A Basis to Be Here: Stories from International Graduate Students in the United States.

Recent guidance from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement drastically altered the lives of international students in America, especially those who are matriculating. This commentary describes how international students still face uncertainty concerning their visa statuses and their place in American society.

Provider and administrator-level perspectives on strategies to reduce fear and improve patient trust in the emergency department in times of heightened immigration enforcement.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Heightened immigration enforcement may induce fear in undocumented patients when coming to the Emergency Department (ED) for care. Limited literature examining health system policies to reduce immigrant fear exists. In this multi-site qualitative study, we sought to assess provider and system-level policies on caring for undocumented patients in three California EDs. METHODS: We recruited 41 ED providers and administrators from three California EDs (in San Francisco, Oakland, and Sylmar) with large immigrant populations. Participants were recruited using a trusted gatekeeper and snowball sampling. We conducted semi-structured interviews and analyzed the transcripts using constructivist grounded theory. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 physicians, 11 nurses, 9 social workers, and 11 administrators, and identified 7 themes. Providers described existing policies and recent policy changes that facilitate access to care for undocumented patients. Providers reported that current training and communication around policies is limited, there are variations between who asks about and documents status, and there remains uncertainty around policy details, laws, and jurisdiction of staff. Providers also stated they are taking an active role in building safety and trust and see their role as supporting undocumented patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces ED-level health system perspectives and recommendations for caring for undocumented patients. There is a need for active, multi-disciplinary ED policy training, clear policy details including the extent of providers' roles, protocols on the screening and documentation of status, and continual reassessment of our health systems to reduce fear and build safety and trust with our undocumented communities.

Short Communication: Impact of COVID-19 on Case Reporting for HTLV and HIV-2 in Spain.

The medical demand imposed by COVID-19 has distracted proper care of other illnesses. Herein, we report the impact on new diagnoses of HTLV-1, HTLV-2, and HIV-2 in Spain, where these infections are mostly driven by immigration flows from endemic regions. As expected, case reporting declined for all three retroviral infections with respect to prior years. Furthermore, late presentations were more common. The two major reasons for these observations were significant declines in the arrival of foreigners from endemic regions and a shift in medical resources to prioritize COVID-19.

The effect of the synchronized multi-dimensional policies on imported COVID-19 curtailment in China.

As countries are lifting restrictions and resuming international travels, the rising risk of COVID-19 importation remains concerning, given that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could be transmitted unintentionally through the global transportation network. To explore and assess the effective strategies for curtailing the epidemic risk from international importation nationwide, we evaluated "the joint prevention and control" mechanism, which made up of 19 containment policies, on how it impacted the change of medical observation and detection time from border arrival to laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 in its burst in China. Based on 1,314 epidemiological-survey cases from February 29 to May 25, 2020, we found that the synchronized approach of implementing multi-dimensional interventional policies, such as a centralized quarantine and nucleic acid testing (NAT), flight service adjustment and border closure, effectively facilitate early identification of infected case. Specifically, the implementation of the international flight service reduction was found to be associated with a reduction of the mean intervals of diagnosis from arrival to lab-confirmation by 0.44 days maximally, and the border closure was associated with a reduction of the diagnosis interval of imported cases by 0.69 days, from arrival to laboratory confirmation. The study suggests that a timely and synchronized implementation of multi-dimensional policies is compelling in preventing domestic spreading from importation.

Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in Immigration Detention Centers Requires the Release of Detainees.

Immigration detention centers are densely populated facilities in which restrictive conditions limit detainees' abilities to engage in social distancing or hygiene practices designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. With tens of thousands of adults and children in more than 200 immigration detention centers across the United States, immigration detention centers are likely to experience COVID-19 outbreaks and add substantially to the population of those infected.Despite compelling evidence indicating a heightened risk of infection among detainees, state and federal governments have done little to protect the health of detained im-migrants. An evidence-based public health framework must guide the COVID-19 response in immigration detention centers.We draw on the hierarchy of controls framework to demonstrate how immigration detention centers are failing to implement even the least effective control strategies. Drawing on this framework and recent legal and medical advocacy efforts, we argue that safely releasing detainees from immigration detention centers into their communities is the most effective way to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in immigration detention settings. Failure to do so will result in infection and death among those detained and deepen existing health and social inequities.

Immigration Detention in the United States: Identifying Alternatives That Comply With Human Rights and Advance Public Health.

Under international law, the United States is obligated to uphold noncitizens' fundamental rights, including their rights to health. However, current US immigration laws-and their enforcement-not only fail to fulfill migrants' health rights but actively undermine their realization and worsen the pandemic's spread. Specifically, the US immigration system's reliance on detention, which precludes effective social distancing, increases risks of exposure and infection for detainees, staff, and their broader communities. International agreements clearly state that the prolonged, mandatory, or automatic detention of people solely because of their migration status is a human rights violation on its own. But in the context of COVID-19, the consequences for migrants' right to health are particularly acute. Effective alternatives exist: other countries demonstrate the feasibility of adopting and implementing immigration laws that establish far less restrictive, social services-based approaches to enforcement that respect human rights. To protect public health and realize its global commitments, the United States must shift away from detaining migrants as standard practice and adopt effective, humane alternatives-both amid COVID-19 and permanently.

Public Preferences for Government Response Policies on Outbreak Control.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which public support for outbreak containment policies varies with respect to the severity of an infectious disease outbreak. METHODS: A web-enabled survey was administered to 1017 residents of Singapore during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and was quota-sampled based on age, sex, and ethnicity. A fractional-factorial design was used to create hypothetical outbreak vignettes characterised by morbidity and fatality rates, and local and global spread of an infectious disease. Each respondent was asked to indicate which response policies (among five policies restricting local movement and four border control policies) they would support in five randomly assigned vignettes. Binomial logistic regressions were used to predict the probabilities of support as a function of outbreak attributes, personal characteristics, and perceived policy effectiveness. RESULTS: Likelihood of support varied across government response policies but was generally higher for border control policies compared with internal policies. The fatality rate was the most important factor for internal policies, while the degree of global spread was the most important for border control policies. In general, individuals who were less healthy, had higher-income, and were older were more likely to support these policies. Perceived effectiveness of a policy was a consistent and positive predictor of public support. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that campaigns to promote public support should be designed specifically to each policy and tailored to different segments of the population. They should also be adapted based on the evolving conditions of the outbreak in order to receive continued public support.

Addressing legal issues in cross-border gestational surrogacy: current topics and trends.

This article provides a general overview of the practical management of legal issues in cross-border gestational surrogacy. Particular problems arising from the global pandemic as well as a number of proposed solutions are presented and analyzed. A section addressing the involvement of the fertility center in such arrangements is included. Additionally, the article discusses how parentage and citizenship are handled abroad, with a focus on the United Kingdom.

The adverse health effects of punitive immigrant policies in the United States: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Immigrants in the United States (US) today are facing a dynamic policy landscape. The Trump administration has threatened or curtailed access to basic services for 10.5 million undocumented immigrants currently in the US. We sought to examine the historical effects that punitive laws have had on health outcomes in US immigrant communities. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched the following databases from inception-May 2020 for original research articles with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Social Work Abstracts (Ovid). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019138817. Articles with cohort sizes >10 that directly evaluated the health-related effects of a punitive immigrant law or policy within the US were included. FINDINGS: 6,357 studies were screened for eligibility. Of these, 32 studies were selected for inclusion and qualitatively synthesized based upon four themes that appeared throughout our analysis: (1) impact on healthcare utilization, (2) impact on women's and children's health, (3) impact on mental health services, and (4) impact on public health. The impact of each law, policy, mandate, and directive since 1990 is briefly discussed, as are the limitations and risk of bias of each study. INTERPRETATION: Many punitive immigrant policies have decreased immigrant access to and utilization of basic healthcare services, while instilling fear, confusion, and anxiety in these communities. The federal government should preserve and expand access for undocumented individuals without threat of deportation to improve health outcomes for US citizens and noncitizens.