State-Level Immigrant Policies Research Articles

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

Demographers 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 georeferenced data from the General Social Survey (GSS). Results suggest that the gap in ideal family size between Hispanic and white respondents is significantly larger 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.

County- and state-level immigration policies are associated with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation among Latino households

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between county- and state-level immigrant criminalizing and integrating policies and Latino household participation in the largest safety net program against food insecurity in the U.S., the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Our outcome, county-level proportion of SNAP-participating Latino households, and county-level covariates were obtained from the American Community Survey 1-year county files (N = 675 counties) for 13 years (2007–2019). Our exposures were county-level presence of sanctuary policies and a state-level immigrant friendliness score, created based on 19 immigrant criminalizing and integrating state-level policies obtained from the Urban Institute's State Immigration Policies Resource. We classified every county in the sample as 1) sanctuary policy + immigrant friendly state, 2) sanctuary policy + immigrant unfriendly state, 3) no sanctuary policy + immigrant friendly state, and 4) no sanctuary policy + immigrant unfriendly state. Using multivariable generalized linear models that adjusted for poverty levels and other social composition characteristics of counties, we found that county-level SNAP participation among Latino households was 1.1 percentage-point higher in counties with sanctuary policies (B = 1.12, 95%CI = 0.26–1.98), compared to counties with no sanctuary policies, and 1.6 percentage-point higher in counties with sanctuary policies in immigrant friendly states (B = 1.59, 95%CI = 0.33–2.84), compared to counties with no sanctuary policy in immigrant unfriendly states. Local and state immigration policy, even when unrelated to SNAP eligibility, may influence SNAP participation among Latino households. Jurisdictions which lack sanctuary policies or have more criminalizing and less integrating policies should consider adopting targeted outreach strategies to increase SNAP enrollment among Latino households.

The role of states in U.S. immigration: A study of population dynamics and subnational immigration laws

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.

Self-rated health of both US citizens and noncitizens is associated with state-level immigrant criminalization policies

Evidence shows that state-level restrictive immigrant policies are associated with health disparities between noncitizens and citizens. Most research has focused on Latinos and there is limited knowledge of the relationship between restrictive policies and citizenship status among other groups, particularly Asian and Pacific Islanders (API). We examined whether state-level criminalization policy contexts (e.g., law enforcement collaboration with immigration authorities, E-Verify employment authorization) were associated with self-rated health (SRH) by citizenship, with a focus on Latinos and APIs. We expected that criminalization policies would be associated with worse health for noncitizens and citizens, but with a more negative influence for noncitizens; and that this pattern would be the same for Latinos and APIs. We merged a state-level immigrant criminalization policy database with a multi-racial/ethnic sample from 2014 to 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, n = 70,335). We tested the association between SRH and the number of state-level criminalization policies and generated predicted probabilities of noncitizens and citizens reporting excellent health in states with the most and fewest criminalization policies for the full sample, Latino, and API respondents. In states with the most criminalization policies, all noncitizens had a higher and all US-born citizens had a lower probability of excellent health. In states with the fewest criminalization policies there were no differences by citizenship status. Findings provide new evidence that state-level immigrant policies may harm the health of US-born citizens. As immigrant policymaking at the state level continues, understanding the relationship between state-level immigrant policies and health inequities across citizenship statuses will continue to be critical to improving population health.

Measuring structural xenophobia: US State immigration policy climates over ten years

