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.

Caught Between a Well-Intentioned State and a Hostile Federal System: Local Implementation of Inclusive Immigrant Policies.

Policy Points Inclusive state immigrant policies that expand rights and resources for immigrants may improve population health, but little is known about their local-level implementation. Local actors that have anti-immigrant attitudes can hinder the implementation of state policies, whereas the persistent influence of anti-immigrant federal policies reinforces barriers to accessing health and other resources granted by state policies. Local actors that serve immigrants and support state policy implementation lack the resources to counter anti-immigrant climates and federal policy threats. CONTEXT: In the United States, inclusive state-level policies can advance immigrant health and health care access by extending noncitizens' access to public benefits, workplace rights, and protections from immigration enforcement. Although state policies carry promise as structural population health interventions, there has been little examination of their implementation at the local level. Local jurisdictions play multiple roles in state policy implementation and possess distinct immigration climates. Examining the local implementation of state immigrant policy can address challenges and opportunities to ensure the health benefits of inclusive policies are realized equitably across states' regions. METHODS: To examine the local implementation of state immigrant policies, we selected a purposive sample of California counties with large immigrant populations and distinct social and political dynamics and conducted and analyzed in-depth interviews with 20 community-based organizations that provided health, safety net, and other services. FINDINGS: We found that there were tensions between the inclusionary goals of state immigrant policies and local anti-immigrant climates and federal policy changes. First, there were tensions between state policy goals and resistance from local law enforcement agencies and policymakers (e.g., Board of Supervisors). Second, because of the ongoing threats from federal immigration policies, there was a mismatch between the services and resources provided by state policies and local community needs. Finally, organizations that served immigrants were responsible for contributing to policy implementation but lacked resources to meet community needs while countering local resistance and federal policy threats. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes knowledge regarding the challenges that emerge after state immigrant policies are enacted. The tensions among state immigrant policies, local immigration climates, and federal policy changes indicate that state immigrant policies are not implemented equally across state communities, resulting in challenges and limited benefits from policies for many immigrant communities.

Addressing racial/ethnic inequities in vaccine hesitancy and uptake: lessons learned from the California alliance against COVID-19.

Lack of trust in biomedical research, government, and health care systems, especially among racial/ethnic minorities and under-resourced communities, is a longstanding issue rooted in social injustice. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted existing health and socioeconomic inequities and increased the urgency for solutions to provide access to timely, culturally, and linguistically appropriate evidence-based information about COVID-19; and ultimately to promote vaccine uptake. California's statewide alliance STOP COVID-19 CA (comprising eleven sites), leverages long standing community partnerships to better understand concerns, misinformation, and address racial/ethnic inequities in vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Using data from the California CEAL Communication Working Group, we demonstrate the wide range of strategies, communication methods, languages, and trusted messengers that have been effective in reaching diverse communities across the state. We also showcase challenges and lessons learned, such as the importance of including trusted community partners to share information or provide vaccines. These approaches, rooted in community engagement, are crucial for addressing inequities and responding to future public health emergencies.

Coverage and Framing of Immigration Policy in US Newspapers.

Policy Points Although immigration policy is recognized as a social determinant of health, less is known about how mechanisms, such as news coverage of policy, influence intermediary and proximal health processes like seeking health care. The extent of news coverage of federal, state, and local exclusionary or integration immigration policies can influence public agendas regarding immigrant inclusion and exclusion. Exclusionary federal immigrant policies have dominated the news across the United States over the past ten years, despite active immigrant integration policymaking at national, state, and local levels. CONTEXT: Immigration policymaking at federal, state, and local levels in the United States has proliferated in the past decade. While evidence demonstrates that immigration policy is a determinant of health, there has been limited examination of the mechanisms by which policy influences proximal health processes. News coverage has served as a central platform for debates over restrictive and inclusive immigration policies and may constitute an important health mechanism by shaping public agendas, influencing support for immigrant exclusion or inclusion, and framing policy issues, thereby influencing immigrants' social climates. This study sought to examine the extent of news coverage of exclusionary and inclusive immigration policy at federal and state levels and variations in messages about immigrants during two periods of extensive policymaking. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative content analysis of newspapers' coverage of immigration policy between 2010 and 2013 and between 2017 and 2019. We conducted a systematic NewsBank search of articles covering legislation, lawsuits, and other policies related to immigration (n = 931). Articles were coded for policy type and level, positive or negative framing of immigrants, and other characteristics. Our analysis then compared the patterns of the two periods. RESULTS: In both periods, the majority of coverage focused on exclusionary policies at the federal level, despite a significant increase in integration policies between 2017 and 2019. We found significant shifts in both the negative and positive framing of immigrants, from the dominant negative messages of immigrants as an economic drain to immigrants as criminals and the dominant positive messages of immigrants' economic contributions to immigrants as families. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2010, coverage of exclusionary federal policy has consistently dominated the news, as messages have increasingly described immigrants as either criminals or part of families. We discuss the health implications and future research directions of news coverages' role in influencing the immigration policy and social contexts that have been linked to health outcomes.

Laboring With the Heart: Promotoras' Transformations, Professional Challenges, and Relationships With Communities.

Little is known about promotoras' professional experiences engaging in Latinx health promotion. In this promotora-led community-based participatory study, we purposively recruited and interviewed 30 Spanish-speaking promotoras who worked in Los Angeles County and who had at least 5 years of experience as promotoras. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, findings revealed promotoras self-identified as health professionals who offered unique, insider perspectives. Challenges arose as employers viewed promotoras as volunteer lay health workers, while promotoras desired opportunities for professional growth. Motivation to continue working as promotoras stemmed from their commitment to Latinx communities. We provide recommendations to strengthen community-based capacity for advancing Latinx health.

States with fewer criminalizing immigrant policies have smaller health care inequities between citizens and noncitizens.

BACKGROUND: In the last thirty years, major shifts in immigrant policy at national and state levels has heightened boundaries among citizens, permanent residents, and those with other statuses. While there is mounting evidence that citizenship influences immigrant health care inequities, there has been less focus on how policies that reinforce citizenship stratification may shape the extent of these inequities. We examine the extent to which the relationship between citizenship and health care inequities is moderated by state-level criminalization policies. METHODS: Taking a comparative approach, we assess how distinct criminalization policy contexts across US states are associated with inequitable access to care by citizenship status. Utilizing a data set with state-level measures of criminalization policy and individual-level measures of having a usual source of care from the National Health Interview Survey, we use mixed-effects logistic regression models to assess the extent to which inequities in health care access between noncitizens and US born citizens vary depending on states' criminalization policies. RESULTS: Each additional criminalization policy was associated with a lower odds that noncitizens in the state had a usual source of care, compared to US born citizens. CONCLUSION: Criminalization policies shape the construction of citizenship stratification across geography, such as exacerbating inequities in health care access by citizenship.

Cardiovascular disease behavioral risk factors among Latinos by citizenship and documentation status.

BACKGROUND: Studies have observed that recent Latino immigrants tend to have a physical health advantage compared to immigrants who have been in the US for many years or Latinos who are born in the United States. An explanation of this phenomenon is that recent immigrants have positive health behaviors that protect them from chronic disease risk. This study aims to determine if trends in positive cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk behaviors extend to Latino immigrants in California according to citizenship and documentation status. METHODS: We examined CVD behavioral risk factors by citizenship/documentation statuses among Latinos and non-Latino US-born whites in the 2011-2015 waves of the California Health Interview Survey. Adjusted multivariable logistic regressions estimated the odds for CVD behavioral risk factors, and analyses were stratified by sex. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, using US-born Latinos as the reference group, undocumented Latino immigrants had the lowest odds of current smoking, binge drinking, and frequency of fast food consumption. There were no differences across the groups for fruit/vegetable intake and walking for leisure. Among those with high blood pressure, undocumented immigrants were least likely to be on medication. Undocumented immigrant women had better patterns of CVD behavioral risk factors on some measures compared with other Latino citizenship and documentation groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study observes that the healthy Latino immigrant advantage seems to apply to undocumented female immigrants, but it does not necessarily extend to undocumented male immigrants who had similar behavioral risk profiles to US-born Latinos.

Inclusive state immigrant policies and health insurance among Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, and White noncitizens in the United States.

