An official website of the United States government
Abstract 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.
more »
« less
Experiences of Immigrants During Disasters in the US: A Systematic Literature Review
As a vulnerable population, immigrants can be disproportionately affected by disasters. Because of their legal and migratory status, immigrants may have different challenges, needs, and possibilities when facing a disaster. Yet, within disaster studies, immigrants are rarely studied alone. Instead, they are often considered part of the large heterogeneous group of racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. This racial classification points to a gap in the literature and in our understanding of how disadvantaged groups may cope with disasters. To address this gap, the current study hypothesizes that: (1) Immigrants have unique experiences and disaster impacts compared to the broader aggregated category of racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. and (2) There are variations in disaster experiences and impacts across different types of immigrant subgroups beyond refugees. To explore these hypotheses, a study of the literature across six databases from 2018 to 2023was conducted. The review identified a total of 17 articles discussing immigrant experiences during disasters. Major cross-cutting themes on immigrant disaster experiences include fear of deportation, restrictive immigration status, excessive economic burden and labor exploitation, employment rigidity, adverse health outcomes, limited informational resources and limited social capital, selective disaster relief measures, and infrastructural challenges as regards to housing and transportation. Many of the themes identified are unique to immigrants, such as the fear of deportation, restrictive immigration status and visa policies, and selective disaster relief measures.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2103754
- PAR ID:
- 10609867
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Nature
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
- Volume:
- 27
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 1557-1912
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 134 to 148
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Children in the United States (N = 488, 4–11 years, 239 females, 248 males, one other, 53% White; data collected 2021–2022) participated in three studies investigating their expectations about immigrants. Participants recognized that immigration impacts characters' national identity and behaviors. Although previous research reported that children may essentialize nationality, participants instead reasoned flexibly about immigrant characters. Children expected immigrant characters to share behaviors and preferences with people from both their heritage and host countries, suggesting they may think immigrants hold dual national identities. Even the youngest children tested (ages 4–6) reasoned flexibly about behaviors based on immigration status. Thus, children appear to view national identity as constructed through social and cultural experiences, rather than something innate.more » « less
-
Ebert, Kim; Park, Lisa Sun-Hee (Ed.)Despite public concern over immigration enforcement, little attention has been given to transgender immigrants, who are disproportionately at risk for arrest and deportation. Organizations dedicated to protecting LGBT people’s rights and immigrant rights have been working to address this issue and shape policy decisions to better protect transgender immigrants in detention centers; however, research has not investigated how these organizations frame transgender immigrant detainees and their experience in detention to accomplish their goals. This current study uses a content analysis of public documents spanning 2009–2021 from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Transgender Law Center (TLC) to investigate how two legal advocacy organizations frame the issue of transgender immigrants within detention centers. The ACLU rarely discusses transgender immigrants and thus upholds cisnormativity. When they do discuss transgender immigrants, their transgender identity is referenced as a singular issue in isolation from other facets of their identity. The TLC, on the other hand, frames immigration detention for transgender immigrants as part of a larger web of oppression. Through a comparison of the ACLU and TLC, this study underscores the role of cisnormativity as a tool for racialized social control. Findings highlight the importance of a critical, intersectional approach to immigration advocacy and scholarship that challenges the cisnormative assumptions guiding the current immigration system. Implications for future research and service provision are discussed.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Undocumented immigration status is a structural barrier to socioeconomic mobility. The regularization of legal status may therefore promote the socioeconomic mobility of formerly undocumented immigrants. The 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provided protection against deportation and access to work authorization for eligible undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. While studies using cross-sectional data find that DACA led to improved socioeconomic status, no studies have examined the socioeconomic status of DACA recipients over time and few have disaggregated among groups of DACA recipients. Drawing from one of the only longitudinal studies of DACA recipients, we use growth curve models to estimate individuals’ wage trajectories from the year prior to DACA receipt up to 77 months post-DACA receipt among Latino/a DACA participants in California. In this sample, DACA is associated with improved earnings trajectories for recipients, compared with nonrecipients. Among DACA recipients, there is variation in earnings growth by stage of the life course, as measured by age and educational attainment. Notably, DACA tenure appears to be particularly beneficial for individuals who attain DACA at earlier ages and who earn college degrees. This study contributes to our understanding of the role of immigration laws and policies in structuring immigrant integration and socioeconomic mobility in the United States.more » « less
-
Abstract This article unravels an important historical conjuncture in the making of modern US citizenship and alienage by drawing on the state's regulation of naturalization as it relates to Asian immigration in the early twentieth century. My primary concern is to examine the socio-legal formations that constructed the thick distinctions between the modern US citizen and alien along the lines of racial difference and racial capital. Specifically, this article argues that Asian immigration to the United States remade the modern US citizen and alien in two significant and interconnected ways. First, it underscores how the adjudication of race in US courts and connected political campaigns re-mapped race in the United States and sharpened the racialization of Asia and Europe in profound ways that ultimately produced immigrants from southern, central, and eastern parts of Asia as the modern US alien. Second, the debate over Asian immigrants’ eligibility to naturalize refashioned legal status as a normative avenue to sustain a regime of racial capital. It cast citizenship as a legal avenue for White men and families to acquire and protect a proprietary interest in citizenship and recast some Asian immigrants as permanent aliens in a period when alienage came to signify disposable immigrant labor. The article concludes by distinguishing how the struggle for US citizenship by Asian immigrants frames the epistemological parameters and political vocabulary of immigration and naturalization reform.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-024-01649-8
