Suchergebnisse

Why do countries restrict immigration and travel? -- A history of immigration legislation / Beth Rowen -- Protecting public health? / Suzanne B. Goldberg -- A travel ban won't solve the ebola crisis / Tara Culp-Ressler -- President Trump's travel ban / U.S. Department of Homeland Security -- What changed in the revised travel ban / Tom McCarthy -- Is president Trump's travel ban racist or necessary? -- Reaction to the travel ban / Clark Mindock -- Trump's travel ban is not racist / Corine Gatti -- It's not about fighting terrorism / Kermit Roosevelt III -- Trump's travel ban makes Americans less safe / Ken Gude -- Without better screening of immigrants, we need the travel ban / Lee Smith -- Who deserves to come to America? -- Trump can't hide the racism of the travel ban / Nicole Colson -- Merit is hard to judge / John Carson -- All immigrants can benefit America / Raquel Aldana -- International students benefit America / Paula Calligiuri -- Fear leads to hate crimes / Ingrid Anderson -- Facts about immigration and travel restrictions -- Organizations to contact

BACKGROUND: A key purpose of the International Health Regulations (IHR) is to prevent unwarranted interruptions to trade and travel during large and/or transnational infectious disease outbreaks. Nevertheless, such outbreaks continue to disrupt the travel industry. This aspect of the IHR has received little attention in the academic literature despite its considerable impact on affected States and commercial activity. This article outlines the challenges and gaps in knowledge regarding the relationship between outbreaks and the travel sector and discusses the opportunities for further research and policy work to overcome these challenges. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a literature review on the relationship between outbreaks and travel restrictions, with a particular focus on the 2014-16 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. This review was complemented by an expert roundtable at Chatham House and further supported by case studies and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Numerous travel stakeholders are affected by, and affect, large-scale infectious disease outbreaks. These stakeholders react in different ways: peer pressure plays an important role for both governments and the travel sector, and the reactions of the media and public influence and are influenced by these stakeholders. While various data sources on travel are available, and World Health Organization is mandated to work with States, there is no recognized coordinating body to disseminate timely, consistent, reliable and authoritative information and best practices to all stakeholders. CONCLUSION: This article highlights the interdependent relationship between various travel stakeholders. The reasons for interruption of travel during the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak were complex, with decisions by States only partly contributing to the cessation. Decisions by non-state actors, particularly the travel industry itself, contributed significantly and were based on a variety of factors. Further research, analysis and policy development are required to mitigate the health and economic consequences of infectious disease outbreaks. Any further research will also need to take account of COVID-19 travel-related issues.

AIDS is truly an international phenomenon, with cases now reported on every continent. To combat the AIDS epidemic, the nations of the world may be reverting to a pattern of quarantine and restrictions on international travel. For example, on April 23, 1986, the Federal Register gave notice of a rule proposed by the Centers for Disease Control of the United States Public Health Service that, if enacted, will add AIDS to the list of seven diseases that provide grounds for exclusion of aliens. This action would allow the U.S. Department of State to deny visas and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deny admission to aliens subject to medical examination (generally immigrants and refugees) who are found to have AIDS. Although seemingly innocuous, the proposed regulation was initially seen by gay rights groups as an instrument that could potentially be used to harass homosexuals and other high-risk groups seeking entry to the United States. The proposed regulation also contrasts with the U.S. Public Health Service's domestic strategy for coping with AIDS, which emphasizes education rather than quarantine as the principal means of controlling the disease.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has made national governments worldwide to mandate several generic infection control measures such as physical distancing, self-isolation, and closure of non-essential shops, restaurants schools, among others. Some models suggest physical distancing would have to persist for 3 months to mitigate the peak effects on health systems and could be required on an intermittent basis for 12 to 18 months (Flaxman et al., 2020).

Introduction: Increasingly, HIV-seropositive individuals cross international borders. HIV-related restrictions on entry, stay, and residence imposed by countries have important consequences for this mobile population. Our aim was to describe the geographical distribution of countries with travel restrictions and to examine the trends and characteristics of countries with such restrictions. Methods: In 2011, data presented to UNAIDS were used to establish a list of countries with and without HIV restrictions on entry, stay, and residence and to describe their geographical distribution. The following indicators were investigated to describe the country characteristics: population at mid-year, international migrants as a percentage of the population, Human Development Index, estimated HIV prevalence (age: 15 49), presence of a policy prohibiting HIV screening for general employment purposes, government and civil society responses to having non-discrimination laws/regulations which specify migrants/mobile populations, government and civil society responses to having laws/regulations/policies that present obstacles to effective HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support for migrants/mobile populations, Corruption Perception Index, and gross national income per capita. Results: HIV-related restrictions exist in 45 out of 193 WHO countries (23%) in all regions of the world. We found that the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific Regions have the highest proportions of countries with these restrictions. Our analyses showed that countries that have opted for restrictions have the following characteristics: smaller populations, higher proportions of migrants in the population, lower HIV prevalence rates, and lack of legislation protecting people living with HIV from screening for employment purposes, compared with countries without restrictions. Conclusion: Countries with a high proportion of international migrants tend to have travel restrictions a finding that is relevant to migrant populations and travel medicine providers alike. Despite international pressure to remove travel restrictions, many countries continue to implement these restrictions for HIVpositive individuals on entry and stay. Since 2010, the United States and China have engaged in high profile removals. This may be indicative of an increasing trend, facilitated by various factors, including international advocacy and the setting of a UNAIDS goal to halve the number of countries with restrictions by 2015. ; Published version