Legal Status, Worries About Deportation, and Depression Among Asian Immigrants

Racial/Ethnic and Nativity Disparities in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, United States 2018-2021

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy and birth complications. Asian populations have the highest risk of GDM, with even greater risk among foreign-born (FB) residents. Socio-political factors, such as heightened anti-Asian racism and travel restrictions during COVID19 may have further increased their risk of GDM. Our study sought to examine the associations between race/ethnicity, nativity status, and GDM rate and changes during COVID19.

METHODS

We used the US National Center for Health Statistics natality administrative data (N = 14,219,719). We estimated GDM and birth rates by race/ethnicity (Asian non-Hispanic [NH], Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander NH, American Indian and Alaska Native NH, Black NH, White NH, Multiracial NH, and Hispanic/Latina) and nativity status (US-born, Foreign-born). Race/ethnicity was evaluated as a social construct for racial discrimination and nativity was evaluated as a proxy for acculturation-related risk factors. We used multivariable robust Poisson regressions to estimate GDM rates per 100 live births for each racial/ethnic group pre-COVID19 (2018-2019) and during COVID19 (2021) by FB status, adjusting for socioeconomic and major pregnancy risk factors.

RESULTS

In adjusted models, both Asian NH and foreign-born persons had higher rates of GDM compared to White NH (rate ratio [RR]: 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.01, 2.04) and US-born (RR; 1.33, 95% CI: 1.32, 1.34) persons, respectively. Overall GDM rates increased significantly during COVID19 (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.18), with Asian US- and foreign-born persons experiencing the greatest absolute increase (US-born: +2.5, 95% CI: 2.4, 2.6; foreign-born: +3.6, 95% CI: 3.5, 3.6) compared to other racial/ethnic groups (US-born: range +1.3-1.7, foreign-born range: +0.5-2.9). Disaggregated by Asian ethnicity, Chinese and Vietnamese persons had the highest GDM rates overall and the greatest increase during COVID19.

CONCLUSION

We found significant disparities in GDM rates by race/ethnicity and nativity status between 2018 and 2021, with Asian and foreign-born persons having the highest rates of GDM. Investigation into potential socio-political and other contributing factors of reproductive health inequities during COVID19 may help explain these disparities.

Deportation threat predicts Latino US citizens and noncitizens' psychological distress, 2011 to 2018

The national context of deportation threat, defined as the federal government's approach to deportation and/or deportation's salience to the US public, fluctuated between 2011 and 2018. US Latinos across citizenship statuses may have experienced growing psychological distress associated with these changes, given their disproportionate personal or proximal vulnerabilities to deportation. Drawing on 8 y of public- and restricted-access data from the National Health Interview Survey (2011 to 2018), this article examines trends in psychological distress among Latinos who are US-born citizens, naturalized citizens, and noncitizens. It then seeks to explain these trends by considering two theoretical pathways through which the national context of deportation threat could distress Latinos: 1) through discrete dramatic societal events that independently signal a change to the country's approach to deportation and/or that render deportation temporarily more salient to the public or 2) through more gradual changes to the country's everyday institutional (i.e., quotidian efforts to detain and deport noncitizens) and social (i.e., deportation's ongoing salience to a concerned public) environment of deportation threat. We find that, though both pathways matter to some degree, there is more consistent evidence that the gradual changes are associated with Latino US citizens and noncitizens' overall experiences of psychological distress. The article highlights how, even absent observable spillover effects of dramatic societal events bearing on deportation threat, the institutional and social environment in which they occur implicates Latinos' well-being.

Impact of the 2016 Presidential election and restrictive immigration climate on the work and wellbeing of Bangladeshi immigrant community frontline workers in New York City, U.S.A

Community-based organizations (CBOs) are key players in mitigating the impact of restrictive policy changes on immigrant communities. The ability of these organizations to help diffuse the stress caused by restrictive, rapidly changing immigration policies depends, in part, on the capacity and health of their workforce. This study presents findings from a qualitative study conducted with 10 Bangladeshi community frontline workers working in various CBOs and advocacy organizations to understand their experience navigating a heightened anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim climate. Through thematic analyses, we inferred that the 2016 presidential election increased stress and mobilization among community frontline workers, with a meaningful distinction between participants working for immigration-focused institutions versus those in institutions where immigration issues were not the primary focus (e.g. health services, cultural programming). For those working in immigration-focused institutions, work burden increased due to challenges in managing misinformation, making sense of policy changes, and meeting the needs of families impacted by deportation. A toll on frontline workers' own physical health and mental health was discussed, as well as the need for culturally congruent mental health supports for the South Asian community.

"We have to lie low … that sort of poisons me more and more": A qualitative study of violent political rhetoric and health implications for Spanish and Chinese speaking immigrants

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the historical legacy of anti-immigrant sentiment in the US has resurfaced, fueled by a new wave of anti-immigrant political rhetoric. Violent political rhetoric, defined as either explicit or metaphorically targeted language to dehumanize targeted groups, can incite discriminatory treatment of immigrants at both interpersonal and institutional levels, shaping their health and healthcare experiences. This qualitative study explores and compares how Spanish- and Chinese-speaking immigrant populations in Chicago make sense of violent political rhetoric against their racial and ethnic identities, utilize coping strategies to maintain their sense of belonging, and experience downstream health consequences.

METHODS

In 2019, 14 semi-structured focus groups were conducted among immigrants to the U.S. (n = 79). Participants were recruited from four community sites in either Hispanic/Latino or Chinese neighborhoods in Chicago. Focus groups were conducted by racially- and linguistically concordant interviewers in Spanish, Mandarin, or Cantonese. The research team developed a codebook iteratively and analyzed transcripts using grounded theory and the constant comparison method.

RESULTS

Participants included Chinese (61%) and Spanish-speaking immigrants (39%), with an average age of 61.4 years (sd = 13); the majority were female (62%), unemployed (68%), and attained less than a high school diploma (53%). Self-reported stress due to political rhetoric was more pronounced among Spanish-speaking participants (93%) than Chinese participants (39.6%). Immigrants responded to manifestations of violent political rhetoric in numerous ways including mobilizing the model minority myth with internalized racism, anticipatory stress, and "high effort" coping mechanisms (John Henryism), all with downstream health effects.

CONCLUSION

Violent political rhetoric is one of the mechanisms by which racism and xenophobia exacerbate a toll on the health of racialized immigrant groups. These processes have implications for both interpersonal and institutional experiences, as well as health and healthcare interactions. We propose a conceptual model that outlines these mechanisms and points to potential areas of intervention to ameliorate immigrant health inequities.

Selection Bias in Digital Conversations on Depression Before and During COVID-19

Collapse

Immigrants' Enforcement Experiences and Concern about Accessing Public Benefits or Services

Although exclusionary immigration policies are associated with fear of deportation and avoidance of public benefits, relationships between immigration enforcement policy and public charge policies are largely unknown. Using a California population-based survey of 1103 Asian and Latinx immigrants in 2018, we tested the relationship between immigrants' experiences with law enforcement and their concern about public charge. Direct encounters with various forms of law enforcement, including being asked to show proof of citizenship by law enforcement, staying inside to avoid police or immigration officials, and having known someone who had been deported, were associated with immigrants' avoidance of public benefits due to public charge concerns. Latinx immigrants were more likely to be concerns about public charge than Asians. Intersections among immigration policies deserve further consideration. There is a need to provide accurate and reliable information to immigrant communities about public benefits and advocate for inclusive immigration policies.

Beyond "Chilling Effects": Latinx and Asian Immigrants' Experiences With Enforcement and Barriers to Health Care

OBJECTIVES

Immigration enforcement policies are associated with immigrants' barriers to health care. Current evidence suggests that enforcement creates a "chilling effect" in which immigrants avoid care due to fear of encountering enforcement. Yet, there has been little examination of the impact of immigrants' direct encounters with enforcement on health care access. We examined some of the first population-level data on Asian and Latinx immigrants' encounters with law and immigration enforcement and assessed associations with health care access.

METHODS

We analyzed the 2018 and 2019 Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy survey in which Asian and Latinx immigrants in California (n=1681) reported on 7 enforcement experiences (eg, racial profiling and deportation). We examined the associations between measures of individual and cumulative enforcement experiences and the usual sources of care and delay in care.

RESULTS

Latinx, compared with Asian respondents, reported the highest levels of enforcement experiences. Almost all individual enforcement experiences were associated with delaying care for both groups. Each additional cumulative experience was associated with a delay in care for both groups (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.10-1.50). There were no associations with the usual source of care.

CONCLUSION

Findings confirm that Latinx immigrants experience high levels of encounters with the enforcement system and highlight new data on Asian immigrants' enforcement encounters. Direct experiences with enforcement have a negative relationship with health care access. Findings have implications for health systems to address the needs of immigrants affected by enforcement and for changes to health and immigration policy to ensure immigrants' access to care.

Khmer Girls in Action and healing justice: Expanding understandings of anti-Asian racism and public health solutions

This community case study highlights how Khmer Girls in Action (KGA), a Southeast Asian young women-led organizing group in Long Beach, California, enacts healing justice. Healing justice is a framework for both transforming structures at the crux of health inequities and healing emotional, spiritual, and psychological wounds inflicted by structural violence. KGA also anchors the cross-racial and intersectional Invest in Youth (IIY-LB) coalition. IIY-LB youth leaders have successfully fought to increase the city's investments in the social determinants of health, especially young people's well-being. Meanwhile, the coalition has critiqued over-investments in criminalization and policing as devastating Black, Brown, queer, low-income, immigrant, and refugee youth and communities. This case study highlights how KGA's work expands understandings of both anti-Asian racism and public health solutions in the following ways: First, KGA cultivates youth leaders' critical analyses to define root causes of health inequities impacting Southeast Asian refugees as rooted in imperialism, disinvestment, and increased criminalization. Furthermore, youth leaders come to understand how their communities' struggles and liberation necessitate intersectional and cross-racial coalitions. Second, youth leaders forge public health solutions that involve divesting from criminalization and institutionalizing an Office of Youth Development, as co-created with young people. Third, KGA and other IIY-LB organizations cultivate youth's leadership skills and community's political power to move hearts and minds of decision-makers and community members. For example, youth leaders have passed a ballot measure funding youth, climate, and health programs in addition to the city-based Office of Youth Development. Fourth, KGA engages in a wide range of "inward" healing practices to salve wounds caused by intergenerational trauma. This case study contributes to Asian American health equity by highlighting the specific importance of organizing, while illuminating abolitionist perspectives on public health solutions- both of which are under-discussed in discourse about anti-Asian racism. KGA's work thus illustrates the importance of centering critical analyses and leadership of communities most impacted by structural violence in forging transformative public health solutions to anti-Asian racism.

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.

Applying the Health Belief Model to Characterize Racial/Ethnic Differences in Digital Conversations Related to Depression Pre– and Mid–COVID-19 (Preprint)

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions