The HIV immigration ban is a good thing. (America, POV)

[michel]

Originally Posted by Faint

I think in the case of HIV+ individuals, the right of U.S. citizens to not be exposed to more carriers outweighs the rights of the carriers to come here. This is not discrimination as you seem to be implying. As a similar example, I also advocate banning smokers from public buildings. My right to clean health outweighs your right to smoke near me.

I used to think that too, but there are too many inequalities to allow this. If the wealthy nations imported the impoverished and diseased citizens of, say, Africa--it would most likely destroy us. Second metaphor...it would be similar to a wealthy family in Beverly Hills allowing about two thousand homeless & sick people to live on their property and in their home. What do you think that would do to the wealthy family's way of life?

Yes. In their own country. If it's not available, that's called "bad luck".

All I can say is "wow"..........................Especially in view of your last statement; I can't comment on it politely.

[Green Gaia]

If people with HIV are people, then they should be treated as such, with respect and dignity. I don't see how denying them citizenship because of a disease is treaying them with respect and dignity.

If a family who's adopting an HIV infected child wants to immigrate here, would you make them leave the child in their home country?

[gnomon]

Why don't you consider eugenics for a few moments? It's happened before to society's 'undesirables'- if enough bigoted people or just ignorant "do-gooders" push their weight around almost anything is possible. It is a slippery slope, but it is a slippery slope many societies have gone down many, many times.

Societies undesirables are still swept out of public view and denied the same rights and privelages as most Americans. It's just the definintion of the undesirables changes.

I disagree with the notion of keeping people with HIV out of our country. Since this thread will probably only deal with that point of view there is nothing more for me to add.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by jamaesi

I can see limiting diseases that are easily spread through just sneezing or shaking hands. HIV and AIDs is not spread through those means- it is spread through sex. Don't we have a personal responsiblity about our sex lives?

If a disease can be spread at all then it is still a clear and present risk for the uninfected.

Originally Posted by jamaesi

Why don't you consider eugenics for a few moments? It's happened before to society's 'undesirables'- if enough bigoted people or just ignorant "do-gooders" push their weight around almost anything is possible. It is a slippery slope, but it is a slippery slope many societies have gone down many, many times.

This ban is not an example of eugenics. And that arguement is still a slippery slope...no more reasonable than saying that if government allows the death penalty it will lead to genocide.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by Maize

If people with HIV are people, then they should be treated as such, with respect and dignity. I don't see how denying them citizenship because of a disease is treaying them with respect and dignity.

If a family who's adopting an HIV infected child wants to immigrate here, would you make them leave the child in their home country?

Our Immigration service can treat them with plenty of respect. For example, they could write "We respectfully decline your request for citizenship, but we thank you for your interest in the United Stated of America. Please feel free to apply again when you are no longer HIV positive."

Here's another way to look at it...you have a country. Millions of people want to move in to your country. Your country can't support everyone who wants to move in. SO, you must decide WHO you allow to move in. Out of every hundred people who apply, you can only approve, let's say, one (I'm not sure on the exact percentages...if anyone knows the real applicants-to-approvals ratio please enlighten me). So why would you want to approve an HIV positive individual who may infect other Americans when you have so many other uninfected immigrants to choose from?

[jamaesi]

Societies undesirables are still swept out of public view and denied the same rights and privelages as most Americans. It's just the definintion of the undesirables changes.

I'm well aware and still waiting for my rights. :\

If a disease can be spread at all then it is still a clear and present risk for the uninfected.

So the "uninfected" have no personal responsibility at all?

Last time I checked, sex (and sex with no unintended side effects like pregnancy and disease) is not a right.

This ban is not an example of eugenics. And that arguement is still a slippery slope...no more reasonable than saying that if government allows the death penalty it will lead to genocide.

I never said the ban was an example of eugenics. I was just saying Maize's example was like eugenics and the killing of "undesirables" has happened before.

(Of course, if you would like to debate why more blacks get the death penalty than any other racial or ethnic group I'm sure a thread could be arranged...)

[jamaesi]

Here's another way to look at it...you have a country. Millions of people want to move in to your country. Your country can't support everyone who wants to move in. SO, you must decide WHO you allow to move in. Out of every hundred people who apply, you can only approve, let's say, one (I'm not sure on the exact percentages...if anyone knows the real applicants-to-approvals ratio please enlighten me). So why would you want to approve an HIV positive individual who may infect other Americans when you have so many other uninfected immigrants to choose from?

Equality.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by jamaesi

Equality.

That's very pretty. But they're not really equal at all in the sense of disease, contagion, and special needs.

[Ryan2065]

You guys do realize it isn't just AIDS that keeps people from coming to the US? They ban other STDs as well.

Originally Posted by Maize

If people with HIV are people, then they should be treated as such, with respect and dignity. I don't see how denying them citizenship because of a disease is treaying them with respect and dignity.

So should we allow people with any disease at all in? Because apparently if we do not we are not treating them with respect and dignity.

Originally Posted by Maize

If a family who's adopting an HIV infected child wants to immigrate here, would you make them leave the child in their home country?

Er, actually it would be leave the family there... A family who would leave a child behind after they adopted it shouldn't come here anyways =p

Originally Posted by jamaesi

So the "uninfected" have no personal responsibility at all?

Last time I checked