• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,551
Reaction score
2,879
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The US has finally lifted its immigration ban on sufferers of HIV/Aids.

America shared a stance, unusually i might add, with some pretty oppressive regimes.

"The US is one of only a dozen countries - including Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Russia - that ban travel and immigration for HIV-positive people."

BBC NEWS | Americas | US set to overturn HIV travel ban

and today

It has lifted the 22 year ban

BBC News - US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

Paul

Out of curiosity, why did they change that?

None of the stories say why.
 
Out of curiosity, why did they change that?

None of the stories say why.

I asked myself that same question. I,m presuming when you look at the facts, on HIV and AIDS, you see a policy such as this serves no purpose and is discriminatory. It was probably implemented on a knee jerk reaction, when perhaps the causes and ways of catching them were less understood. That doesn't explain why its took 22yrs to get the ban lifted. This of course is just my opinion.

Paul
 
I asked myself that same question. I,m presuming when you look at the facts, on HIV and AIDS, you see a policy such as this serves no purpose and is discriminatory. It was probably implemented on a knee jerk reaction, when perhaps the causes and ways of catching them were less understood. That doesn't explain why its took 22yrs to get the ban lifted. This of course is just my opinion.

Paul

I don't know if I agree with that or not.

I'll have to think on it.
 
I asked myself that same question. I,m presuming when you look at the facts, on HIV and AIDS, you see a policy such as this serves no purpose and is discriminatory. It was probably implemented on a knee jerk reaction, when perhaps the causes and ways of catching them were less understood. That doesn't explain why its took 22yrs to get the ban lifted. This of course is just my opinion.

Paul

It was implemented as a knee jerk reaction no doubts about that.

Why it was kept in place for so long is a good question.

But consider this. For those 22 years, 8 years was under a Democratic president and the rest under Republican. In no way would such a ban be turned over by a Republican President, as it would piss off the base too much. That leaves 8 years of Clinton for it to be overturned. Problem comes here that most of Clinton's presidency was with a hostile Congress which in no way would allow such a victory for the President at the time, and the very fact that Clinton came to power a few years after the ban came into place so it was still in the "dumb" years of AIDs/HIV thinking. So in many ways, it was only now that it was possible to get rid of the ban where the religious conservatives were push out in all aspects of government and sanity has been put back (at least on this issue).
 
It was implemented as a knee jerk reaction no doubts about that.

Why it was kept in place for so long is a good question.

But consider this. For those 22 years, 8 years was under a Democratic president and the rest under Republican. In no way would such a ban be turned over by a Republican President, as it would piss off the base too much. That leaves 8 years of Clinton for it to be overturned. Problem comes here that most of Clinton's presidency was with a hostile Congress which in no way would allow such a victory for the President at the time, and the very fact that Clinton came to power a few years after the ban came into place so it was still in the "dumb" years of AIDs/HIV thinking. So in many ways, it was only now that it was possible to get rid of the ban where the religious conservatives were push out in all aspects of government and sanity has been put back (at least on this issue).

"The bill, including the provision lifting the ban, will now go to a joint committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate, where any differences will be ironed out, before going to President George W Bush for approval."

"President Bush has already indicated that he supports the bill."

BBC News - US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

Geesh man, did you really have to turn this into a partisan thing? :doh
 
"The bill, including the provision lifting the ban, will now go to a joint committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate, where any differences will be ironed out, before going to President George W Bush for approval."

"President Bush has already indicated that he supports the bill."

BBC News - US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

Geesh man, did you really have to turn this into a partisan thing? :doh

I stand corrected.

But then why was the ban kept in place for 22 years if not for partisan politics? I mean the doctors and experts surely did not recommend this ban.
 
The US has finally lifted its immigration ban on sufferers of HIV/Aids.

America shared a stance, unusually i might add, with some pretty oppressive regimes.

"The US is one of only a dozen countries - including Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Russia - that ban travel and immigration for HIV-positive people."

BBC NEWS | Americas | US set to overturn HIV travel ban

and today

It has lifted the 22 year ban

BBC News - US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

Paul


We should not be allowing anyone into this country with a deadly or dangerous disease, especially when the clowns in office are trying to implement socialized medicine.
 
Last edited:
We should not be allowing anyone into this country with a deadly or dangerous disease, especially when the clowns in office are trying to implement socialized medicine.

Yea man, you better be careful YOU may use the same toilet seat, or worse still unknowingly shake the hand of a person with HIV or AIDS!!

I suggest the safest course of action, is to put an extra tier on the barricade outside your cave.

Paul
 
Yea man, you better be careful YOU may use the same toilet seat, or worse still unknowingly shake the hand of a person with HIV or AIDS!!

I suggest the safest course of action, is to put an extra tier on the barricade outside your cave.

Paul

The fact that I do not want problems imported over here or pay for their treatments (if the clowns in office have it their way)does not make me a caveman as you liberal asswipes try to paint me. We have enough AIDS/HIV patients of our own, we do not need to add to that. I am fully aware that you can not get AIDs/HIV by shaking someone's hand or using the same toilet as someone with AIDs/HIV. I still do not want those people in this country. Most of them have HIV/AIDs in the first place because of the lack of common sense on their part they either had unprotected sex or used dirty needles so they do present a danger to the 1 in four 4 Americans who lack any common sense.http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/ohe/library/Sexhealth/sti/fail2protect.htm


I realize that some may have gotten raped, born with it or got it due to dirty hospital equipment those things however can not be proven unless the person in question is a small child.
 
Last edited:
It was implemented as a knee jerk reaction no doubts about that.

Why it was kept in place for so long is a good question.

But consider this. For those 22 years, 8 years was under a Democratic president and the rest under Republican. In no way would such a ban be turned over by a Republican President, as it would piss off the base too much. That leaves 8 years of Clinton for it to be overturned. Problem comes here that most of Clinton's presidency was with a hostile Congress which in no way would allow such a victory for the President at the time, and the very fact that Clinton came to power a few years after the ban came into place so it was still in the "dumb" years of AIDs/HIV thinking. So in many ways, it was only now that it was possible to get rid of the ban where the religious conservatives were push out in all aspects of government and sanity has been put back (at least on this issue).




Of course hackery prevents you from realizing the US has given more money for Aids research than any other country, under democrats AND republicans....


:shrug:
 
Of course hackery prevents you from realizing the US has given more money for Aids research than any other country, under democrats AND republicans....


:shrug:

And yet promoted the spread of AIDs in Africa.. how ironic.. And per capita, you have not.
 
And yet promoted the spread of AIDs in Africa.. how ironic.. And per capita, you have not.

How so? Please no conspiracy crap like" the government invented aids to kill the black man" or religious bashing like" Damn catholics and christian organizations preaching that waiting until marriage crap".
 
How so? Please no conspiracy crap like" the government invented aids to kill the black man" or religious bashing like" Damn catholics and christian organizations preaching that waiting until marriage crap".

By promoting abstinence only over condom use in the US AID sent to Africa.
 
By promoting abstinence only over condom use in the US AID sent to Africa.

The US did not cause the AIDS epidemic, and any help we offer is by choice and could be designed in any fashion that the majority of Americans favour. Whether it is the best solution is obviously debatable but to blame the US for Africas problems because our help isnt perfect is rather absurd.
 
Right. We "promoted" the spread of AIDS in Africa because we didn't buy them their condoms.

Typical Pete.
 
By promoting abstinence only over condom use in the US AID sent to Africa.
Are you saying that if those Catholic and Christian missionaries were not in Africa then those people would have been using condoms? Sounds like something an ignorant atheist trying to bash religious groups would suggest. It is not a religious group's responsibility to teach someone how to use a condom. The only thing those religious groups are doing is feeding people and telling people to wait until marriage before engaging in sex. Nowhere did they tell those people to have all the sex they want with whoever or whatever they want. And if they are not going to listen to a religious group telling them to wait until marriage why on earth would they listen to someone telling them to use a condom? In the US for example where sex education classes are taught and everybody knows to use a condom and why you should use a condom, it is estimated that 1 in 4 Americans has STD.

Americans Fail to Protect Against STDs
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans may say they now a lot about sexually transmitted diseases but they do not practice what they preach when it comes to defending against them, according to a survey published on Tuesday.

While one in four Americans will be infected with an STD -- and up to half of younger adults will be -- most of those surveyed believed they were not personally at risk.


If you atheist are so damn worried about condoms in other countries then do what the religious groups except you can feed people and preach STDs, condoms and birth control pills. Christians have "feed the children for pennies a day" surely you atheist could have "feed the children and stop the STDs for pennies a day".
 
Last edited:
It was implemented as a knee jerk reaction no doubts about that.

Why it was kept in place for so long is a good question.

But consider this. For those 22 years, 8 years was under a Democratic president and the rest under Republican. In no way would such a ban be turned over by a Republican President, as it would piss off the base too much. That leaves 8 years of Clinton for it to be overturned. Problem comes here that most of Clinton's presidency was with a hostile Congress which in no way would allow such a victory for the President at the time, and the very fact that Clinton came to power a few years after the ban came into place so it was still in the "dumb" years of AIDs/HIV thinking. So in many ways, it was only now that it was possible to get rid of the ban where the religious conservatives were push out in all aspects of government and sanity has been put back (at least on this issue).

It shouldn't have been overturned.....;)
Common sense tells us that allowing diseased individuals into our country puts the whole population at risk.....:doh
Now we can treat 'em on the public dime.....
Just another part of the Dems plan to destroy the country....:roll:
 
We should not be allowing anyone into this country with a deadly or dangerous disease, especially when the clowns in office are trying to implement socialized medicine.
When you say "socialized medicine" did you mean Medicare, medicaid or our the military medical corp?

We already have HIV/AIDS in this country and we know how it's spread so only the ignorant need be fearful.
 
Right. We "promoted" the spread of AIDS in Africa because we didn't buy them their condoms.

Typical Pete.

Did I say that?

Do you deny there are provision's in Bush's plan that stipulate things like abstinence-focused prevention programs and no needle exchange programs? That the attitude was up till the Obama administration, that abstinence programs were best and should be promoted over everything else?
 
Did I say that?

Do you deny there are provision's in Bush's plan that stipulate things like abstinence-focused prevention programs and no needle exchange programs? That the attitude was up till the Obama administration, that abstinence programs were best and should be promoted over everything else?

You just said it again.
 
"The bill, including the provision lifting the ban, will now go to a joint committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate, where any differences will be ironed out, before going to President George W Bush for approval."

"President Bush has already indicated that he supports the bill."

BBC News - US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

Geesh man, did you really have to turn this into a partisan thing? :doh
Of course he did, since he had nothing of substance to add.
 
Did I say that?

Do you deny there are provision's in Bush's plan that stipulate things like abstinence-focused prevention programs and no needle exchange programs? That the attitude was up till the Obama administration, that abstinence programs were best and should be promoted over everything else?
Did you know that Bush sent more AIDS money to Africa than anyone else in history?
 
Back
Top Bottom