Immigration Reform, A Complex Imperative

Richard Wermske 01 June 2023 Hits: 411

This informative essay provides an in-depth exploration of the multifaceted issue of comprehensive immigration reform, with a particular focus on the diverse demographics involved. Each demographic, from women to children, from the elderly to those with disabilities, from indigenous peoples to racial and ethnic minorities, and many others, faces unique challenges in the immigration process. These challenges, along with potential solutions, are discussed in detail.

I also delve into the differing perspectives of conservatives and liberals on each demographic, highlighting areas of common ground and contention. The conclusion underscores the importance of addressing the unique needs of each demographic in immigration reform, and calls for a unified approach to this national challenge. The essay is grounded in scholarly research, with each assertion supported by credible sources.

I. Introduction

The issue of immigration reform is a complex and multifaceted one, touching on a myriad of social, economic, and political dimensions. It is a topic that has been at the forefront of national discourse, sparking heated debates and eliciting divergent views from conservatives and liberals alike (Crouch, 2009). While this paper is primarily about issues concerning comprehensive immigration reform for the United States of America, it draws upon scholarship, research, and studies from around the world. Additionally, I have taken the liberty to, on occasion, reiterate points to facilitate the ability of each section to stand alone. This is most often seen in the ideological positions taken by either or both sides of an issue or in the form of summary I've tried to add at the end of each section.

At the heart of this issue lies the question of how to navigate the delicate balance between upholding the principles of justice and human rights, maintaining national security, and fostering economic growth. This balance becomes even more intricate when considering the diverse demographics involved in the immigration process. Each demographic group brings with it unique challenges and needs, necessitating a nuanced and comprehensive approach to immigration reform.

Conservatives often advocate for stricter immigration policies, emphasizing the importance of national security and economic stability. They argue that unchecked immigration can lead to job displacement for native citizens, strain public resources, and pose potential security risks (Crouch, 2009).

On the other hand, liberals tend to favor more lenient immigration policies, highlighting the moral imperative to provide refuge for those fleeing persecution and the economic benefits of a diverse and dynamic workforce. They argue that immigrants contribute significantly to the economy, enrich the cultural fabric of the nation, and that the U.S. has a long-standing tradition of being a beacon of hope for those seeking a better life (Crouch, 2009).

In the ensuing sections, we will delve into the specific challenges and needs of various demographic groups involved in the immigration process. These groups include women, children and unaccompanied minors, elderly individuals, individuals with disabilities, indigenous peoples, racial and ethnic minorities, religious minorities, victims of trafficking, victims of domestic violence, refugees and asylum seekers, low-skilled workers, high-skilled workers, LGBTQ+ individuals, individuals with health issues, veterans and military families, stateless individuals, individuals in mixed-status families, survivors of torture, individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and DACA recipients (Dreamers).

Each of these groups represents a unique facet of the immigration experience, and understanding their specific circumstances is crucial in crafting effective and equitable immigration policies.

II. Women in Immigration

The journey of women through the labyrinth of immigration is a journey fraught with unique challenges, a journey that often treads the path of gender-based violence and discrimination. Women, as they navigate the complex terrain of immigration, often find themselves at the intersection of gender, race, and class, a place where they are disproportionately affected by the policies and practices of immigration (Menjívar & Salcido, 2002).

Often compounded by the intersectionality of their identities, women face gender-based violence and discrimination, which are further intensified by their status as immigrants. This intersectionality of gender and immigration status creates a unique set of challenges that are often overlooked in broader discussions of immigration (Crenshaw, 1991). As Nash (2008) and Lugones (2008) argue, the intersectionality of oppression and privilege can shape women's experiences in complex ways. For example, a woman who is an immigrant may face oppression due to her immigration status, but may also experience privilege due to her gender in certain contexts. Understanding these complexities is crucial for developing effective policies and interventions to support women in the immigration process.

The experiences of women in the immigration process are often marked by gender-based violence, a term that encompasses a wide range of abuses, from physical and sexual violence to psychological harm and economic deprivation, all of which are deeply rooted in gender inequality. This violence often begins in their home countries, continues during their journey, and persists even after they have reached their destination. It is a violence that is often invisible, hidden behind the walls of silence and shame, and exacerbated by the fear of deportation and the lack of legal protections (Menjívar & Salcido, 2002).

Discrimination, too, is a constant companion of women in the immigration process. They face discrimination not only because of their immigration status but also because of their gender. This discrimination manifests itself in various ways, from the denial of basic rights and services to the marginalization and exclusion from the labor market. It is a discrimination that is often institutionalized, embedded in the laws and policies of immigration, and perpetuated by the stereotypes and prejudices of society (Erez, Adelman, & Gregory, 2009). Additionally, they may face discrimination in accessing essential services, such as healthcare and legal assistance, due to language barriers, lack of knowledge about available resources, or fear of deportation (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994).

The conservative and liberal positions on women in immigration present a complex and nuanced picture. Conservatives often emphasize the importance of law and order, advocating for strict immigration controls and enforcement measures. They argue that these measures are necessary to protect the national security and economic interests of the country. However, these measures often fail to take into account the specific vulnerabilities and needs of women, leading to policies and practices that exacerbate their marginalization and victimization (Phillips & Dustin, 2004).

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to focus on the human rights of immigrants, advocating for policies that respect their dignity and protect their rights. They argue for the recognition of the specific vulnerabilities and needs of women in the immigration process, and for the implementation of measures that address gender-based violence and discrimination. However, these positions often face resistance from those who view immigration through the lens of national security and economic interests, leading to a contentious and polarizing debate (Phillips & Dustin, 2004).

The challenges faced by women in the immigration process are multifaceted and deeply rooted in the intersectionality of their identities. This highlight the need for a gender-sensitive approach to immigration, one that recognizes the specific vulnerabilities and needs of women, addresses the root causes of gender-based violence and discrimination, and ensures their rights. Policy consideration must include not only legal and policy reforms, but also social and cultural changes to eliminate gender-based violence and discrimination, and to ensure that women immigrants are treated with dignity and respect.

III. Children and Unaccompanied Minors

Children and unaccompanied minors represent a particularly vulnerable demographic within the immigration process. Their vulnerabilities are amplified by their age, lack of adult guidance, and the traumatic experiences they often endure during their journey (Wiese & Burhorst, 2007). The need for special protections for the young is undeniable (Rosen, 2018).

