US: Health services now out of reach for many immigrants

New Policy Bars Many Lawfully Present and Undocumented Immigrants from a Broad Range of Federal Health and Social Supports

On July 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a notice of a policy change to update the definition of “federal public benefits” as outlined in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) to add an additional 13 programs to the 31 programs considered “federal public benefits” that are restricted to individuals with a “qualified” immigration status. The notice further indicates that the updated list of federal benefits is not exhaustive, and additional programs may be added in the future. This change bars many groups of lawfully present immigrants as well as undocumented immigrants from accessing many health care, educational, and other social services and will likely have negative impacts on the health and well-being of immigrant families due to more limited access to services as well as confusion and fear about using services. It also may create new challenges and complexities for service providers. Many implementation questions remain unclear and subject to future guidance, including how verification of immigration status may occur and how the policy will be reconciled with existing conflicting statutory and regulatory requirements, which supersede the guidance. This policy change took effect immediately upon publication of the notice in the federal register on July 14, 2025, although it provides for a 30-day comment period. It also indicates that it will issue further implementation guidance.

Prior Policy under PRWORA

When enacted in 1996, PRWORA established federal requirements that limited eligibility for “federal public benefits” to groups who are “qualified immigrants.” The groups defined as “qualified immigrants” are more limited than groups who are considered lawfully present in the U.S. and exclude undocumented immigrants. Notably, qualified immigrants do not include people with Temporary Protected Status and people with deferred action, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients, among other lawfully present groups (Box 1).

Box 1: Lawfully Present Immigrants by Qualified Status

Qualified Immigrants

Other Lawfully Present Immigrants

Lawful permanent resident (LPR or green card holder)
Refugee
Asylee
Cuban/Haitian entrant
Paroled into the U.S. for at least one year
Conditional entrant granted before 1980
Granted withholding of deportation
Battered noncitizen, spouse, child, or parent
Victims of trafficking and their spouse, child, sibling, or parent or individuals with pending application for a victim of trafficking visa
Member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or American Indian born in Canada
Citizens of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau who are living in one of the U.S. states or territories (referred to as Compact of Free Association or COFA migrants)

Granted Withholding of Deportation or Withholding of Removal, under the immigration laws or under the Convention against Torture (CAT)
Individual with Non-Immigrant Status, includes workers visas, student visas, U-visa, and other visas, and citizens of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau
Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
Deferred Enforced Departure (DED)
Deferred Action Status
Lawful Temporary Resident
Administrative order staying removal issued by the Department of Homeland Security
Resident of American Samoa
Applicants for certain statuses
People with certain statuses who have employment authorization

The PROWRA legislation provided discretion to federal agencies to determine which benefits and programs are “federal public benefits,” while also identifying specific exemptions such as treatment for emergency medical conditions, certain disaster relief, immunizations, and testing and treatment for communicable diseases. It also clarified that non-profit organizations were not required to verify the immigration status of individuals receiving benefits or services. Under policy established in 1998, HHS identified 31 health and social programs considered to be “federal public benefits” restricted to “qualified immigrants,” including major health coverage programs such as Medicaid (excluding emergency Medicaid), Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Changes under the 2025 Policy

The 2025 policy expands the list of programs considered “federal public benefits” by adding 13 additional programs, including Head Start, the health center program, the Title X family planning program, among others (Box 2). The notice further indicates that the list is not exhaustive, and additional programs may be added to in the future.

Box 2: New Programs Considered “Federal Public Benefits” Under the 2025 Policy Change

Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
Head Start
Health Center Program
Health Workforce Programs not otherwise previously covered (including grants, loans, scholarships, payments, and loan repayments)
Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment, Prevention, and Recovery Support Services Programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness Grant Program
Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant
Title IV-E Educational and Training Voucher Program
Title IV-E Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program
Title IV-E Prevention Services Program
Title X Family Planning Program
List is not exhaustive and may be added to in the future

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (July 2025), “HHS Bans Illegal Aliens from Accessing its Taxpayer-Funded Programs”

Implications of the Policy Change

The policy change bars many lawfully present and undocumented immigrants from services that are important for their health and well-being. These programs include certain programs that are particularly important for immigrant families, such as the federal Health Center program, which funds a network of Community Health Centers (CHCs). Community health centers are a national network of over 1,300 safety-net primary care providers located in medically underserved communities and serve all patients regardless of their ability to pay, providing a range of medical, behavioral, and supportive services. Data from the 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants show that three in ten immigrant adults say a CHC is their usual source of care, with this share rising to about four in ten among likely undocumented immigrant adults (42%) and those with limited English proficiency (39%) (Figure 1). The policy also bars immigrants without a “qualified” immigration status from accessing federally funded mental and behavioral health services at a time when many immigrant families are experiencing heightened stress and anxiety due to immigration-related fears and financial uncertainty, as well as from Title X services, which provide comprehensive family planning services to low-income and uninsured individuals.

