Valdivia’s expansive research, grounded in interviews with over 100 individuals from immigrant families, provides an unprecedented ethnographic account of the interior enforcement landscape. She vividly portrays how once-familiar and ostensibly secure environments—workplaces, schools, grocery stores, hospitals, and private homes—have been transformed into volatile “hot spots” fraught with the constant threat of immigration raids and deportations. This concept of “geographies of deportability” redefines the contours of legality and danger, crafting a psychological and physical terrain in which undocumented and mixed-status families must navigate their daily lives under the shadow of enforcement actions.

The initial framing of this reality is encapsulated in the chilling opening line of Valdivia’s book: “They took Dad.” This simple sentence sets the stage for a narrative steeped in personal loss, resilience, and the extraordinary strategies families employ to endure the ever-present threat of deportation. Emmy Award-winning journalist Jorge Ramos encapsulates the essence of this work in his review, emphasizing its urgent message about the reconfiguration of the immigrant experience in contemporary America. Ramos acknowledges that the book captures the painful human dimensions behind evolving U.S. immigration policies that systematically target immigrant communities.

Central to Valdivia’s analysis is a detailed examination of how immigration enforcement has migrated from border zones into interior spaces via covert and unmarked operations. Unmarked vehicles and officers operating within neighborhoods reveal an enforcement praxis that blends into the fabric of everyday life, often turning neighbors into informants and intensifying the social fragmentation within immigrant enclaves. An illustrative case from the book highlights Maribel, a DACA recipient, whose family was reported by neighbors following a personal dispute, demonstrating the weaponization of immigration enforcement in local conflicts.

This ambient threat forces many families to alter their behaviors and routines, cultivating an environment marked by hypervigilance and mistrust. Valdivia dubs these sites “hot spots,” where the traditional boundaries between safety and risk collapse, leading to omnipresent anxiety. Notably, she pinpoints that even private homes—the sanctuaries traditionally shielded from state coercion—are no longer immune, becoming fraught spaces where fear and uncertainty prevail. This captures the profound psychosocial impact of interior enforcement on family dynamics and individual well-being.

Another groundbreaking contribution of Sanctuary Making is Valdivia’s elucidation of the critical yet often invisible role of young adults within immigrant families. These young individuals frequently assume the heavy responsibility of coordinating family safety amid enforcement threats, navigating complex legal systems, and managing the emotional labor of sustaining their households. The book highlights their pivotal roles as communicators with legal representatives, emotional anchors for younger siblings, and sometimes primary financial supporters. Young adults often make consequential sacrifices, such as postponing or abandoning higher education, to safeguard their families’ stability.

The mental health ramifications of such pressures are substantial. Valdivia’s research reveals how young immigrants endure intense stress, compounded by isolation resulting from fears of disclosure. The current political climate exacerbates these challenges, deepening the stigma and risks associated with revealing immigrant status to institutional actors like educators or counselors, further hindering access to support systems. This pervasive invisibility around their legal vulnerability perpetuates a cycle of suffering that is rarely addressed in public discourse.

Valdivia positions her work not merely as sociological documentation but as an urgent call for systemic intervention, emphasizing the indispensable role of educators and school counselors in creating protective environments. Through interventions such as “Know Your Rights” workshops, fostering inclusive classroom cultures, and establishing trusting relationships, educational institutions can actively participate in “sanctuary making.” This concept signifies a collective, proactive effort to shield vulnerable students and families from the harmful effects of immigration enforcement, thereby reintroducing safety and belonging into fractured communities.

The theoretical framework presented in the book also serves as a lexicon for scholars seeking to analyze the expanding reach of immigration enforcement. Concepts such as “enforcement in the shadows” and “sanctuary making” provide tools to trace and understand the shifting policies and practices reshaping immigrant lives across localities. Valdivia anticipates that her findings will inspire further research to map these “geographies of deportability” beyond the initial study sites, accounting for evolving patterns of enforcement and community resistance nationwide.

Despite the sobering narratives documented, Valdivia’s work is infused with a cautious optimism centered around grassroots mobilization. The emergent community-level “sanctuary making” initiatives spotlight the rapid-response networks formed by immigrant rights advocates, legal observers, and everyday neighbors who strive to mitigate harm through solidarity and vigilance. These networks represent a dynamic counterforce to enforcement, highlighted by real-time information sharing, volunteerism, and collective protection efforts tailored to specific locales.

The meticulousness of Valdivia’s ethnographic immersion distinguishes Sanctuary Making as a work of rigorous scholarship and empathetic storytelling. Her nuanced attention to the lived realities of immigrant families allows readers to grasp the complexities of navigating life under constant threat. The book’s impact extends beyond academic circles, offering policymakers, community organizers, and the wider public an essential lens through which to understand the human stakes embedded in immigration enforcement politics.

Scholars and reviewers alike have underscored the importance of this contribution to immigration studies. Genevieve Negrón-Gonzales of the University of San Francisco describes Valdivia’s research as a rare and deeply vital investigation into the everyday experience of undocumented life, lauding both the scholar’s compassion and methodological rigor. The resonance of Sanctuary Making within academic and community spheres promises to shape ongoing dialogues about immigration policy, enforcement practices, and immigrant resilience for years to come.

In sum, Carolina Valdivia’s Sanctuary Making dramatically reframes our understanding of how U.S. immigration enforcement penetrates daily life, transforming social and physical spaces into contested zones of risk and refuge. By centering the stories of immigrant families—especially the often-overlooked contributions of young adults—the book reveals the multifaceted strategies of survival and resistance that define contemporary immigrant experiences. This work compels a reevaluation of enforcement’s human cost and, importantly, encourages collective action to build safer, more inclusive communities amid a turbulent political landscape.

Subject of Research: Immigration enforcement, immigrant families, interior enforcement, geographies of deportability, sanctuary making, immigrant youth experiences.

Article Title: Sanctuary Making: Immigrant Families Reshaping Geographies of Deportability by Carolina Valdivia

News Publication Date: June 2024

Web References:

• Book page, University of California Press: https://www.ucpress.edu/books/sanctuary-making/paper
• Carolina Valdivia’s website: https://carolinavaldivia.org/

Image Credits: University of California Press

Keywords: Social issues, social problems, immigration enforcement, immigrant families, deportability, sanctuary making, interior enforcement, immigrant youth, legal vulnerability, ethnographic research

The report, appearing in the prestigious journal Psychiatric News, draws attention to the complex ways in which immigration policies interlace with psychiatric outcomes, emphasizing how the chronic fear induced by enforcement actions precipitates structural and intergenerational trauma. The authors argue that psychiatry, as a field deeply intertwined with social realities, must engage more actively and critically with these systemic issues to properly address the mental health needs arising from such pervasive societal challenges.

Children born in the United States but living in households where one or more caregivers lack legal status experience an omnipresent state of anxiety related to potential family separation. This anxiety permeates all spheres of their lives—from educational attainment to social interactions—and manifests both before and after possible separation events. The report underlines the critical importance of early emotional development and how pre-migration and post-migration separations disrupt attachment patterns fundamental to psychological health. Moreover, caregivers, particularly mothers, are often grappling with their own trauma, which compromises their capacity to provide emotional support, thereby creating a compounding cycle of mental health difficulties within these families.

A cornerstone of the study is its insistence that ongoing national debates over immigration policy frequently neglect the human toll exacted on the youngest and most vulnerable members of society. By foregrounding clinical evidence and community data, the report calls on media, policymakers, and mental health practitioners to reorient the conversation toward protecting the emotional wellbeing of children caught in the crosshairs of enforcement-driven immigration systems.

Dr. Lisa Fortuna, professor and chair of psychiatry and neuroscience at the UCR School of Medicine and primary author of the report, asserts that the threat or reality of separation from a caregiver can fundamentally alter a child’s developmental trajectory. Chronic fear disrupts secure attachments and instigates what is known clinically as complex trauma. This traumatic stress, when unmitigated, can have cascading effects on emotional regulation, cognitive processing, and brain architecture during critical periods of childhood growth.

The report integrates clinical case studies that illuminate the lived experiences of these children, capturing the profound emotional distress that manifests as avoidance, withdrawal, or aggression. One composite clinical narrative, referred to as “Ana,” typifies the intense and pervasive anxiety that can immobilize children—not only fearing deportation but also mistrusting environments, such as schools or therapeutic settings, that should provide safety and stability. The report discusses how safety planning, a common therapeutic intervention, paradoxically both helps and reminds families of their unstable living conditions.

Caregivers themselves endure significant psychological burdens. The pervasive fear of losing children to deportation or foster care fuels heightened levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Within the home, these emotional pressures exacerbate tension, leading to a contagion of trauma that undermines familial relationships and resilience. Notably, parental mental health is inextricably linked to child wellbeing; caregivers struggling with trauma are less able to provide the consistent emotional support critical to healthy childhood development.

The researchers also observe that children do not omit political turmoil from their consciousness. Incidents of bullying and racialized intimidation targeting immigrant or Latino children heighten existential fears and social alienation. For example, some children have reported harassment by peers wielding politically charged symbols, such as MAGA hats, coupled with threats to report families to immigration authorities, fostering an environment of hostility and fear that substantially impairs social and academic functioning.

Developmentally, the impact of immigration enforcement trauma varies by age but remains significant throughout childhood and adolescence. In infants and toddlers, disrupted attachment can lead to somatic issues like disturbed sleep and feeding behaviors, foreshadowing longer-term emotional difficulties. Older children, who possess greater cognitive awareness, exhibit symptoms of anxiety and fear, often struggling to verbalize their distress. Adolescents frequently shoulder adult-like responsibilities prematurely, a phenomenon known as “parentification,” which encompasses caregiving duties and managing household logistics due to fears of parental absence.

The intersection of immigration and mental health policy emerges as a focal point of concern in the report. Current enforcement practices foster systemic trauma that fulfills diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety disorders in children—even among those not directly targeted—highlighting the widespread nature of harm. The authors advocate for recognition of policy as a determinant of public health and encourage mental health professionals to adopt advocacy roles that extend beyond conventional clinical boundaries.

If these mental health consequences remain unaddressed, the report warns of grave, long-term implications. Traumatized children risk lifelong psychiatric illnesses, diminished academic achievement, and impaired social integration. The perpetuation of trauma across generations reinforces cycles of disadvantage and psychosocial harm, shaping public health outcomes on a societal scale. The erosion of nurturing, stable environments directly limits children’s emotional, cognitive, and social potentials, obstructing healthy adult functioning and community wellbeing.

Amid these stark realities, the authors also convey a message of hope rooted in the resilience of immigrant communities and the enduring strength found in social support networks. Mental health professionals, they argue, have a critical role in bolstering these informal systems by providing culturally competent care and partnering with community resources. Even minor, strategic interventions can catalyze significant, positive changes in the lives of vulnerable children, altering developmental trajectories toward healing and stability.

This report represents a pivotal contribution to understanding the biopsychosocial consequences of immigration enforcement, urging a transformative approach that integrates psychiatry with social justice and policy reform. By confronting the realities of chronic fear and instability faced by millions of immigrant children, it calls for a comprehensive public health framework that centers emotional wellbeing as a fundamental right and national priority.

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: Special Report: U.S. Immigration Policy and the Mental Health of Children and Families

News Publication Date: 25-Jul-2025

Web References:
DOI: 10.1176/appi.pn.2025.08.8.19

Keywords: Immigration enforcement, mental health, childhood trauma, mixed-status families, family separation, PTSD, intergenerational trauma, structural trauma, public health, child development, immigration policy, psychiatric advocacy