Which of the Following Accurately Defines Mixed-status Families?

Introduction

Immigration policy and policies apropos undocumented immigrants are highly contentious problems in the U.S. The 2016 national election emboldened anti-immigrant rhetoric and climate that Arizona epitomized in 2010 with the passage and enactment of Arizona Senate Pecker 1070 (SB1070), "Support Our Police Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Deed" (1, 2). Arizona's SB1070 was proposed to encourage undocumented immigrants to "self bear" past restricting their access to public goods and services (three). Although iii out of the four provisions of Arizona'due south SB1070 police were found unconstitutional and struck down past the U.Due south. Supreme Court, the remaining provision was among the most controversial known as "testify me your papers" clause (four). It requires law enforcement to verify the clearing status of persons suspected to be "undocumented." Ultimately in 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Arizona Attorney General's office reached an understanding to gear up guidelines for law enforcement officers to follow when encountering undocumented immigrants (5). Although not a reversal of constabulary, the guidelines gear up limits to forbid racial profiling and making unlawful stops based on a person'south perceived clearing condition.

National debates gave rise and take reignited anti-immigrant rhetoric. Tougher immigration enforcement and restrictive policies continue under the new administration, giving ascent to greater doubt, which may bulldoze more mixed-status households into the shadows (six). Moreover, the daily anxiety of existence detained and deported creates an environment of fear and emotional distress for immigrant communities (7–10). Immigrants' fear of deportation and social stigmatization impede access to health intendance and make them more vulnerable to chronic illnesses (11, 12). These factors may contribute to immigrant households forgoing or delaying needed medical services, fifty-fifty if members in these households are eligible for services.

Furthermore, when the principal family wage earner is deported during Immigration Custom Enforcement'south (Water ice) removal operations, the remaining family members suffer economical hardships (10, 13). Particularly affected are children of mixed-status households where 1 or both parents are non-citizens, either undocumented or permanent legal resident, and where one or more children are U.S. citizens (14–16). Children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are entitled to health services and programs, notwithstanding are much less likely to access these services because of their parents' clearing condition (16–18). A Pew Hispanic Enquiry report indicated that mixed-status households accept grown nationally from ii.7 one thousand thousand in 2003 to 4.5 one thousand thousand in 2010 (nineteen). The exact number of mixed-condition households in Arizona is unknown.

Title IV of the Personal Responsibleness Piece of work Opportunity Reconciliation Deed (PROWA) of 1996 restricted federal public benefits to undocumented immigrants (20, 21). With the exception of emergency Medicaid and some public health services (i.e., immunizations, screening and treatment of infectious disease), undocumented immigrants remain ineligible for public health benefits (22). Nether the Affordable Care Human activity (ACA), undocumented immigrants were also excluded and are unable to buy private private coverage through the marketplace (22). State level immigration legislation further restricted access to state and local public services (23–25). Although undocumented immigrants do not qualify for public benefits, immigrant families may be comprised of eligible household members entitled and eligible for such programs. With the expansion of Arizona Health Intendance Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) in 2014 and the Affordable Intendance Human action we expected to meet an increase in enrollments all the same Latinos remain the everyman group to enroll in ACA in Arizona (26). These exclusionary public policies lead to structural and institutional barriers that increase health inequity in immigrant communities.

Health services are limited to available programs provided by local municipalities and not-governmental organizations. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) play a critical role in the provision of main care services to medically underserved communities including immigrants (27). These centers are especially attractive due to their location, value of cultural competence, sliding fee scales for uninsured and their overall mission to serve the poor, uninsured, and vulnerable population. According to a recent report by the Urban Institute Health Policy Center dependence on these prophylactic nets take grown in recent years, making FQHCs particularly nether-funded to serve the growing number of Medicaid expansion and ACA recipients (28–30).

This commodity examines the wellness care experiences of mixed-status households in Arizona's anti-immigrant political surround. For this study, the "household" is divers as the most fundamental unit of social groupings. A household is identified in office by co-residence of its members, and the tasks that work to sustain the social grouping (31). This study took place five years later SB1070, from September 2015 through July 2016, in Tucson Arizona. Of particular interest was how the household unit navigates accessibility to care when members have varied immigration statuses hence varied health intendance eligibility, affecting their wellness care availability. Health care accessibility (or admission to care) is divers as the presence of a location or person that family members go to for routine preventative care, urgent care, and medical treatment when sick and/or to seek health advice/consult. This article provides an insight of health-seeking behaviors of mixed-condition households to ameliorate assist outreach efforts to this population.

