Research 

Most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the US remain excluded from government healthcare programs. Yet, healthcare inequities pose significant dangers to all members of society, especially during a pandemic. Can appeals to self-interest or fairness increase support for providing undocumented with equal healthcare access? I investigate this question using a set of survey experiments during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first survey experiment, I explore healthcare deservingness attitudes. The results show that respondents view undocumented immigrants as less deserving of healthcare than citizens, even when undocumented immigrants have a solid work history. The second survey experiment, however, shows that appeals to fairness and self-interest trigger substantial increases in support for undocumented immigrants, with as much force among Republicans as Democrats. This study suggests that despite deep polarization, self-interest and normative primes can trigger bipartisan agreement and motivate individuals to support expansionary healthcare policies that benefit undocumented immigrants.

To what extent does a shared political ideology shape attitudes toward immigrants? While past scholarship has concluded that the American public prefers immigrants with specific characteristics – such as highly educated individuals – little research has explored the role of immigrants' political ideology on these attitudes. This project investigates to what extent a shared political ideology can influence Americans' attitudes toward immigrants and willingness to admit them. In a set of pre-registered conjoint survey experiments, I asked respondents to put themselves in the shoes of an immigration officer tasked with deciding which immigrants are worthy of admission into the country. The results show a premium for immigrants who shared respondents' political ideology. At times a shared political ideology even superseded objective aptitude measures, such as education, profession, and work history. Therefore, shared political beliefs may increase positive evaluations of immigrants by creating an in-group identity. Rather than being perceived as outsiders, these shared political beliefs can leave like-minded immigrants perceived as `one of us.' This project contributes to our understanding of political ideology, polarization, and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.

Abstract formatted for a public health audience

Objectives:

Undocumented immigrants were one of the groups most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Undocumented immigrants faced the pandemic employed primarily in the industries with high exposure, excluded from most government healthcare programs, and vulnerable to immigration enforcement. How did undocumented immigrants navigate the COVID-19 pandemic?

Methods:

Cross-sectional survey data from likely undocumented Latino immigrants, primarily in California and Texas, using targeted Facebook ads. All survey data was collected in spring of 2021. 

Results:

Respondents most likely to be undocumented had lower odds of being vaccinated despite having greater odds of COVID-19 infection. Undocumented status was also linked with greater worry over food and job security, along with increased concerns about the impact of COVID-19 in their families.

Conclusions:

The results highlight the existential threat created by immigrant vulnerabilities. Policies aimed at improving the well-being of Latinos and undocumented immigrants must consider the key role of immigration fears and legal vulnerabilities.

Despite the need, nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US remain excluded from government healthcare schemes. Past attempts to expand eligibility to include undocumented immigrants have faced opposition from the public and policymakers. Using a set of pre-registered survey experiments, I find evidence that taking the perspective of an ill undocumented immigrant increases perceptions of them as deserving of government healthcare and support for policies that expand access. The effects were consistent among Democrats and Republicans. I also leverage the spread of COVID-19 to compare imagined perspective-taking with lived experience. The results showed that individuals with COVID-19 lived experience had the greatest support for undocumented immigrants' access to healthcare. Nevertheless, the perspective-taking treatment produced attitudes that approximated those of lived experience. This paper provides evidence that shared experiences - imagined or lived - can increase support for granting undocumented immigrants access to government healthcare programs. 

Local governments have been increasingly active in immigration policy by cooperating with federal immigration enforcement or creating local offices of immigrant affairs (OIA) charged with integrating immigrants. How do these policies shape perceptions of locales following these policy routes? Using a set of pre-registered survey experiments, we find that compared to local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, creating an OIA produces more favorable public attitudes, with minimal differences when undocumented immigrants also receive access to services. Democrats, especially White Democrats, have the most favorable views of cities with an OIA. While Republicans prefer cooperation with ICE, their attitudes toward cities with OIAs remain positive. Our findings suggest that despite partisan immigration policy debates, establishing OIAs does not attract the negative political attention common in an era of hyperpolarization. OIAs could be a rare immigration policy that may be effective and supported.