literature review on immigration policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Risk Manag Healthc Policy

Barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants: a literature review

Karen hacker.

1 Allegheny County Health Department, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

2 Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Maria Anies

Barbara l folb.

3 Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Leah Zallman

4 Institute for Community Health, Cambridge, MA, USA

5 Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA, USA

6 Harvard School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

With the unprecedented international migration seen in recent years, policies that limit health care access have become prevalent. Barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants go beyond policy and range from financial limitations, to discrimination and fear of deportation. This paper is aimed at reviewing the literature on barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants and identifying strategies that have or could be used to address these barriers. To address study questions, we conducted a literature review of published articles from the last 10 years in PubMed using three main concepts: immigrants, undocumented, and access to health care. The search yielded 341 articles of which 66 met study criteria. With regard to barriers, we identified barriers in the policy arena focused on issues related to law and policy including limitations to access and type of health care. These varied widely across countries but ultimately impacted the type and amount of health care any undocumented immigrant could receive. Within the health system, barriers included bureaucratic obstacles including paperwork and registration systems. The alternative care available (safety net) was generally limited and overwhelmed. Finally, there was evidence of widespread discriminatory practices within the health care system itself. The individual level focused on the immigrant’s fear of deportation, stigma, and lack of capital (both social and financial) to obtain services. Recommendations identified in the papers reviewed included advocating for policy change to increase access to health care for undocumented immigrants, providing novel insurance options, expanding safety net services, training providers to better care for immigrant populations, and educating undocumented immigrants on navigating the system. There are numerous barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants. These vary by country and frequently change. Despite concerns that access to health care attracts immigrants, data demonstrates that people generally do not migrate to obtain health care. Solutions are needed that provide for noncitizens’ health care.

Over the last decade, international migration has continued to rise despite the efforts of many countries to tighten their borders. 1 Factors such as conflict, discrimination, and the lack of employment opportunities in countries of origin contribute to migration patterns. Today, countries have used a variety of strategies to dissuade immigrants from crossing their borders ranging from border patrol to identity checks, detention, and deportation. 2 , 3 With the unprecedented rates of migration, policies that disincentivize migration have spread to health care. Internationally, many countries, including the US, European nations, Scandinavia, Canada, and Costa Rica, have promulgated a range of policies that limit access to health services. 4 – 8 In the US for example, the Affordable Care Act excludes undocumented immigrants from accessing health insurance. 9 In the European Union, policies that limit undocumented immigrants’ access to health care are widespread and vary substantially. These policies range from denying all access to providing limited access to emergency and preventive care. 4

Throughout the literature, undocumented immigrants/migrants, also referred to as illegal, irregular, and noncitizen, are seen as underutilizing the health care system. 10 – 12 This underutilization not only puts their health at risk, as is the case with infectious diseases, but may also put the general public’s health at risk. 13 – 15 Many papers examine the sequelae of undocumented immigrants’ limited access to health care. 16 , 17 This includes the lack of follow-up for tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, low immunization rates, and untreated mental health issues. 14 , 15 A number of factors are presumed to exacerbate undocumented immigrants’ limited access to health care. These include their lack of knowledge, bureaucratic issues, confusion about rules and regulations, and discrimination. 18 To date, however, we have not encountered a review focused specifically on the variety of barriers to health care beyond legal regulations that undocumented immigrants currently face. Nor have we found a review of strategies that have been used or might be used to alleviate these barriers. Therefore, this paper is aimed at reviewing the literature on barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants and identifying strategies that have or could be used to address these barriers.

To address our main study aim we conducted a literature review using a systematic approach to examine peer-reviewed literature related to barriers to health care faced by undocumented immigrants. We also identified recommended strategies for solutions within the literature reviewed.

