Probably because tourists move through very easily monitored access points. Not sure about the US, but most major airports in Asia have body-heat sensors to flag anyone who might be suffering from an infection-related fever. Similar controls should exist at all immigration points to the US. Implementing processes and technical systems to mitigate risk first requires acknowledging that the risk exists, and isn't just "vile rhetoric". Then we can reap the benefits of legal immigration while avoiding the negatives.
I've never knowingly been tested by any body heat sensor at an airport or other border crossing, and I've travelled plenty in Asia, USA, Europe, and in/out of my home country of Australia.
It’s hard to imagine how much use it would be; an active fever is only one indicator of whether someone is carrying an infectious illness, so such a test will lead to many false positives and negatives.
I'm fine with a sober discussion about the economic and moral pros/cons of immigration, and about fair and humane means of controlling immigration.
But this line of argument seems like a red herring.
>>>I've never knowingly been tested by any body heat sensor at an airport or other border crossing, and I've travelled plenty in Asia, USA, Europe, and in/out of my home country of Australia.
I guess they are easy to miss, they just look like camcorders on tripods, usually, but the checkpoints themselves and their purpose are usually clearly marked.
Both those links refer to specific infection outbreaks, that health authorities feared (rightly or wrongly) may escalate into global pandemics. Both were contained due mostly to medical systems implementing standard procedures for controlling outbreaks. Checking some people at some border crossings may have helped somewhat, but it was only one part of a much broader response.
The point stands; no recent, serious infectious outbreak can be blamed on immigration - authorised or not - any more than any can be blamed on tourism.
It's just not a serious part of the discussion, and it is likely invoked as an attempt to cast certain classes of foreigners as unclean and trigger susceptible people's disgust response.
>>>Checking some people at some border crossings may have helped somewhat, but it was only one part of a much broader response.
To clarify, the body-heat scans aren't "some people at some border crossings", they are literally every human who walks through the gate at most airports, including Incheon, Taipei, Narita, BKK, and Noi Bai (Hanoi). Usually just before the immigration checkpoints.
>>>The point stands; no recent, serious infectious outbreak can be blamed on immigration - authorised or not - any more than any can be blamed on tourism.
Handbook on Migration and Security, pg 320:
"The spread of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic...was facilitated by human mobility."[1]
Or look at the quarantines during the 2009 influenza pandemic[2]. Entire hotels quarantined and cruise ships diverted.
>>>likely invoked as an attempt to cast certain classes of foreigners as unclean and trigger susceptible people's disgust response.
I'm not trying to paint foreigners as "unclean". I AM a "foreigner". I'm an African-American living in Japan. I know exactly what being treated as an unclean underclass is like. I'm nevertheless able to rationally assess that the country's robust immigration controls are likely a major contributing factor to managing the assimilation rate of other cultures in order to maintain national stability.
But instead of responding with well-sourced and rational debate points you've instead lept to implications that I must just be a xenophobe who hates brown people.
Sorry to be slow replying to this, and to imply that I believed you personally were a xenophobe.
That's not what I thought or meant; I was referring more broadly to the motivations of many of the people who make this a primary focus of their anti-immigration argument, not accusing you personally of this.
To summarise my thoughts on this:
- The topic of immigration is one I've wrestled with and debated for well over a decade, since it became a big issue in Australia, and I've generally been the one railing at open-borders advocates, asking in exasperation "how does this work economically?"
- These days I don't get emotionally invested in positions on immigration, as it's an issue that's too big and complex for any strong opinion I might form to make any difference (and I've literally made myself sick by getting too emotionally invested in things in the past so I now take care to avoid doing that about any political issue).
- That said, my position on open-borders policies is that it sounds like a nice idea but the onus is on advocates to articulate a way in which it can work, economically and practically, and I haven't heard anyone do so convincingly.
- My objection to the focus on disease-spread as a risk of immigration it's just not a convincing argument, due to the fact that it's a concern that applies pretty much equally to tourism and authorised immigration [1], and it exposes the proponent to accusations of xenophobia - justifiably in many cases.
In short: I'm on the side of those who are skeptical about uncontrolled immigration; I just want all the arguments in the discussion to be convincing, and to avoid being derailed by arguments over xenophobia, which is inevitable when people cry "disease!" in the context of immigrants.
[1] I understand those prosecuting the argument above are focused on the risk of immigration that doesn't go through any kind of checkpoints where vetting can take place; but there are versions of open-borders systems that can still require passing through checkpoints and undergoing health checks if necessary.
> It's just not a serious part of the discussion, and it is likely invoked as an attempt to cast certain classes of foreigners as unclean and trigger susceptible people's disgust response.
The CDC literally has policies about who can be admitted to the U.S. as an immigrant or refugee based on their health status[1], including whether or not they are carrying a communicable disease (such as TB).
This unsubstantiated inference about other people's intentions is misguided at best, and disingenuous at worst.
