Scientific studies have shown that Nations which have abandoned the restrictions have not seen an increase in infection rates. Moreover, they have seen a decrease in stigma. Stigma, as Obama, and health experts everywhere explain is the biggest obstacle to fighting the disease. Lower stigma, lower AIDS infections. You can read why in detail elsewhere but it has to due with diagnosing people. Remember there are many people in the States who don't who they have it. Who's more dangerous? The foreigner who comes into the US with AIDS and knows it, or the American who has the disease and doesn't know it?

How do you get the local to come in to get tested when you keep focusing on it as 'foreigner disease' that we can stop at the border? You don't. He doesn't get tested and spreads it. But ease the stigma and there's a better chance he'll come in.

Here the false dichotomy that framed the issue in Korea: "검사 의무화는 인권침해" vs "자국민 위험노출 루트차단 필요"

Human rights of foreigner vs. Citizens rights to block exposure to the disease. That's the same argument you make. But what if protecting human rights was the way to block exposure?

That's what the Seoul High Court said in canceling the deportation order of a foreigner with HIV:

"From the perspective of HIV/AIDS prevention, the most dangerous thing for society is not persons who are infected with HIV and aware of their status, but persons who are infected with the disease and unaware of their status. A person who is aware of infection will be less likely spread the disease. In the final analysis, encouraging the public to voluntarily receive HIV testing by protecting the human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS is the most effective

policy for preventing the spread of the disease. The current policy of deportation, therefore, is not a sound method for protecting the public health."

Are you happy or is he? What is there to be happy about? Allowing diseased people to come to America and live?

Not sure I am following you on this…

I appreciate your opinion and very much enjoy your blog but, respectfully, you are mistaken. Firstly, there are several strong international law arguments against these regulations. See for example the ICCPR and ICERD. And don't forget that article 6(2) of Korea's Constitution says the status of foreigners shall be guaranteed as prescribed by international law and treaties.

But you don't need to make an international argument at all. The fact is that the E2 requirements violate this nation's laws.

As you rightly point out: "when living abroad you are subject to the host nation’s laws and regulations." But of course this goes for any of us here in Korea, the Constitutional democracy. If you believe that the ROK Constitution is not a joke, then you accept the possibility that the Ministry of Justice is subject to this nation's laws and regulations and can violate the Constitution. No one is above the law.

If you understand that this is the substance of my complaint then you're halfway there.

Simply put E2 visa in country testing procedures are a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The reason we have an opportunity to make this a domestic issue is because the tests are conducted here by the government on foreign residents.

I doubt anyone will take the time to read it but I spend quite a bit of time explaining why the tests are not entry requirements to the country within the scope of international law, but a purely domestic issue. (see page 37) http://www.scribd.com/doc/15768998/Nhrck-Report-2

Your mistaken is comparing it to the US system. (Happily President Obama has said the old system will be abandoned by next year but I’ll stick with it for this discussion) The United States does not test foreigners upon arrival for HIV. The US asks if you're HIV-positive, if you are you need a waiver to enter. For certain visas, however, the US does require an HIV test but that test is not conducted in the United States so the U.S. Constitution never enters into it.

You will take that test in your home country and submit it with your visa application. If you're negative you get your visa. If you don't want to take the test you don't have to, but you could never challenge it under the U.S. Constitution. This is what's called an entry requirement. International law allows countries to set up just about any kind of entry requirements they want subject to rules of discrimination. There's certainly an argument that setting up an AIDS screening for entry into a country is discriminatory and it's been made many many times. (see here for example http://www.jiasociety.org/content/11/1/8) I think it's a valid argument and it has won the day in the United States, but it was not the argument that I made with Korea. This has been misunderstood. I tried to correct that misunderstanding here http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2009…

The E-2 visa AIDS tests and the tests required of “Lisa” however are not entry requirements. Does Korea have visas with HIV entry requirements? Absolutely, there is a firmly established procedure under Korea for testing foreigners who will be staying in Korea for a long time and may be a risk for HIV/AIDS. I spoke about this at the international AIDS conference here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6f4ngoXDBU This is the E-6 visa. I didn't challenge the E-6 visa.