Search strategy

Our literature search was conducted using PubMed by one author (BF) to capture our three main concepts: immigrants, undocumented, and access to health care. We limited our search to articles written in English over the last 10 years. Various terms for immigrants were used, including immigrants, foreigners, aliens, and migrants. In addition, a variety of search terms for undocumented were used, including undocumented, illegal, irregular, and noncitizen. The full search strategy is provided in the “PubMed search strategy” section of Supplementary materials. The search was designed to retrieve articles on a wide range of subtopics within the main topic but without being exhaustive, as would be required for a complete systematic review. By incorporating systematic review methods into the search, this study occupies a middle ground between traditional narrative reviews, which do not require documentation of search methods or defined criteria in their choice of articles for inclusion, and systematic reviews. We applied our search criteria on April 8, 2015 and identified 341 journal article records ( Figure 1 ). All records were exported to an EndNote database for inclusion/exclusion evaluation.

Flow chart of review process.

Article selection

We conducted a three-stage screening process starting with a title review followed by an abstract review and ending with a full-text article review. Articles were included if they addressed barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants and/or recommendations for strategies to solve problems of access. For the purposes of this search, editorials and opinion pieces were excluded.

In our title review stage, three authors (KH, MA, LZ) independently reviewed the journal article titles to determine whether they were relevant or irrelevant. Based on this title review, 123 articles were included for review and 218 were excluded. In our second stage, the authors independently screened the abstracts of the remaining 123 articles and determined that 74 initially met eligibility. Three reviewers examined full-text articles for eligibility. Seven articles were excluded as they were deemed to be opinion pieces and one article was deemed irrelevant. After excluding these articles, 66 articles were included in the qualitative analysis that followed (see Table S1; reviewed articles).

Abstraction

The reviewers then developed a data abstraction form and independently applied it to three eligible articles. They then reviewed their findings and developed an initial list of categories of barriers (eg, fear of deportation and insurance). They independently abstracted information from 10 to 12 articles each and met to review the tool, finalizing the list of categories of barriers. At this stage, one category was removed and four were added, yielding the finalized abstraction tool. Authors were instructed to highlight any themes that were not captured by the abstraction tool; however, no further key themes emerged. Once abstraction was complete, two authors (KH, LZ) met to review all of the data and consolidate the themes into categories for both barriers and recommendations.

The final categories for barriers identified from the literature represent the multiple levels where the barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants exist. These categories include barriers experienced in the policy arena, in the health care system, and at the individual level ( Table 1 ). The policy arena focused on issues related to both law and policy including access to insurance for undocumented populations and limitations to the type of health care that they could utilize. The health care system focused on bureaucracy, capacity, and the discriminatory practices that were present. The individual level focused on the undocumented immigrants’ fears, stigma, and lack of capital (both social and financial) that, in turn, created barriers to health care.

Barriers to health care experienced by undocumented immigrants

National policies excluding undocumented immigrants from receiving health care were the most commonly cited barriers to health care. Three quarters of the articles described legal barriers including denying access to insurance. In some nations, active surveillance of providers led to the denial of care as providers feared losing their medical licenses or criminal procedures. A commonly cited mechanism for excluding undocumented immigrants from health care was laws limiting access to insurance. Because insurance was generally required for affordable care or required to receive services at all, these laws effectively barred access to care. The fact that medical repatriation was allowed in many countries – that is, repatriation of a sick individual to the country of origin against an individual’s will for the purposes of medical care (which is often insufficient in the country of origin) – led to avoidance of care. In addition, 27% of articles described requirements that individuals show documentation to get health care services as major barriers to care. Often, this need for documentation “spilled over” and affected authorized children of unauthorized parents, who did not seek care for their children because of the inability to provide documentation for themselves.

Health system

Health system barriers included external resource constraints, costs to the individual, discrimination, and high bureaucratic requirements. External resource constraints – or constraints such as work conflicts (eg, health care offered during work hours and fear of losing job due to time off seeking care), lack of transportation, and limited health care capacity (eg, lack of translation services, cultural competency, and funding cuts) – were identified in 36% of articles. One area where there was particularly limited capacity was in mental health care for undocumented immigrants. One third of articles discussed discrimination on the basis of nativity status; for some subpopulations, discrimination on the basis of nativity intersected with other forms of discrimination such as sexual discrimination, placing subpopulations at particularly high-risk of not receiving care. Finally, complicated bureaucracies created insurmountable barriers for not only undocumented immigrants but also providers wanting to provide care to immigrants; 26% of articles described this issue. Often bureaucratic regulations led to extensive paperwork requirements that were too complicated and costly to complete.

