It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposed US travel rules for people with HIV infection come under fire

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Proposed US travel rules for people with HIV infection come under fire


www.sfgate.com

One year after the Bush Administration promised to streamline a process to allow people with HIV infection to visit the United States despite congressionally mandated travel ban, critics are saying that the proposed new rules are more restrictive than the old ones.

Laws dating back to the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the United States forbid issuance of visas to foreigners infected with HIV, but allow exceptions through a cumbersome waiver process that has been denounced as slow,
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The Bush administration is in a tough spot these days and anything and everything (rightfull so) comes under scrutiny. In this case I think they may have a point. The last thing we need is for the already burdened medical system to become a dumping ground for foreign HIV cases that get here then are unable or unwilling to leave. I see nothing wrong with making sure that someone visiting this country has a controlled state of HIV infection and adequate supplies of medication for thier stay. We would not allow someone with active TB in the country would we? I do realize that our vaunted HLS goons could not guard a shoelace never mind the borders, but lets just say this is in theory

www.sfgate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 
Hi Fred, Good find! IMHO, coming from a medical perspective, the US government has been far too lenient regarding quarantine against exotic diseases. Anything they do to strengthen quarantine procedures is a good. PC is a poor reason to expose citizens to unnecessary risks.
I remember when the good President Clinton was allowing boatload after boatload of Haitians into the US for "Political asylum" when they should have been sent back due to disease (esp. AIDS) risk. PC was what Clinton cared about, not the health of our citizens.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
It`s not that unusual - South Korea just enacted a similar policy (you will be denied a work visa if you are HIV+). There`s a few other countries that require HIV testing as part of the visa process.

It sucks, but it`s an infectious disease at the end of the day - and nations have the right to control who they let in.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
No one who isnt a citizen doesn't have an automatic right to enter the US. So even thou HIV is fully blown AIDS I can understand why the US would put public health before the privileges of a foreigner . Here in New Zealand you can be prosecuted if you fail to reveal that you have HIV and then go on to have unsafe sex.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   


Here in New Zealand you can be prosecuted if you fail to reveal that you have HIV and then go on to have unsafe sex.
reply to post by xpert11
 

Hi xpert,
Good idea by New Zealand! One of the strange phenomenon about this disease is that those infected with HIV will sometimes have unsafe sex. It doesn't make sense that one wouldn't care about infecting others with a fatal disease. Sanctions against such actions make sense if only to make a statement against such actions.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   
What do people believe??? that AIDS just spreads through the air??

comon... banning people from entering a country because they have HIV infection is just plane stupid...how about spending a little more time, telling the people how to avoid getting a HIV infection, its quite simple.

What can and can't you get AIDS from?

Please inform instead of restrict



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Bluess I have nothing against educating people about AIDS. But that wont necessary help if a person comes from say an African country where they don't acknowledge that AIDS exists. Also if a HIV positive persons enters the US and rapes someone and doesn't take precautions no amount of education will help the innocent victim .



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


So you mean that sick people should be banned from entering your country because they lack information/knowledge on AIDS?

And how do you intent on "securing" HIV infected americans to not rape people? throw them out of your country?

please... why would any person infected if he/she obtained the knowledge of AIDS spreed it by purpose? That would only be done by an insane person anyway.

I wonder if you would ban people with other desieases, that can infect other people, from entering your country aswell?

edit: spelling

[edit on 6-12-2007 by Bluess]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
What do people believe??? that AIDS just spreads through the air??

comon... banning people from entering a country because they have HIV infection is just plane stupid...how about spending a little more time, telling the people how to avoid getting a HIV infection, its quite simple.

What can and can't you get AIDS from?

Please inform instead of restrict


How about you inform, the US is quite right to restrict entry on two levels

* The US will have to foot the bill for medical care
* Whether you like it or not, the more people that have HIV (and in this case you will increase the numbers) the more people are likely to catch it



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


OMG... yes lets just pick up all the HIV infected people and place them on an island far out in the sea....

Once again I find it where obscure that people think "the more that have AIDS the more likely I am to get it"

Take responsibility for your own actions, and learn how not to get AIDS and you wont get it. simple as that.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
OMG... yes lets just pick up all the HIV infected people and place them on an island far out in the sea....

Once again I find it where obscure that people think "the more that have AIDS the more likely I am to get it"

Take responsibility for your own actions, and learn how not to get AIDS and you wont get it. simple as that.


I agree with taking responsibility for your own actions, totally, but that is not the extent of the discussion at hand

We are talking about immigration policy, and one which limits entry to people with HIV is a sound one, both from an economic and public health stance

As for "dropping them on an island"- this is kind of crazy talk, we are simply talking about refusing entry, they will have to return to their land of origin. There is not inherent "right to reside" in the US, any more than I have a right to dander into Sudan and demand residence



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
So you mean that sick people should be banned from entering your country because they lack information/knowledge on AIDS?


Well a person may not even know they have HIV or understand how the disease spreads . Since it wouldn't be practical to determine if a person has such knowledge the best thing to do is to prevent them from entering the US in the first place.


