Health and Social Impacts Health and Social Impacts OFOF

Rising Deportation Rates in the U.S.Rising Deportation Rates in the U.S.

Lindsay Shade and Dennis Stinchcomb

• What are the social and legal mechanisms behind the 110% increase in rates of deportation since 2001?

• What is the demographic composition of deportees?

• What are the systemic health impacts (and public costs) of rising rates of deportation, particularly in terms of the spatial organization of society?

• How does this problem affect the Washington, DC metropolitan area?

Seminar Program:I.Deportation statisticsII.The Secure Communities program and community disruptionIII.An example from Prince George’s CountyIV.Existing studies on the psycho-social impacts of deportationV.Understanding deportation and HIV/AIDSVI.What are people doing? Advocacy organizations and non-profitsVII.Potential research contacts and known gaps

*Information from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics

REMOVAL TREND IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

ETHNICITY

Though persons of Latin American origin make up just over three-fourths of the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., they accounted for 97 percent of all deportations during FY 2010

*Information from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics

*Culture of Cruelty, based on a sample of 12,895 deportees

IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGSBY STATE

Texas 48,963

California 31,844

Arizona 19,378

New York 18,256

Florida 14,887*Information from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC)

IMMIGRATION STATUS• Human Rights Watch reports that between April 1997 and August 2007, the U.S. deported 87,884 legal permanent residents (LPRs), which accounted for 10 percent of all removals

LENGTH OF RESIDENCY• LPRs deported during this time period had lived in the U.S. an average of ten years

HOUSEHOLD SITUATION• DHS Inspector General reports that between FYs 1998 and 2007, 5 percent of deportees were the parents of U.S.-citizen children.

CRIMINAL ALIEN REMOVALS

*Information from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ICE

• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program to partner with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on immigration enforcement.

• Relies on integrated databases and information sharing with local and state jailers to build deportation capacity.

• Ostensibly targeted at removal of most dangerous criminal aliens.

• Introduced by Bush Administration in March 2008 and piloted in 14

jurisdictions in October, 2008

• President Obama expanded dramatically: operated in 2,304 jurisdictions in 48 states and territories as of Feb. 29, 2012

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 TotalSubmissions 828,119 3,376,753 6,919,917 3,465,930 14,590,719Alien IDENT Matches 95,664 248,166 348,958 154,693 847,481Removals and Returns (L1 and L2 Convicted Criminals)

4,938 20,417 36,246 15,323 76,924

Removals and Returns (L3 Convicted Criminals)

5,753 15,797 23,206 8,198 52,954

ICE Fugitives; Prior Removals and Returns; EWI’s, Visa Violators, and Overstays

3,674 13,280 20,418 8,803 46,175

Total 14,365 49,494 79,870 32,324 176,053

*Data from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Secure Communities IDENT/IAFIS interoperability statistics through Feb 29 2012.

“What the numbers show me is that there is some form of racial profiling going on. The police department in Prince George's County has to bear the brunt of the responsibility here. It's my belief that their racial makeup doesn't reflect the population of Prince George's County.

--Gustavo Andrade, CASA de Maryland

“

• Arbona, C. et al. (2010) “Acculturative Stress Among Documented and Undocumented Latino Immigrants in the United States.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 32(3): 362-84

• Brabeck, K. and Q. Xu (2010). “The Impact of Detention and Deportation on Latino Immigrant Children and Families: A Quantitative Exploration” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 32(3): 341-36

• Cavazos-Rehg, P. et al. (2007). “Legal Status, Emotional Well-Being and Subjective Health Status of Latino Immigrants.” Journal of the National Medical Association 99(10): 1126-31.

Relevant Conclusions:

•Worries about legal status can heighten the risk of remotional distress and impaired quality of health.

•There is a tendency of the immigrant population not to seek mental health treatment, medical care, or social services assistance for fear of legal entanglement or deportation, which compounds the mental health conditions of the US immigrant population.

• Hagan, J., Castro, B. and Rodriguez, N. (2011). “Social Effects of Mass Deportations by the United States Government, 2000-10.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(8): 1374-91

• Hagan, J., Eschbach, K. and Rodriguez, N. (2008). “U.S. Deportation Policy, Family Separation, and Circular Migration.” International Migration Review 42(1): 64-88.

Relevant Conclusions:

•US enforcement policies are straining transnational families and imposing fear on immigrant communities.

•Law enforcement and related stress has been more pronounced in new destination states and in small rural areas.

•A significant number of deportees were long-time residents of the United States.

•Strong social ties and the formation of US-based families increases the likelihood of repeat migration.

• Applied Research Center. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. November 2011.

• Mendoza, Marcela and Olivas, Edward M. (2009). “Advocating for Control with Compassion: The Impact of Raids and Deportations on Children and Families.” Oregon Review of International Law. 11(1): 111-122.

Relevant Conclusions:

•In the first 6 months of 2011, Homeland Security removed more than 46,000 parents of US citizen children. ARC estimates that there are at least 5,100 children currently living in foster care whose parents have been detained or deported.

•Legal experts suggest that deportation of the parents of US citizen children results in increased burden on community institutions and social programs, such as schools, churches, and foster care systems.

Brouwer, et al. “Deportation Along the U.S.–Mexico Border: Its Relation to Drug Use Patterns and Accessing Care.” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 11:1 (2009): 1-6.  Goldenberg, Shira, et al. “People Here Are Alone, Using Drugs, Selling their Body’: Deportation and HIV Vulnerability among Clients of Female Sex Workers in Tijuana.” Field Actions Science Reports Special Issue 2 (2010).  Strathdee, S. A., et al. “Differential Effects of Migration and Deportation on HIV Infection among Male and Female Injection Drug Users in Tijuana, Mexico.” PLoS One 3.7 (2008).

Relevant Conclusions:

• Social dislocation and economic marginalization experienced by deportees linked to HIV through substance abuse and unprotected sexual relations

• Deportees likely to engage in risky behavior and have different drug use patterns

•Deportees reported to have less interaction with public health services•

•Casa de Maryland

•Creciendo Juntos

•National Immigrant Youth Alliance

RECURRENT THEMES:

• The effects of deportation on sexual activity and drug use—deportation induces risky behavior

• Lack of access to medical care as a result of deportation

• Inadequate medical care during the process of deterntion and deportation

• Rather superficial analysis of psychosocial impacts on relatives of deportees

MISSING INFORMATION:

• Longitudinal research and systematic analysis, beyond anecdotal information of the impact of deportation on U.S. families and communities—health and educational outcomes

• Research on the effects of the threat of deportation and community policing policies on immigrant health