Temporary Visa Holders Research Articles

Public health policy for temporary seasonal workers with chronic hepatitis B in high-income countries: A comparative analysis.

This study examines Australia's Hepatitis B public health policies with a focus on the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme seasonal workers as a priority population. The aim is to evaluate if Australia's Hepatitis B public health policies adequately address health disparities and equitable access to health care for seasonal workers as a priority population. We draw comparisons with the public health policies of New Zealand and Canada, to understand how these nations approach similar health concerns among their temporary seasonal workers. A health policy analysis was conducted on the public health Hepatitis B policies in Australia and then compared with those in Canada and New Zealand. Due to the nature of the study question, the review had a major focus on grey literature. The search was undertaken in two stages, including (1) Google search engine and (2) targeted websites. Basic document data was produced in descriptive summaries. Any data either explicitly or inexplicitly relating to the elimination of hepatitis B or equity towards the inclusion of seasonal workers was produced as analytical summaries through multiple revisions. Nineteen documents were identified, predominantly from Australia. Although Hepatitis B public health policies emphasised testing and awareness in priority populations, specifically mentioning seasonal workers as a priority population was absent in all three countries. The study underscores the exclusion of temporary seasonal workers in public health policies and strategies as a human rights issue, conflicting with principles of equity and equitable access to health care. Despite acknowledging challenges for temporary visa holders, policies lack specific provisions for seasonal workers. Addressing this gap is crucial for health equity and inclusive health systems. SO WHAT?: Our findings highlight the need to prioritise equity for temporary seasonal workers to achieve hepatitis B elimination goals by 2030. Exclusion from public health policies is a human rights concern, impacting access to quality health care. This study advocates for inclusive policies explicitly recognising temporary seasonal workers as a priority population, aligning with international human rights commitments to health care for all.

Korean Residents’ Experiences of Racism in Germany During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Association with Life Satisfaction and Sense of Belonging

AbstractSince the outbreak of COVID-19, more incidents of anti-Asian racism have been reported in Europe. Asians in Germany have been directly and indirectly exposed to racism, with potential implications for their well-being and sense of belonging. This study aimed to explore racism experiences among Korean residents in Germany since the outset of the pandemic. It also examines how racism is associated with their life satisfaction and sense of belonging to the host society. Our online survey of 552 Koreans residing in Germany shows that since the beginning of the pandemic nearly 80% of them experienced direct and/or indirect racism mainly in public places, public transportation, social media, and mainstream media. Women, younger people, and temporary visa-holders were more likely to experience racism than other groups. While the experience(s) of racism was associated with lower life satisfaction, a stronger sense of belonging to local communities and German society as a whole appeared to alleviate the negative effect of the racism experience. This study shows the pervasiveness of anti-Asian racism in Germany, and thus urges German society and local communities to commit to creating inclusive and diverse environments alongside anti-racism efforts.

“We Cannot Go There, They Cannot Come Here”: Dispersed Care, Asian Indian Immigrant Families and the COVID-19 Pandemic

“We Cannot Go There, They Cannot Come Here”: Dispersed Care, Asian Indian Immigrant Families and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Navigating the dilemmas of mutual aid: International student organising in Sydney during the COVID‐19 pandemic

AbstractIn 2020, thousands of international students found themselves stranded in Sydney, Australia, with the suspension of international travel and closure of borders. While many lost their livelihoods due to lockdowns, the Australian government excluded international students and other temporary visa holders from all forms of income support and disaster relief—resulting in food and housing insecurity and social isolation. This article describes and analyses the forms of mutual aid and support that international students organised to address their situation. In providing an account of their efforts, we consider them as forms of care infrastructure and draw particular attention to the institutional relationships that were involved: interfaces with faith, community and labour organising; confrontations with state agencies and the higher education sector; and institutionalisation into a formalised and state‐funded community organising initiative—the Oz International Student Hub. We examine the evolution of these relationships as responses to a series of strategic dilemmas, as students sought simultaneously to care for one another and to confront the forces that produced their precarity and isolation. And we draw out a series of lessons we can learn from their efforts about how mutual aid can avoid the pitfalls of charity and state welfare, while institutionalising more durable political spaces that do not have to be invented anew with each fresh crisis.

