Impacts of Immigration Policies on Families

This paper introduces a special collection of 15 papers that chart a course for long-term reform of the US immigration system. The papers look beyond recent legislative debates and the current era of rising nationalism and restrictionism to outline the elements of a forward-looking immigration policy that would serve the nation's interests, honor its liberal democratic ideals, promote the full participation of immigrants in the nation's life, and exploit the opportunities offered by the increasingly interdependent world. This paper highlights several overarching themes from the collection, as well as dozens of proposals for reform. Together, the papers in the collection make the case that: • Immigration policymaking should be embedded in a larger set of partnerships, processes, and commitments that respond to the conditions that force persons to migrate. • The US immigration system should reflect liberal democratic values and an inclusive vision of national identity. • It is incumbent on policy and opinion makers to publicize the broad national interests served by US immigration policies. • Policymakers should, in turn, evaluate and adjust US immigration policies based on their success in furthering the nation's interests. • The United States should prioritize the gathering and dissemination of the best available evidence on migration and on the nation's migration-related needs and programs, and should use this information to respond flexibly to changing migration patterns and new economic developments. • Immigrant integration strengthens communities and represents an important, overarching metric for US immigration policies. • The successful integration of the United States' 43 million foreign-born residents and their progeny should be a national priority. • An immigration federalism agenda should prioritize cooperation on shared federal, state, and local priorities. • An immigration federalism agenda should recognize the federal government's enforcement obligations; the interests of local communities in the safety, well-being and participation of their residents; the importance of federal leadership in resolving the challenges posed by the US undocumented population; and the need for civil society institutions to serve as mediators of immigrant integration. • Immigration reform should be coupled with strong, well-enforced labor standards in order to promote fair wages and safe and healthy working conditions for all US workers. • Fairness and due process should characterize US admission, custody, and removal decisions. • Family unity should remain a central goal of US immigration policy and a pillar of the US immigration system. • The United States should seek to craft “win-win” immigration policies that serve its own interests and that benefit migrant-sending states. • US immigration law and policy should be coherent and consistent, and the United States should create legal migration opportunities for persons uprooted by US foreign interventions, trade policies, and immigration laws. • The United States should reduce the size of its undocumented population through a substantial legalization program and seek to ensure that this population never again approximates its current size.

The Rise of Zero Tolerance and the Demise of Family

Immigration is when individuals leave their country of residency to permanently settle in a different country. According to the United Nations (UN) Department of Economic and Social Affairs, in 2017 a cumulative of 258 million persons were residents in a country that differed from their own. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the increase in prohibited immigration impelled the United States (US) to propose a number of immigration laws. In 2012, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, which allowed undocumented immigrants to work legally without being deported as long as they maintain a useful and lawful status. Approximately 800,000 immigrants attained DACA standing, permitting them to legally work and go to school in the US. Furthermore, the immigration law of 1965 prompted an excessive entrance of multicultural immigrants to the United States which brought about a great representation of children who live with immigrant families. These children faced several environmental structures which were affected by changes and multiplicity in their family situations. Immigrant children attempted to understand a different culture, values, and emerging issues in relation to their assimilation paths.The purpose of this volume is to offer a complete representation of the way immigrant children and families respond and develop in the US and Europe. It will extend current knowledge and reinforce contemporary frameworks that associate the cultural differences between immigrant families and teachers. In the classroom environment teachers have the opportunity to effectively assume both nurturing and instructional roles to aid young children to cultivate their social and cognitive abilities. The teachers’ personal characteristics, formal education, specialized training, and cultural knowledge may affect their effectiveness in the classroom environment. Most of the studies show that both family and teachers have the most significant effects on the children’s development and learning. Immigration researchers and scholars were invited to review, critically analyze, discuss, and submit a manuscript for the volume titled, Contemporary Perspectives on Research on Immigration in Early Childhood Education. The concept of immigration has heavily influenced modern views in early childhood education. Researchers, scholars, and educators need to understand the current sources based on theoretical frameworks that contribute to the purposes of immigration in the United States and Europe. The contents of the volume reflect the major shifts in the views of early childhood researchers, scholars, and educators in relation to the research on immigration, its historical roots, the role of immigration in early childhood education, and its relationship to theory, research, and practice.

Migration research and analysis: Growth, reach and recent contributions of research and analysis being produced on migration is important for those working on migration policies, studying migration, or wanting to develop an informed opinion on migration.It is important to highlight at the outset that there are fundamental differences in the publishing processes for academic and non-academic material, and each has its strengths and weaknesses.The academic publishing system is largely focused on producing journal articles and books.This process typically involves multi-stage reviews and editorial comments involving authors, editors and reviewers.Most published academic research ("white" literature) is behind paywalls (that is, not freely accessible), and often managed by commercial publishers.In contrast, the production of research and analysis publications outside of academic publishing ("grey" literature) generally involves faster and simpler processes that are typically, although not always, characterized by more limited peer review.Contributions from grey literature (such as research reports, working papers and government/official documents) are usually freely available.A report such as this, designed to contribute to our collective understanding of migration and mobility in an increasingly interconnected world, would clearly be incomplete without describing the role of grey literature, which has been "recognized as a key source of evidence, argument, innovation, and understanding". 6 The volume, diversity and growth of both white and grey literature preclude a systematic review of all the material produced and published on migration in 2017 and 2018.Instead, this chapter highlights examples of key contributions made during this period, published in English by a selection of academic journals and intergovernmental organizations.It provides an update to the chapter in World Migration Report 2018, including by focusing on different academic journals and intergovernmental organizations, and their key output in 2017 and 2018. 7 The next section provides an overview of the different actors involved in migration research and analysis.The third section features recent, selected contributions from academia and intergovernmental organizations, and the reach and impact of some of the migration research materials published. Main producers of migration research and analysis AcademiaIdeally, researchers create new knowledge that is supported by strong evidence and is useful for others.Research findings are produced for, and disseminated to, different target audiences.Traditional academic work can be highly technical and narrowly focused, although academic researchers are increasingly encouraged to disseminate their work beyond academic spheres. 8 Researchers analysing policy-relevant issues are often keen to engage with policymakers to impart knowledge that can inform policy deliberations and help shape policymaking -this is especially the case with migration.Effective research contributions for policy audiences tend to take the form of short papers and blog articles, as well as policy workshops and interactive expert meetings.6 GreyNet International, 2014.7 In order to ensure, to the extent possible, that this chapter provides a comprehensive "stand-alone" overview of migration research and analysis in 2017 and 2018, we have drawn upon key background and context material included in the

* Abbreviations: CIF — : children in immigrant families COVID-19 — : coronavirus disease DACA — : Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ICE — : Immigration and Customs Enforcement LEP — : limited English proficiency SDH — : social determinant of health TPS — : temporary protected status WIC — : Women, Infants, and Children Program Like many health conditions that disproportionately impact vulnerable populations of color, we expect that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic will inequitably affect the health and livelihoods of immigrant families. One in 4 children (>18 million) in the United States lives in an immigrant family, in which the child or ≥1 parent was born outside the United States.1 Among children in immigrant families (CIF), >7 million live in “mixed-status” families, meaning ≥1 parent is not a US citizen.2 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, immigrant families faced increasingly restrictive policies and discrimination. Regardless of legal status, CIF experience increased health and social risks compared with peers in nonimmigrant families, including lower rates of health insurance coverage and higher poverty levels.3 The COVID-19 pandemic amplifies existing inequities and introduces new ones as immigrant families navigate school closures, lack of health insurance and paid leave, and decisions to seek medical care or public services amid ongoing immigration enforcement. Additionally, immigrant families are more likely to live in multigenerational households,4 heightening the risk of COVID-19 for multiple family members. Families with limited English proficiency (LEP) must decipher rapidly evolving public health directives, such as “shelter-in-place” orders and recommendations for mask-wearing, without multilingual and culturally relevant messaging. Underlying these challenges is the implicit presumption of a safe place in shelter-in-place and social distancing directives. For immigrant families seeking safe haven in the United States, “place” may include violence and abject poverty, both in home countries and at the US border. For CIF in US communities coping with persistent fears of immigration enforcement and family separation, … Address correspondence to Rushina Cholera, Duke University School of Medicine, 200 Morris St, 3rd Floor, Durham, NC 27701. E-mail: rushina.cholera{at}duke.edu

Macro social work practice with immigrant organizations and communities in the United States requires a basic understanding of the underlying values and history of U.S. immigration laws and policy. U.S. immigration policy frequently reflects multiple and conflicting interests and values in labor needs, global politics, family unification, and national security, and policies often shift in response to political leadership, ideology, and public opinion. Some areas of the history of U.S. immigration laws and various macro social work approaches to U.S. immigration policy include (a) advocacy at local, state, and federal levels; (b) anti-immigrant legislation proposed at the state level; and (c) collaboration between grassroots organizations and local leaders to build policies and practices that support immigrants.

A Nation of Immigrants Reconsidered: US Society in An Age of Restriction, 1924–1965

When signing into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, or “the Act”), 1 President William J. Clinton asserted that the legislation strengthened “the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system — without punishing those living in the United States legally” ( Clinton 1996 ). In fact, the Act has severely punished US citizens and noncitizens of all statuses. It has also eroded the rule of law by eliminating due process from the overwhelming majority of removal cases, curtailing equitable relief from removal, mandating detention (without individualized custody determinations) for broad swaths of those facing deportation, and erecting insurmountable, technical roadblocks to asylum. In addition, it created new immigration-related crimes and established “the concept of ‘criminal alienhood,’” which has “slowly, but purposefully” conflated criminality and lack of immigration status ( Abrego et al. 2017 , 695). It also conditioned family reunification on income, divided mixed-status families, and consigned other families to marginal and insecure lives in the United States ( Lopez 2017 , 246). Finally, it created the 287(g) program that enlists state and local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement and drives a wedge between police and immigrant communities. The trend of “cracking down” on immigrants did not begin with IIRIRA. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and the 1990 Immigration Act, for example, expanded deportable offenses ( Abrego et al. 2017 , 697; Macías-Rojas 2018 , 3–4). IIRIRA, however, significantly “ratchet[ed] up” the “punitive aspects of US immigration law already in place” ( Abrego et al. 2017 , 702), and erected much of the legal and operational infrastructure that underlies the Trump administration’s plan to remove millions of undocumented residents and their families, to terrify others into leaving “voluntarily,” and to slash legal immigration. In 2016, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) issued a call for papers to examine IIRIRA’s multifaceted consequences. 2 Between March 2017 and January 2018, CMS published eight papers from this collection in its Journal on Migration and Human Security ( JMHS). The papers cover the political conditions that gave rise to IIRIRA, and the Act’s impact on immigrants, families, communities, and the US immigration system. This article draws on these papers — as well as sources closer to IIRIRA’s passage and implementation — to describe how the Act transformed US immigration policies and laid the groundwork for the Trump administration’s policies. 3 After a brief discussion of IIRIRA’s origins, the article discusses the law's effects and subsequent policies related to the growth of the US immigration enforcement apparatus, removal, asylum, detention, the criminal prosecution of immigrants, the treatment of immigrant families, and joint federal-state enforcement activities.

United States immigration law and policy is one the most controversial issues of our day, and perhaps no location has come under more scrutiny for the way it has attempted to deal with the problem of undocumented immigration than the State of Arizona. Though Arizona recently became notorious for its “papers please” law, SB 1070, the American Southwest has long been a bastion of discriminatory race-based law and policy – immigration and otherwise – directed toward Latinos, American Indians, African-Americans, and other non-White racial and ethnic minorities. While largely ignored by both legal and American historians, the so-called “Jim Crow Southwest” nonetheless persisted throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century in both the Arizona Territory and the State of Arizona, forming the basis for, and giving shape to, laws meant to exclude and limit the participation of non-White persons in Southwestern society.The State of Arizona, the last of the forty-eight contiguous States to be admitted to the Union, marked its 100th year of statehood on February 14, 2012. A few months later, on June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Arizona, striking down the majority of Arizona’s aggressive state immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070, as preempted by federal law. This Article discusses recent developments in Arizona immigration law and policy. By providing an overview of the history of race-based exclusion laws and policies in the Arizona Territory and the State of Arizona, it argues that Arizona’s modern anti-immigrant laws and policies are merely the newest incarnation of the State’s long history of discriminatory laws against racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Latinos and American Indians. In attempting to trace the genesis of racial animus toward non-Whites in the Southwest, Part I provides a historical overview of the Arizona Territory in the nineteenth century, including the development of the New Mexico Territory, the Confederate Territory of Arizona, and the impact of slavery and other race-based discrimination and exclusion laws in the Southwest. Part II discusses twentieth century race and immigration based policies in the Jim Crow Southwest that restricted and segregated the civil rights of non-Whites in the areas of marriage, education, and voting. Part III discusses the continuing legacy of the Jim Crow Southwest on the development of modern immigration law and policy in Arizona, and in particular, the aftermath of S.B. 1070’s passage in April 2010, Arizona’s subsequent rise as “ground zero” for state and local enforcement of immigration law in the United States, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Arizona in 2012 and Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona in 2013. Finally, the article concludes by summarizing how the historical evidence presented in this paper rebuts the claim that only in recent years has Arizona begun to “drown[] in a sea of extremism” and become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry,” and argues that Arizona has a long history of race-based exclusion laws and intolerance toward racial and ethnic minorities that has only now begun to garner attention on the national stage.

Executive Summary This article examines presidential immigration policy making through executive orders (EOs) and proclamations. Donald Trump’s overall volume of EOs has been remarkably similar to that of other presidents, while his number of proclamations has been relatively high. His immigration-related EOs and proclamations, however, diverge from those of his predecessors in several ways. Of the 56 immigration-related EOs and 64 proclamations issued since 1945, Trump has issued 10 and nine, respectively. Overall, about 1 percent of all EOs and proclamations during this period have been immigration related, compared to 8 percent of Trump’s EOs and 2.4 percent of Trump’s proclamations. In a sharp departure from previous presidents, a greater share of his EOs and proclamations have been substantive policy-making documents intended to restrict admissions of legal immigrants and increase enforcement along the border and in the interior of the United States. This article explores Trump’s unorthodox use of executive tools to make immigration policy, circumventing Congress and even members of his own administration. It recommends that: Congress should hold oversight hearings and should consider revoking or modifying EOs and proclamations that have been issued pursuant to the authority provided to the president by Congress, as opposed to those based on the executive’s constitutional authority. Advocacy organizations should continue to challenge the president’s executive actions, the insufficient process and consultation leading to them, their statutory or constitutional justification, and their impact. Congress should take an inventory of the immigration authorities it has delegated, both explicitly and implicitly, to the executive branch and determine when this authority can and should be limited. Congress should pass legislation to update and reform the US immigration system, and thus clarify its intentions regarding US immigration law, policy, and executive authority in this area.

Increasing Immigrant Inclusion: Family History, Empathy, and Immigration in the United States

Women Without A Country—And Health CareEntitled To Nothing: The Struggle For Immigrant Health Care In The Age Of Welfare Reform by Park Lisa Sun-Hee New York (NY) : New York University Press , 2011 205 pp.; $65.00 (cloth), $21.00 (paper)

