AIDS activists say US travel requirements are 'discriminatory, intrusive'
TRAVEL / Special visa required to get around the US HIV travel ban
Dale Smith / National / Thursday, June 04, 2009
Share |

Canadian AIDS activists are denouncing requirements for HIV-positive travellers to the US as discriminatory and intrusive.

As many as 60 Canadians planning to attend this week's North American Housing and HIV Research Summit in Washington found themselves in a bind when they were informed, 11 days before the summit was due to start, that they would not be granted an event waiver.

HIV-positive travellers to the United States still require a waiver in order to bypass the country's HIV travel ban. While former US president George W Bush signed a bill to repeal the travel ban last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has not yet changed its regulations, thus the ban is effectively still in place.

"We applied for our [event] waiver in March and were told very clearly there would be no issue with the waiver and that we would get it," says Ruthann Tucker, senior director of community-based initiatives at the Ontario HIV Treatment Network.

When they were informed on May 22 that the event waiver would not be granted and that they would have to individually apply through a new "streamlined" visa process, the OHTN and its partners went up to the highest levels of the State Department in order to find a solution.

"What we ended up being able to achieve, although not 100 percent, is that we got the event cited as a 'designated event,'" says Tucker, who was concerned that personal health information might be linked to passports.
 
As a designated event, HIV-positive travellers attending the conference would be able to get their visas at the border, after paying a fee and filling out a form, which would be stamped, but not be linked to their passport or an ongoing file at the border. That $545 fee would be reimbursed by OHTN.

In Sep 2008, the Department of Homeland Security introduced what it calls a new "streamlined process" for HIV-positive travellers. It requires HIV-positive travellers to apply for a special visa at one of seven US consulates, unlike other Canadians who can travel to the US for a short time without a visa.



The previous waiver system required an HIV-positive person travelling to the US to fill out a waiver application at a US border crossing or at a pre-clearance airport, and the process would take an average of 18 days.

The new system gives consular staff the authority to grant the waiver as part of a visa application.

"When we grant these individualized waivers, no notation or indication is made on the face of the visa that the person is granted a waiver because of an HIV infection or because they suffer from AIDS," says David Hopper, the consular general for the United States Embassy in Ottawa. "It's transparent to anyone who is not a visa officer or a customs and border official in our Customs and Border Protection Service."

Hopper admits that this new process is less convenient as there are only seven US consulate offices in Canada, as opposed to 140 border crossing points. He adds that by visiting the consulate with an appointment, the visa can be granted immediately for $131 dollars, as opposed to the $545 fee charged for a waiver and the average 18-day waiting period.

The old waiver process is still available at border crossings for those who wish to use that more costly and lengthy process.

Critics of the new process say that the mandatory interview and paperwork are invasive. Applicants are required to sign a form that includes statements such as:
  • I am HIV-positive and asymptomatic;
  • I have received HIV transmission prevention counselling and will engage only in safe sex activities;
  • I have enough of my medications for my condition for the entire time that I am in the US;
  • I have enough insurance to cover my hospital stay and any medical treatment required while I am in the US;
  • I will not extend my stay for any reason whatsoever.

They also allege that the consulates will only accept a money order from Scotiabank, though the consulate did not indicate this during an interview with Xtra.

"These are the travel restrictions as you see them, and they are very discriminatory, intrusive and untenable," says Jay Koornstra, executive director of Bruce House in Ottawa. Koornstra had intended to attend the Summit, but declined to in the end.

"It's tantamount to asking HIV-positive Canadians to identify themselves to the US, to the Department of Homeland Security, to all the officials in the United States that one is HIV-positive, and that would be like tattooing the red ribbon on one's forehead. Under no circumstances am I willing to put my name on any US list, so effectively there is still a ban. I can't think of any HIV-positive individual who would think of doing so."

Tucker says there is at least one positive outcome.

"The US policy on restricting people with HIV into the country, has been raised and profiled," he says. "That's a good thing because it's back on the agenda, and it seemed to have fallen off, even though they had made a commitment to removing it."

The Department of Health and Human Services regulations that maintain the HIV travel ban are under review, and many expect them to be lifted by the end of the year.

US activists continue to press for the regulation changes, according to Trevor Thomas, deputy communications director for the Human Rights Campaign in Washington.

"We understand the complexities of the waiver process and we've made clear to the [Obama] administration that anything less than the full repeal of the HIV travel and immigration ban would be insufficient."


Share |


Reader Comments


 
US 'behind the times'
Typical Americans, always having stupid and funny laws on the books - it was repealed, but the regulation has stayed. Now tell me how does that make cents???????? - But then again Americans are so dumb, they can not tell the difference between a knife and a spoon anyway!!!!!! Obama has done NOTHING for gay men and lesbians in the USA, accourding to my friends.
Steve, Toronto Ortario
06/05/09 2:17 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Freedom to Choose
Steve, With respect, your comment is somewhat misguided. You *could* have praised Bush for ordering the blanket ban removed. That, however, wouldn't fit the left's agenda. You *could* have criticised Obama's administration for delays in implementation. The simple facts of the matter are two-fold. Every nation has the inherent right to determine who they will or will not admit within their borders. The first goal and duty of a nation-state is to protect its citizens. Canada, for instance, has a ban on any foreigner who has been convicted of an offense for which he could receive five years' imprisonment under our Criminal Code. In theory, drunk drivers can be sentenced to 5 years, although the over-whelming majority receive merely a fine. In practise, many Americans are refused entry to Canada because of one DWI 5, 10, or even 30 years ago. Your argument is further weakened by the fact that most nations ban persons with any infectious disease from entering the country. Most nations also specifically list HIV as grounds for excludability. The US is *not* unique in this area. Even Canada has restrictions similar to the US ones, with partial exemptions for 'refugee' claimants. Tell me...would you support the 'right' of an infectious, drug-resistant TB carrier to work as a nurse at Casey House or indeed any hospital or hospice? I know few who would. The social, financial and health costs would be horrendous, to say nothing of the potential for suffering and misery. For much the same reason, the US has chosen to restrict entry. I see no problem with this.
George, Welland Ontario
06/07/09 1:57 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
It's a human rights issue
George, also with respect, your comment regarding "wouldn't fit the left's agenda" is confusing. It's not about what's left. It's about what is "right"! And your claim that most nations list HIV as grounds for excludability is about as wrong as you can get. Please do not confuse immigration criteria versus travel restrictions/bans. The only other countries that ban "visits" by people living with the HIV besides the U.S. are Brunei, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Singapore, Sudan, South Korea, Tunisia, Turks & Caicos Islands and the United Arab Emirates. So please check your facts. Finally, what does this issue have to do with working in a health care setting? This is about travelling to a neighbouring country not about wanting permanent or even temporary resident status. JJ, Ottawa Ontario
J.J. Koornstra, Ottawa Ontario
06/08/09 12:07 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Response to JJ
Hi JJ! My comments about 'the left' concerned the usual bashing of the right, which was evidenced in Steve's posting. To clarify, yes, I am aware that there are differences on restrictions based on length of stay that vary by jurisdiction. The point stands, however, that most nations *do* exclude those with any infectious or communicable disease. Some specifically list HIV infection; for others, it may or may not be grounds for exclusion, depending on other factors, including the discretion of border officials. Every nation weighs the costs vs the benefits of allowing foreigners into the country. The factors include the reason for visit (business? education? shopping trip? These are of benefit to the nation.) Another factor is the individual in question. Is he a criminal? Is he likely to cause harm whilst here? Is he likely to be a drain on the public purse? Will his presence during his stay end up costing the nation an undue expense? When all of these factors are weighed, a decision to admit (or not) is made. All countries with controlled borders (incl. Canada) discriminate on basis of national origin, for instance. Some foreigners may enter without a visa. Others require one. You may recall a few years ago that we imposed a visa on Czech nationals, because large numbers of gypsies were coming from there illegally and claiming refugee status. As for health care, it was meant to demonstrate in stark terms *why* the ban on HIV-infected individuals was imposed. The social costs of treating one HIV infected person from infection-to-death is over $1million in Ontario, and is climbing as longevity (thankfully) improves. The risk of this cost (or multiples, if as has been seen in some cases, immigrants/visitors infect others here) must be weighed on an individual basis before entry. That's what the US visa waiver does.
George, Welland Ontario
06/08/09 1:42 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.