Conditional Belonging: How Connecticut's Legal System Shapes Undocumented Immigrants' Well-Being

Author: Yair Guijosa-Torres

September 10, 2025

Introduction

The legal systems of the United States influence an individual’s access to healthcare services and employment opportunities by defining eligibility requirements for benefits. Overseeing this legal system, the federal government is constitutionally obligated to enforce immigration laws and implement policies (Manternach, 2019, p. 403). Today, federal immigration laws often exclude undocumented immigrants from accessing services or opportunities available to people who are eligible for citizenship or come from certain immigrant groups. While states have some authority to decide who can access certain benefits within their jurisdiction, their legal system functions under the guidelines of the federal immigration system, thereby affecting the well-being, or the emotional and physical health, of undocumented immigrants. Some states follow federal guidelines and, in some cases, further limit immigrant groups from accessing benefits.

As a result, immigrant groups (i.e., refugees and asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants), are not granted equal access to essential services, such as healthcare services, work opportunities, and resources. However, some states, such as Connecticut, have created inclusive immigrant policies to improve the well-being of undocumented immigrants, such as expanding healthcare coverage, restricting the contact between state law enforcement and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), establishing pathways to obtain state IDs, and lifting the employment verification mandates. This article suggests that Connecticut promotes a more inclusive environment that may have a beneficial effect on the well-being of undocumented individuals.

Defining Undocumented Immigrant Status

The United States legal system categorizes immigrants into different groups, including refugees, asylum seekers, and, informally, undocumented immigrants. Refugees and asylum seekers are immigrants who flee a country due to threats to their well-being (American Immigration Council, 2024; The Towne Law Firm, n.d.). Some of them lack documentation because they could not have gathered documents to verify their identity due to safety concerns; however, they remain protected under the legal jurisdiction of the United States government and can access certain government services, work opportunities, and resources. In contrast, undocumented immigrants, individuals who lack a formal immigration status that is recognized by the U.S. government, do not have access to certain essential services and permission to work, leading some scholars to refer to them as “unauthorized”  (Amuedo-Dorantes et al., 2013, p. 1086; Hwang Cho, 2022; The Towne Law Firm, n.d.). For consistency and their dignity, people who lack formal immigration status due to various reasons will be referred to as “undocumented immigrants” throughout this article. 

Connecticut Legal System and Undocumented Immigrants’ Medical Well-being

Section One: Expanded Care

While the U.S. government affects the well-being of undocumented immigrants, the states in which they reside can also have a significant impact. For example, the state of Connecticut impacts their well-being by controlling access to healthcare. The state health insurance program, known as Husky Health, combines Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP is designed for children who do not qualify for Medicaid but still need financial assistance for healthcare coverage. Although both programs are jointly funded by the state and federal government, the majority of the Medicaid funding comes from the federal level. Medicaid is administered by each state and provides affordable healthcare to children, low-income individuals, and people with disabilities, with eligibility often based on income and family size (CT Healthcare Explained, 2022). 

However, at the federal level, the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) restricts undocumented immigrants from accessing most federal benefits, including healthcare programs, such as Medicaid and CHIP (National Immigration Forum, 2022). 

As a result, states like Connecticut have to fund healthcare insurance for undocumented immigrants themselves if they would like to expand coverage. Connecticut expands coverage for some undocumented immigrants, such as those experiencing medical emergencies (Sullivan, 2024, p. 6). 

In contrast, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire demonstrate compliance with federal Medicaid guidelines, resulting in a less expansive coverage within their state healthcare policy. They do not provide prenatal care to pregnant undocumented women, nor do they offer healthcare insurance for children regardless of undocumented status (Broder, 2025). These policies reflect an exclusive approach to immigrant healthcare, complying with federal limitations without investing in state-level funds for expansive healthcare coverage. Undocumented immigrants in these states find it challenging to access healthcare, ultimately delaying access to healthcare services. Delayed services to care result in poor health and reinforce inequalities, negatively impacting their well-being compared to states that have less restrictive immigration laws (Hill et al., 2021).

