Search

Objective: This article examines the relationship between environmental health threats, personal experiences with climate change, and their association with attitudes toward global warming and willingness to pay for clean energy. Methods: Using a nationally representative survey of Latino adults (n = 1200), we use categorical regressions to examine the relationship between environmental health threats and policy preferences. Results: Latinos who have personally experienced climate change and who view air pollution as a threat, are more likely to be concerned with climate change and believe that passing stricter environmental laws will improve the economy as opposed to reduce econonic growth. Latinos who have experienced climate change and worry about the impact of climate change in their homeland are also more willing to pay $5 or $10 for clean energy. Conclusion: This study has implications for our collective knowledge of Latinos' connections to the environment and policy outcomes and contributes to the growing area of environmental public opinion among ethno‐racial groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We explore the racial and ethnic politics associated with mask wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Using panel and cross-sectional data from the National Panel Study of COVID-19 (n = 1,996) fielded in March and April 2020, we asked Americans about their self-reported race/ethnicity, their political party affiliation, and if they have worn a mask or scarf in public to stop the spread of the coronavirus. We also asked respondents who reported wearing a mask in public if they worry they might be mistaken for a criminal. Our logistic regression models found that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to wear a mask or scarf over their faces to prevent the spread of COVID-19 despite being more likely to worry about being criminalized by police or security while wearing a mask. We argue that proximal contact with the virus, because racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected by COVID-19, leads to increased willingness by people in these groups to protect themselves and others. Democrats were also more likely to wear masks compared with Republican respondents. and those living in Republican-led states were less likely to wear a mask in public and more likely to be criminalized for wearing a mask. Was mask use during the early COVID-19 pandemic political? In our paper, we use panel and cross-sectional data from the National Panel Study of COVID-19 fielded in March and April 2020 when we asked Americans whether they had worn masks. We also asked those who wore a mask if they felt criminalized while wearing a mask. Our findings show that there are stark differences in mask use between demographic groups and worrying about being criminalized while wearing one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of evidence has documented the effects of discrimination among Latinos. However, little is known about the impacts a noxious sociopolitical climate can have on their health and health care outcomes. The present study explored the associations between perceived anti-immigrant climate, health care discrimination, and satisfaction with care among US Latino adults. We used data from the 2015 Latino National Health and Immigration Survey (n = 1,284), a nationally representative sample of US Latino adults (ages 18 and older). Key predictors included living in a state whose policies are unfavorable towards immigrants, perceived anti-immigrant climate and/or anti-Hispanic climate, and health care discrimination. Ordered logistic regression models evaluated the associations between these predictors (adjusting for other relevant covariates) and satisfaction with care. Latinos living in state that is unfavorable towards immigrants were less likely to be satisfied with medical care they receive. Also, we found that Latinos living in anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic climates were less likely to be satisfied with care. In both cases, experiencing health care discrimination significantly reduced the odds of satisfaction with care. Latinos' perception of an anti-immigrant & anti-Hispanic climate and state policies can have detrimental effects on their health and health care outcomes. These results highlight the importance of addressing both community-wide and interpersonal discrimination specific to health care settings, which can have concurrent impacts on the health and well-being of Latino and other minoritized populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although legal status and worries of deportation have been identified as key factors in immigrant health inequities for Latinx immigrants, how they impact health of Asian immigrants is largely unknown. Using 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey, we used sets of logistic regressions to examine the relationships among legal statuses, worries about deportation, and depression for Asian immigrants (n = 1371). Asian immigrants who are in the process of applying for citizenship, those with visas, and those who are ineligible to apply for citizenship were significantly more likely to be depressed compared with naturalized citizens. The significant associations between legal status and depression were mediated by worries about deportation. Legal status and worries of deportation are important determinants of health for Asian immigrants. The results point to a critical need for systematic investment in data collection for data disaggregation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research demonstrates a causal link between increased exposure to racial discrimination and adverse health outcomes among diverse racial and ethnic populations in the U.S. However, most research on Latinx communities overlooks how discrimination varies according to individual accounts of how their race is perceived by others. To address this gap, our study draws from critical race