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: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


It is clear to me now that you must be a nationalist and only seek ways to prevent people from entering your country, and as i find nationalists and other extremists, to be the very definition of ignorance, I hereby stop to post any further in this topic due to the fact that no reasoning can come of it.

I hope for others who read theese post to find a meaning of what I have stated.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by Bluess]

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by Bluess]




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 



Up to you, I find your attitude bigoted, denial of the people of the nation state of the US the right to decide who lives there

Such fanatacism only leads to wider social upheval



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess


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.



plenty of insane people out there. i just wanted to address this point cause i remember this distinctly from when i was younger.
it was probably around 90' ish...aids/hiv was everywhere you looked.

there was a female that was picking up guys at bars and taking them home to have sex with them, to spread it on purpose...
i can't remember her name but i want to say angela.....i don't think thats right but the point is, she knew she had it and tried to spread it around.

i also remember a # ton of women would go out to the bar or club(s) with a shirt on that says "i'm not angela"....

that is not the only case of someone trying to spread it on purpose.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
mmm, interesting post. I myself am a nationalist. This being said, I think that limiting diseased from coming into the country helps us in the overburdened medical system we already have. I feel that if you have any kind of transmittable disease you should not be allowed to enter. Additionally, background check paid for by the person wishing to enter should have to be passed.

This being said, if these are passed successfully, then I have no problem with people getting longer visas. instead of 6 months, go for 1 year, 3 or 5 years.

Like it or not, the world has relied on the american taxpayer for far to long to support there medical, national, and human interests.

If you are diseased, be diseased in your country, not mine. If you are a criminal, be one in another country not mine, and yes, if you have a corrupt dictator, its your problem, not mine. I for one believe that dumping BILLIONS of americans dollars on BS policies overseas helps us not at all, and we have enough issues to deal with here, lack education, poverty, unemployeement, city degradation and urbanization, crime, etc to not need to deal with the rest of you all, or to deal with you on a restricted basis, and very limited basis.

There should be very few countries that are allowed entry into the U.S.
China, Japan, S. Korea, Russia, UK, India, E.U., South Africa, Qatar, Kuwait, Mexico, Brazil, and several others,bottom line is we don't need the sick, we don't need the poor. We are not a socialist state, we are a capitalist, and the government being responsible for these people translates into me being responsible for them. I don't want that, nor should I be burdened with it.

In several ways we need to restrict immigration, in other ways we need to relax it. An example being the mexican and canadian borders. While its important to allow free access, we must control the flow, and the means limiting it.

Anyways, getting back on topic. I agree what we shouldn't allow diseased into the nation, ofcourse there can be waivers, but they should be the excemption, not the rule, and while the world takes many types to be full, I would prefer to have room in my corner, and not be even more overworked.

Cheers,

Camain


DCP

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
if they really want into America all they have to do is go to Mexico and then sneak across the boarder. Why deal with US customs. Anyone know if HIV infected people can get into Mexico. Last i heard Mexico was ironically a hard country to get into.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


Umm it isnt the US job to educate foreign visitors about the dangers of HIV that is there own responsibility or the responsibility of the country and government of origin. The difference is that the US can prevent foreign visitors from spreading HIV without violating there rights so there is no good reason why this shouldn't be done.

Your accusing me utopia thinking ?

Your the one who seems to want some kind of utopia where everyone and anyone can travel to the US regardless of public health issues.


apc

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
This is the same logic as wanting to keep out illegals that are killing people by driving drunk. It is entirely within our right.

We have a relatively good handle on the HIV situation in the US. We'd like to keep it that way. The only way to do it is by minimizing the occurrence of new infections and particularly new mutations of the virus. As the mutations occur primarily in countries that do not or can not properly address the issue, we would like to keep infected people from those countries out.