A study by Wiese and Burhorst (2007) compared unaccompanied refugee minors (URMs) with refugee minors accompanied by families. The study found that sexual abuse was more frequent among unaccompanied minors (36%) compared to the group of children with families (7%). Sixty-seven percent of the unaccompanied refugee girls and 14% of the boys had experienced sexual abuse. Extreme traumatic events, such as having witnessed the killing of parents, living on the streets, or being kidnapped and living with rebels, were experienced by 6% of the children with families and 25% of unaccompanied children. Unaccompanied refugee minors were more likely to have been victim to four or more traumatic events than children and adolescents with families (Wiese & Burhorst, 2007).

The psychological impact of these experiences is profound. URMs showed a significantly higher prevalence of depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, and psychosis when compared to minors with families (Wiese & Burhorst, 2007). The absence of adult guidance and protection leaves them exposed to the harsh realities of the journey, making them easy targets for human traffickers and other unscrupulous elements (Rosen, 2018). These findings underscore the urgent need for special protections and support for this demographic.

Moreover, the living situation of these children and adolescents significantly affects their mental health. Migrant adolescents experienced an average of 3.64 traumatic events, significantly more than non-migrant adolescents (Derluyn et al., 2009). Girls displayed more anxiety symptoms, more emotional problems, and higher avoidance scores, while boys had more problems in pro-social behavior (Derluyn et al., 2009).

In addition to the psychological trauma, these children and adolescents also face practical challenges. The study by Bean et al. (2007) found that URMs who reported a mental health care need also displayed higher levels of emotional distress when compared to Dutch adolescents who reported a similar need for mental health care. Guardians and teachers were able to detect emotional distress and mental health care needs in only a small proportion (30%) of URMs. The referral of URMs to mental health care services seems to be strongly influenced by the need and emotional distress as observed by guardians. Consequently, 48.7% of the total sample of URMs reported that their need for mental health care was not sufficiently met (Bean et al., 2007).

The conservative and liberal positions on children and unaccompanied minors in immigration are starkly different. Conservatives often view these children through a lens of skepticism, questioning their age and motives. This skepticism is often fueled by concerns about security and the potential for abuse of immigration systems. The portrayal of these children in conservative media often leans towards suspicion and fear, with narratives suggesting that these children pose a threat to the security and economic stability of the host country (Rosen, 2018).

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to focus on the humanitarian aspects of the issue. They advocate for the protection and support of these vulnerable children, emphasizing their rights and the moral obligation of the host country to provide refuge. The liberal narrative often highlights the plight of these children, portraying them as victims of circumstances beyond their control who deserve compassion and assistance (Rosen, 2018).

However, it is important to note that these positions are not monolithic and there is a range of views within each ideological camp. The discourse around children and unaccompanied minors in immigration is complex and multifaceted, reflecting the broader complexities of immigration policy and practice.

Children and unaccompanied minors in the immigration process face unique challenges and vulnerabilities. They require special protections and support to address their specific health and social needs, as well as access to mental health care services.

IV. Elderly Individuals

The journey of an immigrant is a path laden with challenges, and for the elderly, these challenges are often amplified by their specific health and social needs. The elderly, a demographic often overlooked in the discourse on immigration, bring with them a unique set of circumstances that require careful consideration and understanding (Berkman et al., 2020).

Elderly immigrants often grapple with health issues, some of which are exacerbated by the stress and strain of immigration. Chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease are common among this demographic, and the stress of immigration can exacerbate these conditions (Berkman et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the vulnerability of elderly immigrants, with higher rates of infection and complications observed among this group (Berkman et al., 2020). The physical environment and limitations in the ability to self-isolate may also impact COVID-19 risks for older adults. Many older adults live in long-term care facilities, which are high-risk settings for COVID-19 outbreaks. Even if older adults live alone, many rely on visiting caregivers. Many older adults cannot drive and rely on public transportation, which was theorized to be a primary driver in COVID-19 propagation early in the pandemic (Berkman et al., 2020).

In addition to health needs, elderly immigrants also have specific social needs. The process of immigration can be isolating, particularly for those who leave behind established social networks in their home countries. Language barriers can further compound this isolation, making it difficult for elderly immigrants to access services and form new social connections. The rapid transition to telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic potentially limits access to care for older adults, immigrants, and people experiencing unstable housing (Berkman et al., 2020).

The conservative and liberal positions on elderly individuals in immigration often diverge, with conservatives typically advocating for stricter immigration policies and liberals advocating for more inclusive and supportive policies. Conservatives may argue that elderly immigrants, particularly those with health issues, place a burden on the healthcare system. They may also express concerns about the capacity of social services to meet the needs of an aging immigrant population.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to focus on the human rights aspect of the issue. They argue that elderly immigrants, like all individuals, have a right to migrate and that they should be provided with the necessary support and services upon arrival. They advocate for policies that address the specific health and social needs of elderly immigrants, such as accessible healthcare services and social programs that promote integration and social connection.

The needs and challenges of elderly immigrants are multifaceted and require a nuanced understanding. Addressing these needs and challenges is not only a matter of policy but also a matter of empathy and respect for the dignity of all individuals, regardless of their age or immigration status.

V. Individuals with Disabilities

The journey of immigrants is fraught with challenges, but for those with disabilities, the path can be even more arduous. The intersection of immigration and disability presents a unique set of difficulties that require additional support and accommodations (Mirza & Heinemann, 2012).

The challenges faced by immigrants with disabilities are multifaceted. They may encounter physical barriers, such as inaccessible transportation or housing. They may also face systemic barriers, such as discriminatory immigration policies or a lack of disability services in their native language (Mirza & Heinemann, 2012). These challenges can be compounded by social stigma and isolation, as immigrants with disabilities may be marginalized within both the disability community and their own cultural community (Mirza & Heinemann, 2012).

Despite these challenges, immigrants with disabilities demonstrate remarkable resilience and resourcefulness. They often draw on their personal strengths, cultural values, and community networks to navigate the immigration process and establish a new life in a foreign land (Mirza & Heinemann, 2012). However, these individual efforts are not enough. There is a pressing need for systemic changes to better support immigrants with disabilities.

In the realm of immigration policy, there is a need for more inclusive and equitable policies. This includes eliminating discriminatory policies that exclude people with disabilities from immigrating and providing reasonable accommodations in the immigration process for people with disabilities (Mirza & Heinemann, 2012).

In the realm of disability services, there is a need for more culturally competent services. This includes providing disability services in multiple languages and training service providers to understand and respect the cultural beliefs and practices of diverse immigrant communities (Mirza & Heinemann, 2012).

