Barring HIV+ Immigrants

[Racoon]

Australia wants to bar HIV positive immigrants.

Can you blame them? the US routinely deports Haitian boat people, while allowing Cubans, for this very same reason.

HIV isn't cool. and we don't need infected people who are going to get sick and die while perhaps spreading more HIV on our taxpayers dollars.

 

Cold, yes. But grim reality.

 

Australian PM: No HIV-positive immigrants - AIDS - MSNBC.com

 

Of course some people are going to cry foul. :(

 

‘Hysterical overreaction’

Chris Lemoh, an infectious disease specialist who is researching HIV-AIDS among African immigrants in Victoria, said a ban on people with HIV would be a “hysterical overreaction.”

 

“It mixes racism with a phobia about infectious disease,” he said. “To not allow people to come on the basis of any health condition is immoral, it’s unethical and it’s impractical to enforce.”

 

 

I agree that HIV positive immigrants should be blocked. Makes perfect sense. although there are those bleeding hearts without the vision to see otherwise.

 

Your opinion and or experience on the matter??

[InfiniteNow]

Australia wants to bar HIV positive immigrants.

Can you blame them? the US routinely deports Haitian boat people, while allowing Cubans, for this very same reason.

HIV isn't cool. and we don't need infected people who are going to get sick and die while perhaps spreading more HIV on our taxpayers dollars.

 

Cold, yes. But grim reality.

 

Of course some people are going to cry foul.

 

 

I agree that HIV positive immigrants should be blocked. Makes perfect sense. although there are those bleeding hearts without the vision to see otherwise.

 

Bar HIV positive immigrants? Absolutely. While we’re at it, let’s bar retarded immigrants, and immigrants with the flu, and immigrants with cleft pallets, and immigrants with allergies, and immigrants with more than two children… Because, after all, they all have one thing in common. They are all immigrants… “Outsiders” who should be hated and treated differently because of our own ineptitudes. Absolutely. I’m better than they are, so they should not be allowed into MY country.

 

Brilliant post there, Jordan.

[Tormod]

I agree that HIV positive immigrants should be blocked. Makes perfect sense. although there are those bleeding hearts without the vision to see otherwise.

 

Took me a couple of reads until I realized I agree 100% with that last sentence.

 

Most people *do* have the vision to see otherwise, I think. Barring HIV+ people is no different than barring people with asthma - there is absolutely no single thing (apart from the disease) that sets HIV+ people apart from other people.

 

It's ignorance at it's worst, and it seems the Ozzie government has been very busy being ignorant lately.

 

I think Norway should deny Australian immigrants simply for them being Australian. They are descendants of thieves, murderers, and other neverdowells who were shipped there a few hundred years back by the enlightened British. Let them stay down there. :(

[ughaibu]

The Brits transported more criminals to the US than to Australia.

[Guest chendoh]

I agree that HIV positive immigrants should be blocked. Makes perfect sense. although there are those bleeding hearts without the vision to see otherwise.

 

Your opinion and or experience on the matter??

 

Wasn't 200 years or so ago that the french, helped the fledgling America?

Was that diplomacy or a gift? The Louisiana Purchase?

 

Back then they always seemed to be on our side. (just as a matter of reference)

sum 'eason dey hated the eglish :( <-----satire

 

And they GAVE US A Statue with some famous words on it.

give me your tired,your sick, your huddled masses.

isn't this the golden rule?

 

I for one would like to see healthy people enter the Country of Destination.

in loo of that, Sack the rest of them..Opps;sorry, I had an Imust moment:doh:

 

In any event, Sick People need to get well!!!

I have an idea, but it would take to long here.

[sanctus]

I don't understand well this following sentence, hence I don't understand Tormods answer:

I agree that HIV positive immigrants should be blocked. Makes perfect sense. although there are those bleeding hearts without the vision to see otherwise.

 

 

Also it is not clear to me if you Racoon are really in favor or not.

 

I think the health issue should just not be considered in process of admission, if the immigrants are asylum seekers it is important to check if they really need asylum because they are "endangered" by their government and who cares if they are HIV positive or not.

[Guest chendoh]

I don't understand well this following sentence, hence I don't understand Tormods answer:

I think tor was just trying to be funny

 

 

Also it is not clear to me if you Racoon are really in favor or not.

that's what I felt.

[Cedars]

There is a big difference between communicable types of disease and others suggested, such as asthma, or allergies, as an equal.

 

And I quote:

 

"The immigration laws of the United States, in order to protect the health, welfare, and security of the U.S., prohibit visa issuance to certain applicants. This includes persons who have a communicable disease such as tuberculosis, or have a dangerous physical or mental disorder, or ... "

 

USA Immigration Visa USA Green Card USA Migration Visa USA Emigration Visa

 

"Any person wishing to live in the United States for work or study purposes, or because they are joining a family member, must undergo a compulsory HIV test as part of their medical. Anyone found positive who has not obtained a special ‘medical waiver’ from US Immigration Services, will be refused entry to the country."

 

HIV Testing in the U.S.A.

 

HIV is transmitted person to person, making it a communicable disease. We should add MORE diseases as disqualifiers for immigration status, such as the antibiotic resistant diseases.

 

I would have to guess that Australia is looking towards the health and welfare of Australians when exploring this kind of an adjustment in their immigration policies.

[Zythryn]

On the surface, I think such a policy is deplorable.

However, (hold the flamethrowers!), think about a case of Sars, or a mutation of bird flu that is airborne and infects humans. There would be closed borders at many levels. Country, state, province, counties, cities, blocks, heck individual buildings. This would be in an effort to prevent the spread.

 

Now, I am not certain HIV positive individuals would fit that bill. The policies are in effect to protect the wellfare of the current citizens. It seems to me the debate should be 'does this policy actually prevent or lessen the spread of HIV in the country following said policy?'.

 

edit- I guess I didn't answer tha poll. I would say none of the above. I would need to know more about HIV and how effective this policy would be in stopping the spread. I suspect there are other avenues that would be more effective in stopping the spread than preventing HIV positive people into the country. But again, I need more info.

[Racoon]

Bar HIV positive immigrants? Absolutely. While we’re at it, let’s bar retarded immigrants, and immigrants with the flu, and immigrants with cleft pallets, and immigrants with allergies, and immigrants with more than two children… Because, after all, they all have one thing in common. They are all immigrants… “Outsiders” who should be hated and treated differently because of our own ineptitudes. Absolutely. I’m better than they are, so they should not be allowed into MY country.

 

Brilliant post there, Jordan.

 

How do you relate allergies and cleft pallates to HIV+ staus?

 

The US and other countries routinely deny HIV+ immigrants.

Russia has an outright ban.

 

The discussion is whether these people impose a health risk, as well as social drain, on the country they wish to inhabit.

 

In a perfect world, maybe.

But Countries have the autonomy to make their own laws and policies.

 

Would you rent out a room in your house to someone with a bad strain of turburculosis?

 

Don't try to minimize the debate by comparing HIV+ to allergies.

 

And this isn't a discussion about race or ethnicity, or "Outsiders". Nobody went the Xenophobe route.

 

I see the logic in denying HIV+ immigrants. From a public safety standpoint, and from a social services standpoint.

 

Tough reality.

[ronthepon]

Barring HIV+ patients is a way or reducing te inflow of HIV in a silly manner, so that what remains in the country can be controlled first, right?

 

Right, that's assuming that the immigrants will become's the headache of the country's AIDS control programmes and endanger more of the country's people. Assuming, ofcourse, that the HIV+ve immigrants engage in active blood donation, needle distribution, and what not.

 

Not quite fair to the HIV patients... Especially because HIV doesn't spread as easily as the flu. You'll have to make some real efforts to 'spread it around', and perhaps an immigrant won't be interested in doing so. (Especially if he's been tested already, and educated perhaps.)

[Racoon]

When people roll out of bed in the morning, and look at the Calendar.. What year does it read?

 

1835?

or 2007?

 

By letting HIV+ immigrants into your country, what is the benefit?

 

They are sick from an incurable, spreadable virus..

They will be too sick to work soon enough, and require significant social service help to fund their drug cocktails.

 

Why doesn't their own country help them?

"Lets ship them off, or avoid stopping their migration, to a Western country and let their government deal with 'em... "

 

While the ideality is noble.. Its simply not practical or feasible.

 

Raise your hand if you want to let all the HIV infected cases matriculate to your country and hometown.. and pay for all their needs and cares.

 

Thats just the harsh reality.

When Aids finds a cure, then yeah.. It might change my opinion.

 

 

If someone can argue a Solid case for welcoming and admitting HIV+ immigrants, please let it be known.

[InfiniteNow]

1) Barring HIV positive human beings from crossing some cartographically imposed border is not an effective means for making the populace safer, and serves only as a distraction. Such a policy only serves to arouse ignorant hatreds and shift the masses attention away from root causes, and, more importantly, other more salient and impactful problems. Further, it’s not as if huge percentages of the existing population are going to suddenly decease because we have allowed a tiny fraction of a percent of our immigrants to be HIV positive.

 

 

2) It sets an amazingly dangerous precedent, and during these times of extreme anxiety, ignorance, and uncertainty, it will make it seem more “okay” to similarly bar other groups from immigrating. You may not feel this way yourself, but there are DEFINITELY others out there who would just assume ban people from immigrating based on race, religion, and other areas of potential difference, and that’s wrong too.

 

 

Quite simply, we let them in because turning them away is NOT what’s best for us as a people.

[Racoon]

1) Barring HIV positive human beings from crossing some cartographically imposed border is not an effective means for making the populace safer, and serves only as a distraction. Such a policy only serves to arouse ignorant hatreds and shift the masses attention away from root causes, and, more importantly, other more salient and impactful problems. Further, it’s not as if huge percentages of the existing population are going to suddenly decease because we have allowed a tiny fraction of a percent of our immigrants to be HIV positive.

