ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

USCIS IGNORES CONGRESS AND CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE

Rate this Entry

In July, Congress voted to scrap the ban on travel by HIV-positive individuals. This week USCIS announced it is going to issue regulations to "streamline" the entry process for HIV-positive people rather than following the directive of Congress and ending the ban. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) who led the congressional effort was very displeased at the news:

"I
am disappointed that the Administration has decided to move ahead and
finalize this rule to clarify the visa waiver process for HIV positive
short term visitors to the United States.The rule itself remains fundamentally flawed because it is grounded on
an unjust and discriminatory policy that has no basis in public health."

Immigration Equality, the advocacy organization for same sex immigrant couples, noted



Under the new rules, a short-term traveler must meet twelve stringent
criteria that impose unnecessary burdens on HIV-positive travelers and
continue to stigmatize those living with HIV.  Some criteria are
inconsistent with current medical knowledge of HIV transmission and
treatment.



Additionally, a traveler who
avails him- or herself of the waiver must give up the right to apply
for a green card from within the United States - even if he or she
marries a U.S. citizen.  By DHS's own account, the "streamlining"
provided by  this rule simply shaves off eighteen days in processing
time by allowing Department of State consular officers to make
decisions on waivers without sending them to DHS for approval.

                  

"We are on the eve of lifting this ban once and for all.  Why is the
Administration setting new waiver requirements in stone now?," asked
Neilson. "The time has come for this Administration to finish the job
that Congress started this summer.  It's time to lift the HIV ban."

Submit "USCIS IGNORES CONGRESS AND CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE" to Facebook Submit "USCIS IGNORES CONGRESS AND CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE" to Twitter Submit "USCIS IGNORES CONGRESS AND CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE" to Google Submit "USCIS IGNORES CONGRESS AND CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE" to StumbleUpon Submit "USCIS IGNORES CONGRESS AND CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE" to Reddit Submit "USCIS IGNORES CONGRESS AND CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE" to Digg Submit "USCIS IGNORES CONGRESS AND CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. 's Avatar
    What are you blaming USCIS for? HHS hasn't changed its regs.
  2. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    True, but Congress sent the message that it wants a change in the way HIV positive people are treated and this certainly is not living up to the spirit of that vote.
  3. Grace's Avatar
    CIS likes to throw the blame for these type of stupid decisions on HHS and Congress. This is the same as the new requirement that female immigrants get vaccinations against cervical cancer, because the vaccination is the recommended list of vaccinations published by the CDC. The CDC has no intention of applying this requirement to immigrants, but because the 1996 law requires all immigrants to get vaccinations on the recommended list from CDC, all female immigrants between ages 11-26 have to get vaccinated against cervical cancer. Which sounds good on paper, but given that the cervical cancer vaccine costs about $350, it's a huge financial burden.
  4. 's Avatar
    So USCIS is supposed to disregard HHS regs, which are specifically referenced in 212(a)(1)(A)(i)?? Are you arguing that the HHS parenthetical in that section has now been mooted by the "message" Congress recently sent?
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: