research on immigrant families

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
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC10135437

Spanning Borders, Cultures, and Generations: A Decade of Research on Immigrant Families

The authors review research conducted during the past decade on immigrant families, focusing primarily on the United States and the sending countries with close connections to the United States. They note several major advances. First, researchers have focused extensively on immigrant families that are physically separated but socially and economically linked across origin and destination communities and explored what these family arrangements mean for family structure and functions. Second, family scholars have explored how contexts of reception shape families and family relationships. Of special note is research that documented the experiences and risks associated with undocumented legal status for parents and children. Third, family researchers have explored how the acculturation and enculturation process operates as families settle in the destination setting and raise the next generation. Looking forward, they identify several possible directions for future research to better understand how immigrant families have responded to a changing world in which nations and economies are increasingly interconnected and diverse, populations are aging, and family roles are in flux and where these changes are often met with fear and resistance in immigrant-receiving destinations.

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 244 million people globally live in a different country from where they were born, and increasing shares of the populations of North America, Europe, and the Middle East are immigrants ( International Organization for Migration, 2017 ). The decision to migrate—to move from one context to another—shapes the family life course. Not only do immigrants face a series of choices and constraints that determine when and where they can move but also families are impacted by this migration whether they remain in the origin community, move as a unit, or are formed in the place of settlement.

Our goal is to engage with the following question: How does migration shape families? To better understand how migration might influence families, it is helpful to consider that some forms of immigration entail a permanent move for any of a variety of reasons, such as to take a new job, join other family members living in the destination country, or flee danger. For these migrants, migration not only disrupts family processes but it also poses new challenges for families as they settle and assimilate in destination settings. Another form of migration, circular migration, is a response to competition from global markets and limited opportunities in the local area ( Massey, Alarcón, Durand, & González, 1990 ). Enacted as a strategy for managing financial risk, generating income, and building savings, parents or other household members migrate in search of better-paying work, often leaving other household members behind. All types of migrants maintain family ties in their countries of origin, but circular labor migrants are particularly likely to do so. This form of migration can bring resources in the form of remittances to households in the sending region, but often at the cost of the absence of a parent, child, or spouse. In addition, this type of migration tends to be accompanied by the flow of new ideas from destination to sending regions, often altering family norms and raising expectations for upward mobility among both migrants and among those remaining behind ( Levitt, 1998 ). The past decade has witnessed a growth of scholarship on all of these migration patterns, and research focused on sending and receiving contexts are now joined by studies and data collection efforts designed to understand how families navigate important ties between these contexts ( Mazzucato & Schans, 2011 ).

This article reviews recent scholarship on immigrant families with a focus on key points in the family life course. This has been an exciting decade of scholarship on immigrant families and migration around the globe (e.g., Foner & Dreby, 2011 ; Kulu & González-Ferrer, 2014 ). Recognizing that we cannot cover it all, we focus on themes that have emerged in the pages of the Journal of Marriage and Family ( JMF ) in the past decade. Although many of the studies that we cite were published in JMF , we also draw on work published in other outlets when it connects closely to the JMF themes. Our review is focused primarily on research in the United States and the sending countries with close connections to the United States, but we include studies on similar themes from other contexts to highlight where we see theoretical and methodological similarities and challenges for the field as a whole.

We organize the review according to key family processes, paying attention to both sending and destination settings. We begin with research focused on family formation, including schooling and union formation, couple relationships, and childbearing. This work illustrates the importance of the demographic, socioeconomic, and political conditions in flux across sending and destination contexts. We then turn to the challenges of parenting and the complexity of parent–child relationships in the context of migration. This is by far the largest body of work represented in JMF in the past decade on immigrant families. Finally, we address research on kin care and intergenerational family ties. This research has important implications for how people care for one another in an aging and mobile world. We conclude with some thoughts about the future of immigration and family dynamics and suggestions of key areas in need of new research, where we challenge scholars to consider how immigrant families continue to respond to the changing world around them.

FAMILY FORMATION

Transition to adulthood in sending communities.

In previous decades, research has focused on the timing of migration during the life course, often exploring how migration may interrupt school or family formation for migrants (e.g., Landale, 1994 ; McKenzie & Rapoport, 2006 ; Singley & Landale, 1998 ). In the past decade, work on the impact of parental migration on the children left behind has grown. For adolescents left behind in sending communities, parental labor migration is often associated with increased opportunities to attend school and delayed home leaving and marriage. The financial remittances sent by migrants can be used for schooling expenses and can substitute for children’s wages, freeing them to attend school ( Antman, 2012 ; Lu, 2012 ). Thus, parental migration can change the trajectory of human capital acquisition, family formation, and migration among young adults.

However, parental labor migration is not always linked with increased educational attainment of these youth (e.g., Creighton, Park, & Teruel, 2009 ). In one study of “left behind youth” in China, the migration of siblings was positively associated with children’s education, but parental migration was not, suggesting remittances are beneficial but parental presence is also important—a theme we return to when we address parenting below ( Lu, 2012 ). Recent research has explored the conditions under which parental migration can reduce children’s educational trajectories despite the apparent positive impact of remittances, such as when parental absence means that children have less time for school work and studying ( Meng & Yamauchi, 2017 ), or when children live in advantaged communities where private schooling, and the accompanying fees, is unnecessary ( Sawyer, 2016 ). Clearly, the role of parental migration for children’s schooling and educational attainment is not universal across or within migrant-sending countries ( Jensen, Giorguli Saucedo, & Hernández Padilla, 2016 ; Lu, 2014 ).

One important source of variation is the different role migration can play in the education, work, and life transitions of girls and boys. For example, remittances can substitute for bridewealth, allowing daughters in Mali ( Hertrich & Lesclingand, 2012 ) and Mozambique ( Chae, Hayford, & Agadjanian, 2016 ) to delay marriage and continue their schooling. For boys in communities where labor migration by men is very common, adolescents may drop out of school early to find work abroad ( McKenzie & Rapoport, 2006 ) and spend less time on school-work and work more outside the home ( Antman, 2011 ), but these studies are based in contexts such as Mexico and Central America where men are the traditional breadwinners and use labor migration to fulfill their breadwinner roles to provide for their families ( Nobles & McKelvey, 2015 ). We should expect gender differences to evolve over time; as female migration becomes more normative, this is likely to shift the schooling, family formation, and migration plans of girls remaining behind ( Arias, 2013 ).

The influence of migration also extends beyond economic returns as migrants share information about the opportunities and challenges found in their destination ( Levitt, 1998 ). Such social remittances shift orientations to individual self-fulfillment and can shape normative family formation patterns among the young people left behind ( Acharya, Santhya, & Jejeebhoy, 2013 ; Juarez, LeGrand, Lloyd, Singh, & Hertrich, 2013 ; White & Potter, 2013 ). Research on young adults is needed to clarify how their own ideas about family formation change in the context of migration.

Transition to Adulthood in Destination Settings

Past research has extensively explored how immigrant adolescents traverse the transition to adulthood in destination settings (e.g., Kasinitz, Mollenkopf, Waters, & Holdaway, 2009 ; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001 ; Waters, 2009 ; White & Glick, 2009 ). Research in the past decade continues to show how this critical part of the life course is strongly shaped by generational status and social acculturation, socioeconomic status, and discrimination (e.g., Haller, Portes, & Lynch, 2011 ; Jeong, Hamplová, & Le Bourdais, 2014 ; Treas & Batalova, 2011 ) both in the United States and in Europe (e.g., Engzell, 2019 ).

A newer theme in this area of study has been on the role of immigrants’ legal status and immigration enforcement in the United States. Gonzales (2011) describes the anguish of undocumented young adults as they become aware of the limitations they will face as undocumented adults. They are excluded from many American rites of passage and opportunities, such as obtaining a driver’s license, going to college, and attaining a professional occupation. These youth face high uncertainty and interruptions in their trajectory as they move into adulthood ( Suárez-Orozco, Yoshikawa, Teranishi, & Suárez-Orozco, 2011 ). Evidence of lower educational attainment among undocumented youth when compared with other foreign-born youth persists even when controlling for other family background characteristics and socioeconomic status ( Bean, Brown, & Bachmeier, 2015 ; Greenman & Hall, 2013 ). Other research, however, reveals that legalization initiatives—such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program—may not necessarily expand educational opportunities for these youths ( Amuedo-Dorantes & Antman, 2017 ; Hsin & Ortega, 2018 ). More research on the effects of unauthorized status, DACA, and other policy options on home leaving, union formation, and childbearing would be valuable.

Union Formation

Another important part of the transition to adulthood is cohabitation and marriage. Similar to past research on how generational status shapes partnering behaviors ( Bean, Berg, & Van Hook, 1996 ; Brown, Van Hook, & Glick, 2008 ; Oropesa & Landale, 2004 ), much of the recent work on this topic interprets generational patterns in marital behaviors through an assimilation lens. For example, interracial unions between whites and other groups continues to be interpreted as an indicator of assimilation, consistent with Gordon (1964 ; Lee & Bean, 2010 ; for direct evidence of the association between acculturation and interracial marriage, see also Chen & Takeuchi, 2011 ). For women in the second generation, endogamy within parental national origins appears to signal adherence to more traditional division of roles by gender, whereas second-generation women in exogamous relationships engage in less traditional roles and have higher labor force participation ( McManus & Apgar, 2019 ).

Recently, researchers have also found evidence for alternative interpretations beyond generational assimilation ( Lichter & Qian, 2018 ). For example, Yodanis, Lauer, and Ota (2012) found that some people in interracial relationships actively seek partners from other cultures because they are attracted to interesting experiences and lifestyles, and not because group differences are small and socially insignificant. Interracial marriages may also feature unequal power relationships formed between lower status men who seek foreign wives because of ethnic stereotypes that such women are submissive ( Choi, Cheung, & Cheung, 2012 ). More research on couple relationships in interracial unions would be valuable, especially in couples with inherent power imbalances such as marriages between legal and undocumented immigrants ( Dreby, 2015a ) or between U.S.-born men and “mail order” brides. Indeed, limitations on driving licenses and jobs pose barriers for undocumented young men’s ability to follow gendered scripts for dating and may slow their transitions to marriage based on these legal constraints. For young women, limitations posed by legal status are more apparent as they transition to marriage and motherhood where barriers to services challenge the gender script of being a good wife or mother ( Enriquez, 2017 ).

Researchers are also exploring how large-scale immigration has altered U.S. marriage markets. Intermarriage of Hispanics and Asians with Whites has leveled off in the past 2 decades while marriages between U.S.-born and foreign-born individuals has increased ( Qian & Lichter, 2011 ). This is largely attributable to large-scale new immigration in the 1990s and 2000s, which increased the availability of Hispanic and Asian singles in marriage markets ( Choi & Tienda, 2017 ; Lichter, Carmalt, & Qian, 2011 ) and in new immigrant destinations ( Qian, Lichter, & Tumin, 2018 ). As we look forward, we note that couples are increasingly likely to meet through online match services ( Lin & Lundquist, 2013 ), meaning that the composition of local marriage markets may impose fewer constraints now than in the past. It is an open question as to whether these virtual marriage markets increase or decrease interethnic or interracial unions.

Finally, it is important to consider nonmarital cohabitation as it becomes an important family form and children are increasingly likely to have cohabiting parents ( Brown, Stykes, & Manning, 2016 ). Past work has examined rates of cohabitation across race/ethnic and generational groups ( Brown et al., 2008 ), but more work is needed to understand how the meaning of cohabitation differs across groups. On one hand, there are commonalities that cut across groups. For example, interracial and interethnic unions with Whites are more common among cohabiting unions than marriages across a range of national origin and ethnic groups ( Qian, Glick, & Batson, 2012 ). This may be due to the less formal nature of cohabiting unions compared with marriage and a weakening of gender and family formation norms from the countries of origin ( McManus & Apgar, 2019 ). On the other hand, consensual unions and cohabitation are more common in some countries of origin and may be observed more frequently among some national origin groups than others ( Esteve, García-Román, & Lesthaeghe, 2012 ; Fomby & Estacion, 2011 ; Yu & Xie, 2015 ). This implies that the social support and acceptance for nonmarital unions may be higher among some immigrant groups than others and the impact of family structure on children may vary according to norms in parents’ country of origin. For example, in a study of low-income families in the United States, cohabitation was less strongly associated with children’s externalizing behaviors among those with foreign-born mothers when compared with those with U.S.-born mothers ( Fomby & Estacion, 2011 ). More research is clearly needed to help elucidate how cohabitation fits into patterns of assimilation and adaptation for immigrant families and children.

Couple Relationships

In the “new economics” theoretical perspective of circular labor migration, household members are portrayed as making consensual agreements to diversify risks, whereby one spouse migrates for work while other household members stay home to work and raise children ( Massey, 1999 ). This consensual view of immigrant families has been criticized in the past (e.g., Boyd & Grieco, 2003 ; Frank & Wildsmith, 2005 ; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2003 ; Kanaiaupuni, 2000 ). Research in the past decade has continued to complicate the consensual view by showing how migration and prolonged spousal separation can erode intracouple relationships.

Distance and structural barriers, such as increased border security, limit the ability of migrants to return and maintain contact with spouses and children left behind. Long periods of separation, often extending for several years, is associated with weakening relationships, union dissolution, and the formation of new sexual partnerships in places of origin and destination ( Dreby, 2010 ; Landale, Oropesa, & Noah, 2014 ; Nobles, Rubalcava, & Teruel, 2015 ). Much of this research has been conducted on Hispanics, so these findings may not extend to other groups (e.g., Caarls & Mazzucato, 2015 ). For example, in contexts where women are more likely to migrate for work and leave spouses behind in the origin setting, migration may challenge traditional gender roles and create strain on couples beyond the strain of maintaining a transnational relationship ( Hoang & Yeoh, 2011 ).

Migration can also strain couple relationships for couples who live together in the destination country. Gender roles within couples may initially reflect those in immigrants’ sending countries and may be modeled from their parent’s relationships ( Kuo et al., 2017 ; Updegraff, Perez-Brena, Baril, McHale, & Umaña-Taylor, 2012 ), but these patterns fade with time in the destination country, as shown in studies conducted in Canada ( Frank & Hou, 2015 ) and Europe ( Pessin & Arpino, 2018 ). These changes may not come easily ( Hou, Neff, & Kim, 2018 ). For example, in a study of Iranian immigrants in Canada, men faced challenges adjusting to new gender roles and shifts in division of labor at home in response to women’s labor force participation ( Shirpak, Maticka-Tyndale, & Chinichian, 2011 ).

It would be valuable to extend prior work on how couple relationships and women’s roles change as a consequence of migration, particularly work that enables systematic comparisons across national origins with varying degrees of gender inequality. In doing so, it is important to account for selection into immigration to better separate the effects of migration from factors that lead to migration given that power dynamics within couples have been observed to influence the decision to migrate ( Nobles & McKelvey, 2015 ; Tucker, Torres-Pereda, Minnis, & Bautista-Arredondo, 2013 ). Comparisons across destination contexts could also be valuable. For example, in a qualitative study of Mexican immigrant women’s isolation and autonomy in Montana, Ohio, and New Jersey, Dreby and Schmalzbauer (2013) found that Mexican immigrant women’s relationships with their husbands or partners were less important in places with a concentrated Mexican population and social services infrastructure.

Childbearing

As with intermarriage, research on immigrant fertility and transitions to parenthood in prior decades looked to assimilation theory (e.g., Bean, Swicegood, & Berg, 2000 ; Parrado & Morgan, 2008 ). This approach was predicated on the observation that fertility rates tend to be higher among foreign-born than U.S.-born women, particularly among Hispanics ( Pew Research Center, 2015 ). Higher fertility norms from sending countries may play a role in the higher fertility of immigrants, as found in a study of Canada ( Adsera & Ferrer, 2014 ). Among Hispanics in the United States, fertility declines with generational status ( Parrado, 2011 ), and the perceived value of children is higher among foreign-born Hispanics than non-Hispanic Whites ( Hartnett & Parrado, 2012 ). Nevertheless, fertility is rapidly declining across Latin America and Asia ( Laplante, Castro-Martín, Cortina, & Martín-García, 2015 ; Raymo, Park, Xie, & Yeung, 2015 ), so we urge researchers to be cautious about continuing to assume that immigrants are likely to have higher fertility than natives or of attributing their fertility behaviors to pronatal values in their countries of origin, which may no longer exist ( Frank & Heuveline, 2005 ).

