User:Amymu123/sandbox

Key proposal elements
I am interested in editing the Wikipedia article for Immigrant health care in the United States. Specifically, I would like to restructure the article into more distinct sections. I would also like to expand the content of this article to encompass cost and quality of healthcare as well, as the article currently focuses heavily on accessibility and insurance. I also hope to introduce topics such as African immigrants, healthcare in immigration detention centers, deferred action, and medical deportations.

Annotated bibliography
Derose, Kathryn Pitkin, Benjamin W. Bahney, Nicole Lurie, and José J. Escarce. “Review: Immigrants and Health Care Access, Quality, and Cost.” Medical Care Research and Review 66, no. 4 (2009): 355–408. doi.org/10.1177/1077558708330425. This source is a review of existing literature covering the health care access, quality, and cost in the experiences of immigrants in the US.

Goldman, Dana P., James P. Smith, and Neeraj Sood. “Immigrants And The Cost Of Medical Care.” Health Affairs 25, no. 6 (2006): 1700–1711. doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.25.6.1700. This article discusses trends in California adult immigrants' spending on and usage of medical services.

Okie, Susan. “Immigrants and Health Care — At the Intersection of Two Broken Systems.” New England Journal of Medicine 357, no. 6 (September 2007): 525–29. doi.org/10.1056/nejmp078113. This piece describes health care usage and various barriers to care faced by immigrants from Latin America and West Africa. This entails language barriers, fear of attracting attention from immigration officials, and lack of insurance, to name a few.

Elewonibi, Bilikisu Reni, and Rhonda Belue. “Prevalence of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Immigrants.” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 18, no. 3 (2015): 600–607. doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0210-4. This article explores the usage of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in immigrant communities. I felt this was relevant to incorporate, as usage of CAM has associations with cultural beliefs and distrust of medical systems.

Derose, Kathryn Pitkin, José J. Escarce, and Nicole Lurie. “Immigrants And Health Care: Sources Of Vulnerability.” Health Affairs 26, no. 5 (2007): 1258–68. doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.5.1258. This study explores rates of insurance, health care usage, and quality of care in comparison with US-born populations. The study also examines variations among immigrant groups.

Boise, Linda, Anais Tuepker, Teresa Gipson, Yves Vigmenon, Isabelle Soule, and Sade Onadeko. “African Refugee and Immigrant Health Needs: Report From a Community-Based House Meeting Project.” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 7, no. 4 (2013): 359–60. doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2013.0054. This paper surveys African immigrants and refugees over their health concerns and needs.

Lucas, Jacqueline W., Daheia J. Barr-Anderson, and Raynard S. Kington. “Health Status, Health Insurance, and Health Care Utilization Patterns of Immigrant Black Men.” American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 10 (2003): 1740–47. doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.10.1740. This study focuses on describing health status, care, and insurance of black immigrant men compared with US-born black and white men.

Sadarangani, Tina R., and Christine Kovner. “Medicaid for Newly Resettled Legal Immigrants.” Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice 18, no. 1 (2017): 3–5. doi.org/10.1177/1527154417704850. This paper discusses health vulnerabilities of immigrants and how Medicaid works in the context of immigration.

Hacker, Karen, Maria Elise Anies, Barbara Folb, and Leah Zallman. “Barriers to Health Care for Undocumented Immigrants: a Literature Review.” Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 2015, 175. doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.s70173. This paper reviews existing literature that describes undocumented immigrants' barriers to care and focuses on potential interventions and solutions.

Castañeda, Heide, and Milena Andrea Melo. “Health Care Access for Latino Mixed-Status Families.” American Behavioral Scientist 58, no. 14 (2014): 1891–1909. doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550290. This study surveys mixed-status Latino families' access to health care. Kline, Nolan. “Pathogenic Policy: Immigrant Policing, Fear, and Parallel Medical Systems in the US South.” Medical Anthropology 36, no. 4 (2016): 396–410. doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2016.1259621. This study describes the relationship between immigrant policing and the health of undocumented immigrants in Atlanta, GA.

Wallace, Steven P, Jacqueline M Torres, Tabashir Z Nobari, and Nadereh Pourat. “Undocumented and Uninsured: Barriers to Affordable Care for Immigrant Population.” Undocumented and Uninsured: Barriers to Affordable Care for Immigrant Population, 2013. This report details the health conditions and usage of health services by undocumented California residents. This report also describes policies for improving coverage and access.

