Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and Immigration Laws
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a severe health condition resulting from infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), leading to significant deterioration of the immune system. This disease emerged prominently in the early 1980s, accompanied by societal fears that influenced public perception and policy, particularly regarding immigration laws in the United States. Early reports linked AIDS to specific populations, notably homosexual men, intravenous drug users, and Haitian immigrants, which fueled public hysteria and prompted the government to enact measures restricting the entry of individuals carrying HIV.
In 1987, HIV was classified as a contagious disease, allowing for the exclusion of HIV-positive individuals from immigration. Despite the scientific understanding that HIV is not spread through casual contact, the stigma and fear surrounding the disease led to bureaucratic barriers that complicated the exchange of vital medical knowledge and hindered care for those affected. The ban remained in effect until 2008, influenced by political dynamics and shifting public attitudes toward the disease and affected populations.
Over the years, the landscape of HIV/AIDS transformed, particularly with the introduction of effective treatment options that changed the perception of HIV from a fatal to a manageable condition. In the 2020s, the intersection of global crises and increased migration has further complicated HIV/AIDS management, as immigrants often face stigma and barriers in accessing healthcare, exacerbating public health challenges. This ongoing evolution of immigration laws concerning HIV/AIDS reflects broader societal attitudes and highlights the need for sensitive and equitable health policies.
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and Immigration Laws
DEFINITION: A disease state caused by infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that leads to slow destruction of victims’ immune systemsmaking victims highly susceptible to potentially life-threatening infections and cancers.
ALSO KNOWN AS: AIDS
SIGNIFICANCE: The emergence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) during the early 1980s fostered a national hysteria in which fears of contracting the disease were directed against categories of people who were believed to be its main carriers, most notably homosexual men and intravenous drug users. To prevent the spread of this disease, federal laws were modified to restrict travel and immigration into the United States.
The first official mention of what became known as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was issued on June 5, 1981. That report chronicled the cases of five White gay residents of Los Angeles, California. Soon, public hysteria over the apparently high mobility of the disease’s high-risk groups—gay men, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, and Haitian immigrants—erupted. Medical experts added to this frenzy by recommending quarantine measures on the basis of limited facts. They apparently assumed prosperous gay American and European men—who were the first visible faces of AIDS—were more prone to travel internationally than their heterosexual counterparts and that they might therefore spread the disease rapidly during their travels. Equally compelling to the public health establishment at that time was the fact that the market for medical blood supplies was no longer local but international. Because intravenous drug use had increased tremendously around the world during the permissive 1970s, the danger of HIV-tainted blood reaching uninfected patients was growing.
Immigration Issues
Public fear of the spread of AIDS and HIV was growing at the same time the public was becoming more concerned about the immigration of "undesirable" populationsome of this fear had a racist element. Scenes of Black Haitian boat people trying to reach the United States were frequently in the news. Whereas lighter-skinned refugees from communist-ruled Cuba had been welcomed into the United States, the Black-skinned refugees from Haiti’s right-wing government were looked upon with suspicion. The U.S. government officially classified them as economicnot politicalrefugees who could be turned away at will. Moreover, the fact that many Haitian would-be immigrants had been found to be carrying tuberculosis during the 1970s and AIDS during the 1980s made them even less welcome. Meanwhile, growing fears of AIDS and HIV in the United States raised new calls for restricting the immigration of possible carriers.
During the summer of 1987, President Ronald Reagan faced mounting pressure to do something dramatic about the spread of HIV/AIDS. This pressure led to his embrace of North Carolina senator Jesse Helms’s proposal to add HIV to the U.S. Public Health Service’s list of “dangerous and contagious diseases” so it could be used as grounds for barring possible carriers from immigrating into or even visiting the United States. Only one month earlier, Reagan had ordered the Public Health Service to add HIV to its contagious disease list through an executive order, even though it was becoming generally known that the infection was not spread through casual human contact—which was the conventional legal and medical interpretation of “contagious.” Under this ruling, travelers carrying HIV could be banned from entering the United States. Congressional ratification of the ban made it much more politically appealing in the short term. It also made the ban bureaucratically stronger over the long haul. Enacted during the height of the culture wars over both morality and immigration, restrictions on the immigration of AID/HIV carriers would remain in effect until 2008.
Effects of the Ban
The codified American ban on the entry of HIV carriers into the United States had the ironic effect of interfering with the exchange of academic and scientific information designed to stem the disease’s spread. A typical example of this obstruction was the harassment of Dutch AIDS-prevention specialist Hans Paul Verhoef by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in April 1989. The INS apparently detained Verhoef after specimens of the only known medication for HIV/AIDS were found in his luggage. His detention was temporary, but it caused Verhoef to miss an important professional conference on AIDS in San Francisco.