First, it is worth noting that fertility among Hispanic women has declined rapidly in the past few years ( Pew Research Center, 2016 ) and that much of the postrecession decline in period fertility rates in the United States is due to declines in fertility among Latina and Hispanic women ( Seltzer, 2019 ) as well as declines among foreign-born women. Second, the higher fertility that has been observed among foreign-born women in the past has been shown to be at least partially attributable to the timing of their childbearing and not to overall higher completed family size. For women who migrate during young adulthood, childbearing tends to be disrupted or delayed by migration, but once couples are reunited and settled in the destination country, childbearing may increase as couples make up for lost time. Parrado (2011) argued that the relatively high levels of period fertility rates observed among first-generation Hispanic women was largely attributable to this pattern of “catch-up” fertility. Still more evidence comes from research on how women feel about unintended births. In national surveys, Hispanic women report greater happiness about unintended births than African American or White women ( Hartnett, 2012 ), a result that could be interpreted as evidence of greater pronatal values among Hispanics. Yet qualitative interviews revealed more ambivalence than shown in quantitative data. In face-to-face interviews, Hispanic immigrant women revealed that they were actually not particularly happy about unwanted or mistimed pregnancy ( Aiken & Trussell, 2017 ).

A related area of research is adolescent childbearing. Although teen childbearing has been observed to be quite high among children of immigrants for some groups ( Haller et al., 2011 ), children of immigrants of all racial/ethnic groups have lower rates of teen childbearing than third or higher generation peers largely because they delay sex longer ( Goldberg, 2018 ). This may be related to close parent–child relationships within immigrant families. Killoren, Updegraff, Christopher, and Umaña-Taylor (2011) found significant linkages between Mexican-origin adolescents’ close relationships with their mothers and fathers, deviant peer affiliations, and sexual intentions. Foreign-born adolescents were less influenced by peers than their U.S.-born peers, suggesting that immigrant parents exerted greater influence than U.S.-born parents on whether their child considers having sex.

IMMIGRATION AND PARENTING

Parenting children in origin settings.

As the globe becomes more interconnected, the number of children living in migrant-sending households has increased worldwide ( DeWaard, Nobles, & Donato, 2018 ). Indeed, migration has become the most common form of father absence from the home in Mexico ( Nobles, 2013 ). Accompanying these demographic shifts has been a growing body of research on the challenges facing parents and children in migrant-sending households. This work points to the importance of parental separation and absence on child well-being ( Creighton et al., 2009 ; Nobles, 2011 ) and seeks to better understand the competing mechanisms through which migration can impact children.

On the surface, there may be little reason to expect parental absence via migration to produce different outcomes for children than other types of parental absence, but parental absence due to migration implies a different motivation for the absence (i.e., selection) when compared to parental mortality, union dissolution, or nonmarital fertility. For transnational families, the decision to migrate and the sacrifices made to remit resources back to the origin household are made with the intention of improving children’s lives ( Abrego, 2009 ; Dreby & Stutz, 2012 ), and there is evidence of positive outcomes when parents migrate across locations although results vary across different child outcomes. For example, in Tanzania, paternal migration was associated with better odds of child survival than paternal absence due to nonmarital birth, although this was not the case for children’s likelihood of entering school ( Gaydosh, 2017 ). One possible explanation for this finding is that parents who migrate are likely to be emotionally tied to the origin household in a way not found among those who are absent from the household following divorce or separation (e.g., Nobles, 2011 ). This is not to say that parenting strategies are constant. Parents may need to modify their approaches to accommodate distance and the challenges of parenting from afar. One study found that Mayan migrant parents provided consejos (advice) to their children rather than mandados (directives) because they were unable to enforce any such directives from a distance ( Hershberg, 2018 ).

Nevertheless, there are important variations in the impact of parental migration and, again, there is a need to consider factors such as gender and conditions in destination settings. For example, Abrego (2009) found that children in Salvadoran households with mothers who migrated to the United States received more in remittances than children whose fathers migrated despite the greater barriers and hardships reported by female migrants when compared with their male counterparts. The impact of mothers’ versus fathers’ migration is not the same everywhere. In a comparative study of children in the Philippines, Nigeria, and Mexico, migrating mothers were more likely to maintain engaged parenting in Mexico and Nigeria, but mothers who migrated from the Philippines were less engaged with origin households ( Jordan, Dito, Nobles, & Graham, 2018 ). Also, for children in Indonesia and Vietnam, paternal migration was more associated with psychological distress than maternal migration or living in a nonmigrant household, but in the Philippines there was no evidence of psychological distress regardless of which parent migrated or when compared with children in nonmigrant households ( Graham & Jordan, 2011 ). More theoretical and empirical work is required to reconcile these findings.

Parenting in Destination Settings

Low income, low parental education, low English proficiency, discrimination, and their newcomer status pose challenges to immigrant parents and their families in the destination setting, yet family scholars have consistently found that immigrant families provide unique advantages to children (e.g., Bravo, Umaña-Taylor, Zeiders, Updegraff, & Jahromi, 2016 ; Crosnoe, Ansari, Purtell, & Wu, 2016 ; Leidy, Guerra, & Toro, 2010 ). In an effort to understand this paradox, recent research on Mexican-origin families has unpacked the ways that these families function. This work traces the pathways through which cultural values—such as emphasis on family support and obligations—are associated with high-quality parental relationships that in turn reduce acculturative stress and help enhance child well-being and functioning ( Knight et al., 2011 ; Leidy, Parke, Cladis, Coltrane, & Duffy, 2009 ; Umaña-Taylor, Alfaro, Bámaca, & Guimond, 2009 ; Umaña-Taylor, Wong, Gonzales, & Dumka, 2012 ; Zeiders, Updegraff, Umaña-Taylor, McHale, & Padilla, 2016 ). Similar results were found among children of immigrants in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden ( Mood, Jonsson, & Låftman, 2017 ). The benefits of high-quality family relationships can extend to grandchildren, as shown in a series of studies that explore how Mexican American grandparent–parent relationships can enhance adolescent mothers’ parenting efficacy ( Bravo et al., 2016 ; Derlan, Umaña-Taylor, Updegraff, & Jahromi, 2018 ; Umaña-Taylor, Guimond, Updegraff, & Jahromi, 2013 ).

Although immigrant families buffer children from external risks and stressors, they are not fully immune to them. Prolonged exposure to discrimination, neighborhood poverty, and crime can strain parents and their families ( Benner & Kim, 2009 ). For example, White, Roosa, Weaver, and Nair (2009) found that fathers’ perceptions of neighborhood danger were related to depression, which in turn was related to less warmth in parenting for girls. Father’s perception of neighborhood danger was also related to less family cohesion, harsher parenting, and internalization problems for children ( White & Roosa, 2012 ). This work suggests that immigrant parents’ efforts to protect children may come at the expense of heightened risk for internalizing problems for children.

In addition to these stressors, many immigrant families contend with the possibility that a family member could be deported. In the United States, approximately 5 million children younger than age 18 live with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent ( Capps, Fix, & Zong, 2016 ), and many more children know at least one undocumented immigrant in their larger social network. In an era of ramped-up immigration enforcement and deportations both at the border and interior parts of the country, several family scholars have recently shifted their focus to the impact of immigration enforcement on immigrant families (e.g., Yoshikawa, 2011 ).

The most severe impact of immigration enforcement in the United States is family separation ( Dreby, 2010 , 2015a ). The relationship between immigration enforcement and family separation is actually quite complex. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the escalation of border enforcement was associated with a growth in the number of undocumented families in the United States. Border enforcement increased the costs (and thus reduced) circular labor migration and ultimately led to a reduction in the number of transnational families as women and children joined undocumented family members in the United States ( Hamilton & Hale, 2016 ). Once living in the United States, however, undocumented parents risk separation from their children due to deportation ( Amuedo-Dorantes & Arenas-Arroyo, 2019 ). The cycle repeats itself as deported parents who are separated from their U.S.-resident children are more likely to risk another undocumented trip than those who do not have children in the United States ( Amuedo-Dorantes, Pozo, & Puttitanun, 2015 ).

Parental deportation has more negative effects on children than other kinds of separation in part because the deportation of a parent is associated with the loss of both the parent and the financial resources the parent would have contributed to the household ( Dreby, 2015b ). Parental separation and other factors associated with having an undocumented parent negatively affects children’s emotional and behavioral development ( Allen, Cisneros, & Tellez, 2015 ; Bean et al., 2015 ; Brabeck & Sibley, 2016 ; Lu, He, & Brooks-Gunn, 2018 ; Yoshikawa & Kalil, 2011 ), although evidence of the pathways through which parental legal status impacts children is not entirely clear and may be context dependent ( Noah & Landale, 2018 ).

It is also useful to consider the spillover effects of immigration policies. Dreby (2012 ; p. 831) described a “deportation pyramid” to illustrate the far-reaching impacts of these policies. Alhough relatively few children (at the tip of the pyramid) experience the most severe consequences, the deportation of a parent and permanent family dissolution, many more children (at the base of the pyramid) experience other more diffused impacts such as fear of family instability, confusion over the impact legality has on their lives, and the conflation of immigration status with being undocumented or “illegal” in children’s minds. Undocumented legal status is also thought to impact parenting, for example, by restricting travel, limiting the extent to which parents access public programs and benefits on behalf of their children, and living in fear of the police (especially while driving; Berger Cardoso, Scott, Faulkner, & Barros Lane, 2018 ; Dreby, 2015b ; Enriquez, 2015 ; Yoshikawa, 2011 ). These restrictions limit the financial resources and opportunities of undocumented parents, which in turn spillover to their U.S.-born children, which led Enriquez (2015) to label the immigration enforcement policies of the U.S. government “intergenerational punishment.” Bean et al. (2015) provided evidence that the negative impacts of parental undocumented status significantly delayed the assimilation and socioeconomic integration of Mexican Americans by at least a generation.

Launching the Second Generation

An important part of parenting is to prepare children for adulthood, and in today’s information-driven economy, it is increasingly vital that parents support children as they seek and acquire education. Immigrants face the challenge of raising their children in a context with new social institutions and expectations from their own upbringing. A long line of research in the United States shows that immigrant parents of all national origins tend to have (very) high educational aspirations and expectations for their children, yet not all groups of children experience equal success in school ( Lee & Zhou, 2015 ; White & Glick, 2009 ). Perhaps because of this, the bulk of recent research on children of immigrants’ educational attainment tends to look beyond the family to how broader social and institutional contexts (e.g., related to state funding policies for undocumented students, English-language acquisition policies, mentoring, discrimination, and peer influences) matter for children’s success in school.

Some recent studies have explored how immigrant parents could more effectively support their children’s efforts in school, often focusing on the “concerted cultivation” parenting behaviors that are associated with school readiness and success among American parents ( Glick, Hanish, Yabiku, & Bradley, 2012 ; Lareau, 2011 ; p. 2). Crosnoe et al. (2016) found that Latina immigrant mothers were less likely than other groups to engage in school-based activities, enroll children in extracurricular activities, and provide educational materials at home—all indicators of concerted cultivation. Furthermore, they found that this is related to Latina immigrant mothers’ lower educational attainment. Indeed, Latina mothers who increased their own education during adulthood also increased their involvement in their child’s education, which is likely, at least in part, attributable to the enhancements in mothers’ understanding and confidence in interacting with U.S. educational institutions ( Crosnoe & Kalil, 2010 ). Low educational attainment and limited familiarity with U.S. schools may explain why the children of mothers who arrived in the United States during adolescence have lower early school performance and socioemotional development when compared with those whose mothers arrived as young children themselves ( Glick et al., 2012 ; Glick, Bates, & Yabiku, 2009 ).

Sending Communities

The share of elderly is increasing in nearly every world region and is projected to continue to rise during the next several decades, including in Asia and Latin America ( Bengtson, 2018 ). Adding to the challenges of an aging world is the migration of young adults away from communities of origin. Research conducted in the past decade has explored how the migration of young adults has altered long-standing family roles and support systems. For one, child-care burdens may increase for grandparents. For example, Chinese rural-to-urban migrants often leave their young children in the care of their parents ( Chen, Liu, & Mair, 2011 ), and similar caregiving arrangements are made in Mexico and Central America. This practice is likely to change parenting and grandparenting roles in sending communities and may contribute to worse child outcomes given that aging grandparents may be unable to effectively supervise young children. It is less clear how such arrangements affect grandparents’ health and financial well-being.

At the same time that aging parents take on additional child-care responsibilities, their child’s migration may also mean that they lack care providers for themselves ( Foner & Dreby, 2011 ; Yahirun & Arenas, 2018 ). In China, where sons have traditionally been expected to care for aging parents, families have had to adapt to changing circumstances. For example, one study examined the frequency of contact with parents ( Gruijters, 2017 ). Although migrant children were unable to frequently visit their parents due to distance, they could leverage new forms of communication technology to maintain intensive social relations with them. Interestingly, this was true for both sons and well-educated daughters, a finding the authors attributed to changing gender norms in China. Research should continue to explore how the migration of adult children affects the health and well-being of elderly parents and in turn how kinship support systems adapt to changing conditions. Comparative research across various sending contexts would be especially valuable.

Destination Contexts

Migration can also alter kin support practices in destination countries ( Van Hook & Glick, 2007 ), as occurs when older parents migrate to be closer to their children and grandchildren and to receive care themselves (see the review by Treas & Gubernskaya, 2016 ). In 2017, 148,000 people were admitted to the United States under the “parent” family reunification criteria, roughly 13% of all lawfully admitted immigrants ( U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2018 ). As with young children and parents, family reunification and proximity to adult children can restore familial contact and care (e.g., Steinbach, 2013 ).

However, older immigrants’ expectations and needs for care also create tensions within families. Immigrants’ adult children are often busy with their work and children and may have adopted more Americanized, individualistic views of kin-care obligations ( Mendez-Luck, Applewhite, Lara, & Toyokawa, 2016 ). Vallejo (2012) described how middle-class, U.S.-born Mexican Americans felt internal conflict about their obligations to support aging parents and poorer relatives, leaving little money or time for themselves or their own children. Interestingly, older immigrants who migrated at younger ages may adjust their expectations for care. Sun (2014) described how Taiwanese immigrants reconfigured their expectations for care from adult children. The respondents reflected that they could rely on the elder care industry as other Americans and excused their U.S.-born children from familial care obligations because they were “Americanized” and had busy lives.

We anticipate that elder care for immigrants will become an increasingly important research topic. This is particularly the case for immigrants who lack citizenship and legal status because they are often ineligible for the social safety net programs that Americans routinely rely on, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Two decades ago, very few unauthorized immigrants were elderly. Most returned to their sending communities after working for a few years or they legalized in the early 1990s under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act ( Baker, 1990 ). However, unauthorized immigrants are now much more likely to settle permanently ( Massey, Pren, & Durand, 2016 ), and the U.S. government has provided very few opportunities for unauthorized immigrants to legalize in recent decades. As a consequence, the number of elderly unauthorized immigrants is likely to increase considerably if no new legalization programs are enacted. As we touch on in the next section, new proposals to limit family reunification criteria for immigrant admissions could further strain the ability of immigrant families to care for elderly parents.

As we reflect on the work on immigrant families published in the past decade, we recognize several important advances in the field. First, more research has focused on immigrants’ sending communities, thus acknowledging the links between immigrants who live in destination communities and the situations and contexts from which they came as well as their families left behind in sending countries. Much of this work has focused on how parental migration affects children left behind, and it generally points to the benefits of remittances flowing back to migrant-sending families for children’s health, schooling, and well-being, but also reveals the costs incurred due to parental absence despite efforts by parents to maintain contact with children from afar.