Objectives: Policy-making related to immigrant populations is increasingly conducted at the state-level. State policy contexts may influence health insurance coverage by determining noncitizens' access to social and economic resources and shaping social environments. Using nationally representative data, we investigate the relationship between level of inclusion of state immigrant policies and health insurance coverage and its variation by citizenship and race/ethnicity. Methods: Data included a measure of level of inclusion of the state policy context from a scan of 10 policies enacted prior to 2014 and data for adults ages 18-64 from the 2014 American Community Survey. A fixed-effects logistic regression model tested the association between having health insurance and the interaction of level of inclusiveness, citizenship, and race/ethnicity, controlling for state- and individual-level characteristics. Results: Latino noncitizens experienced higher rates of being insured in states with higher levels of inclusion, while Asian/Pacific Islander noncitizens experienced lower levels. The level of inclusion was not associated with differences in insurance coverage among noncitizen Whites and Blacks. Conclusions: Contexts with more inclusive immigrant policies may have the most benefit for Latino noncitizens.

Legal Status, Time in the USA, and the Well-Being of Latinos in Los Angeles.

In the USA, undocumented Latino immigrants may have poorer health because of barriers to health care, stressors, and detrimental effects of immigration enforcement. Previous immigrant health research, however, suggests that recently arrived Latino immigrants have better health than US-born Latinos and their health deteriorates over time. Given the current environments that undocumented immigrants face, legal status is a structural factor that likely influences the patterns of immigrant health. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the extent to which physical and mental health differed by legal status and duration in the USA for the Latino population in Los Angeles County, California. We conducted analysis of Latino respondents (n = 1396) to the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS) Wave II. We examined self-reported health, depression measured by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form, and blood pressure collected by trained interviewers. Respondents reported their legal status, time in the USA, and other sociodemographic characteristics. Regression models were used to test associations between each outcome and 1) legal status and 2) legal status by duration (≤ 15 and > 15 years) in the USA. Without taking duration into account, we found no significant differences in outcomes between undocumented, documented, or US-born Latinos. Taking duration into account, shorter duration undocumented immigrants had worse self-reported health than the US born. Undocumented immigrants, regardless of duration, had higher blood pressure than documented immigrants who had been in the USA for less time and the same level of blood pressure as the US born. In contrast, shorter duration documented immigrants had lower blood pressure compared to longer duration documented immigrants and US-born counterparts, and marginally lower blood pressure than shorter duration undocumented immigrants. The findings suggest that the "health advantage" generally presumed to exist among immigrants may not affect undocumented immigrants.

The legacy of immigration policies and employment exclusion: Assessing the relationship between employment exclusions and immigrant health.

Restrictive federal and state immigration policies create conditions of employment exclusion that may negatively influence the health of immigrants. In particular, these policy effects are reflected in labor market and workplace experiences that determine the types of work and employment opportunities that immigrants are able to access and pursue. This study examines the relationship between both cumulative and individual measures of employment exclusion and self-rated health and psychological distress among Asian and Latino immigrants in California, and whether this relationship is modified by legal status. We used data from the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) study (n = 2010). We used both multivariable logistic regression and linear regression models for our analyses. For cumulative models, labor market exclusion was associated with poor health (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.46). Workplace exclusion was also associated with poor self-rated health (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.82) and increased psychological distress (ß = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.31, 1.07). For individual measures of employment exclusion, settling for a job - a labor market exclusion - and working in a dangerous job and experiencing wage theft - workplace exclusions - were associated with poor health and increased psychological distress. There was no evidence that the association between employment exclusions and health varied by legal status. These findings demonstrate that the combined effect of employment exclusions is detrimental to immigrant health. To improve population health, public health researchers should continue to interrogate the policy conditions at the federal, state, and local level that exclude immigrants from employment opportunities and workplace protections.

The "disproportionate costs" of immigrant policy on the health of Latinx and Asian immigrants.

There is growing evidence that Asian and Latinx immigrants' health and health care access is shaped by immigrant policies that determine their rights, protections, and access to resources and the extent to which they are targeted by policing or deportation based on citizenship/legal status and other immigration-related social categories. However, there is limited population-based evidence of how immigrants experience the direct consequences of policies, nor of the impact of such consequences on their health. Between 2018 and 2020, we conducted the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) Study, developing a population-based survey of Asian and Latinx immigrants in California (n = 2010) that measured 23 exclusionary experiences under health care and social services, education, labor/employment, and immigration enforcement policies. Applying Ruth Wilson Gilmore's concept of "disproportionate costs," we conducted a latent class analysis (LCA) and regression models of the RIGHTS data to 1) describe patterns of immigrant policy exclusion experienced by Asian and Latinx immigrants and 2) test relationships between patterns of policy exclusion and health care access and health status. LCA analyses identified 6 classes of distinct combinations of policy exclusions. In regression analyses, respondents in the class with cumulative exclusions across all policy sectors had the worst health care access and highest level of psychological distress, but the best self-rated health; while those in the class with employment and enforcement exclusions also had poor health care access. Respondents in the other 3 classes experienced combinations of health and social services exclusions, but these alone were not associated with worse outcomes. Findings show that the consequences of immigrant policies harm health through both cumulative exposure to and intersections of exclusions across policy sectors. Labor/employment and immigration enforcement policies, specifically, likely drive health inequities within immigrant populations. The RIGHTS study highlights the need to measure the cumulative and intersecting "disproportionate costs" of immigrant policy within diverse immigrant populations.

Immigrants' Enforcement Experiences and Concern about Accessing Public Benefits or Services.

Although exclusionary immigration policies are associated with fear of deportation and avoidance of public benefits, relationships between immigration enforcement policy and public charge policies are largely unknown. Using a California population-based survey of 1103 Asian and Latinx immigrants in 2018, we tested the relationship between immigrants' experiences with law enforcement and their concern about public charge. Direct encounters with various forms of law enforcement, including being asked to show proof of citizenship by law enforcement, staying inside to avoid police or immigration officials, and having known someone who had been deported, were associated with immigrants' avoidance of public benefits due to public charge concerns. Latinx immigrants were more likely to be concerns about public charge than Asians. Intersections among immigration policies deserve further consideration. There is a need to provide accurate and reliable information to immigrant communities about public benefits and advocate for inclusive immigration policies.

The Influence of Organizational Aspects of the U.S. Agricultural Industry and Socioeconomic and Political Conditions on Farmworkers' COVID-19 Workplace Safety.

Farmworkers in the U.S. experienced high rates of COVID-19 infection and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their workplace may have been a significant place of exposure to the novel coronavirus. Using political economy of health theory, this study sought to understand how organizational aspects of the agricultural industry and broader socioeconomic and political conditions shaped farmworkers' COVID-19 workplace safety during the pandemic. Between July 2020 and April 2021, we conducted and analyzed fourteen in-depth, semi-structured phone interviews with Latinx farmworkers in California. Findings show that regulatory oversight reinforced COVID-19 workplace safety. In the absence of regulatory oversight, the organization of the agricultural industry produced COVID-19 workplace risks for farmworkers; it normalized unsafe working conditions and the worker-rather than employer-responsibility for workplace safety. Under these conditions, farmworkers enacted personal COVID-19 preventative practices but were limited by financial hardships that were exacerbated by the precarious nature of agricultural employment and legal status exclusions from pandemic-related aid. Unsafe workplace conditions negatively impacted workplace camaraderie. Study findings have implications for farmworkers' individual and collective agency to achieve safe working conditions. Occupational safety interventions must address the organizational aspects that produce workplace health and safety inequities and disempower farmworkers in the workplace.

Undocumented Latino Immigrants and the Latino Health Paradox.

