|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
I had no idea that the U.S. didn't allow people with HIV to come into the country. Obama just lifted that ban.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091030/ap_ … obama_aids
Yeah, even as it stands now, an HIV test is a requirement to getting a visa... the list of factors that disqualify you seem a little ridiculous (taken from the State Dept website):
Trafficking in Drugs
Overstaying a previous visa
Advocating the overthrow of the government
Submitting fraudulent documents
I'm sure that list has kept many would-be overthrowers from entering!
Set aside the one on HIV if you like, does that mean you find the other items on that list "ridiculous"?!
Yes, practicing polygamy definitely, and overthrowing a government sort of open to debate.
We've got far too many polygamists in the country already. Don't need any more.
LOL May be, but it does not really provide for a reasonable entry restriction IMO. At the end polygamists do not compete on a job market more than monogamists.
Haha calm down. Obviously we don't want drug traffickers and government overthrowers. It just seems a little random to include polygamy and having HIV, which seem relatively harmless, with all these other things. As if someone would stop at the border because of this list anyway... that's what makes it ridiculous, not the general fact that we are selective about who enters.
Of course he wants them, to give them aid! Oh, you said AID's. He should keep them all in the White House.
It is right to quarantine an illness to keep it from spreading; it doesn’t matter what the illness; how many celebrities have raised “awareness” about it, or how much money goes to PR to maintain the illusion that those that have the disease are “victims.” Your compassion to a specific person or group has limits; you cannot use your compassion to put a bullet in someone else’s head.
Sometimes public health officials might find it difficult to quarantine some so that others will not be infected. But that’s what we pay them for; to make the difficult choices and we should expect that public officials will do what is right by the United States (which is what they took an oath to do) rather than bowing to every interest that intimidates them or holds out the prospect for future lining of their campaign pockets.
Yes, long overdue. The last idiotic piece of legislation from that human trash, Jesse Helms, finally taken off the books.
Thats just what we need, more people with disease, how did anyone ever think that preventing them entry was a good idea? How about now we let those with TB or any other deadly disease in, seems kinda mean.
Since black women are the leading HIV group, we might as well ban them from coming into the U.S., right?
And we should go ahead and kick out the ones that have it now. Sound good?
Now you know where you can go and get infected with this Not deadly disease, the rest that you wrote is emotional drivel! I bet you agree with Obama on many things.
I think you've seen me back you in many forum posts about Obama dude.
And I think that was a pretty racist comment you made about "now you know where you can go and get infected." Where exactly? I dare you to say whats on your mind.
Racist? Because you mention the group who is being infected and I point out that is where you can go to get infected, that is racist? That is what was on my mind! Now instead of having an emotional reaction to what I wrote why don't you show me where AIDS is not deadly, that should be great news for Africa!!
Your charge would carry more weight if it weren't completely illogical.
Dude, HIV hasn't been deadly for many years. Ever heard of Magic Johnson? lol
Very first result in Google:
Speeding HIV's Deadly Spread
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01607.html
Article is from 2007. I'm no expert, but I thought HIV was the virus that causes AIDS, right?
Now why is it wrong to block more infected people from coming into the country?
And Magic Johnson? Well, I believe he lied or he is the only one to have found a cure?
The link you provided is HIV cases in Botswana. So yeah, they dont have the healthcare like we do
HIV turns into AIDS, just because Majic Johnson has lived without contracting AIDS, yet, doesn't mean he will not get it. As far as your racist theory, it needs work!
So we should give them visas to take advantage of ours right? I get it now.
No, I read far enough to realize they were talking about Africa, but that was in response to your broad general statement that HIV is not deadly. It may be better controlled, but I still see very little logic in allowing others into the country without knowing their intent. They carry a potentially deadly, incurable virus and perhaps their intent is to infect as many people as possible. It's just irresponsible, but that's my humble opinion.
Like I said, 45% of all NEW HIV cases are 15 to 24 year olds. So this disease triggers them to just want to infect people randomly? No!
Just because you have the disease doesn't mean you are randomly going to infect people.
That is a crazy assumption dude.
Hmm, dude , it's crazy to assume you know what anyone will do.
You know the U.S. used to quarantine immigrants regularly right?
Let's see 15-24, that's just about the right age to allow your sex drive to overcome your brain, right? I'm just saying I think it's irresponsible to lift the ban is all. Obviously we disagree, but I'm not seriously invested in arguing about it, so I'll let it be.
Don't be scared to argue constructively.
