Photo by Lydia Norstad on Unsplash
The recent directive from the State Department marks a profound transformation in how America views potential immigrants. What was once primarily a security and health safety measure has evolved into something far more concerning where a system that judges people's worth based on their medical conditions and potential healthcare costs. This policy raises fundamental questions about compassion, human dignity, and the values we claim to uphold as a nation.
The new guidance instructs visa officers to reject applications from individuals with chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer, and various mental health conditions. The reasoning? These individuals might become a "public charge", a burden on American resources because they could require expensive medical care. This approach fundamentally reframes immigration not as a humanitarian endeavour or economic opportunity, but as a cost-benefit calculation where human beings are reduced to their potential medical expenses.
The Scope of Exclusion
Consider the overwhelming implications of this policy. Diabetes alone affects approximately ten percent of the global population. Cardiovascular diseases represent the world's leading cause of death, affecting millions worldwide. By targeting these conditions, this directive effectively bars a substantial portion of humanity from seeking opportunities in the United States. The policy doesn't stop at these major conditions either, and it encourages visa officers to consider obesity and its related complications like asthma, sleep apnea, and high blood pressure when evaluating applications.
What makes this particularly troubling is the expansive nature of the conditions being considered. These aren't just communicable diseases that pose public health risks, but they're chronic conditions that millions of Americans themselves live with every day. The directive essentially creates a two-tiered system where existing Americans with these conditions can access healthcare, but aspiring immigrants with the same conditions are deemed unworthy of entry.
The Power Given to Untrained Evaluators
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this new policy is the authority it grants to visa officers who lack medical training. The directive asks these officials to speculate about future medical emergencies, project lifetime healthcare costs, and assess whether applicants have sufficient financial resources to cover decades of potential medical treatment. This places consular officers in the impossible position of playing doctor, economist, and fortune-teller simultaneously.
The guidance explicitly asks visa officers to develop "their own thoughts" about what medical situations might arise in the future. This subjective approach opens the door to inconsistent decision-making driven by personal bias rather than objective medical assessment. Two applicants with identical health conditions might receive completely different judgments depending on which officer reviews their case and what assumptions that officer makes about future costs.
This contradicts the State Department's own Foreign Affairs Manual, which prohibits rejection of visa applications based on hypothetical "what if" scenarios. Yet the new cable essentially mandates exactly this kind of speculative reasoning, asking officers to imagine potential medical emergencies and calculate theoretical costs for conditions that may or may not develop over an applicant's lifetime.
The Existing Framework Was Already Rigorous
It's important to understand that visa applicants already undergo substantial medical screening. Before this new directive, immigrants were examined by embassy-approved physicians who screened for communicable diseases like tuberculosis, verified vaccination records, and inquired about substance abuse, mental health history, and violence. These measures serve legitimate public health and safety purposes.
The expanded guidance, however, moves far beyond these reasonable precautions. It transforms the medical examination from a public health safeguard into an economic gatekeeping mechanism. Rather than ensuring immigrants don't pose health risks to the broader population, the new policy judges whether individuals might someday need healthcare or something virtually all humans will require at some point in their lives.
The Broader Immigration Context
This directive doesn't exist in isolation; it's part of a comprehensive strategy to restrict immigration through multiple channels. From mass arrests and deportations to refugee bans and drastically reduced admission numbers, the current approach reflects a fundamental shift toward viewing immigration as a problem to be minimized rather than an opportunity to be managed.
The health-based restrictions add a particularly insidious element to this broader campaign. While debates about border security and immigration numbers involve complex policy considerations, denying entry to people because they have diabetes or heart disease crosses into territory that feels fundamentally at odds with basic human dignity. It sends a message that America only wants the young, the healthy, and the financially secure, leaving behind everyone else regardless of their talents, skills, or potential contributions.
Questions of Values and Identity
This policy forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about who we are as a nation. Do we truly believe that every person has inherent dignity and worth, or do we value people solely based on their economic utility and healthcare costs? Are we willing to reject talented individuals who could contribute significantly to American society simply because they manage a chronic condition? What does it say about our values when we create barriers based on health conditions that millions of Americans live with successfully?
The language of "public charge" itself is revealing and it frames human beings seeking better lives as potential drains on resources rather than as individuals who might enrich our communities, fill critical workforce needs, or bring valuable skills and perspectives. This framing ignores the reality that many immigrants contribute substantially to the American economy and society while asking relatively little in return.
Looking Forward
As this policy moves toward implementation, we should consider its practical and ethical implications carefully. Will visa officers receive adequate training to make these complex medical and economic assessments? How will applicants contest decisions based on speculative health projections? What safeguards exist against the discriminatory application of these guidelines?
The challenges of managing immigration are real and deserve serious policy attention. But solutions should be grounded in both practical wisdom and moral clarity. Using health conditions as a primary filter for immigration eligibility fails both tests, creating a system that's simultaneously difficult to administer fairly and deeply troubling in its implications for human dignity and equal worth.
. . .
References: