I'm having a hard time understanding why someone with HIV or a disability would still be excluded. The US has pretty strong protections for people with disabilities, which makes me feel like we're supposed to honor and include those people. I wonder what the logic is that prevented us from extending that philosophy to immigrants.

HIV is also more of a chronic condition as apposed to a public health hazard these days. It's cost of perpetual treatment isn't significantly different from dozens of other conditions or diseases, and the risk to the public is similar to other diseases like Hepatitis.

Anyone have insight that I'm not understanding?

--

Edit: elliekelly gave a well-thought out reply below that makes logical sense, even if I disagree with the policy

US laws are for US citizens. Note the many and onerous restrictions that prevent US law enforcement agencies from blowing up US citizens from drone aircraft, which self evidently do not apply to noncitizens.

Can confirm. My brother-in-law’s wife just became a permanent resident. Immunization was the main concern.

And the museum on Ellis Island says that only a small fraction of immigrants were sent back. So thinks hardly changed.

They were primarily concerned about infectious diseases, and most people were kept in holding until it passed or they died.

I don't know your specific situation but I followed an LPR's process to get the green card and it involved a rigorous health exam, including vision, thorax, immunology, vaccines and who knows what else.

The price was in the hundreds of dollars in a somewhat poor country.

The doctor was very clear that he could have been refused because of the results he never saw.

It's speculated that STDs are also tested, but as I wrote, he never saw the test results.