Beyond health care, the policy also limits access to services that support education, including the Head Start Program. Research shows that adults with higher educational attainment tend to have longer lifespans and be healthier than their counterparts with lower educational attainment. High educational attainment also is associated with better jobs that are more likely to provide employer-sponsored health coverage and higher incomes which, in turn, improve access to health care and resources to support health.

The new policy also will affect service providers who may need to update their policies and procedures to comply with the changes. Under PRWORA, program benefit providers are prohibited from providing “federal public benefits” to people who are not citizens or qualified immigrants and are required to verify that an applicant is a qualified immigrant eligible for services. The notice confirms an existing exemption in the law that non-profit charitable organizations are not required to verify immigration status. However, many implementation questions currently remain unclear and subject to future guidance, including how verification of immigration status may occur. Moreover, the policy does not supersede existing statutory and regulatory requirements. For example, although the notice limits the health center program to “qualified immigrants,” it does not change the underlying statutory requirements for CHCs to serve patients regardlessof immigration status. While federal law supersedes guidance, this conflict creates challenges for CHCs in how they will apply this guidance, and it remains to be seen how enforcement of the guidance will affect CHCs’ ability to provide care. Additionally, as noted, the notice indicates that the list of programs affected by the change is not exhaustive, so additional programs may be added in the future.

The notice estimates that the policy change will result in savings from reduced use of programs by certain immigrants as well as new administrative costs. Savings are estimated to derive from excluding certain immigrants from HHS programs with a corresponding increase in benefits for U.S. citizens and qualified immigrants. There also are estimated to be new administrative costs associated with individuals being required to document their eligibility, for immigration status to be verified, and for changes in program eligibility and operating policies and procedures.

The policy change occurs against a backdrop of other policy changes restricting immigrant access to health and other programs and increased immigration enforcement activity. These changes include new restrictions established under budget reconciliation that limit Medicaid, Medicare, and subsidized Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace coverage to lawful permanent residents, certain Cuban and Haitian entrants, and citizens of the Freely Associated States (COFA migrants). Together, these changes will likely have broad chilling effects on immigrant families, resulting in increased reluctance to access services and programs due to fear and confusion. More limited access to programs and services may lead to negative impacts on their health and well-being. These effects may extend across immigrant families, who often include citizen children—with one in four children in the U.S. living with at least one immigrant parent—and have broader impacts on communities, given immigrants’ role in the workforce.

[Update] US: Idaho immigrants regain HIV treatment access through legal ruling

Federal Judge Restores Access to HIV Treatment for All Immigrants in Idaho

BOISE — Today, a federal judge granted provisional class-action status and extended a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the lawsuit Davids v. Adams. This ruling means access to HIV treatment through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program remains available for all immigrants throughout the state, regardless of their immigration status. Before the ruling, the TRO protected access to the program only for the five anonymous patient plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The judge’s order defines the protected class as “all current or future persons residing in Idaho who have been diagnosed with HIV and who would qualify for federally funded services through the Ryan White Program unless required to verify [their immigration status] for those benefits.”

A decision on the preliminary injunction is expected in the coming weeks.

Davids v. Adams was filed on June 26, 2025 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Idaho, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and private law firms Nixon Peabody LLP and Ramirez-Smith Law in response to House Bill 135.

#####

The ACLU of Idaho is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and civil rights. The ACLU of Idaho strives to advance civil liberties and civil rights through activities that include litigation, education, and lobbying. Learn more at acluidaho.org.

Established in 1979, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is one of the leading organizations in the U.S. exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low-income immigrants. At NILC, we believe that all people who live in the U.S. should have the opportunity to achieve our full potential. Over the years, we’ve been at the forefront of many of the country’s most pressing immigration issues, and we play a major leadership role in addressing the real-life impact of policies that affect the ability of all of us to prosper and thrive.

