Federal Immigration Enforcement Research Articles

Order Keepers or Immigration Agents? Latine Immigrant Views of Law Enforcement in Healthcare Settings.

Police and security presence in healthcare settings have grown. There are few studies exploring perceptions of these law enforcement agents among US Latine immigrants, who can be vulnerable to immigration enforcement actions due to past and ongoing criminalization and anti-immigrant policies. To explore Latine immigrants' perceptions of law enforcement in healthcare settings. Exploratory, semi-structured qualitative interviews asked participants about their perspectives of law enforcement in healthcare settings. English- and Spanish-speaking adult patients (n = 19) from a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Los Angeles, CA, serving predominantly low-income Latine immigrants. We used the framework method for analysis to establish a codebook and inform our thematic interpretation. We identified three themes: (1) perceptions of safety offered by police officers are separated from the role of immigration officers; (2) perceptions of police officers are integrated into broader perceptions of the healthcare system; and (3) lived experiences, including immigration status, influenced valence response to officer uniforms and perceptions of officers. Most participants viewed police officers positively as maintaining order and safety, separating them from federal immigration enforcement actions, and reflecting on local, state, and organizational "sanctuary" or immigrant-friendly policies. Individuals with precarious immigration status more often saw officers as intimidating. Immigration enforcement remained a key concern. Differentiating police and security roles from immigration enforcement in healthcare could improve Latine immigrant trust and access. Future studies should explore perspectives of Latine immigrants in localities without sanctuary laws or organizational immigrant-friendly policies.

State‐Level Immigrant Policies and Ideal Family Size in the United States

AbstractDemographers have long been interested in how fertility ideals vary in response to perceived existential threats. Although migration scholars document the increasingly threatening nature of U.S. immigration policies, little research explores how these policies shape the fertility ideals of those most affected by them. To that end, we exploit spatiotemporal variation in states’ evolving immigrant policy contexts to understand the effects of different policies on the ideal family size of Hispanics—a group who is most likely to be stereotyped as undocumented and most likely to live in mixed‐status households or communities. Specifically, we combine time‐varying information on state‐level immigrant policies with geo‐referenced data from the General Social Survey. Results suggest that ideal family sizes are significantly higher among Hispanics (compared to non‐Hispanic whites) in state‐years with omnibus policies—which bundle multiple restrictive laws together and thus impose sweeping restrictions— compared to state‐years without these policies. On the other hand, sanctuary policies, which aim to curb federal immigration enforcement, and E‐verify mandates, which aim to curb the employment of undocumented immigrants, are not associated with significant differences. Our analyses provide new insights into the complex ways in which the evolving U.S. immigrant policy landscape has far‐reaching impacts on reproductive and family life.

Designing Sanctuary

In recent decades, a growing number of cities in the United States have adopted “sanctuary policies” that limit local participation in federal immigration enforcement. Existing scholarship has focused on their legality and effect, especially with respect to our nation’s immigration laws. Largely overlooked, however, is the local process through which sanctuary policies are designed and the reasons why cities choose to adopt them through city ordinances, mayoral orders, or employee handbooks. This Article argues that municipal sanctuary policies are far from uniform, and their variation reflects the different local interests and institutional actors behind their adoption and implementation. More specifically, municipal sanctuary policies can be broadly categorized into three models: administrative sanctuary, political sanctuary, and silent sanctuary. Each of these models reflects a specific approach in how cities choose to balance their political relationship with residents, their administrative relationship with employees, and their intergovernmental relations with the state and federal government. Moreover, these three models correspond with different eras in sanctuary’s development and anti-sanctuary responses at the state and federal level. This typology highlights the structural and institutional forces that have contributed to the diversity of sanctuary policies in the United States. In addition, it calls into question many of the assumptions in the sanctuary literature about the assessment of sanctuary policies, the goals of anti-sanctuary efforts, and the effect of all of this on local policymaking.

Going Local: Public Attitudes toward Municipal Offices of Immigration Affairs

Local governments have been increasingly active in immigration policy by cooperating with federal immigration enforcement or creating local offices of immigrant affairs (OIA) charged with integrating immigrants. How do these policies shape perceptions of locales following these policy routes? Using a set of pre-registered survey experiments, we find that compared to local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, creating an OIA produces more favorable public attitudes, with minimal differences when undocumented immigrants also receive access to services. Democrats, especially white Democrats, have the most favorable views of cities with an OIA. While Republicans prefer cooperation with ICE, their attitudes toward cities with OIAs remain positive. Our findings suggest that despite partisan polarizing immigration policy debates, establishing OIAs does not attract the negative political attention common in an era of hyperpolarization. OIAs could be a rare immigration policy that may be effective and supported.

Quantitative Data Availability and Measurement of US Immigrant and Immigration Policies: IMR Methods Note

In this IMR Methods Note, we spotlight the rise in quantitative data availability, measurements, and scholarly investigations of US immigrant and immigration policies (IIPs). To begin, we offer a detailed account of the quantitative data sources, measures, and analytical strategies that have been developed by scholars studying IIPs over the last two decades. We then highlight this scholarship's important advances toward identifying IIPs’ intended, unintended, and spillover effects on immigrant and nonimmigrant populations in the United States. To conclude, we discuss ongoing challenges and future opportunities for deepening research on US IIPs and their psychosocial, behavioral, and health implications. Our review illuminates how data on federal immigration enforcement activities, and on federal, state, and municipal immigrant laws have engendered increasingly sophisticated quantitative studies of the US IIP climate. At the same time, it highlights several dimensions in which existing work stands to be strengthened, including the need for comparisons of newly developed IIP measures and their estimated effects; greater exploration of IIPs’ potentially heterogeneous effects across distinct subpopulations; and more attention to endogeneity, or in other words, the political and demographic processes that give rise to nonrandom variation in how IIPs take shape across space and time.

Messaging inclusion with consequence: U.S. sanctuary cities and immigrant wellbeing

In the United States (U.S.), sanctuary cities have increasingly garnered public attention as places dedicated to increasing immigrant safety, inclusion, and health. These cities primarily rely on limiting local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to deter immigrant detention and deportation. However, sanctuary policies’ inability to extend immigrants’ legal rights and their reliance on police as ushers of sanctuary may complicate how these spaces attend to their stated goals. In this paper, we examine how organizational workers conceptualize sanctuary, safety, and immigrant health and wellbeing within sanctuary cities. We draw on interviews with organizational workers in two sanctuary cities: Boston, Massachusetts and Seattle, Washington collected between February and August 2018. Our findings reveal that immigrants continue to face structural barriers to housing, safe employment, education, and healthcare within sanctuary cities with consequences to wellbeing. Workers’ definitions of safety draw on interconnected structural exclusion that prevent immigrants from accessing basic needs and fail to account for historically rooted forms of racism and nativism. Organizational workers identified tensions between messages of sanctuary and what local sanctuary policies offer in practice, providing insight into consequences of institutionalizing a grassroots social movement. As organizational workers negotiate these tensions, they must develop everyday sanctuary practices to extend immigrant inclusion, safety, health, and wellbeing.

Immigrant-Serving Organizations and Local Law Enforcement: Do Nonprofits Predict Cooperation with ICE?

Relatively little research has examined the role of immigrant-serving organizations (ISOs) as policy advocates, and virtually no studies have sought to empirically determine whether ISOs shape local policy implementation decisions. Here we study the relationship between ISOs and the policy decisions of sheriff offices, which oversee county jails. Sheriff offices are vital to implementing federal immigration enforcement programs. We determine whether the presence of ISOs predicts sheriff office cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Using a sample of 630 sheriff offices that responded to a national U.S. Bureau of Justice survey, we find the concentration of ISOs registered to provide pro bono legal aid in immigration court does predict sheriff office cooperation. The presence of these legal-aid nonprofits predicts whether sheriff offices will adopt anti-detainer (or ‘sanctuary’) policies. Additionally, these legal-aid nonprofits also correspond to fewer immigration background checks submitted to ICE from county jails.

Trump’s Securitization of US against Aliens and Immigrants Case Study: Latin Migrants

This paper examines Trump’s securitization of Latin migrants and aliens in the United States (US) through law enforcement and legal political practice. Public citizens have divided opinion regarding immigrants, especially aliens, as they are undocumented and are deemed to destabilize internal public safety. Politicians in the US have also conduct political competitions in politicizing migrants through multitudes of official matters, and passing policies. One prominent example in politicizing migrant is Donald J. Trump, a popular unorthodox president of the US that views immigrants with hostility and skepticism. Trump antagonized the Latin migrants through the dangers they posed in the past combined with crime occurrences in his term, and justify protectionist policies by reducing border crosses through Mexico-US border and cutting down the number of Latin aliens and immigration in the country. Trump, through his famous Zero-tolerance policy, promoted attitudes that often encourage public citizens and law enforcers to view potential threats of immigrants, especially aliens. Trump’s campaign about Latin migrants changed the image of Latin migrants among Trump supporters as well as local law enforcers in viewing Latin migrants as a source of threat. This research finds that: Trump’s securitization of US against Latino migrants was lawfully and effectively projected through empowerment of federal level immigration and law enforcement agencies down to field officers.

Local support for the US–Mexico border wall and local immigration policy

ABSTRACT A signature policy of former US President Donald Trump was his plan to halt unauthorized migration from Mexico by building a wall the length of the US–Mexico border. While the existing research has identified several political, demographic and spatial correlates of individual-level support for (or opposition to) the wall, existing research has yet to provide local-level estimates of aggregate support for a border wall and an account of its spatial distribution. Using multilevel regression and synthetic poststratification (MrsP) and data from large-scale public opinion surveys conducted between 2016 and 2022, this article presents county-level estimates for support for the US–Mexico border wall. The results demonstrate that while a majority of the American public opposes the construction of the wall, there is substantial variation in county-level support. Support for the wall is highest in areas where Trump received strong support in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Support is also linked to proximity to the US–Mexico border and racial–ethnic composition at the county level in complex ways. It is similarly linked to county-level cooperation (or lack thereof) with federal immigration enforcement, pointing to an opinion–policy link at the local level.

Challenging federal exclusion: Immigrant safety, health, and healthcare access in sanctuary cities.

As the United States (U.S.) continues to prioritize federal immigration enforcement, subnational localities increasingly enact their own immigration policies. Cities limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement are commonly referred to as sanctuary cities, which aim to improve immigrant safety and wellbeing. Yet, little is known about how these cities accomplish this beyond immigration enforcement non-cooperation. We draw from qualitative interviews with 54 organizational workers in Seattle, Washington and Boston, Massachusetts. Our findings illuminate lingering challenges immigrants face within sanctuary cities and demonstrate how organizational workers mitigate the shortcomings of sanctuary policies to addressing broad definitions of safety and health by enacting their own sanctuary practices.

Local Policing and the Educational Outcomes of Undocumented College Students

A growing literature examines the impact of immigration and law enforcement on undocumented immigrants and their communities, but these studies are limited by the lack of reliable data on documentation status and their focus on federal immigration enforcement. Leveraging administrative student data from the City University of New York (CUNY) that reliably identify about 13,000 undocumented students among more than 350,000 first-year students, this article examines whether local policing practices that do not ostensibly target undocumented immigrants can affect the educational outcomes of undocumented young adults. Focusing on police stops around university campuses under the New York City Police Department's Stop, Question, and Frisk program, our findings show a substantial negative effect of police stops around campus on course credits for undocumented men but no impact on GPA or on the likelihood of receiving zero credits in the following term (stop-out). The negative effect is larger for Black and South Asian undocumented young men, groups that experience heightened surveillance by the local police. In contrast, campus police stops have little effect on documented students or undocumented women. The results illustrate how local policing practices, even in so-called sanctuary cities, can have chilling effects on undocumented groups with important implications for the links between the criminal justice system, immigration, and social inequality.

State Preemption of Municipal Laws and Policies that Protect Immigrant Communities: Impact on Latine Health and Well-Being in North Carolina.

