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

[Faint]

Originally Posted by Maize

I believe every human being has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not just people lucky enough to be born on this patch of dirt. If people are denied their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then yes, I think we should allow them to come to this country where they can live and pursue those things.

You should know this. I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of EVERY human being, not just Americans. Unless we know someone is coming here to harm people, then yes they should be allowed to come and pursue a life of liberty and happiness. I see no reason to keep out good people just because of where they were born.

I like Ciscokid’s response to this Disney-movie-happy-ending-fantasy of yours…

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

BUT DON'T expect my government to make all kinds of risks and spend all kinds of money supporting the rest of the world and trying to give everyone what we have. It's NOT possible.

Your attitude is great on a personal level, not a Federal or National level.

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

It has nothing to do with where people are born. I'm coming from the sheer administrative and financial aspect of taking on more citizens in this country. You can't just support everyone who wants a better place. Quite frankly, it is NOT the job of America to take care of outsiders.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Maize

You're right, people shouldn't have clean water and food to eat and be able to live in peace just because they want it. Screw 'em. Right?

I think the attuitude that we should only look out for Americans is disgusting.

Listen Maize, I’m not advocating the idea of “not helping anyone outside our borders”. I’m saying that our FIRST PRIORITY here is the well-being of AMERICAN CITIZENS. The government needs to take care of that, and then they can do your little global charity missions.

Originally Posted by Midnight Blue

All else being equal, it would seem very odd that HIV, which isn't highly contagious, should be covered by law, while TB, which is, is left up to HHS regulations. That distinction is easily explained by the unfortunate political climate of the

Originally Posted by Midnight Blue

U.S. and the fact that HIV is perceived a disease of queers and colored people -- i.e., people whom conservatives consider undesirables in the first place.

That is very odd, and very stupid of our government. But it sounds like you’re trying to twist my arguement (i.e. if TB is okay, we should allow HIV positive people…). TB infected individuals should also be banned from immigrating AND visiting! Why this isn’t the case may indeed be caused by the political climate you’re speculating about. Obviously TB is more contagious than HIV. Ban that one too. We could add others to the list as well.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Maize

You should know this. I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of EVERY human being, not just Americans. Unless we know someone is coming here to harm people, then yes they should be allowed to come and pursue a life of liberty and happiness. I see no reason to keep out good people just because of where they were born.

Er... Before this was to happen the Welfare laws and things of that sort would have to be completely re-done.

Originally Posted by QTR

The operative word there being list of diseases that CAN keep you out. The fact remains that the only one mentioned specifically in the legislation is HIV.

And if the legislation just left it without the wording "including HIV" wouldn't a ton of people be jumping down their throats for including HIV on the list because they believe it does not meet the specifications? To me this is a case of law makers forseeing a problem with the interpretation of the law they are making and taking steps to stop it and make it known what they mean.

Originally Posted by QTR

The rest are open to the discrection of the man on the ground at the time.

Really? So the man on the ground can let someone with Leprecy in if he wants? Wow! What power they have! Its not like they have their own policies listed on any sort of website that lists the diseases that they don't want in the US...

Originally Posted by QTR

Why should a disease that isn't that contagious be given a special mention IN A LAW?

Er, if the letters "HIV" can be put in a law that gives money for research on it why can they not show up in a bill that is against people with HIV coming into the country? I still say it was given special mention because they were forseeing problems in the future and they wanted to make sure HIV was included in that bill.

Originally Posted by QTR

I'm speaking specifically as regards to non immigrants in this case. You've got a bit of a cough and customs while rummaging through your luggage finds some antibiotics, that'll more tha likely be overlooked, despite the fact that there's the chance you've got TB.

So are you suggesting every single person who wants to visit here be subject to a medical exam? There are some holes in the system... Just because you found a hole doesn't mean you should do away with the system.

Originally Posted by QTR

You look healthy as a horse and they tumble some HIV meds amongst your clothes, you're on the next plane home. The first is far more contagious than the second, and you're trying to say this is for protection of US citizens and not some sort of discrimination?

If there was a note in the first guys bag saying "I have TB" then yes, he would be sent home... Just because it is easier to figure out who has HIV rather than who has TB doesn't mean anything...