Information seeking behaviors of individuals impacted by COVID-19 international travel restrictions: an analysis of two international cross-sectional studies

Access to accurate information during a crisis is essential. However, while the amount of information circulating during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased exponentially, finding trustworthy resources has been difficult for many, including those affected by international travel restrictions. In this study, we examined the information-seeking behaviors of individuals seeking to travel internationally during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explored perceptions regarding the value of resources in supporting understanding of COVID-19 travel restriction-related information. Two online cross-sectional surveys targeting four groups were conducted. The groups targeted were: (1) citizens and permanent residents stranded abroad; (2) individuals separated from their partners; (3) individuals separated from immediate families; and (4) temporary visa holders unable to migrate or cross international borders. In total, we analyzed 2,417 completed responses, and a further 296 responses where at least 75% of questions were completed. Findings suggest that social media groups (78.4%, 1,924/2,453), specifically Facebook (86.6%, 2,115/2,422) were the most useful or most used information resource for these groups. Some significant information seeking behavior differences across age and gender were also found. Our study highlights the diversity in information needs of people impacted by COVID-19 travel restrictions and the range of preferred channels through which information is sought. Further, it highlights which challenges hold legitimacy in their target audiences' eyes and which do not. Policymakers may use these results to help formulate more nuanced, consumer-tailored—and hence likely more acceptable, trusted, and impactful—communication strategies as part of future public health emergencies.

Beyond Technology-Facilitated Abuse: Domestic and Family Violence and Temporary Migration

Abstract This paper explores the importance of moving beyond a narrow examination of technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) and domestic and family violence (DFV). Drawing on findings from two studies that capture the experiences of over 300 temporary visa holders in Australia, we detail how technology is one tool used within the context of patterns of control and isolation. We detail the experiences of TFA in our sample and then examine the importance of locating TFA within the broader context of structural inequality. We argue that the position of temporary non-citizens must be the foreground to identify the structural conditions that are sustained by the state and leveraged by perpetrators, rather than the specifics of the tools that are used to enact DFV.

The Topos of the Border in Contemporary American Migratory Novel

The border is the focus of migration studies from any perspective. Today, it is evident that the rethinking of human movement in the modern world has also provoked the need to change the perspective on the lines that separate states and nations. These politically constructed boundaries embody the territorialization of collectives, the allocation of a locus for specific groups, the narrowing of the world in certain parameters, the division of people into those who belong and those who are unwanted or Other, the consolidation of the image of inaccessibility for some countries and accessibility for others, and the desire of the richer to distance themselves from the poorer and the law-abiding from the lawbreakers. In literary texts that represent migration processes, the border and its crossing occupy an important place. Since refugees, illegal migrants, or temporary visa holders who try to enter wealthy countries at any cost are predominantly at the center of such works, the experience of crossing the dividing line is often degrading, and sometimes even life-threatening. The article provides an overview of contemporary approaches to understanding the border in the humanities. Researchers emphasize the discriminatory nature, regressive mechanisms, and constructivist way of thinking about dividing lines. The analysis of D. Nayeri’s ‘Refuge’, C. N. Adichie’s ‘Americanah’, I. Zoboi’s ‘American Street’, and A. L. Urrea’s ‘The Devil’s Highway’ leads to the conclusion that in migratory novels, the border functions as a state practice of demeaning those who cross it. In addition, visas intensify constructed perceptions of inaccessibility and, accordingly, high living standards and freedom in the Western world. The humiliations that migrants experience to reach their dreamland traumatize their personality and intensify their feelings of inferiority. The article reveals potential research perspectives for studying migration through the prism of rethinking borders, realizing their discriminatory nature, and the artificiality of the political distribution of the world.

