Exclusion by design: The undocumented 1.5 generation in the U.S

This article focuses on Mexican individuals who grew up in the U.S. (1.5 generation) without documents and were not able to benefit from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or who were unable to renew their DACA. A 2012 Executive Action by former president Obama, DACA gave some undocumented youth relief from deportation and a 2-year renewable work permit provided they met certain criteria. Undocumented individuals DACA failed to reach have generally been overlooked in immigration research in favor of examining how DACA recipients' lives have been transformed by DACA. This project helps fill this gap by examining life outside of DACA, and how the program acted as an internal U.S. border of exclusion for many. This research also aids in understanding the impacts of changing government policies on vulnerable populations, especially those who are in some respects made even more vulnerable by their faith in the government, fear of the government, or are actively excluded from government programs. This investigation is part of a study that compares 20 DACA beneficiaries to 20 individuals without DACA. Through ethnographic methodologies and one-on-one interviews, this article examines the 20 research participants who fall outside DACA. It investigates why people who qualified for DACA did not apply, barriers to applying/renewing, and how members of the 1.5 generation were excluded from the program by restrictions such as date of arrival requirements. The article discusses what it means for research participants to live outside of DACA, and how they see their lives because they do not have DACA while others do. For example, what does it mean to age out of qualifying for DACA? What actions did individuals then take regarding their lack of legal status?

The association between Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, health access, and mental health: the role of discrimination, medical mistrust, and stigma

OBJECTIVE

There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, including 1.3 million young adults who are eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It is unclear how DACA influences engagement in healthcare or depressive symptoms, and the role of discrimination, medical mistrust, and stigma in healthcare settings. This study assesses the association of DACA on undocumented young adults' engagement with health care and depressive symptoms.

DESIGN

We conducted an internet-based survey examining the health-related experiences of undocumented Latino and Asians and Pacific Islander (API) young adults in California (n = 218) between June and August 2017. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to assess the influence of DACA, discrimination, medical mistrust, and stigma on healthcare engagement and depressive symptoms.

RESULTS

Approximately 78% of respondents had a gap in healthcare, and about 31% reported high levels of depressive symptoms. Controlling for demographic characteristics, compared to those without DACA, DACA-recipients had lower odds of reporting gaps in healthcare engagement (aOR = 0.270, p < 0.05) and depressive symptoms (aOR = 0.115, p < 0.01). Those facing discrimination, medical mistrust, and stigma in healthcare settings were less likely to have a healthcare visit and more likely to have higher depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

DACA is a potential strategy to improve healthcare access and address the mental health of undocumented populations. In particular, issues of discrimination, stigma by healthcare providers, and medical mistrust need to be addressed.

Snapshot Models of Undocumented Immigration

Accurately estimating the size of the undocumented immigrant population is a critical component of assessing the health and security risks of undocumented immigration to the United States. To provide one such estimate, we use data from the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), a study that includes samples of undocumented Mexican immigrants to the United States after their return to Mexico. Of particular interest are the departure and return dates of a sampled migrant's most recent sojourn in the United States, and the total number of such journeys undertaken by that migrant household, for these data enable the construction of data-driven undocumented immigration models. However, such data are subject to an extreme physical bias, for to be included in such a sample, a migrant must have returned to Mexico by the time of the survey, excluding those undocumented immigrants still in the United States. In our analysis, we account for this bias by jointly modeling trip timing and duration to produce the likelihood of observing the data in such a "snapshot" sample. Our analysis characterizes undocumented migration flows including single-visit migrants, repeat visitors, and "retirement" from circular migration. Starting with 1987, we apply our models to 30 annual random snapshot surveys of returned undocumented Mexican migrants accounting for undocumented Mexican migration from 1980 to 2016. Scaling to population quantities and supplementing our analysis of southern border crossings with estimates of visa overstays, we produce lower bounds on the total number of undocumented immigrants that are much larger than conventional estimates based on U.S.-based census-linked surveys, and broadly consistent with the more recent estimates reported by Fazel-Zarandi, Feinstein, and Kaplan.

Comparing crime rates between undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in Texas

Despite its centrality to public and political discourse, we lack even basic information on fundamental questions regarding undocumented immigrants and crime. This stems largely from data constraints. Going beyond existing research, we utilize data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, which checks and records the immigration status of all arrestees throughout the state. Contrary to public perception, we observe considerably lower felony arrest rates among undocumented immigrants compared to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens and find no evidence that undocumented criminality has increased in recent years. Our findings help us understand why the most aggressive immigrant removal programs have not delivered on their crime reduction promises and are unlikely to do so in the future.

We make use of uniquely comprehensive arrest data from the Texas Department of Public Safety to compare the criminality of undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens between 2012 and 2018. We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. In addition, the proportion of arrests involving undocumented immigrants in Texas was relatively stable or decreasing over this period. The differences between US-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are robust to using alternative estimates of the broader undocumented population, alternate classifications of those counted as “undocumented” at arrest and substituting misdemeanors or convictions as measures of crime.

DOES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME?

Despite substantial public, political, and scholarly attention to the issue of immigration and crime, we know little about the criminological consequences of undocumented immigration. As a result, fundamental questions about whether undocumented immigration increases violent crime remain unanswered. In an attempt to address this gap, we combine newly developed estimates of the unauthorized population with multiple data sources to capture the criminal, socioeconomic, and demographic context of all 50 states and Washington, DC, from 1990 to 2014 to provide the first longitudinal analysis of the macro-level relationship between undocumented immigration and violence. The results from fixed-effects regression models reveal that undocumented immigration does not increase violence. Rather, the relationship between undocumented immigration and violent crime is generally negative, although not significant in all specifications. Using supplemental models of victimization data and instrumental variable methods, we find little evidence that these results are due to decreased reporting or selective migration to avoid crime. We consider the theoretical and policy implications of these findings against the backdrop of the dramatic increase in immigration enforcement in recent decades.

Social context of work injury among undocumented day laborers in San Francisco

OBJECTIVE

To identify ways in which undocumented day laborers' social context affects their risk for occupational injury, and to characterize the ways in which these workers' social context influences their experience of disability.

DESIGN

Qualitative study employing ethnographic techniques of participant-observation, supplemented by semistructured in-depth interviews.

SETTINGS

Street corners in San Francisco's Mission District, a homeless shelter, and a nonprofit day labor hiring hall.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-eight Mexican and Central American male day laborers, 11 of whom had been injured. PRIMARY THEMES: Anxiety over the potential for work injury is omnipresent for day laborers. They work in dangerous settings, and a variety of factors such as lack of training, inadequate safety equipment, and economic pressures further increase their risk for work injury. The day laborers are isolated from family and community support, living in a local context of homelessness, competition, and violence. Injuries tend to have severe emotional, social, and economic ramifications. Day laborers frequently perceive injury as a personal failure that threatens their masculinity and their status as patriarch of the family. Their shame and disappointment at failing to fulfill culturally defined masculine responsibilities leads to intense personal stress and can break family bonds. Despite the high incidence of work injuries and prevalence of work-related health conditions, day laborers are frequently reluctant to use health services due to anxiety regarding immigration status, communication barriers, and economic pressure.

IMPLICATIONS

On the basis of these ethnographic data, we recommend strategies to improve ambulatory care services to day laborers in 3 areas: structural changes in ambulatory care delivery, clinical interactions with individual day laborers, and policymaking around immigration and health care issues.