The "disproportionate costs" of immigrant policy on the health of Latinx and Asian immigrants.

There is growing evidence that Asian and Latinx immigrants' health and health care access is shaped by immigrant policies that determine their rights, protections, and access to resources and the extent to which they are targeted by policing or deportation based on citizenship/legal status and other immigration-related social categories. However, there is limited population-based evidence of how immigrants experience the direct consequences of policies, nor of the impact of such consequences on their health. Between 2018 and 2020, we conducted the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) Study, developing a population-based survey of Asian and Latinx immigrants in California (n = 2010) that measured 23 exclusionary experiences under health care and social services, education, labor/employment, and immigration enforcement policies. Applying Ruth Wilson Gilmore's concept of "disproportionate costs," we conducted a latent class analysis (LCA) and regression models of the RIGHTS data to 1) describe patterns of immigrant policy exclusion experienced by Asian and Latinx immigrants and 2) test relationships between patterns of policy exclusion and health care access and health status. LCA analyses identified 6 classes of distinct combinations of policy exclusions. In regression analyses, respondents in the class with cumulative exclusions across all policy sectors had the worst health care access and highest level of psychological distress, but the best self-rated health; while those in the class with employment and enforcement exclusions also had poor health care access. Respondents in the other 3 classes experienced combinations of health and social services exclusions, but these alone were not associated with worse outcomes. Findings show that the consequences of immigrant policies harm health through both cumulative exposure to and intersections of exclusions across policy sectors. Labor/employment and immigration enforcement policies, specifically, likely drive health inequities within immigrant populations. The RIGHTS study highlights the need to measure the cumulative and intersecting "disproportionate costs" of immigrant policy within diverse immigrant populations.

Caught Between a Well-Intentioned State and a Hostile Federal System: Local Implementation of Inclusive Immigrant Policies.

Policy Points Inclusive state immigrant policies that expand rights and resources for immigrants may improve population health, but little is known about their local-level implementation. Local actors that have anti-immigrant attitudes can hinder the implementation of state policies, whereas the persistent influence of anti-immigrant federal policies reinforces barriers to accessing health and other resources granted by state policies. Local actors that serve immigrants and support state policy implementation lack the resources to counter anti-immigrant climates and federal policy threats. CONTEXT: In the United States, inclusive state-level policies can advance immigrant health and health care access by extending noncitizens' access to public benefits, workplace rights, and protections from immigration enforcement. Although state policies carry promise as structural population health interventions, there has been little examination of their implementation at the local level. Local jurisdictions play multiple roles in state policy implementation and possess distinct immigration climates. Examining the local implementation of state immigrant policy can address challenges and opportunities to ensure the health benefits of inclusive policies are realized equitably across states' regions. METHODS: To examine the local implementation of state immigrant policies, we selected a purposive sample of California counties with large immigrant populations and distinct social and political dynamics and conducted and analyzed in-depth interviews with 20 community-based organizations that provided health, safety net, and other services. FINDINGS: We found that there were tensions between the inclusionary goals of state immigrant policies and local anti-immigrant climates and federal policy changes. First, there were tensions between state policy goals and resistance from local law enforcement agencies and policymakers (e.g., Board of Supervisors). Second, because of the ongoing threats from federal immigration policies, there was a mismatch between the services and resources provided by state policies and local community needs. Finally, organizations that served immigrants were responsible for contributing to policy implementation but lacked resources to meet community needs while countering local resistance and federal policy threats. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes knowledge regarding the challenges that emerge after state immigrant policies are enacted. The tensions among state immigrant policies, local immigration climates, and federal policy changes indicate that state immigrant policies are not implemented equally across state communities, resulting in challenges and limited benefits from policies for many immigrant communities.

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.