Living with Insecurities During COVID-19: The Impact of Hard Restrictions on South Asian International Students in Australia

ABSTRACT The outbreak of COVID-19 exacerbated the structural vulnerabilities of marginalised populations globally. In Australia, international students experienced various forms of hardship due to state-mandated public health restrictions. In this exploratory study, we discuss the impacts of hard restrictions on South Asian international students studying at universities in Melbourne. Visa temporality, limited work rights, concentration into precarious and low-paid work, obligations to pay costly higher education fees, and exclusion from social security and universal healthcare contribute to the long-term structural vulnerabilities of international students in Australia. With restrictions in Melbourne leading to widespread job loss in the hospitality and accommodation services sectors during 2020-2021, the state response to pandemic caused further marginalisation of internaitonal students. We show how the public health response to the COVID-19 worsened, rather than protected or improved, self-reported health and wellbeing outcomes for our participants. By centring the lived experiences of South Asian international students, our research contributes to a growing body of evidence detailing how the public health response to pandemic has further subordinated temporary visa holders in Australia. In the future, we recommend inclusive, equitable public health responses which universalise key protective measures such as social security support, regardless of citizenship or visa status.

Waiting to work: employment among dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders in the U.S.

ABSTRACT In 2015, the Obama administration eased the rules regarding employment for accompanying spouses of some temporary foreign workers who hold an H-1B visa. The policy change allowed some spouses of H-1B visa holders who were in the queue for a permanent resident visa to work. This study uses data from the National Survey of College Graduates to examine the impact of the policy change on employment rates among dependent spouses of temporary visa holders. The results indicate that the policy change increased their employment rate substantially.

A note on KiwiSaver and migrants on temporary visas

New Zealand’s (NZ) current policy setting excludes migrants on work or student temporary visas from joining KiwiSaver (KS). Migrants on temporary visas, therefore, cannot access a savings vehicle that makes saving for retirement convenient and provides financial incentives to save. This research note estimates the extent of this migrant KS ineligibility issue. We use linked administrative data to create a cohort of 70,000 NZ migrants on temporary work or student visas in 2009 and follow them for ten years. Results show that after five years, over half of the cohort live overseas and about 10,000 remain on temporary visas and hence are still ineligible for KS. Using KS enrolment of a comparison group of resident-class migrants over the same time period, we estimate that just over half of employed temporary migrants might have potentially joined KS if eligible. The lost individual KS contributions range between $36,000 and $51,000 by time the migrant reaches 65 years old. Our findings contribute to the policy debate of whether the eligibility criteria of NZ’s KS scheme should be revised to allow temporary visa holders to join.

Psychological and financial impacts of COVID-19-related travel measures: An international cross-sectional study.

The impact of COVID-19 international travel restrictions has to date, not been fully explored, and with the ongoing threat that new variants could potentially restrict movement further, it is important to consider the impacts that travel restrictions have on community members. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological and financial impact of COVID-19 travel restrictions on those separated from their partners or immediate families, as well as temporary visa holders who were unable to migrate. Between 4 November 2021 to 1 December 2021, we executed a cross-sectional online survey targeting three specific groups; (1) those stranded from their partners; (2) those stranded from immediate families; and (3) temporary visa holders unable to migrate or cross international borders. We collected data on respondents' demographic profile; the nature of COVID-19-related travel impacts; depression, anxiety, and stress levels (using the validated DASS-21); and finally, data on respondents financial, employment and accommodation situation. 1363 respondents located globally completed the survey. 71.2% reported financial stress, 76.8% ([Formula: see text], SD = 5.94) reported moderate-to-extremely severe depression, 51.6% ([Formula: see text], SD = 5.49) moderate-to-extremely severe anxiety, and 62.6% ([Formula: see text], SD = 5.55) moderate-to-extremely severe stress levels. Statistically significant factors associated with moderate-to-extremely severe depression, anxiety, and stress included being female, chronic illness, and experiencing financial stress. Employment during COVID-19 -specifically essential services workers or unemployed-was associated with higher levels of anxiety and stress, with only essential workers being a predictor of higher stress severity. Factors that provided psychological protection included being older and having children. This study is one of the first to explore the impact COVID-19-related international travel restrictions have had on the financial status and psychological health of affected individuals. It highlights the significant human cost associated with the restrictions and identifies psychologically vulnerable populations. These results will help the design of targeted health and social policy responses.

Inequalities Limiting Health Care Access for Migrant Australians – The Positive Impact of Multiculturism and Medical Student Rotation to Remote Hospital Settings

Limited access to public health insurance may negatively impact patient care for migrant Australians particularly those in remote hospital settings. This may reflect language and other social barriers including not insignificantly, apprehension of cost and fear of subsequent reprisal. This case reports the experience of a 26-year-old Malaysian female who presented to an emergency department with suspicion of ectopic pregnancy. Background: Globally, Australia is a major immigration target. Population data from 2020 estimate over 7.6 million migrants currently living within our borders, with many in regional or remote rural centres [1]. Access to effective healthcare is often impacted by demographic and social challenges unique to this population which include affordability and economic limitations, cultural bias and vulnerability, language barriers and alienation from the Australian Medicare system [2]. The latter, a Commonwealth government program, provides Australian citizens and selected temporary visa holders, access to a wide range of health services including hospital and outpatient treatment, pharmaceuticals and diagnostic services without cost or with subsidy by way of the Medical Benefits Schedule [3]. Patients not able to share in this scheme, may be left isolated or unfairly biased when issues of health crisis or routine self-assessment arise. We present a case report of a 26-year-old female migrant of Malaysian origin, who presented acutely to a public hospital emergency department with suspected acute abdomen. She had limited understanding of English and had no Medicare entitlement. Whilst we were able to provide care for this young woman, our ability to do so was significantly hindered by these barriers, a dilemma not uncommon in remote rural practice. It highlights the inequalities of a healthcare system that at times can have little reserve or capacity to encompass the needs of patients with cultural or social demographics that may segregate or displace them from the general population. This is all the more poignant when it occurs in a setting of limited resource and vulnerability and it demonstrates the importance of shared language skills, compliance, and a culturally sensitive and inclusive healthcare environment.

Temporary Migration and Family Violence: How Perpetrators Weaponise Borders

This paper explores the implications of domestic and family violence occurring across borders, specifically the utilisation of border crossings to exert control and enact violence. While gendered violence can and does occur in border-crossing journeys, this paper focuses more specifically on how domestic and family violence extends across national borders and how violence (or the threat of violence and deportation) can manifest across multiple countries when women are temporary visa holders. This paper illuminates the way in which migration systems play a significant role in temporary migrant experiences of domestic and family violence. Drawing on a study of 300 temporary migrants and their experiences of domestic and family violence, I argue that perpetrators effectively weaponise the migration system to threaten, coerce and control women in different ways, most often with impunity. I also argue that we cannot focus on perpetrators and the individual alone—that we need to build on the border criminology scholarship that highlights the need to focus on systemic harm in the context of domestic and family violence and identify how the migration regime contributes to gendered violence.

'We Might not Be Citizens but We Are Still People': Australia’s Disregard for the Human Rights of International Students during COVID-19

Globally, in 2020, the health, social and economic consequences of lockdown laws that were enacted to contain the pandemic disproportionately disadvantaged temporary migrants. In his now infamous statement to visa holders in March 2020, the Australian Prime Minister contrasted “good times” during which “it’s lovely to have visitors to Australia” with “times like this” in which non-residents were no longer welcome in Australia. Despite its relative global affluence, Australia excluded temporary visa holders from virtually all government wage subsidies and other financial support packages. Against the backdrop of Australia’s human rights obligations to migrants in its territory, this article empirically examines the impact of Australia’s response to the pandemic on international students in Australia, the largest group of long-term temporary visa holders who, with their limited work rights during their studies, have become a de facto low wage migrant workforce in this country. It presents new large-scale data from a July 2020 survey of over 5,000 international students and recent graduates reflecting widespread inability to pay for essential needs (including food and medical needs), lack of access to secure housing, lack of access to emergency support, and their experiences of racism, discrimination and social exclusion in Australia during the pandemic. The article concludes that there must be a national and global reckoning with the immediate and long-term impact of government policies on migrants during the pandemic and reinvigoration of the relevance of the human rights framework during “times like this”.

