The Urban Institute

FACING OUR FUTURE:Children in the Aftermath of Immigration

Enforcement

Ajay Chaudry, Randy Capps, Juan Manuel PedrozaRosa Maria Castaneda, Rob Santos, Molly Scott

The Urban Institute

XV Regional Conference on Migration Seminar on Family and MigrationInstitute Nacional de Migracion, Mexico

April 21, 2010

• Brief Background on children of immigrants in the United States

• Description of Study

• Findings

• Family Separation

• Family Well-Being

• Child Behavior

• Policy Recommendations

OverviewOverview

• 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. & 8.3 million in the U.S. labor force (March 2008)

• 5.5 million children with unauthorized immigrant parents (March 2008)

• 4 million children of unauthorized immigrants were born in the United States (March 2008)

• Between 1998 and 2007, over 100,000 immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children have been deported from the United States (U.S. DHS OIG)Sources: Passel & Cohn, 2009, “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States,” Pew Hispanic Center; Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, 2009, “Removals Involving Illegal Alien Parents of United States Citizen Children.”

Children of Immigrants in the U.S.

Children of Immigrants in the U.S.

• Builds off Paying the Price study in 2007 (study of three worksite raid sites)

• Capture long-term raid impacts and community responses

• Study multiple types of enforcement activities beyond worksite raids

• Monitor changes in enforcement policies and practices over this time

• Represent the diversity of populations and communities affected by immigration enforcement

• Document more thoroughly family and child well-being at multiple points (short-term and longer term after arrests)

• Understand how enforcement and community contexts affect community responses

Goals of the StudyGoals of the Study

• What are the effects of enforcement on parent-child separation?

• How do these effects differ in the short and longer terms?

• What are some of the specific effects of enforcement actions on children’s well-being?

• What economic hardships do families face?

• What changes in children’s behavior are reported at home or in schools?

• What services and social support did immigrant families receive in the immediate and long-term aftermath of parental arrests?

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

THE URBAN INSTITUTE / Washington, D.C.

• In-depth qualitative interviews

• Parent interview protocol

• Family characteristics before arrest

• Arrest circumstances and outcomes

• Family economic hardship

• Parental mental health and child behavior

• Informal and formal assistance

• Community interview protocol

• Comparison across sites

• Local economies and immigrant communities

• faith-based, nonprofit, community-based, and public response

Study MethodsStudy Methods

• Grand Island, NE – December 2006 worksite raid

• New Bedford, MA – March 2007 worksite raid

• Van Nuys, CA – February 2008 worksite raid

• Postville, IA – May 2008 worksite raid

• Rogers and Springdale, AR – Ongoing local law enforcement of immigration violations since 2007

• Miami, FL – Ongoing Fugitive Operations Team (FOT) arrests

Study SitesStudy Sites


• Diverse set of families capture a range of experiences

• 85 families and 190 children

• Arrested Parents Countries of Origin: • Mexico (46);

• Guatemala (19);

• Other Central and South America (11)

• Haiti (9)

• Average length of time in U.S.: 9 years

Study RespondentsStudy Respondents

Children in StudyChildren in Study

Table 1.4: Characteristics of Children in Study Sample

Child age

Gender All children U.S.-born children

Male Female NumberPercent of

totalNumber

Percent of age group

0 to 2 23 23 46 25% 46 100%

3 to 5 21 17 38 20% 34 89%

6 to 11 28 36 64 34% 31 48%

12 to 17 18 21 39 21% 13 33%

Total 90 97 187 100% 124 66%

Source: Urban Institute surveys of families in study sites. Note: Does not include three children (out of 190) whose parent did not provide age or nativity.

• About half of families (42 parents) had arrested parent released the same day; About half detained for day(s) to month(s); More than 20 percent detained more than one month.