Ok so we keep the ban on HIV people from entering...but there are 8 more diseases that kill more people and can be spread sexually or by human contact. Should those people with one of those 8 diseases be allowed in the country like they have been?
Why would you ban a "middle of the run" disease but not the others above it?
I just want to see what you think about that. Makes sense to ban the other people with the other diseases, right?
I never said anything about the others, but since you asked sure. Keep 'em out. Not scared to argue, just having dinner.
And maybe their "intent" could be to get treated since we have the best medicine for it.
And so people with AIDS or HIV will just knowingly spread it? Is that what you're saying?
So lets just block anyone with an STD from entering. You can die from herpes and syphillis and even chicken pox. Hell, lets block those people to.
Anyone with the flu? Can't come to the U.S.
Oh you're a Republican, nope sorry, can't come back in.
Where would it end?
Magic Johnson is not typical. HIV is treatable and it is possible to live with it, but it is ultimately fatal and no one should feel that it is not something they have to worry about. It will still significantly shorten the life of anyone who has it, and that's assuming they're able to afford the very, very, very expensive drugs that treat it.
I don't think that people with HIV should be prevented entry to the United States if they meet all other requirements for immigration. After all, our for-profit health care is probably only going to make the US money in the long run. But I don't think it is good to downplay the very real danger that HIV/AIDS presents as a disease.
I'm not downplaying it but it is no longer a top killer. There are several more diseases that kill more people and are passed on easier.
The rate of death is down 96% since 1996 and continues to fall. Magic Johnson is more the majority than minority now with HIV.
I'm saying if we ban people with HIV, might as well ban the other more deadly diseases to.
Did you seriously just say that? Or is it just your medication is overdue? I'm speaking to the person who says HIV is just dandy now. I've got a few dead relatives and friends who would beg to differ- if only they could.
This is very disturbing! I have to agree with Tex! eww
Maybe they could disqualify you if you meet 2 or more of the criteria. Like you can get in if you are HIV+ OR a wannabe government overthrower. But not both
HIV death rates have dropped 96% since 1996 from a study in 2008: http://health.usnews.com/articles/healt … cally.html
What surprises me is that 45% of all NEW HIV cases are from 15 to 24 year olds.
Holy cow! I guess we gotta ship the young kids out of here!
You don't seem to understand your own post, we are not talking about shipping people with the disease out, but barring them entrance. Emotional responses make you look desperate.
Barring will turn to shipping out. Where would it end? You are so big on government not controlling our lives and taking over but you are ok with the government banning people from entering because of a stereotype?
AIDS kills far less than other diseases or viruses. Why would we just ban people with AIDS or HIV? doesn't make sense.
If you're gonna ban people from entering with one disease, you might as well ban all the other disease that kill MORE people too.
This law was done because everyone use to think it was a "gay disease" but now we know it's not.
HIV-AIDS can be spread through using infected needles and unprotected sex (not using condom). Thats why the risk of getting it is influenced by high prevalence rate of heroin addicts and through unprotected sex (not using condom). USA is said to be one of the country with high condom use, and minimal use of heroin.
I dont see any negative reason for allowing people who have AIDS to enter any country. Instead they should concentrate on educating the young and people about the consequences of their behavior (multiple sex partner, commercial sex, unbprotected sex). then probably the problem of the rise in HIV_AIDS case will be minimized. It is the behavioral pattern that triggers the rise of cases.
It's an odd paranoia that suggests people with HIV are going to deliberately infect other people, and that should be used as justification to keep people out. HIV is not something you get from someone sneezing; it's actually difficult to transmit.
This is not about quarantining, which was done for highly-communicable diseases but had an "out" after a few months. This is about denying people entry or any sort of permanent legal status.
There are quite a few people kept in legal status limbo and that have no other refuge except the US that will be able to enjoy a normal life now.
A very great many women in Africa who contact the disease are married.
Just sayin' being married is no barrier to infection. This is a huge crisis in several African nations. That probably doesn't apply to you, just pointing it out.
Polygamy? Why should we care about what consenting adults choose to do?
Because in addition to being illegal in the US, polygamy is rarely restricted to "what consenting adults choose to do".
Have you not been paying attention? Have you not noticed what is uncovered in every polygamist sect that comes to light? Have you not noticed the practices in countries that permit polygamy?
Hmm, lot of assumptions flying around here... oh America, the land of the free! (Except when tksensei knows better)
The previous policy was wrong and made America look stupid.
Why are we talking "appearances" when this is an matter about public safety? When it comes to the safety of my country, and especially that of my family and friends I really don't care how it "looks" to anyone.
How are your family and friends endangered by HIV+ people?