theory to analyze a new multi-dimensional measure of racial status – 'street race' and its association with discrimination experiences. We analyzed data from the 2015 Latino National Health and Immigration Survey (n = 1,493). Our main dependent variables are experiences of everyday discrimination and our explanatory variables are five mutually exclusive categories of 'street race.' We estimated a series of logistic regression models, which disaggregated the 'street race' measure, to better understand everyday discrimination experiences across street race categories. We found that Latinxs who are racialized on the street as Black or as Arab/Middle-Eastern relative to White were more likely to have experienced discrimination because of their race/ethnicity. They were also more likely to have experienced discrimination in the employment domain, by police, in the housing market, as consumers in shops or restaurants, and while receiving medical care. Employing a critical race approach, our study expands the conceptual measurement of discrimination to incorporate a more nuanced approach that captures interpersonal racism based on 'street race.' Further research will benefit from employing our 'Critical Street-Race' theory for developing equity-focused multi-level interventions at the interpersonal, community, and policy levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This manuscript examines how personally knowing a deportee and/or undocumented immigrant affects the mental health of Latina/o adults. Utilising a new survey sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy at the University of New Mexico (n = 1493), we estimate a series of logistic regressions to understand how personal connections to immigrants are affecting the mental health of Latinos using stress process theory. Our modelling approach takes into consideration the sociopolitical, familial, cultural, and personal contexts that make up the Latina/o experience, which is widely overlooked in datasets that treat Latinos as a homogeneous ethnic group. Our findings suggest that knowing a deportee increases the odds of having to seek help for mental health problems. The significance of this work has tremendous implications for policy makers, health service providers, and researchers interested in reducing health disparities among minority populations especially under a new administration, which has adopted more punitive immigration policies and enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine how Latino parent's personal connection to immigrants is linked to their children's risk of being referred/diagnosed with a developmental disorder. Methods: Using the 2015 Latino National Health and Immigration Survey (n = 548), we asked adults about their connections to immigrants. We also asked if their child has been referred/diagnosed with a developmental disorder. We estimated a series of regressions to predict increases in the probability of a child being referred/diagnosed for a developmental disorder. Results: Respondents who know a deportee are 2.4 times more likely (p = 0.009) to report that their child has been referred or diagnosed with a developmental disorder. Additionally, knowing more deportees, and having a closer family tie with deportees, are all statistically associated with developmental problems. Conclusions: This study adds to the emerging research on stress and child health, by examining the intersections of immigration policy, mental health, and child development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine how Latino parent's personal connection to immigrants is linked to their children's risk of being referred/diagnosed with a developmental disorder. Methods: Using the 2015 Latino National Health and Immigration Survey (n = 548), we asked adults about their connections to immigrants. We also asked if their child has been referred/diagnosed with a developmental disorder. We estimated a series of regressions to predict increases in the probability of a child being referred/diagnosed for a developmental disorder. Results: Respondents who know a deportee are 2.4 times more likely (p = 0.009) to report that their child has been referred or diagnosed with a developmental disorder. Additionally, knowing more deportees, and having a closer family tie with deportees, are all statistically associated with developmental problems. Conclusions: This study adds to the emerging research on stress and child health, by examining the intersections of immigration policy, mental health, and child development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) aimed to increase health insurance access for the over 47 million uninsured people in the U.S.A., among whom ethnoracial minorities had the highest uninsured rates before the ACA. Studies have shown that Latinos have had the greatest improvements in health coverage under the ACA, but many may be at a significant disadvantage, specifically due to their nativity and immigration status, as the ACA explicitly excludes unauthorised immigrants from most of its provisions. Using the 2015 Latino National Health and Immigration Survey, a nationally representative sample of Latinos (n = 1493), we find that variation in health insurance access among Latinos can be traced to immigration status. This study finds no differences among U.S.