HIV Ban Update — We’re Getting Close
The Federal Regulations website has just been updated to indicate that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations on the HIV travel and immigration ban have “cleared” the Office of Management and Budget (”OMB”). This is very welcome news. We anticipate having more information early next week, and will be posting again when the regulations have been released and Immigration Equality has had an opportunity to review those. While this development is a significant step forward, it is important that we ensure the regulations get the job done, once and for all . . . and we’ll be reviewing them to make sure that is the case.
As most of you know, last year Congress passed a bill which removed the ban on travel and immigration for HIV-positive foreign nationals from the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, fully removing the ban has required a two step process – first amending the statute and second HHS has to issue regulations removing HIV from its list of communicable diseases of public health significance.
Before HHS can publish its proposed regulations, they have to “clear” OMB. The fact that this has happened means that, finally, we can expect to see the regulations published in the Federal Register any day. Stay tuned here, and, if you haven’t done so already, sign up for our email newsletter and we’ll let you know what the proposed regulations say as soon as they’re published.
We’ve still got a couple of more hurdles to clear, but the finish line is in sight. Check back here early next week for more updates.
That’s a helluva way to end the week in my books!!
Comment by David NYC — June 26, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
HELL YEAH!
Comment by Scooby — June 26, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
a toast to these developments
Comment by Punda — June 26, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
It’s great. Hope that UAFA will be next very soon.
Comment by Dennis — June 26, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
WOW!!!! OMG!!! I cant believe it’s happening!!! Will I really be able to travel outside the US with no worries to return whenever this regulation is in effect? Will there be no “catch”?? I was approved the HIV waiver, but even so, I was (and still am) afraid to travel overseas, and then I am found inadmissible at the airport. Will I be able to travel by October or November yet? OMG!! that’s so good news! God Bless!! I still can’t believe it!
Comment by Falcao — June 26, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Similar news from Washington Blade, and HRC Org:
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=25938
http://www.hrc.org/12998.htm
We have to keep monitoring the public comment period and make sure we are on the right track to get the ban lifted.
Comment by Kim — June 27, 2009 @ 7:48 am
Does this mean a foreign national will not be required to take a hiv test anymore while applying for adjustment of status?
Comment by Dan — June 27, 2009 @ 8:54 am
Dan – we’ll have to see what the proposed rule says, but an HIV test will likely continue to required. If someone is found to be positive, there will likely need to be some proof of health insurance coverage, so as to not become a “public charge”. That’s something I’ve heard anecdotally in the past, but wait for the language of the rule to be published Monday in the Federal Register for the final version.
Comment by David NYC — June 27, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
That’s encouraging news! Thank you IE!
Re #7 & 8: I don’t quite understand why there will still be a HIV test and proof of health insurance coverage. It just doesn’t make sense. Why HIV, a chronic disease today? What about diabetes or even caner? Shouldn’t they wipe out all the language on HIV? I thought that’s what they proposed last July. If a HIV test and proof of insurance are required, they are still discriminating against people with HIV.
This might be just a way to quite the advocates but ultimately retain the ban.
Comment by Mike — June 27, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
I’m pretty sure private insurance is required regardless of hiv or not. You have to prove that you’re not going to become a ‘public charge’. It remains to be seen whether the test will still be required, and what the results will entail. I hope it will be eliminated completely. If the ban is lifted as required by Congress, there’s no point in it.
Comment by Scooby — June 27, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Was reading blogs on the Catholic churches view on immigration. There all for granting legal residence to all the illegals from hispanic countries, but when it comes down to immigration rights for binational gay couples, there dead set against it, and do what they can to stop UAFA being included in CIR. I was brought up Catholic, and I tried to get back into going to church recently when my mum died, but I can’t support that organization anymore because of what they say about binational gay couples. I wish they would just mind their own business. In the UK, no politicain would listen to any Catholic bishop, but I know it’s different in America. Too many religous freaks there. I wish we can organize a demonstration in Washington very soon so we will be noticed more. I’m afraid that if UAFA doesn’t pass by summer 2010, it will not pass anytime soon as there will be elections later that year.
Comment by Gerry D — June 28, 2009 @ 7:24 am
They will do everything they can to stop gay rights, and it goes beyond gay marriage. Well, I am hopeful, I just don’t think this time they will have enough weight to bring UAFA down. It is so unfair for them to be against us, so those illegal immigrants should all be legalized, and we can’t? And many of us have been here leglly, that is just not fair. But we should not be discouraged, there will always be opposition against us,but we if we stay focused,and stay away from gay marriage. I think it will be passed unnoticed or under the radar. But I am not saying we should not let our voices be heard, we just have to be realistic. Like the HIV ban, I have a feeling, not many conservatives know about REPAR, and it just kind of started the process, if they knew about it, I am sure they would’ve come out and fight so hard to against it, and maybe UAFA will be pass this way too.
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 28, 2009 @ 11:17 am
@ #7 & #8
Please, check the website:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do, under the section “Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan”, select HHS. Find rule RIN 0920-AA28, with NPRM 12/00/2009. which reads.
