Guarding International Borders Against HIV: A Comparative Study in Futility

Back in 1985, when knowledge of HIV began to spread, governments reacted by passing immigration laws to restrict the entry of HIV positive individuals. These laws required such individuals to either declare their HIV status or undergo mandatory HIV testing to secure entry. As justification for these initiatives, many countries claimed to be preserving the public health and their domestic economy. The United States, China, and Russia are three countries that have had, or still have, some form of HIV immigration restrictions. Initially, it may seem logical that preventing HIV positive individuals from entering a country will cut down on the spread of HIV and save the economy from health care costs. Nevertheless, an analysis of the HIV travel restrictions of these three countries will show that the public health and economic reasoning behind such laws is flawed because HIV is not spread by casual contact and because economic goals can be accomplished with less restrictive means. Moreover, this article will further reveal that HIV travel restrictions contribute to several health concerns and create issues with confidentially and stigmatization. In the end, a comparative analysis of these three countries, with specific attention paid to their successes and failures, reveals that the best system is one that works on both an international and domestic level. On the international level, border  Articles Editor, Pace International Law Review, 2012-2013; J.D. Candidate, Pace University School of Law (expected May 2013). Special thanks to the 2011-2012 and the 2012-2013 editorial boards, as well as the articles groups that aided in preparing this article for publication.