Second, the context of reception in destination communities shapes family relationships and can limit opportunities for families to migrate together, reunite, and remain together after migration ( Eremenko & González-Ferrer, 2018 ). For example, the presence of an immigrant community and established social service infrastructure in new destination communities may reduce the importance of couple and family relationships for women’s independence and autonomy, thus shaping gender relations among couples ( Dreby & Schmalzbauer, 2013 ). Immigration restrictions and enforcement activity also has the capacity to weaken immigrant family support networks. Increased border security in the United States has made it costlier for undocumented immigrants to return home for vacations and short visits. Ultimately, the end of circular migration has led to prolonged family separation across borders. In destination contexts, immigration enforcement, sanctions against undocumented immigrants, and anti-immigrant animus and discrimination has altered parenting, limited children’s opportunities, created fears of deportation and parental separation, and derailed young adults’ life plans.

Third, family researchers have documented how the acculturation and enculturation process operates as families settle in the destination setting and raise the next generation. Much of this work has focused on Hispanic families—Mexican origin most often—and has employed longitudinal, multiple-reporter designs that explore the ways in which Mexican American parents pass along ethnic identities and values their children and in turn how and in which circumstances these parenting practices influence children’s socioemotional outcomes and their effectiveness as parents themselves. This work helps explicate the longstanding understanding that familistic values in Mexican American families are associated with warm and close parent–child relationships and better socioemotional outcomes for children. At the same time, however, this work underscores how external stressors, such as neighborhood crime, poverty, and discrimination, can wear down these defenses.

The insights gained into migration and family dynamics in the past decade have been possible through creative data harmonization and collection efforts as well as more concerted efforts to communicate and integrate quantitative and qualitative studies, but all of these efforts also yield potentially dozens of fruitful avenues for future research. Next we describe six new directions and unanswered questions for researchers going forward.

Diversity Among Immigrant Families

Immigrants in the United States have become increasingly diverse in terms of their race/ethnicity and national origins. The decline in Mexican migration in recent years has been accompanied by increases in families from Africa and Asia. The research on interethnic union formation is notable for exploring the effects of these changes. Research on educational patterns in the United States has also compared across broad ethnic groups, but for research on intrafamilial functioning, there have been fewer groups represented. In addition, very little research has focused on non-heterosexual, LBGTQ immigrants and their families, even though they may face unique challenges as many face discrimination in both their origin and destination country and must navigate legal systems that often fail to recognize their rights as married couples and parents ( Carrillo, 2018 ). Attending to the diversity of culture, race, socioeconomic status, gender, and sexual orientation will help us understand the extent to which the family processes and acculturation patterns observed in prior work are universal or whether they are contingent on a unique set of constraints or circumstances. Data collection projects in the United States such as the Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles and Immigrant Second Generation in Metropolitan New York have allowed for comparisons across diverse groups in the same destination setting (e.g., Kasinitz et al., 2009 ) and facilitated theoretical and empirical work that seeks to better explain differential outcomes across national origin diverse groups ( Luthra, Waldinger, & Soehl, 2018 ).

Connections Across Borders

Migration networks have continued to proliferate around the globe ( Czaika & De Haas, 2014 ; Mazzucato & Schans, 2011 ). Accordingly, research has extended beyond analyses of one community at a time to consider the connections across borders between sending and destination communities. We have learned a great deal about the challenges of maintaining transnational family ties, but the results from comparative research have yielded complex and varied conclusions (e.g., Alba & Foner, 2015 ; Mazzucato et al., 2015 ). Children’s outcomes, gender patterns of migration, and intergenerational family roles all vary across these contexts.

New data collection and data harmonization efforts have yielded better opportunities to compare family dynamics across various migration contexts ( Alba & Foner, 2015 ; Jordan et al., 2018 ; Mazzucato & Schans, 2011 ). For example, DeWaard et al. (2018) pulled together data from the Latin American Migration Project and Mexican Migration Project to provide estimates of children’s exposure to parental absence due to migration across contexts. Still other data collection efforts have taken a more in-depth comparative focus on migration’s role in children’s lives or have combined qualitative and quantitative approaches (e.g., Garip, 2019 ). The Transnational Migration and Changing Care Arrangements for Left-Behind Children in Southeast Asia (CHAMPSEA) project, a comparative mixed-methods study focused on migrants and their children in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, has added to our understanding of the health and well-being of children and their caregivers when family members migrate for work in previously understudied settings ( Jordan & Graham, 2012 ). In-depth interviews and longitudinal survey data on children and adolescents are hallmarks of the Young Lives study of children in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam ( Nguyen, 2016 ).

We need more comparative research that can follow families over time as members move; this would provide a richer description of how families are selected into immigration and how immigration changes families across contexts. We also see a need for more theoretical development that can incorporate influences of the macro economic, social, and political systems along with family-level dynamics. This may give us the additional insights to understand why some families in some contexts appear to benefit from migration while returns are far less favorable for others.

Variation Across Types of Migration

It is also important to consider possible changes in the motivations for migration. Most of the research reviewed here focused on labor migration, but research is increasingly looking at migration related to climate change, natural disasters, and other types of forced migration. Also, there may be differences in the contrast between internal and international migration. On one hand, in contexts such as China, internal migrants face structural constraints to their moves that may mirror the barriers facing international migrants in other contexts. On the other hand, in other places, internal migrants face few restrictions, but international migration poses significant structural barriers to family reunification after migration—either by limiting parental return visits to the origin household or by limiting children’s ability to join parents in the destination. Thus, the impacts of parental migration are likely to be contingent on the underlying legal and economic constraints that prolong the separation of parents and children ( Dreby, 2015a ; Eremenko & González-Ferrer, 2018 ; Meng & Yamauchi, 2017 ).

Legal Status, Immigration Policy, and Enforcement

We must also be cognizant of the significant share of immigrant families facing greater hardship due to unauthorized or liminal legal status ( Menjívar, Abrego, & Schmalzbauer, 2016 ). This is becoming an ever-increasing concern as anti-immigrant sentiments echo throughout many receiving settings today, and increased border and interior enforcement, child separation practices, and mass deportations threaten to break apart and undermine families. We highlighted some research here on these topics, but most of it focused on Hispanic parents and young children. More work on the effects of legal status and immigration policies on other groups (non-Hispanics, young adults, older adults) is crucial, especially as the unauthorized immigrant population ages and becomes more diverse ( Passel & Cohn, 2016 ). Research that assesses the mid-range and longer range impacts of harsh or punitive immigration enforcement policies on children (e.g., family separation) is also of utmost importance (an entire issue of the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies was recently devoted to this topic). Clearly this is an area in which family scholars can be engaged in public-facing, policy-relevant work.

Just as research on transnational ties places high demands on data and careful comparative work, research on legal status and enforcement is challenged by data limitations. Research on immigrant legal status can pose challenges to qualitative researchers as they seek to gain the trust of their subjects. Quantitative researchers also face difficulties because immigration status is rarely asked in surveys, but new methods are beginning to be developed for imputing legal status from survey data ( Capps, Bachmeier, & Van Hook, 2018 ; Hall, Greenman, & Farkas, 2010 ). In addition, researchers have made significant advances in measuring contextual factors such as the intensity of immigration enforcement or anti-immigrant sentiment through the use of administrative (e.g., Amuedo-Dorantes et al., 2015 ) and webscraped data ( Flores, 2017 ).

It will also be important to consider how possible changes in immigration laws influence immigrant families who are legally admitted to the country. Currently, U.S. immigration policy gives preference to family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. A majority (68%) of the new green-card holders were either immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or entered under the family preference program ( Zong, Batalova, & Hallock, 2018 ; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2018 , table 16). However, U.S. immigration advocates and critics have debated the merits of the United States adopting an immigration admission policy that would give greater emphasis to selecting on higher level skills, income, or educational attainment, akin to Canada’s point system ( RAISE Act, 2017 ; Meiiessner & Chishti, 2013 ; Capps, Greenburg, Fix, & Zong, 2018 ). The effects of such policy changes remain unclear. In the short run, at least, such changes could foreseeably lead to more family separation and further undermine informal support systems among immigrant families.

Connections Across Generations

It is also important to consider the ways families are linked across generations, from parents to children to grandchildren. Much of the research conducted on immigrants in destination settings has focused on immigrants and their children. This work fits in the mold of a large body of research conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s that sought to understand inequality among the “new” second generation, that is, the children of the highly diverse, post-1965 immigrant waves from Mexico, Latin America, and Asia ( Portes & Rumbaut, 2001 ). Nearly a generation has passed since this research was first conducted. The grandchildren of the post-1965 immigrant waves are now coming of age, yet little research has focused on them. As noted here, some scholars have examined the ways immigrant grandmothers support their daughters as they raise young children, but more longitudinal research on the “new” third generation would be valuable for better understanding the intergenerational assimilation and mobility process in the current social, economic, and political environment ( Jiménez, Park, & Pedroza, 2018 ). Data limitations have made it difficult to follow immigrants and their descendants across multiple generations. Yet progress is now being made on this score due to innovations in data linkages (e.g., Catron, 2016 ). Such work promises to provide new insights about the assimilation process as it unfolds across generations and over time.

Causal Inference

We cannot underemphasize the importance of descriptive work for influencing policies, services, and programs, but there is also an important place for studies that seek to establish cause and effect. This is important for the development and evaluation of programs and policies, ranging from national-level immigrant admission, enforcement, and legalization policies to smaller scale parenting programs for immigrant families. Some notable examples of such work include studies that seek to estimate the effect of interior immigration enforcement on the likelihood that Hispanic children live with one or no parents (e.g., Amuedo-Dorantes & Antman, 2017 ), the effects of Mexican immigrant mothers’ pursuit of their own schooling on their engagement in their child’s school ( Crosnoe & Kalil, 2010 ), and the effects of father absence due to migration (as opposed to divorce) on father–child interaction in Mexico ( Nobles, 2011 ). Each of these studies question whether the relationships they observe are causal or are a result of selection or reverse causality, draw on theory and prior knowledge about the independent variable (i.e., how and why does immigration interior enforcement, adult education, and parental migration from Mexico vary or change?), and apply well-established methods to approximate causal effects. These are all quantitative studies, but we see ways for both quantitative and qualitative research to contribute in this area. Qualitative research is essential because it can provide a deeper understanding of processes, mechanisms, and motivations underlying the relationships seen in quantitative work.

In conclusion, we view research on immigration and immigrant families as particularly urgent in the current anti-immigrant political environment. Immigration is one of the major forces of social change, and as nations and economies of the world have grown increasingly interconnected, this work has become vital for understanding the underlying shifts and changes occurring among immigrant and nonimmigrant families alike. As we look ahead to the next decade, we anticipate that family research on immigration will only grow in significance, as both immigration and nativist hostility toward immigrants is likely to continue and unsubstantiated (and often false) narratives about immigrants shape public opinion and drive policy. We recognize the inherent difficulties of conducting research on immigrant families due to the ways immigrants and their children span international borders, cultures, and generations, and the sensitivity of the topic. Yet we are also encouraged by the advances made in the past decade as researchers have employed careful measurement, innovative multisite data collections, and longitudinal methods to better understand how immigration is shaping families in both sending and destination contexts.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge assistance provided by the Population Research Institute at Penn State University, which is supported by an infrastructure grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD041025). We also thank Kendal Lowrey for assistance with the literature review.