• Respondents in Van Nuys and Postville were released most regularly

• Follows ICE’s new humanitarian guidelines of November 2007

• In Arkansas and Miami, separation was more frequent and longer because:

• humanitarian guidelines did not apply

• arrests are not usually high profile

• Family, spouses, and extended family step in

• 20 families (and 49 children) experienced a parent’s deportation

• 8 cases some or all children returned to parents’ country of origin

• 12 cases children remained in the U.S. separated from one parent

• 9 deported to Guatemala, 7 to Mexico, 4 to Haiti

Family SeparationFamily Separation

Family Separation After Parental Arrest

Family Separation After Parental Arrest

Table2.1: Length of Separation of Parents from Children for Sample Respondents

Site

Length of Separation

TOTALReleased same day

1 day– 1 week

1 week–1 month

1 month–6 months

> 6 monthsa

Grand Island, NE 7 1 2 0 2 12

New Bedford, MA 2 5 2 0 1 10

Van Nuys, CA 18 10 0 0 0 28

Postville, IA 11 0 0 6 1 18

Miami MSA, FL 4 0 2 2 1 9

Rogers-Springdale, AR 0 1 4 3 2 10

TOTAL 42 17 10 11 7 87

Source: Urban Institute surveys of families in study sites.a. Includes four cases in which parents were still detained at the time of interview.

• Changes in economic hardship

• Lost employment and income

• Difficulty paying bills

• Housing instability

• Crowded housing

• Frequent moves

• Loss of home ownership

• Food Insecurity

Family Well-BeingFamily Well-Being

Food HardshipFood Hardship

Table 3.3: Short- and Long-Term Food Hardship in Households Following Arrest

Food hardship itema

Time Elapsed (UI Sample)

National*

Less than 6

months (n=54)More than 6

months (n=46)

Food bought didn’t last and respondent didn’t have money to get more 72.5% 82.6% 12.4%

Respondent couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals 60.0% 78.3% 11.3%

Adults cut the size of meals or skipped meals 64.0% 60.9% 6.5%

Respondent ate less than felt he/she could 57.1% 57.8% 6.5%

Respondent was hungry but couldn’t afford to eat 22.0% 28.3% 3.3%

Source: Urban Institute surveys of families in study sites. Note: Actual numbers for individual items may sometimes be lower because of refusals or missing data.* These statistics come from Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, 2008, Household Food Security in the United States, 2007, ERR-66, Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Child Behavior: Short Term

Child Behavior: Short Term

• A majority of children exhibited changes in eating, sleeping and crying (often changed in tandem)

• More than half of children cried or felt afraid

• Anxious, withdrawn, clingy, and aggressive behavior were frequent but less commonTable 4.1: Children Experiencing Behavior Changes in Four Sites (Short-Term Interviews)

Age group Eating Sleeping Crying Afraid Anxious Withdrawn ClingyAngry or

aggressive

0 to 5 62% 55% 61% 43% 38% 16% 42% 36%

6 to 11 81% 69% 60% 61% 46% 51% 42% 37%

12 to 17 61% 79% 57% 60% 43% 62% 35% 34%

All ages 68% 66% 60% 54% 42% 42% 40% 36%

Source: Urban Institute surveys of families in study sites.

• More than 3 out of 5 children exhibited 3 or more behavior changes

• Children separated from parents or whose parents were arrested at home experienced more severe effects

Child Behavior: Long Term

Child Behavior: Long Term

• Child behavioral changes remained relatively high but did not intensify for most children

• Some children seemed to adjust somewhat in the longer term

• Approximately one third of all children experienced 4 or more changes

• Withdrawal and aggression were especially persistent among children separated from parents for long periods

Table 4.3: Children Experiencing Behavior Changes in Six Sites (Long-Term Interviews)

Age group Eating Sleeping Crying Afraid Anxious Withdrawn ClingyAngry or

aggressive

0 to 5 39% 30% 48% 21% 7% 17% 56% 18%

6 to 11 56% 46% 52% 35% 35% 54% 63% 56%

12 to 17 29% 53% 35% 55% 31% 67% 38% 56%

All ages 43% 41% 47% 33% 23% 43% 54% 41%

Source: Urban Institute surveys of families in study sites

• Longer family separations associated with more acute and continuing children’s behavior changes

• Home raids, particularly where parents witnessed parent’s arrest particularly traumatic

