The Experts below are selected from a list of 321 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Robin Savinar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Immigrant Legal Status and Health: Legal Status Disparities in Chronic Conditions and Musculoskeletal Pain Among Mexican-Born Farm Workers in the United States.
Demography, 2018Co-Authors: Erin R. Hamilton, Jo Mhairi Hale, Robin SavinarAbstract:Immigrant Legal Status determines access to the rights and privileges of U.S. society. Legal Status may be conceived of as a fundamental cause of health, producing a health disparity whereby unauthorized immigrants are disadvantaged relative to authorized immigrants, a perspective that is supported by research on Legal Status disparities in self-rated health and mental health. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on Legal Status disparities in physical health and examined whether a Legal Status disparity exists in chronic conditions and musculoskeletal pain among 17,462 Mexican-born immigrants employed as farm workers in the United States and surveyed in the National Agricultural Workers Survey between 2000 and 2015. We found that unauthorized, Mexican-born farm workers have a lower incidence of chronic conditions and lower prevalence of pain compared with authorized farm workers. Furthermore, we found a Legal Status gradient in health whereby naturalized U.S. citizens report the worst health, followed by Legal permanent residents and unauthorized immigrants. Although inconsistent with fundamental cause theory, our results were robust to alternative specifications and consistent with a small body of existing research on Legal Status disparities in physical health. Although it is well known that Mexican immigrants have better-than-expected health outcomes given their social disadvantage, we suggest that an epidemiologic paradox may also apply to within-immigrant disparities by Legal Status. We offer several explanations for the counterintuitive result.
Christal Hamilton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Association Between Legal Status and Poverty Among Immigrants: A Methodological Caution
Demography, 2020Co-Authors: Cody Spence, James D. Bachmeier, Claire E. Altman, Christal HamiltonAbstract:Using nationally representative survey data, this research note examines the association between immigrant Legal Status and poverty in the United States. Our objective is to test whether estimates of this association vary depending on the method used to infer Legal Status in survey data, focusing on two approaches in particular: (1) inferring Legal Status using a logical imputation method that ignores the existence of Legal-Status survey questions (logical approach); and (2) defining Legal Status based on survey questions about Legal Status (survey approach). We show that the two methods yield contrasting conclusions. In models using the logical approach, among noncitizens, being a Legal permanent resident (LPR) is counterintuitively associated with a significantly greater net probability of being below the poverty line compared with their noncitizen peers without LPR Status. Conversely, using the survey approach to measure Legal Status, LPR Status is associated with a lower net probability of living in poverty, which is in line with a growing body of qualitative and small-sample evidence. Consistent with simulation experiments carried out by Van Hook et al. (2015), the findings call for a more cautious approach to interpreting research results based on Legal Status imputations and for greater attention to potential biases introduced by various methodological approaches to inferring individuals' Legal Status in survey data. Consequently, the approach used for measuring Legal Status has important implications for future research on immigration and Legal Status.
Erin R. Hamilton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Immigrant Legal Status and Health: Legal Status Disparities in Chronic Conditions and Musculoskeletal Pain Among Mexican-Born Farm Workers in the United States.
Demography, 2018Co-Authors: Erin R. Hamilton, Jo Mhairi Hale, Robin SavinarAbstract:Immigrant Legal Status determines access to the rights and privileges of U.S. society. Legal Status may be conceived of as a fundamental cause of health, producing a health disparity whereby unauthorized immigrants are disadvantaged relative to authorized immigrants, a perspective that is supported by research on Legal Status disparities in self-rated health and mental health. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on Legal Status disparities in physical health and examined whether a Legal Status disparity exists in chronic conditions and musculoskeletal pain among 17,462 Mexican-born immigrants employed as farm workers in the United States and surveyed in the National Agricultural Workers Survey between 2000 and 2015. We found that unauthorized, Mexican-born farm workers have a lower incidence of chronic conditions and lower prevalence of pain compared with authorized farm workers. Furthermore, we found a Legal Status gradient in health whereby naturalized U.S. citizens report the worst health, followed by Legal permanent residents and unauthorized immigrants. Although inconsistent with fundamental cause theory, our results were robust to alternative specifications and consistent with a small body of existing research on Legal Status disparities in physical health. Although it is well known that Mexican immigrants have better-than-expected health outcomes given their social disadvantage, we suggest that an epidemiologic paradox may also apply to within-immigrant disparities by Legal Status. We offer several explanations for the counterintuitive result.