Nixon Peabody LLP is an American Lawyer top-100 law firm in the United States and has 15 offices worldwide. Our firm delivers exceptional service to our clients and our communities by combining high performance, entrepreneurial spirit, deep engagement, and an unwavering commitment to a culture of collaboration and humanity.

Ramirez-Smith Law is a leading immigration law firm dedicated to defending the rights of immigrants, asylum seekers, and underserved communities across the United States. With a proven commitment to justice, the firm advocates for individuals facing systemic barriers within the immigration system and beyond. Headquartered in Nampa, Idaho, Ramirez-Smith Law provides compassionate, high-impact legal representation in removal defense, asylum, family-based immigration, humanitarian relief, employment-based immigration, and federal litigation—including complex litigation challenging unlawful government practices and policies. Our firm is proud to stand at the intersection of legal advocacy and social justice, using the law as a tool to protect human dignity and hold institutions accountable. We believe every client deserves to be heard, and every community deserves to be defended. For more information, visit www.nrsdt.com or contact us at 208-461-1883.

Global study reveals 50 countries still enforce HIV-related travel restrictions

A new global study presented this week at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science in Kigali (IAS 2025) has revealed that 50 countries around the world continue to enforce HIV-related travel and residence restrictions, in clear violation of international human rights principles.

The data, shared by the HIV Justice Network through its new platform Positive Destinations, highlights the persistence of discriminatory laws and policies that prevent people living with HIV from freely travelling, working, studying, or settling in many parts of the world.

Despite progress – 83 countries now have no HIV-specific travel restrictions, and many others have adopted more inclusive approaches – 17 countries still impose severe measures such as outright entry bans, mandatory testing, and deportation. These include Bhutan, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. Migrants and students are often disproportionately affected, with some unaware of the rules until after testing or disclosure, resulting in forced returns, loss of income, and separation from families.

Another 33 countries – including Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore – have partial restrictions. These include requirements for HIV testing in visa applications, discretionary decisions based on perceived healthcare costs, and reduced access to essential services. Although these policies may appear neutral on the surface, they continue to disadvantage people living with HIV.

“These restrictions are rooted in outdated public health thinking and perpetuate stigma,” said Edwin J Bernard, HIV Justice Network’s Executive Director. “They obstruct access to healthcare, education, and family life, especially for migrants and refugees.”

Click on the image to download the poster

In 2024, Positive Destinations documented several cases of deportation based solely on HIV status: Kuwait deported over 100 people, Russia’s Dagestan region deported nine, and Libya deported two. Such practices are increasingly being challenged by legal action. In Canada, for example, a court case led by the HIV Legal Network contests the “excessive demand” clause of immigration law, arguing it violates the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, policy reform has been uneven. Australia raised its health cost threshold for visa eligibility, slightly easing access to temporary stays, but permanent residency remains elusive for many people with HIV. A recent case saw an Italian teacher denied residency due solely to his HIV-positive status.

The study also underscores how HIV-related migration barriers often intersect with other forms of criminalisation and discrimination. In Uzbekistan and Russia, HIV criminalisation laws are paired with mandatory HIV testing for migrants. In the U.S., HIV-positive and LGBTQ+ asylum seekers continue to face mistreatment in detention centres. And in a tragic case in Turkey, a Syrian trans woman was reportedly deported after her HIV status was disclosed and later killed upon return.

The authors of the study call for urgent action: “Eliminating these harmful policies is essential to ending AIDS, achieving universal health coverage, and upholding the dignity and rights of people living with HIV everywhere,” said Bernard.

Positive Destinations, which hosts the updated Global Database on HIV-Specific Travel and Residence Restrictions, is available at www.positivedestinations.info

EP0623 Addressing HIV-related travel restrictions: Progress and challenges in eliminating discriminatory policies by Edwin J Bernard, Sylvie Beaumont, Elliot Hatt, and Sofía Várguez was presented at IAS2025 by Brent Allan at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science, Kigali, Rwanda.

Russia: Migrants could face mandatory health checks under Russian draft law

Russian lawmakers propose mandatory health clearance for migrants entering the country

Deputies have proposed introducing a mandatory requirement for migrants entering the Russian Federation to present a certificate proving they are free of infectious diseases, Yaroslav Nilov, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Labor, Social Policy, and Veterans’ Affairs, said in a post on Telegram, APA reports citing TASS.

“Foreigners coming to Russia to earn money should not bring their problems with them — they should help solve ours,” he noted.