Individual barriers included fear of deportation, communication ability, financial resources, shame/stigma, and knowledge about the health care system. Fear of deportation, whether real or imagined, was identified as a barrier in 65% of articles. Undocumented immigrants reported avoiding health care and waiting until health issues were critical to seek services because of their concerns of being reported to authorities. This was seen in countries as diverse as France, the US, and Denmark. A second barrier – noted in 36% of articles – was communication, which not only included the inability to speak the language of the dominant culture but also included cultural discomfort with the way in which the dominant culture communicated. It was noted that undocumented immigrants were unable to communicate their health concerns to care providers or were misunderstood by those providers. For example, in one article, undocumented immigrants felt that the emergency room physicians did not fully believe their symptoms. 19 Lack of financial resources was also a significant barrier, as noted in 45% of articles, and was particularly true in countries where undocumented immigrants were excluded from all health care services or had no access to insurance (the UK and Denmark). Eleven percent of papers reported the issue of shame and/or stigma as a barrier for accessing health care. Undocumented immigrants did not want to “be a burden on the system” or felt that they would be stigmatized if they sought services even in countries where services were available. Lastly, the final individual barrier that was identified was a lack of knowledge of the system itself. Undocumented immigrants often did not know what services were available to them nor what their rights to health care were. In addition, immigrants often did not know how to utilize the health care system, particularly when additional requirements were needed (ie, France’s requirement to obtain authorization prior to accessing services). 20 This was identified as a barrier in 33% of the reviewed articles.

Recommendations

We identified five major categories of recommendations in the reviewed papers relevant to addressing barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants ( Table 2 ). These categories are related to advocacy for policy change, insurance options, expansion of the safety net, training of providers to better care for immigrant populations, and education of undocumented immigrants on navigating the system.

Recommendations for improving barriers

Advocacy for policy change included a range of possible legislation to allow either full access to health care or varying levels of access such as public health services. Insurance options included special insurance programs through the state available to undocumented immigrants and/or full insurance benefits to employees regardless of their status. Expansion of the safety net focused on increasing the capacity of safety net providers (free clinics, state clinics, federally qualified health centers and public hospitals, and public health clinics) to service the population and receive reimbursement. In addition, strategies to employ sliding fee scales to accommodate low-income individuals and the use of voluntary organizations were mentioned. Training of providers included both training in the legal mandates of the individual country and training in cultural competency. Education for immigrants included providing specialized linguistically appropriate information on how to navigate the health care system and on what rights were afforded to undocumented immigrants. Authors also suggested using navigators to help undocumented immigrants maneuver through the health care system.

Advocacy/legal change

A variety of advocacy recommendations to change the existing laws were suggested in the majority of the papers reviewed (47%). These included not only changing laws to provide full access to care regardless of citizenship but also promoting legislation that would allow delayed deportation until treatment was completed. Others recommended major immigration reform that would grant legal status to undocumented immigrants after some period of time, thus making health care exclusion laws irrelevant.

Insurance options

Several papers suggested newly configured insurance options to support undocumented immigrants’ access to health care. These included a range of options from a state-funded insurance plan to a low-cost insurance plan with a limited network. Most of the insurance strategies recommended required undocumented immigrants to financially contribute at some level in order to access care. Fourteen percent of papers recommended changes in insurance options.

Expansion of the safety net

Twenty-seven percent of papers identified the need to expand the existing safety net to accommodate the needs of undocumented immigrants. This included expanding public and free clinics and hospitals, particularly for conditions that put the public’s health at risk (ie, tuberculosis [TB], and sexually transmitted diseases) or those related to maternal and child health (obstetrics and preventive care). They also noted that current voluntary organizations such as food banks could be important health care providers, particularly for prevention and health education. Many papers noted that the safety net system did not currently have capacity to take on this role and called for increased state support to do so.

Training of providers

A number of papers (15%) noted that providers themselves needed additional training to appropriately care for undocumented immigrants. A focus on cultural competency was needed to improve existing services as well as any new services. In some of the papers, it was also noted that providers did not adequately understand the current policies on access and might turn undocumented immigrants away based on false information. Therefore, a number of papers recommended additional training to keep providers up to date on changing legislation related to access.

