HIV Immigration Restrictions

[piercehawkeye45]

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/04/18/71588

Originally Posted by MNDaily

Australian Prime Minister John Howard's recent statements declaring that migrants and refugees infected with HIV should be refused entry to Australia have caused great international outcry. Considering how far our society has come in HIV awareness, it is disgusting that anyone, let alone someone with such a high position, would make such vile and hateful comments.
Australia already bans people with tuberculosis from entering the country as migrants, and all individuals over the age of 15 who apply for permanent residence are tested for HIV. Howard's recent comments were made in response to a study that found an increase of HIV-positive people moving to Australia. On a side note, many AIDS organizations have declared the figures misleading.

The issue is not whether, in fact, there has been an influx of HIV-positive individuals into the country. The issue, rather, is the blatant discriminatory and tasteless character of his statements. The discriminatory policy insinuated by Howard has no purpose but to wrongfully vilify people with the disease.

It is not outlandish to say that a country should have the right to deny entry to whomever they deem to be a danger to society. After all, every country has a right to protect its borders. Proponents of the policy believe that allowing HIV immigrants into the country is not only a health risk, but it is also costly as far as it will place the burden on Australian taxpayers. However, discriminating against someone because of a medical condition is simply obscene.

The saddest facet of Howard's comments is the extent of the ignorance necessary to even ignite such a discussion. There have been many major breakthroughs in modern science and medicine allowing HIV-positive individuals to enjoy longer and healthy lifestyles.

To deny entry based on HIV status would mean that you are deeming those individuals as "lesser citizens" or "lesser humans" than their peers. This is simply unethical. Far from being helpful to his country, Howard's extremist comments do nothing more than stir up xenophobic attitudes within Australia.

Should any country disallow immigration for someone with a disease that can only be transmitted sexually?

[Clodfobble]

Proponents of the policy believe that allowing HIV immigrants into the country is not only a health risk, but it is also costly as far as it will place the burden on Australian taxpayers.

Will the Australian government have to pay for their continued and costly medical care? I don't know to what degree healthcare is socialized over there.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

[url]
Should any country disallow immigration for someone with a disease that can only be transmitted sexually?

Yes. And HIV can be transmitted by more ways than sexually.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yes. And HIV can be transmitted by more ways than sexually.

Spread through blood is very rare but the point is that it can't be transmitted through touch or air travel.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Spread through blood is very rare but the point is that it can't be transmitted through touch or air travel.

Sex is currently the most common form of transmission.
Ever hear of needle sharing? You think that is a rare event?
The other common form is Mother to fetus.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yes. And HIV can be transmitted by more ways than sexually.

Wow, that's surprising coming from you, mercy. I guessed wrong about you. So you're saying that we, the United States, should not bar anyone from immigrating based on their HIV status? That seems uncommonly accommodating of you. Nice.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

Wow, that's surprising coming from you, mercy. I guessed wrong about you. So you're saying that we, the United States, should not bar anyone from immigrating based on their HIV status? That seems uncommonly accommodating of you. Nice.

Yes, any country should disallow immigration for someone with a disease that can only be transmitted sexually, and specifically HIV. I am not interested in accommodating people who are HIV positive from other countries. Nice try though....

It's just smart.

[BigV]

You have contradicted yourself twice now. I'm still unclear on your position. I'll try again, this time with smaller questions.

Do you think the US should bar immigrants who have HIV because they have HIV?

Do you think the US should bar immigrants who have a sexually transmitted disease, communicable only through sex? I know you said yes to this earlier, but I'm still confused, sorry.

You see, they're two different questions, as you clearly pointed out, since HIV is not transmitted only through sex.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

You have contradicted yourself twice now. I'm still unclear on your position. I'll try again, this time with smaller questions.

Do you think the US should bar immigrants who have HIV because they have HIV?

Do you think the US should bar immigrants who have a sexually transmitted disease, communicable only through sex? I know you said yes to this earlier, but I'm still confused, sorry.

You see, they're two different questions, as you clearly pointed out, since HIV is not transmitted only through sex.

You can't be that dense.

"Yes, any country should disallow immigration for someone with a disease that can only be transmitted sexually, and specifically HIV. I am not interested in accommodating people who are HIV positive from other countries."

HIV is not only transmitted by sex and is terminal.
I think one should not be allowed into the US with it.

[BigV]

terminal.. heh. Man, everything's terminal. It's not cooties, y'know.

So, you are ok with letting Ebola and advanced TB in also, I assume?
Everything's terminal... why the hell not?

[Ibby]

I say let HIV victims in simply because if we can turn them away for that, what next? If they're safe and conscientious about it, they are not a danger to anyone. A freedom lost by any is a freedom lost by all.

"What's next" is never a valid argument. Hell if it was there would not be one law.
Non-citizens don't have US freedoms.