Jordan, Miriam, and Caitlin Dickerson. “Sick Migrants Undergoing Lifesaving Care Can Now Be Deported.” The New York Times. The New York Times, August 29, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/us/immigrant-medical-treatment-deferred-action.html. This news article describes how the elimination of deferred action can impact immigrants who heavily rely on major medical services.

Linton, Julie M., Marsha Griffin, and Alan J. Shapiro. “Detention of Immigrant Children.” Pediatrics 139, no. 5 (2017). doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0483. This article describes health concerns for detained migrant children in the United States.

Perreira, Krista M., and Juan M. Pedroza. “Policies of Exclusion: Implications for the Health of Immigrants and Their Children.” Annual Review of Public Health 40, no. 1 (2019): 147–66. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044115. This paper reviews existing literature on how public policy influences immigrant health.

Varan, Aiden K., Edith R. Lederman, Shanon S. Stous, Diana Elson, Jennifer L. Freiman, Mona Marin, Adriana S. Lopez, William M. Stauffer, Rachael H. Joseph, and Stephen H. Waterman. “Serological Susceptibility to Varicella Among U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detainees.” Journal of Correctional Health Care 24, no. 1 (2017): 84–95. doi.org/10.1177/1078345817727287. This study describes susceptibility to varicella among adult ICE detainees, as well as risk factors and how vaccinations can reduce transmission risks.

“How Should Health Professionals and Policy Makers Respond to Substandard Care of Detained Immigrants?” AMA Journal of Ethics 21, no. 1 (January 2019). doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.113. This piece examines the conditions of immigration detention and points to government provisions as a means of improving standard of care.

Jbursz. “The US Won't Provide Flu Vaccines to Migrant Families at Border Detention Camps.” CNBC. CNBC, August 20, 2019. www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/the-us-wont-vaccinate-migrant-children-against-the-flu-at-border-camps.html. This news article describes the negative outcomes of flu outbreaks in detention centers and notes that the government has no plans to provide vaccinations.

Falconer, Rebecca. “ICE Sued for ‘Abject Failure’ to Provide Basic Health Care to Detained Migrants in 158 Centers.” Axios, August 20, 2019. www.axios.com/ice-detention-centers-health-care-lawsuit-ad8d94bb-af33-4ff8-9294-15251b461426.html. This news article describes a lawsuit filed against ICE for dangerous conditions inside detention centers.

Stimpson, Jim P., Fernando A. Wilson, and Dejun Su. “Unauthorized Immigrants Spend Less Than Other Immigrants And US Natives On Health Care.” Health Affairs 32, no. 7 (2013): 1313–18. doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0113. This paper finds that immigrants account for less average annual health care spending compared to US-born residents. Policy solutions are also suggested.

History
Early skin whitening practices were not well-documented. According to anthropologist Nina Jablonski, these practices did not become publicized until famous figures, such as Cleopatra and Queen Elizabeth, began to use them regularly. Cosmetic formulas initially spread from continental Europe and China to Britain and Japan, respectively. Various historians argue that, across cultures, skin lightening became a desirable norm due to implications of wealth and purity.

Europe
Skin whitening practices have been documented in ancient Greece and Rome. Bleaching cosmetics often incorporated white lead carbonate and mercury as lightening agents. These products were ultimately known to cause skin erosion.

As well, skin whitening was frequently documented during the Elizabethan era. Queen Elizabeth's own usage of skin lighteners became a prominent standard of beauty. Additionally, according to medieval historians, light skin was an indicator of aristocracy and higher socioeconomic class, as laborers were more frequently exposed to outdoor sunlight. Men and women lightened their skin superficially and chemically, using white powder and Venetian ceruse, respectively. Venetian ceruse consisted of a lead and vinegar mixture, known to cause hair loss, skin corrosion, muscle paralysis, tooth deterioration, blindness, and premature aging. Venetian ceruse was also reported as a source of lead poisoning. Lye and ammonia, found in other skin whiteners, compounded the toxic effects of lead. Other practices done in the name of skin whitening included washing one's face in urine and ingesting wafers of arsenic.

United States
According to Shirley Anne Tate, skin whiteners in the United States initially were predominantly used by white women. English immigrants introduced recipes for cosmetic skin lighteners into the American colonies, where they eventually evolved to incorporate indigenous and West African herbal traditions. Skin whitening grew in popularity in the 1800s, as white American women began to emulate the skin-whitening practices performed by white English women. As such, American women similarly used ceruse, arsenic wafers, and products that contained toxic dosages of lead and mercury.