-born versus foreign-born Latinos in the likelihood of being uninsured in 2015. However, among foreign-born Latinos, unauthorised immigrants are five times more likely than naturalised citizens to be uninsured and less likely to visit a primary care provider or clinic, even after controlling for other factors including language, income and education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States is experiencing a renewed period of immigration and immigrant policy activity as well as heightened enforcement of such policies. This intensified activity can affect various aspects of immigrant health, including mental health. We use the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 2015 Latino National Health and Immigration Survey (n = 1,493) to examine the relationship between immigration and immigrant policy and Latino health and well-being. We estimate a series of categorical regression models and find that there are negative health consequences associated with Latinos' perceptions of living in states with unfavorable anti-immigration laws, including reporting poor health and problems with mental health. This article builds on the work of public health scholars who have found a link between this heightened policy environment and the mental health of immigrants, yet expands on this research by finding that the health consequences associated with immigration policy extend to Latinos broadly, not just immigrants. These findings are relevant to scholars of immigration and health policy as well as policy makers who should consider these negative effects on the immigrant community during their decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how anti-immigrant policies affect the physical health of Latina/os in the United States. Merging two unique datasets: sum of anti-immigrant policies by state from 2005 to 2011 and a 2011 Robert Wood Johnson Center for Health Policy nationally representative sample of Latina/os (n = 1,200), we estimate a series of logistic regressions to understand how anti-immigrant legislations are affecting the health of Latina/os. Our modeling approach takes into consideration Latinos' diverse experience, a context that is widely overlooked in datasets that treat Latina/os as a homogeneous ethnic group. Our findings suggest that an increase in anti-immigrant laws enacted by a state decreases the probability of respondents reporting optimal health, even when controlling for other relevant factors, such as citizenship status, language of interview, and interethnic variation. The implication and significance of this work has tremendous impacts for scholars, policy makers, health service providers, and applied researchers interested in reducing health disparities among minority populations. Related Articles [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Develop and test measures of risk of deportation and mixed-status families on women, infants, and children (WIC) uptake. Mixed-status is a situation in which some family members are U.S. citizens and other family members are in the United States without proper authorization. Methods. Estimate a series of logistic regressions to estimate WIC uptake by merging data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey with deportation data from U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement. Results. The findings of this study suggest that risk of deportation is negatively associated with WIC uptake and among mixed-status families; Mexican-origin families are the most sensitive when it comes to deportations and program use. Conclusion. Our analysis provides a typology and framework to study mixed-status families and evaluate their usage of social services by including an innovative measure of risk of deportation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarship in the area of group identity has expanded our understanding of how group consciousness and linked fate operate among racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States. What is yet to be tested is whether the measures employed adequately capture the multidimensional theoretical constructs associated with group consciousness across racial and ethnic populations. To address this question, we make use of the 2004 National Political Study (N = 3,339) and apply principal components analysis and exploratory factor analysis to assess whether measures used for both group consciousness and linked fate are interchangeable, as well as whether these measures are directly comparable across racial and ethnic populations. We find that the multidimensional approach to measuring group consciousness is a sound strategy when applied to African Americans, as the dimensions fit the African American experience more powerfully than is the case for non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and Asian populations. Our analysis suggests that scholars interested in exploring group identity among the African American population have fewer analytical concerns in this regard than those working with other populations where the underlying components associated with group consciousness appear to be operating differently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As Congress priorities the immigration debate on increased border security, the fate of an estimated 11 million undocumented citizens remains uncertain. Stuck in between partisan politics and practical solutions are mixed-status families in which some members of the family are U.S. citizens while other members are in the country without proper authorization. This paper, examines the relationship between risk of deportation and Medicaid use drawing from a nationally sample of mothers from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey. These data are then merged with data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to create a contextual risk of deportation measure. Findings suggest that an increase in risk of deportation is associated with a decrease in Medicaid use. The implications of this work have tremendous impacts for health service providers and policy makers interested in preventing and reducing health disparities in complex family structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is an investigation into why U.S. states have enacted, banned, or continued with the status quo regarding in-state tuition policies for unauthorized youth. Using data from multiple government and nonprofit sources, a series of multinomial logistic regressions are estimated to explain the determinants of state behavior across the country in 2008. This question of why some states pass or ban in-state tuition legislation for unauthorized migrants