INTRODUCTION: Despite having worse healthcare access and other social disadvantages, immigrants have, on average, better health outcomes than U.S.-born individuals. For Latino immigrants, this is known as the Latino health paradox. It is unknown whether this phenomenon applies to undocumented immigrants. METHODS: This study used restricted California Health Interview Survey data from 2015 to 2020. Data were analyzed to test the relationships between citizenship/documentation status and physical and mental health among Latinos and U.S.-born Whites. Analyses were stratified by sex (male/female) and length of U.S. residence (<15 years/>= 15 years). RESULTS: Undocumented Latino immigrants had lower predicted probabilities of reporting any health condition, asthma, and serious psychological distress and had a higher probability of overweight/obesity than U.S.-born Whites. Despite having a higher probability of overweight/obesity, undocumented Latino immigrants did not have probabilities of reporting diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart disease different from those of U.S.-born Whites after adjusting for having a usual source of care. Undocumented Latina women had a lower predicted probability of reporting any health condition and a higher predicted probability of overweight/obesity than U.S.-born White women. Undocumented Latino men had a lower predicted probability of reporting serious psychological distress than U.S.-born White men. There were no differences in outcomes when comparing shorter- with longer-duration undocumented Latino immigrants. CONCLUSIONS: This study observed that the Latino health paradox may express patterns for undocumented Latino immigrants that are different from those for other Latino immigrant groups, emphasizing the importance of accounting for documentation status when conducting research on this population.

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.

Rural Household Food Insecurity among Latino Immigrants during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

U.S. food insecurity rates rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts on Latino immigrant households. We conducted a qualitative study to investigate how household food environments of rural Latino immigrants were affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-one respondents (42% from low food security households) completed interviews (July 2020-April 2021) across four rural counties in California. A rural household food security conceptual framework was used to analyze the data. Early in the pandemic, food availability was impacted by school closures and the increased consumption of meals/snacks at home; food access was impacted by reduced incomes. Barriers to access included limited transportation, excess distance, and lack of convenience. Key resources for mitigating food insecurity were the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer (P-EBT), school meals, charitable food programs, and social capital, although the adequacy and acceptability of charitable food distributions were noted issues. Respondents expressed concern about legal status, stigma, and the public charge rule when discussing barriers to government nutrition assistance programs. They reported that food pantries and P-EBT had fewer access barriers. Positive coping strategies included health-promoting food substitutions and the reduced consumption of meals outside the home. Results can inform the development of policy and systems interventions to decrease food insecurity and nutrition-related health disparities among rural Latino immigrants.

The structural impacts of enforcement policy on Latino immigrant health.

As evidence of the negative health impact of immigration enforcement policy continues to mount, public health research has focused primarily on the psychosocial health mechanisms, such as fear and stress, by which immigration enforcement may harm health. We build on this research using structural vulnerability theory to investigate the structural processes by which enforcement policy may shape Latino immigrants' health. We conducted qualitative analysis of testimonios from a purposive sample of Latino immigrants (n=14) living in Southern California in 2015, a period of significant federal, state, and local enforcement policy change. Testimonios are a narrative methodology used across the social sciences and humanities to center the voices of marginalized people. Through unstructured testimonio interviews, we sought to understand Latino immigrants' experiences with immigration enforcement and identify specific structural factors by which those experiences may influence health. Respondents' narratives revealed that singular enforcement experiences were not viewed as the sole manifestation of enforcement, but as part of a system of intersecting physical, legal, institutional, and economic exclusions which shaped the social and economic conditions that influence health. These exclusions reinforced respondents' marginalization, produced instability about the future, and generated a sense of individual responsibility and blame. We discuss how physical, legal, institutional, and economic processes may influence health and propose a framework to inform population health research on intersecting structural health mechanisms.

Working around safety net exclusions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study of rural Latinx immigrants.

Rural Latinx immigrants experienced disproportionately negative health and economic impacts during the COVID-19 pandemic. They contended with the pandemic at the intersection of legal status exclusions from the safety net and long-standing barriers to health care in rural regions. Yet, little is known about how rural Latinx immigrants navigated such exclusions. In this qualitative study, we examined how legal status stratification in rural contexts influenced Latinx immigrant families' access to the safety net. We conducted interviews with first- and second-generation Latinx immigrants (n = 39) and service providers (n = 20) in four rural California communities between July 2020 and April 2021. We examined personal and organizational strategies used to obtain economic, health, and other forms of support. We found that Latinx families navigated a limited safety net with significant exclusions. In response, they enacted short-term strategies and practices - workarounds - that met immediate, short-term needs. Workarounds, however, were enacted through individual efforts, allowing little recourse beyond immediate personal agency. Some took the form of strategic practices within the safety net, such as leveraging resources that did not require legal status verification; in other cases, they took the form of families opting to avoid the safety net altogether.