• Abrego L (2009). Economic well-being in Salvadoran transnational families: How gender affects remittance practices . Journal of Marriage and Family , 71 ( 4 ), 1070–1085. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00653.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Acharya R, Santhya KG, & Jejeebhoy SJ (2013). Exploring associations between mobility and sexual experiences among unmarried young people: Evidence from India . The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 648 ( 1 ), 120–135. 10.1177/0002716213481571 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adsera A, & Ferrer A (2014). Factors influencing the fertility choices of child immigrants in Canada . Population Studies , 68 ( 1 ), 65–79. 10.1080/00324728.2013.802007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aiken AR, & Trussell J (2017). Anticipated emotions about unintended pregnancy in relationship context: Are Latinas really happier? Journal of Marriage and Family , 79 ( 2 ), 356–371. 10.1111/jomf.12338 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alba R, & Foner N (2015). Strangers no more: Immigration and the challenges of integration in North America and Western Europe . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen B, Cisneros EM, & Tellez A (2015). The children left behind: The impact of parental deportation on mental health . Journal of Child and Family Studies , 24 ( 2 ), 386–392. 10.1007/s10826-013-9848-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amuedo-Dorantes C, & Antman F (2017). Schooling and labor market effects of temporary authorization: Evidence from DACA . Journal of Population Economics , 30 ( 1 ), 339–373. 10.1007/s00148-016-0606-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amuedo-Dorantes C, & Arenas-Arroyo E (2019). Immigration enforcement and Children’s living arrangements . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 38 ( 1 ), 11–40. 10.1002/pam.22106 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amuedo-Dorantes C, Pozo S, & Puttitanun T (2015). Immigration enforcement, parent–child separations, and intent to Remigrate by central American deportees . Demography , 52 ( 6 ), 1825–1851. 10.1007/s13524-015-0431-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antman FM (2011). The intergenerational effects of paternal migration on schooling and work: What can we learn from Children’s time allocations? Journal of Development Economics , 96 ( 2 ), 200–208. 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.11.002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antman FM (2012). Gender, educational attainment, and the impact of parental migration on children left behind . Journal of Population Economics , 25 ( 4 ), 1187–1214. 10.1007/s00148-012-0423-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arias P (2013). International migration and familial change in communities of origin: Transformation and resistance . Annual Review of Sociology , 39 , 429–450. 10.1146/annurev-soc-122012-112720 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker SG (1990). The cautious welcome: The legalization programs of the Immigration Reform and Control Act . The Urban Insitute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bean FD, Berg RR, & Van Hook JV (1996). Socioeconomic and cultural incorporation and marital disruption among Mexican Americans . Social Forces , 75 ( 2 ), 593–617. 10.2307/2580415 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bean FD, Brown SK, & Bachmeier JD (2015). Parents without papers: The Progress and pitfalls of Mexican American integration . New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bean FD, Swicegood CG, & Berg R (2000). Mexican-origin fertility: New patterns and interpretations . Social Science Quarterly , 81 ( 1 ), 404–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bengtson V (2018). Global aging and challenges to families . Philadelphia, PA: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benner AD, & Kim SY (2009). Intergenerational experiences of discrimination in Chinese American families: Influences of socialization and stress . Journal of Marriage and Family , 71 ( 4 ), 862–877. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00640.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger Cardoso J, Scott JL, Faulkner M, & Barros Lane L (2018). Parenting in the context of deportation risk . Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 ( 2 ), 301–316. 10.1111/jomf.12463 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyd M, & Grieco E (2003). Women and migration: Incorporating gender into international migration theory . Migration Information Source , 1 ( 35 ), 28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brabeck KM, & Sibley E (2016). Immigrant parent legal status, parent–child relationships, and child social emotional wellbeing: A middle childhood perspective . Journal of Child and Family Studies , 25 ( 4 ), 1155–1167. 10.1007/s10826-015-0314-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bravo DY, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Zeiders KH, Updegraff KA, & Jahromi LB (2016). Incongruent teen pregnancy attitudes, coparenting conflict, and support among Mexican-origin adolescent mothers . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 ( 2 ), 531–545. 10.1111/jomf.12271 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown SL, Stykes JB, & Manning WD (2016). Trends in Children’s family instability, 1995–2010 . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 ( 5 ), 1173–1183. 10.1111/jomf.12311 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown SL, Van Hook J, & Glick JE (2008). Generational differences in cohabitation and marriage in the US . Population Research and Policy Review , 27 ( 5 ), 531–550. 10.1007/s11113-008-9088-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caarls K, & Mazzucato V (2015). Does international migration Lead to divorce? Ghanaian couples in Ghana and abroad . Population , 70 ( 1 ), 127–151. 10.3917/popu.1501.0135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capps R, Bachmeier JD, & Van Hook J (2018). Estimating the characteristics of unauthorized immigrants using U.S. Census data: Combined sample multiple imputation . The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 677 ( 1 ), 165–179. 10.1177/0002716218767383 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capps R, Fix M, & Zong J (2016). A profile of U.S. children of unauthorized immigrant parents . Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Capps R, Greenburg M, Fix M, & Zong J (2018). Gauging the impact of DHS’ proposed public-charge rule on U.S. immigration . Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrillo H (2018). Pathways of desire: The sexual migration of Mexican gay men . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Catron P (2016). Made in America? Immigrant occupational mobility in the first half of the twentieth century . American Journal of Sociology , 122 ( 2 ), 325–378. 10.1086/688043 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chae S, Hayford SR, & Agadjanian V (2016). Father’s migration and leaving the parental home in rural Mozambique . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 ( 4 ), 1047–1062. 10.1111/jomf.12295 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen F, Liu G, & Mair CA (2011). Intergenerational ties in context: Grandparents caring for grandchildren in China . Social Forces , 90 ( 2 ), 571–594. 10.1093/sf/sor012 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen J, & Takeuchi DT (2011). Intermarriage, ethnic identity, and perceived social standing among Asian women in the United States . Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 ( 4 ), 876–888. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00853.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi KH, & Tienda M (2017). Marriage-market constraints and mate-selection behavior: Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in intermarriage . Journal of Marriage and Family , 79 ( 2 ), 301–317. 10.1111/jomf.12346 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi SY, Cheung YW, & Cheung AK (2012). Social isolation and spousal violence: Comparing female marriage migrants with local women . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 ( 3 ), 444–461. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00963.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creighton MJ, Park H, & Teruel GM (2009). The role of migration and single motherhood in upper secondary education in Mexico . Journal of Marriage and Family , 71 ( 5 ), 1325–1339. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00671.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosnoe R, Ansari A, Purtell KM, & Wu N (2016). Latin American immigration, maternal education, and approaches to managing Children’s schooling in the United States . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 ( 1 ), 60–74. 10.1111/jomf.12250 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosnoe R, & Kalil A (2010). Educational progress and parenting among Mexican immigrant mothers of young children . Journal of Marriage and Family , 72 ( 4 ), 976–990. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00743.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Czaika M, & De Haas H (2014). The globalization of migration: Has the world become more migratory? International Migration Review , 48 ( 2 ), 283–323. 10.1111/imre.12095 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Derlan CL, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Updegraff KA, & Jahromi LB (2018). Mother–grandmother and mother–father Coparenting across time among Mexican-origin adolescent mothers and their families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 ( 2 ), 349–366. 10.1111/jomf.12462 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeWaard J, Nobles J, & Donato KM (2018). Migration and parental absence: A comparative assessment of transnational families in Latin America . Population, Space and Place , 24 ( 7 ), e2166. 10.1002/psp.2166 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreby J (2010). Divided by borders: Mexican migrants and their children . Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreby J (2012). The burden of deportation on children in Mexican immigrant families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 ( 4 ), 829–845. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00989.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreby J (2015a). Everyday illegal: When policies undermine immigrant families . Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreby J (2015b). US immigration policy and family separation: The consequences for Children’s well-being . Social Science & Medicine , 132 , 245–251. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.041 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreby J, & Schmalzbauer L (2013). The relational contexts of migration: Mexican women in new destination sites . Sociological Forum , 28 ( 1 ), 1–26. 10.1111/socf.12000 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreby J, & Stutz L (2012). Making something of the sacrifice: Gender, migration and Mexican Children’s educational aspirations . Global Networks , 12 ( 1 ), 71–90. 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2011.00337.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engzell P (2019). Aspiration squeeze: The struggle of children to positively selected immigrants . Sociology of Education , 92 , 83–103. 10.1177/0038040718822573 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Enriquez LE (2015). Multigenerational punishment: Shared experiences of undocumented immigration status within mixed-status families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 77 ( 4 ), 939–953. 10.1111/jomf.12196 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Enriquez LE (2017). Gendering illegality: Undocumented young adults’ negotiation of the family formation process . American Behavioral Scientist , 61 , 1153–1171. 10.1177/0002764217732103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eremenko T, & González-Ferrer A (2018). Transnational families and child migration to France and Spain. The role of family type and immigration policies . Population, Space and Place , 24 ( 7 ), e2163. 10.1002/psp.2163 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esteve A, García-Román J, & Lesthaeghe R (2012). The family context of cohabitation and single motherhood in Latin America . Population and Development Review , 38 ( 4 ), 707–727. 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00533.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flores RD (2017). Do anti-immigrant Laws shape public sentiment? A study of Arizona’s SB 1070 using twitter data . American Journal of Sociology , 123 ( 2 ), 333–384. 10.1086/692983 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fomby P, & Estacion A (2011). Cohabitation and Children’s externalizing behavior in low-income Latino families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 ( 1 ), 46–66. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00788.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foner N, & Dreby J (2011). Relations between the generations in immigrant families . Annual Review of Sociology , 37 , 545–564. 10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank K, & Hou F (2015). Source-country gender roles and the division of labor within immigrant families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 77 , 557–574. 10.1111/jomf.12171 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank R, & Heuveline P (2005). A crossover in Mexican and Mexican-American fertility rates: Evidence and explanations for an emerging paradox . Demographic Research , 12 ( 4 ), 77. 10.4054/DemRes.2005.12.4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank R, & Wildsmith E (2005). The grass widows of Mexico: Migration and union dissolution in a binational context . Social Forces , 83 ( 3 ), 919–947. 10.1353/sof.2005.0031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garip F (2019). On the move: Changing mechanisms of Mexico-US migration (Vol. 2 ). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaydosh L (2017). Beyond Orphanhood: Parental nonresidence and child well-being in Tanzania . Journal of Marriage and Family , 79 , 1369–1387. 10.1111/jomf.12422 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick JE, Bates L, & Yabiku ST (2009). Mother’s age at arrival in the United States and early cognitive development . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 24 ( 4 ), 367–380. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick JE, Hanish LD, Yabiku ST, & Bradley RH (2012). Migration timing and parenting practices: Contributions to social development in preschoolers with foreign-born and native-born mothers . Child Development , 83 ( 5 ), 1527–1542. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01789.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg RE (2018). Understanding generational differences in early fertility: Proximate and social determinants . Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 ( 5 ), 1225–1243. 10.1111/jomf.12506 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzales RG (2011). Learning to be illegal: Undocumented youth and shifting legal contexts in the transition to adulthood . American Sociological Review , 76 ( 4 ), 602–619. 10.1177/0003122411411901 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon MM (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham E, & Jordan LP (2011). Migrant parents and the psychological well-being of left-behind children in Southeast Asia . Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 ( 4 ), 763–787. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00844.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenman E, & Hall M (2013). Legal status and educational transitions for Mexican and central American immigrant youth . Social Forces , 91 ( 4 ), 1475–1498. 10.1093/sf/sot040 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruijters RJ (2017). Intergenerational contact in Chinese families: Structural and cultural explanations . Journal of Marriage and Family , 79 ( 3 ), 758–768. 10.1111/jomf.12390 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall M, Greenman E, & Farkas G (2010). Legal status and wage disparities for Mexican immigrants . Social Forces , 89 ( 2 ), 491–513. 10.1353/sof.2010.0082 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haller W, Portes A, & Lynch SM (2011). Dreams fulfilled, dreams shattered: Determinants of segmented assimilation in the second generation . Social Forces , 89 ( 3 ), 733–762. 10.1353/sof.2011.0003 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamilton ER, & Hale JM (2016). Changes in the transnational family structures of Mexican farm workers in the era of border militarization . Demography , 53 ( 5 ), 1429–1451. 10.1007/s13524-016-0505-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartnett C (2012). Are hispanic women happier about unintended births . Population Research and Policy Review , 31 , 683–701. 10.1007/s11113-012-9252-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartnett CS, & Parrado EA (2012). Hispanic familism reconsidered: Ethnic differences in the perceived value of children and fertility intentions . The Sociological Quarterly , 53 ( 4 ), 636–653. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01252.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hershberg RM (2018). Consejos as a family process in transnational and mixed-status Mayan families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 ( 2 ), 334–348. 10.1111/jomf.12452 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertrich V, & Lesclingand M (2012). Adolescent migration and the 1990s nuptiality transition in Mali . Population Studies , 66 ( 2 ), 147–166. 10.1080/00324728.2012.669489 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoang LA, & Yeoh BS (2011). Breadwinning wives and “left-behind” husbands: Men and masculinities in the Vietnamese transnational family . Gender & Society , 25 ( 6 ), 717–739. 10.1177/0891243211430636 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hondagneu-Sotelo P (Ed.). (2003). Gender and US immigration: Contemporary trends . Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hou Y, Neff LA, & Kim SY (2018). Language acculturation, acculturation-related stress, and marital quality in Chinese American couples . Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 ( 2 ), 555–568. 10.1111/jomf.12447 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsin A, & Ortega F (2018). The effects of deferred action for childhood arrivals on the educational outcomes of undocumented students . Demography , 55 ( 4 ), 1487–1506. 10.1007/s13524-018-0691-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Organization for Migration. (2017). World migration report 2018 . New York: United Nations. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen B, Giorguli Saucedo S, & Hernández Padilla E (2016). International migration and the academic performance of Mexican adolescents . International Migration Review , 2016 , 1–38. 10.1111/imre.12307 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jeong YJ, Hamplová D, & Le Bourdais C (2014). Diversity of young adults’ living arrangements: The role of ethnicity and immigration . Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 40 ( 7 ), 1116–1135. 10.1080/1369183X.2013.831523 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiménez TR, Park J, & Pedroza J (2018). The new third generation: Post-1965 immigration and the next chapter in the long story of assimilation . International Migration Review , 52 ( 4 ), 1040–1079. 10.1111/imre.12343 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan LP, Dito B, Nobles J, & Graham E (2018). Engaged parenting, gender, and Children’s time use in transnational families: An assessment spanning three global regions . Population, Space and Place , 24 ( 7 ), e2159. 10.1002/psp.2159 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan LP, & Graham E (2012). Resilience and well-being among children of migrant parents in south-east Asia . Child Development , 83 ( 5 ), 1672–1688. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01810.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Juarez F, LeGrand T, Lloyd C, Singh S, & Hertrich V (2013). Youth migration and transitions to adulthood in developing countries . The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 648 , 6–15. 10.1177/0002716213485052 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanaiaupuni SM (2000). Reframing the migration question: An analysis of men, women, and gender in Mexico . Social Forces , 78 ( 4 ), 1311–1347. 10.2307/3006176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kasinitz P, Mollenkopf JH, Waters MC,& Hold-away J (2009). Inheriting the City: The children of immigrants come of age . New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Killoren SE, Updegraff KA, Christopher FS, & Umaña-Taylor AJ (2011). Mothers, fathers, peers, and Mexican-origin adolescents’ sexual intentions . Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 ( 1 ), 209–220. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00799.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knight GP, Berkel C, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Gonzales NA, Ettekal I, Jaconis M, & Boyd BM (2011). The familial socialization of culturally related values in Mexican American families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 ( 5 ), 913–925. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00856.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kulu H, & González-Ferrer A (2014). Family dynamics among immigrants and their descendants in Europe: Current research and opportunities . European Journal of Population , 30 ( 4 ), 411–435. 10.1007/s10680-014-9322-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo SIC, Wheeler LA, Updegraff KA, McHale SM, Umaña-Taylor AJ, & Perez-Brena NJ (2017). Parental modeling and deidentification in romantic relationships among Mexican-origin youth . Journal of Marriage and Family , 79 ( 5 ), 1388–1403. 10.1111/jomf.12411 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landale NS (1994). Migration and the Latino family: The Union formation behavior of Puerto Rican women . Demography , 31 ( 1 ), 133–157. 10.2307/2061912 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landale NS, Oropesa RS, & Noah AJ (2014). Immigration and the family circumstances of Mexican-origin children: A binational longitudinal analysis . Journal of Marriage and Family , 76 ( 1 ), 24–36. 10.1111/jomf.12073 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laplante B, Castro-Martín T, Cortina C, & Martín-García T (2015). Childbearing within marriage and consensual Union in Latin America, 1980–2010 . Population and Development Review , 41 ( 1 ), 85–108. 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00027.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lareau A (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life . Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J, & Bean FD (2010). The diversity paradox: Immigration and the color line in twenty-first century America . New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J, & Zhou M (2015). The Asian American achievement paradox . New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leidy MS, Guerra NG, & Toro RI (2010). Positive parenting, family cohesion, and child social competence among immigrant Latino families . Journal of Family Psychology , 24 ( 3 ), 252–260. 10.1037/a0019407 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leidy MS, Parke RD, Cladis M, Coltrane S, & Duffy S (2009). Positive marital quality, acculturative stress, and child outcomes among Mexican Americans . Journal of Marriage and Family , 71 ( 4 ), 833–847. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00638.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levitt P (1998). Social remittances: Migration driven local-level forms of cultural diffusion . International Migration Review , 32 ( 4 ), 926–948. 10.1177/019791839803200404 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichter DT, Carmalt JH, & Qian Z (2011). Immigration and intermarriage among Hispanics: Crossing racial and generational boundaries . Sociological Forum , 26 ( 2 ), 241–264. 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01239.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichter DT, & Qian Z (2018). Boundary blurring? Racial identification among the children of interracial couples . The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 677 ( 1 ), 81–94. 10.1177/0002716218760507 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin KH, & Lundquist J (2013). Mate selection in cyberspace: The intersection of race, gender, and education . American Journal of Sociology , 119 ( 1 ), 183–215. 10.1086/673129 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu Y (2012). Education of children left behind in rural China . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 ( 2 ), 328–341. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00951.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu Y (2014). Parental migration and education of left-behind children: A comparison of two settings . Journal of Marriage and Family , 76 ( 5 ), 1082–1098. 10.1111/jomf.12139 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu Y, He Q, & Brooks-Gunn J (2018). Diverse experience of immigrant children: How do separation and reunification shape their development? Child Development . Advance online publication. 10.1111/cdev.13171 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luthra R, Waldinger R, & Soehl T (2018). Origins and destinations: The making of the second generation . New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS (1999). Why does immigration occur?: A theoretical synthesis. In Hirschman C, Kasinitz P, & DeWind J (Eds.), The handbook of international migration: The American experience (pp. 34–52). New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS, Alarcón R, Durand J, & González H (1990). Return to Aztlan: the social process of international migration from western Mexico (Vol. 1 ). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey DS, Pren KA, & Durand J (2016). Why border enforcement backfired . American Journal of Sociology , 121 ( 5 ), 1557–1600. 10.1086/684200 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazzucato V, Cebotari V, Veale A, White A, Grassi M, & Vivetg J (2015). International parental migration and the psychological well-being of children in Ghana, Nigeria and Angola . Social Science and Medicine , 132 , 215–224. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.058 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazzucato V, & Schans D (2011). Transnational families and the well-being of children: Conceptual and methodological challenges . Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 , 704–712. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00840.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenzie D, & Rapoport H (2006). Can migration reduce educational attainments? Depressing evidence from Mexico . Washington, DC: The World Bank. 10.1596/1813-9450-3952 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McManus PA, & Apgar L (2019). Parental origins, mixed unions and the labor supply of second-generation women in the United States . Demography , 56 , 49–73. 10.1007/s13524-018-0736-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meiiessner D & Chishti M (2013). “ Side-by-side comparison of 2013 senate immigration bill with 2006 and 2007 senate legislation .” Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendez-Luck CA, Applewhite SR, Lara VE, & Toyokawa N (2016). The concept of familism in the lived experiences of Mexican-origin caregivers . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 ( 3 ), 813–829. 10.1111/jomf.12300 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meng X, & Yamauchi C (2017). Children of migrants: The cumulative impact of parental migration on children’s education and health outcomes in China . Demography , 54 ( 5 ), 1677–1714. 10.1007/s13524-017-0613-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Menjívar C, Abrego LJ, & Schmalzbauer LC (2016). Immigrant families . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mood C, Jonsson JO, & Låftman SB (2017). The mental health advantage of immigrant-background youth: The role of family factors . Journal of Marriage and Family , 79 ( 2 ), 419–436. 10.1111/jomf.12340 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen CV (2016). Does parental migration really benefit left-behind children? Comparative evidence from Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam . Social Science & Medicine , 153 , 230–239. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.021 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noah AJ, & Landale NS (2018). Parenting strain among Mexican-origin mothers: Differences by parental legal status and neighborhood . Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 ( 2 ), 317–333. 10.1111/jomf.12438 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nobles J (2011). Parenting from abroad: Migration, nonresident father involvement, and children’s education in Mexico . Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 ( 4 ), 729–746. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00842.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nobles J (2013). Migration and father absence: Shifting family structure in Mexico . Demography , 50 ( 4 ), 1303–1314. 10.1007/s13524-012-0187-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nobles J, & McKelvey C (2015). Gender, power, and emigration from Mexico . Demography , 52 ( 5 ), 1573–1600. 10.1007/s13524-015-0401-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nobles J, Rubalcava L, & Teruel G (2015). After spouses depart: Emotional wellbeing among nonmigrant Mexican mothers . Social Science & Medicine , 132 , 236–244. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.009 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oropesa RS, & Landale NS (2004). The future of marriage and Hispanics . Journal of Marriage and Family , 66 ( 4 ), 901–920. 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00061.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parrado EA (2011). How high is Hispanic/Mexican fertility in the United States? Immigration and tempo considerations . Demography , 48 ( 3 ), 1059–1080. 10.1007/s13524-011-0045-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parrado EA, & Morgan SP (2008). Intergenerational fertility among Hispanic women: New evidence of immigrant assimilation . Demography , 45 , 651. 10.1353/dem.0.0023 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Passel JS, & Cohn D (2016). Overall number of U.S. unauthorized immigrants holds steady since 2009 . Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pessin L, & Arpino B (2018). Navigating between two cultures: Immigrants’ gender attitudes toward working women . Demographic Research , 38 , 967–1016. 10.4054/DemRes.2018.38.35 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pew Research Center. (2015). Total fertility rate for population estimates and projections, by race-hispanic origin and generation . Retrieved from https://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/9-26-2015-1-30-23-pm-2/
• Pew Research Center. (2016). Births outside of marriage decline for immigrant women . Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/26/births-outside-of-marriage-decline-for-immigrant-women/
• Portes A, & Rumbaut RG (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation . Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qian Z, Glick JE, & Batson CD (2012). Crossing boundaries: Nativity, ethnicity, and mate selection . Demography , 49 ( 2 ), 651–675. 10.1007/s13524-012-0090-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qian Z, & Lichter DT (2011). Changing patterns of interracial marriage in a multiracial society . Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 ( 5 ), 1065–1084. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00866.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qian Z, Lichter DT, & Tumin D (2018). Divergent pathways to assimilation? Local marriage markets and intermarriage among US Hispanics . Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 ( 1 ), 271–288. 10.1111/jomf.12423 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• RAISE Act. S. 354, 115th Cong . (2017).
• Raymo JM, Park H, Xie Y, & Yeung WJ (2015). Marriage and family in East Asia: Continuity and change . Annual Review of Sociology , 41 , 471–492. 10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112428 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sawyer A (2016). Is money enough?: The effect of migrant remittances on parental aspirations and youth educational attainment in rural Mexico . International Migration Review , 50 ( 1 ), 231–266. 10.1111/imre.12103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seltzer JA (2019). Family change and changing family demography . Demography , 56 ( 2 ), 405–426. 10.1007/s13524-019-00766-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shirpak KR, Maticka-Tyndale E, & Chinichian M (2011). Post migration changes in Iranian immigrants’ couple relationships in Canada . Journal of Comparative Family Studies , 42 ( 6 ), 751–770. 10.3138/jcfs.42.6.751 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singley SG, & Landale NS (1998). Incorporating origin and process in migration-fertility frameworks: The case of Puerto Rican women . Social Forces , 76 ( 4 ), 1437–1464. 10.2307/3005841 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinbach A (2013). Family structure and parent–child contact: A comparison of native and migrant families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 75 ( 5 ), 1114–1129. 10.1111/jomf.12060 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suárez-Orozco C, Yoshikawa H, Teranishi R, & Suárez-Orozco M (2011). Growing up in the shadows: The developmental implications of unauthorized status . Harvard Educational Review , 81 ( 3 ), 438–473. 10.17763/haer.81.3.g23x203763783m75 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun KC (2014). Reconfigured reciprocity: How aging Taiwanese immigrants transform cultural logics of elder care . Journal of Marriage and Family , 76 , 875–889. 10.1111/jomf.12119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Treas J, & Batalova J (2011). Residential independence: Race and ethnicity on the road to adulthood in two US immigrant gateways . Advances in Life Course Research , 16 ( 1 ), 13–24. 10.1016/j.alcr.2011.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Treas J, & Gubernskaya Z (2016). Immigration, aging, and the life course. In George LK & Ferraro KF (Eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (pp. 43–161). Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tucker CM, Torres-Pereda P, Minnis AM, & Bautista-Arredondo SA (2013). Migration decision making among Mexican youth: Individual, family and community influences . Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science , 35 , 61–84. 10.1177/0739986312458563 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2018). Yearbook of immigration statistics . Washington, DC: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• Umaña-Taylor AJ, Alfaro EC, Bámaca MY, & Guimond AB (2009). The central role of familial ethnic socialization in Latino adolescents’ cultural orientation . Journal of Marriage and Family , 71 , 46–60. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00579.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umaña-Taylor AJ, Guimond AB, Updegraff KA, & Jahromi LB (2013). A longitudinal examination of support, self-esteem, and Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ parenting efficacy . Journal of Marriage and Family , 75 ( 3 ), 746–759. 10.1111/jomf.12019 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umaña-Taylor AJ, Wong JJ, Gonzales NA, & Dumka LE (2012). Ethnic identity and gender as moderators of the association between discrimination and academic adjustment among Mexican-origin adolescents . Journal of Adolescence , 35 ( 4 ), 773–786. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.11.003 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Updegraff KA, Perez-Brena NJ, Baril ME, McHale SM, & Umaña-Taylor AJ (2012). Mexican-origin mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in adolescents’ peer relationships: A pattern-analytic approach . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 , 1069–1083. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01009.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vallejo J (2012). Barrios to burbs: The making of the Mexican American middle class . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Hook J, & Glick JE (2007). Immigration and living arrangements: Moving beyond economic need versus acculturation . Demography , 44 ( 2 ), 225–249. 10.1353/dem.2007.0019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waters MC (2009). Black identities . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• White K, & Potter JE (2013). The impact of outmigration of men on fertility and marriage in the migrant-sending states of Mexico, 1995–2000 . Population Studies , 67 ( 1 ), 83–95. 10.1080/00324728.2012.721518 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• White MJ, & Glick JE (2009). Achieving anew . New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• White RM, & Roosa MW (2012). Neighborhood contexts, fathers, and Mexican American young adolescents’ internalizing symptoms . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 ( 1 ), 152–166. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00878.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• White RM, Roosa MW, Weaver SR, & Nair RL (2009). Cultural and contextual influences on parenting in Mexican American families . Journal of Marriage and Family , 71 ( 1 ), 61–79. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00580.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yahirun JJ, & Arenas E (2018). Offspring migration and parents’ emotional and psychological well-being in Mexico . Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 , 975–991. 10.1111/jomf.12479 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yodanis C, Lauer S, & Ota R (2012). Interethnic romantic relationships: Enacting affiliative ethnic identities . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 ( 5 ), 1021–1037. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01005.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshikawa H (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their children . New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshikawa H, & Kalil A (2011). The effects of parental undocumented status on the developmental contexts of young children in immigrant families . Child Development Perspectives , 5 ( 4 ), 291–297. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00204.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu J, & Xie Y (2015). Cohabitation in China: Trends and determinants . Population and Development Review , 41 ( 4 ), 607–628. 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00087.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeiders KH, Updegraff KA, Umaña-Taylor AJ, McHale SM, & Padilla J (2016). Familism values, family time, and Mexican-origin young adults’ depressive symptoms . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 ( 1 ), 91–106. 10.1111/jomf.12248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zong J,Batalova J,&Hallock J(2018). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States . Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. [ Google Scholar ]