Nilov added that a corresponding draft law has been submitted to the State Duma for consideration.

The politician stated that migrants crossing the border will be required to present valid medical insurance and certificates proving they are not infected with HIV, hepatitis B and C, syphilis, or tuberculosis.

They will also have to provide test results confirming they are free of narcotic and psychotropic substances. Without these documents, they will not be allowed to cross the Russian border, he added.

Uzbekistan to require HIV tests for returning migrants and foreign workers

A bill on mandatory HIV testing of Uzbeks who returned from abroad has been adopted

The deputies considered and adopted in the third reading a bill providing for mandatory HIV tests for citizens of Uzbekistan who have returned from abroad after staying for more than 90 days, as well as for foreigners arriving in the country for employment.

The bill proposes to make a number of amendments and additions to the Laws “On Counteracting the Spread of the Disease Caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV Infection)”, “On Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-Being of the Population”, “On Private Employment Agencies” and “On Employment of the Population”.

In particular, the mandatory medical examination for HIV of citizens of Uzbekistan aged 18 to 60 who have returned after a continuous stay abroad for 90 days or more, foreign citizens and stateless persons permanently residing in the territory of Uzbekistan or arriving in the country for the purpose of employment is determined.

According to the document, a mandatory medical examination for HIV of citizens of Uzbekistan who have returned after a continuous stay abroad for 90 days or more, as well as stateless persons permanently residing in Uzbekistan will be carried out at the expense of the State Budget. Foreign citizens and stateless persons arriving in Uzbekistan for the purpose of employment and/or permanently residing on its territory will be examined at the expense of their own funds, the employer’s funds or other sources not prohibited by law.

In addition, it is proposed to establish as one of the licensing requirements for private employment agencies the obligation to organize training of citizens traveling abroad in the legislation and rules of residence of the host state, as well as providing them with the necessary information materials.

The deputies noted that the adoption of the bill will serve to prevent the spread of infectious diseases that pose a threat to human health, protect the health of the population, and form effective legal mechanisms to ensure social security in the process of labor migration. The bill was sent to the Senate.

It should be noted that the establishment of a 90-day period is justified by the fact that this infectious disease manifests itself in the human body 90 days after infection.

Принят законопроект об обязательном тестировании на ВИЧ узбекистанцев, вернувшихся из-за рубежа

Законопроектом предлагается внести ряд изменений и дополнений в Законы «О противодействии распространению заболевания, вызываемого вирусом иммунодефицита человека (ВИЧ-инфекция)», «О санитарно-эпидемиологическом благополучии населения», «О частных агентствах занятости» и «О занятости населения».

В частности, определяется обязательное медицинское обследование на ВИЧ граждан Узбекистана в возрасте от 18 до 60 лет, вернувшихся после непрерывного пребывания за рубежом в течение 90 и более дней, иностранных граждан и лиц без гражданства, постоянно проживающих на территории Узбекистана или прибывающих в страну с целью осуществления трудовой деятельности.

Согласно документу, обязательное медицинское обследование на ВИЧ граждан Узбекистана, вернувшихся после непрерывного пребывания за рубежом в течение 90 и более дней, а также лиц без гражданства, постоянно проживающих на территории Узбекистана будет проведено за счет средств Государственного бюджета. Иностранные граждане и лица без гражданства, прибывающие в Узбекистан с целью осуществления трудовой деятельности и/или постоянно проживающие на ее территории будут проходить обследование за счет собственных средств, средств работодателя или других не запрещенных законодательством источников.

Кроме того, предлагается установить в качестве одного из лицензионных требований к частным агентствам занятости обязательство по организации обучения выезжающих за границу граждан законодательства и правил пребывания принимающего государства, а также обеспечение их необходимыми информационными материалами.

Депутаты отметили, что принятие законопроекта послужит предотвращению распространения инфекционных заболеваний, представляющих угрозу для здоровья человека, охране здоровья населения, формированию эффективных правовых механизмов обеспечения социальной безопасности в процессе трудовой миграции. Законопроект направлен в Сенат.

Отметим, что установление 90-дневного срока обосновано тем, что данное инфекционное заболевание проявляется в организме человека через 90 дней после заражения.

South Africa: Overview of healthcare access for undocumented migrants in South Africa

Healthcare Access for Undocumented Migrants in South Africa: What You Need to Know

Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right enshrined in South Africa’s Constitution. However, the reality for undocumented migrants seeking medical care in the country remains complex and often fraught with challenges. This article provides a clear, factual overview of healthcare access for undocumented migrants in South Africa. It highlights legal rights, barriers faced, and ongoing debates.

Legal Framework Protecting Healthcare Access

Section 27(1) of the South African Constitution guarantees everyone the right to access healthcare services, including reproductive healthcare. This right extends to all individuals within the country’s borders, regardless of nationality or legal status. Specifically, Section 27(3) mandates that emergency medical treatment must not be denied to anyone. This underscoring the country’s commitment to human dignity and health rights.

The National Health Act further supports this by stating that primary healthcare services are available to all people, irrespective of immigration status. Refugees, asylum seekers (with or without permits), permanent residents, and even undocumented migrants are entitled to emergency healthcare services. However, at the very least.

Categories of Migrants and Their Healthcare Rights

Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Recognised refugees and those awaiting status have the same rights to healthcare as South African citizens. This includes access to clinics, maternal and child healthcare, HIV and TB treatment, and mental health support.
Permanent and Temporary Residents: These groups also have access to public healthcare. Temporary residents are often required to pay fees based on income.
Undocumented Migrants: While lacking legal documentation, undocumented migrants retain the constitutional right to emergency medical care. Access to non-emergency services is more limited and often subject to administrative discretion, but denying emergency care is unlawful.

Barriers and Challenges in Practice

Despite clear legal protections, undocumented migrants frequently face obstacles when seeking healthcare:

Medical Xenophobia: Many migrants report discrimination and refusal of services by healthcare providers. This is due to their foreign status or lack of documentation. This practice undermines public health and violates constitutional rights.
Fear of Deportation: Undocumented migrants may avoid seeking care due to fears. They fear that healthcare providers will report them to immigration authorities, as required by the Immigration Act.
Cost and Accessibility: Some migrants are charged fees or denied free services, despite legal provisions. Language barriers and lack of information further complicate access.
Policy Conflicts: The National Health Insurance Bill and Immigration Act introduce conflicting requirements. These sometimes restrict undocumented migrants’ access to healthcare. This contrasts with constitutional guarantees.

Access For All?

The South African Constitution guarantees healthcare access for undocumented migrants, especially in emergencies. Yet, challenges such as discrimination, fear, and conflicting policies persist. Continued legal advocacy, public education, and policy reform are essential. They are necessary to ensure that all individuals, regardless of documentation status, can access the healthcare they need.

US: Federal Judge blocks Idaho’s Immigration Law from targeting HIV program

Federal judge temporarily protects HIV program from new Idaho immigration law

A federal judge has temporarily blocked Idaho from applying a new state law meant to prevent unauthorized immigrants from accessing publicly funded assistance to one health program.

U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford on Monday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare from requiring citizenship status reviews for a federally funded HIV treatment program.

The decision blocks the law’s application to this program until a court hearing in two weeks about whether the court should block the law for longer.

The new law, House Bill 135, took effect Tuesday. It cuts the few publicly funded services that unauthorized immigrants can receive in the state.

The judge’s ruling came days after ACLU of Idaho sued over the new law, alleging the law is unconstitutional by violating equal protection, conflicts with federal laws and even denies federal funds to people eligible under federal law.

US: Lawsuit filed to block Idaho law restricting access to HIV treatment for Immigrants

BOISE — On Thursday, June 26, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Idaho, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and private law firms Nixon Peabody LLP and Ramirez-Smith Law filed a lawsuit against the state of Idaho to stop enforcement of House Bill 135, which is set to go into effect July 1, 2025.

House Bill 135 was passed during the 2025 legislative session to impose new immigration status verification requirements on programs that are not restricted under federal laws, including access to food pantries and soup kitchens, prenatal and postnatal care, vaccines and life-saving medications to treat communicable diseases such as HIV, among others. Prior to the new law, these benefits were available to Idaho residents without having to verify immigration status.

The lawsuit, Davids v. Adams, is seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the state from barring access to federally funded HIV medication for immigrants who cannot verify their lawful presence. The TRO is necessary because the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which administers the federal funding, has determined that on and after July 1, 2025, recipients of this funding must meet the lawful presence criteria outlined in the law. Without access to this medication, many immigrant residents will suffer a variety of serious health issues, including, potentially, death.

The plaintiffs in Davids v. Adams are Dr. Abby Davids, a doctor who treats patients living with HIV, and five immigrant Idahoans living with HIV.

