Im/migrant Well-Being Part I: The Impact of Immigration Laws and Enforcement Measures

Why Im/migrant Well-Being?

Organizations such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the United Nations (UN) conceive of well-being as encompassing social, emotional, relational, economic, psychological, and physical aspects of individuals, communities, and nations, and as a critical concept for both creating public policies and analyzing their impact. Immigrant well-being thus serves as a nexus for research from the humanities, applied sciences, and social sciences, as well as the work of community organizations. Well-being as a global mission is enshrined in some of our core global institutions. For example, Goal 3 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development goals directly relates to well-being as it aims to “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Moreover, many, if not all, of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development goals indirectly contribute to people’s well-being, such as Goal 1, which is to “End poverty in all its forms everywhere,” and Goal 2, to “End hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” Similarly, goals of promoting quality education, gender equality, decent work and economic growth, climate action, and peace, justice, and restoring institutions, all directly and indirectly contribute to the physical, social, and emotional well-being of individuals and groups of people. Thus, centering immigrant well-being as the focus of empirical research that draws out policy implications can guide thought and policy leaders in how to put forth measures that can advance aims that align with the UN goals and compel policies that can achieve these goals.

There are many facets of immigrant well-being, which we will discuss shortly, however, before we consider these, the very policies that set the standards of admission into the United States pose risks to well-being and undercut any stability that the above goals may provide.

Im/migration Policies that do Harm

As I write this introduction, news of two deaths in the Rio Grande have been reported, some attributing these deaths to the floating barrier that Texas Governor Abbott ordered installed in the river near Eagle Pass in July 2023 (Moritz et al., 2023). At the federal level, the Biden Administration continues to require asylum-seekers to use the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol CBP-One app to make appointments to apply for asylum at ports of entry only, though evidence has shown that this app is problematic and that asylum-seekers are being turned away in other places into the hands of dangerous cartels (Romo Alba, 2023).

At the same time, state legislatures, such as Florida’s, recently passed Senate Bill 1718 that essentially further criminalizes being an immigrant, or a member of a mixed-status family, in the state. The law (a) classifies anyone who crosses the state line into Florida with someone they know who is undocumented, a “human smuggler”; (b) does not recognize out-of-state licenses that have been issued to undocumented immigrants in other states lawfully; (c) requires hospitals that are recipients of Medicaid funds to ask about one’s immigration status on registration or admission forms; (d) expands E-Verify to employers with over 25 employees and public agencies; (e) bars local governments from funding community IDs; (f) prohibits Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients from practicing law; and (g) allocates millions of dollars in taxpayer funding for a program to remove migrant families from the state by transferring them to other states (American Civil Liberties Union of Florida [ACLU]). Altogether, the law has generated much fear in immigrant communities around the state and has had a chilling effect throughout (Vilchez, 2023). Importantly, it has taken immigration law from the federal level to the state and local levels, following a trend that began over a decade ago. In doing so, these policies have created borders around immigrants and their households, as their very bodies are policed, and the effects of such laws are felt in their daily lives as they move through their communities. Moreover, immigration laws are not just affecting immigrants, they are affecting US citizens and the communities in which they live, workplaces where they hold jobs, the parishes where they pray, and schools where they go to learn.

Interrogating whether our institutions are contributing to, or sustaining immigrant well-being seems rather futile when immigrants’ very existence is threatened under immigration laws that determine entry and enforcement practices that cast a shadow over their daily lives. And we know these measures worsen immigrants’ well-being given the swath of laws passed over a decade ago that had similar chilling effects. Thus, while the examples we mentioned above are recent, existing research on similar kinds of laws tells us how they affect different aspects of immigrant well-being. For example, Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, the “Show me your papers” law, as it was commonly referred to, negatively affected both undocumented immigrants and documented immigrants, as well as US citizens alike. For example, from a nationwide telephone survey conducted after the passage of SB 1070, we know that both documented and undocumented Latinos/as/xs who perceived their state’s immigration policies as unfavorable had worse self-reported mental and physical health (Vargas et al., 2017). Martinez et al. (2018) found that fear of deportation, specifically, barriers to work, constrained movement in public spaces, and the constant threat of detention and deportation in general was related to chronic stress that caused strain on families, increasing the risk of chronic disease (Martinez et al., 2018). Yet, SB 1070 contributed to a decrease in the use of preventive health care and public assistance among high-risk populations (Toomey et al., 2014). Among children, who often feel stress from other family members, the law was associated with academic adjustment, specifically classroom regulatory behaviors (Santos et al., 2018). Awareness of the law weakened middle schoolers’ sense of an American identity which resulted in a decline in psychological well-being in the form of lower self-esteem (Santos & Menjívar, 2013). Moreover, the research found an association between awareness of the law and perceptions of discrimination from authorities, which is important as it could lead to distrust among youth (Santos & Menjívar, 2013). All these findings have implications for long-term emotional, educational, occupational, and civic engagement outcomes.