Materials and Methods

Semi-structured interviews were used to identify barriers, promoters and strategies used by members of immigrant households to obtain health care. The interview consisted of qualitative and quantitative questions collecting demographic information from participants and their household, immigration status, health care accessibility, and program utilization by the interviewee and household members. The University of Arizona'southward Institutional Review Board canonical this study. Due to the vulnerability and predicament of mixed-condition households, special considerations were taken to safeguard confidentiality. Specifically a written signed consent was seen equally a risk as it would contain interviewee identifying information (a person's name). An oral disclosure that included all the appropriate elements of consent was accounted advisable and granted by the University of Arizona's Institutional Review Board. All study participants were consented verbally in lieu of a signed consent grade. Additionally it was predictable that Spanish would be the preferred language therefore all oral and written data was made available in Castilian likewise every bit in English language for those who preferred it.

A specific disclosure protocol was followed in obtaining the exact consent:

• Only the PI was involved in the consent and interview procedure.

• A step that was taken to minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence included allowed time for questions from recruited participants about the consent process before proceeding to the interview session.

• Eligible participants were given a disclosure class before proceeding to the interview session via an IRB approved "Disclosure & Waiver of Consent Script."

• During the interview session eligible participants had an opportunity to ask questions and consider and/or reconsider if they wished to participate; they could pass up and/or stop the interview at whatever time.

• Participants could have opted NOT to take the interview session recorded.

• A exact "yes" to acquit the interview was documented by PI upon verbal consent by participant.

• Written information describing the research was provided to each participant who so wished to obtain it in writing.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire incorporated selected quantitative and qualitative questions from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)—Access to Intendance Section and selected questions from a previous Texas study that examined mixed-status households' health care seeking experiences in Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas (xviii). The questionnaire was administered in Spanish by the pb researcher. The interview questionnaire was pilot tested on participants prior to being used.

Recruitment

Purposeful sampling was advisable for this study. Identification and recruitment of eligible mixed-status household members was washed via outreach to immigrant-serving organizations in the Tucson expanse as well as local health clinics, promotoras (community wellness workers), the Mexican Consulate's Ventanilla de Salud, public libraries, and word of oral cavity. Flyers in both English language and Spanish were posted in fundamental locations were families would often frequent such as public libraries, local school bulletins, family resource centers and shopping centers etc. To be eligible to participate in the study, individuals had to be over 18 years of age, reside in Tucson, exist a primary decision maker of the family's healthcare needs and vest to a Latino household with at least one household member of a different clearing status. For purposes of this study non-Latino immigrant households were excluded. Interested members were screened for eligibility criteria over the phone or in person when possible. Eligible individuals were then scheduled for an interview at a convenient fourth dimension and location of their choosing. Most interviews took place at local neighborhood heart or convenient public library locations. Verbal consent was obtained before semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews varied between 15 and 60 min in length. Interviewees were compensated $25 in cash at the end of the interview session. Interviews were conducted in Spanish, audio recorded and transcribed for analysis.

Analysis

Demographic data was captured via REDCap, a secure web application for building and managing online surveys. Transcriptions were completed in Spanish and data analysis was conducted using qualitative software Nvivo ten. Deductive and inductive content analysis was used to analyze information. Variables from a previous feasibility study were used to comport the deductive analysis and inductive analysis was conducted with emerging new themes (32).

Results

Xl-3 adults from mixed-status households were interviewed. The majority of the interviewees came from a household where at least one household fellow member was undocumented (81%). As illustrated by Table 1, 84 percent of interviewees identified every bit female person while simply 16% identified equally male; 51% of interviewees were betwixt the ages of 35–49; 98% were foreign built-in with 67% identifying equally undocumented. Forty-two percent reported obtaining their usual source of care at a federally qualified health center nether the discount care program while 21% of interviewees reported not having a usual identify for care (Table i). The majority of interviewees described their health every bit either proficient (42%) or fair (30%). Thirty percent of interviewed households consisted of households with a kid under the age of 5 while 67% reported having minors under 18 years old as part of their household. However, a significant business concern is raised in terms of the proportion of the sample that reported their health equally "off-white" (30%) or "poor" (12%). This combined percent of 42% likewise reported "no usual source of wellness care," 23 and forty%, respectively.