Education and outreach

Lastly, a number of papers (23%) argued for education and specialized outreach to the undocumented immigrant community to facilitate their utilization of the health care system and their understanding of the policies relevant to them in the specific country. Several papers also recommended the use of navigators or cultural ambassadors to help undocumented immigrants maneuver through the bureaucracy and obtain needed care.

In this literature review, we identified 66 peer-reviewed articles in the medical literature addressing barriers to health care among undocumented immigrants. These articles described multiple policy, health system, and individual barriers to care for this population. Policy-level barriers centered on legal barriers, particularly barred access to insurance, and the need to show documentation to get services. Health system barriers included external resource constraints (such as lack of transportation), discrimination within the health care system, and complex bureaucracies. Finally, individual-level barriers identified included fear of deportation, communication ability, lack of financial resources, and experience of shame or stigma.

The barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants are extensive and vary by country. Even in countries with more lenient health care access laws for undocumented immigrants, bureaucratic obstacles can be complex and have similar effects to limiting care. The literature suggests that the legal obstacles are not the only bureaucratic obstacles that undocumented immigrants face; undocumented immigrants deal with challenges that revolve around understanding the health care system, shame, and fear of deportation. Tying access to health care to deportation is perhaps the largest barrier to obtaining services even in countries that offer access. It is well known that immigrants overall and undocumented immigrants in particular are underutilizing the health care system. The ramifications of such obstacles might include a risk to the public’s health when communicable diseases are involved or a risk for more serious issues when health care is deferred.

Given the extent of immigration now and potentially in the future, countries will continue to grapple with developing strategies that serve the public’s health. Many of the recommendations that we identified in the reviewed articles have not been tested so it is difficult to ascertain whether or not they would be deemed successful. Recommendations mentioned frequently involved changing legislation to provide full health coverage regardless of status. Other recommendations suggested providing health care that was limited (by disease), only preventive in nature, or of low-cost. Many countries already have such systems in place. 4 , 7 , 44

These secondary systems of health care for noncitizens have restricted access to care and require complex and costly bureaucracies to administer. Some of the recommendations we encountered suggested that a thoughtfully constructed (inclusive of preventive, acute, and secondary care) and controlled (limited networks), system might offer a low-cost alternative to full access.

Studies have documented that people migrate to flee violence or persecution or for economic opportunities rather than to obtain health care. 21 It is therefore possible that despite concerns that access to health care attracts undocumented immigrants, integration of a noncitizens’ health care option into national systems may not increase immigration. However, more research is needed to better understand the impact of the various recommendations we identified on undocumented immigration, costs, and health outcomes.

Limitations

The literature search was limited to English language articles from the last 10 years and run using PubMed. It is likely that relevant articles are missing from this review that were published in other languages, and indexed in databases besides PubMed (such as PsycINFO and Embase, etc). Inclusion of those missing articles could have added more information on barriers and options for recommendations addressing undocumented immigrants’ access to health care.

In addition, this review was designed to answer a specific question about barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants. Recommendations examined were limited to those identified in the articles retrieved for our review of barriers. We did not carry out a separate review of strategies to address the provision of health care for undocumented immigrants, and a literature review focused on polices or strategies to address health care for this population might provide additional evidence not mentioned in this paper. Another review examining the impact of various health services for undocumented immigrants would be needed.

Because the review aimed to examine barriers in general rather than compare barriers by country, we are unable to present comparisons across countries. Further research would be needed to answer this question. Lastly, we were strictly focused on undocumented immigrants and are unable to comment on barriers to care for documented (legal) immigrants.

There are numerous and wide-ranging barriers to receipt of health care for undocumented immigrants. These barriers are not only legal in nature but also encompass challenges inherent in “undocumented” or illegal status. They include policy limitations, the fear of disclosure, and the lack of both social and financial assets. Given the current level of undocumented immigrants worldwide, these barriers will continue to impact human health. Additional research is needed to determine the effect of implemented health policies on undocumented immigrant health and decisions to immigrate.