Although this research was conducted because of state-level laws, the federal landscape of enforcement-first measures continues unabated and, as some of the papers in this issue show, is affecting new generations—the young children of immigrants.

The articles in these two special issues come from the conference, Im/migrant Well-Being: A Nexus for Research and Policy, held on February 16 to 17, 2023, in St. Petersburg, FL. The goal of this inaugural conference was not just to provide a venue for scholarship on im/migrants and their well-being but also to provide attendees with the tools to translate that work for greater impact outside of the academy. The conference brought together scholars from multiple disciplinary backgrounds including education, criminology, anthropology, sociology, medicine, public policy, and ethnic studies, to discuss aspects of im/migrant well-being that included: (a) social well-being, such as studies of social activities, work, and access to social resources, (b) relational well-being, including studies of families, friendships, and support networks, (c) emotional well-being, such as studies of life dis/satisfaction, emotions, and resilience, (d) psychological well-being, including studies of identity, safety, mental health, and uncertainty, (e) physical well-being, such as studies that discussed stress, dietary and activity habits, or access to medical interventions, (f) economic well-being that centered immigrants themselves or their families, such as access to legal representation, health, food, or housing, and (g) the intersections of some or all of these forms of well-being as they related to state violence, such as immigrant detainment, forced expulsion, and/or raids.

The manuscripts in Part I of this two-part special issue series show how aspects of the immigrant enforcement-first regime are negatively affecting facets of im/migrants’ lives, chipping away at their well-being, their relationships, and their livelihoods. From aggressive actions such as immigration raids that are shown to be associated with declines in students’ academic performance (Kirksey & Sattin-Bajaj, 2026), to detention of immigrant parents, that negatively affects immigrant children’s emotional well-being and their educational trajectories (Patler & Rodriguez, 2026), to bureaucratic processes that harm well-being through excessive wait times in processing legalization paperwork (Dromgold-Sermen, 2026) or discriminatory bond hearings (Ávila & Ibanez, 2026) that put a strain on families’ socioeconomic situations. Moreover, even initiatives that are meant to ameliorate the harmful effects of detention, for example, such as the use of electronic monitoring devices, are shown to have toxic effects on children’s well-being and parent–child relationships (Martinez-Aranda, 2026). Across these papers, authors go beyond describing and analyzing data; they use what they uncover to propose alternative interventions that would prove less damaging to immigrants and their children, with the goal of mitigating harm and prioritizing well-being. This includes efforts to work with advocacy groups to use robust social science to inform policy recommendations (Menjívar, 2026).

Under these conditions, researchers are called to examine the kinds of interventions that can be introduced into the immigration policy and enforcement apparatus to ameliorate the negative effects of these draconian measures. The papers in this special issue do just that.

Menjívar kicks off the issue with a reflective article about how she has used her scholarly work beyond academia not only to educate the public but to influence policy decisions to improve the lives of immigrants and their families. Situating her work in the tradition of public sociology, she provides three examples of how, informed by social justice principles, she has partnered with community organizations to leverage her work within the academy to advocate for immigrants’ rights and social change outside of the ivory tower. Her testimony provides a model for how others interested in making change through their research can do this kind of work.

In the article by Patler and Gonzalez, they use multi-generational interviews with children of immigrants who are in detention centers and their non-imprisoned caregivers. Their findings show evidence of significant psychological distress in children that leads to changes in their engagement with school. Some can access support systems at school, through parental advocacy, but some cannot. Coping mechanisms include involvement in church groups, sports, or extracurricular activities; however, many, in trying to conceal their status from others, end up withdrawing from school-based programs which, ironically, are some of the same programs that might be able to offer them support. They conclude with suggestions for the school system on the kinds of support services that could be offered to students in this situation to strengthen their attachments to school and school personnel. Furthermore, they argue for an end to immigrant detention, stating that there is no evidence to suggest that it is necessary for the successful completion of immigrants’ legal proceedings. Moreover, they suggest state actions that can decrease the flow of immigrants from local law enforcement to federal law enforcement, following the steps of California’s SB 54.

Martinez-Aranda uses interviews and ethnographic observations to illustrate how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s electronic monitoring devices impact the well-being of the children of immigrants who wear them. She demonstrates how these devices inflict multigenerational punishment through their parents’ extended punishment. She finds that these devices cause children distress in two ways: by serving as a constant reminder that parents may be deported and by stigmatizing and criminalizing parents, thereby instilling shame and anger in children. Moreover, she illustrates how these devices deteriorate the quality of parent–child relationships by creating stress and fear among parents, and by shrinking children’s social networks given that their friends’ parents do not want to associate with people who may represent liabilities to their own safety. Martinez-Aranda argues that these devices are not necessary as immigrants largely comply with orders to appear in immigration court and ICE check-ins. She argues for alternatives to detention that do not rely on surveillance technologies, but that are grounded in human rights principles and mechanisms that can maintain family cohesion, such as non-custodial, community-based programs, or individualized case management.

Kirksey and Sattin-Bajaj’s article examines the effects of exposure to one large-scale workplace raid occurring in Texas on the academic and behavioral outcomes of Latinx and English learner children. They use student-level data from the University of Houston Education Research Center that houses statewide, longitudinal data from students who attend Texas public schools. They combine that with data provided by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) maintained by Syracuse University. Their analyses illustrate that student absenteeism in the four surrounding counties where the raid occurred increased following the raid, reading and math scores decreased, and the number of students that left the school district increased. They conclude by arguing that immigration raids are a form of community violence that erodes institutional trust and deteriorates the well-being of immigrants, their children, and their communities. They argue for policies and strategies that protect or limit the negative effects of immigration enforcement actions on students and communities and more broadly, they call on more macro-level changes to approaches to immigration policy and enforcement measures.

Ávila and Ibanez’s study uses bond case administrative data from the Executive Office of Immigration Review-EOIR between 1991 and 2020 to examine the influence of criminal records and legal representation on bond amounts granted in immigration courts. Their analysis finds that prior to September 11, 2001, criminal records predicted bond amounts; after 2001, individuals with no record were mandated to pay higher amounts and the influence of legal representation on bond amounts was subtle but relevant. They further argue that high bond amounts compromise economic well-being among immigrants and their families. The authors propose the elimination of cash-based sureties as they do not correspond to increasing public safety or the public good. They also argue for secured legal representation, like that provided in criminal justice court, to promote fairer outcomes for economically vulnerable immigrants so they do not feel pressured into accepting voluntary departures or removal orders.

Last, Dromgold-Sermen’s article employs qualitative textual analysis of posts on an online immigration forum between 2007 and 2021 to examine the consequences of waiting for adjustment of legal status from a temporary status to lawful permanent residency in the United States. Building on the concept of bureaucratic waiting tolls, Dromgold-Sermen identifies how unexpected “tolls” of waiting disrupt everyday lives, increase financial costs as well as opportunity costs related to employment, and impact life trajectories. The uncertainty of these tolls impacts immigrant well-being. The author proposes that existing country and employment-based immigration caps need to be reformed based on the long wait times. She argues that US immigration laws, policies, and administrative structures are outdated, no longer reflecting immigration demographics or labor demands, and that such caps should be revised to reflect current trends and allow flexibility for future immigration flows and US labor market demands. Moreover, Dromgold-Sermen argues for more funding for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to expand capacity to decrease waiting times, and for an increase in US Department of Labor oversight over employers of temporary non-immigrants to prevent labor abuses.

I recognize that the current policy context is not one that is completely open to being informed by what social scientists are uncovering (Menjívar, 2022) and that the anti-intellectual environment that we are experiencing may reject policy recommendations that emerge from these articles. However, I echo what Sociologist Cecilia Menjívar (2022, p. 4) has argued elsewhere, that we should create alternative paths for our research to matter and have an influence on policy at lower levels of government to “alleviate some of its negative consequences locally,” and that we translate it for use by community advocacy groups who are in need of robust empirical evidence to support their arguments to policymakers. As we navigate through this anti-science era and federal policy gridlock, particularly when it comes to immigration reform, we must find creative mechanisms to amplify our research on im/migrant well-being to the public and change-makers. Thus, we should continue our involvement in community-and publicly engaged work to document the changes needed to get us closer to achieving states of well-being that the UN sustainable development goals promote. At this moment in time, when immigration policies are responsible for taking the lives of people (as we saw with the migrant deaths in Eagle Pass) ¹ who are coming to the United States, ironically, in search of opportunities to have safer lives, the publicly engaged work of social scientists is as important as it has ever been. We hope that the publication of these two special issues is one step in this direction.