There is an increasing need to understand the structural drivers of immigrant health inequities, including xenophobic and racist policies at the state level in the United States. Databases aggregate state policies related to immigration and research using single year indices examines state policy and immigrant health. Yet none of these sources use a theoretically informed social determinants of immigrant health approach to consider state environments longitudinally, include both exclusionary and inclusionary policies, and are relevant to immigrants from any region of the world or ethnic group. Using an established social determinants of immigrant health framework, a measure of structural xenophobia was created using fourteen policies across five domains: access to public health benefits, higher education, labor and employment, driver's licenses and identification, and immigration enforcement over a ten-year period (2009–2019). To create the Immigration Policy Climate (IPC) index, we used data from state legislatures as well as policy databases from foundations, advocacy organizations, and scholarly articles. We identified and coded 714 US state policies across the 50 US States and the District of Columbia from 2009 to 2019. We calculated annual IPC index scores (range: 12 – 12) as a continuous measure (negative scores: exclusionary; positive scores: inclusionary). Results show that the US has an exclusionary immigration policy climate at the state-level (mean IPC score of −2.5). From 2009 to 2019, two-thirds of state-level immigration policies are exclusionary towards immigrants. About 75% of states experienced a 4-point change or less on the IPC index, and no state changed from largely exclusive to largely inclusive. By aggregating comprehensive, detailed data and a measure of state-level immigration policies over time, the IPC index provides population health researchers with rigorous evidence with which to assess structural xenophobia and an opportunity for longitudinal research on health inequities and immigrant health.

Analysis of State-Level Immigrant Policies and Preterm Births by Race/Ethnicity Among Women Born in the US and Women Born Outside the US

Criminalizing immigrant policies, a form of structural racism, are associated with preterm birth; however, to date, few population studies have examined this association by race and nativity status or examined the association of inclusive immigrant policies with preterm birth. To assess the extent to which variation in preterm birth by race/ethnicity and nativity status is associated with state-level criminalizing vs inclusive immigrant policies. This retrospective, cross-sectional study analyzed birth record data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2018, as well as state-level indicators of inclusive and criminalizing immigrant policies. White, Black, Asian, and Latina women who had singleton births were included in the study. Statistical analysis was performed from June 1, 2020, to February 5, 2021. Two continuous variables were created to capture the number of criminalizing vs inclusive immigrant policies in effect as of 2017 in each state. The main outcome measure was preterm birth (<37 weeks' gestation). Among the 3 455 514 live births that occurred in 2018, 10.0% were preterm, and 23.2% were to mothers born outside the US. Overall, for women born outside the US, each additional state-level inclusive policy was associated with a 2% decrease in preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-1.00]); there were no significant associations between inclusive policies and preterm birth among women born in the US. In models examining the combined associations of criminalizing and inclusive immigrant policies with preterm birth, each additional criminalizing policy was associated with a 5% increase in preterm birth among Black women born outside the US (aOR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00-1.10]). Each additional inclusive immigrant policy was associated with a lower likelihood of preterm birth for Asian women born in the US (aOR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.93-0.98]) and White women born outside the US (aOR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99]). No significant associations were found among other groups. This study suggests that criminalizing immigrant policies are associated with an increase in preterm birth specifically for Black women born outside the US. Inclusive immigrant policies are associated with a decrease in preterm birth for immigrants overall, Asian women born in the US, and White women born outside the US. No associations were found between criminalizing or inclusive immigrant policies and preterm birth among Latina women.

Immigration Policy and Belonging: Ramifications for DACA Recipients’ Sense of Belonging

The socioeconomic benefits of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program initiated in 2012 by executive order from then-president Obama have been documented in the recent literature. However, the consequences of the legal challenge brought against the program by the Trump administration have not yet been fully examined. This article analyzes qualitative data from Latino Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients in California to assess how the legal turmoil around the program is affecting their sense of belonging in the United States. We find that the uncertainty around the program has negative consequences on their sense of belonging, despite the program’s aims at improving it, and despite the respondents’ living in a rather welcoming state in terms of state-level immigration policies. Notably, we find that respondents feel increasingly alienated from and unwanted in American society and postpone major life goals.

