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.

 

US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

The US has lifted a 22-year immigration ban which has stopped anyone with HIV/Aids from entering the country. The ban was imposed at the height of a global panic about the disease at the end of the 1980s.


US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

Personally i had no idea that this ban was still effect. America was 1 out of only 12 countries that still prohibited people with HIV from immigrating to the US.

I agree with President Obama when he says :"the ban had been rooted in fear rather than fact".

Since i am not from America i can not judge how you guys feel about this action. I am curious to hear what you guys think about this.

Peace

[edit on 7/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Why would they lift the ban? Now these people will come here to the US to get treatment for HIV/AIDS, if they are coming here its most likely they are coming here from the Africa, Parts of Asia, and Latin America. Third world countires. So in effect they could come here to kill Americans by spreading the Disease even more, OR suck our Doctors time and increase our Medical costs again...... The goverment makes no sense.


And before you free love hippies give me attitude, WE CANT NOT HELP EVERYONE, we should stop trying to HELP EVERYONE, until our own people are helped. FTW no one will come to help us after the government collapses this crap.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Yeah .. they will come here and Infected Americans .. Because HIV/AIDS doesn't exists in the US .. no American is infected .. (facepalm)

I really don't care .. if they come here to get help .. good for them .. the more our western medicine helps the better ..

Also . The US (or any other Country) should help anyone they can .. no matter who they are or where they are from ..

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Polynomial C]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 

poedxsoldiervet,

you do realise that you were on the same list of countries, upholding this ban for 22 years, like Saudi Arabia and Lybia. Not especially well know for there human rights.

And did it ever occure to you that these people might have wanted to travel to America not for treatment but for other issues.

Peace

[edit on 7/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Will this not speard HIV/AIDS even more? I mean not all people coming into the country with HIV/AIDS will go around hunting for Sex ect, although you would be naive to think people won't.

Sending aid packages to these countrys where these people are coming form would be a better idea.

Tsom87



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Polynomial C
 


He I diddnt say it doesnt it exsit here, but why would you let someone in who already has it, it serves no purpose what so ever for them to be here. We have our own people who are dying from it we can not afford to take care of someone else problems anymore.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Who cares they shouldnt be able to come here to get treatment or for any reason. I actual back Saudi and Syria for not allowing more AIDS infected people into the country even though I dont support other things they due, It is there nation they can do as they want.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Wow .. your kind of logic is backwards ..

May as well BAN everyone who come here for Medical Help .. BAN anyone infected with any STDs ..

Backwards ..



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TSOM87
 


Only 12 countries out the 196 (could be more or less, don't know) upheld this restriction. Somehow i really don't think that makes such a big difference in the global spread of this disease.

If it did then the infection numbers in America should be less then say....europe. Let's check that out...


North America 1.4 million
Western & Central Europe 850,000
Global Total 33.4 million

source

Hmmm....somehow i don't think this restriction has been very effective the last 22 years.

Peace


[edit on 7/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
although my stance is on 'HIV doesn't exist' , i got a question:

how do they know who 'has it' or 'no' ? since 'hiv testing' is anonymous anyways and there aren't any database of such ???



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Theres more people with HIV/Aids in Europe than 850,000. HIV/AIDS Europe

Anyway IMO, yeah people will get help when they enter America which is great, although numbers of people living with HIV/AIDS will increase.

Tsom87



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by angelx666
 


I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn't it violate some privacy law?

I'll try and find out....

Peace

[edit on 7/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TSOM87
 

TSOM87

I used the 2008 charts. I really have no idea what the actual number is.

But what makes you assume that these people would not get treatment in their country of origin?

Peace



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by TSOM87
 

TSOM87
But what makes you assume that these people would not get treatment in their country of origin?


I didn't assume that.

Tsom87



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TSOM87
I didn't assume that.


Sorry about that, I assumed you did...



Sending aid packages to these countrys where these people are coming form would be a better idea.


Peace


[edit on 7/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
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 policy.
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 protect themselves.
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.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Polynomial C
 


No your logic is backwards, if someone who cant afford to come here and pay for there treatment shouldnt come here, we cant afford to take care of our own people let alone someone elses.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Thanks for that post.


That really explained a lot for me but i am still not clear on how the US Government can get this kind of information.

Peace

[edit on 7/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 

After some further research I'm editing this post concerning the specific case of the SA dancer (it doesn't appear as if anyone has responded yet, but I'll keep the main issues with corrections).
The dancer from The African Footprint show found out he was HIV-positive on the day the plane left Johannesburg for the USA. The news of his status spread to the American management of the company who consulted a top New York lawyer. The lawyer advised that the dancer was in transgression of the US law on communicable diseases and that he should be sent home immediately. (www.gbmnews.com...)
So normally HIV-positive people had to mention their HIV status on their visa application, or if found out they would be breaking US law. It therefore put the onus on the applicant to abide by the law. I'm sure background checks could also reveal if somebody had declared their status openly or had been involved in HIV activism, but if the guy had told no one he could probably have gotten away with it. Hence I say it was unworkable in any case and essentially barred people for honesty. At least here HIV positive Americans were never treated like that, so I'm glad it's over.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Wait a second.....could this be a reason for governments to promote the digitalisation of your identity thought means like facebook, myspace, twitter and even ATS.


"everything you say can and will be used against you"

So, in a weird way, aren't we actually giving up our freedom by posting personal information such as thoughts and situations?

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join