My earlier comments were in the context that "appearances" pertaining to US health policy on HIV carriers seeking US entry are irrelevant. Who cares what the policy "appears" to be when we are talking about public health?
Public officials have to make judgments about what is best for the public health. Any one carrying a virus or disease that is communicable is a health risk. It is the task of public officials to reduce that risk.
Furthermore, I stated my country, family, and friends. Perhaps directly, it might not be a great risk. But then again, it might. However, I expect public officials to do right by the American people; Obama hasn't done that. His decisions are predictably political, often the enemy of sound policy.
Have you guys seen the story that there has been encouraging steps towards an HIV vaccine? It was on the news about a month ago here (maybe less then that)
My take on this issue is that limiting the entry of people with HIV_AIDS doesnt solve the problem of transmission of AIDS. Transmission is a factor of behavior. HIV_AIDS can be transmitted sexually and through contaminated syringe. That being said, using a condom and reducing people who are heroin addicts can greatly reduced the prevalence of HIV-AIDS cases.
People who are into commercial sex, multiple sex partners and those engaging into unprotected sex (not using condoms) are into high risk of having this ddisease.
The best way to stop the spread is to encourage people to use condoms when engaging in these risky behaviors.
So if the disease is spreading because of behavioral patterns, the solution is to curb the behavior. everybody should use condom to be protected and if youre a woman, dont have sex with a partner (specailly casual sex etc) if they dont wear a condom.
Sorry for veering away from the topic Tim...
Hi prettydarkhorse how was your day...
Good day to you general, i like your new avatar!
I hope it was real though cause I want to point it to my adversary hehehe...
just kidding aside hehehe, i got many problems recently hehehe, hayz I hvant finished yet with the grades of students sigh... Im afraid we're hijackin this thread sorry Tim..
I don't think people with highly contagious diseases should be permitted into the United States. However, HIV is not highly contagious even amongst the best of circumstances. The United States is very far down in the list of AIDS prevalence in the world, and it only remains at around the rate it has because of our superior ability to treat the diseases as compared to other countries and the high population of at-risk individuals.
The reason the HIV virus was used to prevent immigration in the first placed was do to the stigmatizing of it. Both the medical community and the citizens of the United States have a much better understanding of how AIDS progresses and works now. The fear and disgust that were unfairly heaped upon victims in the eighties and early nineties.
The United States will not suffer any more than it has by allowing otherwise competent and decent people. As it stands, HIV patients can still enter the country by petitioning Homeland Security so the mechanics have already been in place and used.
It would take a significant proportion of the immigrant community to enter the United States infected to even put a dent on a tenth of the percentage of the US with HIV/AIDS. We've had two decades of very specific training on how to deal with the AIDS virus. Don't have unprotected sex, don't needle share, see a doctor if you have blood to blood contact with anyone, ever.
Like I said earlier, AIDS is a serious disease that shouldn't be ignored. It is even possible to almost completely prevent yourself from becoming infected if you visit a doctor and receive proper medication within a few days of being exposed to the disease. This too, is expensive but certainly less expensive than a lifetime of retrovirals.
Worry less about how "gross" HIV patients are and teach your friends and family about proper care and prevention of HIV. Immigrants with HIV won't hurt you even in the worst case scenario if you know how to take care of yourself.
I really don't have an opinion about whether they should be allowed or not. People are people. However, wouldn't inviting more people with the disease help it spread faster? Yeah, you could wear protection but ask any sexually active person if they like protection and most would probably say they don't. Most just use birth control. The other problem is some don't know that they have a STD or others wouldn't say they have HIV because they know that the other would say no.
by emdi8 years ago
Are white Americans turning against Barack Obama because of the color of his skin or because of his policies? After lawmaker from South Carolina screamed out "you lie" as Obama delivered a nationally-televised...
by kirstenblog4 years ago
If the various race anti-discrimination laws were to go how much racism do you think would prevail in America? Is America's tolerance, acceptance and even embrace of diversity a superficial and shallow thing that must...
by George Maris7 years ago
What is the difference between HIV and AIDS, and how can I tell if I have been exposed to the virus?
by Debra Allen7 years ago
Can someone write a hub on AIDS-not the HIV kind but the other AIDS diseases?
by ngureco7 years ago
Do You Believe The Hub “Hiv Cure” - That There Is A Cure For HIV - AIDS?
by Peeples5 years ago
While I am not a republic nor completly white, I am so tired of the constant assumption that Republicans are just white racist. Why do people assume this? It would be like saying Democrats are just poor black and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.