Asylum Seekers, Refugees, and Immigrants in the United States
Abstract and Keywords
This entry presents introductory information on asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants in the United States, including distinctions among them, major regions of origin, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, challenges in social and cultural adaptation, and best practices for social work with these populations.
The percentage of foreign-born people in the United States is increasing, having grown from 11% in 2000 to 13% in 2010 (Immigration Policy Center, 2012). At present, nearly 40 million members of the U.S. population are foreign born (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Thus, all social workers are likely to encounter asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants in their practice, and it is essential that they be prepared to work effectively with these populations.
There are many differing categories of international migrants. Table 1 shows some common conceptual categories. The table categorizes the foreign born as either voluntary or forced migrants, and as either permanent or temporary. These categories are intended to provide a guiding framework; in reality, such distinctions are not always clear cut. For example, many international migrants experience a mixture of both voluntary and forced reasons for migration.
Table 1 Conceptual Categories of International Migrants
Length of Residence
Impetus for migration
Victims of atrocities
Victims of disasters
Professionals on assignment
Persons in any of these categories may have legal or illegal status. This is a guiding framework only. Categorical distinctions are not always clear cut in reality. Persons may move from one cell to another over time.
Voluntary, permanent international migrants include immigrants and international adoptees. Immigrants are persons who leave their countries of their own will, usually in search of better economic opportunities. International adoptees whose birth parents and home governments have consented to their adoption abroad would also be considered voluntary permanent migrants (as minors, they themselves are not considered capable of giving consent; thus their parents’ or guardians’ consent makes this a voluntary situation).
Forced migrants are those who have left their homelands because they had no other choice. In the permanent category, these include victims of atrocities, such as refugees who are victims of war and other human rights violations and cannot return to their countries because of fear of persecution.
Temporary voluntary migrants include students, tourists, and so forth, who intend to stay in the country a limited period of time and then return to their homelands. Temporary forced migrants include asylum seekers; these are persons making a claim for refugee status, for whom a decision is pending. This status is temporary because ultimately they are either granted refugee status or they are ordered to return to their homeland. Victims of natural and human-made disasters are also usually temporary migrants, as they typically return to their homelands after the disaster has abated.
Persons in any of these conceptual categories may have legal or illegal status. Legal migrants are those who are authorized to live in the country; illegal migrants are those who entered the country either without authorization or with fraudulent passports, or overstayed their visas. People may also move from one cell to another. For example, students or tourists who stay in the country after their visas have expired become illegal, permanent immigrants.
Regions of Origin
Among the foreign born in 2010, 53.1% were born in Latin America or the Caribbean, 28.2% in Asia, 12.1% in Europe, and the remaining 6.6% in other regions of the world (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics
Table 2 provides a composite profile of the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the foreign born. It should be noted, however, that the foreign born are a very heterogeneous population, and there is great variability in these characteristics.
Table 2 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Foreign Born
In 2010 about 74% of foreign-born persons lived in 10 states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, Virginia, and Washington (in descending order of the percentage of the foreign-born population that resides in the state). The remaining 26% was dispersed throughout the remaining states, each with 2% or less of the foreign-born population.
In 2010, 80.5% of the foreign born were 18–64 years old, whereas 60.3% of natives were in this age group. More specifically, 50.3% of the foreign born, but 34.5% of the native population, were aged 18–44 years. Among the foreign born, 30.2% were 45–64 years old, compared with 25.8% of natives. The percentage of the foreign born that was aged 65 years and over differed slightly from that of the native population (12.4%, compared with 13.2%). In contrast, 7.1% of the foreign born, but 26.5% of the native population, were less than 18 years old. The small proportion of foreign born in the youngest age group occurred because most of the children of foreign-born parents were born in the United States and thus are natives.
Year of entry
Among the foreign born in 2010, 34.7% entered the United States since 2000, 27.2% came in the 1990s, 18.6% came in the 1980s, and the remaining 19.6% arrived before 1980.
Family household size and composition
In 2010, the average household size with a foreign-born householder was 3.4 people, compared to 2.5 among households with a native householder. Among the population 15 years and older, the foreign born were more likely than natives to be currently married (58.5% compared with 47.0%).
The foreign born aged 25 years and over were less likely to have graduated from high school than were natives the same age (68.3% and 89.0%, respectively). The percentage of the foreign born with a bachelor’s degree or more education (27.0%) was similar to that of the native population (28.4%).
Labor force participation
In 2010, 67.7% of the foreign born were in the labor force, compared with 63.8% of natives.
In 2010, the foreign born were more likely than the native-born to work in jobs in service (25.1% vs. 16.6%), construction (13.0% vs. 8.4%), and production (15.5% vs. 11.2%). The foreign born were less likely to work in management, business, science, and arts occupations (28.6% vs. 37.4%).
