Perceived Immigration Policy Effects Scale

Abstract

The present study describes the development and testing of the Perceived Immigration Policy Effects Scale (PIPES). The measure was developed in Spanish to assess the impact of state-level immigration policies on Latino immigrant parents. This study describes the steps taken to develop the scale items and psychometric testing. The scale was completed by 300 Latino immigrant parents in the state of Arizona. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis revealed/confirmed a four-factor model (discrimination, social exclusion, threat to family, and children’s vulnerability). The subscales and total scale have excellent reliability (α = .824-.934). Additional testing is needed to examine the application of the scale beyond states passing restrictive immigration policies.

Keywords

immigrants Latino families immigration policies measurement scale development

In the last decade, there was a surge in state-level legislation aiming to deter unauthorized immigration. This shift from federal to state-level policy development and enforcement strategies has produced hostile environments for immigrants, many of whom have children who are U.S. citizens. States such as Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Indiana, and Utah passed restrictive immigration policies making it difficult for immigrants to reside, work, and access services for their families. These policies have also escalated the bias and prejudice, fear of deportation, and economic instability experienced by Latino immigrants (Androff et al., 2011; Ayón & Becerra, 2013). While emerging evidence captures the impact of such policies on immigrant families (see Ayón, 2015, for an overview), there is not a comprehensive measure of the impact of state-level immigration policies. Rather studies have focused on independent constructs such as discrimination, social isolation, or legal vulnerability with only qualitative studies capturing multiple constructs. This study aims to address a gap in the literature by developing and testing a comprehensive measure on the impact of state-level immigration policies on immigrant families.

Literature Review

Social Political Climate in the United States and Arizona

Latinos constitute one of the largest and fastest growing populations in the United States. They currently represent 17% of the population in the United States (Stepler & Brown, 2016), and it is estimated that one third of the Latino population is foreign born (Stepler & Brown, 2016). Mixed documentation status families constitute a large segment of the U.S. population (approximately 9 million people); these are families where at least one parent is undocumented and one child is a U.S. citizen (Taylor, Lopez, Passel, & Motel, 2011). In the state of Arizona, 30% of the population is Latino; of these, 28% is foreign born (Passel & Cohn, 2011) and approximately 78% of Latino children in Arizona have foreign born parents (Urban Institute, 2016).

Recent efforts for federal-level immigrant reform have failed. Instead between 2005 and 2012, there was an expansion in state-level legislation aiming to address undocumented immigration. Most of these policy efforts have been restrictive in nature, making it more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to reside, work, and access services in the United States (Gulasekaram & Ramakrishnan, 2015). Arizona, the site of the present study, passed several restrictive immigrant policies culminating with SB1070. SB1070 was the most restrictive legislation passed in Arizona aiming to criminalize undocumented immigrants. The provisions (1) required state and local police officers to determine the immigration status of any person stopped if “reasonable suspicion” exits that the person is unauthorized; (2) made it a crime for unauthorized immigrants to not carry an alien registration document; (3) made it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or work within Arizona; and (4) authorized state and local police to arrest immigrants without a warrant where there is “probable cause” that the person committed an offense that would make them deportable (Rojas, 2012). In 2012, several of the provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court, but they upheld the provision where police officers can request proof of documentation status (Rojas, 2012). Following the passage of SB1070, several other states passed copycat bills (i.e., Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Indiana, and Utah; Zayas, 2015). Thus, immigrants across the United States have encountered restrictive legislation.

Impact of Immigration Policies

With the passage of increasingly restrictive state-level legislation, Latino immigrant families have experienced more hardships including racial profiling, discrimination, detention and deportations, economic insecurity, and emotional stress (Androff et al., 2011; Ayón, 2015). Nearly one third of Latinos report they, a family member, or close friend has been discriminated in the past 5 years due to their ethnicity (Lopez, Morin, & Taylor, 2010). Latino immigrants are subjected to racial profiling and discrimination when accessing public services (Ayón, 2014; Guendelman, Angulo, Wier, & Oman, 2005), in day-to-day interactions with mainstream society (Cohen & Merino Chavez, 2013; Menéndez Alarcón & Novak, 2010; Negi, 2013), and intragroup discrimination (Córdova & Cervantes, 2010). Assumptions are made about Latinos’ legal status based on their appearance and language abilities (Ayón & Becerra, 2013; Menéndez Alarcón & Novak, 2010) with those who are dark skinned and who have limited English proficiency bearing most of the burden.