And how do you intent on "securing" HIV infected americans to not rape people? throw them out of your country?


Apples and oranges foreign visitors don't have the same rights has US citizens.


please... why would any person infected if he/she obtained the knowledge of AIDS spreed it by purpose? That would only be done by an insane person anyway.


Never underestimate the sick things that people will do. You also ignore the possibility of someone unintentionally spreading HIV.


I wonder if you would ban people with other desieases, that can infect other people, from entering your country aswell?


Depending on the disease I have no problem with such bans.




[edit on 6-12-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 6-12-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


So how do you feel about people with other infection diseases? should they also be banned from entering your country?

Arent they also a dangerous from an both from an economic and public health stance?

If you want to restrain movement apon people who have an HIV infection, would that also involve americans with AIDS being prohibited to leave america?

and what about an american traveling abroad, getting AIDS and returning home, should he also be banned to come home?

Using the "this is about immigration politics" statement seems to me to just be an excuse to "make right" a stupid idea.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by Bluess
So you mean that sick people should be banned from entering your country because they lack information/knowledge on AIDS?

Well a person may not even know they have HIV or understand how the disease spreads . Since it wouldn't be practical to determine if a person has such knowledge the best thing to do is to prevent them from entering the US in the first place.


.......or you could inform them and help them. and if the person doesnt know he/she has HIV, how would america find out?


And how do you intent on "securing" HIV infected americans to not rape people? throw them out of your country?

Apples and oranges foreign visitors don't have the same rights has US citizens.


.......whatever rights they have american people can spread AIDS aswell as foreign people


please... why would any person infected if he/she obtained the knowledge of AIDS spreed it by purpose? That would only be done by an insane person anyway.

Never underestimate the sick things that people will do. You also ignore the possibility of someone unintentionally spreading HIV.


.......unintentionally spreading HIV can also be done by americans


I wonder if you would ban people with other desieases, that can infect other people, from entering your country aswell?

Depending on the disease I have no problem with such bans.


.......Once again it all sums up to the whole, "block any foreigner to enter the country if they are sick and we will all be healthy here in america" this is utopia thinking to me




[edit on 6-12-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 6-12-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 



I have no problem with such a policy extending to other infectious diseases, none at all.

As for an American citizen returning, he is an American citizen and will have to return, we are talking about immigrants trying to become American citizens, there is no onus to take them in



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Bluess
 



I have no problem with such a policy extending to other infectious diseases, none at all.

As for an American citizen returning, he is an American citizen and will have to return, we are talking about immigrants trying to become American citizens, there is no onus to take them in


I take it by "onus" you mean "Bonus" correct?

So what you are saying here is that there is no "bonus" by taking in people with HIV.

May i Remind you that many people live with HIV today and have done so for many years.

People with HIV can contribute with work, science, sports anything you mention just aswell as a healthy person can, and many do so already.

and if an immigrant who has HIV and have had so for many years, can contribute with something, making him valueable to your country, lets say business of some sort. then you would dismiss him at the boarder because he has HIV.

banning people to enter your country if they have HIV, is the same as saying every person with HIV is dangerous and cant contribute with anything to this country.

what happened to "deny ignorance"?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


no, I meant what I typed and posted, "ONUS", there is no onus for the US to take them in and no "right" for those immigrants to reside.

The US, as a nation state, has every right to decide on the type of immigrant it wants, be it in terms of skills, or in terms of infectious diseases.

It would seem prudent for a nation to want people without infectious diseases, be it on a public health or economic level- the rest is just waffle



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Bluess
 


no, I meant what I typed and posted, "ONUS", there is no onus for the US to take them in and no "right" for those immigrants to reside.

The US, as a nation state, has every right to decide on the type of immigrant it wants, be it in terms of skills, or in terms of infectious diseases.

It would seem prudent for a nation to want people without infectious diseases, be it on a public health or economic level- the rest is just waffle



Then how about the right to ban people from entering your country on the count of country of origin, skincolor, haircolor, disfunctions, ugliness and other things?

there is a little thing called ethics, you might wanna consider instead of just claiming rights.

there is also a little thing called humanrights, and that should be followed worldwide.

there is a world outside america too. no offence.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess

Then how about the right to ban people from entering your country on the count of country of origin, skincolor, haircolor, disfunctions, ugliness and other things?

[/QUOTE]

bizzarre, no, I would limit it to salient issues such as skills, infectious diseases etc.

Some infantile reasoning there


[QUOTE]
there is a little thing called ethics, you might wanna consider instead of just claiming rights.
[/QUOTE]

I don't claim "rights" that is the point- the US is a nation state and has to put it's interest first, and rightly so


[QUOTE]
there is also a little thing called humanrights, and that should be followed worldwide.
[/QUOTE]

which does not mean automatic entry to the US- the US as a nation shall decide who resides there


[QUOTE]
there is a world outside america too. no offence.
[/QUOTE]

Correct, it is a world of nation states, and if someone is refused entry to America they go back to their country of origin or seek another country




new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join