Originally Posted by QTR

As to slippery slopes, I'll leave them to the playground. I'd just like to know if there are people so delusional as to believe keeping people with a disease that's already inside the country out of it is going to achieve anything with regard to limiting contagion.

Hrm... lets see... If you have roaches in your house and you want them out, do you let more come in?

If you want to keep a disease from spreading do you add more people in the mix that have the disease? I am not saying that more Americans WILL get HIV, but probably at least a dozen or so Americans would probably get HIV from a unresponsible immigrant.

The United States cannot let everyone in. What is so bad about only letting healthy people become citizens?

Originally Posted by QTR

And I guess you answered the bit about enforced testing of citizens being a violation of civil liberties nicely, in your own delightfully roundabout way.

Yes that would be a violation of civil liberties for American Citizens... If you didn't notice... America doesn't extend these to people who are not currently in this Nation or are not citizens.

Originally Posted by Midnight Blue

That list explains HHS regulations, so it doesn't contradict what QTR said.

All else being equal, it would seem very odd that HIV, which isn't highly contagious, should be covered by law, while TB, which is, is left up to HHS regulations. That distinction is easily explained by the unfortunate political climate of the U.S. and the fact that HIV is perceived a disease of queers and colored people -- i.e., people whom conservatives consider undesirables in the first place.

But it still is contagious... If we are looking at two people who are both equal except one of them has HIV and the other doesn't, who should the US let in? To me it should be the one who doesn't have HIV simply because the other person is healthier.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

I've often wondered why gays and "darkies" as you call them are hit so hard with the Aids virus. I'm not surprised by the gays so much but I don't see why blacks would be so high.

While I do agree with this statement... A nicer way of putting it is:
Homosexuals do not risk pregnancy when having sex so it is not surprising that they have a higher percentage of AIDS infected cases.

"The gays" isn't so PC

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by Faint

I like Ciscokid’s response to this Disney-movie-happy-ending-fantasy of yours…

I would rather be an idealist than an .... well, I can say what because then I'd have to get QTR to warn me.

Listen Maize, I’m not advocating the idea of “not helping anyone outside our borders”. I’m saying that our FIRST PRIORITY here is the well-being of AMERICAN CITIZENS. The government needs to take care of that, and then they can do your little global charity missions.

Yes, there are people here who need help as well. But we have government programs and private and public charities who are in place and willng to help these people. In some other countries they have no such support system at all. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't help anyone outside our borders until every American has been helped? Again, every American has access to help, people in too many other countries don't and in fact their governments are the ones keeping them down. It's not always feasible to help someone on their own "turf" when the ones running that turf don't want you there and don't want the people to get help.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

I've often wondered why gays and "darkies" as you call them are hit so hard with the Aids virus. I'm not surprised by the gays so much but I don't see why blacks would be so high.

This ranks right up there with comments elsewhere about Latvians in Grayling, Michigan.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Faint

If we’re going to be talking about rear-ends, I must say you should be more concerned with toning up your own rebuttal, Booko. This one seemed a little too junior high for my taste.

I'm sorry you didn't get the point about how difficult it is to get HIV.

[YamiB.]

I do think that HIV is a valid reason for keeping somebody out of the country. I do also think that there is no reason that it seems to be raised above the rest of the diseases that keep people out. The option of the waiver should without a doubt be kept open as well.


This is probably the one place I would be called conservative on immigration policy.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by YamiB.

I do think that HIV is a valid reason for keeping somebody out of the country. I do also think that there is no reason that it seems to be raised above the rest of the diseases that keep people out. The option of the waiver should without a doubt be kept open as well.

This basically sums up my views. I not an open borders advocate, and don't have a problem with the idea that there may be sound medical reasons for preventing people from immigrating here.

I just don't see the medical reason for singling out HIV, which is notoriously difficult to get, as others have pointed out.

And waivers are important as well. I see no reason why, if someone wants to go adopt a baby with HIV, they should not be allowed to bring the child back here and raise it. It's not like we have a legitimate medical excuse of trying to prevent spread of the disease.