Association of Maternal Citizenship and State-Level Immigrant Policies With Health Insurance Coverage Among US-Born Latino Youths

The association of state-level immigrant policies with uninsurance among Latino youths remains unknown. To assess the association of state-level immigrant integration and criminalization policies with health insurance coverage among US-born Latino youths by maternal citizenship. This cross-sectional study analyzed secondary data from the American Community Survey, January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, for US-born Latino youths (age, ≤17 years) and their mothers (age, 18-64 years) as well as state-level indicators of immigrant integration and criminalization policies (in all 50 states and the District of Columbia). Immigrant integration and criminalization policies. The main outcome was maternal reports of youth uninsurance status at the time of the American Community Survey interview. Variation in youth uninsurance by maternal citizenship, state immigrant integration policy context, and state immigrant criminalization policy context were examined. All analyses were conducted with weighted survey data. Of the 226 691 US-born Latino youths (115 431 [50.92%] male; mean [SD] age, 7.66 [4.92] years) included in the study, 36.64% (95% CI, 36.21%-36.92%) had noncitizen mothers. Overall, 7.09% (95% CI, 6.78%-7.41%) of noncitizen mothers reported that their youths were uninsured compared with 4.68% (95% CI, 4.49%-4.88%) of citizen mothers. Of uninsured youths who resided in states with a low level of immigrant integration policies, 9.10% (8.22%-10.06%) had noncitizen mothers and 4.75% (95% CI, 4.19%-5.37%) had citizen mothers; of uninsured youths who resided in states with high criminalization policies, 9.37% (95% CI, 8.90%-9.87%) had noncitizen mothers and 5.91% (95% CI, 5.64%-6.20%) had citizen mothers. In states with few immigrant integration policies, the probability of uninsurance among youths with noncitizen mothers was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.4%) higher than that among youths with citizen mothers. Among youths with noncitizen mothers, the difference in the probability of uninsurance between those residing in states with a low level vs a high level of immigrant integration policies was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-3.6%). Among youths residing in states with high levels of immigrant criminalization policies, those with noncitizen mothers had a 2.6% (95% CI, 1.9%-3.0%) higher probability of being uninsured compared with those whose mothers were citizens. Among youths with noncitizen mothers, the difference in the probability of uninsurance between those who resided in a state with a low level vs a state with a high level of immigrant criminalization policies was 1.7% (95% CI, 0.7%-2.7%). The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that among US-born Latino youths, disparities in uninsurance by maternal citizenship are associated with state-level immigrant integration and criminalization policies and that anti-immigrant policies may be associated with disparities in health care access for US-born Latino youths.

Exporting Murder: US Deportations and the Spread of Violence

AbstractExisting literature on cross-national variation in violence has paid little attention to the transnational transmission of crime. One such channel is the forced return of migrants with a penal record in their country of temporary residence. Responding to this research gap, we study the effect of US deportations of convicts on levels of violent crime in deportees’ country of origin for a cross-country panel of up to 123 countries covering the years 2003 to 2014. We find a strong and robust effect of the deportation of convicts on homicide rates in countries of origin, which is to a large degree driven by deportations to Latin America and the Caribbean. An additional inflow of ten deportees with a prior criminal history per 100,000 increases expected homicide rates by roughly two. In addition to controlling for country-specific fixed effects, we provide evidence on a causal effect using an instrumental variable approach, which exploits spatial and time variation in migrant populations’ exposure to state-level immigration policies in the United States.

Immigrant policies as health policies: State immigrant policy climates and health provider visits among U.S. immigrants.

The geographic dispersion of the U.S. immigrant population has occurred alongside a dramatic increase in state-level immigration laws that has unfolded unevenly across states, creating markedly different state immigrant policy climates. Although not all such laws are health-related, they have potential implications for immigrants' health care utilization. Using data from the 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation, we leverage the geographic variation in the restrictiveness of state immigrant policy climates to examine the association between state-level immigrant policies and health provider visits—a fundamental indicator of health care utilization—among immigrant adults. Results indicate that restrictive immigrant policy climates exacerbate nativity gaps in health provider visits among working-age adults and, to a lesser extent, among older adults. Our findings suggest that even immigrant policies not directly related to health have consequences for immigrants’ health care utilization.