Skin lightening was often not well-received; women who used skin whiteners were described as artificial, while men who used skin whiteners were described as overly effeminate. Despite this reception, skin whitening remained a popular practice, as it became connotative with notions of racial and socioeconomic superiority. Historians also note that advertisements for skin whiteners in the 20th century often associated pale skin with gentility.

According to historian Kathy Peiss, skin whitening among black American women had been documented starting in the mid-nineteenth century. Historians credited the increased marketing of skin whiteners to the culture of the Jim Crow era, as black Americans faced continued social and legal restrictions. Cosmetic advertisements directed at black consumers often framed resulting lighter complexions as cleaner and better. Simultaneously, however, cosmetic and beauty magazines often published criticisms of black women who used skin bleachers, arguing that they appeared unnatural and fraudulent.

In the 1930s, tanned skin became popular among white women as a new symbol of wealth; some historians assert that industrialization had created indoor settings for labor, causing tanned skin to be associated more with sunbathing, travel, and leisure. The growth of the Black is Beautiful movement in the 1960s, combined with greater awareness of potential health hazards, also temporarily slowed the sale and popularity of skin bleachers. However, by the 1980s, paler skin once again became more desirable, as tanning became linked to premature aging and sun damage.

Latin America
Skin whitening practices have also been well documented in South America and the Caribbean. Sociologists such as Jack Menke noted that early skin lightening practices among indigenous women were motivated by the attentions of conquistadores. Recovered journals from women in Suriname indicated that they used vegetable mixtures to lighten their skin, which produced painful side effects.

Various studies have linked the prevalence of skin whitening in Latin American nations to their histories and legacies of colonization and slavery. Witness accounts in colonial Jamaica reported that women practiced "flaying" and "skinning" on themselves, using astringent lotions to appear lighter. Caribbean creole women were also observed to treat their skin with cashew nut oil, which burned the external layers of skin.

Skin whitening practices grew in popularity, partly as a consequence of blanqueamiento in Latin America. The ideologies behind blanqueamiento promoted the idea of social hierarchy, based on Eurocentric features and skin tone.

Africa
Records indicate prominent usage of skin lighteners in South Africa beginning in the 20th century. Historians suggest that this may be associated with the passage of the Colored Labor Preference Act, in 1955. Skin lighteners in South Africa were first marketed to white consumers, then eventually to consumers of color. Initially, skin whitening was typically practiced by rural and poor South African women; however, studies indicate that the practice has become increasingly prevalent among black women with higher incomes and levels of education. Historian Lynn Thomas attributes the initial popularity of these skin whiteners to the socially desired implications of limited outdoor labor, sexual relationships with lighter-skinned partners, and lighter-skinned heritage. Starting in the 1970s, the South African government established regulations for skin whitening products, banning products that contained mercury or high levels of hydroquinone. By the 1980s, critiques of skin whitening had become incorporated into the anti-apartheid movement, given skin whitening's adverse consequences on health and its social implications of colorism.

In Ghana, preferences for lighter skin had been documented beginning in the 16th century. Shirley Anne Tate attributes this to the aesthetics and statuses promoted through British colonialism, citing the social influence and wealth of notable Euro-Ghanaian families. Other studies found that, in Tanzania, skin bleaching has been regularly practiced by middle and working classes, as light skin was perceived to facilitate social mobility.

Skin whitening practices in several other African countries increased following the onset of independence movements against European colonization. Maya Allen attributed this to the increased flow of European products and commercial influence into colonized regions. Several historians have suggested that the increased prevalence of skin whitening in "the Global South" is potentially tied to both precolonial notions of beauty and post-colonial hierarchies of race.

Asia
Skin lightening practices had achieved great importance in East Asia as early as the 16th century. Similar to early European cosmetics, white makeup was reported to cause severe health problems and physical malformations. In Japan, samurai mothers who used lead-based white paint on their faces often had children who exhibited symptoms of lead toxicity and stunted bone growth. Japanese nobility, including both men and women, often applied white lead powder to their faces prior to the Meiji restoration. Following the Meiji restoration, men and women reserved white lead makeup and traditional attire for special occasions. In China, Korea, and Japan, washing one's face with rice water was also practiced, as it was believed to naturally whiten skin. Historians also noted that as East Asian women immigrated to the United States, immigrant women engaged in skin lightening more frequently than women who did not immigrate.