The conservative and liberal perspectives on this issue may differ. Conservatives may emphasize the importance of individual responsibility and self-sufficiency, arguing that immigrants should be able to support themselves without relying on public services (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014). They may also express concerns about the potential costs of providing additional services for immigrants with disabilities.

Liberals, on the other hand, may emphasize the importance of social justice and equal opportunity, arguing that society has a responsibility to support all members, including immigrants with disabilities (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014). They may advocate for more inclusive immigration policies and more robust disability services for immigrants.

The issue of immigration and disability is complex and multifaceted. It requires a nuanced understanding of both the challenges faced by immigrants with disabilities and the systemic changes needed to support them. By engaging in this conversation, we can work towards a more inclusive and equitable society for all.

VI. Indigenous Peoples

The journey of indigenous peoples through the labyrinth of immigration is a tale of resilience and struggle, a testament to their enduring spirit. Indigenous immigrants, like all immigrants, seek better opportunities, safety, or a chance to reunite with their families. Yet, their journey is often marked by unique challenges, including language barriers and discrimination (Hepburn, 2009).

Language, the vessel of culture and identity, often becomes a barrier for indigenous immigrants. Many indigenous languages are not widely spoken or understood outside their communities, making communication in a new country challenging. This language barrier can limit access to resources, services, and opportunities, and can lead to isolation and marginalization. Moreover, indigenous immigrants often face discrimination based on their unique cultural practices and identities. This discrimination can manifest in various forms, from social exclusion to unequal treatment in the immigration process.

The conservative and liberal perspectives on the issue of indigenous peoples in immigration are as varied as the communities themselves. Some conservatives, prioritizing economic considerations and cultural preservation, may advocate for stricter immigration policies. They may argue that unrestricted immigration could strain public resources and disrupt the cultural fabric of the host country (Jupp, 2003). On the other hand, liberals often champion multiculturalism and diversity, arguing that all immigrants, including indigenous peoples, enrich the host country culturally and economically. They may advocate for inclusive immigration policies that respect and accommodate the unique needs of indigenous immigrants (Lahav, 2004).

However, the issue of indigenous peoples in immigration does not fit neatly into the conservative-liberal dichotomy. As Hepburn (2009) points out, immigration cuts across the usual left-right ideological divisions. For instance, some conservatives may recognize the economic benefits of immigrant labor, while some liberals may express concern about the potential impact of immigration on the working class. Moreover, the positions of political parties and individuals can evolve over time, influenced by various factors such as changing demographics, economic conditions, and public sentiment.

The issue of indigenous peoples in immigration is complex and multifaceted, requiring thoughtful and nuanced approaches. It is crucial to acknowledge and address the unique challenges faced by indigenous immigrants, from language barriers to discrimination. At the same time, it is important to foster a respectful and informed dialogue about immigration, one that transcends ideological divides and prioritizes the dignity and rights of all individuals.

VII. Racial and Ethnic Minorities

Discrimination faced by racial and ethnic minorities is a deeply rooted issue that permeates many aspects of society, including immigration. These individuals often face a double burden, grappling with the challenges of being both an immigrant and a member of a racial or ethnic minority. The discrimination they face can manifest in various forms, including racial profiling, language barriers, and limited access to resources and opportunities (Bowleg, 2013).

Addressing the unique cultural needs of these individuals is crucial to fostering an inclusive and equitable society. This includes acknowledging and respecting their cultural heritage, providing language support, and ensuring equal access to resources and opportunities. It is also important to address the intersectionality of their identities, as their experiences are shaped not only by their race or ethnicity but also by their immigrant status (Bowleg, 2013).

The conservative and liberal positions on racial and ethnic minorities in immigration are often polarized. Conservatives tend to emphasize the importance of assimilation and the preservation of the dominant culture. They often argue for stricter immigration policies, citing concerns about national security and economic stability. On the other hand, liberals typically advocate for multiculturalism and diversity. They often push for more inclusive immigration policies, arguing that diversity enriches society and that all individuals, regardless of their race or ethnicity, should have the opportunity to contribute to the country (Bowleg, 2013).

These ideological positions are not monolithic and there is a wide range of views within each political ideology. Moreover, the experiences and needs of racial and ethnic minorities in immigration are diverse and complex, and they cannot be fully encapsulated by these broad political positions.

VIII. Religious Minorities

Religious minorities, those who practice faiths outside of the majority, often find themselves in the crucible of persecution in their home countries, a reality that propels them towards the promise of sanctuary in foreign lands (Mondon & Winter, 2017). The journey, however, is not without its own set of tribulations. The immigration process, a labyrinth of legalities and bureaucracies, can often be a site of discrimination against these individuals. Their faith, a beacon in their lives, can become a marker of difference, a point of contention, and a reason for prejudice.

The persecution faced by religious minorities in their home countries is a complex issue, often rooted in deep-seated societal, cultural, and political dynamics. In many instances, these individuals are marginalized, their rights violated, and their lives threatened because of their religious beliefs (Mondon & Winter, 2017). The gravity of their plight is such that it necessitates their flight, their search for a haven where they can freely practice their faith without fear.

However, the discrimination they face does not end at the borders of their home countries. The immigration process itself can be a site of discrimination. Religious minorities often face bias and prejudice, their faith viewed with suspicion and mistrust. This discrimination can manifest in various ways, from the processing of their immigration applications to their treatment at immigration detention centers (Mondon & Winter, 2017).

The issue of religious minorities in immigration is a contentious one, with conservatives and liberals often holding divergent views. Conservatives, with their emphasis on national security and cultural cohesion, may advocate for stringent immigration policies, which can disproportionately affect religious minorities (Mondon & Winter, 2017). Liberals, on the other hand, with their focus on human rights and diversity, may champion for the protection and inclusion of religious minorities in immigration policies.

It is essential to note that these positions are not monolithic and can vary within each political ideology. There are conservatives who may support the rights of religious minorities and liberals who may hold reservations. The issue of religious minorities in immigration, like many social issues, is complex and multifaceted, requiring nuanced understanding and thoughtful dialogue.

IX. Victims of Trafficking

The plight of victims of trafficking is a haunting testament to the darkest corners of humanity, where the dignity and rights of individuals are stripped away, leaving them vulnerable and exploited. Trafficking is a crime that involves the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of people through force, fraud, or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). Men, women, and children of all ages and from all backgrounds can become victims of this crime, which occurs in every region of the world. The traffickers often use violence or fraudulent employment agencies and fake promises of education and job opportunities to trick and coerce their victims.