In-State Resident Tuition Policies and the Self-Rated Health of High-School-Aged and College-Aged Mexican Noncitizen Immigrants, Their Families, and the Latina/o Community

Research on state-level immigration policies and health in the United States is limited. In this article Stephanie Potochnick, Sarah May, and Lisa Flores address the gap in research on state-level immigration policies and health in the US by examining the health implications of in-state resident tuition (IRT) policies and their effects. As one of the largest inclusive state efforts, IRT policies reduce educational barriers for Latina/o undocumented immigrant youth, alleviate familial resource constraints, and promote social inclusion. Consequently, IRT and IRT-related policies are likely to have strong impacts on the health of Latina/o undocumented immigrant youth, their families, and their community. Analyzing nationally representative household data and using Mexican noncitizens to proxy undocumented status, the authors adopted a difference-in-difference strategy to identify the influence of IRT-related policies on general self-rated health. Their findings show that IRT policies are associated with better health for Mexican noncitizen youth and young adults and also provide preliminary evidence for positive spillover effects on the health of family members.

A social determinants framework identifying state-level immigrant policies and their influence on health

BackgroundMany conceptual frameworks that touch on immigration and health have been published over the past several years. Most discuss broad social trends or specific immigrant policies, but few address how the policy environment affects the context of settlement and incorporation. Research on the social determinants of health shows how policies across multiple sectors have an impact on health status and health services, but has not yet identified the policies most important for immigrants. Understanding the range and content of state-level policies that impact immigrant populations can focus health in all policies initiatives as well as contextualize future research on immigrant health. MethodsOur framework identifies state-level policies across five different domains that impact the health of immigrants and that vary across states, especially for those without legal status. Our scan shows that immigrants are exposed to different contexts, ranging from relatively inclusive to highly exclusive; a number of states have mixed trends that are more inclusive in some areas, but exclusive in others. Finally, we examine how the relative inclusiveness of state policies are associated with state-level demographic and political characteristics. ResultsContrary to the image that exclusive policies are a reaction to large immigrant populations that may compete for jobs and cultural space, we find that the higher the proportion of foreign born and Hispanics in the state, the more inclusive the set of policies; while the higher the proportion of Republican voters, the less inclusive. ConclusionsVariation across immigrant policies is much larger than the variation in state demographic and political characteristics, suggesting that state-level policies need to be included as a possible independent, contextual effect, when assessing immigrant health outcomes. This policy framework can be particularly useful in bridging our understanding of how large macro processes are connected to the daily lives and health of immigrants.

Recent Shifts in the Volume, Nature, and Scope of State Immigration Policies in the United States

We conducted a comprehensive categorization of state-level immigration policies from 2005–2014 and described for this period the nature of growth in state-level legislative activity, the ideological directions of the policies pursued, the breadth of topic areas covered, and the influences of states’ geographical location, political party orientation, and historical experiences with immigration. Our assessment shows that while all states actively participated in this area of policy expansion, there also is substantial state-level variation in the underlying principles of implementation. Furthermore, past and current experiences with immigration and political party control of state legislatures, rather than proximity to the U.S. border, shaped the respective policy agendas adopted by states.

Exporting Murder: US Deportations &amp;amp; the Spread of Violence

Existing literature on cross-national variation in violence has paid little attention to the transnational transmission of crime. One such channel are the forced returns of migrants with a criminal record in their countries of temporary residence. Responding to this research gap, we study the effect of US deportations of convicts on levels of violent crime in deportees’ countries of origin for a cross-country panel of up to 123 countries covering the years 2003 to 2015. We find a strong and robust effect of criminal deportations on homicide rates in countries of origin, that is to a large degree driven by deportations towards Latin America and the Caribbean. An additional inflow of ten deportees with a criminal history per 100,000 increases expected homicide rates by more than two. In addition to controlling for country specific fixed effects, we provide evidence on a causal effect using an instrumental variable approach, that exploits spatial and time variation in migrant populations’ exposure to state level immigration policies in the US.

“Vivimos en Jaula de Oro”: The Impact of State-Level Legislation on Immigrant Latino Families

ABSTRACTThis study sought to learn from Latino immigrant parents which and how state-level immigration policies impact their families. Fifty-four Latino immigrant parents participated in interviews. Constructivist grounded theory methods were used to complete the analysis. Results indicate that fear of detainment, deportation, and family separation affects participants emotionally and behaviorally. Participants experience exploitive practices in the workplace and through traffic infractions. Social support networks are constantly changing and weakened when families relocate in search of immigrant friendly communities. Simultaneously, parents develop strategies to protect their families against stringent immigration enforcement. Implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.

State-level immigration and immigrant-focused policies as drivers of Latino health disparities in the United States

There has been a great deal of state-level legislative activity focused on immigration and immigrants over the past decade in the United States. Some policies aim to improve access to education, transportation, benefits, and additional services while others constrain such access. From a social determinants of health perspective, social and economic policies are intrinsically health policies, but research on the relationship between state-level immigration-related policies and Latino health remains scarce. This paper summarizes the existing evidence about the range of state-level immigration policies that affect Latino health, indicates conceptually plausible but under-explored relationships between policy domains and Latino health, traces the mechanisms through which immigration policies might shape Latino health, and points to key areas for future research. We examined peer-reviewed publications from 1986 to 2016 and assessed 838 based on inclusion criteria; 40 were included for final review. These 40 articles identified four pathways through which state-level immigration policies may influence Latino health: through stress related to structural racism; by affecting access to beneficial social institutions, particularly education; by affecting access to healthcare and related services; and through constraining access to material conditions such as food, wages, working conditions, and housing. Our review demonstrates that the field of immigration policy and health is currently dominated by a “one-policy, one-level, one-outcome” approach. We argue that pursuing multi-sectoral, multi-level, and multi-outcome research will strengthen and advance the existing evidence base on immigration policy and Latino health.

Immigration Policies and Group Identity: How Immigrant Laws affect Linked Fate among U.S. Latino Populations.

AbstractImmigrant sentiment, measured by the number of state laws enacted to curb the flow of undocumented immigration or expand rights to immigrants, have been on a steady incline since September 11, 2001. Despite the increased attention to unauthorized immigration, little research has examined how immigrant policies are affecting group identity (i.e., linked fate). Linked fate is a form of collective group identity that develops when a group of people experience discrimination and marginalization. Using a unique database that merges the 2012 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (n= 934 Latinos) with the sum of state-level immigration policies enacted from 2005 to 2012, this study is the first to examine the direct relationship between immigrant climate and linked fate. Results from our multinomial logistic regressions indicate that the linked fate among Latinos increases as the number of punitive immigration laws in a state increases, controlling for a vector of control variables. Consistent with our theory regarding differential impact, our findings also suggest that immigration laws have a more pronounced influence on the linked fate of foreign-born Latinos.

Perceived Immigration Policy Effects Scale

The present study describes the development and testing of the Perceived Immigration Policy Effects Scale (PIPES). The measure was developed in Spanish to assess the impact of state-level immigration policies on Latino immigrant parents. This study describes the steps taken to develop the scale items and psychometric testing. The scale was completed by 300 Latino immigrant parents in the state of Arizona. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis revealed/confirmed a four-factor model (discrimination, social exclusion, threat to family, and children’s vulnerability). The subscales and total scale have excellent reliability (α = .824-.934). Additional testing is needed to examine the application of the scale beyond states passing restrictive immigration policies.

A call for further research on the impact of state-level immigration policies on public health.

Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, signed into law in April 2010, is already adversely affecting public health in the state. Our findings from a study on childhood obesity in Flagstaff suggest that the law changed health-seeking behaviors of residents of a predominantly Latino neighborhood by increasing fear, limiting residents' mobility, and diminishing trust of officials. These changes could exacerbate barriers to healthy living, limit access to care, and affect the overall safety of the neighborhood. Documentation of the on-the-ground impact of Arizona's law and similar state-level immigration policies is urgently needed. To inform effective policymaking, such research must be community engaged and include safety measures beyond the usual protocols.