Section Two: Conditional Care

However, while Connecticut’s allowance for access to healthcare for medical emergencies may seem positive within a restrictive healthcare system for undocumented immigrants, it highlights the conditional nature of caring for people with undocumented status. Access to healthcare is contingent on an undocumented person having a life-threatening condition. This form of healthcare insurance is detrimental to the health of undocumented immigrants. Many already fear going to the hospital due to deportation of their immigration status (Hacker et al., 2015). Evaluating whether a certain situation is considered a medical emergency or not can further prevent undocumented individuals from seeking help. 

The Connecticut legal healthcare system also encourages the conditional care of undocumented immigrants under the Husky Health Program. Pregnant undocumented women  can access healthcare insurance via Husky Health for prenatal care (Connecticut Social Services, 2025a). This policy, within the broader legal healthcare system of Connecticut, emphasizes that while U.S. citizens and other immigrant groups can access healthcare insurance via Husky Health regardless of gender, only some undocumented immigrants can access healthcare services given that they are a woman and pregnant. Here, access to healthcare becomes gendered for undocumented immigrants. 

Healthcare insurance is not only conditional by gender but also by age in Connecticut. Beginning July 1, all children ages 15 and under will qualify for Husky Health regardless of their immigration status (Golvala et al., 2024), depending on the family’s income and size. Recent changes have been made that extend healthcare coverage to 18 years of age if they enroll in the program before they turn 16 (Connecticut Social Services, 2025a). These changes reflect the selective nature of Connecticut’s legal governance; while U.S. citizens and certain immigrant groups can access healthcare insurance at any age depending on their family size and income, undocumented immigrants are not guaranteed this coverage after the age of 18. This policy emphasizes the conditional access to healthcare for undocumented immigrants, which impacts their well-being. Rather than universal healthcare inclusion, the legal framework produces an environment of eligibility that forces undocumented individuals to fit specific roles in order to receive care. This conditionality generates exclusion and delays in treatment which directly affect the well-being of undocumented communities in Connecticut (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2025).

Connecticut’s legal system plays a unique role in shaping the well-being of undocumented immigrants by providing avenues for (limited) access to care compared to more restrictive neighboring states. Through these policy efforts, Connecticut mitigates some of the harmful health disparities faced by undocumented populations. This legal system, though still conditional, indicates a framework that acknowledges the basic healthcare needs of undocumented communities and attempts to address them within political and budgetary constraints. 

Undocumented immigrants working on tobacco farm in Connecticut [Image source: Hartford Courant]

The Impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

However, recent legislation, such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (or OBBBA), has significantly reduced funding for healthcare programs across the country, potentially causing undocumented immigrants to access healthcare less due to fear, including in Connecticut. For programs like Medicaid, which are provided by federal funding, states must abide by federal guidelines to maintain the financial support necessary to sustain their healthcare programs.  Approximately $50 to $100 million in state share cost reduction is expected from the policy (Connecticut Social Services, 2025b). There are also eligibility requirements for immigrant communities: by October 1, 2026, eligibility for Husky Health benefits will not apply to “refugees, asylees, trafficking victims, humanitarian parolees,” and other “non-citizens” (Connecticut Social Services, 2025b). These legislative changes reflect how Connecticut’s legal system, though more inclusive than others, remains under the pressure of federal legislation.

As eligibility becomes increasingly restrictive, undocumented individuals may be discouraged from seeking care and become further marginalized. Connecticut’s legal structure, shaped by both state and federal decisions, actively influences the physical and emotional conditions of undocumented immigrants, aiding access to healthcare for only a select few people within the undocumented status group. 

