Migrants’ Mental Health Matters Too

By Maria De Jesus and Ernesto Castañeda, Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and Immigration Lab, American University

Image of holding hands. Retrieved from Public Domain Pictures.

Every 10th of October, we celebrate World Mental Health Day. The overall objective of this day is to raise awareness of mental health issues around the world and to mobilize efforts in support of mental health. It reminds us that mental well-being is a universal human right. Yet for millions of migrants across the globe, this right remains elusive. Migration often involves trauma, uncertainty, and systemic exclusion, which can erode mental health while simultaneously making care harder to access. If we are serious about “mental health for all,” we must recognize that migrants’ mental health matters too.

Our research at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies (CLALS) and the Immigration Lab at American University in Washington, D.C., focuses on migration and health. In our recently published edited volume, “Migration and Migration Status: Key Determinants of Health and Well-Being”, we underscore the double bind migrants face. For example, research by Andrews et al. on Latinx communities in the U.S. Midwest shows that immigration-related stress and discrimination increase symptoms of depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). These symptoms should, in principle, push people to seek help. But the same stressors also fuel avoidance of care out of fear of deportation, mistrust of institutions, or experiences of bias in healthcare settings. In other words, the very forces that intensify the need for care also erect barriers to accessing it. Migrants are left caught in what scholars call a “double-edged sword” of immigration-related stress and health access challenges.

Complementary research in California and Connecticut by Espinoza-Kulick and Cerdeña sheds light on the structural barriers behind these struggles. Latinx (im)migrants, especially women, often endure migration-related trauma, family separation, and gender-based violence. Once in the United States, they encounter linguistic barriers, a lack of insurance, restrictive policies, and discrimination in healthcare. These overlapping vulnerabilities produce high rates of anxiety and depression, yet leave communities underserved. The main takeaway from this research: we need a comprehensive model of care that expands insurance access, ensures Indigenous and non-English language services, trains providers in structural competency, and empowers community health workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed and deepened these inequities. De Jesus’ study of migrants in France found that asylum seekers and undocumented individuals endured what researchers called a “compounded crisis”: a health crisis, a protection crisis, and a socio-economic crisis all at once. Lockdowns disrupted mental health services, worsened already precarious living conditions, and stripped migrants of informal work opportunities. Migrants described feeling “stopped in time,” trapped by overlapping vulnerabilities with no clear path forward. Their experiences are not anomalies but emblematic of how crises magnify pre-existing inequities in migrant health.

Taken together, these studies deliver a clear message: migrant mental health is not an afterthought but central to public health and social justice. It reveals how systems of exclusion—from immigration enforcement to healthcare discrimination—translate directly into suffering, anxiety, and trauma. Ignoring this reality undermines not only individual well-being but also the broader goal of resilient, healthy societies.

On World Mental Health Day, we must resist the temptation to celebrate progress without confronting gaps. Yes, awareness has grown, but awareness alone cannot heal wounds inflicted by deportation fears, language exclusion, or confinement policies. If mental health is truly for all, migrants cannot be left outside the circle of care. Protecting and promoting their mental health is not charity, it is recognition of shared humanity and mutual flourishing.

World Mental Health Day asks us to imagine a future where no one is denied care because of who they are or where they come from. For migrants navigating borders and barriers, that future remains distant. But it is within reach—if we commit to policies and practices that affirm that their mental health matters too.


Maria de Jesus is the Senior Associate Director of Community-Based Research and Engagement of the Center for Latin American & Latino Studies at American University.

Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Center for Latin American & Latino Studies at American University.

Dual Perspective on Food Program Administration 

By Lia Sullivan

November 21, 2024

A table full of vegetables including celery and carrots.

Addressing and combatting food insecurity requires a coordinated approach across all sectors, including nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and private corporations. Although these varying groups may approach the cause differently, there is a shared goal of increasing food security. This analysis was influenced by my experience working in a nonprofit addressing food insecurity as well as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the Food and Nutrition Service. My experiences gave me valuable insights into the stark differences between government and nonprofit organizations. in understanding, approaching, and solving food insecurity between government and nonprofit organizations.  

The mission of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service is stated as, “To increase food security and reduce hunger in partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income people access to food, a healthy diet and nutrition education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence.”  They administer 15 federal assistance programs including SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), school meals, CACFP (Child and Adult Food Care Program), WIC (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). My responsibilities included reviewing and editing resources that program administrators used to properly procure and serve food that aligns with the nutritional standards set by the agency. This opportunity allowed me to gain experience in the federal processes that go into the nutrition programs that serve and assist millions of Americans.  

The nonprofit organization I worked with aimed their mission as, “Striving to eliminate hunger in the nation’s capital while enhancing the nutrition, health, financial stability, and overall well-being of low-income residents in the District.” Their main focuses are on D.C. resident participation in federal nutrition programs, improving public policies, and educating the public on the reality of hunger’s existence within the District. My responsibilities were increasing SNAP and WIC participation by creating relationships with residents and producing educational content. This role gave me first-hand experience with the communities directly affected by food insecurity and allowed me to see how the policy created by our government affects Americans every day.  

The differences I noted between the two experiences varied, from how the meetings were conducted to how they defined activism. Within the USDA, meetings were highly structured, with a specific focus on compliance with federal regulations and guidelines. I found the weekly staff meetings to be lively, with a lot of small talk and team activities. On the contrary, the nonprofit team meetings were centered around community intervention with little to no small talk and few team connection activities. These differences were notable for me, as they showed the discrepant level of urgency in the line of work between the two sectors.  This could be attributed to numerous factors, including different standards and regulations each organization is held to. Nevertheless, it shined light on the importance of nonprofit organizations supporting USDA policy.  

Additionally, the difference in staffing retention and burnout between the two organizations was striking. Throughout my year at the nonprofit, I saw many team members resign from positions due to the stress and emotional toll that comes with aiding underserved communities. Furthermore, there were few to no employees who had been with the organization for over four years.  In my year with the organization, I witnessed the reinstating of three different presidents and the resignation of two. Whereas in the USDA, most employees had high tenure, with some even reaching 20-25 years in the agency. This difference in retention is a common problem, in the nonprofit sector. With limited funding and resources, staff often are forced to take on responsibilities beyond their original job description, working long hours to meet deadlines, and to keep up with the needs of District residents. In the government, however, there are strict guidelines in place limiting hours worked by each employee and the duties they are permitted to perform, helping keep their retention rate high.  

 Beyond job loss from burnout, I also witnessed the nonprofit organization’s largest layoff period in its history. Essential positions such as communications and public relations coordinators, government affairs specialists, and others were released from the organization due to large budget cuts. Additionally, other employees were forced to take furlough days to keep their jobs afloat. In contrast, job stability within the government sector was a promising factor for prospective employees. The federal government, the largest employer in the United States, provides comprehensive benefits and job security. 

Overall, both organizations play vital roles in supporting and combatting food insecurity nationwide. The government creates vital policies and budgets to support the “boots on the ground” and educational information that nonprofit organizations work tirelessly to implement. Through these experiences, I was able to see the varying factors that go into supporting our neighbors who experience food insecurity every day.  Having worked at a nonprofit before the USDA allowed my work through the government to remain grounded in the experiences of those we are seeking to help. Therefore, policymakers and direct service providers should better collaborate in hopes of making these efforts more effective.  

Lia Sullivan is an MA student in the Sociology and Research Program at American University.

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.