Nina Jablonski and Evelyn Nakano Glenn both assert that skin whitening in many South and Southeast Asian nations such as the Philippines grew in popularity through these nations' histories of European colonization. Multiple studies find that preferences for lighter skin in India were historically linked to both the caste system and British, Persian, and Mughul rule. In the Philippines, lighter skin was associated with higher social status. Historians indicate that the social hierarchies in the Philippines encompasses a spectrum of skin tones due to intermarriages between indigenous populations, East Asian settlers, and Spanish colonists.

Motivations for skin whitening
Historian Evelyn Nakano Glenn attributes sensitivities to skin tone among African Americans to the history of slavery. Lighter-skinned African Americans were perceived to be more intelligent and skilled than dark-skinned African Americans, who were relegated to more physically taxing, manual labor.

Studies have additionally linked paler skin to achieving various forms of social standing and mobility. A study by Kelly Lewis and her colleagues found that, in Tanzania, residents choose to bleach their skin to appear more European and impress peers and potential partners. Both advertisements and consumers have suggested that whiter skin can enhance individual sexual attractiveness. Sociologist Margaret Hunter noted the influence of mass-marketing and celebrity culture emphasizing whiteness as an ideal of beauty. A study by Itisha Nagar also revealed that lighter skin tones in both men and women in India improved their prospects for marriage.

Other motivations for skin whitening include desiring softer skin and wanting to conceal discolorations arising from pimples, rashes, or chronic skin conditions. Individuals with depigmenting conditions such as vitiligo have also been known to lighten their skin to achieve an even skin tone.

Prevalence and usage (partially existing)
According to Yetunde Mercy Olumide, advertisements for skin lighteners often present their products as stepping stones to attain greater social capital. For example, representatives of India's Fair & Lovely cosmetics asserted that their products allowed for socioeconomic mobility, akin to education. As an industry, skin lightening products are predominantly sold by three major corporations: France-based L'Oreal, Japan-based Shiseido, and United Kingdom-based Unilever.

Skin whiteners typically range widely in pricing; Olumide attributes this to the desire to portray whitening as financially accessible to all. These products are marketed to both men and women, though studies indicate that, in Africa, women use skin bleachers more than men do. A study by Lester Davids and his colleagues indicated that nations in Africa present high rates of usage for skin bleachers. Though many products have been banned due to toxic chemical compositions, Davids found that regulating policies are often not strictly enforced.

By 2018, the industry for lightening cosmetics in India had achieved a net worth of nearly $180 million and an annual growth rate of 15%.

Health impacts
Skin lightening creams have commonly contain mercury, hydroquinone, and corticosteroids. Because these compounds can induce both superficial and internal side effects, they are illegal to use and market in multiple nations. However, various chemical studies indicate that these compounds continue to be used in sold cosmetic products, though they are not explicitly declared as ingredients.

Prolonged usage of mercury-based products can ultimately discolor the skin, as mercury will accumulate within the dermis. Mercury toxicity can cause acute symptoms such as pneumonitis and gastric irritation. However, according to a study by Antoine Mahé and his colleagues, mercurial compounds can also contribute to long-term renal and neurological complications, the latter of which includes insomnia, memory loss, and irritability.

Other studies have explored the impact of hydroquinone exposure on health. Hydroquinone rapidly absorbs into the body via dermal contact; long-term usage has been found to cause nephrotoxicity and benzene-induced leukemia in bone marrow. A study by Pascal del Giudice and Pinier Yves indicated that hydroquinone usage is strongly correlated with the development of ochronosis, cataracts, patchy depigmentation, and contact dermatitis. Ochronosis can subsequently lead to lesions and squamous cell carcinomas. While hydroquinone has not been officially classified as a carcinogen, it can metabolize into carcinogenic derivatives and induce genetic changes in the form of DNA damages.

Additionally, corticosteroids have become some of the most commonly incorporated lightening agents. Long-term usage over large areas of skin may promote percutaneous absorption, which can produce complications such as skin atrophy and fragility, glaucoma, cataracts, edemas, osteoporosis, menstrual irregularities, and growth suppression. A 2000 study performed in Dakar, Senegal indicated that chronic usage of skin lighteners was a risk factor for hypertension and diabetes.

Chemically lightened skin is also more highly susceptible to sun damage and dermal infection. Long-term users of skin bleachers can easily develop fungal infections and viral warts. Pregnant users may also experience health complications for both them and their children.