The lawsuit argues that House Bill 135 attempts to circumvent federal law, which allows access to certain federally funded benefits programs, including the federal program that provides HIV medication (known as the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program), without regard to citizenship or immigration status.

“Nobody benefits from barring access to life-saving HIV medication,” said Dr. Abby Davids, practitioner at Full Circle Health. “Both for individual patients and for the health of our community as a whole, all people living with HIV need to be able to access consistent care and treatment. Infections like HIV do not infect people based on their immigration status, and treatment should not be limited by legal status, either. I am genuinely afraid for my patients who currently take medication for HIV; without it, their lives will be in jeopardy.”

“HB 135 is designed to dehumanize our immigrant neighbors by denying them the basic necessities of life — medicine, food, and shelter. It subverts constitutional rights and interferes with federal regulation of immigration,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, ACLU of Idaho Legal Director. “Along with HB 83, this is the second unconstitutional bill we’ve sued to stop this year. It is part of the state’s campaign to displace immigrant residents, which will separate families and inflict lasting trauma. The state’s actions are legally indefensible and morally wrong.”

“This inhumane bill unconstitutionally seeks to block full public access to essential health care, including life-saving HIV care and treatment, and threatens the health and wellbeing of Idahoans across the state,” said Joanna Cuevas Ingram, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “Federal law has expressly exempted the Ryan White HIV AIDS Program, among others, from citizenship and immigration status requirements, ensuring that vulnerable individuals are not denied life-saving care due to their immigration status and to meet nationwide public health goals in reducing HIV transmission. H.B. 135 cannot subvert federal law or the will of Congress. A restraining order and injunction are necessary.”

“The message to immigrant and Latine communities is clear: No matter what kind of person you are, no matter how meaningfully you contribute to Idaho, no matter how hard you struggle to support your family, you are not wanted here,” said Ruby Mendez-Mota, ACLU of Idaho Interim Advocacy Director. “This law isn’t about safety or security, it’s not about limited resources; it’s about making an already vulnerable part of Idaho’s hardworking community feel like they aren’t good enough to be treated with dignity. This fight is not over.”

France: Young man with HIV detained without treatment faces expulsion, despite years of residency

For two months, the 23-year-old man has been detained at the CRA in Cornebarrieu (Haute-Garonne), where he has not received his HIV treatment. The associations are asking for a reassessment of his file. Politis was able to reach him.

His voice is weakened, almost inaudible. He seems exhausted. Joes arrived in France at the age of 11, then was adopted by his grandmother. He has 22 today. All his life is here. He went to college and then high school in the North, did two years of art school and then multiplied odd jobs, in catering and sales. In the meantime, he learns that he has HIV. He should have filed his birth certificate at the age of 18 to be officially regularized but he forgot and then covid-19 arrived and the administrations remained closed. He receives an OQTF (obligation to leave French territory).

“I didn’t really take it seriously. Instead of challenging her, I preferred to work, keep a low profile, thinking that things would work out, “says the young man. “If my birth certificate had been filed, they could have registered me in the civil registry and I would be French. From there, everything degrades. The man, detained at the administrative detention center (CRA) in Cornebarrieu, near Toulouse, was to be expelled by plane on Monday, June 23 to his country of origin in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A country he doesn’t know.

International aid stopped

To avoid being sent back, Cimade advised him to apply for asylum as a matter of urgency to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra). The aim was to re-evaluate his case. A new element was added, as Julie Aufaure, in charge of detention at Cimade, explains: “Care for people with HIV in the DRC is a little better than it used to be. But doubts have returned with the decision by the United States to withdraw its international aid, particularly on health issues”.

More and more foreign nationals living with HIV are being refused entry to the country.It was the Pepfar programme (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), which financed a very large part of access to treatment in developing countries – particularly the DRC – with almost 54%. However, “this decision is not yet measurable, but there are major concerns on the ground. And the professionals in the field know that this is going to become a real problem very, very quickly”, continues Julie Aufaure.

This concern is shared by Adrien Cornec, head of mission for the AIDS charity Aides. He explains that France has had a right to residence on medical grounds since 1990. “But for some years now, the authorities have been calling it into question. We’re seeing more and more foreign nationals living with HIV being refused residence. In particular, people who have been refused residency following applications for renewal. In other words, people who have been here for several years.