Table i. Interviewee's usual source of health care^a and selected demographic (N = 43).

Barriers to Care

Fifty-three per centum of interviewees reported having difficulty in obtaining health coverage with 57% of interviewees listing complexity of application requirements (paperwork) as the main reason for having difficulty in obtaining coverage; 26% listed discrimination and fear while thirteen% reported wait times as factors. Other reasons reported related to price of care, confusing health plans among other logistical barriers in obtaining care (Tabular array 2).

Table 2. Difficulty obtaining health coverage^a and selected demographic characteristics (n = 23).

Complexity of Awarding Requirements—Verification Criteria and Eligibility

Households reported the application process as a main barrier to care. They described the corporeality of paperwork required to apply for coverage as complex and insurmountable and felt that the application criteria did not accept their specific circumstances into account. Paperwork, specifically for those applying to the Arizona Health Care Price Containment System (AHCCCS), consisted of back and forth requests from the Department of Economic Security (DES). Furthermore, if eligible, the expect time to achieve coverage took several weeks upwards to months. Interviewees explained that due to the nature of their employment, unsteady and informal in nature, they would oftentimes lack proper income documentation required every bit part of the application process as described below:

I retrieve at that time, they asked and then many questions. And since we don't have legal condition that is what is problematic, because they ask for paystubs to prove income to see if y'all qualify for discount care and all that. And that'due south where information technology's challenging considering then I tell them, 'My married man is cocky-employed, he isn't paid with checks.' Then we had to have [verification] letters and they had to be notarized and to notarize them they ask y'all for a State ID.

Another issue related to how eligibility is adamant based on household size and income ratio, these criteria do not necessarily take into account the complex nature of mixed-condition households as it fails to consider existing family members that are physically separated due to deportation or detention. Therefore, the household size reported is not an accurate delineation of the household data criteria when households are however financially supporting family unit members that are living across the border (e.g., in United mexican states) or in detention centers.

"Due to the separation [husband'southward]. In fact, that bill, of $ane,500, is notwithstanding pending because I was never able to pay it. Merely they didn't provide my son AHCCCS because supposedly I earned too much, just the coin goes to support them and my hubby in Mexico."

Fearfulness and Bigotry

Content analysis indicated that fear and discrimination keep to be a recurring cistron 5 years after SB1070 was enacted. Fears were primarily related to concerns of deportation and/or detention leading to separation of family members when seeking public services. The fright is so keen that in certain cases, care was delayed. In other, more farthermost cases, undocumented family unit members avoided care completely even when experiencing critical wellness problems (e.g., facial paralysis, shortness of breath, and numbing of limbs). Jazmin, a 49-years old legal permanent resident and mother of 3—a U.S. built-in daughter, a son with Deferred Activity for Babyhood Status (DACA), and an undocumented son and husband, described her dilemma in seeking medical services for her undocumented husband and son who were experiencing numbness and tingling of feet, chest hurting, shortness of breath the solar day prior even so refused medical treatment out of fear. She discusses how it emotionally impacts her and the family as a whole.

"In the current case… like yesterday, I was hysterical because I said, 'What am I to exercise in case of an emergency [medical]?' [Breaks down crying] I can't just take off to a infirmary…yesterday's midday ordeal was very hard. That I said [to cocky] if he's [married man] working I will go pick him up, then what I am I to exercise at habitation if he has a stroke? I will accept to render to United mexican states with him. He of course doesn't desire to go dorsum, 'What for? There's nothing in Mexico.'

Yesterday was a hard feel and terminal night was another experience…I got scared…[Eldest son] has over 20 years that he has not gone for a check-upward, no vaccines, non even for TB nor Hepatitis, nothing. Nosotros are on border all the time that we don't have anything [wellness wise]. 'Let's get get your check-upwardly at health fairs?' I ask [Eldest son],

'No, I don't have anything! I know they'll ask me for names and I don't want that public.' So they [son and hubby] are clinging to that idea, similar in hiding. I tell them 'We tin't continue to be like this.' We are living in hysteria."

