Control of Communicable Diseases; Foreign Quarantine

A representative of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) requests the opening of larger quarantine facilities along the border to manage disease outbreaks. The commenter argues that these facilities are necessary to handle infectious diseases among residents and recently arrived immigrants.

Persistence Analytics Group LLC supports the proposed rule but emphasizes that the CDC should focus on an implementation framework rather than just legal authority. They recommend that the final rule include specific principles for evidence-based triggers, operational readiness, interagency accountability, public trust, and after-action verification.

An individual traveler who visited Uganda and was subsequently stranded and inconvenienced by quarantine measures argues that the proposed ban is discriminatory and ineffective. They contend that the rule separates families and causes significant personal hardship without improving public health.

Marcia Aitcheson, a nurse and graduate student, opposes the rule because it treats lawful permanent residents differently from U.S. citizens regarding entry restrictions. She argues that public health measures should be based on scientific evidence and risk-based assessments rather than immigration status to ensure equity and minimize unnecessary hardship.

A medical student and public health master's candidate opposes the rule, arguing that it lacks evidence that excluding lawful permanent residents (LPRs) provides a greater public health benefit than existing measures like screening and contact tracing. The commenter contends that public health policies should be based on individual risk factors rather than immigration status.

The commenter argues against blocking lawful permanent residents from Ebola-affected countries, stating that such restrictions are not supported by evidence. They contend that these measures may actually increase public health risks by encouraging travelers to bypass official screening points.

A public health professional with experience in Ebola response opposes the interim final rule regarding foreign quarantine. They argue that travel restrictions are ineffective and can increase risk by encouraging travelers to hide their history, suggesting instead that the focus should be on controlling outbreaks at the source.

A law student opposes the rule because it could cause Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) to lose their continuous presence status or face barriers to naturalization due to extended periods outside the U.S. The commenter suggests amendments such as allowing quarantine abroad, creating a "constructive date of return," and ensuring that LPRs are not penalized for residency gaps caused by the public health suspension.