In 2010, the median income of foreign-born households was $46,224, compared with $50,541 for native households.
In 2010, 18.8% of the foreign born were living below the poverty level, compared with 14.8% of natives.
In 2010, 65.7% of the foreign born had health insurance, compared to 87.3% of the native born.
Note. From the U.S. Census Bureau, The foreign-born population in the United States, 2012.
Challenges in Social and Cultural Adaptation
International migrants are likely to encounter challenges in numerous areas of adaptation, including health; mental health; family dynamics; language, education, and economic well-being; and interethnic relations (Potocky-Tripodi, 2002).
International migrants often face inadequate health care access due to structural barriers, financial barriers, and personal and cultural barriers. In general, the health status of ethnic minorities, including many immigrants and refugees, tends to be worse than that of White Americans. These disparities are due to a complex combination of socioeconomic, physiological, psychological, societal, and cultural factors. Relevant cultural factors include health beliefs and health practices, which encompass cultural concepts of health and illness, folk illness, traditional therapeutic practices, and the integration of traditional and conventional healing systems. Psychosocial issues are also related to the health and health care of immigrants and refugees, including treatment adherence, somatization, and family involvement (Potocky-Tripodi, 2002).
International migrants are at risk of developing mental health problems due to stressors experienced during the migration process. These stressors may include loss of family members, friends, home, and the familiar environment; traumatic experiences such as war, famine, violence, rape, enslavement, imprisonment, and torture; a hasty and dangerous departure; dangerous transit experiences; loss of status; language problems; employment problems; legal problems; social isolation; family conflict; role changes; discrimination, racism, and xenophobia; and acculturative stress.
Some of these experiences are common to almost all international migrants, whereas others, such as traumatic experiences, are experienced only by some, particularly by forced migrants. Additionally, the mental health of international migrants is influenced by cultural factors. These include conceptualizations of mental health, diagnosis and symptom expression, communication styles, and service utilization. The most commonly observed mental health problems of international migrants include grief, alienation and loneliness, decreased self-esteem, depression, anxiety, somatization, paranoia, guilt, posttraumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse (Potocky-Tripodi, 2002).
The stressors of the migration process typically lead to changes in family roles and dynamics. In some cases, these stressors may overcome a family’s ability to cope, resulting in marital and intergenerational conflicts, which may include domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse. In addition to family conflicts, family members, particularly adolescents and the elderly, experience unique life cycle issues that are affected by migration. These issues center on identity, meaning, and family expectations (Potocky-Tripodi, 2002).
Language, Education, and Economic Well-Being
Most international migrants are highly motivated to learn English, as evidenced by high demand for English-as-a-Second Language classes (Center for Adult English Language Acquisition, 2012). For most migrants, English ability improves with length of residence. However, the rate of language acquisition depends on many factors, including age, education, time available for language learning, level of literacy in the native language, opportunities to interact with native English speakers, and the value that the individual places on being bilingual. Across generations, the level of English language acquisition appears to be increasing, and immigrant and refugee children acquire English much faster than their parents. It is generally accepted that bilingualism is the desired outcome for both children and adults. However, it is important to recognize that being bilingual does not necessarily mean equal proficiency in both languages. This has implications for the level of written and oral translation in reaching those who speak another language.
The educational attainment of adult international migrants is clustered at the low and high ends of the educational spectrum. While many children in immigrant and refugee families perform well in school, many are also disadvantaged by low family socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency, late entry into the U.S. school system, and assimilation into disadvantaged minority groups.
The economic well-being of immigrants and refugees varies widely and is influenced by numerous factors, including financial capital, human capital, social capital, household composition, and community contexts (Potocky-Tripodi, 2002).
Anti-immigrant sentiments and policies rise and fall in cycles that are linked to changing economic and political conditions. Anti-immigrant sentiments are also linked to prejudice, racism, and discrimination. This is an era when the anti-immigrant sentiment is high. These attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors have multiple causes, including economic, psychological, social, and power-conflict factors. Relations between the foreign-born and the native-born population tend to be characterized by separation, conflict, and competition in some communities (Potocky-Tripodi, 2002).
Social work best practices for working with international migrants have the following fundamental features: they are (1) human rights based, (2) strengths based, (3) evidence based, (4) holistic, and (5) multilevel.
Human Rights Base
International migrants, particularly those who are undocumented, are often viewed by natives as “subhuman” and not deserving of the same rights as humans. It is essential that social workers combat this attitude and its resultant policies and practices. Therefore, a human rights base is essential to practice with this population (Ife, 2008).
