愛滋解境  台灣何時跟上腳步？
發稿日期：2009/01/18

今年1月1日及1月4日，南韓與美國相繼解除對外籍愛滋感染者入出境的限制，獲得聯合國以及UNAIDS大表歡迎。聯合國秘書長潘基文表示，禁止或限制愛滋病毒感染者入境的措施「無益於公共衛生」。
去年12月22日，衛生署召開「行政院衛生署愛滋病防治及感染者權益保障會」98年度第3次會議，有關我國相關規定是否有重議之必要，決議將請衛生署邀請相關單位及專家學者共同研議。

「躲避」：外籍愛滋感染者的處境

愛滋感染者權益促進會(以下簡稱權促會)社工張正學表示，許多外籍人士檢驗發現感染愛滋，在得知會被要求離境後，為躲避警方追蹤，寧可不就醫不治療，且所持有的居留證、健保卡等都將立即撤銷或廢止，成為滯留在台的幽靈人口。

「申覆」：外籍愛滋感染者的救濟

所有感染愛滋之外籍人士，必須符合「被本國籍配偶傳染」、「受台灣醫療環境感染」以及「無戶籍國民有二親等內親屬在台設有戶籍者」其中一項，方可向衛生署提出申覆，審核通過者可免被要求離境。權促會至2009年12月止，已協助11位成功申覆通過的案例，其中有8位是以無戶籍國民有二親等內親屬在台設有戶籍者，3位為外籍配偶身分之理由申請通過。

矛盾的政策 脫節的法律

台灣年年有超過上萬對跨國婚姻，而教育部為鼓勵招收外國學生，也提出「獎勵大學校院擴大招收外國學生補助計畫」，行政院經濟建設委員會亦有提出「吸引全球外籍優秀人才來台方案」，顯示現今社會的人口國際移動已是常態，更是政府推動的政策。
此外，我國去年年底核准施行國際兩公約（〈經濟社會文化權利國際公約〉及〈公民與政治權利國際公約〉），卻仍然限制外籍愛滋感染入出境，更顯扞格，實有重議之必要。

解境是愛滋除罪的第一步

權促會秘書長林宜慧表示，因為愛滋而限制一個人入出境的權利，就是將感染愛滋如同違法的行為、將愛滋感染者等同於罪犯視之。此規定造成「台灣人比較安全」或「外國人比較不安全」之類的錯誤印象，都應該打破，回歸到對愛滋基本教育的再重視，方為務實有益。

媒體報導

限制出入境 愛滋病患猶如罪犯
立報2009/01/19 性別版

【記者史倩玲綜合報導】今年的1月1日及1月4日，南韓與美國相繼解除對外籍愛滋感染者入出境的限制，不過台灣法律仍限制愛滋感染者出入境。中華民國愛滋感染者權益促進會秘書長林宜慧表示，這種將愛滋感染者視為罪犯的法律，無助於愛滋防治。

事實上，聯合國秘書長潘基文就曾表示，禁止或限制愛滋病毒感染者入境的措施無益於公共衛生。但台灣依據《人類免疫缺乏病毒傳染防治及感染者權益保障條例》第18條規定，中央主管機關對入境停留達3個月以上或居留的外國人、大陸及香港澳門居民，得採行檢查措施，或要求提出最近3個月內人類免疫缺乏病毒抗體的檢驗報告。如果檢驗結果是陽性反應，中央主管機關就會通知外交部或入出國管理機關撤銷或廢止其簽證或停留、居留許可，並令其出境。

外籍人士不敢就醫

權促會社工張正學表示，由於外籍人士感染愛滋之後，不但會有警察追蹤，而持有的居留證、健保卡等都將立即撤銷或廢止，因此許多外籍人士在檢驗發現自己感染後寧可不就醫不治療，成為滯留在台的幽靈人口。
因為有這樣的現象發生，因此去年12月22日，衛生署就召開行政院衛生署愛滋病防治及感染者權益保障會，決議將請衛生署邀請相關單位及專家學者共同研議，未來政府有可能廢除該項法律。
目前感染愛滋的外籍人士要留在台灣，必須符合「被本國籍配偶傳染」、「受台灣醫療環境感染」以及「無戶籍國民有二親等內親屬在台設有戶籍者」其中一項，才能向衛生署提出申覆，審核通過者就不會被要求離境。

政策自相矛盾

林宜慧表示，台灣限制愛滋感染者出入境的做法明顯與其他既有政策矛盾，行政院經建員會不但有「吸引全球外籍優秀人才來台方案」，教育部也有「獎勵大學校院擴大招收外國學生補助計畫」，可見府大力推動人口國際移動。另外，台灣也在去年年底核准施行《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》及《公民與政治權利國際公約》，卻仍然限制外籍愛滋感染入出境，法律精神明顯相互矛盾。
權促會秘書長林宜慧表示，外籍人士的出入境限制規定，會讓台灣民眾誤以為台灣人比較安全，而外國人比較不安全。另外，光以愛滋為理由，限制個人入出境，如同將感染愛滋視為違法行為，並將愛滋感染者等同罪犯。林宜慧指出，這樣的法律明顯假公衛安全之名，行犯罪化感染者之實，讓愛滋防治工作更加困難。政府也應該盡早檢討法律，跟上國際人權潮流。

FEATURE : Activists support HIV-positive foreigners
TAPIE TIMES 2009/02/21

'NOT A CRIME': Several countries, including Japan and some EU nations, now allow HIV-positive people to enter, leading activists to ask Taiwan to reconsider its rules 

By Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTER 
Sunday, Feb 21, 2010

Taiwan’s antiquated rules for those infected with HIV have led between 30 and 50 HIV-infected foreigners in Taiwan to avoid medical treatment or remain underground following diagnosis.

“The restrictions leave them living in the dark. They can’t go to hospital for medication to control their illness until the HIV infection gets worse or turns into full-blown AIDS. How can we forgive ourselves?” said Paul Hsu (徐森杰), secretary-general of the Taiwan Lourdes Association, referring to the Statute For Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention and Control, and Safeguarding the Rights of the Infected (人類免疫缺乏病毒傳染防治及感染者權益保障條例) and the Immigration Act (入出國及移民法).

Under these laws, foreign nationals with HIV are required to leave the country immediately. Those infected by their native spouse or while receiving medical care in Taiwan can petition for exemption.

The regulations stipulate that the Department of Health (DOH) “may” require aliens, citizens of China, Hong Kong or Macau who have stayed in the country for more than three months to submit an HIV antibody test report taken within the last three months.

If the test is positive, the DOH will notify related agencies to revoke their visa or residence ­permit, and order them to leave the country.

Hsu said that the rationale behind the rules stem from two ways of thinking: “The government considers the country’s medical resources finite, while it is also worried that more nationals will be infected if HIV-positive aliens stay in the country.”

“For HIV-infected foreigners who opt to go underground to avoid deportation, could it be that we just sit back and appear unconcerned with their medical needs?” Hsu said.

Hsu called on the government to open its borders to HIV-infected individuals regardless of nationality to bring the country’s rules in line with internationally recognized norms.

“AIDS is an illness and not a crime, and it simply does not constitute sufficient reason to be denied entry or be forced to leave a country,” he said.

In a June 2008 report advocating non-discrimination in the freedom of movement of people living with HIV by UNAIDS, the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS, UN ­Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called for a change in such restrictions.

As of May last year, some 59 countries, territories and areas denied entry, visits or residence to HIV-positive people, the report said.

UNAIDS said that such ­restrictions are “unnecessary, discriminatory and obsolete.”

Last month, the US and South Korea both eliminated travel bans for people with HIV.

Australia, which has strict health requirements for people applying for permanent residency, early this month loosened health restrictions allowing migrant workers with chronic conditions to enter Australia, including those with HIV/AIDS.

“Actually a number of countries do not have any problems accepting HIV-positive people in their countries,” said Ivory Lin (林宜慧), secretary-general of the Persons with HIV/AIDS Rights Advocacy Association of Taiwan, citing the examples of Japan, France, Germany, the UK and Italy.

Having been approached by a number of foreigners for help since the association’s establishment in 1997, Lin said that most people are not aware of the rules until they encounter a problem.

“Facing deportation makes a big change in people’s lives,” Lin said, recalling a Japanese man who told her that he couldn’t understand why Taiwan has such rules.

“He was in Taiwan for work and he received a letter asking him to leave the country before a certain date and time following his positive screening result. He asked me if being infected was such a terrible thing or if he had done anything wrong,” Lin said.

Lin said an HIV-infected New Zealander also wrote her an indignant letter before leaving Taiwan, in which he said he had been a law-abiding person and had filed taxes just as others during his six years in the country.

“He asked me if he had committed an illegal act and why he was being deported. I replied by offering an apology on behalf of [my] government. After reading his letter, I felt that the only thing I could do was apologize,” Lin said.

What is more unfathomable is the administrative ordinance that exempts foreigners in certain professions from submitting HIV test reports.

Foreigners granted exemptions in the Regulations Governing Management of the Health Examination of Employed Aliens (外國人健康檢查管理辦法) include technical personnel, overseas compatriots, executives of foreign-funded businesses, college teachers, language teachers in junior and senior high schools, athletes, coaches, religious personnel and art performers, among others.

“Unlike them, [blue-collar] immigrant workers and foreign spouses, a majority of whom are brides from Southeast Asian countries, are required to present proof of HIV-negative status. The workers are required to undergo HIV testing every six months,” Lin said.

Testing for HIV is a two-step process, but the government could decide to deport a migrant worker if he or she tests positive for HIV in the first stage, Lin said, adding that there were cases of migrant workers wronged by the practice who had no one to help them appeal.

Chiu Shu-mei (邱淑美), ­secretary-general of the Garden of Mercy Foundation, said that travel bans do nothing to reduce the risks of HIV infection, nor do they help AIDS prevention.

“I hope that the lifting of HIV/AIDS travel bans in the US and South Korea will drive the government to rethink its restrictions,” Chiu said, adding there is no way that the restrictions prevent the spread of the disease.

“Although the government can keep some HIV-infected people out of the country, it will never be able to prohibit its people from traveling overseas,” Chiu said.

As for the government’s concern that lifting the bans would lead to an undue financial burden on the country — one of few countries in the world where the government provides free medication for AIDS patients — Chiu said that the government could just as well cancel the free services for foreigners in some cases.

“The government’s two main concerns do not constitute sufficient reasons for keeping the bans,” Chiu said, adding that equipping people with knowledge about the illness and adopting a reporting system to track the spread of HIV-AIDS would do more to further the government’s aims.