vulnerable populations. Increasingly, hindrance of migrants' access to SRH care is also recognized as a threat to their rights to life and equality with non-migrants. The case of Toussaint v Canada illustrates how governments may be held accountable by human rights treaty monitoring bodies when they fail to respect and fulfill migrants' right to SRH care.

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

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.

Outlier analysis: Natural resources and immigration policy.

This replication underlines the importance of outlier diagnostics since many researchers have long neglected influential observations in OLS regression analysis. In his article, entitled "Primary Resources, Secondary Labor," Shin finds that advanced democracies with increased natural resource wealth, particularly from oil and natural gas production, are more likely to restrict low-skill immigration policy. By performing outlier diagnostics, this replication shows that Shin's findings are a statistical artifact. When one outlying country, Norway, is removed from the sample data, I observe almost no significant and negative relationship between oil wealth and immigration policy. When two outlying countries are excluded, the effect of oil wealth completely disappears. Robust regression analysis, a widely used remedial method for outlier problems, confirms the results of my outlier diagnostics.

Provider and administrator-level perspectives on strategies to reduce fear and improve patient trust in the emergency department in times of heightened immigration enforcement.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Heightened immigration enforcement may induce fear in undocumented patients when coming to the Emergency Department (ED) for care. Limited literature examining health system policies to reduce immigrant fear exists. In this multi-site qualitative study, we sought to assess provider and system-level policies on caring for undocumented patients in three California EDs. METHODS: We recruited 41 ED providers and administrators from three California EDs (in San Francisco, Oakland, and Sylmar) with large immigrant populations. Participants were recruited using a trusted gatekeeper and snowball sampling. We conducted semi-structured interviews and analyzed the transcripts using constructivist grounded theory. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 physicians, 11 nurses, 9 social workers, and 11 administrators, and identified 7 themes. Providers described existing policies and recent policy changes that facilitate access to care for undocumented patients. Providers reported that current training and communication around policies is limited, there are variations between who asks about and documents status, and there remains uncertainty around policy details, laws, and jurisdiction of staff. Providers also stated they are taking an active role in building safety and trust and see their role as supporting undocumented patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces ED-level health system perspectives and recommendations for caring for undocumented patients. There is a need for active, multi-disciplinary ED policy training, clear policy details including the extent of providers' roles, protocols on the screening and documentation of status, and continual reassessment of our health systems to reduce fear and build safety and trust with our undocumented communities.

International migration of unaccompanied minors: trends, health risks, and legal protection.

The global population of unaccompanied minors-children and adolescents younger than 18 years who migrate without their legal guardians-is increasing. However, as data are not systematically collected in any region, if collected at all, little is known about this diverse group of young people. Compared with adult migrants, unaccompanied minors are at greater risk of harm to their health and integrity because they do not have the protection provided by a family, which can affect their short-term and long-term health. This Review summarises evidence regarding the international migration and health of unaccompanied minors. Unaccompanied minors are entitled to protection that should follow their best interests as a primary consideration; however, detention, sometimes under the guise of protection, is a widespread practice. If these minors are provided with appropriate forms of protection, including health and psychosocial care, they can thrive and have good long-term outcomes. Instead, hostile immigration practices persist, which are not in the best interests of the child.

Health Care Utilization Before and After the "Muslim Ban" Executive Order Among People Born in Muslim-Majority Countries and Living in the US.

Importance: The health effects of restrictive immigration and refugee policies targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries are largely unknown. Objective: To analyze whether President Trump's 2017 executive order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (known as the "Muslim ban" executive order) was associated with changes in health care utilization by people born in targeted nations living in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients treated at Minneapolis-St. Paul HealthPartners primary care clinics or emergency departments (EDs) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. Patients were categorized as (1) born in Muslim ban-targeted nations, (2) born in Muslim-majority nations not listed in the executive order, or (3) non-Latinx and born in the US. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2019, to May 12, 2021. Exposures: Executive order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included the number of (1) primary care clinic visits, (2) missed primary care appointments, (3) primary care stress-responsive diagnoses, (4) ED visits, and (5) ED stress-responsive diagnoses. Visit trends were evaluated before and after the Muslim ban issuance using linear regression, and differences between the study groups after the executive order issuance were evaluated using difference-in-difference analyses. Results: A total of 252 594 patients were included in the analysis: 5667 in group 1 (3367 women [59.4%]; 5233 Black individuals [92.3%]), 1254 in group 2 (627 women [50%]; 391 White individuals [31.2%]), and 245 673 in group 3 (133 882 women [54.5%]; 203 342 White individuals [82.8%]). Group 1 was predominantly born in Somalia (5231 of 5667 [92.3%]) and insured by Medicare or Medicaid (4428 [78.1%]). Before the Muslim ban, primary care visits and stress-responsive diagnoses were increasing for individuals from Muslim-majority nations (groups 1 and 2). In the year after the ban, there were approximately 101 additional missed primary care appointments among people from Muslim-majority countries not named in the ban (point estimate [SE], 6.73 [2.90]; P = .02) and approximately 232 additional ED visits by individuals from Muslim ban-targeted nations (point estimate [SE], 3.41 [1.53]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that after issuance of the Muslim ban executive order, missed primary care appointments and ED visits increased among people from Muslim-majority countries living in Minneapolis-St. Paul.