 

First off, the Immigrants are looking to live in other peoples homeland/residency. And they need to respect the laws.. the same could be said of people entering your domicile.

Perhaps you have a rule of people taking off their shoes before entering. :eek:

 

You never answered the question: Would you rent out a room in your house to somebody with a nasty strain of Tuberculosis?

Or would that be discrimination?? and allow your tiny percentage of community health to be adversely affected?

 

Barring HIV+ immigrants, and other communicable disease ridden people, doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

Open borders does, and reckless immigration does.

 

We live in a world of over 6 BILLION people!

Are the G-7 countries to be accountable and responsible for the welfare of everyone??

Don't they have a duty to take care of their own First!? For the present and forseeable future?

 

Fine.. Let all HIV+ immigrants go to Norway.. they have free health care there. I'm sure they'd welcome them all.. :) Or just welcome all the HIV+ and Tuberculosis immigrants into Austin.. You'll take them to picnics, and find them all jobs..

 

Your uber-liberalsim and jibber-jabber doesn't solve the problem, any more than it extends and exascerbates it..

 

Like I asked..

When you roll out of the rack in the morning, and look at the calendar.. what year do you see?

[ronthepon]

Raccoon makes sense. 'Immoral', but pretty logical to me.

 

(Tuberculosis is much more infectious than AIDS, and fear of contracting the disease would be higher in any case. But as an analogy with the country, it makes some sense.)

 

That- if the state takes care of it's own AIDS infected citizens so well, by paying for their bills, etc. Not sure if that's case or not; is it?

[sanctus]

 

You never answered the question: Would you rent out a room in your house to somebody with a nasty strain of Tuberculosis?

I already do, in Switerland all the immigrants are checked in the first 24h they are here if they have tuberculosis and if yes they get treatement right away. It helps them and protects the rest of the population at the same time. And it is a policy already active since more than a couple of years, so it works and causes no risks.

Now as others stated already HIV is less infective, so where is the problem/risk?

 

Are the G-7 countries to be accountable and responsible for the welfare of everyone??

Don't they have a duty to take care of their own First!? For the present and forseeable future?

 

The like to play world police and to tell generally how the world has to be run, but they don't like to be responsible when it suits them,i.e. when there is no potential gain involved (exactly like so many us-people said about husseins hanging it is not up to us to judge this, their democracy has done it - see thread "where does responsibility stop")...isn't there something called coherence missing? And do this countries not have enough money to take care of their own people and the immigrants as well, I mean compared to the population in all these countries the immigrants/citizen ratio is a fraction much smaller than 1, now if you consider too that only a fraction of all the immigrants needs help care or have HIV, the raise in health costs is about negligible. This immigrants also will work after their treatement pay taxes etc, they are not abusing the system, they contribute to it and thanks to the medcine in the occidental world also HIV-positive people are able to work.

 

When you roll out of the rack in the morning, and look at the calendar.. what year do you see?

 

If I only read your posts, you don't wanna know which year I would see :D

 

No more seriously I see 2007 and that is exactly why this barring of HIV positive immigrants is out of date (by at least a couple of centuries). Today we have all the means to minimize to almost zero all the risks, so why should this be a reason to let or not enter a person?

 

Somewhere you also said, why doesn't their country look for them...I expected a bit more deep reasoning from you, because even if we have completely different political ideas you have to admit that a poor country in a civil war with Novartis and friends making the super high prices really do not have the means to pay this cares. Now ok, you may say they would have the means if they wouldn't invest everything into war equipment. Than just add to the previous that this HIV positive person is in the fraction fighting the maybe even dictatorial government, do you think they will ever help him.

Also without this extreme examples you have to admit that simply not all countries have the means to give cares to their people.

[Cedars]

Further, it’s not as if huge percentages of the existing population are going to suddenly decease because we have allowed a tiny fraction of a percent of our immigrants to be HIV positive.

One American becoming infected via an immigrant with HIV is too many.

From Racoons link:

"The Victoria state health minister said this week that 70 of the 334 new HIV infection cases reported in Victoria in 2006 were among immigrants who had arrived in the country with the virus."

 

23% or so of the new HIV infection cases (in one state in Australia, in one year) are the direct result of an immigration policy that doesnt address the issue. I think 23% of a source is worth examining. Thats a huge source for a public health issue. What the numbers do not tell us is country of origin for the immigrants.

You may not feel this way yourself, but there are DEFINITELY others out there who would just assume ban people from immigrating based on race, religion, and other areas of potential difference,

It doesnt matter what race, religion, sex, nationality you are, if you have HIV, your not getting in.

 

Quite simply, we let them in because turning them away is NOT what’s best for us as a people.

I disagree. We as a people would be best off having immigrants who come here healthy to begin with, not harboring cronic, transmitable, deadly, and impossible to cure diseases.