• Fear of immigration officials a source of anxiety for some

• Frustration can result in externalizing behavior

• Though rare, a few regressed in some areas of development

• Children adjusted with support from at home and at school

Children’s ResponsesChildren’s Responses

CHANGES TO CURRENT IMMIGRATION LAW

• Restore judicial discretion that existed in immigration law prior to 1996 that would allow judges to take children’s best interests into account during deportation proceedings;

• Provide minor children representation before the court (through court appointed legal guardian) to petition for a parent’s lawful admission and residency

Policy RecommendationsPolicy Recommendations

CHANGES TO CURRENT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES

• Maintain the de facto moratorium on worksite raids

• Allow alternatives to detention for arrested parents including more supervised releases

• Extend release guidelines to non work-site enforcement arrests

• Allow parents who have a potentially valid claim the opportunity to work

• Issue work permits and expedite visas for victims of crimes

• Facilitation of family contact for those in detention

• Improve screening and data collection on arrests, deportations

• ICE should develop plans alongside other agencies (federal and state departments of education and social services) to promote the well-being of children


CHANGES TO RESPONSE EFFORTS AND SERVICES TO AFFECTED FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

• Ensure schools and early childhood programs receive early alerts from ICE and local law enforcement

• Trusted community actors should educate parents about enforcement protocols and changes

• Child welfare agencies should consider avenues to protect and advance the interests of children affected by enforcement operations

• Networks of deportation defense lawyers should be established

• Trusted community institutions should coordinate legal and humanitarian assistance

• NGOs, alongside governments, should consider strategies for coordinating health and education services for citizen children who cross back and forth between nations as a result of parental deportation


• This work documents some experiences, but some unanswered questions, and undocumented impacts

– Quantifying the numbers of children leaving U.S. or living in U.S. separated for times from their parents

– Following the experiences and outcomes for children who stay, who leave, who leave and return.

– Better identifying educational impacts for children– Nature of immigration enforcement constantly changing– Broader implications for the current climate regarding immigration on

children’s well-being

• How can you rigorously study the direct and indirect impacts of immigration policies on children and how do you reconcile the competing interests of immigration enforcement and children’s security and well-being?

Understanding Implications of Immigration Enforcement for

Children’s Well-Being

Understanding Implications of Immigration Enforcement for

Children’s Well-Being


For more information, contact:

Ajay ChaudryUrban Institute

Center on Labor, Human Services and Population2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037

For copy of report go to Urban Institute website:

Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement

[email protected]


Worksite EnforcementWorksite Enforcement

25 72 160 176

1,103

485 445685

1,116

3,667

4,077

5,184

863716

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

Criminal arrests Administrative arrests

Source: DHS, 2009, “Worksite Enforcement Overview” Fact Sheet, Washington DC, April 30.


Fugitive Operations Teams

Fugitive Operations Teams

1,900

6,5847,959

15,462

34,155

30,407

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

Source: DHS, 2009, ICE Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report.


Delegation of Immigration Authority 287(g) Program Arrests

Delegation of Immigration Authority 287(g) Program Arrests

Source: ICE. www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/section287_g.htm. Cited by Center for Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/287greport

287(g) Arrests (2006-2009*)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

2006 2007 2008 2009

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/section287_g.htm

http://www.cis.org/287greport


For more information, contact:

Ajay ChaudryThe Urban Institute

Center on Labor, Human Services and Population2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037

For copy of report go to Urban Institute website:Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement

[email protected]@urban.org

Parent Mental Health(Short Term)

Parent Mental Health(Short Term)

TABLE 6.2: Parents’ report of mental health problems (at least 9 months after detention)*

Responses Depressed Nervous AnxiousEverything is

Difficult Hopeless Worthless

Never or Almost Never 19% 14% 19% 33% 28% 36%

Sometimes 44% 31% 33% 33% 42% 39%

Almost Always or Always 33% 53% 47% 31% 25% 22%


Parent Mental Health(Long Term)

Parent Mental Health(Long Term)

Parents’ report of mental health problems (at least 9 months after detention)*

Responses Depressed Nervous AnxiousEverything is Difficult Hopeless Worthless

Never or Almost Never 19% 14% 19% 33% 28% 36%

Sometimes 44% 31% 33% 33% 42% 39%

Almost Always or Always 33% 53% 47% 31% 25% 22%

Documents

The Urban Institute