Aside from providing clean needles and condoms for free to the public, the only other thing can do non-medically is deny entrance to individuals with uncontrolled infections. We can not rightly quarantine our own people, but we can quarantine the rest of the world.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 



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

Hi Bluess,
If we do like you want and allow a population of aids infected people into the US, believe me, they will spread their disease to a certain number of unsuspecting US citizens. I've worked in epidemiology and know about these things, I'm qualified to know, etc. My question to you, Bluess, is: How many US citizens do you feel is it ok to inadvertantly infect with HIV because of your AIDS emigration policy. Is 10 ok? How about a 100 people? A hundred people who die a horible death because of a lax policy.
If you want to consider ethics then think about that! What if we bring in a hot African strain of the disease that begins to spread like wildfire in our population and causes thousands of deaths. Is that ok?

The health authorities of our country (or any country) have an obligation to protect its citizens. This is what we expect them to do, that is their ethical responsibility, if they don't take their job seriously they can face serious consequences.

Until you have lost someone close to you, watched them suffer you probably don't understand the seriousness of what we are talking about here!



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I cannot argue with people who twist my words and refuse to see what i am actually are trying to say.

You all seem to be convinsed, that any immigrant with HIV infection comming into the U'S will spread the deciase almost deliberatly....

Meanwhile you praise people like magic johnson who have lived with the deciase for years... Why don't you hate him too and dont go all "he has the right to be here".. its to sides to the same story

I can understand why immigration control is being used, it is also being used in my country. But i cannot tolerate the discrimination of people, be it racial, origin, health related or whatever.

If this matter only concerns illigal imigrants than why even going into it? as i expect all illigal immigrants are denied entrance to the U'S


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Bluess]


Because of the U.S. visa restrictions for the HIV-infected, the International AIDS Society has refused to convene its semi-annual AIDS conference in the United States since the one held in San Francisco in 1990.



Susannah Sirkin, deputy director of Physicians for Human Rights, said that only 13 nations in the world impose similar restrictions on HIV-positive travelers. "These policies are totally counterproductive to our own country's programs to address the global AIDS crisis," she said. "To put possibly more restrictive policies on the table does not serve any public health interest."


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Bluess]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 



But i cannot tolerate the discrimination of people, be it racial, origin, health related or whatever.

You see this only as a discrimination problem. People in the health industry see it only as a communicable disease problem. If you care about disease you cannot constantly worry about political correctness.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Bluess
 



You see this only as a discrimination problem. People in the health industry see it only as a communicable disease problem. If you care about disease you cannot constantly worry about political correctness.


You cannot deal with a problem by "Trying to keep it out of your system", you have to face it, deal with it and try to solve it!

HIV is a Global issue, and you cannot aproach it from "your view" only.

Do you believe that the U.S will get rid of HIV if noone with the disease is allowed into your country? well it doesnt seem to me that you got rid of it since 1990 when you started this discrimination.

Besides if your way of "solving" the problem works, how come only 13 countries have imposed simular approaches to it?

I'll tell you why..because it doesnt work at all



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Bluess
 



You see this only as a discrimination problem. People in the health industry see it only as a communicable disease problem. If you care about disease you cannot constantly worry about political correctness.


You cannot deal with a problem by "Trying to keep it out of your system", you have to face it, deal with it and try to solve it!

HIV is a Global issue, and you cannot aproach it from "your view" only.

Do you believe that the U.S will get rid of HIV if noone with the disease is allowed into your country? well it doesnt seem to me that you got rid of it since 1990 when you started this discrimination.

Besides if your way of "solving" the problem works, how come only 13 countries have imposed simular approaches to it?

I'll tell you why..because it doesnt work at all



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   
The US takes it's own decisions for the good of it's people and nation, regardless of whether 13 or 113 nations do likewise

For people to waffle about discrimination, get over it, taking their attitude to logical destination and crying about "discrimination"- they would have to allow 2 billion people to emigrate to the US if they so decided, in order to avoid this scary word "discrimination"

Immigration policy requires quotas, as part of that quota illness would seem wise to include, regardless of what some infants think




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join