Jazmin's story illustrates the challenges that households' face, particularly mixed-status households, who are not just divided past their immigration status but also in their access to health care services. Despite the fact that Jazmin recently obtained legal permanent residence she farther explains what being part of a mixed-status family unit is like,

"So, this is why I say, it'due south somewhat difficult [having the two undocumented family members]. Despite the fact that nosotros accept legal documentation, information technology's difficult for me and my other children as well…I experience a lack of command despite the fact that I just got my immigration papers, at times I feel terrified, like yesterday I asked 'What do I do?"'

Another 37-years sometime undocumented female parent of three children—two U.South. built-in children and an older daughter born in Mexico explains her predicament when tending to her children'due south care.

"Information technology takes a while to take my eldest daughter to the dentist. Sometimes I don't have the funds to pay, because even though I have PCAP, I accept to pay $25. That in add-on to dental services, that at times are up to $35-$60 dollars…Sometimes it can be up to ii years that I don't get her cleaning. She tells me, 'Why practise you have my brother and not me?…Information technology'south been similar that since she was younger, since she was about 6 she would say, 'Why exercise you accept my brother to the dentist all the time and non me?'…She would get upset with her blood brother."

Perceived discrimination was reported as a bulwark when seeking health care services for eligible household members. In some instances interviewees reported being asked for documentation despite the fact that they were seeking services for other eligible family members and non themselves.

Wait Times

Await times was another contributing factor reported by households in accessing healthcare. Long wait times had to do with the processing of applications to obtain coverage while in other cases await times included primary intendance, specialty and urgent care appointments. In some cases households had difficulty submitting verification requirements or did not have funds to pay for disbelieve membership fees such equally PCAP, which ultimately delayed their approval hence care.

"In the concluding yr my hubby obtained it [discount plan] but we had to expect, to save money. During that time he didn't accept health insurance. His primary md ordered an exam because he was experiencing vertigo, he ordered a CAT Scan. He didn't accept whatever coverage so I had to aid him utilise for PCAP [discount plan] and and so he applied but information technology'south a procedure and they don't give it to you immediately. Nosotros waited almost ii months to do the CAT Scan."

Health Literacy

Other barriers conveyed by households relate to price of care, confusion over eligibility of care and misunderstanding regarding coverage such as limitations of discount programs and/or emergency AHCCCS coverage.

Promoters to Care

When asked what they found helpful in obtaining coverage 70% of interviewees reported multiple reasons that assisted them in obtaining coverage (Table 3); 43% reported affordability of care; 37% reported responsive and accommodating front-line staff; 20% reported co-location of services and 17% listed assistance with applications. Other findings related to proximity of location, language availability, ease of appointments and employer based assistance with insurance. Of the xiii interviewees that reported affordability of care, x obtained coverage via FQHC's discount program. Recipients of the FQHC's discount program also reported co-location of services as a factor for obtaining coverage.

Table 3. Promoters to obtaining health coverage^a and selected demographic characteristics (n = 30).

Affordability of Intendance

Safety net programs continue to be disquisitional spaces to provide healthcare services for depression-income customs members including immigrant households. Disbelieve programs at customs health clinics such equally discount-care programs offered by Federally Qualified Wellness Centers (FQHC) or the Pima Canton Access Program (PCAP) provide many households the possibility of obtaining intendance at reduced costs albeit with express intendance options (i.e., specialty care). While high cost of care remains a factor for many households, they explained that disbelieve programs helped them access care at much more affordable costs.

"And so it is in that location [FQHC] that information technology's been more economical considering they only accuse the states $25 per visit cost plus the medicine. And the medication is also discounted making it very economical. It's actually great. I can't mutter, we don't complain about that. When they no longer are able to assist us that'southward when it'southward difficult. When information technology's no longer in their hands, so yeah [information technology's problematic]."

Front end Line Staff

Interviewees reported that experiences with front-line staff and health providers made a huge difference in attainment of services. Some households shared that later on a bad experience with front end line staff, friends informed them nearly a different location where staff were much friendlier and reportedly did non discriminate against immigrant households. In such cases, they would present the same documentation simply staff worked with them offering different options to provide needed verification. In essence front end line staff were more responsive and accommodating to households making information technology possible for them to obtain services.