Kathleen Paasch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Legal Status and the stability of coresidential unions.
Demography, 1991Co-Authors: Jay Teachman, Jeffrey Thomas, Kathleen PaaschAbstract:Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972, we examine the effect of the Legal Status of coresidential unions on the likelihood of dissolution. We find that Legal unions are much more stable than nonLegal unions. In addition, current Legal Status is more important for predicting stability of union than is Legal Status at the initiation of the union. We also find that the effect of current Legal Status remains constant over various durations of unions and that Legalizing a nonLegal union has little effect beyond that expected on the basis of a occupying a particular Legal Status.
James D. Bachmeier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Association Between Legal Status and Poverty Among Immigrants: A Methodological Caution
Demography, 2020Co-Authors: Cody Spence, James D. Bachmeier, Claire E. Altman, Christal HamiltonAbstract:Using nationally representative survey data, this research note examines the association between immigrant Legal Status and poverty in the United States. Our objective is to test whether estimates of this association vary depending on the method used to infer Legal Status in survey data, focusing on two approaches in particular: (1) inferring Legal Status using a logical imputation method that ignores the existence of Legal-Status survey questions (logical approach); and (2) defining Legal Status based on survey questions about Legal Status (survey approach). We show that the two methods yield contrasting conclusions. In models using the logical approach, among noncitizens, being a Legal permanent resident (LPR) is counterintuitively associated with a significantly greater net probability of being below the poverty line compared with their noncitizen peers without LPR Status. Conversely, using the survey approach to measure Legal Status, LPR Status is associated with a lower net probability of living in poverty, which is in line with a growing body of qualitative and small-sample evidence. Consistent with simulation experiments carried out by Van Hook et al. (2015), the findings call for a more cautious approach to interpreting research results based on Legal Status imputations and for greater attention to potential biases introduced by various methodological approaches to inferring individuals' Legal Status in survey data. Consequently, the approach used for measuring Legal Status has important implications for future research on immigration and Legal Status.
-
can we spin straw into gold an evaluation of immigrant Legal Status imputation approaches
Demography, 2015Co-Authors: Jennifer Van Hook, James D. Bachmeier, Donna L Coffman, Ofer HarelAbstract:Researchers have developed logical, demographic, and statistical strategies for imputing immigrants’ Legal Status, but these methods have never been empirically assessed. We used Monte Carlo simulations to test whether, and under what conditions, Legal Status imputation approaches yield unbiased estimates of the association of unauthorized Status with health insurance coverage. We tested five methods under a range of missing data scenarios. Logical and demographic imputation methods yielded biased estimates across all missing data scenarios. Statistical imputation approaches yielded unbiased estimates only when unauthorized Status was jointly observed with insurance coverage; when this condition was not met, these methods overestimated insurance coverage for unauthorized relative to Legal immigrants. We next showed how bias can be reduced by incorporating prior information about unauthorized immigrants. Finally, we demonstrated the utility of the best-performing statistical method for increasing power. We used it to produce state/regional estimates of insurance coverage among unauthorized immigrants in the Current Population Survey, a data source that contains no direct measures of immigrants’ Legal Status. We conclude that commonly employed Legal Status imputation approaches are likely to produce biased estimates, but data and statistical methods exist that could substantially reduce these biases.
-
Can We Measure Immigrants' Legal Status? Lessons from Two U.S. Surveys
The International migration review, 2014Co-Authors: James D. Bachmeier, Jennifer Van Hook, Frank D. BeanAbstract:This research note examines response and allocation rates for Legal Status questions asked in publicly available U.S. surveys to address worries that the Legal Status of immigrants cannot be reliably measured. Contrary to such notions, we find that immigrants' response rates to questions about Legal Status are typically not higher than response rates to other immigration-related questions, such as country of birth and year of immigration. Further exploration of two particular surveys - the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS) and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - reveals that these data sources produce profiles of the unauthorized immigrant population that compare favorably to independently estimated profiles. We also find in the case of the SIPP that the introduction of Legal Status questions does not appear to have an appreciable "chilling effect" on the subsequent survey participation of unauthorized immigrant respondents. Based on the results, we conclude that future data collection efforts should include questions about Legal Status in order to (a) improve models of immigrant incorporation and (b) better position assimilation research to inform policy discussions.