GI Korea the E-6 visa is what you're talking about when you make comparisons with the states. The E-6 Visa HIV tests take place in the home country of the applicant, just like the US tests there is no way to challenge these tests under the Korean Constitution. It simply doesn't apply to a foreigner in a foreign land. But it certainly applies to foreigners residing in Korea.

Notice also that the E-6 visa follows Korean law (which I'm also not challenging), namely the AIDS Prevention Act and the Immigration Act, both of which perform a gate keeping function that says do not bring in diseased and dangerous foreigners. The E-2 visa breaks both of these laws. It is violation of the "host nation's laws and regulations" as you put it.

Mr. Yu – I assume you're Korean and if so your opinion is very welcome. Respectfully, I have to disagree with several of your comments. As JustAGuy points out Koreans are some of the most vocal advocates of human rights when living as noncitizens in countries all over the world. I could give you scores of example but let mention one I’ve discussed before.

Are you aware that there were several major human rights cases fought by Koreans in Japan over the right to have a golf membership at a private Japanese club? These were wealthy Koreans who could already play at the club, they just wanted membership rights. They made an enormous fuss. Perhaps your advice would be to tell these Koreans in Japan to just be quiet and play by the Japanese rules even if those rules are unjust. But I respectfully disagree. Koreans have the right to speak up when their human rights are violated. After all if humans can't make "a fuss" about human rights then what can we make a fuss about? I discussed the Korean gulf case in this article here. http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_…

When you talk about people making a fuss over an AIDS test you’re not listening carefully to the objection. It's not simply a test, if it were then Korean teachers would take it as well and instantly quash the discrimination argument. But that's not going to happen because they care about their rights as they should.

Ask yourself why the test exists. In 1900 in the California during the bubonic plague all "Asiatics" were rounded up and put in quarantines because they were seen as more dangerous because of their race. Special precautions had to be put in place for Asians but not for whites. An Asian foreigner challenged the U.S. restrictions and won his case. The judge said the rules were "boldly directed against the Asiatic or Mongolian race as a class, without regard to the previous condition, habits, exposure to disease, or residence of the individual; and the only justification offered for this discrimination was . . . that this particular race is more liable to the plague than any other. No evidence has, however, been offered to support this claim, and it is not known to be a fact. This explanation must therefore be dismissed as unsatisfactory." Wong Wai v. Williamson, F. 1, 7 (N.D. Cal. 1900). The same is true of Korea creating requirements directed against non-Koreans and singling out foreigners as more liable to have the swine flu or AIDS “without regard to the previous condition, habits, exposure to disease, or residence of the individual.” This is wrong in the scientific as well as moral sense. That's what the fuss is about.

President Obama said on Friday (October 30, 2009) that the United States would do away with a government ban prohibiting foreign nationals who are H.I.V. positive from entering the country, lifting a 22-year-old “decision rooted in fear rather than fact” that he said had added to a stigma of the disease. . .

The link is here http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/oba…

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=1…

However, this story I think reflects more about professionalism in the health care industry rather then whether or not the Korean government has the right to make a foreigner take an HIV test.

Thank you for letting me know your thoughts.

All I’m saying is that expats are doing so much noise for so little. All their yelling, confrontation, legal action, etc will attract negative attention from Koreans, risking to worse their reputation in Korea.

It’s just a test. Give it to them and that’s it. If they want to argue with Korean authorities fine, but they should try not to be so confrontational and in the end, if things doesn’t change, that leave Korea (yes, be objective, if they don’t find their place in Korea they can find it in another place), but fighting and bashing Koreans society as many expats do in expat blogs won’t make easy their situation.

I agree with you that expat should not tolerate xenophobia but I think this is not the case.

If they don’t have AIDS or don’t’ use drugs, what they are afraid of? Give them the paper and they will be working legally in Korea and nobody will disturb them, but if they have AIDS or use drugs, than they will be in trouble in their own country as well, so I don’t see violation of human rights here.

Regarding what Chickenhead said, I think he is not totally wrong. As you know, many expats in Korea where caught receiving marijuana by mail and others are caught by the police consuming them, so it is plausible that some of them are afraid to make the blood exam because of drug problem.