Of Love and Papers explores how immigration policies are fundamentally reshaping Latino families. Drawing on interviews with undocumented young adults, Enriquez investigates how immigration status creeps into the most personal aspects of everyday life, intersecting with gender to constrain dating, marriage, and parenting. She illustrates how the imprint of illegality remains, even upon obtaining DACA or permanent residency. Interweaving the perspectives of US citizen romantic partners and children, she exposes the multigenerational punishment that limits the upward mobility of Latino families. Of Love and Papers sparks an intimate understanding of contemporary US immigration policies and their enduring consequences for immigrant families. “By highlighting the ways US immigration policies shape the experiences of romantic love, intimacy, and family formation, Enriquez’s meticulous research calls attention to the enduring injurious effects on undocumented and DACAmented young adults, and on their citizen spouses and children. An innovative and sobering account of the far-reaching consequences of our punishing immigration policies. Timely and compelling.” PIERRETTE HONDAGNEU-SOTELO, Florence Everline Professor of Sociology, University of Southern California “In an engaging and methodologically rigorous narrative, Enriquez sheds novel light on the courtship and dating phase of family formation among undocumented and/or mixed status Mexican immigrant families. Undeniably, it will be of central interest to anyone who cares about immigrants and their families.” CECILIA MENJÍVAR, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles

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. 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. 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. 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.

US immigration policies between 1875-1985 were examined to determine if these policies took into account Latin American concerns and interests. US policy makers are sometimes criticized for claiming that the US has a special relationship with Latin America and then ignoring Latin American concerns when formulating policies. This study undertook to determine if this criticism was valid in regard to immigration policies. The examination revealed that US immigration policies were highly sensitive to Latin American concerns. Prior to 1965 they reflected the special relationship status between the US and Latin American countries and after 1965 the policies reflected the emerging efforts of the US to treat Latin America in a less paternalistic manner. Furthermore the USs reluctance to deal with the issue of illegal immigrants is due in part to the recognition that illegal migration serves as a safety valve for Mexicos potentially explosive unemployment and underemployment problems. Prior to 1875 there were no restrictions on immigration to the US. Between 1875-1921 several pieces of legislation were enacted to prevent the entry of persons with undesirable personality traits e.g. prostitutes criminals and anarchists. In 1882 the 1st racial restrictions were imposed with the passage of legislation to prevent the entry of Chinese immigrants. In 1907 similiar legislation was passed to prevent the entry of persons from Japan. Growing concern over the increased number of southern Europeans entering the country resulted in the passage in 1921 of an immigration law which placed an annual ceiling on the total number of immigrants and established a quota system for each country. Each countrys quota was set at 3% of the total number of persons of that national origin currently residing in the US. All countries in the western hemisphere were exempted from the quota system. Following passage of the 1921 law immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean was encouraged to compensate for labor shortages which resulted from the decline in the number of immigrants of southern European extraction. In 1924 growing concern about the number of black immigrants from the British West Indies led to the passage of legislation requiring immigrants from the British West Indies to enter under Great Britains quota. During the Depression several unsuccessful attempts were made to pass legislation to restrict Mexican immigration and to preserve all available jobs for Americans. Concern over Mexican immigration waned as the economy improved. Labor shortages during the 1940s lead to the creation of special arrangements for the entry of temporary workers from Mexico and the Caribbean. In 1952 amidst much controversy the McCarran Walter immigration law was enacted. The main purpose of the law was to prevent Communists from entering the country. The bill retained the quota system in the eastern hemisphere and the western hemisphere exemption; however it imposed an annual limit of 100 immigrants for each colony in the Caribbean. The clause was bitterly resented and was repealed in 1965. An immigration law passed in 1965 repealed the national origin quota system set an annual ceiling of 170000 immigrants from the eastern hemisphere and for the 1st time imposed a ceiling of 120000 on immigration from the western hemisphere. This change reflected the USs growing reluctance to treat Latin America in a paternalistic manner. The tendency to move away from paternalism was furthered by a 1976 law which imposed a worldwide annual ceiling on immigration and a 20000 limit on all countries. Illegal immigration especially from Mexico is posing serious domestic problems for the US. Despite these difficulties the US continues to demonstrate a reluctance to control the influx of illegal aliens in deference to Mexicos serious economic problems.