The victims of trafficking, particularly those trafficked for sexual exploitation, endure a myriad of abuses that leave deep physical and psychological scars. A study by Zimmerman et al. (2008) found that most of the trafficked women they interviewed had experienced physical or sexual violence while being trafficked. The trauma from these experiences often results in severe mental health problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. The duration of trafficking also plays a significant role in the severity of these mental health issues, with longer periods of trafficking associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety.

Addressing the needs of trafficked individuals requires a comprehensive approach that not only focuses on their immediate physical and psychological needs but also on their long-term recovery and reintegration into society. This includes providing them with safe housing, medical care, psychological support, legal assistance, and opportunities for education and employment. However, the provision of these services often falls short, leaving many victims without the support they need to recover and rebuild their lives.

The issue of trafficking is a contentious one, with differing views between conservatives and liberals. While both sides agree on the need to combat trafficking and provide support for victims, they often disagree on the methods and policies to achieve these goals. Conservatives tend to emphasize stricter immigration controls and law enforcement measures to prevent trafficking, while liberals often advocate for broader social and economic policies to address the root causes of trafficking, such as poverty, inequality, and gender discrimination. Despite these differences, it is crucial for all parties to work together to find effective solutions to this pressing issue.

X. Victims of Domestic Violence

In the realm of shadows, where the victims of domestic violence dwell, the need for legal protections and social services is paramount. The journey of an immigrant is fraught with challenges, but for those who have experienced domestic violence, the path is even more treacherous (Menjívar & Salcido, 2002). The trauma they carry, like a heavy burden, is often invisible to the naked eye, but it is as real as the ground they tread upon. The need for specialized support services, such as trauma-informed care and safe housing, is critical to their healing and integration into their new communities (Erez, Adelman & Gregory, 2009).

Addressing the unique needs of these individuals requires a nuanced understanding of their experiences. The intersection of immigration and domestic violence creates a complex web of issues that must be navigated with care. Language barriers, cultural differences, fear of deportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources can all serve as obstacles to seeking help (Raj & Silverman, 2002). It is therefore crucial that support services are culturally sensitive, easily accessible, and provided in a variety of languages.

The conservative and liberal positions on victims of domestic violence in immigration are as varied as the colors of the rainbow. On one hand, conservatives often emphasize the importance of law and order, advocating for stringent immigration policies that may inadvertently make it more difficult for victims of domestic violence to seek help (Gleeson, 2016). They may argue that providing special protections for these individuals could potentially open the door to fraudulent claims, thereby undermining the integrity of the immigration system.

On the other hand, liberals tend to prioritize human rights and social justice, advocating for policies that protect and support victims of domestic violence regardless of their immigration status (Menjívar & Salcido, 2002). They argue that everyone, regardless of where they were born or how they arrived in the country, has the right to live free from violence and fear. To this end, they support measures such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which allows victims of domestic violence to apply for immigration relief independently of their abusers (Erez, Adelman & Gregory, 2009).

In the end, the question of how to best support victims of domestic violence in immigration is not just a matter of policy, but of humanity. It is a question that asks us to look beyond the borders of our own experiences, and to see the pain of others. It is a question that demands empathy, compassion, and a commitment to justice.

XI. Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Refugees and asylum seekers are individuals who have been forced to flee their home countries due to persecution, war, or violence. They seek refuge in other countries, hoping to find safety and a chance to rebuild their lives (UNHCR, 2018).

The legal and social needs of these individuals are vast and complex. They often arrive in host countries with little more than the clothes on their backs, having left behind their homes, possessions, and often, their families. They require legal protection to ensure their rights are upheld and they are not forcibly returned to the dangerous situations they fled. They also need social services to help them integrate into their new communities, learn the language, find employment, and access healthcare and education (UNHCR, 2018).

Addressing the unique needs of refugees and asylum seekers is a complex task. It requires an understanding of the trauma they have experienced and the challenges they face in their new environments. It also necessitates a commitment to providing them with the resources they need to rebuild their lives. This includes access to legal representation, mental health services, language classes, job training programs, and other forms of support (UNHCR, 2018).

The conservative and liberal positions on refugees and asylum seekers often diverge significantly. Conservatives tend to prioritize national security and economic considerations, arguing for stricter immigration controls and more rigorous vetting of asylum seekers. They often express concerns about the potential for terrorists to exploit the asylum system and the economic burden of supporting refugees (Thomas, 2008).

Liberals, on the other hand, emphasize human rights and humanitarian obligations. They advocate for more generous asylum policies and greater support for refugees. They argue that welcoming refugees is not only a moral imperative but also beneficial to host countries, as refugees can contribute to the economy and enrich the cultural fabric of their new communities (Blake, 2013).

However, it is important to note that these positions are not monolithic and there is a range of views within each political orientation. Moreover, the discourse on refugees and asylum seekers is often influenced by broader political, economic, and social contexts, which can shift over time (Thomas, 2008; Blake, 2013).

In conclusion, addressing the needs of refugees and asylum seekers is a complex and multifaceted challenge. It requires a commitment to upholding human rights, a willingness to invest resources, and a nuanced understanding of the experiences and needs of these individuals. It also necessitates a balanced and informed discourse that transcends partisan divides and prioritizes the dignity and wellbeing of refugees and asylum seekers.

XII. Low-Skilled Workers

Low-skilled workers, often the backbone of an economy, face a unique set of challenges in the immigration process. These individuals, often seeking better opportunities, are frequently subjected to exploitation, including low wages, poor working conditions, and limited legal protections (Dustmann, Frattini, and Preston 2013; Nickell and Saleheen 2015).

The exploitation of low-skilled workers is not a new phenomenon, but the scale and severity of the issue in the context of immigration are particularly concerning. The economic literature suggests that low-skilled workers are more likely to experience wage suppression as a result of increased immigration. For instance, Dustmann, Frattini, and Preston's estimates imply a 1.0 percent wage decline for native workers in the bottom decile of the wage distribution due to the level of immigration from the European Union between 2004 and 2015. Similarly, Nickell and Saleheen's estimates imply a 0.7 percent decline in wages in semi-skilled and unskilled service sectors (Wadsworth et al. 2016).

The conservative perspective on this issue often emphasizes the need for stricter immigration controls to protect domestic low-skilled workers from wage suppression and job competition. They argue that limiting the influx of low-skilled workers can help to improve wages and working conditions for domestic workers in similar roles.