Co-location of Services

Households mentioned that obtaining intendance was facilitated when all members of the household, regardless of clearing status, could seek care at the same dispensary site. Additionally the attainment of co-located services such equally primary care, OB/GYN, pediatric intendance, provision of medications and lab tests were at the same location made a huge difference in their care. As Martha, a 35-years quondam undocumented mother of two explains that she and her husband, who is also undocumented, plus the children are all seen at the same dispensary.

"Well I go because we're all at that place, I'g in that location and so are my children."

Help With Applications

Another important cistron reported in attaining coverage was the assistance in completing application forms. This was particularly helpful when applying for AHCCCS. Households sought assistance with applications at FQHC, community centers such equally the Nutrient Bank, and at the Ventanilla de Salud. They mentioned that when they applied and obtained aid enrollment was much smoother. An instance is of an income affidavit where households exercise non have to present pay stubs only have a notarized certificate making information technology possible for them to utilise for services.

"She took nearly three hours entering all the data [in the organisation] then she told me, 'You know? It won't allow me still, but I volition call you lot tomorrow to see if y'all qualified.' And yes, the next twenty-four hour period, very amicably, she called me to tell me, 'Yous know, you qualified and it's all done,' … but I tell you there's a big departure between one clinic and the other, or one service and some other.

Discussion

Written report findings indicate that fearfulness, distrust and trepidation in seeking intendance continues to be of business organization to immigrant households in Tucson, Arizona five years mail service SB1070. More notably, the effects of prolonged stress, feet and trauma remain unaddressed whilst mental wellness services proceed to exist absent in the care they receive. Additionally mixed-status households continue to face special challenges in accessing care (sixteen, 33, 34). This holds particularly truthful when family unit members are separated due to deportation and/or detention although the household continues to financially back up them. The complexities of awarding requirements to verify eligibility make it even more challenging due to their predicament. Households reportedly made several attempts to provide needed paperwork delaying attainment of health coverage. The bureaucratic barriers, such as the front end-line staff'due south discretionary awarding of rules and procedures, at times impeded while other times promoted the attainment of services. Hacker et al. back up similar findings in a recent literature review on barriers to care to undocumented immigrants (35).

Barriers reported past households proceed to relate to discrimination and fearfulness, complexity of application requirements (paperwork) as the primary reasons for having difficulty in obtaining coverage while others reported wait times every bit a factor. Reports of fear, stress and anxiety experienced by households accept surfaced in a previous study (36), conditions that remain unaddressed, as mental health services are near non-real. Results also indicate that local programming is a vital source of care for mixed-status households. Prophylactic net programs and disbelieve care programs provide affordability of care. The discretionary practices exercised past front-line staff to assist with applications is another, albeit informal, promoter of health care admission. Interview results provide an in-depth understanding of mixed-condition households' accessibility to care in the southwest region. Additional inquiry is needed to examine how households will go on to respond to increased marginalization from health intendance programs. We advocate for local response to sensible positions on immigration policy relating to health intendance accessibility that include mental wellness services.

Despite reported barriers, merely 21% households reported non having a source of care and 79% reported having an existing place for intendance. The type of coverage mixed-status households reported using was primarily public coverage over private insurance. In many instances households were willing to pay into discount care programs and/or safety net programs to obtain needed care. Although the uses of safety-net programs are available, they accept limitations in terms of care especially in providing specialty intendance. Immigrant households therefore could benefit profoundly in the inclusion of health care insurance coverage.

This study as well identified several factors that promote care among mixed-status households. These include the provision of discounted services via safe net programs and personalized discretionary attention exercised by front-line workers in providing assistance in navigating the circuitous application process and forms needed for enrollment in health care programs. Findings have implications beyond Arizona specifically in the concluding few years every bit anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric have extended beyond the State, influencing the national debate. During and after the presidential campaign, anti-immigrant rhetoric and ICE raids have reignited fright and distrust among many immigrants throughout the country (37). Recently, the Homeland Security Department under the Trump Administration announced a proposed rule that would make changes to "public accuse" policies. Public charge policies govern how the utilize of public benefits can impact an individuals' ability for lawful admission to the U.S. or adjust to legal permanent resident status. If a public charge conclusion is made, the government may deny non-citizens lawful access or lawful permanent resident condition. Under electric current policy, public accuse simply covers non-citizens who are primarily reliant on cash benefit assistance. Under the proposed rule, officials would at present consider use of certain previously excluded programs in public charge determinations which include healthcare assistance programs such as Medicaid, the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in addition to housing programs (38). It is anticipated that these changes may lead to broad declines in participation in social programs amidst eligible immigrant households and their primarily U.South.-born children beyond those direct affected by the changes (39).