State/Federal Collaboration: The 287(g) Program in Texas

An undocumented immigrant’s well-being is also impacted by how often state and local law enforcement interact with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Some states, such as Texas, choose to assist the federal government with enforcing immigration laws, harming the well-being of undocumented immigrants. Texas formally cooperates with immigration detainer requests made by ICE under the 287(g) program. These detainers ask local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies, such as jails and prisons, to notify ICE before releasing a person who may be deportable and to hold that person for up to 48 additional hours so ICE can take custody (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2020). The program permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make formal agreements with state or local police departments, authorizing specific officers to carry out certain duties typically handled by federal immigration agents. Some of the duties the deputized officers are allowed to perform include: “Interview individuals to ascertain their immigration status; Check DHS databases for information on individuals; [and] issue immigration detainers to hold individuals until ICE takes custody” (American Immigration Council, 2021). 

The collaboration with ICE fosters an environment of fear among undocumented immigrants, discouraging them from accessing essential services, such as healthcare, education, or legal protection. The constant threat of detention and deportation contributes to chronic stress, social isolation, and fear of not only the individuals experiencing it but also for loved ones witnessing this inhumane event (Pinedo & Valdez, 2020). Consequently, Texan laws help create a legal environment that significantly undermines the well-being and safety of its undocumented residents. The 287(g) program blurs the line between local policing and federal immigration enforcement. When local Texan police officers are deputized as immigration agents, undocumented individuals may begin to see all law enforcement as extensions of ICE, creating a sense of fear and mistrust. This can lead to a decrease in community engagement and increase in isolation, negatively impacting their well-being.

Federal/State Separation: Connecticut Trust Act

In contrast, states, such as Connecticut, use the concept of the Anti-commandeering Doctrine to establish the Trust Act to help protect undocumented immigrants. The Anti-commandeering Doctrine holds that the federal government cannot force states or local governments to implement or enforce federal policies, such as immigration laws (Castellanos-Canales, 2025). It empowers people to decide how they want to impact the immigrant community in their states. 

The Trust Act was established in 2013 in response to immigration detainer requests sent by ICE to local and state law enforcement agencies. Using the logic of the Anti-commandeering Doctrine, some advocates argue that these requests “do not carry the weight of a warrant, and they impose no legal obligation for local law enforcement to detain, arrest, or jail someone” (Medeiros, 2025). The Trust Act limits how Connecticut law enforcement can cooperate with ICE. It asserts that state and local law enforcement are not required to arrest, detain, or transport individuals for immigration purposes (Medeiros, 2025). 

By using the Anti-commandeering Doctrine to pass the Trust Act, Connecticut reinforces its commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of undocumented immigrants. This legal separation between local law enforcement and ICE helps foster an environment of relative safety and stability. Undocumented immigrants in Connecticut are less likely to be deported due to routine encounters with local police. They may have less fear and be more encouraged to trust law enforcement, seek medical care, attend school, and engage with their communities. The Trust Act thus supports mental and emotional well-being and contributes to public health and safety by building trust between immigrant populations and state institutions.

As Democrat Connecticut House Representative Geraldo Reyes puts it, “[The Trust Act] prevents Connecticut from being drawn into the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts” (Reyes, 2025). This statement captures the core intention behind the Trust Act: to protect undocumented immigrants from the harmful consequences of federal immigration enforcement by limiting state and local cooperation. By refusing to act as agents of federal immigration control, Connecticut’s legal system creates a safer and more supportive environment that promotes the well-being of undocumented immigrants. 

Connecticut’s legal governance positively impacts the well-being of undocumented immigrants by prioritizing their protection from federal immigration enforcement at the local level. According to the Immigration Legal Resource Center, on a scale of 1 (having anti-immigrant laws) to 5 (having pro-immigrant laws), Connecticut scores a 3.5, whilst Texas scores a 1.95 (Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2024). These scores reflect the way in which different states support their immigrant communities through their legal system. Unlike states such as Texas that actively collaborate with ICE through programs like 287(g), Connecticut’s approach illustrates how state-level policies can mitigate the negative health and social effects associated with immigration enforcement. This legal approach not only protects the dignity and well-being of undocumented immigrants but also fosters trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement agencies, which is critical for public safety and communal engagement. 

The Federal Real ID Mandate

Another factor that impacts the well-being of undocumented immigrants in the United States is the Real ID license. The Real ID mandate was passed by the George W. Bush Administration in 2005, following the September 11 attacks in 2001, to strengthen national security in the United States. Since May 5, 2025, individuals in the United States must have obtained a Real ID to access federal buildings, board a plane, and enter nuclear power plants. 

According to the official Transportation Security Administration (TSA), only “noncitizens lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence, noncitizens with conditional permanent resident status, noncitizens with an approved application for asylum, and noncitizens who have entered the United States as refugees are eligible for a full-term REAL ID license or identification card” (Transportation Security Administration, n.d.). The Real ID creates barriers to travel and entry into certain spaces, which in turn limits opportunities for social and economic participation of undocumented individuals. This legal exclusion contributes to feelings of marginalization, negatively shaping their overall well-being.

A U.S. Department of Homeland Security “Real ID” compliant driver’s license sign outside the TSA checkpoint at Miami International Airport, Dec. 7, 2024, in Miami. [Image credit: Aaron M. Sprecher via AP]

The Real ID mandate creates a binary between undocumented and documented status people, granting exclusive rights to certain groups. It creates an “us vs. them” mentality. Though the Real ID is open to some immigrant communities, it is conditional on their having applied for temporary protection, refugee, or asylum status. Many undocumented immigrants come from detrimental situations and do not have the time to wait for an application to process before seeking safety. The Real ID policy demonstrates the anti-immigrant legacy of the war on terrorism, which frames certain groups of individuals outside the United States as threats to the country.

Connecticut State Identification Cards 

While the federal government excludes undocumented immigrants from obtaining the Real ID, some states, such as Connecticut, provide drive-only licenses and non-driver IDs that allow undocumented immigrants to drive or access certain services with the state non-driver ID. According to the official Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles website, “The drive-only license is designed specifically for undocumented individuals who are 16 years of age or older and unable to establish lawful presence in the United States” (CT Department of Motor Vehicles, n.d.). Though a drive-only license and non-driver ID are not valid forms of identification at the federal level nor considered a “Real ID,” they allow undocumented immigrants to drive without fear of legal consequences and access certain services at libraries and public facilities more easily. Not all states provide this option for undocumented immigrants, making it harder for them to go about their daily lives without legally being able to drive or forcing them to live with an irrational fear of being caught driving to go to work or buy groceries. Connecticut’s legal system of drive-only licenses and non-driver IDs demonstrates a state-level recognition of undocumented immigrants’ needs and contributes positively to their well-being by reducing daily vulnerabilities.

Federal Employment Verification

Employment verification also impacts the well-being of undocumented immigrants, including the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9 Form) and E-Verify mandates. The I-9 Form verifies identification and eligibility to work in the United States. It was created alongside the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The acceptable forms that individuals can submit to confirm identity and employment eligibility include U.S. passport, permanent resident card, or foreign passport that contains a temporary I-551 stamp (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2025). Though some immigrant groups may be able to verify employment eligibility and identity authentication, the I-9 Form prevents undocumented immigrants from accessing jobs because they do not have the documents to verify their immigration status. Not having access to employment opportunities is detrimental to an undocumented person’s well-being, as they are not able to provide for themselves. Some undocumented immigrants might turn to informal jobs that put their safety and health at risk in trying to make a living.

About a decade after the I-9 Form was created, the pilot program of the E-Verify mandate was established in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Unlike the I-9, E-Verify requires employees to submit a Social Security number and to have a photo on their identity documents, though it is a voluntary program that employers can choose to participate in (U.S. E-Verify, 2020). E-Verify appears to be more strict on identity verification and employment eligibility compared to the I-9 Form. These tighter regulations make it even more difficult for undocumented immigrants to find a job, which negatively impacts their well-being.

The empirical work on E-Verify mandates sheds light on its impact on undocumented immigrants in the United States. Researchers gathered data from the Current Population Survey from 2002 to 2012, which is a large-scale survey conducted monthly by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From their findings, they argue that “among men, E-Verify mandates appear to reduce hourly earnings by about 8 percent,” and that the labor market outcome has more positive effects on “Mexican immigrants who are naturalized U.S. citizens” compared to “non-Hispanic whites” and “U.S.-born Hispanics” (Orrenius & Zavodny, 2014, p. 18). While their findings demonstrate that E-Verify mandates have a negative impact on undocumented immigrants, specifically Mexicans, they show that it has a positive impact on “naturalized” Mexican immigrants. This study reflects how restrictive labor policies shift labor market demographics, specifically among different groups of immigrants.

The study also reveals the effort of undocumented immigrants to seek employment opportunities despite restrictive policies. While E-Verify mandates pose a threat to the hourly income of undocumented immigrants, the authors do not “find evidence that E-Verify mandates reduce employment among likely unauthorized Mexican immigrants” (Orrenius & Zavodny, 2014, p. 17). This finding demonstrates the integral role of the (undocumented) immigrant workforce in the country. Despite lower wages, undocumented immigrants continue to find employment opportunities to make a living and support the U.S. economy, which emphasizes the importance of creating pathways toward citizenship/naturalization so that their well-being is not undermined by their effort to remain economically afloat within a restrictive system.

Connecticut State Employment Verification System 

In Connecticut, the legal system does not require employers to use the E-Verify Mandate. While some states, such as Arizona, Florida, and Georgia, make it mandatory for certain employers to use the E-Verify program, states including California, Illinois, and Connecticut make the program optional for employers to implement (Payne, 2025). Yet, while the E-Verify program is not mandatory for employers in Connecticut, some employers can opt into the program. Illinois has taken more protective measures for undocumented immigrants by ensuring employee information privacy via the updated Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, which took effect this past January (Payne, 2025). While Connecticut offers some protection to undocumented immigrants in the labor market, Illinois has taken more proactive measures that support the well-being of people with undocumented status that Connecticut policymakers should look into.

Connecticut’s decision to make the E-Verify program optional for employers reflects a legal governance approach that moderately supports the well-being of undocumented immigrants by reducing barriers to employment. Unlike states that mandate E-Verify use, thereby limiting undocumented immigrants’ ability to find jobs, Connecticut’s policy allows undocumented individuals greater access to employment opportunities, which is critical for their economic stability and overall well-being. However, because some employers still choose to participate voluntarily, undocumented workers remain vulnerable to inconsistent job security. Compared to states like Illinois that have implemented stronger privacy protections and labor rights, Connecticut’s policies provide a foundational level of protection but fall short of fully addressing the precarity undocumented immigrants face in the labor market. While Connecticut’s legal governance lessens some employment obstacles, its impact on undocumented immigrants’ well-being is limited by the absence of more comprehensive safeguards, highlighting the need for progressive policy development to better secure their economic and social welfare.

Conclusion

Connecticut’s legal governance positively impacts the well-being of undocumented immigrants through its healthcare policies,  immigration enforcement stance, state ID enrollment program, and labor market regulations compared to other states. Though conditional to certain undocumented immigrants, the state’s Medicaid system, particularly Husky Health, provides access to healthcare for undocumented pregnant women and children under 18 that states like Pennsylvania and New Hampshire do not provide for undocumented individuals. The Trust Act further supports well-being by limiting state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, fostering trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Additionally, Connecticut’s regulation on drive-only licenses and non-driver IDs, as well as its optional E-Verify policy, reduces daily hardships for undocumented immigrants, though federal restrictions still constrain full social integration. These policies, while not fully inclusive, within their context with other state immigration policies collectively demonstrate how state-level governance can help alleviate some challenges faced by undocumented people.

This research reveals the critical role state policies play in shaping the lived experiences of undocumented immigrants, highlighting both progress and gaps in access to essential services. Community organizers, policymakers, and scholars can take away the importance of expanding inclusive healthcare and strengthening labor rights protections. However, this research has its limitations, including lack of longitudinal data on health outcomes and the potential for shifting political climates to reverse gains. Future research should examine the long-term effects of state policies on immigrant well-being, particularly mental health and economic stability. Despite challenges, Connecticut’s approach offers a model, though not an ideal one, for other states seeking to balance federal constraints with humane, equitable governance, a reminder that some degree of inclusion is possible even within restrictive systems.

---

Glossary

• 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA): A federal law restricting undocumented immigrants’ access to most federal benefits, including Medicaid.

• 287(g) Program: A federal program allowing state and local law enforcement to assist in immigration enforcement.

• Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: A legal principle preventing the federal government from forcing states to enforce federal laws (e.g., immigration enforcement).

• Asylum Seeker: An individual seeking protection inside or at a port of entry of the U.S. due to fear of persecution in their home country.

• Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP): A program providing low-cost health coverage to children in families that earn too much for Medicaid.

• Conditional Care: Access to services (e.g., healthcare) that is limited based on specific criteria (e.g., pregnancy, emergency medical need).

• Drive-Only License: A Connecticut-issued license allowing undocumented immigrants to legally drive but not serving as federal identification.

• E-Verify: An electronic system employers may use to check work eligibility, often making it harder for undocumented immigrants to secure jobs.

• Federal Poverty Line (FPL): A measure of income level used to determine eligibility for public assistance programs.

• Federalism: The division of power between federal and state governments.

• Husky Health: Connecticut’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), providing healthcare coverage to low-income residents.

• I-9 Form: A federal document verifying an employee’s identity and work eligibility.

• Immigration Detainer: A request from ICE asking local law enforcement to hold an individual for potential deportation.

• Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986: A law establishing penalties for employers hiring undocumented workers while providing a path to legalization for some.

• Judicial Warrant: A court-issued document authorizing law enforcement action (e.g., arrest, detention), unlike an administrative immigration detainer.

• Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)/Green Card Holder: A foreign national with legal permission to live and work permanently in the U.S.

• Medicaid: A joint federal-state program offering health coverage to low-income individuals.

• Non-Immigrant: Temporary visas (e.g., student F-1, work H-1B, tourist B-1/B-2) for specific purposes without permanent residency rights.

• One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA): Federal policy reducing Medicaid funding and restricting immigrant eligibility, among other features, such as tax cuts.

• Real ID Act: A federal law setting stricter standards for state-issued identification, excluding undocumented immigrants from eligibility.

• Refugee: A person fleeing persecution or danger in their home country who is granted legal protection in the U.S.

• Temporary Protected Status (TPS): A temporary immigration status granted to individuals from designated countries facing conflict or disaster.

• Tenth Amendment: The constitutional principle reserving powers not granted to the federal government for the states.

• Trust Act: A Connecticut law limiting state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration detainers.

• Undocumented Immigrant: A person residing in the U.S. without formal legal confirmation of their immigration status.

---

Sources

1. American Immigration Council. (2021). The 287(g) Program: An Overview. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/287g-program-immigration/

2. American Immigration Council. (2024). How the United States Immigration System Works. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet/

3. Amuedo-Dorantes, C., Puttitanun, T., & Martinez-Donate, A. P. (2013). How Do Tougher Immigration Measures Affect Unauthorized Immigrants? Demography, 50(3), 1067–1091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-013-0200-x 

4. Broder, T. (2025, July 28). Health Care Coverage (Maps). National Immigration Law Center. https://www.nilc.org/resources/healthcoveragemaps/ 

5. Castellanos-Canales, A. (2025, February 21). Are Sanctuary Policies Unlawful? State and Municipal Prerogatives to Collaborate with Federal Immigration Authorities. National Immigration Forum. https://immigrationforum.org/article/are-sanctuary-policies-unlawful-state-and-municipal-prerogatives-to-collaborate-with-federal-immigration-authorities/

6. Connecticut Social Services. (2025a). Connecticut Husky Health. HUSKY Health For Connecticut Children & Adults. https://portal.ct.gov/husky

7. Connecticut Social Services. (2025b). What will change with DSS benefits following the passing of federal H.R.1? CT.Gov. https://portal.ct.gov/dss/knowledge-base/articles/general-information/federal-updates-hr1

8. CT Department of Motor Vehicles. (n.d.). Learn how to get a REAL ID. CT.Gov. Retrieved July 8, 2025, from https://portal.ct.gov/dmv/licenses-permits-ids/get-real-id

9. CT Healthcare Explained. (2022, November 16). Medicaid. https://www.cthealthexplained.org/medicaid/

10. Golvala, K., Carlesso, J., Roy, Y., & DeBenedictis, G. (2024, March 18). What to know about CT’s HUSKY insurance for immigrant children. CT Mirror Explains. https://ctmirror.org/2024/03/18/ct-husky-for-immigrants-insurance/

11. Hacker, K., Anies, M., Folb, B. L., & Zallman, L. (2015). Barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants: A literature review. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 8, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S70173

12. Hill, J., Rodriguez, D. X., & McDaniel, P. N. (2021). Immigration status as a health care barrier in the USA during COVID-19. Journal of Migration and Health, 4, 100036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmh.2021.100036 

13. Hwang Cho, B. B. (2022, December 22). These Are the Four Types of Immigration Statuses in the US. https://lawyersimmigration.com/four-types-immigration-statuses/

14. Immigrant Legal Resource Center. (2024). 2024 State Laws on Immigration Enforcement. https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nzlmR/7/

15. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2025, January 15). Key Facts on Health Coverage of Immigrants. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/key-facts-on-health-coverage-of-immigrants/ 

16. Manternach, J. (2019). Detaining the System? How Iowa Should Navigate Through Immigration Detainers Under the Trump Administration. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 22(2), 401+. Gale Academic OneFile. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A609817484/AONE?u=29002&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=d57c57b2

17. Medeiros, J. (2025, January 15). The Connecticut Trust Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-192h). Attorney General, State of Connecticut. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/post/general_notices/2025/gn-25-02/trust-act-guidance-memo-20250115.pdf

18. National Immigration Forum. (2022, September 21). Fact Sheet: Undocumented Immigrants and Federal Health Care Benefits. https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-undocumented-immigrants-and-federal-health-care-benefits/

19. Orrenius, P. M., & Zavodny, M. (2014). How Do E-Verify Mandates Affect Unauthorized Immigrant Workers?

20. Payne, B. D. (2025). E-Verify Requirements by State: A Complete Guide for Employers. WorkBright. https://workbright.com/blog/e-verify-requirements-by-state-a-complete-guide-for-employers/

21. Pinedo, M., & Valdez, C. R. (2020). Immigration enforcement policies and the mental health of US-citizens: Findings from a comparative analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 66(1–2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12464 

22. Reyes, G. (2025). The Trust Act Protects Immigrants in Our State | Connecticut House Democrats. https://www.housedems.ct.gov/reyes/trust-act-protects-immigrants-our-state

23. Sullivan, M. (2024). State Laws Affecting Undocumented Immigrants.

24. The Towne Law Firm. (n.d.). Different Types of Immigration Status. Retrieved July 31, 2025, from https://townelaw.com/different-types-of-immigration-status/

25. Transportation Security Administration. (n.d.). REAL ID Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved July 8, 2025, from https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs

26. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2025, July 15). Form I-9 Acceptable Documents. https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-acceptable-documents

27. U.S. E-Verify. (2020, April 27). E-Verify and Form I-9 | E-Verify. https://www.e-verify.gov/about-e-verify/what-is-e-verify/e-verify-and-form-i-9

28. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2020, June 16). Immigration Detainers. https://www.ice.gov/immigration-detainers