“CDC is amending its regulations that govern medical examinations that aliens must undergo before they may be admitted to the United States. Specifically, HHS/CDC is amending its regulations to update vaccination requirements, definitional changes for drug abuse and drug addition, scope of medical examination and revise outdated diseases from the list of “communicable diseases of public health significance”. We are taking this action to afford CDC the maximum flexibility it needs to identify and respond to newly emerging and re-emerging diseases. These changes are needed to improve the U.S. Government’s ability to prevent the importation of infectious diseases that are currently causing severe illness and death in regions of the world where large numbers of U.S.-bound immigrants and refugees reside These changes will reduce the health-security threat to the United States from emerging diseases without imposing an undue burden on either the aliens or the health-care system in U.S. resettlement communities.”
It seems to me that HHS/CDC has decided to address and aliminate HIV from the list of diseases of public health significance separately (and first). To speed up the process?
I am hoping that the HIV ban is elimanted once and for all, with no need for HIV testing for temporary or permanent work visa.
Let’s all keep and eye on the public comment period and send our comments with sound and clear arguments supporting lifting the ban. Let’s encourage everyone around us (family,, friends, etc…) to send their comments supporting the revised regulation.
Comment by M. Neto — June 28, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
If anyone has been able to locate the entry in the Federal Register, please post it here. I think it gets updated in the morning, but I wasn’t able to locate the new regulations in today’s version. Thanks
Comment by David NYC — June 29, 2009 @ 7:57 am
I think the rule will be available in tomorrow’s Registrar:
see the following link: http://www.federalregister.gov/inspection.aspx
and then scroll down the page to the CDC entry ..the proposed rule is there in pdf.
I’m reading it now….
Comment by Punda — June 29, 2009 @ 9:30 am
Highlights:
pg 10-11″ “In this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, HHS/CDC is proposing this action to remove HIV infection from the definition. While HIV infection is a serious health condition, it does not represent a communicable disease that is a significant threat for introduction, transmission, and spread to the United States population through casual contact. An arriving alien with HIV infection does not pose a public
health risk to the general population through casual contact. These changes reflect current scientific
knowledge and public health best practices. If the rulemaking is finalized, infection with HIV would no longer be a ground of inadmissibility ..”
pg 14: “Under the proposed rule, testing for HIV infection would be eliminated from these medical
examinations ..”
Comment by Punda — June 29, 2009 @ 9:36 am
The comment period is 45 days starting tomorrow I think.
Comment by Scooby — June 29, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Everyone, PLEASE DO NOT REST until the rule is finalized & effective. PLEASE take time to comment with SOUND ARGUMENTS as the ignorant people will try their best to stop this…
Comment by desparado — June 29, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
I concur with desparado. Please take some time to gather your thoughts and write a comment when we get the link. It is important to stress that science, as demonstrated in the proposed rule, indicates that lifting the ban against HIV+ visitors and immigrants does NOT pose significant issues to the public well being. HIV+ persons have been unfairly stigmatized by the existing rules, impacting individuals and families detrimentally far too long.
Comment by David NYC — June 29, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
I hope the conservatives and the Republicans do not have too much weight on this issue, and I know they will do anything the can to stop this from being passed. I have not seen or heard that much opposition, is that because the GOP/conservatives are not aware of it? If that was the case, I think we just need to have it passed quietly and under the radar. I hope we will have the same kind of progress with UAFA too since now UAFA has gone through the hearing already. Let’s keep fighting, we are almost there!!!
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 29, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Another important part of the argument is that the elimination of the regulatory ban was initiated by removal of the statutory ban last summer. That ban was removed by overwhelming support of both Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate. The regulatory changes are the final step of realizing the changes agreed upon by the last congress.
Comment by David NYC — June 29, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
I am so happy for all of you who will benefit from the HIV ban lift and we should thank IE and also ourselves for the continuing effort to change the law. I hope that once the ban is completely lifted, all of you will still keep fighting for the UAFA. Please also signed the comment that will be presented to the HHS as the final step for the lifting of the HIV ban. With that being said, there’s also good news for all of us today. Finally! The Supreme Court in MN has announcement that Al Franken is the winner of the senate race in MN. This is extremely good news for us and the UAFA! Now the Dems have filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We need to ramp up our efforts in writing and contacting the Reps. and Senators to push for the UAFA and also the CIR. This is a fantastic news!
Comment by Simon M — June 30, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
i am so happy I don’t quite understand why there will still be a HIV test and proof of health insurance coverage. It just doesn’t make sense. Why HIV, a chronic disease today? What about diabetes or even caner? Shouldn’t they wipe out all the language on HIV? I thought that’s what they proposed last July. If a HIV test and proof of insurance are required, they are still discriminating against people with HIV.
This might be just a way to quite the advocates but ultimately retain the ban
Comment by jone andrew — July 24, 2009 @ 5:12 pm