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

A Critical Framework for Analyzing the Impacts of Sub-Federal Immigration Policy in Post 9/11 United States

• Original Paper
• Published: 16 October 2023

Cite this article

• Hannah Boyke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6772-3014 1 &
• Pilar S. Horner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4545-6883 1  

71 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Since September 11, 2001, local law enforcement has gained considerable de facto immigration enforcement authority. These federal-local partnerships have accelerated immigration enforcement practices and inspired a myriad of policies both supporting and resisting such partnerships. This extensive systematic qualitative literature review explores the role of local law enforcement in implementing immigration related policies. Three research questions are addressed: (1) How do local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) participate in immigration enforcement practices? (2) What might lead to some areas having more enforcement compared to other areas with less enforcement? (3) What factors might provide opportunities for empowerment, a sense of security, and/or security in the face of enforcement? Forty-three empirical research articles were identified through seven database searches and were analyzed with inductive coding. This review identifies three frameworks that shape local immigration policy, enforcement outcomes, sanctuary, and immigrant resistance and activism. These frameworks include demographic intensities, localized power structures, and institutionally formalized policy. These findings identify the inter-institutional processes underpinning local immigration policy, enforcement outcomes, sanctuary, and immigrant resistance and activism. By considering enforcement and sanctuary at multiple levels, educators and policy practitioners can better evaluate the efficacy of policy interventions and engage in advocacy efforts that support equitable social change that supports the safety of immigrant communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: a systematic review.

Charlotte Gill, David Weisburd, … Trevor Bennett

How colonisation determines social justice and Indigenous health—a review of the literature

Kalinda Griffiths, Clare Coleman, … Richard Madden

Racism in Australia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jehonathan Ben, Amanuel Elias, … Yin Paradies

Armacost, B. E. (2016). Sanctuary laws: The new immigration federalism. Michigan State Law Review, 1197–1264. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1180&context=lr

Armenta, A. (2016). Between public service and social control: Policing dilemmas in the era of immigration enforcement. Social Problems, 63 (1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/44014897

Arizona Office of the Attorney General. (2016). Informal Attorney General Opinion. Retrieved April 3, 2021, from https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/I16-010.pdf

Arizona Rev. Stat. §13–3102. (ARS. 2005). Retrieved April 3, 2021, from https://azleg.gov/ars/13/03102.htm

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). Retrieved April 3, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182

Asad, A. L. (2020). On the radar: System embeddedness and Latin American immigrants' perceived risk of deportation. L aw & Society Review, 54 (1), 133–167. Retrieved December 19, 2020, from https://sociology.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9501/f/publications/asad_2020.pdf

Asad, A. L., & Rosen, E. (2019). Hiding within racial hierarchies: How undocumented immigrants make residential decisions in an American city. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45 (11), 1857–1882. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1532787

Article   Google Scholar  

Ayón, C. (2018). “Vivimos en Jaula de Oro”: The impact of state-level legislation on immigrant Latino families. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 16 (4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2017.1306151

Becerra, D. (2016). Anti-immigration policies and fear of deportation: A human rights issue. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 1 (3), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-016-0018-8

Becerra, D., Hernandez, G., Porchas, F., Castillo, J., Nguyen, V., & Perez González, R. (2020). Immigration policies and mental health: Examining the relationship between immigration enforcement and depression, anxiety, and stress among Latino immigrants. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 29 (1–3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2020.1731641

Bhimji, F. (2014). Undocumented immigrants’ performances and claims of urban citizenship in Los Angeles. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 35 (1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2014.864624

Brady, K. & Kamhi, A. (2021). Relief Chart: Eligibility for immigration relief despite criminal record issue. Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Retrieved January 3, 2023, from https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/relief_chart_nov_2021_0.pdf

Brown, H. E., Jones, J. A., & Dow, T. (2016). Unity in the struggle: immigration and the South's emerging civil rights consensus. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79 (3), 5–27. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol79/iss3/2

California. A. B.60, 2013 State Assembly, 2013–2014 Regular Session, (Cal. 2013). Retrieved April 3, 2021, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB60

