Changing U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy: Implications for Nonprofits in Indiana, Allen County, and Fort Wayne

2026 Sofia Vazquez – Changing U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy – White Paper Download

Prepared for: St. Joseph Community Health Foundation Board

Purpose: To summarize recent immigration and refugee policy developments under the Trump Administration and analyze the implications for nonprofit and community-serving organizations, specifically in Allen County.

Author: Sofia Vazquez

Introduction

Recent changes in federal and state immigration and refugee policy are reshaping the way nonprofit organizations serve immigrant and refugee communities. While immigration policy is often simply discussed as a federal enforcement or border issue, its effects extend far beyond.

Changes in enforcement priorities, refugee admissions, humanitarian protections, benefit eligibility, application processing, and state-level cooperation with federal immigration authorities have a profound impact on immigrant and refugee families. These policy shifts can influence the likelihood of these groups seeking health care, accessing food assistance, reporting safety concerns, attending school events, pursuing legal status, or engaging with public institutions. Over time, these shifts may increase pressure on nonprofits by driving greater demand for emergency assistance, legal referrals, health navigation, interpretation services, and trusted community outreach, while also making it harder for organizations to connect with families who are fearful of engaging with these systems.

For communities such as Allen County, these changes are especially significant. Allen County is home to a significant immigrant and refugee population, including one of the largest Burmese communities in the United States. In 2023, approximately 30,331 foreign-born residents lived in Allen County, representing 7.8% of the county’s population, up from 22,167 in 2013, a 37% increase over the decade. Immigrant and refugee residents are deeply integrated into the county’s workforce, neighborhoods, schools, small businesses, and health care systems. Earlier

county-level research found that immigrants accounted for 24% of Allen County’s population growth between 2014 and 2019 and contributed an estimated $1.9 billion to county GDP. Refugees also represent a significant share of the local immigrant population; in 2019, an estimated 6,900 immigrants, or 27.4% of the county’s immigrant population, were likely refugees.

For St. Joseph Community Health Foundation, these policy changes matter because they may increase the need for services supported by the Foundation and its grantees, including preventive health care, interpretation, benefits navigation, behavioral health support, legal referrals, and emergency assistance. As federal immigration enforcement expands and Indiana implements new immigration-related legislation, local nonprofits may see a growing need for these supports,

though actual service demand may be shaped by whether immigrant and refugee families feel safe accessing help. Consequently, fear and confusion may discourage eligible families from seeking services. This creates a complex operating environment for organizations focused on health, human services, housing, food security, education, and community well-being.

National Immigration and Refugee Policy Context

Immigration policy in the United States has shifted significantly across recent presidential administrations, particularly from the Obama administration 2009-2017, the first Trump administration 2017-2021, the Biden administration 2021-2025, and the current Trump administration beginning in January 2025. Although each administration approached immigration differently, the cumulative result has been an increasingly unstable, byzantine, and enforcement-oriented policy environment. This instability causes frequent changes in eligibility, enforcement priorities, application procedures, and humanitarian protections make it harder for immigrant and refugee families to understand their rights and harder for service providers to give consistent guidance.

During the Obama administration, federal immigration enforcement capacity expanded, through programs such as Secure Communities, which allowed fingerprints collected by state and local law enforcement during arrests or bookings to be checked against federal immigration databases. This increased information-sharing between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities made it easier for ICE to identify potentially removable noncitizens. The administration faced criticism from immigrant advocacy organizations for high levels of deportations; federal removal numbers reached record levels during this period, with more than 3 million removals occurring between fiscal years 2009 and 2016. At the same time, the administration created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in 2012. DACA provided temporary protection from deportation and work authorization for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. As of June 2025, approximately 516,000 people had active DACA status, and roughly 835,000 applicants had been approved at some point since the program began.

The first Trump administration (2017-2021) implemented major restrictions on immigration and refugee policy, including travel bans, reductions in refugee admissions, expanded interior enforcement, and the public charge rule. The annual refugee admissions ceiling fell from 110,000 in 2017 to 15,000 in 2021, an 86.4% decrease over four years. These changes restricted refugee resettlement pathways and reduced the number of refugees arriving through the formal U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The public charge rule also contributed to fear among immigrant families about using public benefits, including among some families who remained legally eligible. For nonprofits, these policies increased the need for benefits education, legal referrals, and reassurance around eligibility and confidentiality.

