posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by operation mindcrime
We in South Africa had a member of a dance troupe who was made to leave the US last year because he was HIV positive (the guy didn't know they had
this policy). Apparently it's something the embassy wants checked, and one could apply for some special Visa from homeland security, but I've never
heard of this succeeding.
The problem is that I don't doubt some of our top politicians are HIV positive, and this policy could have led to awkward international incidents. In
other countires like Australia one can enter with HIV, but one is unlikely to be granted any kind of residence. So I doubt there will be a flood of
HIV positive immigrants, or people with other conditions that could flood the local health systems. In fact more and more Westerners are turning to
poorer nations (like India) for transplants and other ops because medical care in their countries is too expensive.
I think it was a bit embarrasing that a leading nation in HIV policy could never host an international Aids conference because they had this
If people do come to the US and have enough money for private care then why not? In a sense they are then supporting US industries. Since testing is
not mandatory in most places the law was unworkable in any case - HIV-positive people could still sneak in.
For proven harm reduction countries like the US could rather focus on needle exchanges and condoms in prisons. Otherwise people should know how to
It will be fascinating to see if the new policy will lead to more local public disclosure in SA that could go a long way to fight stigma - mainly
amongst public figures who travelled a lot to the US, like politicians and authors.