International conferences on AIDS held in the United States during the early and mid-1990s secured waivers for foreign participants infected with HIV/AIDS to enter the country. However, the granting of these waivers was slow, arbitrary, and begrudging. Consequently, the growing militancy of AIDS advocacy groups such as ACT UP during the administration of George H. W. Bush connected the travel and immigration ban to what they perceived as bureaucratic indifference and contempt that had made a bad situation worse. Even the merciful inclusion of persons infected with HIV/AIDS as a protected group under the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 did little to mitigate the effects of the travel and immigration ban.
Developments During the 1990s
Bill Clinton’s presidency brought new hope to end the travel ban. However, as was often the case in gay-related and AIDS issues at that time, these hopes were dashed. Indeed, Clinton and the U.S. Congress renewed the ban, apparently to appease advocates of traditional family values. Shifting demographic trends in the incidence of the diseasewhich was afflicting increasing numbers of heterosexual Americanshad little effect in galvanizing support for repeal of the ban. The adoption of safer-sex practices during the 1980s had leveled off the disease’s mortality rate and spread among gay White men by 1995, but the incidence of the disease was continuing to rise among both male and female African Americans of all sexual orientations.
The introduction of retroviral cocktail drugs after 1996 transformed HIV/AIDS from a deadly disease to a chronic diseaseat least among victims who could afford the taxing regimen of medications that were becoming available. Meanwhile, the worldwide and increasingly heterosexual scope of HIV/AIDS was becoming publicly evident, and the disease’s ravages were a growing concern for American national interests and security, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
The trend toward an African—or foreign—face for HIV/AIDS may have ironically given the travel ban within the United States a second wind at the turn of the twenty-first century. That attitude was further strengthened by a fresh set of fears about immigrants in general after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States that prompted unprecedented new security measures to protect national borders.
In the meantime, routine obstruction and harassment of AIDS victims by federal government agencies continued. For example, Andrew Sullivanthe noted English pundit and editorcould not apply for American citizenship because of his HIV-positive status. Christopher Arnesenan immigrant from New Zealandhad to fight a protracted legal battle to get the Social Security benefits he had earned from working for twenty-eight years in the United States. Eventually, however, the federal government relented. In what may be regarded as one of the most positive legacies of his administration, President George W. Bush committed the United States to help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and assist its victims in Africa. In 2008, at Bush's prompting, the Democratic-controlled Congress quietly repealed the statute on which the ban was based. These efforts were continued in 2009 when President Barack Obama announced the publication of a rule canceling the HIV ban on travel and immigration by eliminating HIV status as a reason for “excluding, removing, or deporting a person from the United States”according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy. The rule was put into effect in January 2010, thus ending more than two decades of discrimination against individuals with HIV/AIDS.
HIV/AIDS and Immigration in the 2020s
In the 2020s, the prevalence of war, global climate change, water scarcity, and other factors led to a rise in immigration. This, in turn, facilitated a dispersion of HIV cases across international borders. Media reporting suggested close to half of diagnoses of HIV originated from persons who left their countries of birth. This included refugees from European countries such as Ukraine where the 2022 Russian invasion prompted large number of displacements.
HIV/AIDS treatment for immigrants was complicated by persistent stigmas in their home countries, which delayed diagnosis and care. Immigration processes, including detention, further hindered access to essential healthcare. As a result, host countries faced increased strain on HIV/AIDS resources.
Bibliography
Andriote, John-Manuel. Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Chalmers, James. Legal Responses to HIV and AIDS. London, Hart, 2008.
Gordenker, Leon, Roger Coate, Christer Jonsson, and Peter Soderholm. International Cooperation in Response to AIDS. London, Pinter, 1995.
"HIV and Migrants–Monitoring the Implementation of the Dublin Declaration on Partnership to Fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia: 2022 Progress Report." European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 28 Nov. 2023, www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/hiv-and-migrants-monitoring-implementation-dublin-declaration-partnership-fight. Accessed 5 Sept. 2024.
“Immigration.” The Center for HIV Law and Policy, www.hivlawandpolicy.org/issues/immigration. Accessed on 12 Oct. 2016.
Lalou, Richard, and Victor Piché. “Migrants and AIDS: Risk Management Versus Social Control—An Example from the Senegal River Valley.” Population, English Edition 59, no. 2, March-April, 2004, pp. 195-228.
Nelson, Leonard J. “International Travel Restrictions and the AIDS Epidemic.” American Journal of International Law 81, no. 1, January, 1987, pp. 230-236.
Peabody, Roger. "Migrants Being Left Behind by the HIV Response in Europe." AIDSMap, 19 Jan. 2024, www.aidsmap.com/news/jan-2024/migrants-being-left-behind-hiv-response-europe. Accessed 5 Sept. 2024.
Preston, Julia. “Obama Lifts a Ban on Entry Into U.S. by H.I.V.-Positive People.” New York Times, 30 Oct. 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31travel.html. Accessed on 12 Oct. 2016.