The Impact of Immigration on Families

• Posted June 1, 2022
• By Lory Hough
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Families and Community
• Immigration and Refugee Education

Research tells us that for young people growing up in immigrant families, their immigration status, and the status of their parents, has a big impact on their well-being. What research hasn’t really looked into, and what Ph.D. marshall Sarah Rendón García explored in her doctoral dissertation, is how young people actually learn about their (or their parents’) status.

As it turns out, there’s no one typical way.

“With the rise in the public’s engagement with immigration and anti-immigrant rhetoric, the messages children are receiving can come from home, school, or their neighborhood,” Rendón García says. “That's part of what my dissertation was trying to document, and my findings show there’s a spectrum of sources for children.” 

Her own discovery happened when she was a teenager. Born in Venezuela to Colombian parents before moving to the United States, she was undocumented from the age of 9 to 21 but didn’t realize this until she tried to take part in a teenage rite-of-passage.

“I found out officially when it was time to get my driver’s license, and I wasn’t eligible because of my immigration status,” she says. “It was the first time I was told explicitly by my parents about our situation, but it wasn’t shocking because I had picked up on indicators of difference along the way as a child and adolescent. In other words, I had noticed things that made me and my family different from others based on our immigration status, like our inability to travel freely.”

Having a sense but not quite knowing the full story was a common theme Rendón García found while doing her research, which focused on interviews with children from ages 7 to 15 who live in mixed-status families — meaning at least one parent or caregiver is undocumented. 

“The majority of the children I talked to showed evidence of being, at the very least, familiar with the topic of immigration status,” she says. It was their parents and caretakers who weren’t always ready to talk.

“Most parents with whom I spoke wouldn’t have chosen to have conversations with their children about immigration status just yet,” she says. “A big challenge for parents was being forced into these conversations because of the questions their children were asking or the things their children were noticing. It’s hard for adults to be thrown into such a delicate conversation with children who have varying cognitive capacities to employ in order to understand what is being explained. Immigration policy is complicated to the point that it’s already challenging for adults to grapple with their understanding, let alone how to explain it to a child.”

Parents also want to shield their children.

“They want to protect their children from the potential implications of such life-changing information,” she says. “Parents spoke about the challenges of deciding whether to tell their children the truth about being undocumented and the potential threat of family separation so that their children wouldn’t be caught surprised if their parents were detained and/or deported, or to protect them from the truth so that children didn’t experience anxiety or stress about something that might not happen.”

Rendón García knows first-hand about that anxiety and stress. 

“I was undocumented during a time where public awareness was not yet where it is now. That meant the biggest impact of my immigration status on my experience was psychological," she says. “I didn’t always feel understood by my educators, even when they had the best intentions, and I didn't feel safe to share my experience with them. This is why I gravitated to the social-emotional development and psychological well-being of mixed-status immigrant families in my professional and academic work. My goal is to contribute knowledge that helps practitioners, policymakers, and researchers move toward creating safer spaces for this population.”

She first started down this path as a master’s student but always with an eye toward joining the Ph.D. Program.

“I saw there was not a lot of research out there about people like me,” she says. The Ed School also helped her approach her work from an interdisciplinary lens. 

“This allowed me to think creatively about the questions I was asking and the methods I was using to answer those questions," she says. “I've been able to bring together psychology, sociology, education, and immigration studies to better understand the experiences of mixed-status families. Most importantly, I think HGSE has instilled certain priorities in me regarding the impact I want my work to have.”

After graduation, Rendón García will continue at the Ed School as a Dean’s Postdoctoral Fellow, working with professor-in-residence Carola Suarez-Orozco on the Immigration Initiative at Harvard , teaching for the How People Learn course, and conducting a National Science Foundation-funded intervention research project for parents in mixed-status families as they prepare to engage in immigration socialization.

Asked if anything surprised her along the way while doing her research, she says it’s a tough question to answer, in part because of the families she came to know.

“It was really difficult to see children grappling with the threat of family separation and adults grappling with the impossible decision of protecting their children in the short-term vs. the long-term,” she says. “That wasn’t necessarily surprising because I had anecdotal stories of it happening, but it was still upsetting to see the evidence across and within families.”  

The latest research, perspectives, and highlights from the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Exploring the Effects of Desegregation

Lost in Translation

New comparative study from Ph.D. candidate Maya Alkateb-Chami finds strong correlation between low literacy outcomes for children and schools teaching in different language from home

Immigrant Families Across the Life Course: Policy Impacts on Physical and Mental Health

Download Executive Summary (PDF) Download Policy Brief (PDF)

Recent changes to immigration policy, with a focus on enforcement and reducing immigration to the United States, have important health impacts for immigrant families across the life course.

Shifting policy back to a focus on keeping immigrant families together through family reunification, daca, tps, and other anti-separation policies is important to immigrant children and families’ mental and physical health., policies such as the “travel ban” (executive order 13780) breed fear in certain immigrant groups, which is detrimental to the mental health of immigrant youth., adjusting policies and rules to challenge or contest immigrants’ access to the social safety net contributes to negative physical and mental health outcomes for immigrants across the life course..

Recent immigration policies related to family separation and deportation have negative mental and physical health implications for immigrant families across the life course. In this brief, we detail mental health (e.g., stress, trauma) and physical health (e.g., nutrition, chronic conditions) impacts of policies focused on immigrants and immigration across the life course. Consequently, we recommend the dismantling of policies that are harmful to immigrant families (e.g., zero tolerance, the proposed public-charge rule, changes to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Temporary Protected Status) and the strengthening or initiation of policies to bolster health and well-being among immigrant families across the life course (e.g., DACA; TPS; access to the social safety net, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security).

Recent changes in immigration policy, characterized by increased enforcement, greater restrictions on immigration into the United States, and the criminalization of immigrants, reflect a turning point in immigration in the United States. This shifting policy landscape places contemporary U.S. immigrant families in a precarious position (1). For families these recent immigration policies are linked to uncertainties about family separation and deportation, which can have negative mental and physical health implications for immigrant families (1,2,3,4). Recent policy issues (Table 1) have an impact on immigrant families across the life course and negatively contribute to the mental and physical health of immigrant families. As such, we recommend the dismantling of policies that are harmful to immigrant families—zero tolerance, the proposed public-charge rule, changes to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—and the (re)building of policies to bolster health and well-being among immigrant families across the life course.

Tightening Borders, Family Reunification, and Indefinite Family Detention

Immigrant families to the United States have faced many challenges in the past few years related to changes in border security and the family reunification policy. In addition, along the U.S.-Mexico border many cities and towns are home to “border lander” families, who for generations have maintained a crossborder lifestyle as they work and live in Mexico and the United States (8). This unencumbered travel between the United States and Mexico supports the relationships and household economies of these cross-border families. The current focus on expanding the border wall between the United States and Mexico threatens these families. From 1965 until the recent past, keeping families together was a major component of U.S. immigration policy (3). The shift away from the previous immigration policy priorities of family reunification and family-sponsored immigration—the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, the ending of DACA and TPS for U.S. residents from various countries, suspension of the admission of some refugees’ families, zero tolerance, and most recently, seeking immigration policy reform that emphasizes the merit of immigrants over connections with family already living in the United States—as a priority of immigration policy has removed the protections for keeping families together (1,3,9).

Diversity of Immigrant Families Over 16 million people in the United States live in mixed-status households (households in which some individuals are authorized to be in the United States and others are not). (5) Immigrant families, or families in which at least one parent is foreign-born,2 are diverse in terms of country of origin, socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, parent or child LGBTQ+ status, family structure, length of time in the United States, and reasons for migrating. Immigrant families are concerned with status, deportability, and discrimination,6 all of which are linked to health concerns as well. (7)

In lieu of being separated, in September 2018 the current administration proposed detaining families until their immigration hearings conclude, which likely means longer than the previous 20-day maximum detainment (10). With this, they would seek to overturn the 1997 Flores Settlement, which protected children and families from indefinite detainment.

Policy shifts including federal agencies’ changes to rules and practices have profound family health impacts for immigrant families with young children (12,13). In the current policy context, the experiences of immigrant families with young children are characterized by fear of family separation and uncertainty regarding deportation and status (6). These fears and uncertainties contribute to mental health issues (e.g., toxic stress, trauma, depression, anxiety) and physical health challenges (e.g., access to affordable health care, housing, and nutrition programs) that are detrimental to children’s developmental outcomes and family functioning.

Zero-tolerance policy: Impacts on mental health. The U.S. Department of Justice rolled out its Zero Tolerance Policy for Offenses related to “criminal illegal entry” in April 2018, which included a “de facto policy of separating families” (p. 1) (12). Separating family members from one another, including children from their parents, may result in negative health outcomes for immigrant families, including irregular sleep patterns, which can contribute to lower academic achievement among children; toxic stress, or persistent stress, which is associated with detrimental effects on brain development and cognitive impairment; symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and limited access to good nutrition and health care (2). This policy also criminalized families seeking asylum such that when families crossed the U.S. southern border, parents and children were separated and sent to different criminal detention centers as both parents and children awaited trial (12). As such, in April–June 2018, approximately 2,600 children were separated from their parents, and this policy predominantly affected families from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala who were fleeing violence and poverty in their countries of origin and seeking asylum in the United States (12). Despite an executive order and court-mandated July deadline to reunite all families, as of October 2018 approximately 120 children were still separated (14).

Immigrant Families With Young Children 45% of immigrants identify as of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. (11) 26% of U.S. children younger than age 18 have at least one foreign-born parent. (5) 94% of children of immigrants, age 5 and younger, are citizens. (7) Approximately 2 million children younger than age 5 live with at least one undocumented parent. (7)

Family separation policies and practices, including the U.S. Attorney General’s zero-tolerance policy, have contributed to shifts in how immigrant families do family . Cervantes and colleagues (2018) (7) found that fears of family separation contributed to the following:

• unstable housing situations of immigrant families;
• interruptions in families’ daily routines as they worked to avoid deportation;
• less uptake of nutrition assistance and medical care for citizen children of immigrants due to safety concerns;
• children’s worries about who would take care of them; and
• parental stress regarding talking with children about deportation planning.

In addition to these concerns, the zero-tolerance policy contributed to the “adultification” of very young children, meaning that children were forced by circumstances to take on adult roles and exposed to typically adult knowledge and responsibilities, for which they are not developmentally ready (15). For example, not only did young children have to protect themselves in federal detention centers from alleged abuse; children as young as age 3 appeared in court alone for their deportation hearings (16). Depending on the child’s age, circumstances, and length of exposure, adultification has various mental health implications for young children (15).

Changes to the proposed public-charge rule for immigrants: Impacts on physical health. In September 2018, the current administration proposed the addition of a new rule to long-standing public-charge policies, which could contribute to negative health outcomes, especially for mixedstatus immigrant families (4). Public-charge policies, which date back to the 1800s, authorize immigration officials to (a) deny permanent-resident status to immigrants who are likely to become a public charge, or an individual who relies on the government for more than half of his or her income, and (b) to deport someone who, within their first five years of being admitted into the United States, becomes a public charge (4). Historically, public-charge determinations were made on the basis of the use of cash assistance (e.g., Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). The new rule proposes additional scrutiny for immigrants who apply for visas and green cards, looking also at families’ use of Medicaid; the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), including for those families whose children are U.S. citizens; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and multiple housing programs (4,17). If this proposed change is approved, it could have the following impacts on immigrant families’ health:

• a decrease in immigrant families’ children receiving nutrition assistance, making both children and families vulnerable to poor health and development outcomes (2);
• a decline in access to medical care for immigrant families, meaning lower receipt of pre- and postnatal care, and the forgoing of routine wellness checkups and vaccinations (4); and
• a lack of access to housing support, keeping millions of children and families in poverty (4).

Adolescence and young adulthood involve mastering important tasks, including identity development, acquiring independence and skills to cope with stress and life challenges, and establishing healthy behavioral patterns (23). Mastery of these developmental tasks contributes to trajectories of well-being and educational and career attainment (23).

Immigrant youth face challenges in navigating these developmental processes because of their role as cultural brokers, for their parents or non-immigrant contacts, experiences of migration, daily life stressors from enculturation (i.e., pressure to retain cultural heritage) and acculturation (i.e., pressure to assimilate to culture of host country), and marginalization (i.e., unauthorized status) (20,22).

Immigrant Families With Adolescents and Young Adults 40% of immigrant youth younger than age 18 are from ethnic-racial minority backgrounds (i.e., nonwhite or European-origin)—18% are from Mexico (18). 15% of immigrant youth (aged 16 to 24) in the United States have undocumented legal status (19). As a result of policy shifts since 2016, immigrant youth in the United States—especially during critical transitions across adolescence (aged 12 to 17) and young adulthood (aged 18 to 24)—face heightened risks of poor health and educational maladjustment (20,21). The experiences of immigrant adolescents and young adults vary significantly depending on ethnicity/race and citizenship status (22).

Research demonstrates that recent policy initiatives, including the “travel ban” and rescinding of DACA, add to the complexities of healthy development and exacerbate maladjustment among immigrant adolescent and young adults. These policies have severe implications for mental health (e.g., psychological distress, anxiety); educational and career opportunities and achievement; and economic advancement at the local, state, and federal levels (22,24).

The travel ban : Impacts on youths’ mental health through identity development. Beginning January 2017, Executive Order 13769 and later Presidential Proclamation 9723 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States), often referred to as the travel ban, imposed strict travel restrictions and indefinitely suspended the issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to applicants from seven Muslim-majority countries. Empirical evidence suggests that this policy may exacerbate Islamophobia in the United States (i.e., negative attitudes and emotions directed at the Islamic religion or individuals who identity as Muslim (25)) and increase risks of poor mental health (e.g., anxiety, depression) among Muslim populations in the United States (21,26).

Anti-Islamic and Islamophobic rhetoric not only forces the adultification of youth by exposing them to negative social stigma and hate crimes—as well as knowledge of hate crimes nationwide—but also impedes the healthy identity development of youth and young adults (21). Islamophobia imposes feelings of shame, which when internalized, provokes disidentification as a means to cope with the social stigma attached to Muslim identity (26). Although limited work has investigated the adjustment of Muslim youth, inschool intervention research suggests that programing that encourages or endorses positive identity development, through an understanding of socially determined stigma, may buffer against maladjustment and disidentification (27). By providing support for Muslim immigrant youth to develop a healthy sense of identity, focusing on strengths and resilience, allies and affected youth can learn effective coping strategies to navigate undue burdens and psychosocial risks attached to the travel ban policy. A critical next step is to educate the American public about valuing religious freedom and dissociate Islamic religion and Muslim populations from terrorist threats.

Rescinding DACA: Jeopardizing immigrant youths’ career trajectories and impeding U.S. economic growth. Effective June 15, 2012, DACA provided recipients with supportive measures (e.g., work authorization, in-state tuition, access to driver’s license) and temporary relief from deportation. The September 2017 termination of the DACA program radically altered the educational and career trajectories of an estimated 1.49 million youth and young adults (i.e., 13% of 11 million immigrants with undocumented status) who were previously eligible to apply for the expanded DACA program (20). In a 2018 national survey with 1,050 DACA recipients in 41 states and the District of Columbia, Wong and colleagues (2018) found evidence demonstrating the benefits of DACA for recipients and the U.S. economy (28). Study results revealed that 96% of DACA recipients were employed or enrolled in school. After receiving DACA, recipients earned higher wages (54%) and moved to jobs with better working conditions and health insurance benefits (47%), which resulted in greater financial independence (e.g., 62% of recipients purchased their first car after DACA). Furthermore, 75% of DACA recipients reported having earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. The impact of DACA on educational attainment and employment earnings indeed facilitates recipients’ educational and career trajectories, which in turn contributes to state tax revenues, social security, Medicare, and national economic growth (28).

The loss of DACA program benefits and the risk of deportation poses a constant threat to the well-being of youth and young adults in the United States with undocumented status. A majority of DACA recipients report daily stress from fear of deportation and family separation (28). Other work suggests that when youth with undocumented status transition throughout adolescence to emerging adulthood, navigating the distance between aspirations and reality can pose severe consequences on mental health and potential for achievement (20). Importantly, because of social stigma and privacy around immigration status, high schools and institutes of higher learning have limited information and involvement in supporting and informing youth and young adults of opportunities for education visas and financial support (20). Immigrant youth (and their parents) therefore experience low mentorship in navigating changes in education policies and receive minimal support for mental health stress (24). Professional advocacy for immigrant youths’ educational and career endeavors is therefore an important area for growth, as these young people represent a significant portion of the future workforce. Reinstating the benefits of the DACA program would allow for the productivity, safety, and continued growth of the U.S. economy and its inhabitants who lack documentation.

Most aging immigrants who live below the poverty line are foreign-born Hispanics, who have lower wages and less wealth accumulation (30). Elder immigrants who are economically disadvantaged overwhelmingly delay retirement (30), which forces them to work more years in low-earning and physically demanding jobs (33). Consequently, elderly immigrants may face higher levels of disabilities or chronic conditions later in life (31). Moreover, deterioration of health and disability result from limited access to health care (32). Barriers to health-care access include limited English proficiency, low health literacy, attitudes and beliefs associated with aging, and endured discrimination (34). In addition, older adult immigrants also experience depressive symptoms, loneliness, and social isolation (35). Linguistic and cultural barriers limit their access to transportation, which contributes to isolation (35).

Aging Immigrants Aging immigrants include individuals who entered the United States early in life as well as late-life immigrants (29). Hispanics will comprise 15% of the elderly population by 2040 (30). Older immigrant adults experience greater economic disadvantage than U.S.-born elders (30), particularly as they lack health insurance and have limited access to health services (31). Older immigrant adults experience high levels of disability, chronic health problems, and physical limitations (32).

Social Security. Older immigrant adults’ access to Social Security is limited by fewer years in the U.S. workforce and less time to accumulate Social Security credits (30). The situation is particularly troublesome for immigrants without legal authorization, who frequently pay into Social Security but are not eligible for these senior benefits (36). Lifelong impoverishment and lack of economic security in old age can negatively affect health and quality of life for immigrant elders and their families (37).

Health care. In terms of access to health care, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) offers some relief by allowing immigrants with legal status to obtain individual health insurance (38); however, there are restrictions on eligibility for Medicaid and Medicare. Furthermore, individuals without legal status are not eligible for Medicare or ACA exchanges, or for federal means-tested benefits, including Medicaid, SSI, or SNAP (39). Even though eligibility for health insurance programs improves access to preventive care, elder immigrants cannot access care for chronic issues or afford to pay out of pocket for care, forcing them to postpone needed treatment (38). This inadequate medical safety net promotes hardship that is preventable and will ultimately increase health-care costs through emergency care (38).

Proposed public-charge rule changes. The proposed public-charge determinations include programs that help older adults and their families meet basic needs. Given recent proposals, elders’ immigration status would be at risk if they were to try to access services that support health and economic stability (e.g., nonemergency Medicaid, Medicare Part D, subsidized long-term care, SNAP, subsidized housing, state and local cash-assistance programs) (40).

TPS: Younger Immigrants’ Contribution to Elder Care in the United States Immigrants constitute 20% of the direct-care workforce among personal care and home health aides, occupations that are growing as a result of the increasing elderly population (47). Ending TPS status for immigrants will bring about a shortage in the direct-care workforce in elderly care facilities (45). TPS holders contribute $4.5 billion in pretax wages annually to the gross domestic product. Their departure would constitute a $6.9 billion reduction in Social Security and Medicare contributions over a decade (47).

Family reunification and older adults. Familybased immigration is one of the primary ways that late-life immigrants join their families in the United States (41). In immigrant families, elders perform a key supportive role for adult children and grandchildren (42). They help with childcare and decision making, serve as role models (43), and provide a sense of “tradition and belonging” (44). At the same time, most elderly immigrants depend on their family and social networks for financial, social, and emotional support (45). Challenges to health and well-being can be counterbalanced by the financial, social, and emotional support from strong social networks (46).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Recently created policies (e.g., zero tolerance, the travel ban), changes to existing immigrationfocused policies (e.g., public-charge rule, DACA), and immigrants’ access to general social welfare and health-care policies (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, SNAP, TPS) are challenging immigrant families’ health and well-being across the life span. These policies and changes to existing policies challenge immigrants families’ mental and physical health, particularly in terms of stress and trauma, which can impair cognitive functioning in children and adults, as well as youth identity development, and also have physical health impacts on adults and children, including sleep deprivation, nutrition issues, and chronic illnesses and conditions. As such, recommendations include the dismantling of policies that are harmful to immigrant families’ mental and physical health, and the (re)building of policies to bolster health and well-being.

Recommendations for Policymakers

Dismantle policies that separate grandparents, parents, and children or prolong families’ detainment, including zero tolerance and indefinite detention. Build policies focused on keeping families together, especially as they await immigration hearings or other legal processes.

Create policies that support immigrant children and families’ critical health and care needs by ensuring that immigrants have access to and will not be penalized for using government supports necessary for children and families healthy development.

Provide support for youth to cope with the psychosocial risks attached to the travel-ban policy.

Reinstate the DACA program: Evidence demonstrates the economic benefits of the program for not only recipients, families, and community members but also the nation as a whole. Providing immigrant youth with safe opportunities for engagement will allow for the productivity and continued growth of the U.S. economy and its inhabitants.

Change public-charge determinations and eligibility restrictions for health insurance and economic benefit programs so immigrants’ needs—housing, food security, economic security—across the life course are addressed.

Maintain family-based immigration, which supports elder immigrants and their families.

Provide a permanent solution to immigrants with TPS status, who contribute greatly to the U.S. economy and elder care in particular.

Author Bios

Colleen K. Vesely, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science and Early Childhood Education at George Mason University. Dr. Vesely uses a community-based participatory research approach to understand the experiences of Central American immigrant families as they raise their young children in the United States.

Diamond Y. Bravo, Ph.D. , is a Dean’s Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard Graduate School of Education. Informed by cultural ecological frameworks, Dr. Bravo’s research examines individual processes across families, schools, and online contexts in relation to academic, psychological, and health outcomes. Her work investigates how cultural resilience and risk factors collectively inform ethnic-racial minority youths’ achievement motivation and adjustment from adolescence through emerging adulthood.

Mariana T. Guzzardo, Ph.D. , is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Development and Women’s Studies at California State University, East Bay. Her research focuses on Latinx elders’ access and use of community-based services, as well as issues related to social support, resilience, and identity for elder Puerto Ricans living on the U.S. mainland and on the island.