Best practices for social work with international migrants use a strengths perspective (Saleebey, 2008) that “emphasizes the discovery of strengths in the person and the culture, the motivation toward perseverance and change based on inner strength and endurance, and the environment as full of resources at the family, group, and community levels” (Lum & Lu, 2007, p. 202). The social worker should find out what coping strategies and problem resolution strategies the client has successfully used in the past. These strengths should then be built upon for addressing the current problem.
This author defines evidence-based practitioners as those who (a) use interventions that have evidence of effectiveness based on published evaluations, whenever available, and (b) systematically evaluate their effectiveness through practice or program evaluation methods, or both. Thus, evidence-based social workers must know what interventions have been demonstrated to be effective in resolving particular problems among particular clients. However, many interventions have not been specifically evaluated for international migrant clients. Thus, workers must be able to determine what interventions, or modifications of interventions, appear most promising for these clients based on demonstrated effectiveness for other populations. In many cases, social workers will adapt existing interventions or programs to make them culturally compatible for international migrants. Therefore, social workers need to evaluate their practice with these populations to determine the effectiveness of these adaptations, and to disseminate their findings in order to add to the profession’s knowledge base about what works for these clients.
As described earlier, international migrants usually are confronted with a multitude of challenges. Thus, effective social workers must identify, assess, and intervene with the totality of the problems that clients are facing. For this reason, case management is an essential underpinning of best practices with these populations.
Problems that are the target of social work practice may be located at three possible levels: micro (individual, family, and small group), meso (local communities and organizations), and macro (complex organizations or systems). For international migrants, problems often lie in the meso or macro levels in the form of societal discrimination as manifested in factors such as lack of access to health care or employment. In such cases, meso- and macro-level interventions are required, since working only with the client is highly unlikely to resolve the problem. To aim for change in the client when the problem really lies in the society would further the client’s oppression; it would make the helping relationship a means of oppression rather than a means of help.
Summary of Best Practices
Table 3 summarizes the best practices that meet the aforementioned criteria and that address each of the areas of challenge described earlier (Potocky-Tripodi, 2002).
Table 3 Best Practice Interventions for Immigrant and Refugee Populations
• Community needs assessment
• Policy and program advocacy and planning
• Community consultation, education, and development
• Interdisciplinary and interagency collaboration
• Organizational development
• Case identification
• Assessment of health beliefs and treatment expectations
• Case management
• Health education and counseling
• Psychosocial treatment
• Case management
• Supportive counseling
• Information and skills training
• Crisis intervention
• Cognitive and behavioral therapies
• Interpersonal psychotherapy
• Marital and family therapies: behavioral, cognitive, structural–strategic, psychoeducational, and family systems
• Family preservation
• Ethnic identity and acculturation interventions
• Problem-solving therapy
• Reminiscence therapy
Language and education
• Referral, case advocacy, and follow-up
• Supportive counseling
• Psychosocial interventions
• Job search assistance, coaching, and mentoring
• Self-employment assistance
• Vocational education and career counseling
• Professional recertification
• Child care
• Structured interethnic contact
• Conflict resolution
• Client education
• Antiracist psychotherapy
Social work practice with immigrants and refugees requires specialized knowledge of the unique issues of these populations. This entry has provided introductory information as a foundation for compassionate and effective service delivery.
Center for Adult English Language Acquisition. (2012). ESL resources. Retrieved June 2012, from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/faqs.html
Ife, J. (2008). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice (Rev ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Immigration Policy Center. (2012). Strength in diversity: The economic and political clout of immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in the United States. Retrieved April 13 2013, from http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength%20in%20Diversity%20updated%20061912.pdf
Lum, D., & Lu, Y. E. (2007). Skill development. In D. Lum (Ed.), Culturally competent practice: A framework for understanding diverse groups and justice issues (3rd ed., pp. 185–225). Belmont, CA: Thomson.Find this resource:
Potocky-Tripodi, M. (2002). Best practices for social work with refugees and immigrants. New York: Columbia University Press.Find this resource:
Saleebey, D. (2008). The strengths perspective in social work practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Find this resource:
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2010.Retrieved April 13, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-19.pdf.
Chang-Muy, F., & Congress, E. P. (Eds.). (2007). Social work with immigrants and refugees: Legal issues, clinical skills, and advocacy. New York: Springer.Find this resource:
Potocky-Tripodi, M. (2002). Best practices for social work with refugees and immigrants. New York: Columbia University Press.Find this resource:
Segal, U. A., & Elliott, D. (Eds.). (2012). Refugees worldwide. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Find this resource:
Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees. http://www.gcir.org
Migration Policy Institute. http://www.migrationpolicy.org
National Association of Social Workers Indicators for the Achievement of the Standards for Cultural Competence. http://www.socialworkers.org/practice/standards/NASWCulturalStandardsIndicators2006.pdf