Search

Legislative policies that criminalize immigrants have a "chilling effect" on public program participation among eligible immigrants. However, little is known about the effect of local enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In this study, we linked county-level data on the number of detainer requests (or immigration holds) issued by ICE to individual-level data from the 2011, 2016, and 2019 American Community Surveys. We fit adjusted logistic regression models to assess the association between detainer requests and enrollment in Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) among those likely eligible for each program in US-born versus immigrant households. A higher volume of detainer requests was associated with lower enrollment in both Medicaid and SNAP, particularly among adults in households with at least one immigrant relative to US-born households. We observed the most pronounced effects in 2011 and 2019.

Objectives. To determine facility-level factors associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers. Methods. We obtained COVID-19 case counts at 88 ICE detention facilities from May 6, 2020, through June 21, 2021, from the COVID Prison Project. We obtained information about facility population size, facility type (dedicated to immigrants or mixed with other incarcerated populations), and facility operator (public vs private contractor) from third-party sources. We defined the threshold for a COVID-19 outbreak as a cumulative 3-week incidence of 10% or more of the detained population. Results. Sixty-three facilities (72%) had at least 1 outbreak. Facilities with any outbreak were significantly more likely to be privately operated ( P <  .001), to have larger populations (113 vs 37; P =  .002), and to have greater changes in their population size over the study period (‒56% vs -26%; P  < .001). Conclusions. Several facility-level factors were associated with the occurrence of COVID-19 outbreaks in ICE facilities. Public Health Implications. Structural and organizational factors that promote respiratory infection spread in ICE facilities must be addressed to protect detainee health. ( Am J Public Health . 2024;114(9):909-912. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307704).

Restrictive immigration policies harm the mental health of undocumented immigrants and their U.S. citizen family members. As a sociopolitical stressor, threat to family due to immigration policy can heighten anxiety, yet it is unclear whether political engagement helps immigrant-origin students to cope. We used a cross-sectional survey of college students from immigrant families (N = 2,511) to investigate whether anxiety symptomatology was associated with perceived threat to family and if political engagement moderated this relationship. We stratified analyses by self/parental immigration statuses-undocumented students, U.S. citizens with undocumented parents, and U.S. citizens with lawfully present parents-to examine family members' legal vulnerability. Family threat was significantly associated with anxiety; higher levels of political engagement reduced the strength of this relationship. However, this moderation effect was significant only for U.S. citizens with lawfully present parents. These findings emphasize the importance of the family immigration context in shaping individuals' mental health outcomes.

Importance: Physician shortages and the geographic maldistribution of general and specialist physicians impair health care delivery and worsen health inequity in the US. International medical graduates (IMGs) represent a potential solution given their ready supply., Observations: Despite extensive clinical experience, evidence of competence, and willingness to practice in underserved communities, IMGs experience multiple barriers to entry in the US, including the immigration process, the pathways available for certification and licensing, and institutional reluctance to consider non-US-trained candidates. International medical graduates applying to postgraduate training programs compare favorably with US-trained candidates in terms of clinical experience, prior formal postgraduate training, and research, but have higher application withdrawal rates and significantly lower residency and fellowship match rates, a disparity that may be exacerbated by the recent elimination of objective performance metrics, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score. Once legally in the US, IMGs encounter additional obstacles to board eligibility, research funding, and career progression., Conclusions and Relevance: International medical graduates offer a viable and available solution to bridge the domestic physician supply gap, while improving workforce diversity and meaningfully addressing the public health implications of geographic maldistribution of general and specialist physicians, without disrupting existing physician stature and salaries. The US remains unable to integrate IMGs until systematic policy changes at the national level are implemented.