California. S. B. 976, 1992, State Assembly, 1992–1993 Regular Session , (Cal. 1993). Retrieved April 3, 2021, from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_976_bill_930305_introduced

California Values Act. S. B. 54, 2017–2018 Leg., Regular Session , (Cal. 2017). Retrieved April 3, 2021, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54

Cantor, G., Noferi, M., Martínez, D. E. (2015). Enforcement overdrive: A comprehensive assessment of ICE’s Criminal Alien Program. American Immigration Council. Retrieved December 2, 2022, from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/enforcement_overdrive_a_comprehensive_assessment_of_ices_criminal_alien_program_final.pdf

Cardoso, J., Scott, J. L., Faulkner, M., & Barros Lane, L. (2018). Parenting in the context of deportation risk. Journal of Marriage & Family, 80 (2), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12463

Casellas, J. P., & Wallace, S. J. (2020). Sanctuary cities: Public attitudes toward enforcement collaboration between local police and federal immigration authorities. Urban Affairs Review, 56 (1), 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418776115

Chacón, J. M. (2019). Immigration federalism in the weeds. UCLA Law Review, 66 (6), 1330–1393. Retrieved September 19, 2020, from https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2020/06/Chacon-66-6.pdf

Chand, D. E. (2020). Is it population or personnel? The effects of diversity on immigration policy implementation by sheriff offices. Public Performance & Management Review, 43 (2), 304–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1596821

Collingwood, L., El-Khatib, S. O., & Gonzalez O’Brien, B. (2019). Sustained organizational influence: American Legislative Exchange Council and the diffusion of anti-sanctuary policy. Policy Studies Journal, 47 (3), 735–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12284

Collingwood, L., Morin, J. L., & El-Khatib, S. O. (2018). Expanding carceral markets: Detention facilities, ICE contracts, and the financial interests of punitive immigration policy. Race and Social Problems, 10 (4), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-018-9241-5

Coutin, S. B. (2000). Legalizing moves: Salvadoran immigrants' struggle for U.S. residency. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.16187

Daamen, R., & Doomernik, J. (2014). Local solutions for federal problems: Immigrant incorporation in Montgomery County. Maryland. Urban Geography, 35 (4), 550–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.909633

De Genova, N. (2012). Immigration reform and the production of migrant illegality. In C. Menjívar & D. Kanstroom (Eds.), Constructing immigrant illegality: Critiques, experiences, and responses (pp. 37–62). Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar  

Doraisamy, N. (2018). Erasing presence through reasonable suspicion: Terry and its progeny as a vehicle for state immigration enforcement, University of Idaho, College of Law, 54 (2), 409–466. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=idaho-law-review

Drake, L., & Plascencia, L. F. B. (2013). In the shadow of sanctuary: The Phoenix police department's 'don't ask, don't tell' migrant status orders. AZTLAN - A Journal of Chicano Studies , 38(2), 221. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/csrc/aztlan/2013/00000038/00000002/art00013#expand/collapse

Eagly, I. V. (2013). Criminal justice for noncitizens: An analysis of variation in local enforcement. New York University Law Review, 88 (4) , 1126–1223. Retrieved September 19, 2020, from https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-88-4-Eagly.pdf

Eagly, I.V. (2016). Immigrant Protective Policies in Criminal Justice. Texas Law Review, 95 (2) , 1126–1223.Retrieved September 19, 2020, from https://texaslawreview.org/immigrant-protective-policies-in-criminal-justice/

Ehrkamp, P., & Caroline Nagel, C. (2014). Under the radar: Undocumented immigrants, hristian faith communities, and the precarious spaces of welcome in the U.S. South, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104 (2), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.858573

Enriquez, L. E., Martha, M. H., & Ro, A. (2018). Deconstructing immigrant illegality: A mixed-methods investigation of stress and health among undocumented college students. Race and Social Problems, 10 (3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12552-018-9242-4

Enriquez, L. E., & Millán, D. (2019). Situational triggers and protective locations: Conceptualizing the salience of deportability in everyday life. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47 (9), 2089–2108. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1694877

Farris, E., & Holman, M. (2017). All politics is local? County sheriffs and localized policies of immigration enforcement. Political Research Quarterly, 70 (1), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.2307/26384906

Gallini, B. R., & Young, E. L. (2011). Car stops, borders, and profiling: The hunt for undocumented (illegal?) immigrants in border towns. Nebraska Law Review, 89 (4), 709–737. Retrieved September 19, 2020, from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=nlr

García, A. S. (2014). Hidden in plain sight: How unauthorised migrants strategically assimilate in restrictive localities in California. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40 (12), 1895–1914. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.883918

Gelatt, J., Koball, H., & Bernstein, H. (2018). State immigration enforcement policies and material hardship for immigrant families. Child Welfare, 96 (5), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8W67ZBW

Gómez Cervantes, A., & Menjívar, C. (2020). Legal violence, health, and access to care: Latina immigrants in rural and urban Kansas. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 6 (3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146520945048

Gerardo Gonzalez v. ICE, 548 F. Supp. 20185 (C.D. CA. 2019). Retrieved January 21, 2021, from https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/aclu_socal_gonzalez_20190927_judgment.pdf

Goodman, A. (2020). The deportation machine: America’s long history of expelling immigrants. Princeton University Press.

Gulasekaram, P., Su, R., & Villazor, R. (2019). Anti-sanctuary and immigration localism. Columbia Law Review , 119 (3), 837–894. https://doi.org/10.2307/26652188

Guzman Garcia, M. (2020). Mobile sanctuary: Latina/o Evangelicals redefining sanctuary and contesting immobility in Fresno, CA. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47 (19), 4515–4533. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1761780

Hing, B.O. (2018). Entering the Trump ice age: Contextualizing the new immigration enforcement regime. Texas A&M Law Review, 5 (2), 253–316. https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V5.I2.1

Huang, X., & Liu, C. Y. (2018). Welcoming cities: Immigration policy at the local government level. Urban Affairs Review, 54 (1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416678999

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1373. (1996). Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1373%20edition:prelim)

Kearns, S., Kroll, T., O‘Shea, D., & Neff, K. (2021). Experiences of transgender and non-binary youth accessing gender-affirming care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography. PLoS ONE 16 (9): e0257194. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257194

Lai, A. A., & Lasch, C. N., (2018). Crimmigration resistance and the case of sanctuary city defunding. S anta Clara Law Review, 57 (3), 539–610. Retrieved September 19, 2020, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3094952

Lasch, C. N., Chan, L. R., Eagly, I. V., Haynes, D. F., Lai, A., McCormick, E. M. & Stumpf, J. P. (2018). Understanding sanctuary cities. Boston College Law Review, 59 , 1703. Retrieved September 19, 2020, from https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/388

Latz, I., Lusk, M., & Heyman, J. (2019). Provider perceptions of the effects of current U.S. immigration enforcement policies on service utilization in a border community. Social Development Issues, 41 (1), 49–63.

LeBrón, A. M. W., Schulz, A. J., Gamboa, C., Reyes, A., Viruell-Fuentes, E., & Israel, B. A. (2018). “They are clipping our wings”: Health implications of restrictive immigrant policies for Mexican-origin women in a northern border community. Race and Social Problems, 10 (3), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-018-9238-0

Leitner, H., & Strunk, C. (2014) Spaces of immigrant advocacy and liberal democratic citizenship. Annals of the Association of American Geographers , 104 (2), 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.875806

Lewis, P., Provine, D., Varsanyi, M., & Decker, S. (2013). Why do (some) city police departments enforce federal immigration law? Political, demographic, and organizational influences on local choices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/23321082

Macías-Rojas, P. (2016). From deportation to prison: The politics of enforcement in post-civil rights America. NYU Press.

Moinester M. (2018). Beyond the border and into the heartland: spatial patterning of U.S. immigration detention. Demography, 55 (3), 1147–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0679-2

Morales, M. C., & Curry, T. R. (2020). Citizenship profiling and diminishing procedural justice: Local immigration enforcement and the reduction of police legitimacy among individuals and in Latina/o neighborhoods. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44 (1), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1723669

Morales, M. C., Delgado, D., & Curry, T. (2018). Variations in citizenship profiling by generational status: Individual and neighborhood characteristics of Latina/os questioned by law enforcement about their legal status. Race and Social Problems, 10 (4), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-018-9235-3

National Sheriffs’ Association. (n.d.). Elected office of the sheriff: Executive Summary. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/The_Elected_Office_of_Sheriff_-_An_Executive_Summary.pdf

Nguyen, M., & Gill, H. (2016). Interior immigration enforcement: The impacts of expanding local law enforcement authority. Urban Studies, 53 (2), 302–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/26146250

Pedroza, J. M. (2019). Deportation discretion: Tiered influence, minority threat, and “Secure Communities” deportations. Policy Studies Journal, 47 (3), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12300

Reed, M. E. (2019). Senate Bill 4: Police officers' opinions on Texas' ban of sanctuary cities. Chicana/o Latina/o Law Review, 36 (1). https://doi.org/10.5070/C7361042814

Rhodes, S. D., Mann, L., Simán, F. M., Song, E., Alonzo, J., Downs, M., Lawlor, E., Martinez, O., Sun, C. J., O’Brien, M. C., Reboussin, B. A., & Hall, M. A. (2015). The impact of local immigration enforcement policies on the health of immigrant Hispanics/Latinos in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 105 (2), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302218

Ryo, E., & Peacock, I. (2020). Jailing immigrant detainees: A national study of county participation in immigration detention. Law & Society Review, 54 (1), 68–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12459

Sarmiento, C. S. (2020). From jails to sanctuary planning: Spatial justice in Santa Ana, California. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40 (2), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X19893743

Strunk, C., & Leitner, H. (2013). Resisting federal–local immigration enforcement partnerships: Redefining ‘Secure Communities’ and public safety. Territory, Politics, Governance, 1 (1), 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2013.769894

Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Arizona Revised Statutes, §11–1051. (Ariz. 2010). Retrieved April 3, 2021, from https://azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. (2019). Removals under the Secure Communities Program . Retrieved January 15, 2023, from https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/secure/

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. (2020). Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention: ICE data snapshots, up to July 2019. Retrieved February 2, 2023, from https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/detention/

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2021b). Secure Communities. Retrieved December 12, 2022, from https://www.ice.gov/secure-communities

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2021c). Criminal Alien Program. Retrieved December 12, 2022, from https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/criminal-alien-program

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2021d). Weekly Declined Detainer Outcome Report for Recorded Declined Detainers, Jan. 28-Feb. 3, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2022, from https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ddor/ddor2017_02-11to02-17.pdf

Villazor, R., & Gulasekaram, P. (2019). Sanctuary networks. Minnesota Law Review , 103 (3), 1209–1284. Retrieved November 25, 2020, from https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2Villazor_FINAL.pdf

Vitiello, D. (2014). The politics of immigration and suburban revitalization: Divergent responses In adjacent Pennsylvania towns. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36 (3), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12052

Walker, K. E. (2014). Immigration, local policy, and national identity in the suburban United States. Urban Geography, 35 (4), 508–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.890423

Walker, K. E., & Leitner, H. (2011). The variegated landscape of local immigration policies in the United States. Urban Geography, 32 (2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.32.2.156

Wallace, S. J. (2014). Papers please: State-level anti-immigrant legislation in the wake of Arizona’s SB 1070. Political Science Quarterly, 129 (2), 261–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12178

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806. (1996). Retrieved January 5, 2023, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/806/

Williams, L. M. (2015). Beyond enforcement: Welcomeness, local law enforcement, and immigrants. Public Administration Review, 75 (3), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12335

Wishnie, M. J. (2004). State and local police enforcement of immigration laws. Constitutional Law Review, 6 (5), 1085–1115. Retrieved August 16, 2023, from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol6/iss5/5

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Social Work, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Hannah Boyke & Pilar S. Horner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah Boyke .

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Boyke, H., Horner, P.S. A Critical Framework for Analyzing the Impacts of Sub-Federal Immigration Policy in Post 9/11 United States. J of Pol Practice & Research (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-023-00094-5

Download citation

Accepted : 17 September 2023

Published : 16 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-023-00094-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Immigration enforcement
• Deportation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research