Deportations have been at a record high during the Obama administration. Approximately one quarter of Latinos know someone who has been deported or detained by the federal government (Lopez, Gonzalez-Barrera, & Motel, 2011). Fear of deportation and detentions significantly impacts immigrants as they fear family separation. In 2013, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported approximately 72,000 parents of U.S. citizen children (Foley, 2014). Research findings suggest Latino parents are actively taking steps to prepare their children for family separation (Philbin & Ayón, 2016; Suárez-Orozco, Yoshikawa, Teranishi, & Suárez-Orozco, 2011) by developing a plan and seeking out family members or friends who would care for their children.

Due to fear of deportation and increased rates of discrimination, many immigrants limit their interactions with mainstream society. Many immigrants are socially isolated. Immigrants may feel uncomfortable going to mainstream stores and restaurants where they could be mistreated or ignored. For example, in one study, a man stated that he avoided mainstream social venues due to the stigma of being unauthorized; he said, “I just stay home. I don’t want the police to accuse me of stealing . . .” (Negi, 2013). Social isolation may prevent immigrants from accessing much-needed support and care from community resources.

Evidence suggests Latino immigrant families experience more income insecurity and work-related challenges as a consequence of restrictive immigration legislation. The state of Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which mandated the electronic verification of employment authorization to confirm work eligibility. Following the implementation of this policy, immigrants reported many exploitive practices in the workplace such as receiving empty paychecks, being required to work more hours for the same or less pay, and job insecurity (Ayón, Gurrola, Moya-Salas, Androff, & Krysik, 2012). Additionally, unauthorized immigrants reported limited opportunities for advancement and salary increases, and they may be expected to learn new skills without the opportunity to ask questions or receive feedback (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2013). In sum, unauthorized immigrants experience income insecurity, exploitation in the workplace, and limited input to improve their skills impacting the opportunities and well-being of the whole family.

Stress due to uncertainty, fear of deportation, family separation, and income insecurity increases immigrant families’ vulnerability for poor outcomes. Legal vulnerability (i.e., unauthorized status, previous deportation, or deportation of a family member) was found to be associated with poor family environment including parent emotional distress, inability to provide financially, and poor relationship with children (Brabeck & Xu, 2010). Children’s emotional well-being and academic performance was also affected by families’ legal vulnerability (Brabeck & Xu, 2010). Deportation of parents has also been linked to changes in children’s behavior such as crying, insomnia, and anxiety as well as an overall fear of police officers (Chaudry et al., 2010). Fear of deportation impacts Latino children regardless of their own or family members’ documentation status. Latino children are aware that their families could be separated due to restrictive policies and enforcement strategies, and children raise questions about these issues regardless of their families’ authorization status (Dreby, 2012; Szkupinski Quiroga, Medina, & Glick, 2014). Compounding these problems is unauthorized parents’ lack of access to support services such as child care, preschool, health insurance for children (Androff et al., 2011; Ayón & Becerra, 2013; Yoshikawa & Kalil, 2011), and unmet mental health service needs (Ayón, 2014).

Substantial evidence exists on the impact of restrictive immigration political climate on Latino immigrants. Much of the existing empirical evidence on the impact immigration policies on immigrants is qualitative in nature, and those studies that are quantitative do not capture the impact of restrictive policies on immigrants comprehensively. This study addresses this gap by developing a comprehensive measure of the impact of restrictive immigration policies on Latino immigrants. This study used participatory methods to engage the immigrant community in the development of the measure.

Method

Measurement Development and Design

This study is part of a larger mixed methods study on the ethnic/racial socialization process among Latino immigrant families. The purpose in developing this new instrument was to create a measure that reflected the experiences of Latino families following the implementation of restrictive state-level legislation to then examine the relationship between parents’ perceptions on the impact of immigration policies on their parenting strategies. The present study presents a detailed narrative on the process used to develop the scale and the initial validation results. The following steps were taken to develop and design the measure: (1) Items were developed based on in-depth interviews with immigrant Latino parents, (2) potential items were reviewed by three experts on Latino family issues, and (3) potential items were reviewed by a Promotoras de salud group (lay health workers group), members are Latino immigrant parents who are active in their community.

In-depth qualitative interviews were used to generate the items. Refer to Ayón, (n.d.) and Rubio-Hernandez & Ayón, 2016 for an overview of the analysis and findings on the impact of immigration legislation on Latino immigrant families. Participants’ descriptions of the impact of restrictive immigration legislation were used to write items for the new instrument. In generating the items, the goal was to retain as much of the parents’ actual language and meaning as possible and ensure that the items were widely understandable and applicable (Dumka, Gonzalez, Wood, & Fromoso, 1998). The items were written in Spanish and translated for the purpose of the publication and dissemination. Two bilingual and bicultural research assistants translated the items, and the author also reviewed translations.

The potential items for the new measure were reviewed by experts in the field and a group of Latino parents who are members of a Promotoras group (i.e., lay health workers). The items were reviewed for relevance and content by subject matter experts in the field including two academicians and a community practitioner. In response to feedback from experts, several items were modified to increase clarity and some items were dropped. Parent feedback was obtained through a focus group (n = 7) with members of a Promotoras group that is active in the Latino community in South Phoenix. Parents were asked to complete the measure; as they completed the measure, they were asked to consider whether the measure was easy to read and understand, identify items that were ambiguous or unclear, and whether the items reflected their experiences on the impact of restrictive policies on Latino immigrant families (face validity). A series of questions were used to elicit feedback (e.g., Are there any items you would change? and Is there anything missing from the questionnaire that is important to you?). Participants stated that the items reflected their experiences well. They suggested including questions that reflected the experiences of their children (see Items 20-24). Following the changes, the measure included 31 items to be considered for the Perceived Immigration Policy Effects Scale (PIPES).

Measure

The PIPES included 31 original items. The items reflected parents’ experiences following the implementation of restrictive immigration policies in the state of Arizona. Questions address issues related to their experiences with discrimination, workplace exploitation, fear of deportation, changes in their behavior to prevent detainment, and impact on their families and children. Items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

Recruitment Procedures and Participants

Participants were recruited through four community-based agencies. Recruitment sites primarily serve Latino families and provide a range of programs. Brief presentations were used to describe the study’s purpose, eligibility criteria, rights as participants, and procedures. Parents who were interested in participating in the study completed a recruitment form with their names, contact information, and best availability days/times (used when scheduling). Interviews were scheduled with the goal of eliminating as many barriers as possible. For instance, interviews were completed at a time that fit best for their schedule (including weekends) and in their homes or mutually agreed location. The interviewers read the items to participants and recorded their response. The structured interviews ranged in duration from 60 to 75 minutes. All interviews were completed in Spanish. Participants received a US$30 remuneration to partially compensate them for their time.

Three hundred parents participated in the study. Eighty-three (n = 248) percent of the participants were mothers, the remaining participants were fathers (17.3% or n = 52). A majority of the participants were Mexican (94%) and married (86%). On average, participants were 38 years old (SD = 6.68) and had three children (SD = 1.12). Participants’ education ranged from less than a high school education (57%) to high school graduate (17%) and some college education to BA (26%). Nearly 60% of the participants reported family incomes of US$25,000 or less. All of the participants were immigrants; the average age at time of migration to the United States was 21 years old (SD = 6.79). Participants had resided in the U.S. on average 15.8 years (SD = 6.422). A majority of the participants reported that they originally migrated to the United States to find good jobs or earn a better income (n = 126, 42%) or to provide children with an education or better opportunities (n = 82, 27%). Nearly 60% of the participants had never returned to their country of origin, and 40% reported that at least one of their family members had been deported.

Analyses

The analysis was completed in two steps. In Step 1, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was completed on the 31 items using Mplus statistical software (Muthén & Muthén, 2007) with GEOMIN oblique rotation. Preliminary descriptive statistics on the items indicated that some of the items were skewed and kurtotic, therefore making maximum likelihood restricted (MLR) estimation the appropriate choice (i.e., the MLR estimator offers maximum likelihood parameters estimates with standard errors and chi-square tests statistics that are more robust to nonnormality). A multistage process was used to decide on the number of factors to extract. First, the scree plot was examined; the “leveling off point” on the scree-line represents the last factor that should be extracted. Next, the eigenvalues were considered, seeking eigenvalues above 1.0. Finally, the factor loading for each item was examined (e.g., <.40). In Step 2, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was completed on the items. The CFA tested the first-order four-factor structure and added a higher order factor.

Model fit was assessed using several empirically supported indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) with 90% confidence interval, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). For the CFI and TLI, values should be >.95, although values above .90 are considered adequate; and the RMSEA and SRMR values should be <.05, though values below .08 are also considered reasonable (Brown & Cuddeck, 1989; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Reliability was assessed by examining Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency for each subscale and the total scale.

Using the above criteria, when model fit was deemed unacceptable, the factor loadings were reviewed. Items were removed when factor loadings were low <.40, to increase interpretability, and if items were deemed to theoretically measure same construct then the item with a higher factor loading was retained. As items were identified and removed, EFAs were repeated with reduced number of items. The CFA model was run with the reduced number of items.

Results

EFA

The EFA with the original 31 items revealed six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. However, the fit indices were not acceptable. Several items had low factor loadings (<.40) or cross loaded on multiple factors. Items were removed one at a time and EFA was rerun at each step. The final EFA included 24 items with four eigenvalues greater than 1 (see Table 1; CFI = .955, TLI = .933, RMSEA = .049, SRMR = .032). The four factors were correlated, and factor loadings were strong (i.e., above .40; see Figure 1).

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Items.

Item	M	SD
Were you treated unfairly at a restaurant or store?	1.52	0.87
Were you silenced by others or felt that your opinion did not matter?	1.52	0.93
Did others act like they had the right to treat you unfairly or poorly?	1.65	0.93
Were you treated like a criminal based on who you are?	1.38	0.88
Were treated poorly because you did not speak English?	1.91	1.11
Did other Latinos treat you poorly?	1.57	0.94
Did you feel ignored when seeking help?	1.76	1.04
Were you humiliated because of who you are?	1.39	0.86
Did you feel that you were being exploited or taken advantage of at work?	1.59	1.07
Have your children been treated differently in school due to immigration policies or negative attitudes toward immigrants?	1.26	0.62
Have your children been denied other services due to immigration policies or negative attitudes toward immigrants?	1.36	0.82
Did you feel that you had no liberty and needed to stay home?	2.31	1.32
Did you avoid certain locations like parks and neighborhoods because you did not feel safe?	1.84	1.73
Did you fear being deported or detained?	2.39	1.52
Did you feel unsafe when leaving your home?	2.28	1.42
Did you feel that that you had no rights?	2.26	1.41
Did you worry about the impact of these policies on your family?	3.20	1.56
Did you fear that you or a family member would be reported to immigration officials?	3.10	1.60
Did you worry about family separation due to deportation?	3.49	1.62
Have your children been stressed about family members being deported or detained?	1.73	1.79
Have your children felt unsafe due to immigration policies?	2.24	1.37
Have you been concerned that your children were having emotional problems due to immigration policies?	2.71	1.51
Have your children feared authorities due to immigration policies?	2.24	1.40
Have your children had difficulties focusing in school due to immigration policies?	1.44	0.88

Figure 1.

Factor loadings and factor correlations for the EFA.

CFA

The CFA was completed using the 24 remaining items. Fit indices for the second-order factor model, assessing for perceived immigration policy effects as a higher order construct, indicated a good fit of the proposed model (CFI = .934, TLI = .926, RMSEA = .052, SRMR = .059). The second-order factor model fit the data well while also retaining the four first-order factors. Figure 2 includes standardized first-order factor loadings and the second-order factor loadings for the PIPES. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .82 to .94 (see Table 2).

Figure 2.

First- and second-order factor loadings for the CFA.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability for the Subscales and Total Scale.

Scale	M	SD	Number of items	α
Discrimination	16.90	7.02	11	.889
Social Exclusion	11.09	5.88	5	.908
Threat to Family	9.83	4.35	3	.898
Children’s Vulnerability	10.35	5.01	5	.824
Total Scale	48.14	18.30	24	.934

Discussion

The present study provides initial empirical support for the validity and reliability of the PIPES. This scale was designed to comprehensively capture the impact of state-level immigration policies on immigrant families. State-level immigrant policies effect many aspects of immigrants’ lives and their children who are often U.S. citizens; thus, it is critical to capture the effects of these policies comprehensively. For this reason, the PIPES is an important contribution to the literature. While this scale is not an exhaustive measure on the impact of state-level policies on immigrant Latino families, the scale items are informed by the lived experiences of immigrant parents and the four factors or subscales reflect the current research in this area. Moreover, the measure provides a more holistic look at the impact of immigration policies beyond examining a single construct such as discrimination.

The EFA and CFA revealed and confirmed four interrelated factors—discrimination, social exclusion, threat to family, and children’s vulnerability. The discrimination factor includes 11 items. Similar to Córdova and Cervantes (2010), Cohen and Merino Chavez (2013), and Menéndez Alarcón and Novak (2010), the 11 items capture discrimination based on language, ethnicity, and intergroup discrimination. Additionally, questions reflect multiple venues where immigrants experience bias and prejudice such as the workplace, when accessing public services, and in public spaces like restaurants, stores, and parks. The second factor, social exclusion, includes five items. The five items reflect immigrant’s loss of liberty and social isolation. Fear of deportation, lack of safety, and increased stigma experienced by immigrants increases their tendencies to limit their social interactions (Ayón, 2015; Negi, 2013). Threat to family, the third factor, includes three items. These items reflect immigrants concern for their family’s safety and fear for family separation. The final factor, children’s vulnerability, includes five items. The five items capture parent’s perceptions of the impact of state-level policies on their children (safety, fear, and emotional and academic problems). These items were included in the measure after speaking to the Promotoras. The original items focused more on the experiences of parents and not children. The Promotoras feedback was a significant contribution to the measurement development process as it allowed us to honor the experiences of immigrant parents including the experiences of their children. The four factors where strongly interrelated, thus holistically capturing immigrant parents’ Perceived Immigrant Policy Effects.

Limitations and Future Research

The study makes an important contribution to the literature as the proposed scale captures the impact of state-level immigration policy comprehensively. In addition, the scale development process was informed by immigrant Latino parents at multiple stages (i.e., original item development through qualitative interviews and additional feedback by Promotoras) in order to capture the experiences of those effected and to support the contextualization of the measure. However, the study is not without some limitations. First, the PIPE scale is meant to be used for the purpose of assessing immigrant parents’ experiences, thus it is better suited for researchers interested in family studies. It may be possible to use some of the subscales independently for the general immigrant population. Additional research is needed to develop measures on the impact of immigration policies that reflect the perceptions of youth and children in immigrant families. Next, it is important to examine the application of the PIPES beyond states with restrictive state-level policies. Evidence suggests the presence of spillover effects to other states where state-level immigration legislation is not present. The measure may be able to capture some of this “spillover” effect in its present state or need modifications. In order to accurately reflect the experiences of immigrants, future research should continue to utilize participatory methods in the development of measures. The contribution of immigrant parents, during the initial interviews and later through the focus groups with the Promotoras, to the development of this scale was invaluable.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the participants for sharing their experiences and their contributions to the development of the measure.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Foundation for Child Development (Principal Investigator: Ayón).

Author Biography

Cecilia Ayón earned her PhD at the University of Washington. She is a Council of Social Work Education MFP Fellow and a Foundation for Child Development Young Scholar. She is a faculty member at the School of Public Policy at the University of California, Riverside. Her research examines Latino family well-being and health disparities, and she is involved in intervention research. Her current research project examines the ethnic-racial socialization process among Latino immigrant families; in particular, she is interested in how discrimination and restrictive state-level immigration policies impact parent-child interactions.

References

Androff

Ayón

Becerra

Gurrola

Salas

Krysik

. . . Segal

(2011). U.S. immigration policy and immigrant children’s well-being: The impact of policy shifts. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 38, 77-98.

Ayón

(2014). Service needs among Latino immigrant families: Implications for social work practice. Social Work, 59, 13-23. doi:10.1093/sw/swt031

Ayón

(2015). Economic, social and health effects of discrimination on Latino immigrant families. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Ayón

Becerra

(2013). Latino immigrant families under siege: The impact of SB1070, discrimination, and economic crisis [Special issue: Latinos/Latinas in the U.S.]. Advances in Social Work, 14, 206-228.

Ayón

Gurrola

Moya-Salas

Androff

Krysik

(2012). Intended and unintended consequences of the employer sanction law on Latino families. Qualitative Social Work, 11, 587-603. doi:10.1177/14733325011418871

Ayón

(n.d.). Vivimos en jaula de oro: The impact of state level legislation on immigrant Latino families. Unpublished Manuscript.