BackgroundSome U.S. municipalities have proclaimed themselves “sanctuary cities” and/or adopted laws and policies limiting local involvement in enforcement of federal immigration policies. Several states, however, have adopted laws that preempt municipal laws and policies designed to protect immigrants. We explored the consequences of House Bill (H.B.) 318, one such preemption law in North Carolina (NC), on the health and well-being of Latine immigrants.MethodsWe conducted focus groups with Latine immigrants (n=49) and in-depth interviews with representatives from health, social service, and immigrant-serving organizations and local government (including law enforcement) (n=21) in NC municipalities that, before HB 318, adopted laws and policies supporting immigrants. Data were analyzed using constant comparison.ResultsTwelve themes emerged, including the positive impacts of municipal sanctuary laws and policies are limited by preemption and other state and federal actions; laws and policies like HB 318 are confusing, have a chilling effect on health services use, and make life harder overall for Latine communities; intensified federal immigration enforcement has increased fear among Latine communities; Trump administration policies worsened anti-immigrant climates; and use of community identification cards and greater information dissemination and inter-organization coordination can lessen the consequences of preemption and other restrictive laws and policies.ConclusionState preemption of protective municipal laws and policies negatively and profoundly affects immigrant health and well-being. However, creative strategies have been implemented to respond to preemption. These findings provide critical data for decision-makers and community leaders regarding the detrimental impacts of preemption laws and mitigation of these impacts.

Criminal Law & Migration Control: Recent History & Future Possibilities

Abstract Immigration enforcement in the United States has undergone a revolutionary transformation over the past three decades. Once episodic, border-focused, and generally confined to the efforts of a relatively small federal agency, immigration enforcement is now exceedingly well-funded and integrated deeply into the everyday policing of the interior United States. Not only are federal immigration agents more numerous and ubiquitous in the interior, but immigration enforcement has been integrated into the policing practices of state and local officials who once saw their purview as largely distinct from that of federal immigration enforcement agents. This essay briefly explains these developments, from shortly before the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 through the present day, and assesses their consequences. It includes a brief discussion of the ways states and localities have responded to federal enforcement trends, whether through amplification or constraint.

The Relationship Between States' Immigrant-Related Policies and Access to Health Care Among Children of Immigrants.

States vary in their participation in federal immigration enforcement, leading to differing state-level policy contexts that profoundly shape the lives of immigrants. This paper examines the effects of sanctuary policies and driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants on immigrants’ children’s access to preventative healthcare. The 2008–2016 Medical Panel Expenditure Survey merged with state-level policy data were analyzed using a difference-in-difference OLS regression. Outcome variables included whether the child had a usual source of care, any unmet medical needs, or a well child check-up. State driver’s license and sanctuary policies were associated with having a usual source of care and fewer unmet medical needs among children of immigrants. The recent pandemic highlights the importance of access to preventative health care. State policies that limit federal immigration enforcement involvement are associated with improved access to preventative health services among immigrants’ children, most of whom are U.S. citizens.

The Effect of Intergovernmental Policy Conflict on Immigrants’ Behavior: Insights from a Survey Experiment in California

AbstractAs Congress remains gridlocked on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, immigration policy debates, particularly with respect to interior immigration enforcement, are increasingly taking place at state and local levels. Scholarship on immigration federalism has focused on federal and local governments, while states are passing laws that tighten or delimit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (i.e., “sanctuary policies”). Simultaneously, cities are passing laws contradictory to state policy. We examine how these state and local enforcement ambiguities affect undocumented immigrants’ trust in the efficacy of sanctuary policies. Using California as a case, we embedded an experiment in a survey of undocumented immigrants and find trust in sanctuary policies decreases when cities seek to opt out of statewide sanctuary laws. Further, “opting out” has negative implications for the daily behavior of undocumented immigrants, like the chilling effects resulting from local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The information practices of law enforcement: Passive and active collaboration and its implication for sanctuary laws in Washington state