Objective: Research suggests that antiimmigrant policies enacted in the United States, magnified during the 2016-2020 period, propagate widespread trauma across communities of immigrants (von Werthern et al., 2018). While these policies harm all groups of immigrants, structural conditions (e.g., lack of documentation status, race, ethnicity, country of origin, and other social and legal determinants) shape how they are experienced. To address the widespread traumatic harm inflicted by racist and xenophobic policies, a group of leaders from eight Divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National Latinx Psychological Association (NLPA) launched an Interdivisional Immigration Project (IIP)., Method: The IIP served to develop a model for collaborative advocacy, bringing together mental health providers (i.e., psychologists, social workers), allied professionals, and immigration activists from community organizations across the country. This model was developed over the course of 1 year, coinciding with the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the amplified movement for racial justice., Results: This article describes the key components of the IIP collaborative advocacy model: (a) structuring leadership in a democratic and egalitarian manner, (b) centering and uplifting immigrant voices, (c) forming teams across five U.S. regions, (d) facilitating critical dialogues grounded in liberatory practices, (e) centering trauma and empowerment, and (f) developing advocacy strategies. The IIP collaborative advocacy model is informing advocacy to protect immigrants from harm., Discussion: This model may be used as the basis for ongoing humane immigration policy activism that centers the voices of community activists, and that pushes psychologists and allied professionals to use their positionality to support community-based efforts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Structural racism is historically rooted, and has been a foundation for United States immigration policy. This injustice has intergenerational effects that cost society greatly - with impacts on social cohesion, individual and collective health, and well-being, and ultimately our ability to function as a civil society. Limited pathways to citizenship and major restrictions to resources that promote integration have adverse consequences for immigrants and, their families. Research shows that children experience toxic stress that negatively impacts their long-term health and development from heightened immigration enforcement, regardless of any personal impact. In embracing the next generation of children, we will not succeed unless we support sound integration policies that promote the health and well-being of immigrant families across this nation. We must recognize how intricately our fates and our health are tied to each other; we all depend on immigrants being well. We must advance new a social contract, one that counters the 'othering' of immigrants" and recognizes that we must invest in the health and well-being of all families., (Copyright © 2024 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Public health practitioners working with Latinx families in the United States must consider the historical contexts of colonization and slavery that have created conditions of violence, displacement, and social and economic marginalization throughout Latin America. Although shared experiences of colonization, dispossession, and migration affect all Latinxs, diverse national histories and sociopolitical contexts, migration patterns, and intersecting identities (e.g., gender, social class, race) complicate efforts to develop a uniform approach to this heterogeneous population. We provide a critical analysis of (1) how past experiences contribute to collective trauma and motivate migration, and (2) how these experiences are replicated in the United States through immigration-related adversities that deprive and threaten children and families through marginalization, fear of detention and deportation, and family separation brought on by a parent's deportation. This knowledge is imperative to advance research, practice, and policymaking with US Latinx populations. We provide best practice recommendations for a sociopolitically and trauma- informed public health workforce interfacing with Latinxs in the United States. ( Am J Public Health . 2024;114(S6):S485-S494. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307589) [Formula: see text].

The practice of family separation as a mechanism of oppression has a deep-rooted history in the U.S., manifesting in diverse contexts, including punitive migration policies. This systematic review aimed to provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of the research on family separation as a result of migration policies and its impacts on immigrants' mental health while making a distinction between forced family separation, family separation by constrained choices, and living with the fear of family separation. We systematically searched four bibliographic databases using keywords related to family separation, migration, transnational families, and mental health for peer-reviewed studies published in English on or before January 1st, 2022. Results of the review indicate that family separation or fear of it may result in depression, anxiety, behavioral and emotional issues, sleep disturbances, and stress or distress in affected children. Similarly, impacted parents or caregivers might experience stress or distress, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances. Findings call for migration policy changes prioritizing family unity and comprehensive mental health interventions to respond to the pervasive consequences of family separation or fear thereof among immigrants in the U.S., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives. To examine how having a parent deported in childhood and immigration enforcement encounters relate to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among a sample of US-born Latinos. Methods. In 2021, a national sample of 1784 US-born Latinos was recruited to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire elicited data on sociodemographics, mental health, and immigration-related experiences. The dependent variable was past-year symptoms of PTSD. Immigration-related variables included (1) having a parent deported during their childhood, (2) having a (nonparent) family member deported, (3) fear of having a parent or loved one deported, (4) fear of immigration enforcement encounters, and (5) having experienced an immigration raid. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine independent associations between immigration-related variables and PTSD. Results. Having a parent deported during childhood was associated with more than twice the odds of meeting criteria for PTSD symptoms. Having a loved one deported, fearing the deportation of a loved one, and having experienced an immigration raid were all associated with PTSD. Conclusions. It is imperative to better understand the long-term implications of immigration policies in perpetuating health inequities among US-born Latinos. ( Am J Public Health . 2024;114(S6):S495-S504. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307660) [Formula: see text].