On the other hand, liberals often focus on the need for stronger legal protections for immigrant workers. They argue that exploitation is a result of inadequate labor laws and enforcement, rather than immigration itself. Liberals tend to advocate for policies that protect all workers, regardless of their immigration status, and ensure fair wages and safe working conditions (Dustmann, Frattini, and Preston 2013; Nickell and Saleheen 2015).

In conclusion, the issue of low-skilled workers in immigration is a complex one, with valid concerns on both sides of the political spectrum. It is clear, however, that any effective solution must address the exploitation of these workers and ensure that they are afforded the same protections and opportunities as their high-skilled counterparts.

XIII. High-Skilled Workers

In the realm of immigration, high-skilled workers are a demographic that carries a significant weight in the economic landscape of the host country. Their contributions are manifold, ranging from technological advancements to the enhancement of the host country's global competitiveness (Chiswick, 2005). However, their journey is not without challenges. The immigration process for high-skilled workers often involves navigating complex visa systems, dealing with lengthy waiting periods, and facing the possibility of family separation (Czaika and Parsons, 2017).

The economic contributions of high-skilled workers are substantial. They bring in specialized knowledge and skills that can fill gaps in the labor market, boost innovation, and contribute to economic growth (Chiswick, 2005). However, their journey is often fraught with challenges. The immigration process for high-skilled workers is often complex and lengthy, involving intricate visa systems and long waiting periods. Moreover, these workers often face the possibility of family separation, adding a personal and emotional dimension to their immigration journey (Czaika and Parsons, 2017).

The conservative and liberal positions on high-skilled workers in immigration differ significantly. Conservatives tend to emphasize the economic benefits of high-skilled immigration, advocating for policies that attract such workers to boost the economy and fill gaps in the labor market (Lockwood, 2018). They often support merit-based immigration systems that prioritize individuals with high skills and qualifications. On the other hand, liberals also recognize the economic contributions of high-skilled workers but place a greater emphasis on the human rights aspect of immigration. They advocate for comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the needs of all immigrants, including high-skilled workers, while also ensuring family unity and protection for vulnerable groups (Lockwood, 2018).

XIV. LGBTQ+ Individuals

The journey of LGBTQ+ individuals through the labyrinth of immigration is a path fraught with peril, a journey that is often marked by fear, ignorance, and the threat of violence. The challenges faced by LGBTQ+ immigrants are unique and multifaceted, often exacerbated by the intersection of their sexual orientation or gender identity with their immigrant status (Gonzalez-Sobrino, 2021).

In many parts of the world, LGBTQ+ individuals face severe persecution, including imprisonment, torture, and even death, solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These individuals often flee their home countries in search of safety and acceptance, only to encounter further discrimination and hardship in the immigration process (Narkowicz & Pędziwiatr, 2016).

The discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ immigrants is not limited to the immigration process itself. Once in their new country, these individuals often face continued discrimination, hate, and physical and sexual abuse. The recognition of their marriage or relationship status can also be a significant issue, as not all countries recognize same-sex marriages or relationships, which can impact immigration status and access to benefits (Gonzalez-Sobrino, 2021).

The conservative and liberal positions on LGBTQ+ immigrants vary significantly. Conservative viewpoints often focus on traditional family values and may not fully recognize or support the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. This can result in policies that do not adequately protect LGBTQ+ immigrants from discrimination or that do not recognize their unique needs (Narkowicz & Pędziwiatr, 2016).

On the other hand, liberal positions generally advocate for the rights and protections of LGBTQ+ individuals, including immigrants. These positions often support policies that protect LGBTQ+ immigrants from discrimination, recognize same-sex marriages and relationships, and address the unique needs of these individuals. However, even within liberal circles, there can be a lack of understanding and support for the specific challenges faced by LGBTQ+ immigrants (Gonzalez-Sobrino, 2021).

The plight of LGBTQ+ immigrants is a complex issue that requires a nuanced understanding and approach. It is essential to recognize and address the unique challenges faced by these individuals and to ensure that they are protected from discrimination and violence. Both conservative and liberal positions play a significant role in shaping the experiences and outcomes of LGBTQ+ immigrants, and it is crucial to continue the dialogue and advocacy on this issue.

XV. Individuals with Health Issues

Immigrants with health issues face unique challenges in accessing healthcare and other support services. These challenges are often exacerbated by the intersection of their immigrant status and their health condition, creating a complex web of issues that need to be addressed in a comprehensive and compassionate manner (Bivins, 2017).

One of the most pressing issues for immigrants with health issues is the access to healthcare. Many immigrants, particularly those who are undocumented, face significant barriers in accessing healthcare services. These barriers can include language and cultural differences, lack of knowledge about the healthcare system, and fear of deportation or other legal consequences (Bivins, 2017). Additionally, immigrants with health issues may also face discrimination and stigma, both within the healthcare system and in the broader society, further complicating their access to care (Bivins, 2017).

Another critical issue for immigrants with health issues is the need for quarantine, particularly in the context of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Quarantine can be a deeply isolating experience, and immigrants may face additional challenges in accessing support services during this time. Furthermore, the enforcement of quarantine measures can also raise ethical and human rights concerns, particularly if immigrants are disproportionately targeted or if the measures are enforced in a punitive or discriminatory manner (Welshman, 2006).

The issue of healthcare for immigrants with health issues is a contentious one, with conservative and liberal positions often diverging significantly. Conservatives often argue that immigrants should be responsible for their own healthcare costs, and that the state should not bear the burden of providing healthcare for immigrants. They may also argue that immigrants with health issues pose a public health risk, and that stringent measures such as quarantine are necessary to protect the broader population (Bivins, 2017).

On the other hand, liberals often argue that healthcare is a human right, and that all individuals, regardless of their immigration status, should have access to healthcare. They may also argue that immigrants contribute significantly to the economy and society, and that providing them with healthcare is not only a moral obligation, but also a pragmatic one. Furthermore, liberals may argue that public health measures such as quarantine should be implemented in a fair and equitable manner, and that immigrants should not be disproportionately targeted or stigmatized (Welshman, 2006).

Addressing the healthcare needs of immigrants with health issues is a complex and multifaceted issue, requiring a nuanced and compassionate approach. It is crucial to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their immigration status, have access to healthcare and other support services, and that public health measures are implemented in a fair and equitable manner.

XVI. Veterans and Military Families

In the realm of the unseen, the unheard, and the unspoken, there exists a group of individuals who have served this nation with valor and honor, only to find themselves entangled in the intricate web of immigration. These are the immigrants who have served in the U.S. military and their families, their sacrifices often overlooked, their needs often unmet (Simone, 2004).

