US: Trump’s promise of mass deportations is deepening mistrust of the health care system among California’s immigrants

Community health workers say fear of deportation is already affecting participation in California’s Medicaid program.

President-elect Donald Trump’s promise of mass deportations and tougher immigration restrictions is deepening mistrust of the health care system among California’s immigrants and clouding the future for providers serving the state’s most impoverished residents.

At the same time, immigrants living illegally in Southern California told KFF Health News they thought the economy would improve and their incomes might increase under Trump, and for some that outweighed concerns about health care.

Community health workers say fear of deportation is already affecting participation in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program for low-income residents, which was expanded in phases to all immigrants regardless of residency status over the past several years. That could undercut the state’s progress in reducing the uninsured rate, which reached a record low of 6.4% last year.

Immigrants lacking legal residency have long worried that participation in government programs could make them targets, and Trump’s election has compounded those concerns, community advocates say.

The incoming Trump administration is also expected to target Medicaid with funding cuts and enrollment restrictions, which activists worry could threaten the Medi-Cal expansion and kneecap efforts to extend health insurance subsidies under Covered California to all immigrants.

“The fear alone has so many consequences to the health of our communities,” said Mar Velez, director of policy with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. “This is, as they say, not their first rodeo. They understand how the system works. I think this machine is going to be, unfortunately, a lot more harmful to our communities.”

Alongside such worries, though, is a strain of optimism that Trump might be a boon to the economy, according to interviews with immigrants in Los Angeles whom health care workers were soliciting to sign up for Medi-Cal.

Selvin, 39, who, like others interviewed for this article, asked to be identified by only his first name because he’s living here without legal permission, said that even though he believes Trump dislikes people like him, he thinks the new administration could help boost his hours at the food processing facility where he works packing noodles. “I do see how he could improve the economy. From that perspective, I think it’s good that he won.”

He became eligible for Medi-Cal this year but decided not to enroll, worrying it could jeopardize his chances of changing his immigration status.

“I’ve thought about it,” Selvin said, but “I feel like it could end up hurting me. I won’t deny that, obviously, I’d like to benefit — get my teeth fixed, a physical checkup.” But fear holds him back, he said, and he hasn’t seen a doctor in nine years.

It’s not Trump’s mass deportation plan in particular that’s scaring him off, though. “If I’m not committing any crimes or getting a DUI, I think I won’t get deported,” Selvin said.

Petrona, 55, came from El Salvador seeking asylum and enrolled in Medi-Cal last year.

She said that if her health insurance benefits were cut, she wouldn’t be able to afford her visits to the dentist.

A street food vendor, she hears often about Trump’s deportation plan, but she said it will be the criminals the new president pushes out. “I’ve heard people say he’s going to get rid of everyone who’s stealing.”

Although she’s afraid she could be deported, she’s also hopeful about Trump. “He says he’s going to give a lot of work to Hispanics because Latinos are the ones who work the hardest,” she said. “That’s good, more work for us, the ones who came here to work.”

Newly elected Republican Assembly member Jeff Gonzalez, who flipped a seat long held by Democrats in the Latino-heavy desert region in the southeastern part of the state, said his constituents were anxious to see a new economic direction.

“They’re just really kind of fed up with the status quo in California,” Gonzalez said. “People on the ground are saying, ‘I’m hopeful,’ because now we have a different perspective. We have a businessperson who is looking at the very things that we are looking at, which is the price of eggs, the price of gas, the safety.”

Gonzalez said he’s not going to comment about potential Medicaid cuts, because Trump has not made any official announcement. Unlike most in his party, Gonzalez said he supports the extension of health care services to all residents regardless of immigration status.

Health care providers said they are facing a twin challenge of hesitancy among those they are supposed to serve and the threat of major cuts to Medicaid, the federal program that provides over 60% of the funding for Medi-Cal.

Health providers and policy researchers say a loss in federal contributions could lead the state to roll back or downsize some programs, including the expansion to cover those without legal authorization.

California and Oregon are the only states that offer comprehensive health insurance to all income-eligible immigrants regardless of status. About 1.5 million people without authorization have enrolled in California, at a cost of over $6 billion a year to state taxpayers.

“Everyone wants to put these types of services on the chopping block, which is really unfair,” said state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat and chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus. “We will do everything we can to ensure that we prioritize this.”

Sen. Gonzalez said it will be challenging to expand programs such as Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace, for which immigrants lacking permanent legal status are not eligible. A big concern for immigrants and their advocates is that Trump could reinstate changes to the public charge policy, which can deny green cards or visas based on the use of government benefits.

“President Trump’s mass deportation plan will end the financial drain posed by illegal immigrants on our healthcare system, and ensure that our country can care for American citizens who rely on Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security,” Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to KFF Health News.

During his first term, in 2019, Trump broadened the policy to include the use of Medicaid, as well as housing and nutrition subsidies. The Biden administration rescinded the change in 2021.

KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, found immigrants use less health care than people born in the United States. And about 1 in 4 likely undocumented immigrant adults said they have avoided applying for assistance with health care, food, and housing because of immigration-related fears, according to a 2023 survey.

Another uncertainty is the fate of the Affordable Care Act, which was opened in November to immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and are protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. If DACA eligibility for the act’s plans, or even the act itself, were to be reversed under Trump, that would leave roughly 40,000 California DACA recipients, and about 100,000 nationwide, without access to subsidized health insurance.

On December 9, a federal court in North Dakota issued an order blocking DACA recipients from accessing Affordable Care Act health plans in 19 states that had challenged the Biden administration’s rule.

Clinics and community health workers are encouraging people to continue enrolling in health benefits. But amid the push to spread the message, the chilling effects are already apparent up and down the state.

“¿Ya tiene Medi-Cal?” community health worker Yanet Martinez said, asking residents whether they had Medi-Cal as she walked down Pico Boulevard recently in a Los Angeles neighborhood with many Salvadorans.

“¡Nosotros podemos ayudarle a solicitar Medi-Cal! ¡Todo gratuito!” she shouted, offering help to sign up, free of charge.

“Gracias, pero no,” said one young woman, responding with a no thanks. She shrugged her shoulders and averted her eyes under a cap that covered her from the late-morning sun.

Since Election Day, Martinez said, people have been more reluctant to hear her pitch for subsidized health insurance or cancer prevention screenings.

“They think I’m going to share their information to deport them,” she said. “They don’t want anything to do with it.”

Introducing Positive Destinations:
Information and Advocacy on Travelling
and Relocating with HIV

Today, on International Migrants Day, the HIV Justice Network is thrilled to announce the relaunch of The Global Database on HIV-specific Travel and Residence Restrictions (HIVtravel.org) under a new name: Positive Destinations (www.positivedestinations.info). This rebranding reflects a bold vision for the future — empowering people living with HIV through accessible information, advocacy, and resources to promote freedom of movement and challenge stigma worldwide.

Positive Destinations represents hope, progress, and the belief that every journey should be free of archaic barriers and unjust discrimination. This enhanced platform provides up-to-date, accurate information on restrictions affecting people living with HIV who want to travel, relocate or migrate, and serves as a vital advocacy portal to push for the removal of discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

“This rebrand to Positive Destinations reflects our commitment to a world where people living with HIV, in all our diversities, can enjoy our human rights and live in dignity, without fear of unjust criminalisation, regulation or control,” said HIV Justice Network’s Executive Director, Edwin J Bernard. “With this platform, we aim to amplify the voices of those most affected and build a movement that challenges and changes unjust, unscientific policies. Travel or relocation for love, work, family or pleasure should be available to everyone, regardless of HIV status, and we are dedicated to ensuring that every destination is a truly positive destination for all.”

Why the change?

HIVtravel.org has been a trusted resource for more than two decades. The name Positive Destinations better reflects its mission to provide expanded information and tools to promote freedom of movement and uphold human rights, paving the way for a world where people living with HIV can explore, connect, and thrive without prejudice.

  • Expanding our vision: Positive Destinations goes beyond providing entry, stay and residence restrictions information to also covering information on access to HIV services for non-nationals.
  • Accessible advocacy tools: The platform equips users with news and resources to challenge unjust restrictions.
  • Community-focused: It highlights stories of successful advocacy and personal testimonies of lived experience to foster understanding and solidarity.

What’s new on Positive Destinations?

  1. Redesigned website: A completely redesigned user-friendly interface – optimised for mobile phones – that makes accessing critical travel and treatment access information seamless.
  2. Latest news: News stories about advocacy or information relating to HIV-related travel or migration curated from reliable sources around the world.
  3. Advocacy resources: Practical tools for individuals and organisations to advocate for change.
  4. Links to local organisations: Where available we link to organisations in-country that can help migrants with HIV to access services.
  5. Global perspectives: Personal stories highlighting the challenges and triumphs of navigating the world as people living with HIV in all our diversities.

Visit the new platform at www.positivedestinations.info.


About the HIV Justice Network

The HIV Justice Network (HJN) is the leading community-based NGO building a co-ordinated, effective global response to punitive laws and policies that impact people living with HIV in all our diversities. In 2024, HJN took over the running of the hivtravel.org website, rebranding it as Positive Destinations.

Acknowledgments

This project has been made possible with the provision of a financial grant from Gilead Sciences Europe Ltd.

We acknowledge previous funders and contributors to The Global Database on HIV-specific Travel and Residence Restrictions (hivtravel.org) including Deutsche Aidshilfe, European AIDS Treatment Group (EATG), the International AIDS Society (IAS), Positive Council (Switzerland). We would especially like to thank the original authors David Haerry and Peter Wiessner.

Increased risk of tuberculosis and HIV co-infection for migrants in the Uganda EU/EAA

Adult migrants in the UK and EU/EEA have worse TB outcomes than non-migrants

New research published today in the European Respiratory Journal found that adult migrants in the UK and EU/EEA fare worse on a range of TB outcomes than non-migrants in those countries.

Researchers led by Dr Heinke Kunst, Reader in Respiratory Medicine at Queen Mary University of London and Honorary Consultant in Respiratory Medicine at Barts Health NHS Trust, conducted a systematic review of current evidence on diagnosis of active TB in migrants entering the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) and UK.

The work, titled “Tuberculosis in adult migrants in Europe: a TBnet consensus statement” was delivered in collaboration with TBnetscientists with key contribution from Professor Christoph Lange, Professor of Respiratory Medicine.

The review included the clinical presentation and diagnostic delay, treatment outcomes of drug sensitive TB, prevalence and treatment outcomes of multidrug/rifampicin-resistant (MDR/RR)-TB and TB/HIV co-infection.

It showed that migrants have an increased risk of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (TB infection that occurs in organs other than the lungs) compared to pulmonary tuberculosis. It also showed that migrants have an increased risk of tuberculosis and HIV co-infection compared to non-migrants.

The findings also showed an increased risk for multi drug-resistant/rifampicin resistant tuberculosis in migrants with TB when compared to non-migrants with TB. Further to this, migrants with drug susceptible tuberculosis (TB which is not resistant to treatment drugs such as rifampicin) had an increased risk for unfavourable treatment outcomes when compared to non-migrants.

This is the first systematic review to show that migrants with tuberculosis in the UK and EU/EAA have worse outcomes compared to non-migrants with tuberculosis. Based on these findings and expert opinions consensus, the researchers provided recommendation statements to guide the management of migrants with tuberculosis in these countries.

Consensus recommendations include screening of migrants for tuberculosis/latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) according to country data; a minimal package for tuberculosis care in drug susceptible and multidrug/rifampicin drug resistant tuberculosis; implementation of migrant-sensitive strategies; free healthcare and preventive treatment for migrants with HIV co-infection.

Dr Kunst said: “Migrant populations entering Europe have poorer tuberculosis outcomes than native populations. As cases of tuberculosis are rising in Europe, we need urgent robust strategies to strengthen screening, rapid diagnosis, and treatment in these hard-to-reach populations.”

Migrant-sensitive strategies have been shown to be effective to improve migrant health. These include availability of interpreters and language-appropriate written materials, healthcare provider training in culture-sensitive issues, health education of migrants, strengthening community engagement and social support.

Interestingly, there was no evidence on use of migrant sensitive strategies to improve outcomes of migrants with tuberculosis in the UK and EU/EEA. The researchers hope that the findings may influence public health policy nationally and internationally. Migrant sensitive strategies should be included into routine care of migrants not only for migrants with tuberculosis but also those with other infectious diseases such as viral hepatitis.

Tuberculosis research at Queen Mary

This work complements existing tuberculosis research at Queen Mary in migrants and tuberculosis. Dr Kunst has conducted The CATAPULT trial (Treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in migrants in primary care versus secondary care) funded by Barts Charity recently published in the European Respiratory Journal. The trial showed that the treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in recent migrants to the UK can be safely and effectively managed within primary care when compared to specialist secondary care services at a lower cost. Read more.

Dr Kunst has conducted a NIHR funded study on evaluating uptake of latent tuberculosis infection screening in migrants (Uptake, effectiveness and acceptability of routine screening of pregnant migrants for latent tuberculosis infection in antenatal care) and Prof. Adrian Martineau leads a tuberculosis research programme to develop a new diagnostic test for latent tuberculosis infection.

Ireland: Four guest speakers discuss their journey as LGBTQ+ migrants living with HIV at community event

Queer migrants living with HIV in Ireland platformed in World AIDS Day event

Four guest speakers joined Poz Vibe hosts Robbie Lawlor and Veda to discuss their journey as LGBTQ+ migrants living with HIV.

To mark World AIDS Day, GCN and Poz Vibe teamed up to present ‘Poz World Panel’, a live podcast event aimed at platforming the voices of people living with HIV in Ireland. To showcase the diversity of the community and push back against the rising far-right and racist rhetoric, four guest speakers joined Poz Vibe hosts Robbie Lawlor and Veda to discuss their journey as LGBTQ+ migrants living with HIV.

Taking place at Edmund Burke Theatre on December 1, ‘Poz World Panel’ was the biggest World AIDS Day event to ever happen at Trinity College Dublin. To mark the occasion, TCD lit up the front of its historic buildings in red for the first time in a powerful display of solidarity and support.

The event kicked off at 6pm with a special set by queer DJ Manwelli, who welcomed people in and set the mood ahead of the live podcast. Before the discussion with the guests began, Poz Vibe co-host Veda invited a fifth speaker, who chose to remain anonymous, to address the audience.

The speaker told participants about their journey as an asylum seeker and what migrants in Direct Provision still face nowadays. They appealed to the audience to show up for people who are stuck waiting for a work permit and don’t know where to start to build a new life in a foreign country.

Taking the mic after them, Veda spoke about how the stigma against HIV impacted her life and pushed her to remain 10 years in the closet. The activist also talked about the Irish Names Quilt, which was created to honour those who died in Ireland from AIDS and HIV-related illnesses.

The Quilt was created by the Quilt Group, a group of women whom Veda visited recently, saying that when she went there she found the “communtity she’s been trying to build”, a community where HIV Positive people can live free of stigma and shame.

Joining Veda, Robbie Lawlor talked about Ireland’s history of emigration, highlighting the hypocrisy of people who today employ racist rhetoric against immigrants. Robbie also shared his own story of being denied visas to move abroad when he was 21 due to his HIV status.

The two hosts then invited their four guest speakers to share their stories. The first to take the mic was Prateek Bhardwaj, who spoke about living with HIV publicly for the very first time at the World AIDS Day event. He discussed the difficulties of accessing HIV medication in India and how this pushed him to move to Ireland, where everyone can access treatment for free.

After his account, the audience was treated to a short film created by Venezuelan actor and activist Luis Noguera Benitez. Through mixed media videos, Luis narrated his story of finding out his HIV status while he was still in Venezuela and coming out to his mother only one day before moving to Ireland.

The third speaker was Christopher Freibott, who moved to Ireland from a small town in Bavaria, Germany, in 2014. He spoke about how finding out he was living with HIV impacted his private and sexual life and the difficulty of opening up to the ones close to him.

Finally, Phellipe Lutterbeck opened up about living with HIV for the first time in public, sharing his experience of coming out and losing some friends due to their own prejudice. He also spoke about finding a community in Ireland and the massive impact that the Poz Vibe Tribe had on his life.

The World AIDS event concluded with a Q&A, when the audience asked questions about how to make Ireland a more welcoming space for people living with HIV.

Proudly supported by Trinity LGBTQ+ Staff Network, the ‘Poz World Panel: A World AIDS Day live Podcast’ event was a fundraiser for GCN, with some of the proceeds going to Poz Vibe.

Follwoing the event, GCN’s Manager Stefano Pappalardo said: “We were thrilled to have hosted this important community event to mark World AIDS Day in conjunction with Poz Vibe.

“Despite the progress made over the years, stigma remains a persistent barrier to open conversations, equal treatment, and support for those living with HIV.
Events like these are crucial in uniting our community, challenging harmful narratives, empowering individuals, and breaking down the stigma that still surrounds HIV.

“A massive thank you to our gorgeous hosts Veda and Robbie Lawlor, everyone at Trinity LGBTQ+ Staff Network for all their support, the wonderful speakers for sharing their stories and everyone who came along. Your presence made this event truly meaningful.”

Surveying ECDC report presents the results of survey on HIV prevention and barriers among migrants in the EU/EEA

HIV and migrants in the EU/EEA – Monitoring the implementation of the Dublin Declaration on partnership to fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia: 2024 progress report

This report presents the results of a survey among EU/EEA Member States in relation to the HIV epidemic among migrants and current national prevention interventions, policies and barriers to the public health response.

Executive summary

Background

In 2023, migrants accounted for almost half of new HIV diagnoses in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA) remaining a key population affected by HIV across the European region. Migrants living with HIV face numerous intersecting stigmas related to their HIV and migration status, as well as broader racial and cultural discrimination. Moreover, access to health services for undocumented migrants is not universally guaranteed in the EU/EEA, which hinders HIV prevention, testing and treatment services for this group and could contribute to HIV transmission in these communities, including post-migration acquirement of HIV.

For this report, migrants are defined as ‘people born abroad’ (i.e. those born outside the reporting country, regardless of place of HIV acquisition or diagnosis). This categorisation encompasses a broad range of individuals, some of whom may also be included in other key populations such as men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, or sex workers. It includes those who have migrated from within the EU/EEA as well as those who have come from outside the region and will be diverse in terms of socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics including ethnicity, nationality, migration status, gender, income, and educational level.

Methods

ECDC monitors the implementation of the 2004 Dublin Declaration [1,2]. Between February and May 2024, ECDC implemented an online survey among EU/EEA Member States to collect the most recent data from 2023. The survey contained specific questions in relation to the HIV epidemic among migrants, in addition to questions relating to the current national prevention interventions, policies and barriers to the public health response. This report presents the results of the survey.

Status of implementation of combination prevention

Combination prevention is an approach that combines biomedical, behavioural, and structural interventions and strategies for HIV prevention, working on different levels, including individual, community, and societal/national levels, into one comprehensive programme. Key findings include:

  • Twenty-seven countries of the EU/EEA reported having a national HIV prevention strategy to reduce the number of new HIV infections. Of those, 89% (24 countries) reported that their strategy specifically mentioned migrants as a key population to whom actions and services are targeted.
  • Only seven countries reported medium-to-high coverage of condom and lubricant provision programmes targeting migrants.
  • Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) availability in the EU/EEA has improved significantly since 2016. While data on the number of migrants accessing PrEP was generally limited, other findings suggest that PrEP may be inaccessible to many migrants: 13 countries reported difficulties in reaching both documented and undocumented migrants with PrEP, and three more countries reported difficulties in reaching only undocumented migrants. Seven countries reported that PrEP was not accessible for undocumented migrants, and in at least five more countries, it was accessible only at cost or through private providers.
  • The vast majority of countries reported no restrictions on access to testing for undocumented migrants. They also reported the availability of different testing interventions which might facilitate access to testing for undocumented migrants. However, no data to support this assumption were available. It should also be noted that self-testing and community-based testing were not universally provided across EU/EEA countries and these need to be scaled up to reach key migrant populations.

Progress in reaching the continuum of HIV care targets

The continuum of HIV care is a conceptual framework that provides a snapshot of the critical stages in achieving viral suppression among people living with HIV. Only five out of 30 countries provided full data to monitor all stages of the continuum of care for migrants. Key findings include:

  • There is progress for migrants along the continuum of HIV care across the EU/EEA, but limited available data suggest that only some countries were meeting one or more of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 95-95-95 targets to be achieved by 2025:
    • Approximately 93% of migrants living with HIV in the EU/EEA knew their HIV status (based on
      reporting from six countries).
    • Of migrants diagnosed with HIV, 84% had initiated antiretroviral treatment (ART), (based on
      reporting from nine countries).
    • Of the migrants on treatment, 95% were virally suppressed (based on reporting from nine
      countries).
  • As of 2023, only Luxembourg was meeting the 2025 substantive target of 86% viral suppression among all migrants estimated to be living with HIV, followed by Belgium, which was within 5% of the target.

Conclusions and recommendations

Progress has been made in the implementation of combination prevention and in reaching the continuum of HIV care targets for migrant populations in the EU/EEA. Recommendations include implementing migrant-tailored, nonstigmatising, linguistically and culturally appropriate HIV prevention programmes for all migrant populations, scaling up testing services, in particular community-based efforts including self- and home testing, and strengthening links between HIV support services and other services such as social services to meet patient needs.

Only five countries within the EU/EEA reported data for all stages of the continuum of care. Countries should continue to improve monitoring and surveillance data for HIV in migrant populations, to inform decision-making on the provision and targeting of prevention, testing and care services.

The full report can be downloaded here: HIV and migrants in the EU/EEA – Monitoring the implementation of the Dublin Declaration on partnership to fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia: 2024 progress report (2023 data)

Australia: Migration policies for People with HIV perpetuate criminalisation and expose them to harm

David Carter Delivers Keynote at the Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference

Health+Law’s research lead David Carter, delivered a keynote address at the recent ASHM HIV Conference in Sydney, exploring the controversial past and present of HIV criminalisation in Australia. His urgent, provocative address challenged us to consider how current legal and policy processes in migration law recreate conditions of criminalisation, producing serious health and other harms for people living with HIV. 

Talking to Health+Law researchers in an interview about legal issues, Sergio*, a man in his thirties originally from South America and living with HIV, described the experience of migration to Australia:

I didn’t have to face any court, but I [did] have to prove that I wasn’t a bad person just because I have HIV […] I [had] to prove myself to someone else, who probably is not living with HIV, that I was not a bad person, and I was a good citizen and I deserve to be here.

The migration process is a complex one – and this complexity is amplified for people living with HIV.  Sergio’s reflections express a particularly grim aspect of this process for migrants, especially those living with HIV.

Indeed, as Scientia Associate Professor David Carter, Health+Law’s research lead, argued in an invited keynote at the 2024 Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference hosted by ASHM Health in September this year, the experience of people living with HIV seeking to migrate to Australia is part of Australia’s long history of the criminalisation of HIV.  Speaking to delegates from Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific at Sydney’s International Convention Centre on Gadigal Country, David reminded the audience that criminalisation is a policy approach, that doesn’t just use the criminal law. To show this he set out five stages of criminalisation that are also evident in the migration process for those living with HIV.

First, as he explained, criminalisation characterises specific behaviour as harmful or carrying a risk of harm to the community. In this case the harm presented is, to quote Australian migration law, that a person’s HIV care represents a ‘significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice [to] the access of Australian citizens or permanent residents to health care or community services’.

Second, criminalisation creates a suspect population, made up of people thought to warrant suspicion because they come to be associated with the potential harm.

Third and fourth, this suspect population attracts surveillance from the state, with a hierarchy created within the suspect population whereby some members are subject to further and intensified surveillance.

Fifth, and finally, some members of this suspect population are subjected ‘to the most severe forms of the state’s coercive and punitive authority’, including investigation, more intensive supervision, detention or arrest, and in some cases, criminal or civil proceedings.

The criminalisation of HIV has a long and storied history, going back to the very early days of the AIDS crisis. Vocal members of HIV-affected communities, legal and human rights advocates and many others have argued strongly against criminalisation, viewing it as draconian and as an approach to public (health) policy with very negative consequences for HIV epidemics.

In Australia, arguments against HIV-specific criminal offences have been broadly successful, and yet the ‘temptation’ to criminalise – as the very first Australian National HIV Strategy described it – continues to emerge in some policy responses to HIV and other communicable diseases.

In 1987, when the authors of the first national HIV strategy were writing, they were warning against measures including compulsory universal HIV testing, the closure of gay venues, criminal penalties for HIV transmission, and limitations on the movement of HIV positive people, including forced quarantine. Today, HIV criminalisation is operating in Australian migration policy and law.

‘This contemporary criminalisation of HIV begins’, David argued, ‘like all criminalisation, with the characterisation of behaviour in terms of harm and risk of harm’. He continued, arguing that:

This characterisation of migrating while HIV positive as harmful establishes, and in-turn enlivens, the suspect population management and criminalising processes of our medical border […] This criminalising logic establishes an adversarial relationship between the person living with HIV and the state, and between them and members of the Australian community, whose access to health care it is alleged may be prejudiced by providing care for a person living with HIV who wishes to migrate.

Among the many negative effects of this process is that it can discourage migrants living with HIV from engaging in testing, treatment and HIV care. Interviews conducted by Health+Law as part of our national legal needs (LeNS) study confirm that this is happening. They show that many migrants living with HIV in jurisdictions across Australia experienced an alienating and hostile environment: a ‘threat environment so elevated’, as David described it in his keynote, that they frequently described withdrawing from HIV care and community life as a coping mechanism.

Unfolding the history of ‘unjust and unhelpful’ HIV criminalisation in Australia, David outlined how the current legal and policy conditions that prospective migrants living with HIV face in Australia today work to recreate conditions of criminalisation and expose both individuals and the community to multiple health harms.

You can read more about David’s keynote in The Medical Republic’s coverage of the conference.

US: Restrictive immigration policies would undermine Public Health and economic stability

Expected Immigration Policies under a second Trump administration and their health and economic implications

Introduction

Immigration was a central campaign issue during the 2024 Presidential election with President-elect Trump vowing to take strict action to restrict both lawful and unlawful immigration into the U.S. Such actions would have stark impacts on the health and well-being of immigrant families as well as major economic consequences for the nation. As of 2023, there were 47.1 million immigrants residing in the U.S., and one in four children had an immigrant parent.1 Increased immigration boosts federal revenuesand lowers the national deficit through immigrants’ participation in the country’s economy, workforce, and through billions of dollars in tax contributions.

This issue brief discusses key changes to immigration policies that may take place under the second Trump administration based on his previous record and campaign statements, and their implications. President-elect Trump has indicated plans to restrict and eliminate legal immigration pathways, including humanitarian protections, and deport millions of immigrants, which would likely lead to separation of families, negative mental and physical impacts for immigrant families, and negative consequences on the nation’s workforce and economy.

Expected Policy Changes

Elimination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program

The future of the DACA program remains uncertain due to pending litigation, and President-elect Trump has indicated plans to eliminate it, which would lead to over half a million DACA recipients losing protected status. DACA was originally established via executive action in June 2012 to protect certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from removal proceedings and receive authorization to work for renewable two-year periods. During his prior term, President-elect Trump sought to end DACA but was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2020. The Biden administration issued regulations in 2022 to preserve DACA protections. In September 2023, a district court in Texas ruled the DACA program unlawful, preventing the Biden administration from implementing the new regulations while the case awaits a decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under pending court rulings, while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is accepting first-time DACA requests, it is unable to process them. DHS is continuing to process DACA renewal requests and related requests for employment authorization. After the attempt to end DACA failed in 2020, the Trump administration saidthat it would try again to eliminate DACA protections, and, if the pending court ruling finds the program unlawful, the administration is unlikely to appeal the decision. There are over half a million active DACA recipients, a majority of whom are working and many of whom have U.S.-born children, who could be at risk of deportation if the program is eliminated.

A recent health coverage expansion to DACA recipients also is subject to pending litigation and would, if eliminated, leave many DACA recipients without access to an affordable coverage option. In May 2024, the Biden administration published regulations to extend eligibility for Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace coverage with premium and cost-sharing subsidies to DACA recipients, who were previously ineligible for federally funded health coverage options. The regulation became effective November 1, 2024, allowing for enrollment during the 2025 Open Enrollment Period. In August 2024, a group of states filed a lawsuit against the federal government alleging that the ACA Marketplace coverage expansion for DACA recipients violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is currently under review at a district court in North Dakota and a decision is expected in the coming months. Elimination of the expansion could leave the nearly 100,000 uninsured DACA recipients it is estimated to cover without an affordable coverage option.

Changes to Public Charge Policy

President-elect Trump could reinstate changes to public charge policy that he made during his first term, which led to increased fears and misinformation among immigrant families about accessing programs and services, including health coverage. Under longstanding immigration policy, federal officials can deny entry to the U.S. or adjustment to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (i.e., a “green card”) to someone they determine to be a public charge. During his prior term, President-elect Trump issued regulations in 2019 that broadened the scope of programs that the federal government would consider in public charge determinations to newly include the use of non-cash assistance programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Research suggests that these changes increased fears among immigrant families about participating in programs and seeking services, including health coverage and care. Prior KFF analysis estimated that the 2019 changes to public charge policy could have led to decreased coverage for between 2 to 4.7 million Medicaid or CHIP enrollees who were noncitizens or citizens living in a mixed immigration status family. The Biden administration rescinded these changes. However, as of 2023, a majority of immigrant adults said in a KFF survey that they were “not sure” about public charge rules, and roughly one in ten (8%), rising to about one in four (27%) of likely undocumented immigrant adults, said they have avoided applying for assistance with food, housing, or health care in the past year due to immigration-related fears (Figure 1). As of November 2024, President-elect Trump has not indicated whether his administration plans to reinstate his first term changes to public charge policy.

 

Expanded Interior Enforcement Actions

President-elect Trump has indicated that his administration plans to carry out mass detentions and deportations of millions of immigrants, including long-term residents, which could lead to family separations and negative mental and physical health consequences. President-elect Trump has stated that he will declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military to carry out mass deportationsof tens of millions of undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S., many of whom have been living and working in the country for decades. Such a policy could lead to family separations as well as mass detentions, which can have negative implications for the mental health and well-being of immigrant families and also put their physical health at risk. Tom Homan, who was the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the first Trump administration and has been selected as the incoming administration’s “border czar”, has said that it is possible to carry out mass deportations without separating families by deporting an entire family unit together, even if the child may be a U.S. citizen. As was the case during his first term, he may also carry out workplace raids as part of mass deportation efforts. Research shows that such raids can lead to family separations, poor physical and mental health outcomes for immigrant families, negative birth and educational outcomes for the children of immigrants, and financial hardship due to employment losses. Prior KFF research shows that restrictive immigration policies implemented during the first Trump administration, including detention and deportation led to increased fears and stress among immigrant families and negatively impacted the health and well-being of children of immigrants, most of whom are U.S. citizens.

Mass deportations could also negatively impact the U.S. workforce and economy, where immigrants make significant contributions. Immigrants have similar rates of employment as their U.S.-born counterparts and play outsized roles in certain occupations such as agriculture, construction, and health care. Research has found that immigrants do not displace U.S.-born workers and help foster job growth through entrepreneurship and the consumption of goods and services. Further, federal data show that unemployment rates for U.S.-born workers have not decreased between 2022 and 2023 and have remained similar to those for immigrant workers. In addition, immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, pay billions of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year. Mass deportation of immigrants could lead to workforce shortages in key sectors which could have negative economic consequences including an increase in the cost of essential goods such as groceries. Vice President-elect Vance has stated that immigrants are responsible for the U.S. housing crisis. While some studies show a link between immigration and rising housing costs, in general, economists are skeptical of immigration being a primary driver. Mass deportation of immigrants could also worsen housing shortages since immigrants make up a significant share of construction workers. Workplace raids can exacerbate existing labor shortages and have a negative impact on the local economies of the communities where they take place. Further, research shows that without the contributions undocumented immigrants make to the Medicare Trust Fund, it would reach insolvency earlier, and that undocumented immigrants result in a net positive effect on the financial status of Social Security. There also is likely to be a significant cost to taxpayers for the government to carry out large-scale detention and deportations.

Ending Birthright Citizenship

President-elect Trump has stated that he will sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of some immigrants despite it being a guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution, which would negatively impact the health care workforce and economy. This proposed action would limit access to health coverage and care for the children of immigrants since they may not have lawful status. It could also have broader ramifications for the nation’s workforce and economy, potentially exacerbating existing worker shortages, including in health care. KFF analysis of federal data shows that adult children of immigrants have slightly better educational and economic outcomes than adult children of U.S.-born parents and make up twice the share of physicians, surgeons, and other health care practitioners as compared to their share of the population (13% vs. 6%) (Figure 2). Other research also has found that children of immigrants contribute more in taxes on average than their parents or the rest of the U.S.-born population, and that their fiscal contributions exceed their costs associated with health care, education, and other social services.

 

Reinstatement of “Remain in Mexico” Policy

President-elect Trump has stated that he will reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” border policy and that he may use military spending to carry out stricter border enforcement, which would leave an increased number of asylum seekers facing unsafe conditions at the border. The first Trump administration implemented Migrant Protection Protocols, often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, in 2019. Under this policy, asylum seekers were required to remain in Mexico, often in unsafe conditions, while they awaited their immigration court hearings. The Biden administration ended this policy in 2022, following some legal challenges, although it implemented a series of increasingly restrictive limits on asylum eligibility in 2023 and 2024 in response to a high number of border encounters. President-elect Trump said he plans to reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols. He also has indicated that he will deploy the National Guard, as well as active duty military personnel, if needed, to the U.S.-Mexico border, although details of the plan remain unclear. Heightened military presence at the border can lead to increased fears among immigrant families living in border areas and using part of the military budget for border security could face legal challenges.

Restrictions on Humanitarian Protections

President-elect Trump said he plans to significantly limit the entry of humanitarian migrants into the U.S. during his second term by restricting refugee limits, shutting down the CBP One application for asylum seekers, and eliminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for immigrants from some countries.  During his first term, President Trump set the annual refugee admissions ceiling at its lowest levels, ranging from 50,000 in 2017 to a historic low of 18,000 in 2020. The Biden administration increased the limit to 65,000 in 2021, a level close to the annual ceilings prior to the first Trump term, and further increased the limits in 2022 and 2024 in response to humanitarian concerns. It is likely that President-elect Trump will reduce the admissions ceiling for refugees in his second term. The President-elect has also said that he will close the CBP One application created by the Biden administration which allows asylum seekers to seek lawful entry to the U.S. by making an interview appointment with the DHS. While there have been implementation challenges with the CBP One application, shutting down the application could lead to “mass cancellation of appointments” and possibly an increase in attempts to cross the border outside of ports of entry. President-elect Trump also has indicated that he will roll back TPS designations for some immigrants, including those from Haiti. TPS designations protect immigrants from countries deemed unsafe by the DHS from deportation and provide them with employment authorization but do not provide a pathway to long-term residency or citizenship. As of March 2024, over 860,000 immigrants from 16 countries were protected by TPS. Loss of TPS would put people at risk for deportation, which could contribute to family separation which in turn can have negative impacts on the mental and physical health of immigrant families, and broader negative consequences for the workforce and economy.

Endnotes
  1. KFF analysis of 2023 American Community Survey 1-year Public Use Microdata Sample.

Research papers explore challenges in HIV care for migrants and refugees, highlighting social and structural barriers

Report reveals how nations downplay migrants HIV care

A study has revealed how countries across the world have downplayed the health of international migrants who face barriers while accessing HIV care along the migration routes.

In many countries, the study shows that people on the move are confronted with stigma related to migration status, racialism, discrimination and unfavourable policies that run health care systems.

The study focused on migrants who are not aware of their HIV status but are either infected with or are vulnerable to acquiring HIV, and migrants who know their positive status and require linkage and adherence to HIV treatment.

“Migration is a common phenomenon and will remain an important health determinant when attempting to successfully strengthen health systems, including the access to continuity of HIV care,” the journal published by Lancet notes.

The worst hit are the undocumented migrants who due to fear of deportation and stigma may never seek HIV care from a health facility.

Although documented migrants have the right to access health care in some countries, they might still face barriers while accessing HIV care.

In some countries, documented migrants reportedly faced verbal abuse and discrimination in healthcare settings and were denied access to treatment even when they had the right to it, or were charged higher fees.

According to the study, the migration trajectory, including a pre-migration period in departure countries and transition periods before arriving at destination countries, presents HIV-related risks for migrants.

“Along this trajectory, migrants are likely to face different risk-inducing social, physical, political, and economic environments. Migrants’ departure countries might contribute to their overall determinants of HIV including specific vulnerabilities, practices around safer sex, and health-care seeking,” it reads in part.

The study cites a case where migrants arriving from countries with a patriarchal culture where sex is considered taboo, such as Arab countries, have been reported to experience a high burden of gender-related stigma associated with a high likelihood of acquiring HIV and delayed testing.

Additionally, the report says that experiences and familiarity with healthcare systems in departure countries might also shape migrants’ practices around seeking HIV care in transition or destination countries.

In the context of forced displacement, the research states that challenges related to accessing HIV care during the transition stage are major points of concern, especially where some migrants have to reside in refugee facilities in transition countries for long periods, which might substantially delay their access to HIV care.

These 2 research papers are part of the Lancet SERIESHIV in Migrant Populations Online first accessible freely after registration: 

Humanising and optimising HIV health care for refugees and asylum seekers

Interventions to ensure access to and continuity of HIV care for international migrants: an evidence synthesis

 

Italy: Legal issues and language difficulties restrict healthcare access for migrants in Southern Italy

Healthcare access in Southern Italy: the challenges faced by migrant communities

For many migrants in Southern Italy, protecting their health remains an uphill battle. The REACH OUT project, along with extensive field research, has revealed how access to care and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections are affected by a complex mix of social, cultural and economic factors.

Economic and legal difficulties, as well as language and cultural barriers, are among the primary obstacles preventing migrants in Southern Italy from accessing healthcare services.

Funded by the European Union and conducted in collaboration with Maastricht University and the University of Padua, the REACH OUT project has uncovered important data* on the health vulnerabilities of migrants in Southern Italy.

The project focuses on the prevention and access to care for HIV, hepatitis B and C, and other STIs, identifying real-world barriers that hinder the effective implementation of healthcare interventions in challenging contexts. One of the key findings is the role of Social Determinants of Health (SDH)– such as legal status, income, education level, and discrimination – which significantly impact healthcare access and infection risk.

Economic challenges are a major barrier: 67% of migrants interviewed live below the poverty line, with monthly incomes of less than 630 euros. Moreover, nearly half (48%) lack access to healthcare services, often due to limited awareness of their rights or complications in navigating administrative processes. This problem is especially severe in reception centers and informal settlements like Borgo Mezzanone, where healthcare registration is often absent.

Language and cultural barriers further compound the issue. Difficulties in translating sexual health information into various languages, combined with the stigma sorrounding STIs, create additional challenges in promoting preventive practices. While many migrants are aware of STIs and some prevention methods, shame and religious beliefs often prevent them from adopting protective behaviours.

Mental health data is equally concerning: 61.9% of migrants exhibited signs of psychological distress, while 30% reported having experienced intimate partner violence. Issues such as anxiety and depression are common, often stemming from prolonged stays in Italy without legal stability or social integration. Though these psychological factors do not directly block access to healthcare, they often isolate individuals, making them less likely to seek out healthcare services and support.

This research highlights the crucial need to improve communication about healthcare rights for migrants and to strengthen access to services for more inclusive protection. At INTERSOS, we are committed to using these insights to refine and expand our field initiatives, working closely with communities to build trust, provide targeted healthcare, and support long-term structural changes that enhance the quality of life for migrants in Italy.

*The data referenced here were gathered through three studies conducted by graduate researchers from Maastricht University and the University of Padua: Marije Pot, Martina Bugelli, and Antonia Laß.

UK: Former health minister calls for compulsory HIV tests for migrants arriving from “high-prevalence countries”

Test migrants for HIV, former minister says, as UK rates rise
A former health minister says in a co-authored blog post that the UK increase can be attributed to undiagnosed migrants arriving from sub-Saharan Africa.

A former health minister has called for the UK to introduce HIV tests for migrants entering the UK.

Neil O’Brien claimed that there were a large number of people arriving in the UK with HIV who were unaware of their diagnosis and therefore went untreated.

The Conservative MP for Harborough, Oadby & Wigston said that HIV tests should be compulsory to get a visa when arriving from “high-prevalence countries” to reduce the risk of transmission from undiagnosed people.

O’Brien, who served as the public health minister between September 2022 and November 2023, said this would be a much more targeted approach than other countries that required HIV tests to get a permanent visa, such as Australia and New Zealand.

O’Brien wrote on his Substack blog that introducing HIV tests for migrants was essential to meet the government’s strategy to end new HIV transmission in the UK by 2030.

The number of newly diagnosed patients had fallen consistently since 2005 but data for 2022 and 2023 revealed that progress had suddenly gone backwards.

This has been driven by a rise in the number of newly diagnosed individuals who were born outside the UK and Europe, particularly among people from Africa. People from east Africa followed by southern Africa have the highest rates of HIV, according to data from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

O’Brien linked this change in HIV diagnosis trends to changes in the UK’s immigration system, which has led to a significant increase in the number of people from sub-Saharan Africa.

The UKHSA disputed the suggestion that a large number of people were arriving in the UK with HIV without knowing about it. It pointed to statistics showing that last year 53 per cent of cases in England that were reported to the UKHSA had already been diagnosed abroad. This was the first time that the proportion of diagnoses made overseas had exceeded the proportion of diagnoses first made in England.

In 2023 about 330,000 visas were issued to migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, compared with about 50,000 a year in the 2010s.

O’Brien suggested that the additional cost should be paid for by applicants, which he said would be small compared with visa fees, the immigration health surcharge and other costs of travel.

He said the system would work similarly to that for tuberculosis (TB), which requires all people applying for a visa from a list of 102 countries to have a TB test if they are coming for more than six months.

More than 50 countries require an HIV test for at least some visas. In Australia, anyone applying for permanent residency must undergo an HIV test to meet the health requirement for a visa. Those entering on shorter visas also need to have an HIV test in some circumstances.

Visa applicants intending to stay in New Zealand for more than a year must also have a HIV test.