Disentangling contributions of demographic, family, and socioeconomic factors on associations of immigration status and health in the United States

BackgroundIn the United States, immigration policy is entwined with health policy, and immigrants’ legal statuses determine their access to care. Yet, policy debates rarely take into account the health needs...

As if We Weren't Humans: The Abandonment of Temporary Migrants in Australia during COVID-19

In March 2020, nationwide lockdowns to contain the spread of COVID-19 in Australia caused widespread job loss among temporary visa holders. This had a devastating financial impact on these workers, including international students, backpackers, graduates, sponsored workers and refugees, leaving many unable to meet their basic living needs such as food and rent. However, unlike some other similar Western countries, the Australian government excluded temporary migrants from wage subsidies and almost all other forms of financial support.This report assesses the humanitarian impact of government policies related to COVID-19 on the hundreds of thousands of temporary migrants who remained in Australia. It presents findings from a survey conducted in July 2020 of over 6,100 temporary visa holders on their experiences of financial insecurity, precarious housing and homelessness, humanitarian need, racism and social exclusion, as well as their attitudes on their time in Australia. In doing so, it seeks to establish a platform for temporary migrants to voice their experiences and establish current large-scale first-hand empirical data to inform government decision-making.

“We might not be citizens but we are still people”: Australia’s disregard for the human rights of international students during COVID-19

ABSTRACT Globally, in 2020, the social and economic consequences of lockdown laws during the pandemic disproportionately disadvantaged temporary migrants. In his now infamous statement to visa holders in March 2020, the Australian Prime Minister contrasted “good times” during which “it’s lovely to have visitors to Australia” with “times like this” in which non-residents were no longer welcome in Australia. Despite its relative global affluence, Australia excluded temporary visa holders from virtually all government financial support packages. This article empirically examines the impact of these policies on international students in Australia, the largest group of long-term temporary visa holders who, with their limited work rights, have become a de facto low wage migrant workforce in this country. It presents new large-scale data from a July 2020 survey of over 5,000 international students and recent graduates reflecting widespread inability to pay for essential medical needs, lack of access to secure housing and emergency support, and their experiences of racism, discrimination and social exclusion in Australia during the pandemic. A national and global reckoning with the immediate and long-term impact of government policies on migrants during the pandemic and reinvigoration of the relevance of the human rights framework during “times like this”.

Migrant workers and the COVID-19 crisis in Australia: an overview of governmental responses

ABSTRACT The initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australia’s workforce was mitigated by relief measures swiftly announced and implemented by the federal government. However, despite broad coverage for Australian citizens and permanent residents, these schemes were noteworthy for their general lack of protection for migrant workers and other temporary visa holders. State governments moved to address this gap to greater or lesser degrees. This contribution offers an overview of governmental responses and analyses the effect of the lack of federal support.

Australia’s State Specific and Regional Migration Schemes: exploring permanent and temporary skilled migration outcomes in South Australia

Background Recent concerns about population growth and its consequences in Sydney and Melbourne have added momentum to the debate on ways to achieve a more even geographic distribution of population. However, there is little contemporary evidence about the impact of regionally-focused immigration policies in delivering positive migrant outcomes and easing pressures in major cities.Aims The aim of this paper is to compare migration, employment and settlement outcomes between permanent and temporary skilled migrants to South Australia (SA) as well as the factors influencing migrants’ decisions to move into and out of the State. Data and methods Data in this paper draws on the South Australian General Skilled Migrant survey of State-sponsored skilled migrants conducted by The University of Adelaide in 2015. Results Lifestyle and employment factors were important in decisions to come to, stay or leave SA. Permanent migrants were more likely to choose SA as a destination because it was perceived as a good place to raise a family, while temporary migrants were more likely to cite employment. Temporary visa holders had relatively poor employment outcomes. Conclusions Temporary and permanent visa holders experienced different settlement and employment outcomes, demonstrating that a more detailed understanding of migrant characteristics and outcomes may be useful in designing and evaluating regionally-focused migration initiatives.

Physicians Call for Administration to Rescind ‘Public Charge’ Proposal

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessPhysicians Call for Administration to Rescind ‘Public Charge’ ProposalLinda M. RichmondLinda M. RichmondSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:26 Oct 2018https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2018.11a20AbstractAPA joined a physicians’ coalition in opposing a proposal DHS rule that would discourage noncitizens from using critical safety-net public services, such as Medicaid or CHIP, for fear of being deported.Acoalition of frontline physicians, including APA, is urging the Trump administration to rescind a proposed rule to deem more immigrants who use Medicaid or other social safety net services “a public charge” and bar them from entering the United States or obtaining a green card.iStock/Anna BryukhanovaThe Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) proposed rule would alter the long-held standards used to determine whether a person is likely to become dependent on the government for subsistence, known as “a public charge,” to newly include use of most noncash public benefits. Current rules penalize immigrants who receive cash welfare payments, but the proposal seeks to add use of other benefits such as Medicaid, public housing or Section 8 benefits, and food stamps. DHS is also “considering” adding the use of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).Immigration has dramatically increased over time (14 percent of the U.S. population were foreign born in 2015, compared with 5 percent in 1950), but the foreign-born population uses public benefits at virtually the same rate as native-born Americans: about 3 percent of noncitizens use public benefits versus 3 percent of U.S. citizens. Many see the proposal as the administration’s latest salvo against immigration, since its policy of separating families at the border and efforts to obtain funding for a border wall have failed.The concern is that immigrants will forgo critical health care, such as immunizations or treatment of communicable diseases, or other needed services to avoid being removed from the country.“The regulation upends decades of settled policy with regard to public charge and would make it much more likely that lawfully present immigrants could be denied green cards or U.S. visas, or even be deported, merely on the basis of seeking needed health services for them and their family, including those for which they are eligible,” the physician coalition wrote in a statement. In addition to APA, the coalition includes the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American College of Physicians, representing more than 400,00 of America’s frontline physicians.“Rather than face that threat, many of the patients served by our members almost certainly will avoid needed care from their trusted providers, jeopardizing their own health and that of their communities,” stated the coalition.If finalized, the change would impact individuals who are applying for a green card to enter the United States as well as temporary visa holders seeking an extension or modification. The rule could extend beyond its intended recipients to affect existing green card holders or to family members of immigrants.When federal welfare was reformed in the 1990s, even classes of immigrants and refugees not touched by changing policies abandoned their benefits in significant numbers out of concerns that it could jeopardize their citizenship status—or that of a loved one—because of a lack of understanding of who was targeted or which programs were affected, explained Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokesperson at Migration Policy Institute.The DHS proposal would make current and past receipt of most public benefits “a heavily weighed negative factor” and would make nonimmigrants receiving such benefits “generally ineligible for change of status and extension of stay,” according to a DHS statement. Individuals needing disaster relief or emergency medical assistance would remain exempt from the rule, as would individuals seeking asylum or refugees.“The proposed regulation not only threatens our patients’ health, but as this deferred care leads to more complex medical and public health challenges, it will also significantly increase costs to the health care system and U.S. taxpayers,” the physician coalition wrote.Comments on the proposed rule must be posted by December 10 at www.regulations.gov. ■ The coalition’s statement can be accessed here. The proposed rule is available here. ISSUES NewArchived