Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Cost of Fear: What Immigration Enforcement Is Doing to Our Clinics

Opinion

The Cost of Fear: What Immigration Enforcement Is Doing to Our Clinics

Hands holding a heart

Picture provided by Latino News Network

He was supposed to come in three months ago. When he finally returned to the clinic, it was not for routine follow-up. Instead, it was because he could no longer feel his feet, and his vision had begun to blur. He told us he had missed his appointments out of fear. Immigration enforcement activity in his neighborhood and rumors of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) near clinics made him afraid to be seen entering a healthcare space. So he stayed home. He rationed his insulin until it ran out. Now he sat before us with uncontrolled diabetes, worsening nerve damage, and worsening vision concerning diabetic retinopathy.

Stories like this are becoming increasingly common. In Minneapolis, recent ICE raids have sent shockwaves through immigrant communities, with reports of enforcement agents present in or near healthcare settings, including exam rooms. Families describe being too afraid to leave their homes, even to see a doctor, or choosing the most ill child to bring to urgent care because bringing multiple children would be too risky. Clinics meant to serve as places of healing are being transformed into sites of fear.


What is unfolding in Minneapolis mirrors what we are witnessing in Chicago, one of the largest academic medical center hubs in the nation. As medical students training here and volunteering in free clinics such as the Community Health Clinic, we see the consequences firsthand. Patients delay care not because they do not value their health, but because the perceived legal and personal risks of seeking care feel too high. People arrive later and sicker, carrying advanced disease alongside the psychological trauma of living under constant threat.

It is proven that fear and perceived risk not only suppress health-care utilization but also worsen health outcomes. Studies have identified that the threat of immigration enforcement is associated with reduced access to health services among immigrant populations, regardless of health insurance status3 . Clinicians who work with immigrant communities have reported significant disruptions in the care and management of their patient population, which has been directly attributable to fear of deportation. Decades of health services research clearly demonstrate that any avoidance or delay in care, due to barriers related to fear, is directly associated with worsened disease presentation. At the end, the avoidance of care due to fear leads to more costly and emergency treatments with worsened clinical outcomes. Fear from immigration enforcement is no different than fear from other barriers, as poor outcomes are always inevitable.

National immigration enforcement policies have reshaped healthcare spaces, driving delayed care, worse outcomes, and increased emergency department utilization5,6. At our clinics, patients present with complications that could have been prevented or better managed. These are not failures of individual responsibility. They are predictable consequences of policies that push patients away from care.

As future physicians, we are already inheriting the clinical fallout of today’s immigration policies: diseases diagnosed too late, trust eroded before a patient ever enters the exam room, and preventable harm shaped by fear rather than biology. Our responsibility is not only to treat illness, but to recognize how policy becomes pathology. Ethical commitments to justice and nonmaleficence demand that immigration status never determine access to medically necessary care7.

A healthcare system cannot function if patients are afraid to walk through the door. When immigration enforcement creates conditions under which patients avoid preventive services, delay urgent care, or forgo treatment altogether, the result is preventable harm. No amount of clinical excellence can compensate for a system in which trust has eroded so profoundly that seeking care feels dangerous.

Physicians and future physicians must also speak up. We must practice trauma-informed, culturally responsive care, advocate within our institutions, and name what we are witnessing in our clinics. However, the responsibility cannot rest solely on individual clinicians. Chicago is home to some of the most influential health systems, not just in the Midwest but in the entire country, and dozens of national medical organizations whose voices shape health outcomes. When these institutions remain silent or issue vague, noncommittal statements, they allow fear to flourish. Hospitals are not just sites of care; they are consequential actors with the power to affirm that healthcare spaces are safe for everyone. Institutional silence, like individual silence, carries consequences and undermines the very mission of medicine. Silence is not neutrality; it is complicity.

Change is still possible. The 2026 midterm elections offer an important opportunity for the public to treat immigration policy as a referendum. The people must decide whether we tolerate a system in which fear-driven enforcement undermines public health or we, the people, demand policies that allow people to seek care without risk. The election might seem far away at the end of the year, but both physicians and future physicians must begin advocating for healthier communities now.

If we want healthier communities, we must begin with a simple truth: patients cannot heal in systems where they do not feel safe. Healthcare must remain a place of refuge, not fear – for the patient who rationed his insulin, for the parent afraid to bring their child to an appointment, and for the communities watching clinics become extensions of enforcement rather than care.

The Cost of Fear: What Immigration Enforcement Is Doing to Our Clinics was first published by the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.