Historically, the US immigration system (ie, institutions, agencies, and laws) has served the goals and principles of white supremacy through its treatment of globally displaced people and this appears to have continued through the COVID pandemic. Yet, the implications for immigrant health are not routinely addressed in mainstream public health discourse, and especially so in regard to public health disasters. This study conducted a series of focus groups with participants from social justice organizations working with immigrants, migrants, undocumented persons, refugees, persons seeking asylum, and persons detained in immigration jails to collect stories on how the immigration system undermined efforts to control the spread of COVID-19 and exacerbated health inequity within immigrant jails and across related community contexts during the pandemic. Focus groups were conducted to explore issues related to immigrants and immigration detention during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a total of N=14 participants across the 4 focus groups with a dedicated focus group on perspectives of Black immigrants/from Black immigrant organizations only. Each focus group consisted of 3 to 4 participants. Five key themes emerged: 1) dehumanization of immigrants and migrants and devaluation of their lives; 2) inhumane conditions of confinement that propagate risk of disease; 3) denial of resources for COVID-19 prevention and mitigation; 4) expansion of intersecting oppressive systems; and 5) community-based resistance and mobilization against immigration policies and enforcement. Our findings highlight the harms from policing, criminalization, and exclusion that racialized communities face as a result of the (in)actions within the immigration system during a public health disaster including the COVID context., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: No conflicts of interest reported by authors.

Since 2019, the number of children apprehended by the United States Custom and Border Patrol at the southern border continues to increase. Many of these children are fleeing violence and extreme poverty and qualify for several forms of humanitarian relief. Trained pediatric health professionals have an essential role to play in documenting evidence to support their petitions. The goal of a forensic medical and psychological evaluation is to establish the facts related to the reported incident(s), provide forensic evidence to support these claims, and provide an expert opinion on the degree to which a finding correlates with the client's reports through a written affidavit. Research studies have demonstrated a significant increase in asylum grant rate for cases that include an evaluation. As demand for forensic evaluations has grown, multiple clinic models have emerged, including volunteer networks, student-led clinics, and faculty-led clinics. The Forensic Assessment for Immigration Relief (FAIR) Clinic offers a sustainable infrastructure while emphasizing the training of pediatric healthcare professionals on the conduct of trauma-informed, culturally attuned, and developmentally appropriate forensic evaluations. This paper outlines the year-long process of developing and launching a clinic specializing in pediatric forensic medical and psychological evaluations as a blueprint for replication., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest.

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.

In recent years, significant policy changes focused on immigrants migrating through the southern United States border have been implemented. To determine if there was an association between time since immigration and increases in negative mental health symptomology, 249 Mexican-American immigrants ages 18-65 were field recruited to participate in a survey exploring their physical and mental health. Results indicate that inconsistent with the Hispanic Health Paradox, the psychological health of immigrants arriving since 2015 was significantly worse than that of more established immigrants. New arrivals had a .38 increased risk of experiencing clinically significant depression and a .47 increased risk of experiencing global psychological distress. Time since immigration was not significantly related to past 30-day alcohol use. Implications for future research and clinical practice with immigrants are explored, and suggestions on how better identify and assist Mexican-American immigrants with mental health concerns are offered.

