Stress Among Immigrants in the United States

ABSTRACT

Background

Immigrants comprise a sizable proportion (15%) of the population living in the United States (U.S.). Given these proportions, it is imperative that we understand immigrant experiences of well-being and stress toward improved well-being and integration.

Methods

To examine the experiences of first- and second-generation immigrants using a comparative approach, we utilized data from two surveys collected under Trump (n = 490) and Biden (n = 306) administrations. Both studies employed non-probability quota and convenience sampling techniques. Questions about experiences of stress (PSS-4), discrimination (Everyday Discrimination Scale), resilience (Brief Resilience Scale), border stress (Border Community and Immigration Stress Scale), immigration policies (general questions) were included in the surveys. Each study sample included diverse racial groups across both immigrant generations. We report frequencies, descriptive statistics, and ANOVAs/post hoc test results.

Results

Findings highlight that levels of both stress and discrimination among non-White participants under the Trump administration were significantly higher than those of White participants, though neither relationship was significant under the Biden administration. Further, White participants exhibited higher resilience under the Trump administration, but not under the Biden administration.

Discussion and Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to comparatively examine immigrant experiences under the two most recent federal administrations. This study is seminal in highlighting discussions and making policy recommendations to limit immigrant exclusion, curtail exclusionary policies regarding travel bans, and improve pathways to citizenship, enhancing immigrant integration in the U.S. Roles of social workers in supporting immigrant communities and pathways for future research with immigrants are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Immigrants
• well-being
• immigration policies
• integration
• social work

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Loyola University Chicago.