Jessica Toledo is the daughter of Mexican American immigrants and a rising third year medical student in Chicago. She grew up witnessing health disparities in her family and community, which fueled her passion for health equity and advocacy; she now volunteers at one of Chicago’s largest free clinics serving underserved populations.

Joshua Samaniego is a second-year medical student in Chicago who grew up in Southern California in a household of Ecuadorian immigrants. He is interested in pursuing a career in orthopedic surgery while also working to address health disparities.

Dr. Susan Lopez is a first-generation, Mexican American hospital medicine physician at an academic medical center in Chicago. She also works with medical students at one of the largest student-run free clinics in Chicago.

Dr. Octavio Vega is a Mexican American primary care physician practicing at an academic medical center in Chicago.


Read More

Pregnant woman holding her belly during a prenatal exam.

Americans are questioning whether they have enough resources and support to raise a family in the nation's current political landscape. Julie Roland examines the contradictions of "pro-family" politics in America today and the kind of care mothers are owed to safely and successfully raise children.

Getty Images, Drs Producoes

The Trump Administration Has a Mommy Problem

My mother, who died of breast cancer when I was 18, had me when she was 32. This past Sunday, I turned 33, childless. As I officially fall behind her timeline, with no plans to have kids anytime soon, I look at the landscape of 2026 America and have to ask: Who can blame me?

The decision to start a family is a difficult one. J.D. Vance said on his first day as Vice President that he wants “more babies in America,” but many Americans simply can’t afford to have kids anymore. Perhaps that’s one reason why this administration is offering $5,000 “baby bonuses” just to incentivize birth, while also banning abortion in every way they can. But becoming a mother should be a choice. I was the result of an unplanned pregnancy–and I’m lucky my mom decided to have me and that she turned out to be the best mom ever–but as Miriam Rabkin, MD, MPH, put it: “if you want mom to be happy and healthy, she needs access to contraception so she can choose if and when to get pregnant!” Instead, this administration seems to think that if women won’t elect to have children, they should try paying them, and if that doesn’t work, then they should just force them.

Keep ReadingShow less
‘Women Will Die’: How the Mifepristone Ban Will Affect Women across the Country

In this photo illustration, packages of Mifepristone tablets are displayed at a family planning clinic.

(Photo illustration by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

‘Women Will Die’: How the Mifepristone Ban Will Affect Women across the Country

WASHINGTON–Maternal health advocates and a Virginia state legislator warned that women’s health would suffer even in states that allow abortions if the Supreme Court fails to block a ban on mail deliveries of mifepristone, a drug used in abortions.

Jennifer McClellan, a representative for the state of Virginia and long-time advocate for reproductive rights, experienced a high-risk pregnancy and an emergency C-section 9 weeks before her due date. She said that she worried about the risks to individuals if they lose easy access to Mifepristone for abortions, miscarriages, or other reasons.

Keep ReadingShow less
stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

As debate over universal health care intensifies in the United States, rising medical costs, insurance complexity, and international comparisons are fueling renewed calls for a transparent, accountable system that guarantees basic care for all Americans.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

The United States May Be the Best Place to Build Universal Health Care

The debate over health insurance in the United States has returned to the forefront as the Affordable Care Act faces political pressure, insurance premiums continue to climb, and physicians experience increasing restrictions from insurance companies. A recent poll shows that roughly 62 to 68 percent of Americans believe the government has a responsibility to ensure health care coverage for all. Yet after more than a century of debate, the federal government has taken only small steps toward universal coverage. Today, the United States spends a relatively high amount per person on health care, but Americans die younger and are less healthy than residents in other high-income countries.

Having experienced different health care systems firsthand, I am deeply aware of how universal health care can impact life. Surprisingly, I have also realized that the United States may actually have one of the systems best suited to making it work.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reduce Barriers That Delay Care
a doctor holding a stethoscope
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

Reduce Barriers That Delay Care

Today, administrative complexity continues to shape access to care, affecting both patients and providers. For individuals seeking timely treatment, delays and uncertainty remain common. For providers — especially community and rural hospitals — the burden of navigating these processes continues to strain already limited resources.

Prior authorization requirements are one of the most visible examples of this dynamic, and a 11% reduction in such reviews over the last year following an insurance industry pledge offers a welcome sign of progress. At a minimum, this shift suggests that some of the administrative burden embedded in the system can be reduced without compromising its core functions. But it also underscores a more persistent issue.

Keep ReadingShow less