“They Treat us Like Pests:” Undocumented Immigrant Experiences Obtaining Health Care in the Wake of a “Crackdown” Ordinance

Abstract

This article presents findings from a qualitative study of Latino immigrant experiences seeking health care services in the wake of an anti-immigrant “crackdown” ordinance similar to Arizona's SB 1070. Prince William County, Virginia's 2007 “Rule of Law” ordinance escalated law enforcement efforts that targeted this population for deportation and ordered staff to ensure that no one receive social services other than those required by federal law. This article sought to answer the questions: (1) Were undocumented immigrants able to obtain health care? (2) How do immigrants characterize their experiences with health providers? Data were gathered via semi-structured interviews (n = 57) with Latinos in a low-income neighborhood. Analysis of Spanish-language narratives found that many were dissuaded from seeking care because of high costs as well as lack of familiarity with the health care system. Others perceived that they were treated with insensitivity or outright hostility—and believed this treatment was a deliberate effort to discourage them from seeking help.

KEYWORDS:

• Latinos
• immigration
• health disparities
• undocumented immigrants

Notes

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Debra Lattanzi Shutika, PhD, principal investigator. The study was funded with the support of the Mason Project on Immigration, an initiative sponsored by the GMU College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

1. This study included data from both Spanish- and English-speaking residents. Following Massey and Capoferro (2004), researchers used multiple data gathering methods: (1) review of local newspaper coverage of the immigration controversy, Census data, and an anti-immigrant group's newsletters (archival study); (2) ethnographic immersion by the co-principal investigators and 12 students (3) administration of ethnosurvey data collection instrument (n = 103) to non-Latino, English-speaking residents; (4) writing extensive field notes in conjunction with each interview; and (5) administration of life histories with non-Latino, English-speaking residents (n = 21), 19 of which were conducted by the principal investigators.