91ÉçÇø

If someone crosses the border into the United States, they might be described as a migrant, an immigrant, an illegal immigrant, a refugee, an alien or an asylum seeker. Are these distinctions important in shaping public opinion? Do they play a part in how these individuals are treated both personally and legally?

Professor , interim department chair of health policy and systems management in USF’s (COPH), addresses the topic in a newly published paper . Her research appeared in the Indiana Health Law Review, a journal that focuses on health law and policy.

The topic of immigration has been forefront in the news over the past several years, Drabiak said, and resonates with people because it raises issues of human compassion, risk and people striving for a better life. 

“But we've also heard about terrible stories of cartels controlling the border, human smuggling, and the environmental hazards of illegal border crossing,’’ she said. “My goal is to combine the law, and how policies related to enforcement − or lack of enforcement − affects the health of the population of foreign nationals crossing the border.’’

Drabiak describes the narrow parameters for people to legally seek asylum and she provides data on how applicants have misused this process. This created a magnet to attract foreign nationals who risked their lives as they tried to cross the border and venture through difficult terrain, resulting in chaos and confusion. Health hazards also include trauma injuries from falls or jumps from the border wall, motor vehicle crashes and physical and sexual violence.

For the , U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported 2.1 million encounters at and between ports of entry along the southwest border and a total of 2.3 million encounters across all borders. These figures reflect the number of times migrants were encountered by CBP, not a final count of individuals who were admitted into the country.

Drabiak makes a clear distinction between legal and illegal processes for immigration. Her paper also compares media descriptions of foreign nationals who are illegally entering the country and provides multiple population-based data sources and census information.

Drabiak divided her paper into three broad sections:

• Part I - Defines the population of foreign nationals who are seeking illegal entry at the southern border.
• Part II - Explains how despite the U.S. being a land of immigrants, immigration laws have been a historical feature of the country. This section also describes how current laws set forth discrete requirements for legal immigration and entry into the country, including limits to visas, medical screening procedures and specific requirements for asylum.
• Part III – Explains how shifting terminology swept in many foreign nationals entering illegally under the umbrella of asylum seekers, which has resulted in corresponding changes to the asylum process itself.

The last section discusses how these changes are not because of modifications to asylum law, but rather, a shift in enforcement and specific policies that rely on parole and release following CBP processing.

“This series of executive policy decisions to circumvent asylum laws has produced confusion, inconsistencies and eroded the rule of law,’’ the paper states.

The rhetoric around immigration has captured the public’s attention because it appeals to a desire for compassion and concern for human life. However, the mainstream narrative that portrays the influx of people at the southern border as mostly asylum seekers fleeing violence, persecution and dire poverty is not supported by objective facts and broad data.

“The goal of the article was to examine that narrative − what the public reads in the news − and compare this to the data, current researchand the law,’’ she said. “There’s a massive disconnect, which results in confusion in immigration policy, and directly affects the lives of foreign nationals.’’

People often hear stories of women and children entering the country to avoid oppression. The evidence, however, shows mostly young men seeking greater economic opportunity and who are willing to put themselves in danger to achieve it.

“For the men interviewed in some of the sources I used,’’ she added, “their answer was they knew of the risk, but the economic gain was worth it.’’

Distorting the description and categories of people who are illegally crossing the border detracts from the ability to assist true asylum seekers, she argues. Humanitarian protections in the law are critical, but they only apply in narrow and specific contexts. Current statistics demonstrate that the vast majority of foreign nationals do not qualify for asylum, which suggests an abuse of the asylum process.

“There was a recent shift in terminology to call all foreign nationals either ‘migrants’ or ‘asylum seekers,’ which is a way to garner sympathy for the plight of people seeking a better life and trying to move to a different country to do so,’’ Drabiak said.

“The problem with this that it erases the distinction between legal immigration requirements and illegal entry, and each of these words has a specific legal definition and rules to follow. Legally, people seeking temporary economic opportunities or a permanent better life do not quality for asylum.’’

As a result of her research, Drabiak gave a presentation called “Immigration and Health: What Providers Should Know’’ to the Adolescent Health Advisory Board/ Healthy Start Coalition of Hillsborough County. This presentation and the article explained the potential health issues that foreign nationals face so that health professionals can prepare and treat this population more effectively.