Those who work with immigrants in detention centers may be at increased risk of secondary trauma. This study used Photovoice to capture reflections on how the lives of volunteers are affected by their work on behalf of immigrant family detainees. Participants were recruited over a two-month period in 2018 from amongst the volunteers of a non-governmental organization that provides legal services to the detainees at one immigration detention center. Participants submitted photos and captions that explored their experiences with their work. Thirteen volunteers consented to participate and submitted 44 photos with captions to the project. Major themes included emotional challenges of the work, frustrations with the U.S. government, comparison of their experiences to those of their clients', and finding uplifting moments. Our findings regarding the significant emotional challenges of this work are of particular importance given the increasing coverage of immigration detention in the media and the increased interest in volunteer opportunities to support this population.

In Latin America, violence is a major public health issue causing many families to flee to the United States to seek safety. Current US immigration policies fail to address why families are forced to depart their home country or the needs of families once arriving in the United States. This article identifies root causes of family displacement, examines the insufficient protections for children in families during US immigration processing, and provides practice and policy recommendations on how to transform the US immigration system so that it is more humane for children and families forcibly displaced by violence., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immigration-both the experience of migrating and events after migration-can affect the mental health and well-being of immigrants and their communities. However, evidence suggests that immigrants in the United States do not access mental health services to the same extent as nonimmigrants. In particular, immigrant adolescents and young adults may have unique stressors related to their developmental stage, experiences in school and with peer groups, and shifting roles within family systems. This scoping review summarizes findings from published research studies and practitioner-focused gray literature about the mental health needs of immigrant communities in the United States. The review finds that specific mental health needs vary across factors like age, racial/ethnic group, immigration status, and place of residency. Findings also indicate that structural factors like immigration-related laws affect both access to mental health services and stressors in the overall environment for immigrants and their families. This review also explores models of community-level initiatives that utilize strengths-based approaches to promoting mental health and well-being among immigrant communities. Findings highlight the need for a better understanding of the mental health needs and current barriers to care among diverse immigrant populations, as immigration continues to play a major role in U.S. public policy and discourse. The COVID-19 pandemic taking place as this article goes to press in 2020 also raises questions regarding health equity and access for marginalized populations, including immigrants and their communities, and so these findings also indicate the need for further interdisciplinary research to assess intersections among the pandemic's many impacts, including those related to mental health and well-being.

Although the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the United States, the 1996 Immigration Act does not allow illegal immigrant parents to avoid deportation unless such deportation would cause extreme and exceptional hardship to a U.S. citizen relative. This paper reviews the potential adverse effects of such deportation on a child. It presents 12 cases where child and adolescent forensic psychiatric evaluations of U.S. citizen children supported their immigrant parents' petitions for legal resident status. Parent-child attachment, as well as the child's educational status, language proficiencies, acculturation to U.S. culture, and psychiatric distress at the potential deportation, are the factors most helpful in elucidating a child's reaction to this threatened deportation. During the child and adolescent psychiatry evaluations, the parents were interviewed, school records were reviewed and, where appropriate, pediatric records were considered. All the children were examined alone and then as a family unit with their parents using standard DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria [1]. Firstly, considering their clinical diagnoses, a clinical prognosis was made for the possibility if the child were to be forced to go to their parents' country of origin with their deported illegal immigrant parent(s). Secondly, each case was examined and analyzed individually to determine the clinical prognosis of the U.S. citizen child if they were to stay in the United States while the illegal immigrant parent(s) was forced to leave. In all of the 12 cases, there was already pre-existing anxiety in the children secondary to the fear of a negative outcome for the parents in the immigration legal cases. In all of the 12 cases it was also determined that the prognosis for the child's adjustment to being without their parent but remaining in the US would have produced a significant exacerbation of the psychopathology already seen. Furthermore, in all of the 12 cases, were the children to be relocated to their parental culture, unfamiliar to the child's American culture, again, the prognosis was made that a significant exacerbation of psychopathology would occur. On the basis of the findings of the child and adolescent psychiatric evaluations and analyses presented to the court, all of the illegal immigrant parents were permitted to receive permanent resident status.

States have enacted a wave of statutes over the past several years preempting local government law and policies that potentially promote public health in various ways. Among these local preemption measures are statutes in at least 9 states that outlaw municipal policies providing some form of "sanctuary" to immigrants. Such policies, and their preemption, have importance both for direct access to health services and for broader social determinants of health.This article gauges the coverage and potential impact of these state preemption laws based on key informant interviews nationally and a close legal analysis of relevant laws and policy documents. It distinguishes between preemption laws focused on law enforcement cooperation and those that also encompass a wider array of "welcoming" policies and initiatives. It also distinguishes between more passive forms of preemption that prohibit barring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and those statutes that more affirmatively require active measures to assist federal enforcement.Drawing these distinctions can help municipalities determine which immigrant-supportive measures are still permitted, and how best to mitigate the adverse public health effects of these preemption laws.

Despite growing recognition of sexual orientation- and gender identity-based violence, scholars continue to identify barriers for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals seeking asylum protection. Lesbian women asylum applicants, in particular, encounter a system that is unsure how to classify their cases and that generally questions the credibility of women's experiences. In this way, lesbian women applicants are among the most vulnerable populations of asylum claimants, particularly in the U.S. context. In this research note, I examine U.S. appellate level Circuit Court cases initiated by lesbian women asylum applicants. I expand existing literature to include an examination of how the violence faced by lesbian women is interpreted and ultimately erased as Circuit Courts grapple with legal interpretations of persecution. Specifically, I find three mechanisms of erasure: ruling that the violence experienced was unextreme, finding that the applicants' accounts of violence were unsubstantiated, or arguing that the violence experienced was unrelated to the applicants' sexual orientation. When placed in historical context, these patterns are troubling. Unlike previous decades that have witnessed overt homophobia, racism, and ethnocentrism in the immigration system, these cases indicate a more subtle form of exclusion-finding technicalities in case law and formal legal definitions as grounds for denial.

U.S. immigration policies and enforcement can make immigrants fearful of accessing healthcare. Although current immigration policies restrict enforcement in "sensitive locations" including healthcare facilities, there are reports of enforcement actions in such settings.

Immigration detention centers are densely populated facilities in which restrictive conditions limit detainees' abilities to engage in social distancing or hygiene practices designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. With tens of thousands of adults and children in more than 200 immigration detention centers across the United States, immigration detention centers are likely to experience COVID-19 outbreaks and add substantially to the population of those infected.Despite compelling evidence indicating a heightened risk of infection among detainees, state and federal governments have done little to protect the health of detained im-migrants. An evidence-based public health framework must guide the COVID-19 response in immigration detention centers.We draw on the hierarchy of controls framework to demonstrate how immigration detention centers are failing to implement even the least effective control strategies. Drawing on this framework and recent legal and medical advocacy efforts, we argue that safely releasing detainees from immigration detention centers into their communities is the most effective way to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in immigration detention settings. Failure to do so will result in infection and death among those detained and deepen existing health and social inequities.

Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Immigrants in the United States (US) today are facing a dynamic policy landscape. The Trump administration has threatened or curtailed access to basic services for 10.5 million undocumented immigrants currently in the US. We sought to examine the historical effects that punitive laws have had on health outcomes in US immigrant communities., Methods: In this systematic review, we searched the following databases from inception-May 2020 for original research articles with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Social Work Abstracts (Ovid). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019138817. Articles with cohort sizes >10 that directly evaluated the health-related effects of a punitive immigrant law or policy within the US were included., Findings: 6,357 studies were screened for eligibility. Of these, 32 studies were selected for inclusion and qualitatively synthesized based upon four themes that appeared throughout our analysis: (1) impact on healthcare utilization, (2) impact on women's and children's health, (3) impact on mental health services, and (4) impact on public health. The impact of each law, policy, mandate, and directive since 1990 is briefly discussed, as are the limitations and risk of bias of each study., Interpretation: Many punitive immigrant policies have decreased immigrant access to and utilization of basic healthcare services, while instilling fear, confusion, and anxiety in these communities. The federal government should preserve and expand access for undocumented individuals without threat of deportation to improve health outcomes for US citizens and noncitizens., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Shifts in migration and border control policies may increase the likelihood of trauma exposure related to child-parent separation and result in costs to the health system and society. In the present study, we estimated direct and indirect costs per child as well as overall cohort costs of border control policies on migrant children and adolescents who were separated from their parents, detained, and placed in the custody of the United States following the implementation of the 2018 Zero Tolerance Policy. Economic modeling techniques, including a Markov process and Monte Carlo simulation, based on data from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network's Core Data Set (N = 458 migrant youth) and published studies were used to estimate economic costs associated with three immigration policies: No Detention, Family Detention, and Zero Tolerance. Clinical evaluation data on mental health symptoms and disorders were used to estimate the initial health state and risks associated with additional trauma exposure for each scenario. The total direct and indirect costs per child were conservatively estimated at $33,008, $33,790, and $34,544 after 5 years for No Detention, Family Detention, and Zero Tolerance, respectively. From a health system perspective, annual estimated spending increases ranged from $1.5 million to $14.9 million for Family Detention and $2.8 million to $29.3 million for Zero Tolerance compared to baseline spending under the No Detention scenario. Border control policies that increase the likelihood of child and adolescent trauma exposure are not only morally troubling but may also create additional economic concerns in the form of direct health care costs and indirect societal costs., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Traumatic Stress published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interest statement: Until July 2019, I was an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU’s) Immigrants’ Rights Project, and I continue to consult occasionally for the ACLU and other immigrants’ rights organizations. This study is unrelated to that consulting work, but both concern immigration enforcement.

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.

The status of immigrant families resettled to the United States in the past decade has been fraught with upsurges of governmental policies that have systematically increasing the levels of oppression, violence, and abuses of human rights. The socio-political-economic toll of xenophobic practices on specifically targeted immigrant populations is magnified by the psychological and relational impact they have on individuals, families, and communities. This manuscript is conceptualized as an ongoing call for social action and specific mobilization by mental health professionals in response to the increasing threats to civility and dignity faced by various immigrant communities. The paper is organized in three sections: (a) an overview of the effects of immigration policy on immigrant family experiences; (b) the impact of mental and relational health on immigrant populations; and (c) elaborations of three exemplar community projects designed to support immigrant families. The manuscript concludes with a discussion exploring avenues for promoting a stronger base for solidarity and social action., (© 2020 American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.)

Immigration enforcement cooperation between final-destination and transit countries has increased in the last decades. I examine whether the Southern Border Plan, an immigration enforcement program implemented by the Mexican government in 2014, has curbed intentions of unauthorized migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to migrate to the United States. I use the announcement of the Southern Border Plan to implement a difference-in-differences approach and compare the evolution of short-run intentions to engage in additional unauthorized crossings of Central American (treatment group) relative to Mexican deportees (comparison group). The findings suggest that increased enforcement in Mexico decreases the likelihood of attempting repeated unauthorized crossings.

Recent guidance from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement drastically altered the lives of international students in America, especially those who are matriculating. This commentary describes how international students still face uncertainty concerning their visa statuses and their place in American society., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

Recent changes in U.S. immigration policy are adversely affecting biomedical science, at a time when biomedical research is most sorely needed on multiple fronts. Here we discuss the immense contributions of immigrants to cancer research and the adverse impact that current administration policies will have on successful cancer research., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

As the US federal government pursues immigration reform, changes to the federal public-charge rule have triggered confusion and concerns among patients who are immigrants. Although federal judges temporarily blocked implementation, a decision by the Supreme Court in January 2020 allowed the proposed changes to take effect. These policy changes have resulted in many legal immigrants and their family members becoming more reluctant to apply for health insurance, food, housing, and other benefits for which they are qualified. This article summarizes the changes and exclusions. Family physicians can effectively respond to patient and immigrant community concerns about these changes by providing outreach education, access to primary health care, and referrals to legal and social services., (© 2020 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated she has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.