The unique needs of these individuals are manifold. They are not just veterans; they are immigrants, too. They straddle two worlds, two identities, and two sets of challenges. They have served this nation, yet they often find themselves navigating the labyrinthine immigration system, their service to the country a footnote in their immigration story. They are the embodiment of the American dream, yet they are often denied the very rights and protections they fought to uphold (Simone, 2004).

The children of these service members, especially those who have lost a parent in service, bear the weight of their parents' sacrifice. They are the gold star families, the children left behind, their lives forever marked by the loss of their parent. They too have unique needs, their lives intertwined with the military and immigration systems. They are American in all but paperwork, their lives a testament to the ultimate sacrifice their parents made for this country (Simone, 2004).

The conservative and liberal positions on veterans and military families often diverge, reflecting the broader ideological divide on immigration. Conservatives often emphasize the rule of law, arguing for strict enforcement of immigration laws, even when it comes to veterans and their families. They argue that everyone, including veterans, should follow the legal process to gain citizenship. On the other hand, liberals argue for a more compassionate approach, advocating for policies that recognize the unique sacrifices made by immigrant veterans and their families. They argue for pathways to citizenship for these individuals, recognizing their service to the country as a testament to their commitment to the American ideals (Mullan et al., 2005).

The plight of immigrant veterans and their families is a stark reminder of the complexities of immigration. It is a testament to the fact that immigration is not just a legal issue, but a human one. It is about individuals who have served this nation, who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and who deserve to be recognized, not just as immigrants, but as Americans.

XVII. Stateless Individuals

Stateless individuals, those who are not considered as nationals by any state, face unique challenges that are often overlooked in the broader discourse on immigration. These individuals, who exist in a legal limbo, are often denied basic rights and services, and are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse (UNHCR, 2023). The predicament of stateless individuals is further complicated by the fact that their status often intersects with other marginalized identities, such as being a refugee or an asylum seeker (Blitz, 2011).

The geopolitical implications of statelessness are significant. Stateless individuals can be used as pawns in international relations, with states either refusing to acknowledge their existence or using their plight to exert pressure on other countries (Brookings Institution, 2023). This has led to calls for special considerations for stateless individuals in immigration policies, including the recognition of their unique circumstances and the provision of pathways to citizenship.

The conservative and liberal positions on stateless individuals are often polarized. Conservatives tend to prioritize national security and economic considerations, arguing that stateless individuals should be dealt with through stringent immigration controls and policies that prioritize the interests of the host country (Shaw, 2017). They often express concerns about the potential for stateless individuals to be exploited by criminal or terrorist organizations, and argue for strict vetting processes.

Liberals, on the other hand, emphasize human rights and humanitarian considerations. They argue for policies that recognize the unique challenges faced by stateless individuals and provide them with legal protections and pathways to citizenship (Shaw, 2017). Liberals often point to international law and human rights conventions as the basis for these policies, and argue that addressing statelessness is a moral imperative.

The issue of stateless individuals is a complex and multifaceted one, requiring nuanced and thoughtful policy responses. It is crucial that these responses take into account the unique challenges faced by stateless individuals, as well as the geopolitical implications of their status. Both conservative and liberal perspectives offer valuable insights into this issue, and a balanced approach that incorporates elements of both could lead to more effective and equitable policies.

XVIII. Individuals in Mixed-Status Families

In the intricate tapestry of human existence, mixed-status families, where some members are citizens or legal residents and others are undocumented, represent a unique thread. They face a complex set of challenges that are often overlooked in the broader discourse on immigration.

The unique challenges faced by mixed-status families are multifaceted. They are often caught in a liminal space, a twilight zone between legality and illegality, where the fear of family separation is a constant specter (Dreby, 2012). The fear of deportation of undocumented family members can lead to psychological stress and economic instability. The children in these families, often citizens by birth, live with the constant fear and anxiety of their parents' deportation, which can have long-term effects on their mental health and academic performance (Dreby, 2012; Yoshikawa, 2011).

Addressing the unique needs of mixed-status families requires a nuanced understanding of their lived experiences. It involves not only legal solutions but also social and psychological support. The provision of mental health services, particularly for children, is crucial. Furthermore, policies that protect families from separation due to deportation can alleviate some of the stress these families face (Yoshikawa, 2011).

The conservative and liberal positions on individuals in mixed-status families often diverge significantly. Conservatives tend to emphasize the rule of law and the need for individuals to follow the legal process for immigration. They argue that allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country, even if they have family members who are citizens or legal residents, undermines the immigration system (Hollifield, 1992; Joppke, 1998b).

On the other hand, liberals often focus on the human rights aspect and the need to keep families together. They argue for policies that would allow undocumented immigrants with citizen or legal resident family members to gain legal status. They emphasize the importance of providing support and protection for these families, particularly the children who are often caught in the crossfire of immigration policies (Hollifield, 1992; Joppke, 1998b).

The plight of mixed-status families underscores the need for a more compassionate and comprehensive approach to immigration policy. It is a complex issue that requires balancing the rule of law with the fundamental human right to family unity.

XIX. Survivors of Torture

Survivors of torture who find themselves in the immigration process are a group that requires special protections and support. The trauma they have endured often leaves deep psychological scars that can affect their ability to navigate the immigration process and integrate into a new society. The unique needs of these individuals are complex and multifaceted, requiring a comprehensive approach that addresses both their mental and physical health needs (Silove, Ventevogel, & Rees, 2017).

Torture survivors often suffer from a range of mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. These conditions can be exacerbated by the stress and uncertainty of the immigration process. Therefore, mental health support, including access to counseling and psychotherapy, is crucial for this group. In addition, survivors of torture often have physical health needs resulting from the abuse they have endured. Access to medical care, including specialized treatment for injuries resulting from torture, is therefore a critical component of their care (Silove, Ventevogel, & Rees, 2017).

Addressing the unique needs of torture survivors also requires a consideration of their social and economic needs. Many survivors of torture are socially isolated and may struggle to find employment due to physical and mental health issues. Social programs that foster community connections and provide support for self-sufficiency can play a crucial role in their recovery and integration into a new society (Silove, Ventevogel, & Rees, 2017).

The conservative and liberal positions on survivors of torture in immigration are complex and multifaceted. On one hand, conservatives may argue for strict immigration policies that prioritize national security, which could potentially limit the ability of torture survivors to seek refuge. On the other hand, liberals may advocate for more lenient immigration policies that prioritize humanitarian concerns, including the protection of torture survivors. However, both sides may agree on the need for specialized support and protections for this vulnerable group, recognizing the unique challenges they face (Silove, Ventevogel, & Rees, 2017).

XX. Individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

In the realm of immigration, individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) occupy a unique and often precarious position. TPS is a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of certain countries experiencing problems that make it difficult or unsafe for their nationals to be deported there (Hamilton, Patler & Hale, 2023). The legal and social needs of these individuals are complex and multifaceted, often requiring a nuanced understanding of both immigration law and the specific circumstances in their home countries.

The legal needs of TPS holders are primarily centered around maintaining their status and navigating the path to permanent residency or citizenship, if available. They must regularly apply for re-registration to maintain their TPS, a process that can be both costly and complicated (Hamilton, Patler & Hale, 2023). Additionally, TPS does not provide a direct path to permanent residency, leaving many in a state of legal limbo. This uncertainty can have profound effects on their social and economic stability, as they may be hesitant to make long-term plans or investments without the assurance of continued legal status.

Socially, TPS holders face challenges related to integration and acceptance. Despite their legal status, they may still face discrimination and stigma associated with being a foreigner or an immigrant. Furthermore, they must navigate the complexities of building a life in a new country, often without the support networks available to other immigrants. This can include learning a new language, finding employment, and accessing services.

The conservative and liberal positions on TPS holders vary widely. Some conservatives argue that TPS should be strictly temporary, and that extending these protections for long periods of time creates a backdoor to permanent residency (Menjívar, 2023). They may also raise concerns about the potential for fraud or misuse of the system. On the other hand, liberals often advocate for a more compassionate approach, arguing that TPS holders should be given a pathway to permanent residency, particularly if conditions in their home countries remain unsafe. They may also emphasize the contributions that TPS holders make to their communities and the U.S. economy.

In conclusion, individuals with TPS face unique legal and social challenges. Their experiences highlight the complexities of immigration policy and the need for solutions that take into account both the realities of global crises and the contributions of immigrants to their adopted countries.

XXI. DACA Recipients (Dreamers)

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, established in 2012, has been a beacon of hope for many young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. These individuals, often referred to as "Dreamers," have grown up in the U.S., attending schools, building careers, and contributing to their communities in myriad ways. Yet, their legal status often remains precarious, and their unique needs must be addressed in any comprehensive immigration reform (Migration Policy Institute, 2023).

The DACA program has provided temporary relief from deportation and work authorization to eligible individuals. However, it does not provide a pathway to citizenship, leaving many Dreamers in a state of uncertainty. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that as of 2022, there were significant numbers of individuals who met all the criteria to apply for DACA, whether or not they ever did. This includes those who were immediately eligible, those who were eligible but for education, and children who would become eligible in the future provided they stay in school (Migration Policy Institute, 2023).

The challenges faced by Dreamers are multifaceted. On one hand, they must navigate the complexities of the U.S. immigration system, often without the support of legal counsel. On the other hand, they must contend with the everyday challenges of life in the U.S., such as pursuing education, finding employment, and building a life in a country that they consider home yet does not fully recognize them as such.

The conservative and liberal positions on DACA recipients are as varied as they are complex. Some conservatives argue for stricter immigration policies, viewing DACA as an overreach of executive power. They contend that providing legal status to Dreamers could incentivize further illegal immigration. Conversely, many liberals advocate for a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, arguing that these individuals contribute significantly to the U.S. economy and society and deserve recognition and protection under the law. They view DACA as a necessary but insufficient step towards comprehensive immigration reform.

The issue of DACA recipients is a microcosm of the broader immigration debate, encapsulating the complexities of immigration policy, the human impact of these policies, and the ideological divide that characterizes this issue. As the U.S. continues to grapple with immigration reform, the needs and experiences of Dreamers must be at the forefront of these discussions.

XXII. Conclusion

In the grand tapestry of our nation, the threads of immigration weave a complex and vibrant pattern. Each demographic, each individual, brings with them a unique story, a unique set of challenges, and a unique contribution to the fabric of our society. From women to children, from the elderly to those with disabilities, from indigenous peoples to racial and ethnic minorities, from religious minorities to victims of trafficking and domestic violence, from refugees to workers of all skill levels, from LGBTQ+ individuals to those with health issues, from veterans to stateless individuals, from those in mixed-status families to survivors of torture, from those with Temporary Protected Status to DACA recipients, and others I've not specifically identified here -- each group, each person, is a testament to the diversity and dynamism that immigration brings to our shores.

Yet, as we have seen, each of these demographics faces unique challenges in the immigration process, challenges that must be addressed in any comprehensive immigration reform. The importance of understanding and addressing these unique needs cannot be overstated. It is not merely a matter of policy, but a matter of human dignity and respect. It is about recognizing the inherent worth and potential of each individual, regardless of where they come from or what circumstances they find themselves in.

The divide between conservative and liberal positions on immigration is wide, yet not insurmountable. There are areas of common ground, areas where the interests of our nation and the interests of immigrants align. It is in these areas that we must begin our work, recognizing that immigration reform is not a series of individual challenges, but a national challenge. It is a challenge that goes to the heart of who we are as a nation, who we want to be, and whether we want to lead the world, follow the world, or continue to be part of a global problem.

In the words of Toni Morrison, "The function of freedom is to free someone else." As a nation, we have the freedom to shape our immigration policies, to decide who we welcome and how we welcome them. Let us use that freedom to free others from the hardships and uncertainties of the immigration process. Let us use that freedom to create a system that recognizes the dignity and worth of each individual, that values their contributions, and that provides them with the support and protections they need.

Let us remember that our nation was built by immigrants, that our strength lies in our diversity, and that our future depends on our ability to welcome and integrate those who come to our shores. Let us rise to this challenge, not out of obligation, but out of a sense of patriotism, a sense of compassion, and a commitment to doing the right thing. For in doing so, we do not merely shape the future of immigration in our country, we shape the future of our country itself.

References:

American Progress. (2023). New DACA Data Shows Importance of the Program. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/imm
Bean, T., Derluyn, I., Eurelings-Bontekoe, E., Broekaert, E., & Spinhoven, P. (2007). Comparing psychological distress, traumatic stress reactions, and experiences of unaccompanied refugee minors with experiences of adolescents accompanied by parents. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(4), 288–297.
Berkman, L. F., Kawachi, I., & Glymour, M. M. (2020). Social Epidemiology. Oxford University Press.
Bivins, R. (2017). Contagious Communities: Medicine, Migration, and the NHS in Post War Britain. Oxford University Press.
Blake (2013). Fatal flaws in the UK asylum decision-making system: an analysis of Home Office refusal letters.
Blitz, B. K. (2011). Statelessness and Citizenship: A Comparative Study on the Benefits of Nationality. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bowleg, L. (2013). "Once You've Blended the Cake, You Can't Take the Parts Back to the Main Ingredients": Black Gay and Bisexual Men's Descriptions and Experiences of Intersectionality. Sex Roles, 68(11-12), 754-767.
Brookings Institution. (2023). The Rise of Stateless Nations. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-rise-of-stateless-nations/
Chiswick, B. R. (2005). High Skilled Immigration in the International Arena. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1782.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
Crouch, C. (2009). Privatised Keynesianism: An Unacknowledged Policy Regime. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(3), 382–399.
Czaika, M., & Parsons, C. R. (2017). The Gravity of High-Skilled Migration Policies. Demography, 54(2), 603–630.
Derluyn, I., Broekaert, E., & Schuyten, G. (2009). Emotional and behavioural problems in migrant adolescents in Belgium. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 18(1), 26–38.
Dreby, J. (2012). The Burden of Deportation on Children in Mexican Immigrant Families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 829-845.
Dustmann, C., Frattini, T., & Preston, I. P. (2013). The effect of immigration along the distribution of wages. Review of Economic Studies, 80(1), 145-173.
Erez, E., Adelman, M., & Gregory, C. (2009). Intersections of Immigration and Domestic Violence: Voices of Battered Immigrant Women. Feminist Criminology, 4(1), 32-56.
Gleeson, S. (2016). Precarious claims: The promise and failure of workplace protections in the United States. University of California Press.
Gonzalez-Sobrino, B. Z., & Flippen, C. A. (2021). Intersectional Inequalities and the U.S. LGBTQ Population: Challenges and Opportunities in the Twenty-First Century. Sociology Compass, 15(1), e12855.
Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225-249.
Hamilton, E., Patler, C., & Hale, J. M. (2023). Growing up without status: The integration of children of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Retrieved from https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/23084/1/Hamilton_Patler_Hale_Growing_up_without_Status.pdf
Hepburn, E. (2009). 'Regionalist Party Mobilisation on Immigration'. West European Politics, 32(3).
Hollifield, J. (1992). Immigrants, Markets, and States: The Political Economy of Postwar Europe. Harvard University Press.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration. University of California Press.
Joppke, C. (1998b). Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration. World Politics, 50(2), 266-293.
Jupp, J. (2003). From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration.
Lahav, G. (2004). Immigration and Politics in the New Europe: Reinventing Borders.
Lockwood, B. (2018). Right-wing Populism and the Climate Change Agenda: Exploring the Linkages. Environmental Politics, 27(4), 712–732.
Lugones, M. (2008). The Coloniality of Gender. Worlds & Knowledges Otherwise, 2, 1-17.
Menjívar, C. (2023). Temporary Protected Status and Immigrant Integration: A Political Sociology Perspective. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/content/qt72v911zb/qt72v911zb.pdf?t=otp6fj
Menjívar, C., & Salcido, O. (2002). Immigrant Women and Domestic Violence: Common Experiences in Different Countries. Gender & Society, 16(6), 898-920.
Migration Policy Institute. (2023). Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Data Tools. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca-profiles.
Mirza, M., & Heinemann, A. W. (2012). Service needs and service gaps among refugees with disabilities resettled in the United States. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(7), 542-552.
Mondon, A., & Winter, A. (2017). Articulations of Islamophobia: From the extreme to the mainstream? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(13), 2151-2179.
Morrison, T. (1979). Commencement address [Speech]. Barnard College.
Mullan, F., Politzer, R. M., & Davis, C. H. (2005). Medical migration and the physician workforce. International migration, 43(2), 83-103.
Narkowicz, K., & Pędziwiatr, K. (2016). From unproblematic to contentious: Mosques in Poland. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(6), 942-959.
Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking Intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89(1), 1-15.
Nickell, S., & Saleheen, J. (2015). The impact of immigration on occupational wages: evidence from Britain. Staff Working Paper No. 574. Bank of England.
Phillips, A., & Dustin, M. (2004). UK Initiatives on Forced Marriage: Regulation, Dialogue and Exit. Political Studies, 52(3), 531-551.
Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 367-398.
Ramakrishnan, S. K., & Wong, T. (2010). Partisanship, Not Spanish: Explaining Municipal Ordinances Affecting Undocumented Immigrants. In Taking Local Control: Immigration Policy Activism in U.S. Cities and States. Stanford University Press.
Rosen, R. (2018). Media representations of separated child migrants: From Dubs to the 'death' of Alan Kurdi. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/56741/1/Media%20representations%20of%20child%20migrants%20-%20pre-published.pdf
Shaw, J. (2017). Troubled Membership: The UK and the EU. Retrieved from https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/31010486/jo_shaw_troubled_membership_post_referendum_SSRN.pdf
Silove, D., Ventevogel, P., & Rees, S. (2017). The contemporary refugee crisis: an overview of mental health challenges. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 130–139.
Simone, J. (2004). The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press.
Thomas (2008). Fatal flaws in the UK asylum decision-making system: an analysis of Home Office refusal letters.
UNHCR (2018). The UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from Afghanistan.
UNHCR. (2023). Stateless People. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/stateless-people.html
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Human Trafficking. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-trafficking.html
Wadsworth, J., Dhingra, S., Ottaviano, G., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Brexit and the Impact of Immigration on the UK. Centre for Economic Performance. LSE.
Welshman, J. (2006). "Tuberculosis, 'Race', and Migration: The Case of Liverpool, 1945-70". In Bashford, A. (Ed.), Medicine at the Border: Disease, Globalization and Security, 1850 to the Present. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wiese, E. B., & Burhorst, I. (2007). The mental health of asylum-seeking and refugee children and adolescents attending a clinic in the Netherlands. Transcultural Psychiatry, 44(4), 596–613.
Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants Raising Citizens: Undocumented Parents and Their Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Zimmerman, C., Hossain, M., Yun, K., Gajdadziev, V., Guzun, N., Tchomarova, M., Ciarrocchi, R., Johansson, A., Kefurtova, A., Scodanibbio, S., Motus, M. N., Roche, B., Morison, L., & Watts, C. (2008). The Health of Trafficked Women: A Survey of Women Entering Posttrafficking Services in Europe. American Journal of Public Health. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2006.108357