The Biden administration (2021-2025) reversed some enforcement policies, increased refugee admissions targets, expanded humanitarian parole pathways, and sought to create additional legal pathways for migrants and asylum seekers. The administration set the refugee admissions ceiling at 125,000 for 2022 through 2025, and more than 100,000 refugees were resettled in 2024, the highest number in three decades. The administration also expanded humanitarian pathways for groups including Afghans, Ukrainians, Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

However, increased arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border placed pressure on the immigration system by increasing the number of people entering asylum, parole, immigration court, and case-management processes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported approximately 3.2 million encounters in 2023 and 2.9 million encounters in 2024 across U.S. borders, airports, and seaports. These arrivals contributed to growing backlogs: by June 2025, approximately 1.5 million affirmative asylum applications were pending with USCIS, and by January 2026, more than 2.4 million asylum cases were pending in immigration court. This pressure was not only a matter of border arrivals; it also reflected limited adjudication capacity, processing delays, expanded screening requirements, and a shortage of sufficient legal and administrative infrastructure to resolve cases quickly. As a result, nonprofits often became navigators for families waiting months or years for work authorization, asylum decisions, court hearings, or status adjustments.

Beginning in January 2025, under the current Trump administration, federal immigration policy has again moved toward intensified enforcement and restriction. These restrictions apply not only to border policy, but also to interior enforcement, refugee admissions, humanitarian parole, asylum access, visa processing, and some legal immigration pathways. Reported and proposed actions include expanded deportation efforts, broader expedited removal, increased cooperation between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement, restrictions on refugee and humanitarian pathways, additional screening requirements, social media screening, pauses or delays in adjudications for some groups, and changes to adjustment of status processing. Recent USCIS guidance, for example, indicates a shift toward requiring some individuals seeking permanent residence to apply through consular processing abroad except in “extraordinary circumstances.” For affected applicants, traveling abroad to complete the process may present significant financial, logistical, and safety barriers, particularly when returning to a country experiencing instability or when extended travel requires time away from employment and family.

For local nonprofits, the result is increased legal confusion, greater fear among immigrant families, and growing need for trusted navigation, referrals, and culturally responsive support. Families may need help understanding renewal deadlines, work authorization, TPS changes, asylum eligibility, naturalization, green card processing, or public benefit eligibility. At the same time, some families may avoid services because they fear exposure to enforcement systems.

These federal changes have several consequences for nonprofit organizations:

Greater need for immigration legal assistance and navigation: Families may need help understanding their status, renewal deadlines, work authorization, adjustment options, TPS changes, asylum eligibility, or naturalization requirements.
Increased fear and uncertainty: Enforcement rhetoric and policy changes can create anxiety even among lawful permanent residents, refugees, and U.S. citizens in mixed-status families.
Reduced willingness to access health care and social services: Families may avoid hospitals, clinics, schools, food programs, or public agencies due to fear of data-sharing, public charge consequences, or contact with authorities.
Greater pressure on trusted community organizations: As trust in public systems declines, families may rely more heavily on nonprofits, faith communities, clinics, and culturally specific organizations.

Public Benefits, Eligibility, and Service Access

Public benefits are one area where this gap between perception, eligibility, and actual service use is especially important. National data does not support the common claim that immigrants use public benefits at higher rates than the U.S.-born residents. For the purposes of this analysis, immigrants include both naturalized U.S. citizens and non-citizens, while “native-born Americans” refers to individuals born in the United States. According to a 2026 Cato Institute analysis of 2023 federal benefits data, immigrants made up approximately 14.8% of the U.S. population but accounted for only 10.4% of total means-tested welfare and entitlement benefit use. On a per-person basis, immigrants used approximately 24% less in benefits than native-born Americans, while non-citizen immigrants used approximately 53% less. The analysis found lower immigrant use across several major programs, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Social Security, and Medicare.

Lower benefit use is partly explained by federal eligibility restrictions. Immigrant eligibility for public benefits varies by immigration status, date of entry, state of residence, age, and program type. The 1996 federal welfare law created major limitations by dividing immigrants into “qualified” and “not qualified” categories and imposing a five-year waiting period for many lawfully present immigrants seeking certain federal means-tested benefits, including Medicaid and SNAP. Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for most federal public benefits, with limited exceptions such as emergency Medicaid, disaster relief, and certain public health services. As a result, many immigrant families either do not qualify for benefits or face eligibility rules that are difficult to understand without legal or benefits-navigation assistance.

The key concern is that policy changes and enforcement rhetoric can reduce benefit participation even among eligible families. Fear of public charge consequences, data-sharing, documentation requirements, or immigration enforcement may lead some families to avoid SNAP, Medicaid, CHIP, or other supports for which they or their U.S.-citizen children may qualify. When eligible families avoid public benefits or delay care, local nonprofits often become the fallback source for food assistance, health navigation, interpretation, emergency financial support, and benefits education.

Federal Refugee Resettlement Shift: State-Centric Model

Beginning in 2027, another federal change with direct state and local implications is the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s planned transition toward a state-centric refugee resettlement model. Under this model, ORR would retain federal authority, but states would assume a larger role in assessing resettlement capacity, coordinating refugee placement, administering initial resettlement services, and managing most federal refugee resettlement funds. This could shift funding and decision-making from national resettlement networks toward state-level systems, affecting where refugees are placed, how services are coordinated, and which organizations receive support. For Indiana and Allen County nonprofits, the shift may create new funding opportunities but also new administrative requirements, coordination challenges, and uncertainty for organizations providing health navigation, employment support, interpretation, housing assistance, and social services.

While these federal changes reshape the broader immigration and refugee landscape, state-level policies further determine how these shifts are implemented and experienced within local communities.

Indiana Immigration and Human Services Policy Changes

Recent Indiana legislation may have more immediate effects for local governments, employers, and immigrant communities.

Senate Bill 76 (SB 76): Immigration Matters

Indiana Senate Bill 76, signed into law in March 2026 and effective July 1, 2026, significantly expands state involvement in immigration enforcement. According to the Indiana General Assembly bill digest and reporting from the Indiana Capital Chronicle, the law requires local government cooperation with federal immigration detainer requests and prohibits governmental bodies and postsecondary educational institutions from limiting or restricting enforcement of federal immigration law. The law also authorizes the Indiana Attorney General to defend law enforcement officers, governmental bodies, or postsecondary institutions in certain immigration-related civil suits, provided the actions do not violate federal or state law. In

addition, SB 76 includes employer-related provisions, including penalties for businesses that knowingly employ unauthorized workers. Reporting on the law also notes that it enhances the state’s ability to track the use of public benefits, including Medicaid, by non-citizens.

SB 76 is significant for several reasons. First, the law may increase fear among immigrant families, particularly those in mixed-status households or those uncertain about their legal status. It may also reduce trust in public institutions, including law enforcement, local government, public health agencies, and potentially schools or universities. Additionally, employer penalties and workplace enforcement concerns may create economic instability for immigrant workers and their families, as well as small businesses that employ them. Job loss, reduced hours, or fear of workplace scrutiny can quickly translate into increased need for rent assistance, food support, health care access, and behavioral health services.

Even immigrants who are not directly affected by the law may experience fear because of uncertainty. Refugees, lawful permanent residents, U.S. citizens, and individuals with pending applications may worry about profiling, documentation checks, or mistakes in enforcement. This is particularly relevant in Fort Wayne, where many immigrant communities include families with different immigration statuses within the same household.

Senate Bill 1 (SB 1): Human Services Matters

Senate Bill 1, also signed into law in March 2026, addresses a range of human services matters, including the establishment of an Indiana rural health transformation fund and changes to SNAP policy, such as prohibiting SNAP benefits from being used to purchase candy and soft drinks.

While SB 1 is not primarily an immigration bill, it is relevant. For immigrant and refugee families, public benefits rules are already difficult to navigate. Additional restrictions or administrative requirements can deepen confusion, particularly for families with limited English proficiency or mixed eligibility. Nonprofits may see more requests for benefits navigation, food assistance, health care enrollment support, and clarification about whether using a program could affect immigration status. Even when families remain eligible, fear or misinformation may reduce participation.

Allen County and Fort Wayne Local Context

The local significance of these policies becomes clearer when Allen County’s immigrant and refugee demographics are taken into account.

Allen County has a long history of refugee resettlement and immigrant integration, and recent Census data show that these communities continue to represent a meaningful and growing share of the county. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey

five-year estimates, approximately 30,331 foreign-born residents lived in Allen County in 2023,

representing about 7.8% of the county’s population. The county’s foreign-born population grew by approximately 37% over the preceding decade, from 22,167 residents in 2013 to 30,331 in 2023. The largest foreign-born populations by country of birth are from Mexico, Burma/Myanmar, and Thailand, alongside established and newer communities from countries including India, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Bosnia. Approximately 48.7% of Allen County’s foreign-born residents are naturalized U.S. citizens, while 16.3% of local children have at least one immigrant parent, illustrating how closely immigrant families are connected to local schools, employers, health systems, and other community institutions.

The Burmese community is especially significant in Allen County. In January 2026, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend reported that the Burmese population in Allen County had grown to upwards of 30,000 people, many of whom entered the United States legally through the refugee resettlement system. Over decades of resettlement, Burmese families have become established members of Allen County, working for local employers, raising families, sending children to local schools, and participating in the region’s health care, education, faith, and social service systems.

Recent concern over the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Burma illustrates how immigration policy changes can create anxiety even when only a relatively small portion of a local community is directly affected. TPS for Burma, first designated in 2021, applied only to Burmese nationals who met specific eligibility requirements and were already present in the United States; it did not apply broadly to refugees, lawful permanent residents, naturalized citizens, or all Burmese nationals. Catholic Charities emphasized that the termination affected approximately 4,000 people nationwide, while most members of Allen County’s much larger Burmese community had arrived through the refugee resettlement program and therefore held different legal statuses.

Nevertheless, Catholic Charities reported receiving numerous calls from local residents who were uncertain about what the TPS change meant for themselves and their families. The organization expressed concern about a broader “tidal wave of fear” fueled by confusion over the differences among TPS, refugee status, permanent residency, and citizenship. This local response demonstrates how policy changes affecting a comparatively small group can have wider consequences when misinformation spreads through closely connected communities. Families who are uncertain about their status or the status of relatives may become hesitant to go to work, attend appointments, send children to school, or interact with government and community institutions. For nonprofits, this increases the importance of trusted communication, accurate legal referrals, interpretation, and culturally responsive outreach.

Similar uncertainty can affect other immigrant groups whose legal protections depend on programs such as TPS, humanitarian parole, asylum, or refugee status. These categories provide

different rights, durations of protection, and pathways to permanent status, making accurate information especially important when federal policies change. Nonprofit organizations should therefore avoid broad assumptions about legal status based on nationality and instead connect individuals with qualified legal assistance when questions arise.

These policy changes also intersect with existing health and socioeconomic barriers. In 2023, approximately 23.4% of Allen County’s foreign-born residents were uninsured, compared with 6.9% of U.S.-born residents. Roughly 47.3% of foreign-born residents spoke English less than “very well,” highlighting the importance of interpretation and language-access services.

Foreign-born residents also had a poverty rate of 17.5%, compared with 11.7% among U.S.-born residents, while their median income was $35,231, below the county median of $37,429. These disparities can make access to nonprofit health care, benefits navigation, interpretation, and emergency assistance especially important during periods of policy change or uncertainty.

At the same time, Allen County’s immigrant population plays an important role in the local economy. Although the most detailed county-level economic contribution estimates available are from 2019, immigrants earned nearly $657 million, paid more than $160 million in federal, state, and local taxes, generated $37.9 million in business income, and helped create or preserve an estimated 1,200 manufacturing jobs. Workforce disruptions could therefore affect not only immigrant families, but also employers, regional economic productivity, local tax revenue, and demand for nonprofit assistance.

Implications for Nonprofits in Allen County and Fort Wayne

Across all of these issue areas, the impact on nonprofits is both service-related and financial. Policy changes may increase the need for direct assistance, interpretation, case management, legal referrals, and outreach, often without corresponding increases in funding. At the same time, delayed health care can increase emergency room use and uncompensated care, while workforce disruption may reduce household income and local tax contributions and contribute to a broader loss of economic productivity. These combined effects can place additional pressure on nonprofits, health systems, local governments, and schools, particularly those serving immigrant and refugee families.

Health Care Access and Community Health

Immigration policy changes can affect health care access even when health care providers are not directly involved in immigration enforcement. Fear of deportation, family separation, public charge consequences, or data-sharing can cause families to delay or avoid care. This may increase reliance on emergency departments, worsen chronic conditions, interrupt prenatal care, reduce vaccination uptake, and increase behavioral health needs. These effects can extend

beyond individual families, placing additional strain on local health systems and potentially affecting the health and well-being of the broader community.

In Allen County, where immigrants are more likely to be uninsured than U.S.-born residents, nonprofit clinics, community health providers, and sliding-scale services may experience increased need for services. Delayed care can also create financial pressure for both nonprofit providers and local health systems. When patients avoid preventive or primary care, conditions may become more severe and more expensive to treat, increasing uncompensated care and emergency room utilization. For the St. Joseph Community Health Foundation and its partners, this reinforces the importance of supporting accessible, preventive, culturally responsive health care that can reduce avoidable emergency care and improve long-term community health.