• Duncan, Pierce, S., & Selee, A. (2017). Immigration under Trump: A review of policy shifts in the year since the election . Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-under-trump-review-policy-shifts
• Cervantes, W., & Walker, C. (2017). Five reasons Trump’s immigration orders harm children. Washington, DC: CLASP. Retrieved from https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/five-reasons-trump-s-immigration-orders-harm-children
• Gubernskaya, Z., & Dreby, J. (2017). US immigration policy and the case for family unity. Journal on Migration and Human Security , 5, 417–430.
• Perreira, K., Yoshikawa, H., & Oberlander, J. (2018). A new threat to immigrants’ health: The public charge rule. New England Journal of Medicine , 379, 901–903.
• Migration Policy Institute. (2018). Children in US immigrant families. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/children-immigrant-families
• Vesely, C. K., Letiecq, B. L., & Goodman, R. D. (2017). Immigrant family resilience in context: Using a Community-based approach to build a new conceptual model. Journal of Family Theory and Review , 9, 93–110. doi:10.1111/jftr.12177 .
• Cervantes, W., Ullrich, R., & Matthews, H. (2018). Our children’s fears: Immigrations policy’s effects on young children. Washington, DC: CLASP. Retrieved from https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/our-childrens-fear-immigration-policys-effects-young-children
• Martínez, O. J. (2011). Transnational fronterizos: Cross-border linkages in a Mexican border society. Journal of Borderlands Studies , 5, 79–94.
• Kim, S. M., Dawsey, J., & Nakamura, D. (2019, May 16). Trump’s plan to overhaul legal immigration draws cool reception. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-says-daca-protections-too-divisive-to-be-included-in-trump-immigration-plan/2019/05/16/5ee50606-77e3-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html
• Chishti, M., & Pierce, S. (2018). Trump administration’s new indefinite family detention policy: Deterrence not guaranteed. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-administration-new-indefinite-family-detention-policy
• Zong, J., Batalova, J., & Hallock, J. (2018). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequentlyrequested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states
• Chishti, M., & Bolter, J. (2018). Family separation and “zero-tolerance” policies rolled out to stem unwanted migrants, but may face challenges. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy.org/article/family-separation-and-zero-tolerancepolicies-rolled-out-stem-unwanted-migrants-may-face
• Laird, J., Kaushal, N., Waldfogel, J., & Wimer, C. (2018, March 23). Forgoing food assistance out of fear: Changes to “public charge” rule may put 500,00 more U.S. citizen children at risk of moving into poverty. Poverty & Social Policy Brief , 2. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5743308460b5e922a25a6dc7/t/5af1a2b28a922db742154bbe/1525785266892/Poverty+and+Social+Policy+Brief_2_2.pdf
• ACLU. (2018). Family separation by the numbers. Retrieved from www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/family-separation
• Burton, L. (2007). Childhood adultification in economically disadvantaged families: A conceptual model. Family Relations , 56, 329–345. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00463.x
• Jewett, C., & Luthra, S. (2018, June 27). [ Washington Post ] Defendants in Diapers? Immigrant Law Defenders. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/defendants-in-diapers-immigrant-toddlers-ordered-to-appear-in-court-alone/2018/06/27/3ac83128-7a3a-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2018). DHS denounces new proposed immigration to enforce long-standing law that promotes self-sufficiency and protects American taxpayers. Retrieved from www.dhs.gov/news/2018/09/22/dhs-announces-new-proposed-immigration-rule-enforce-long-standing-law-promotes-self
• Child Trends. (2018). Immigrant children . Retrieved from www.childtrends.org/indicators/immigrant-children
• Migration Policy Institute. (2012–2016). Profile of the unauthorized population: United States. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US
• Gonzales, R. G. (2017). Dreams and nightmares: Immigration policy, youth, and families. Contemporary Sociology , 46, 497–499. doi:10.1177/0094306117714500ww
• Phillips, D., & Lauterbach, D. (2017). American Muslim immigrant mental health: The role of racism and mental health stigma. Journal of Muslim Mental Health , 11, 39–56. doi:10.3998/jmmh.10381607.0011.103
• Filion, N., Fenelon, A., & Boudreaux, M. (2018). Immigration, citizenship, and the mental health of adolescents. PLOS One , 13, e0196859. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0196859
• Sawyer, S. M., Afifi, R. A., Bearinger, L. H., Blakemore, S. J., Dick, B., Ezeh, A. C., & Patton, G. C. (2012). Adolescence: A foundation for future health. Lancet, 379 , 1630–40. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60072-5
• Torres, S. A., Santiago, C. D., Walts, K. K., & Richards, M. H. (2018). Immigration policy, practices, and procedures: The impact on the mental health of Mexican and Central American youth and families. American Psychologist , 73, 843–854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000184
• Bleich, E. (2011). What is Islamophobia and how much is there? Theorizing and measuring an emerging comparative concept. American Behavioral Scientist , 55, 1581–1600. doi:10.1177/0002764211409387
• Sadek, N. (2017). Islamophobia, shame, and the collapse of Muslim identities. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 14, 200–221.  doi.org/10.1002/aps.1534
• Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Douglass, S. (2017). Developing an ethnic-racial identity intervention from a developmental perspective: Process, content, and implementation. In N. J. Cabrera & B. Leyendecker (Eds.), Handbook of positive development of minority children. New York, NY: Springer.
• Wong, T. K., Abrar, S., Jawetz, T., Rodriguez Kmec, I., O’Shea, P., Martinez Rosas, G., & Wolgin, P. (2018, August 15). Amid legal and political uncertainty, DACA remains more important than ever. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/ news/2018/08/15/454731/amid-legal-political-uncertainty-daca-remains-important-ever/
• Population Reference Bureau. (2013, October 31). Elderly immigrants in the United States. Retrieved from www.prb.org/us-elderly-immigrants/
• Mudrazija, S., Johnson, R. W., & Wang, C. X. (2017). Hispanics’ retirement transitions and differences by nativity. Journal of Aging and Health, 29 (6), 1096–1115. doi:10.1177/0898264317711608
• Markides, K. S., & Rote, S. (2018). The healthy immigrant effect and aging in the United States and other western countries. Gerontologist, 205-214. doi:10.1093/geront/gny136
• Zhang, Z., Hayward, M. D., & Lu, C. (2012). Is there a Hispanic epidemiologic paradox in later life? A closer look at chronic morbidity. Research on Aging, 34( 5), 548–571.  doi.org/10.1177/0164027511429807
• Tsoh, J. Y., Sentell, T., Gildengorin, G., Le, G. M., Chan, E., Fung L-C., Nguyen, T. T. (2016). Healthcare communication barriers and self-rated health in older Chinese American Immigrants. Journal of Community Health, 41 , 741–752. doi.org/10.1007/s10900-015-0148-4
• Alvarez, P., Rengifo, J., Emrani, T., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. (2014). Latino older adults and mental health: A review and commentary. Clinical Gerontologist, 37 (1), 33–48.  doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2013.847514
• Treas, J., & Mazumdar, S. (2002). Older people in America’s immigrant families: Dilemmas of dependence, integration, and isolation. Journal of Aging Studies, 16 (3), 243–258.  doi.org/10.1016/S0890-4065(02)00048-8
• Goss, S., Wade, A., Skirvin, J. P., Morris, M., Bye, K. M., & Huston, D. (2013, April). Effects of unauthorized immigration on the actuarial status of the social security trust funds. Social Security Administration: Actuarial Note (No. 151). Retrieved from www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf
• National Conference of State Legislatures. (2017, October19). Immigrant eligibility for health care programs in the United States. Retrieved from ncsl.org/research/immigration/immigrant-eligibility-for-health-care-programs-in-the-united-states.aspx
• Wiltz, T. (2018, January 3). Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities and states. Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from www. pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/01/03/agingundocumented-and-uninsured-immigrants-challenge-cities-and-states
• Justice in Aging. (2018, October 17). Public charge: A threat to the health & well-being of Older adults in immigrant families: Fact sheet. Retrieved from www.justiceinaging.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Public-Charge_AThreat- to-the-Health-Wellbeing-of-Older-Adults-in-Immigrant-Families.pdf
• Xu, L., Chi, I., & Wu, S. Grandparent–grandchild relationships in Chinese immigrant families in Los Angeles: Roles of acculturation and the middle generation. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 4, 1–8.  doi.org/10.1177/2333721418778196
• Carr, S., & Tienda, M. (2013, December). Family sponsorship and late-age immigration in Aging America: Revised and expanded estimates of chained migration. Population Research and Policy Review, 32 (6), 825–849. doi:10.1007/ s11113-013-9300-y.
• Cardoso, J. B., & Thompson, S. J. (2010). Common themes of resilience among Latino immigrant families: A systematic review of the literature. Families in Society, 91 (3), 257–265.
• Oh, H., Ardelt, M., & Koropeckyj-Cox, T. (2017). Daughters’ generation: The importance of having daughters living nearby for older Korean immigrants’ mental health. Journal of Family Issues . doi:10.1177/0192513X16640023
• Alegría, M., Álvarez, K., & DiMarzio, K. (2017, June). Immigration and mental health. Current Epidemiological Reports, 4 (2), 145–155. doi:10.1007/s40471- 017-0111-2
• Bailey, M. (2018, March 26). Trump targets immigrants, the elderly brace to lose caregivers. NBC News. Retrieved from www.nbcnews.com/ health/health-care/trump-targets-immigrantselderly- brace-lose-caregivers-n860046
• López, G., Bialik, K., & Radfod, J. (2018, September 14). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/14/ key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/
• Baran, A., Magaña-Salgado, J., & Wong, T. K. (2017, April). Economic contributions by Salvadoran, Honduran, and Haitian TPS holders: Policy report. Retrieved from www.ilrc.org/sites/ default/files/resources/2017-04-18_economic_ contributions_by_salvadoran_honduran_and_ haitian_tps_holders.pdf
• Cepla, Z. (2018, October 12). Fact sheet: Temporary Protected Status. National Immigration Forum. Retrieved from https:// immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheettemporary- protected-status/
• Ferriss, S. (2017, November 6). Thousands of immigrants with “protected status” face possible deportation. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/thousands-of-immigrants-with-protected-status-face-possible-deportation/

Family Science is a vibrant and growing discipline. Visit Family.Science to learn more and see how Family Scientists make a difference.

NCFR is a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose members support all families through research, teaching, practice, and advocacy.

Get the latest updates on NCFR & Family Science in our weekly email newsletter:

Connect with Us

National Council on Family Relations 661 LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (888) 781-9331 [email protected] Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2023 NCFR

Search our Resources

• Staff & Advisory Committee

A Project of UC Berkeley

• Research Statement & Affiliates
• Strengthening Border Families Research Project
• Study on Immigrant Transitional Age Youth
• Our Publications
• Our Workshops
• Professional Networks
• Subscribe to our e-mail list
• For Legal Professionals
• For Social Workers
• For Youth & Families
• Federal Policy
• State Policy
• Child Welfare System Research

Immigrant Families Research

• Unaccompanied Minors Research
• Toolkits, Handbooks, Guides & Books
• Presentations
• El Salvador
• Phillippines
• For Youth & Families
• Toolkits, Handbooks, Guides & Books
• AL – GA
• HI – MD
• MA – NJ
• NM – SC
• SD – WY

The Fiscal Impact of Refugees and Asylees at the Federal, State, and Local Levels from 2005-2019

Robin ghertner, suzanne macartney and meredith dost; office of the assistant secretary for planning and evaluation (february 15, 2024), at the border and beyond: research-informed approaches to advance immigrant well-being, im/migrant scholar well-being collaborative (february 27, 2024).

This briefing reviews new empirical research on immigration policies focused on immigrant well-being, including research on the impact of the 100-mile border zone, bond amounts in immigration courts, and ICE’s surveillance technology. 

Engage and Evade: How Latino Immigrant Families Manage Surveillance in Everyday Life

Asad l. asad, princeton university press (june 13, 2023).

This book explores the experiences of undocumented immigrants living in a complex environment of ongoing surveillance.

“We Don’t Turn Away Families”: Support for Immigrant Families with Young Children During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

Carolina villamil grest, megan finno-velasquez, & sophia sepp; journal of human rights and social work (october 12, 2023).

This study examined community responses to the needs of immigrant families along the US–Mexico border during COVID-19 and suggests inclusive, local-level solutions that can mitigate structural barriers and ensure equitable access to services for immigrant families.

Most Hispanic Immigrants Say Their Lives Are Better In The U.S. But Face Financial And Health Care Challenges: The 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants

Schumacher et al., kaiser family foundation (january 18, 2024).

This report explores the experiences of Hispanic immigrants and the unique challenges many face related to limited English proficiency, citizenship status, income, insurance, and education.

Supporting North Carolina’s Immigrant Families

Berstein et al., urban institute (november 15, 2023).

New research with immigrants in North Carolina identifies common barriers to safety net participation and challenges faced by immigrant-serving organizations and health and human services agencies.

One in Four Adults in Mixed-Status Families Did Not Participate in Safety Net Programs in 2022 Because of Green Card Concerns

Dulce gonzalez & hamutal bernstein, urban institute (august 17, 2023).

This research founds that immigrant families continued to avoid safety net programs in 2022 due to immigration concerns.

Opportunities for Welcome: Lessons Learned for Supporting People Seeking Asylum in Chicago, Denver, New York City, and Portland, Maine

Women’s refugee commission (november 30, 2023).

Informed by research in NYC; Portland, Maine; Denver; and Chicago, this report provides recommendations on policies and practices to support people seeking asylum and other vulnerable populations.

False Hopes: Over 100,000 Immigrant Youth Trapped in the SIJS Backlog

Rachel leya davidson, laila l. hlass, katia leiva, and gabriela cruz; end sijs backlog coalition (december 2023).

This report, informed by new data from USCIS through FOIA litigation, reviews the growing SIJS backlog and highlights first-hand stories of SIJS youth on its impact.

The Double Exclusion of Immigrant Youth

Laila hlass, rachel l. davidson & austin kocher, the georgetown law journal (september 6, 2023).

This article documents the many barriers encountered by children seeking SIJS, including avoidable delays, inconsistent denial rates, and a growing backlog of SIJS petitioners, and calls for action to improve the SIJS program.

• social work (0)
• Legal Professionals (117)
• Social Workers (181)
• Youth & Families (105)

Law & Policy

• Federal Policy (209)
• State Policy (23)
• Child Welfare System Research (27)
• Immigrant Families Research (199)
• Unaccompanied Minors Research (41)

Training & Tools

• Guides & Books (7)
• Handbooks (7)
• Presentations (15)
• Toolkits, Handbooks, Guides & Books (24)
• Trainings (6)
• Adoption (10)
• Child Abuse/Neglect Prevention (39)
• Child Maltreatment (20)
• Child Well-Being (335)
• COVID-19 (36)
• Culture: Issues and Competencies (115)
• Deportation (141)
• Detention (130)
• Early Childhood (59)
• Family Separation (169)
• Family Violence (13)
• Foster Care (65)
• Immigrant Youth (331)
• Immigration Enforcement (266)
• Immigration Relief (222)
• Kinship Care (28)
• Language Issues (41)
• Legal/Law (332)
• Parental Interests Directive (21)
• Parenting (60)
• Public Charge (74)
• Safety (38)
• Social Work (184)
• Spanish Resources (35)
• Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) (63)
• State Policies (59)
• Transnational Resources (12)
• Trauma (96)
• Unaccompanied Minors (148)

• Training & Technical Assistance
• CICW Publications

E-Newsletter Sign-Up

© 2024 CICW.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Children From Immigrant Families Are Increasingly the Face of Higher Education

U.S.-born children of immigrants or immigrant students raised in the United States accounted for nearly 60 percent of the growth in university enrollment since 2000.

By Miriam Jordan

LOS ANGELES — An extraordinary demographic shift is sweeping through U.S. university campuses as immigrants and children of immigrants become an ever-larger share of student bodies, with implications for the future of the country’s work force, higher education and efforts to reduce racial and economic inequality.

A new study released on Thursday found that more than 5.3 million students, or nearly 30 percent of all students enrolled in colleges and universities in 2018, hailed from immigrant families, up from 20 percent in 2000. The population of so-called immigrant-origin students grew much more than that of U.S.-born students of parents also born in the United States, accounting for 58 percent of the increase in the total number of students in higher education during that period.

These students, most of them nonwhite, are the offspring of Indians who came to study in the United States and stayed; the children of Latin Americans who crossed the border for blue-collar jobs; and some whose families fled civil wars around the world as refugees.

“In higher education, we are producing and training the future work force. That future work force has more students from immigrant families than previously understood,” said Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a group of college and university officials that commissioned the study from the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

Studies have shown that college graduates earn $1 million more over their lifetime than those with a high school degree. They also have better health outcomes, are more civically engaged and have an overall better quality of life.