AbstractAlthough Washington state sanctuary policies of 2017 prohibit collaboration between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement in noncriminal cases, compliance with sanctuary policies has not been systematically studied. We explore information practices and collaboration between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement in Grant County, Washington, based on records from November 2017 to May 2019 obtained by the University of Washington Center for Human Rights through Public Records Act (PRA) requests. Qualitative analysis of over 8,000 pages reveals a baseline of passive and active information sharing and collaboration between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies before Washington sanctuary laws went into effect in May 2019, a practice that needs to stop if agencies are to comply with the laws. We employ a systematic methodology to obtain (through PRA and other Access to Information requests) and analyze official records through qualitative content analysis, to monitor and hold local law enforcement accountable in their compliance with sanctuary laws. This method can be used to examine law enforcement information behaviors in other counties in Washington, and in other states that offer sanctuary protections, as a way to monitor compliance with sanctuary laws and strengthen the protection of immigrants' rights.

The Roles of Settings in Supporting Immigrants' Resistance to Injustice and Oppression: A Policy Position Statement by the Society for Community Research and Action: A Policy Statement by the Society for Community Research and Action: Division 27 of the American Psychological Association.

In 2018, in response to increasingly oppressive and widespread federal immigration enforcement actions in the United States (U.S.) and around the globe – including family separation, immigration raids, detention, deportation of people who have lived in the country for much of their lives – the Society for Community Research & Action produced a statement on the effects of deportation and forced separation on immigrants, their families, and communities (SCRA, 2018). The statement focused exclusively on the impacts of deportation and forced family separation, documenting the damage done by oppressive U.S. policies and practices. We felt it was imperative to document this harm, and yet were uncomfortable producing a narrow paper that focused solely on harm. There are multiple ways immigrants and their allies resist deportation and other forms of oppression. This resistance is done individually, collectively, and in settings that vary in size and scope, including community‐based, faith‐based, direct care, and educational settings, as well as entire municipalities and transnational organizing settings. Settings facilitate resistance in many ways, focusing on those who are oppressed, their oppressors, and systems of oppression. In this statement, we describe the unique and overlapping ways in which settings facilitate resistance. We situate this review of the scientific and practice literature in the frameworks of change through social settings, empowering settings, healing justice, and decolonization. We also document recommendations for continued resistance.

Immigrant Sanctuary Policies and Crime-Reporting Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis of Reports of Crime Victimization to Law Enforcement, 1980 to 2004

Sanctuary jurisdictions have existed in the United States since the 1980s. They have recently reentered U.S. politics and engendered contentious debates regarding their legality and influence on public safety. Critics argue that sanctuary jurisdictions create conditions that threaten local communities by impeding federal immigration enforcement efforts. Proponents maintain that the policies improve public safety by fostering institutional trust among immigrant communities and by increasing the willingness of immigrant community members to notify the police after they are victimized. In this study, we situate expectations from the immigrant sanctuary literature within a multilevel, contextualized help-seeking framework to assess how crime-reporting behavior varies across immigrant sanctuary contexts. We find that Latinos are more likely to report violent crime victimization to law enforcement after sanctuary policies have been adopted within their metropolitan areas of residence. We argue that social policy contexts can shift the nature of help-seeking experiences and eliminate barriers that undermine crime victims’ willingness to mobilize the law. Overall, this study highlights the unique role social policy contexts can serve in structuring victims’ help-seeking decisions.

The Relationship Between Immigration Enforcement and Educational Attainment: The Role of Sanctuary Policies

This study explores the association between sanctuary policies and the high school completion and college enrollment of Hispanic undocumented youth. Sanctuary policies, which city, county, and/or state governments implement, prohibit local political leaders and police officials from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement officers regarding the questioning, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants. This study uses data from the American Community Survey and applies a difference-in-differences design. On average, my preferred specification detected no association with high school completion or college enrollment. These findings suggest that although these policies may help counteract immigration enforcement, they may not reduce uncertainty enough to have a significant relationship with educational outcomes.

State Preemption of Local Immigration "Sanctuary" Policies: Legal Considerations.

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.