Rapid population growth and the corresponding modest economic growth in Mexico. As the U.S baby boom was dropping off, Mexico continued to have a high birth rate which couldn’t be supported by Mexico’s economy. It has fallen from 7 to 2.2 children per mother now. Economic inequality within Mexico and between Mexico and the U.S. The economy hasn’t been great since its drop during the 1982 debt crisis. Experts say, migration pressure will remain unless Mexico’s economy can rapidly grow and the job market for the working-age population expands. After the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act which legalized ~3 million illegal migrants, the majority of which were Mexican, many migrant communities were created. This social connection has made it easier for Mexicans to migrate. The reason why the border patrol fails is “Although a significant percentage of those trying to cross are apprehended by the Border Patrol, the only consequence in most cases is that they are returned across the border and simply try again” (42). It is difficult to leave after coming in and thus, they are more inclined to stay. Illegal immigration prompted the two governments into discussing the matter; however after a lack of significant progress on the real issues and 9/11, formal talks have ceased.
Davies examines how Latino immigration has become one of the defining social and political issues in the United States. He argues that immigration is often framed through fear-based narratives that tie immigrants to crime, terrorism, and economic decline, especially after the rise of Homeland Security post-9/11. Instead of treating immigration as a humanitarian and ethical issue, politicians and media figures promote a rhetoric of “moral panic,” which leads to punitive legislation like the Sensenbrenner Bill (HR 4437). Davies contrasts this with a more ethical approach that views immigrants, many of whom are hardworking, family-oriented, and essential to the U.S. labor force, as human beings who deserve legal recognition, labor rights, and social inclusion.
In the article “Harmful by Design—a Qualitative Study of the Health Impacts of Immigration Detention”, Chanelle Diaz argues that the U.S. immigration detention system is harmful as it negatively impacts physical and psychological health due to structural violence, inhumane conditions, and systemic neglect. The author uses interviews with 16 formerly detained immigrants in New York City, identifying four major themes, poor conditions and treatment, pervasive injustice, barriers to care, and long-term health damage. Diaz’s article is important because it connects immigration policy to public health outcomes, establishing how the system of detention leads to inequality and trauma.
Immigration is good for bolstering population and domestic labor force requirements. The falling fertility rates may cause the former advantage to be the primary incentive. Reasons for not letting immigrants in could also be due to population and the replacing of the citizens from their own markets and the overall national interest of a tailed number of immigrants to just barely offset the needed amount in the market. Additionally, national security is an issue for many countries and for some, the protection of historical cultures and retention of some social cohesion amongst the people. “For liberal- ism or idealism with regard to immigration-related foreign policy to be a plausible alternative to traditional realism, at the very least its supporters will need to persuade the world’s states that no harms will come to them by joining such initiatives. Without this, realism and its presuppositions regarding national self-interest will continue to hold theoretical sway” (20).
In Lisa Fortuna’s article “Trauma, Immigration, and Sexual Health among Latina Women: Implications for Maternal–Child Well‐being and Reproductive Justice” she argues that trauma and stress caused by immigration issues shape Latina women’s sexual and reproductive health outcomes, impacting maternal well-being and health equity through generations. Fortuna uses public health data and trauma studies to connect immigration experiences with gender violence and marginalization to Latina women’s sexual health risks and maternal outcomes. This article is important because it demonstrates Latina women’s reproductive health within a broader framework of reproductive justice establishing how trauma intersects with migration, ultimately leading to system inequities in healthcare access. Fortuna’s article provides a critical foundation for my thesis by establishing how immigrant women’s trauma histories and social conditions directly impact reproductive autonomy and maternal health. It supports my argument that the structural violence with immigration and gender oppression leads to a need for social and policy interventions to address reproductive justice for Latina women.
In this study, Raymond-Flesch and her coauthors analyze how federal immigration policies affect the mental, emotional, and social wellbeing of Latinx adolescents living in an agricultural region of California. Using data from a prospective cohort of 565 youth (ages 13–16), the authors found that 78% of participants experienced or witnessed negative consequences of immigration policy in their lives or communities. The study highlights recurring themes such as fear of deportation, increased discrimination, social isolation, and anxiety about the future. Many adolescents described how anti-immigrant rhetoric and enforcement policies made them feel unsafe in schools, public places, and even within their own homes. The authors argue that immigration policy functions as a form of structural racism and should be recognized as a social determinant of health, particularly for youth growing up in mixed-status or farmworker households.
This article covers how United States immigration policies shape the health and well-being of immigrants and people of color. Exclusionary policies, such as mass deportation, are the drivers of the disparities we see in the health of underserved populations. They also argue that there needs to be a restructuring of policies and access to services in order to solve these issues.
Lee and his colleagues analyze why people hold certain attitudes toward undocumented immigrants and California’s Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot measure designed to deny undocumented immigrants access to public education, healthcare, and social services. The authors propose four main hypotheses: (1) ethnic ingroup favoritism, that Anglos will support Proposition 187 more than Hispanics; (2) prejudice and racism, that anti-Mexican sentiment increases support for restrictive immigration policies; (3) national economic concern, that people who believe immigrants hurt the economy are more likely to endorse Proposition 187; and (4) obedience to law, that commitment to law and order predicts support for strict immigration enforcement. Across two studies, with college student samples from Massachusetts and California, they found that all four factors uniquely influenced attitudes toward undocumented immigrants. Prejudice and economic concerns were strong predictors in Study 1, while in Study 2, ethnicity, prejudice, economic concerns, and law obedience all independently predicted support for Proposition 187.
Increased border enforcement brought about a “caging effect” which reduced return migration. 60% of undocumented residents are from Mexico, 15% from Central America. In both Mexico and Central America, the likelihood of taking their first undocumented trip increased during moments of civil unrest such as violent uprisings or economic crises, hence civil unrest is a driver of migration. During the 1990s U.S.A economic boom, return rates drastically decreased. As the migrant community grew, the initiation of undocumented migration increased due to the social capital they had access to. Indicators show that the force driving the migration of unskilled Mexican manual workers for the past decade has been the U.S. labor demand; for central America, civil unrest led to a migration of educated peoples. Moments of increased crime rates and economic downturns did still increase Mexican migration rates.
The study aims to look at how Chinese and Mexican immigrants’ experiences in healthcare, employment, and other policies impact social exclusion. They highlight how these experiences and policies impact things such as legal status causing employment boundaries and lesser access to healthcare and social services. These disparities, as shown by Chinese and Mexican immigrants, reinforce the social hierarchies in society.
In Benjamin Sommers’ article “Stuck between Health and Immigration Reform — Care for Undocumented Immigrants”, he argues that despite the Affordable Care Act and proposed immigration reforms, undocumented immigrants continue to face systemic exclusion from U.S. health care systems, ultimately leaving them in a “medical underclass”. Sommers supports this argument through providing statistical evidence, analyzing federal policies, and using demographic data to demonstrate disparities in insurance coverage, health access, and the political barriers preventing reform. In regards to my thesis, Sommers’ article provides the context of how the legal exclusion of undocumented immigrants from public health systems perpetuates racialized inequalities in health access. It strengthens my argument that immigration policy is directly linked to health through demonstrating how federal reform efforts have maintained barriers to equitable healthcare.
This research article explores how Latino attitudes toward immigration policy differ depending on whether individuals are native born or foreign born using a quantitative analysis approach. The author analyzes data from the 2010 Pew Hispanic Center National Survey of Latinos using logistic regression to compare native born and foreign born Latinos opinions on border patrol, deportations, fencing, and pathways to citizenship. This study finds that U.S. born Latinos are significantly more supportive of citizenship pathways than foreign born Latinos. Age and political party affiliation also play a major role in shaping attitudes. This source is important because it provides original data driven evidence about intra-group differences among Latinos.
This article on the economic impact of mass deportation in California analyzed how mass deportation and strict immigration laws could possibly impact California’s economy. Immigrants in California make up a large portion of the population and undocumented workers generate nearly 5% of the GDP in California. Mass deportation would have detrimental effects to the many industries that lie in California and could massively shrink the GDP.
This is a policy position statement published by the National Association of Hispanic Nurses. The NAHN uses peer reviewed research and clinical observations from nurses to argue that restrictive U.S. immigration policies are harming immigrant health, both physically and mentally. The statement highlights how fear of deportation, exclusion from federal health programs, and policies like the Public Charge rule create barriers to care and increase stress, chronic illness, and trauma in Hispanic communities. NAAHN advocates for humane immigration reform, expanded healthcare access, and protection for DACA recipients. Because it is advocacy-based, the source is persuasive and values-driven, though still backed by scientific evidence.
This article explains how researchers collect, measure, and analyze data on U.S. immigration policies across federal, state, and local levels. It reviews common data sources like ICE records, policy databases, and national surveys like those conducted by Pew Research. It also explains how scholars measure immigration policy environments using tools like policy indices like, Immigration Policy Climate Index, and statistical methods such as, difference-in-differences to study the effects of these policies. The authors discuss major challenges in the field, such as endogeneity, inconsistent policy measurement across studies, and difficulties capturing local level variation. This article is important for understanding the research process behind immigration policy studies, though it focuses more on methodology than on specific political debates or policy outcomes.