“Accessing higher education enables immigrant students to achieve their dreams, and it becomes an economic and social mobility generator, benefiting themselves, their children and the country,” said Ms. Feldblum, a former dean of Pomona College in California.

In California, immigrants or children of immigrants accounted for about half of enrolled students in 2018. In eight states, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington, they represented 30 percent to 40 percent of the student body. And in 32 states, at least 20,000 students from immigrant families were pursuing degrees, from associate and bachelor’s degrees to master’s and doctorate degrees.

An overwhelming majority of immigrant-origin students are U.S. citizens or legal residents. But they are likely to face barriers and limits on resources that many other students do not.

“Going into the college process, these students themselves or their families may not have a lot of knowledge about navigating college applications and the financial aid process,” said Jeanne Batalova, a senior policy analyst at Migration Policy Institute and the lead author of the report.

Once immigrant-origin students are in school, their dropout rates tend to be higher because many come from poor households.

“They juggle multiple responsibilities, which makes it more challenging for them to stay in school and complete their degrees on time,” Ms. Batalova said. “If there is a health or family emergency, they lack a safety net to fall back on. That interferes with attending classes and completing assignments.”

Immigrants and U.S.-born children of immigrants represented 85 percent of all Asian-American and Pacific Islander students, and 63 percent of Latino students in 2018. About a quarter of Black students were from immigrant families.

As their numbers swell, the students from immigrant families will only become more important to the long-term financial health of American colleges and universities.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic threw the operation of colleges and universities into disarray, there was concern about future enrollment amid the country’s falling fertility rate and declining international student enrollment. The United States has faced intensified competition for international students from countries like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.

“We will see a shrinking domestic pool of prospective college students in the 2020s,” said Nathan Grawe, an economist at Carleton College who studies how changing demographics affect the market for higher education. “Immigrants, their children and grandchildren are the future of higher ed,” he said.

Public universities provide the main gateway to higher education for the immigrant-origin students. In 2018, 83 percent were enrolled in public institutions compared with 17 percent in private schools, according to the study.

In the fall of 2019, 54 percent of the students attending California State University, the nation’s largest public university system, were the first in their families to pursue a college degree, and many were of immigrant origin.

Among this year’s freshmen is Carlos Yalibat, the American-born son of a cleaning lady and a valet parker from Guatemala. Mr. Yalibat, who graduated from Hollywood High, attends California State University, Northridge, where he plans to major in mechanical engineering.

“I grew up hearing from my parents that they came here to give their children better lives,” said Mr. Yalibat, 18, who helped his mother clean apartment buildings with his two older sisters when he was young.

“I always knew I would go to college,” he said, noting that his goal is to get a job with Boeing or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

But like many children of immigrants, he works almost full time, while studying, to pay for his phone, gas, car insurance and other personal expenses. Several days a week he helps track orders and pack shipments in a warehouse for a clothing manufacturer in Los Angeles’s garment district.

Last year, 58 percent of undergraduate students at New Jersey City University were first-generation college students, many of them immigrants or children of immigrants.

Many have gone on to successful careers in the business world and community service, said Sue Henderson, president of the public university, which has nearly 6,000 undergraduate students, nine out of 10 of them commuters.

During the Covid-19 crisis many students have had to endure “extreme challenges,” she said, because of illness and job losses among family members.

Thus, most of the $16 million in federal and state emergency funding the university received has been distributed to students for scholarships and technology to enable them to continue their education without interruption, Dr. Henderson said.

Among the beneficiaries was Samuel Ansah, 21, an immigrant from Ghana who studies computer science. His father is a delivery driver for a bakery and his mother a caretaker to older people whose work hours were severely reduced because of the pandemic.

Mr. Ansah applied for a $2,000 grant from the university in May, which he used toward his tuition last semester. He also worked at an Amazon warehouse when classes went remote.

“I had to step in to support the family and also save for my tuition,” he said.

Crystal Tepale, 21, whose mother is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, also received $2,000 from the university.

“Being a first-generation college student, it’s a lot of pressure,” said Ms. Tepale, a senior who is majoring in criminal justice and hopes to become a lawyer.

“My mom already says, ‘I am waiting for you to become someone in life with a career so that we can have a better life,’” said Ms. Tepale, who was born in New Jersey.

International students who come to the United States on visas accounted for 5.5 percent of all college and university students in the 2018-19 academic year.

Unlike international students, who typically return to their home countries after completing their studies, children from immigrant families have been raised in the United States and intend to remain in the country.

“I’m definitely staying here. The reason my parents came from India in the first place was for the opportunities,” said Simran Sethi, 19, who grew up in Dallas and is a sophomore studying engineering at Texas A&M. “A future in America is what I am looking forward to.”

Miriam Jordan is a national correspondent whose narratives pull back the curtain on the complexities and paradoxes of immigration policies and their impact on immigrants, communities and the economy. Before joining the Times, she covered immigration for more than a decade at the Wall Street Journal and was a correspondent in Brazil, Israel, Hong Kong and India. More about Miriam Jordan

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key findings about U.S. immigrants

View  interactive charts and  detailed tables  on U.S. immigrants.

Note: For our most recent estimates of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S.  click here .

The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world . Today, more than 40 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country, accounting for about one-fifth of the world’s migrants. The population of immigrants is also very diverse, with just about every country in the world represented among U.S. immigrants.

Pew Research Center regularly publishes statistical portraits of the nation’s foreign-born population, which include historical trends since 1960 . Based on these portraits, here are answers to some key questions about the U.S. immigrant population.

How many people in the U.S. are immigrants?

The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 44.8 million in 2018. Since 1965, when U.S. immigration laws replaced a national quota system , the number of immigrants living in the U.S. has more than quadrupled. Immigrants today account for 13.7% of the U.S. population, nearly triple the share (4.8%) in 1970. However, today’s immigrant share remains below the record 14.8% share in 1890, when 9.2 million immigrants lived in the U.S.

What is the legal status of immigrants in the U.S.?

Most immigrants (77%) are in the country legally, while almost a quarter are unauthorized, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on census data adjusted for undercount . In 2017, 45% were naturalized U.S. citizens.

Some 27% of immigrants were permanent residents and 5% were temporary residents in 2017. Another 23% of all immigrants were unauthorized immigrants. From 1990 to 2007, the unauthorized immigrant population more than tripled in size – from 3.5 million to a record high of 12.2 million in 2007. By 2017, that number had declined by 1.7 million, or 14%. There were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2017, accounting for 3.2% of the nation’s population.

The decline in the unauthorized immigrant population is due largely to a fall in the number from Mexico – the single largest group of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Between 2007 and 2017, this group decreased by 2 million. Meanwhile, there was a rise in the number from Central America and Asia. 

Do all lawful immigrants choose to become U.S. citizens?

Not all lawful permanent residents choose to pursue U.S. citizenship. Those who wish to do so may apply after meeting certain requirements , including having lived in the U.S. for five years. In fiscal year 2019, about 800,000 immigrants applied for naturalization. The number of naturalization applications has climbed in recent years, though the annual totals remain below the 1.4 million applications filed in 2007.

Generally, most immigrants eligible for naturalization apply to become citizens. However, Mexican lawful immigrants have the lowest naturalization rate overall. Language and personal barriers, lack of interest and financial barriers are among the top reasons for choosing not to naturalize cited by Mexican-born green card holders, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey .

Where do immigrants come from?

Mexico is the top origin country of the U.S. immigrant population. In 2018, roughly 11.2 million immigrants living in the U.S. were from there, accounting for 25% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest origin groups were those from China (6%), India (6%), the Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%).

By region of birth, immigrants from Asia combined accounted for 28% of all immigrants, close to the share of immigrants from Mexico (25%). Other regions make up smaller shares: Europe, Canada and other North America (13%), the Caribbean (10%), Central America (8%), South America (7%), the Middle East and North Africa (4%) and sub-Saharan Africa (5%).

Who is arriving today?

More than 1 million immigrants arrive in the U.S. each year. In 2018, the top country of origin for new immigrants coming into the U.S. was China, with 149,000 people, followed by India (129,000), Mexico (120,000) and the Philippines (46,000).

By race and ethnicity, more Asian immigrants than Hispanic immigrants have arrived in the U.S. in most years since 2009. Immigration from Latin America slowed following the Great Recession, particularly for Mexico, which has seen both decreasing flows into the United States and large flows back to Mexico in recent years.

Asians are projected to become the largest immigrant group in the U.S. by 2055, surpassing Hispanics. Pew Research Center estimates indicate that in 2065, those who identify as Asian will make up some 38% of all immigrants; as Hispanic, 31%; White, 20%; and Black, 9%.

Is the immigrant population growing?

New immigrant arrivals have fallen, mainly due to a decrease in the number of unauthorized immigrants coming to the U.S. The drop in the unauthorized immigrant population can primarily be attributed to more Mexican immigrants leaving the U.S. than coming in . 

Looking forward, immigrants and their descendants are projected to account for 88% of U.S. population growth through 2065 , assuming current immigration trends continue. In addition to new arrivals, U.S. births to immigrant parents will be important to future growth in the country’s population. In 2018, the percentage of women giving birth in the past year was higher among immigrants (7.5%) than among the U.S. born (5.7%). While U.S.-born women gave birth to more than 3 million children that year, immigrant women gave birth to about 760,000.

How many immigrants have come to the U.S. as refugees?

Since the creation of the federal Refugee Resettlement Program in 1980, about 3 million refugees have been resettled in the U.S. – more than any other country.

In fiscal 2019, a total of 30,000 refugees were resettled in the U.S. The largest origin group of refugees was the Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by Burma (Myanmar), Ukraine, Eritrea and Afghanistan. Among all refugees admitted in fiscal year 2019, 4,900 are Muslims (16%) and 23,800 are Christians (79%). Texas, Washington, New York and California resettled more than a quarter of all refugees admitted in fiscal 2018.

Where do most U.S. immigrants live?

Nearly half (45%) of the nation’s immigrants live in just three states: California (24%), Texas (11%) and Florida (10%) . California had the largest immigrant population of any state in 2018, at 10.6 million. Texas, Florida and New York had more than 4 million immigrants each.

In terms of regions, about two-thirds of immigrants lived in the West (34%) and South (34%). Roughly one-fifth lived in the Northeast (21%) and 11% were in the Midwest.

In 2018, most immigrants lived in just 20 major metropolitan areas, with the largest populations in the New York, Los Angeles and Miami metro areas. These top 20 metro areas were home to 28.7 million immigrants, or 64% of the nation’s total foreign-born population. Most of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population lived in these top metro areas as well.

How do immigrants compare with the U.S. population overall in education?

Immigrants in the U.S. as a whole have lower levels of education than the U.S.-born population. In 2018, immigrants were over three times as likely as the U.S. born to have not completed high school (27% vs. 8%). However, immigrants were just as likely as the U.S. born to have a bachelor’s degree or more (32% and 33%, respectively).

Educational attainment varies among the nation’s immigrant groups, particularly across immigrants from different regions of the world. Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are less likely to be high school graduates than the U.S. born (54% and 47%, respectively, do not have a high school diploma, vs. 8% of U.S. born). On the other hand, immigrants from every region except Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America were as likely as or more likely than U.S.-born residents to have a bachelor’s or advanced degree.

Among all immigrants, those from South Asia (71%) were the most likely to have a bachelor’s degree or more. Immigrants from Mexico (7%) and Central America (11%) were the least likely to have a bachelor’s or higher.

How many immigrants are working in the U.S.?

In 2017, about 29 million immigrants were working or looking for work in the U.S., making up some 17% of the total civilian labor force. Lawful immigrants made up the majority of the immigrant workforce, at 21.2 million. An additional 7.6 million immigrant workers are unauthorized immigrants , less than the total of the previous year and notably less than in 2007, when they were 8.2 million. They alone account for 4.6% of the civilian labor force, a dip from their peak of 5.4% in 2007. During the same period, the overall U.S. workforce grew, as did the number of U.S.-born workers and lawful immigrant workers.

Immigrants are projected to drive future growth in the U.S. working-age population through at least 2035. As the Baby Boom generation heads into retirement, immigrants and their children are expected to offset a decline in the working-age population by adding about 18 million people of working age between 2015 and 2035.

How well do immigrants speak English?

Among immigrants ages 5 and older in 2018, half (53%) are proficient English speakers – either speaking English very well (37%) or only speaking English at home (17%).

Immigrants from Mexico have the lowest rates of English proficiency (34%), followed by those from Central America (35%), East and Southeast Asia (50%) and South America (56%). Immigrants from Canada (96%), Oceania (82%), Europe (75%) and sub-Saharan Africa (74%) have the highest rates of English proficiency.  

The longer immigrants have lived in the U.S. , the greater the likelihood they are English proficient. Some 47% of immigrants living in the U.S. five years or less are proficient. By contrast, more than half (57%) of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for 20 years or more are proficient English speakers.

Among immigrants ages 5 and older, Spanish is the most commonly spoken language . Some 42% of immigrants in the U.S. speak Spanish at home. The top five languages spoken at home among immigrants outside of Spanish are English only (17%), followed by Chinese (6%), Hindi (5%), Filipino/Tagalog (4%) and French (3%).

How many immigrants have been deported recently?

Around 337,000 immigrants were deported from the U.S. in fiscal 2018 , up since 2017. Overall, the Obama administration deported about 3 million immigrants between 2009 and 2016, a significantly higher number than the 2 million immigrants deported by the Bush administration between 2001 and 2008. In 2017, the Trump administration deported 295,000 immigrants, the lowest total since 2006.

Immigrants convicted of a crime made up the less than half of deportations in 2018, the most recent year for which statistics by criminal status are available. Of the 337,000 immigrants deported in 2018, some 44% had criminal convictions and 56% were not convicted of a crime. From 2001 to 2018, a majority (60%) of immigrants deported have not been convicted of a crime.

How many immigrant apprehensions take place at the U.S.-Mexico border?

The number of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border has doubled from fiscal 2018 to fiscal 2019, from 396,579 in fiscal 2018 to 851,508 in fiscal 2019. Today, there are more apprehensions of non-Mexicans than Mexicans at the border. In fiscal 2019, apprehensions of Central Americans at the border exceeded those of Mexicans for the fourth consecutive year. The first time Mexicans did not make up the bulk of Border Patrol apprehensions was in 2014.

How do Americans view immigrants and immigration?

While immigration has been at the forefront of a national political debate, the U.S. public holds a range of views about immigrants living in the country. Overall, a majority of Americans have positive views about immigrants. About two-thirds of  Americans (66%) say immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents,” while about a quarter (24%) say immigrants burden the country by taking jobs, housing and health care.

Yet these views vary starkly by political affiliation. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 88% think immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talents, and just 8% say they are a burden. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 41% say immigrants strengthen the country, while 44% say they burden it.

Americans were divided on future levels of immigration. A quarter said legal immigration to the U.S. should be decreased (24%), while one-third (38%) said immigration should be kept at its present level and almost another third (32%) said immigration should be increased.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published May 3, 2017, and written by Gustavo López, a former research analyst focusing on Hispanics, immigration and demographics; and Kristen Bialik, a former research assistant.

CORRECTION (Sept. 21, 2020): An update to the methodology used to tabulate figures in the chart “Among new immigrant arrivals, Asians outnumber Hispanics” has changed all figures from 2001 and 2012. This new methodology has also allowed the inclusion of the figure from 2000. Furthermore, the earlier version of the chart incorrectly showed the  partial  year shares of Hispanic and Asian recent arrivals in 2015; the corrected  complete  year shares are 31% and 36%, respectively.

• Immigrant Populations
• Immigration & Migration
• Unauthorized Immigration

Abby Budiman is a temporary research associate focusing on race and ethnicity research at Pew Research Center

Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty

Latinos’ views on the migrant situation at the u.s.-mexico border, key facts about the nation’s 47.9 million black americans, key facts about the wealth of immigrant households during the covid-19 pandemic, what we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the u.s., most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy