Asked And Answered

An update that answers my question as to what the current (Democratic) candidates think about repealing the embarrassing and blatantly discriminatory HIV+ travel ban.

This article was provided by Housing Works. It is a part of the publication Housing Works AIDS Issues Update.

January 4, 2008

Better not have any HIV meds in there ...

Some speculated that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was trying to pull a fast one when it gave the public a mere 30 days to respond to its proposed changes on a 20-year-old policy banning foreigners with HIV from entering the U.S. However, advocates and individuals weren't so easily had: Some 600 organizations and individuals responded to the DHS' December 6 comments deadline.

You can check out all the comments here. Among the organizations that weighed in were AIDS Action, the American Public Health Association, AIDS Project Los Angeles, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), the HIV Law Project, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the International Women's Health Coalition. the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), National Immigration Forum and Physicians for Human Rights.

DHS' rule changes were ostensibly intended to ease travel restrictions for non-U.S. citizens with HIV but actually created new barriers.

Just before Congress went into recess for the holidays, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Gordon Smith proposed a bill that, like similar legislation in the House proposed by Rep. Barbara Lee, would strike a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that renders people with HIV inadmissible to the U.S. and return authority for that determination to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On Christmas Eve, the Boston Globe ran an eloquent editorial in support of lifting the ban.

It's a tad disheartening that like Lee's version, it was released just minutes before Senate recess so it couldn't gain any momentum. Regardless there is only so much Congress can do -- HHS does not have to overturn the ban on HIV-positive travel and immigration. A change in the Oval Office may be the faster route to justice: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and Kucinich responded to the AIDSVote.org survey question, "Do you support the repeal of the ban against people living with HIV entering the United States as travelers or immigrants, and which bars those in the U.S. from legalizing their immigration status?" with a resounding "Yes."

"A Step Short of a Yellow Star"

The Update combed through the comments on the travel ban on regulations.gov. Below is a round-up of well-reasoned and passionate opinions from elected officials, organizations, and concerned citizens opposed to the new DHS regulations:

Sen. Edward Kennedy: "The proposed rule offers little value to HIV-positive applicants. Instead, it imposes strict requirements that unfairly limit travel to the United States in a manner that is inconsistent with the best scientific understanding of the disease. It is mired in the past, a past where people feared HIV as a contagious disease could not be controlled or effectively managed."

Gay Men's Health Crisis and the Lift the Bar Coalition (28 signatories): "The HIV entry bar fails even by its own logic: It undermines public and individual health and drives up the cost of health care. ... It forces HIV-positive immigrants to go underground, and discourages them from seeking care until they end up in the emergency room with full-blown AIDS. It is no wonder that the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association and two Secretaries of Health and Human Services have all acknowledged that HIV entry bar is unjustifiable on public health grounds."

Elizabeth Wilkes (individual): "Every behavior that is associated with this damaging and discriminatory regulation is also associated with non-HIV illnesses. To single out HIV to demand these restrictions and behaviors is to open the door to any other illnesses and/or deformities that would be considered "non-desirable" -- identifying and dogging many innocent people. It is one step short of demanding that HIV-positive people wear a yellow star."

Julie Beschta (individual): I am writing to urge you to reconsider your current ban on the travel of HIV-positive persons to the US. Let us be a (positive!) leader in international policies!"

Human Rights Watch: "This law is contrary to international human rights protections against discrimination and serves no justifiable public health purpose. The United Nations International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights note that there is no public health rationale for restricting liberty of movement or choice of residence on the grounds of HIV status."

Seth Berkly, president of IAVI: There would be a real cost to be paid, in progress against AIDS, for this new policy. IAVI's scientific team, for instance, researches and develops AIDS vaccine candidates and conducts HIV clinical trials and clinical research through partnership with more than 40 academic, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and government institutions around the world. IAVI's work requires constant collaboration with scientists, policymakers and advocates from, among other places, those parts of the world hardest hit by the epidemic. Our headquarters staff travel to their home regions; they travel to our headquarters and laboratory in New York. If this exchange of people and ideas is hampered any more than it already is by further restrictions in immigration policy, the global effort to develop a vaccine will suffer.

To join GMHC's Lift the Bar coalition, contact: Nancy Ordover at nancyo@gmhc.org / 212-367-1240 or Vishal Trivedi at vishalt@gmhc.org.