Bacallao

M. L.

Smokowski

P. R.

(2013). Obstacles to getting ahead: How assimilation mechanisms impact undocumented Mexican immigrant families. Social Work in Public Health, 28(1-2), 1-20. doi:10.1080/19371910903269687

Brabeck

(2010). The impact of detention and deportation on Latino immigrant children and families: A quantitative exploration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 341-361. doi:10.1177/0739986310374053

Brown

M. W.

Cuddeck

(1989). Single sample cross-validation indexes for covariance-structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.

10.

Chaudry

Capps

Pedroza

J. M.

Castañeda

R. M.

Santos

Scott

M. M.

(2010). Facing our future: Children in the aftermath of immigration enforcement. Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/research/publication/facing-our-future

11.

Cohen

J. H.

Merino Chavez

(2013). Latino immigrants, discrimination, and reception in Columbus, Ohio. International Migration, 51(2), 24-31.

12.

Córdova

Cervantes

R. C.

(2010). Intergroup and within-group perceived discrimination among U.S. born and foreign born Latino youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 259-274. doi:10.1177/0739986310362371

13.

Dreby

(2012). The burden of deportation on children in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 829-845. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012

14.

Dumka

L. E.

Gonzalez

N. A.

Wood

J. L.

Fromoso

(1998). Using qualitative methods to develop contextually relevant measures and preventive interventions: An illustration. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 605-637.

15.

Foley

(2014, June 26). Deportations separated thousands of U.S. Born children from parents in 2013. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/parents-deportation_n_5531552.html

16.

Guendelman

Angulo

Wier

Oman

(2005). Overcoming the odds: Access to care for immigrant children in working poor families in California. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 9, 351-362.

17.

Gulasekaram

Ramakrishnan

S. K.

(2015). The new immigration federalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

18.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structure Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

19.

Lopez

M. H.

Gonzalez-Barrera

Motel

(2011). As deportations rise to record high most Latinos oppose Obama’s policy. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/28/as-deportations-rise-to-record-levels-most-latinos-oppose-obamas-policy/

20.

Lopez

M. H.

Morin

Taylor

(2010). Illegal immigration backlash worries, divides Latinos. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2010/10/28/illegal-immigration-backlash-worries-divides-latinos/

21.

Menéndez Alarcón

A. V.

Novak

K. B

. (2010). Latin American immigrants in Indianapolis: Perceptions of prejudice and discrimination. Latino Studies, 8(1), 93-120.

22.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2007). Mplus User’s Guide (1998-2007) (Version 5). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

23.

Negi

N. J.

(2013). Battling discrimination and social isolation: Psychological distress among Latino day laborers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 164-174.

24.

Passel

J. S.

Cohn

(2011). Unauthorized immigrant population: National and state trends 2010. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf

25.

Philbin

S. P.

Ayón

(2016). Luchamos por nuestros hijos: Latino immigrant parents strive to protect their children from the deleterious effects of anti-immigration policies. Children and Youth Services Review, 63, 123-135. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.019

26.

Rojas

L. B.

(2012). Supreme Court upholds key provisions of SB1070, strikes down the rest. Retrieved from http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/06/25/32962/supreme-court-upholds-key-provision-sb-1070-strike/

27.

Rubio-Hernandez

S.P.

Ayón

(2016). Pobrecitos los Niños: The emotional impact of anti-immigration policies on Latino youth. Children and Youths Services Review, 60, 20-26. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.013Bacallao

28.

Stepler

Brown

(2016). Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the U.S. Pew Research Center. Retrived from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/04/19/statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states/

29.

Suárez-Orozco

Yoshikawa

Teranishi

R. T.

Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

(2011). Growing up in the shadows: The development implications of unauthorized status. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 438-472.

30.

Szkupinski Quiroga

Medina

D. M.

Glick

. (2014). In the belly of the beast: Effects of anti-immigrant policy on Latino community members. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 1723-1742.

31.

Taylor

Lopez

M. H.

Passel

J. S.

Motel

(2011, December). Unauthorized immigrants: Length of residency, patterns of parenthood. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

32.

Urban Institute. (2016). Children of immigrants data tool. Retrieved from http://datatool.urban.org/charts/datatool/pages.cfm

33.

Yoshikawa

Kalil

(2011). The effects of parental undocumented status on the developmental contexts of young children in immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 291-297. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00204.x

34.

Zayas

L. H.

(2015). Forgotten citizens: Deportation, children and the making of American exiles and orphans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.