He adds: “From one day to the next, these people find themselves in an irregular situation, obliged to leave French territory and go to a country where they haven’t lived for long and are not guaranteed access to care.

“We were rejected everywhere”

Julie Aufaure admits that Joes’ situation is complicated. “We’ve been rejected everywhere, unfortunately, because the prefectural authorities and the European Court of Human Rights base their decision on the decision of the Office’s doctor, who says that the treatment exists.

Joes, for his part, ‘hopes from the bottom of his heart’ for a positive response from Ofpra. Especially as he has been subjected to mockery in the detention centre since his arrival on 6 April. Medical confidentiality has been broken. He has been subjected to ‘moral and physical harassment’ by both ‘officers and detainees’. According to him, the detention centre officers spread the information to everyone in the centre. Some felt sorry for them, others laughed. His fellow detainee added that this stigmatisation was recurrent.

Apart from his roommate, with whom he talks, the young man has withdrawn into himself. “It’s still really a wolf’s world here. I prefer to be on my own. People can fight over a piece of bread or a cigarette. It’s a disgrace”, says Joes.

Worse still, he says he has never received his treatment since his arrest. When he arrived, he had a blood test and a check-up a fortnight later. But since then, radio silence. ‘They nearly put me on the plane, in this state, without me having had the treatment…’. As he is HIV-positive, it is essential that he takes his medication every day. The absence of treatment can have serious effects on his health, such as a drop in his immunity, making him extremely vulnerable to other illnesses. According to the Cimade employee, this is a case that ‘borders on the legal’, but she assures us that the procedure is long and going well.

Action still possible

If the asylum application is rejected or deemed inadmissible, Julie Aufaure plans to lodge an appeal with the national court for the right of asylum (CNDA) and ask the administrative court to suspend the deportation until the court has made its decision, but ‘that’s pretty much the last option for him’, she says.

Adrien Cornec says he is very concerned about ‘these refusals of residence and their accommodations’. Aides and the other associations are calling for the application of the decree of 5 January 2017, which states that ‘in all developing countries, it is therefore not yet possible to consider that HIV-positive people can have access to antiretroviral treatment or to the medical care required for all carriers of an HIV infection as soon as they are diagnosed’.

The Aides representative alerted Senator Anne Souyris. The ecologist sent letters to the prefects of the Pyrenees and Haute-Garonne, and also directly to the Minister of the Interior, Bruno Retailleau. “We don’t expel people who can’t be treated in their own country. There’s a political issue behind it”, she told Politis.

According to the senator, this is a real ‘death sentence’ for Joes, given that international funding has stopped. The senator goes further than the individual case and calls for all the people who could be affected to be automated: “There should be a circular (…). This should also be a textbook case for managing this situation.

Uzbekistan considers mandatory HIV testing for migrants and returning citizens

Uzbekistan Plans to Introduce Mandatory HIV Testing for Migrants

Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.com) — The “Milliy Tiklanish” Democratic Party has expressed its support for a draft law that would introduce mandatory HIV testing for certain categories of individuals, according to the press service of the Legislative Chamber.

The party’s backing for the measure stems from several key factors: the growing scale of labor migration, an increase in the number of citizens returning from abroad, and a significant inflow of foreign nationals into Uzbekistan.

In this context, lawmakers emphasized the urgent need to strengthen preventive measures aimed at the early detection of infectious diseases that may pose a threat to public health, as well as to curb their potential spread.

One such measure is the proposed bill mandating medical examinations for Uzbek citizens who have stayed abroad for more than 90 days, as well as for foreign nationals entering Uzbekistan for employment purposes.

The draft law outlines specific groups subject to mandatory HIV testing, including:

— Uzbek citizens aged 18 to 60 who have stayed abroad continuously for 90 days or more;
— Foreign nationals and stateless persons who reside permanently in Uzbekistan;
— Foreign nationals and stateless persons arriving in Uzbekistan to work.

The bill’s authors explained that the 90-day threshold was chosen because this is typically the period in which infectious diseases begin to manifest in the body. During discussions, it was noted that out of the 1.7 million citizens who returned from abroad in 2024, only 434,000 (about 25%) underwent voluntary HIV/AIDS testing, and 1,512 individuals were diagnosed with the infection.

Lawmakers stressed that the absence of mandatory medical screenings in current legislation is one of the main reasons for the low rate of HIV testing among citizens, making the introduction of such a requirement especially urgent.