is important for several reasons. From a public finance perspective, not much is known of the relationship between fiscal and state budgets and the decision of a state to pass legislation regarding undocumented citizens. From an economic stimulus perspective, does poverty or per capita spending in higher education explain this behavior? The findings may help us understand how fiscal, political, public mood, and demographic indicators affect states' actions toward in-state tuition policies and why some members of Congress may be pushing for a federal education policy such as the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large body of literature documents the importance of child support for children’s wellbeing, though little is known about the child support behaviors of mixed-status families, a large and rapidly growing population in the United States. In this paper, we use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study to investigate the impact of citizenship status on formal and informal child support transfers among a nationally representative sample of parents who have citizen children. Probit regression models and propensity score matching (PSM) estimators show that mixed-status families are significantly less likely to have child support orders and child support receipt compared to their citizen counterparts. We found that mothers’ knowledge of the child support system increases the probability of establishing paternity. However, cultural differences in knowledge of and perception about the U.S. child support system between mixed-status families and citizen families do not have an impact on the probability of getting a child support order, child support receipt, or in-kind child support. Rather, institutional factors such as collaborations between welfare agencies and child support enforcement agencies as well as state child support enforcement efforts have a significant impact on formal child support outcomes. The results are robust against different model specifications, measure constructions, and use of datasets. These findings have important policy implications for policy makers and researchers interested in reducing child poverty in complex family structures and underscore the need to revisit child support policies for mixed-status families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This research uses a translation experiment to assess the Spanish translation of the "fair" response in the self-rated health measure among a representative study of the Latino population in the USA.Methods: Using a unique Latino-specific survey (n = 1200), researchers built in a split sample approach in the self-rated health status measure where half of the Spanish-speaking respondents (n = 600) were randomly given "regular" and the other half were given "Mas o Menos" in translating the English "fair" response. We first estimate a logistic regression model to estimate differences across language categories on the probability of reporting poor and fair health and then estimate a multinomial logistic regression to test whether respondents who took the survey in Spanish and given "regular" are more likely to rate their health as fair compared to English speakers and Spanish-speaking respondents who are given the "Mas o Menos" version.Results: From our logistic regression model, we find that Spanish-speaking respondents given the "regular" response are more likely to report poor health relative to English-speaking respondents and Spanish-speaking respondents who were randomly given "Mas o Menos." The results from our multinomial logistic models suggest that Spanish respondents provided with "Mas o Menos" are more likely to rate their health as good relative to the base category of fair and relative to both English and Spanish speakers given "regular."Conclusion: This research informs the study of racial and ethnic disparities by providing a detailed explanation for mixed findings in the Latino health disparities literature. Researchers interested in self-rated health should translate the general self-rated health option "fair" to "Mas o Menos" as our wording experiment suggests that the current wording "regular" overinflates the reporting of poor health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper assesses how ongoing historical racism and nativism as embedded within U.S. culture requires new and important dialogues about the omnipresence of White supremacy and its interconnected mechanisms that divide communities along the lines of race and perceived in-group status. To assess the role of immigration as it is understood through paradigms of White supremacy and systemic racism, the current study examines individual-level predictors of indifference to the BLM movement based on nativity status among Asian Americans—a racialized pan-ethnic group that is comprised of predominantly foreign-born members. Using the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey, one of the few nationally representative surveys that include detailed information about the Black Lives Matter movement, our study includes 1371 Asian immigrants (i.e., foreign-born Asian Americans) and 1635 U.S.-born Asian Americans. Results demonstrate that reporting indifference to the BLM movement differ by nativity such that foreign-born Asian Americans were significantly more likely to report indifference to the BLM movement compared to their U.S.-born Asian American counterparts. However, the impact of nativity disappears once we account for sense of belonging and acknowledgement of anti-Black racism. The sense of belonging was significant in predicting indifference to the BLM movement among U.S.-born Asian Americans only. The findings contribute to our understanding of racial sense making for Asian Americans as well as an understanding of how White supremacy translates to anti-Black racism through multiple and interconnected mechanisms for the maintenance of White supremacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]