Nosotros argue for potent local response to restrictive legislation toward the achievement of health equity in immigrant communities. In efforts to proceed to address and expand access to intendance to mixed-status households, recommendations include the expansion of safety cyberspace programs and training of healthcare professionals and front-line staff to address the unique needs of mixed-condition households in the provision of care. Additionally there is a demand for increased outreach to immigrant households to provide health literacy programming and know your health rights workshops to facilitate usage and assist in the navigation of healthcare programs to gain a better understanding of health systems. Ultimately continued advocacy for immigration reform and inclusivity in healthcare is at the centre of achieving health equity.

Written report Limitations

Generalizability was not the intent of this study. Although this study provides an insight to mixed-condition households' health care behaviors, it is with limitations. Random sampling was not possible because the number of mixed-status households is unknown. Moreover, access to this population is oft hard due to their concerns of being identified and deported.

Ideals Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the University of Arizona'south Institutional Review Lath with informed consent from all subjects. All subjects provided informed consent in accord with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol (#1509115072) was approved by the University of Arizona'southward Institutional Review Board.

Author Contributions

SG is primary author and AOO is secondary author. We agree to exist accountable for the content of the work.

Funding

This research was supported in role by The Hispanic Women's Corporation, Zuckerman Family Foundation Public Wellness Student Scholarship, and the College of Public Health. Special cheers to the Marshall Dissertation Fellowship who supported the analysis and write-up phase of this research.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of whatever commercial or fiscal relationships that could exist construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank our formal and informal partners for making this study feasible. We remain grateful to the Promotoras for their aid in this study and their tireless commitment to immigrant rights in Arizona. We remain humble, grateful, and inspired by the families that participated, and appreciate their willingness to candidly speak of their experiences giving us a deeper appreciation of their backbone, strength, and resilience.

References

1. National Immigration Constabulary Center. Along Racial Lines: The Genesis of Arizona's SB 1070 Is a Cautionary Tale of Race-Based Clearing Policy. National Clearing Constabulary Center(2016).

2. Montini EJ. "Trump revives Russell Pearce's dream of a present-day 'operation wetback."'. The Arizona Commonwealth (2016).

Google Scholar

iii. Plascencia LF. Attrition through enforcement and the elimination of a "unsafe class". In: LMaEL, editor. Latino Politics and Arizona's Immigration Constabulary SB1070. New York, NY: Springer Science +Concern (2013). p. 93–127.

Google Scholar

iv. What'southward at Stake: SB 1070 is Arizona'due south Controversial Anti-immigrant Police. American Civil Liberties Union (2012).

5. Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013).

half dozen. Bennett B. Not just 'bad hombres': trump is targeting up to 8 million people for deportation. Los Angeles Times (2017).

Google Scholar

7. Carvajal S, Rosales C, Rubio-Goldsmith R, Sabo South, Ingram Chiliad, McClelland DJ, et al. The border customs and immigration stress scale: a preliminary examination of a customs responsive measure in two southwest samples. J Immigr Pocket-size Health (2012) 15:427–36. doi: 10.1007/s10903-012-9600-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

eight. O'Leary AO, Sánchez A. Anti-immigrant arizona: ripple furnishings and mixed clearing status households under "policies of compunction" considered. J Borderlands Stud. (2011) 26:115–33. doi: 10.1080/08865655.2011.590292

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Hacker K, Chu J, Leung C, Marra R, Pirie A, Brahimi M, et al. The impact of clearing and community enforcement on immigrant health: perceptions of immigrants in Everett, Massachusetts, The states. Soc Sci Med. (2011) 73:586–94. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.007

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Crocker R. Emotional testimonies: an ethnographic report of emotional suffering related to migration from United mexican states to Arizona. Front Public Wellness (2015) iii:177. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00177

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Larchanche S. Intangible obstacles: health implications of stigmatization, structural violence, and fear among undocumented immigrants in French republic. Soc Sci Med. (2012) 74:858–63. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.016

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Castañeda H. Hazard, Inequality, and Experiences of Wellness Reform in the United States. New York, NY: Academy Press (2017).

Google Scholar

xiv. Fix M, Zimmermann Due west. All nether 1 roof: mixed-status families in an era of reform. Int Migration Rev. (2001) 35:397–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2001.tb00023.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Vargas ED. Immigration enforcement and mixed-condition families: the effects of take a chance of deportation on medicaid use. Kid Youth Serv Rev. (2015) 57:83–ix. doi: ten.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Huang FY. Health insurance coverage of the children of immigrants in the United States. Maternal Kid Wellness J. (1997) one:69–eighty.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

18. Castañeda H, Melo MA. Wellness care access for latino mixed-status families: barriers, strategies, and implications for reform. Am Behav Sci. (2014) 58:1891–909. doi: 10.1177/0002764214550290

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Passel JS, Cohn and D'Vera. U.Due south. Unauthorized Immigrant Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade. Washington, DC. Pew Hispanic Center (2010).

20. Kullgren J. Restrictions on undocumented immigrants' access to wellness services: the public health implications of welfare reform. Am J Public Health (2003) 93:1630–3. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.10.1630

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Wasem RE. Unauthorized Alien's Access to Federal Benefits: Policy and Bug. Congressional Research Service (2012) Report No.: RL34500.

23. Magaña L. Latino Politics and Arizona'southward Immigration Law SB1070. New York, NY: Springer Science Concern Media (2013).

Google Scholar

24. Martinez O, Wu E, Sandfort T, Contrivance B, Carballo-Dieguez A, Pinto R, et al. Evaluating the bear on of immigration policies on health status among undocumented immigrants: a systematic review. J Immigr Pocket-size Health (2015) 17:947–70. doi: 10.1007/s10903-013-9968-four

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Rhodes SD, Mann L, Siman FM, Vocal E, Alonzo J, Downs M, et al. The impact of local immigration enforcement policies on the wellness of immigrant Hispanics/Latinos in the United States. Am J Public Health (2015) 105:329–37. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302218

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Pima Community Access Program (PCAP). Arizona Marketplace Enrollment Update Report to Southern Arizona Clan of Health Underwriters. Powerpoint Presentation. Tucson, AZ (2014).

27. Zuroweste Due east, McLaurin J, Liebman A, Dunn T. Clearing Concerns Touch on Federally Funded Health Centers. Austin, TX: Migrant Clinicians Network (2007).

Google Scholar

28. Saloner B, Kenny One thousand, Polsly D, Rhodes Yard, Wissoker D, Zuckerman Due south. The Availability of New Patient Appointments for Primary Intendance at Federally Qualified Health Centers: Findings From an Audit Study. The Urban Institute Health Policy Center (2014).

29. Shi Fifty, Lebrun LA, Tsai J. Assessing the impact of the health center growth initiative on wellness center patients. Public Health Rep. (2010) 125:258–66. doi: ten.1177/003335491012500215

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

xxx. Pourat N, Hadler MW. Ready for ACA? How community health centers are preparing for wellness care reform. Policy Brief UCLA Middle Health Policy Res. (2014) 1–6.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

31. Netting RM, Wilk RR, Arnould EJ. Introduction. In: Netting RM, Wilk RR, Arnould EJ, editors. The Urban Household in Dependent Development In Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Berkeley;Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press (1984). p. thirteen–xxxviii.

Google Scholar

32. O'Leary AO. Family unit Separation and Kid Welfare Protocols in Mixed-Immigration Condition Immigrant Households. University of Arizona (2011).

34. Gómez South, Castañeda H. "Recognize our humanity": immigrant youth voices on health care in Arizona'south restrictive political surroundings. Qual Health Res. (2018). doi: 10.1177/1049732318755580. [Epub alee of print].

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Hacker K, Anies M, Folb BL, Zallman 50. Barriers to health intendance for undocumented immigrants: a literature review. Risk Manag Healthcare Policy (2015) viii:175–83. doi: ten.2147/RMHP.S70173

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

36. O'Leary AO, Gómez S, Montoya Due east. Stress and fright in immigrant communities: implications for wellness and human development. Int Rev Ciencias Soc Paciífico Mexicano (2015) ane:150–72.

Google Scholar

38. Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Homeland Security Department, DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012 (2018).

coppolawhichisatur.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00383/full