• 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

The people who are legally allowed to immigrate here are usually skilled and thus knowledgeable enough to take preventative measures. As said, HIV is low risk transmission compared to influenze and tuberculosis - there is no practical need to ban HIV infected immigrants.

They really should, they won't be treated like scum in the manner of American medical patients.

When there are more people knocking on the door than we have room for, we set criteria for weeding them out.

Infection with a terminable infectious disease is an excellent rake to weed undesirables out.

The cemetaries are populated with thousands of engineers and doctors and other intelligent people who died from AIDS infections received after it became common knowledge that unprotected gay sex was a possible death sentence.

So you can quit pretending that educated immigrants with HIV are just too darn cute...er intelligent to be spreading their junk around like some illegal alien snuck across the border.
 
Meh, the part of the population most affected does not make it severe....;)

Prithee, what "part" of the population arey you referring to?

What propoganda?.....
It is a deadly, infectious disease, end of story.....;)

Immigration into the US at the moment has little to no bearing on the spread of HIV considering the vast majority of the infected get it from other domestics. Saying otherwise is merely a tactic to engender jingoism in the population.
 
When there are more people knocking on the door than we have room for, we set criteria for weeding them out.

Infection with a terminable infectious disease is an excellent rake to weed undesirables out.

The cemetaries are populated with thousands of engineers and doctors and other intelligent people who died from AIDS infections received after it became common knowledge that unprotected gay sex was a possible death sentence.

So you can quit pretending that educated immigrants with HIV are just too darn cute...er intelligent to be spreading their junk around like some illegal alien snuck across the border.

Curious, do you have any concrete evidence that HIV rates are affected by legal immigration *at all*?
 
I forget how America despises academics sometimes - maybe if you imported more of them you'd have a decent healthcare system or understand why banning HIV positive legal immigrants is like trying to fireproof a burning house.

We don't despise academics, unless they're retarded enough to be socialists also, and we don't despise HIV infected academics, except to note that their vaunted education gives them no excuse for having allowed themselves to get infected, and thus if they did get infected, they're clearly not the brightest people and they should immigrate to some second-rate country, not the US.
 
Curious, do you have any concrete evidence that HIV rates are affected by legal immigration *at all*?

It's 100% true that HIV infected immigrants who are not allowed into the United States cannot infect a person in the United States.

Unless their dick is a hundred feet long, I suppose, and they're standing at the US-Canadian border.
 
It's 100% true that HIV infected immigrants who are not allowed into the United States cannot infect a person in the United States.

Unless their dick is a hundred feet long, I suppose.

So you don't have any evidence then? Case dismissed, you can go now.
 
We don't despise academics, unless they're retarded enough to be socialists also, and we don't despise HIV infected academics, except to note that their vaunted education gives them no excuse for having allowed themselves to get infected, and thus if they did get infected, they're clearly not the brightest people and they should immigrate to some second-rate country, not the US.

Middle America does despise academics, actually, or else you would understand the service lawyers and teachers do for society and not bitch about "the liberal elite" in reference to University culture.

Not everyone "allows" themselves to get infected, you know.
 
So you don't have any evidence then? Case dismissed, you can go now.

That was evidence.

How about you citing a pressing need of the US to admit these diseased individuals to support your case. There's absolutely no reason the doors to the US be thrown open to everyone, so present the case of needs the commands us to accept these people.

The fact that people who aren't allowed into the US can't infect people in the US is irrefutable and sufficient to justify denying diseased people entrance.

Explain why we need to admit diseased individuals.

Stating that we need doctors, engineers, etc is insufficient, since our need isn't that great and such a claim ignores the fact that we can simply choose skilled persons who aren't infected.
 
Middle America does despise academics, actually, or else you would understand the service lawyers and teachers do for society and not bitch about "the liberal elite" in reference to University culture.

Not everyone "allows" themselves to get infected, you know.

Exactly, you can be exposed without volunteering....
Don't look now, but you are bolstering the arguement for banning....;)
Your veiled disdain for the U.S. is duly noted as well.....
Why do foreigners insist on passing judgement on our internal affairs?.....
:mrgreen:
 
That was evidence.

How about you citing a pressing need of the US to admit these diseased individuals to support your case. There's absolutely no reason the doors to the US be thrown open to everyone, so present the case of needs the commands us to accept these people.

The fact that people who aren't allowed into the US can't infect people in the US is irrefutable and sufficient to justify denying diseased people entrance.

Explain why we need to admit diseased individuals.

Stating that we need doctors, engineers, etc is insufficient, since our need isn't that great and such a claim ignores the fact that we can simply choose skilled persons who aren't infected.

Your asking her to prove a negative......:lol:
 
Middle America does despise academics, actually, or else you would understand the service lawyers and teachers do for society and not bitch about "the liberal elite" in reference to University culture.

So you like building straw men.

"Teachers" aren't "academics". You would know this if you talked to them.

Lawyers aren't academics. You would know this if you were willing to admit the disservice they do to this country.

Since I've been to school, I'm perfectly aware of what the "university culture" is, and all real Americans despise that nonsense. People with no real world experience, ie, academics, should not be looked up to by people who's problems aren't what you would call "academic".

Then again, I was not an impressionable little child when I went to college, but a military service vet.

Not everyone "allows" themselves to get infected, you know.

In all seriousness, how many people get infected by needle sticks while working at the hospital as opposed to the other traditional methods of injecting HIV into a person, and why should we accept the clumsy immigrants who really are infected by accidental needle jabs when we can choose non-clumsy unjabbed uninfected medical professionals instead?
 
Last edited:
Your asking her to prove a negative......:lol:

Obviously not.

I'm asking her to present arguments sustaining her claim that we have a need for infected immigrants.

If we don't need them, there's no reason to allow them, since they present a non-zero risk to the citizenry.
 
Of course, but were they diseased immigrants?.....:confused:
Not likely.....;)
I think it's highly likely. Now what? My unsubstantiated claim is just as valid as yours.
 
You mean telling the people that if they don't run around promiscuously and don't do intravenous drugs they can't get infected?

You've some objection to the truth?

I've an objection to half truths.
 
Past or present, and is this a requirement?
Period. I never said there was a requirement nor did I ever say the USA has to allow anyone inside it's borders. I'm merely arguing that it doesn't make much sense to be discriminatory against people with HIV/AIDS.
 
I've an objection to half truths.

what half-truth?

If a person doesn't engage in promiscuous sex, if he doesn't play with someone else's needles, he's not going to catch HIV. What are the alternatives....hhhmmmm...infected transfusion/plasma....deliberate attack and/or rape.... oh! Maybe you're think HIV is transmitted by toilet seats in dirty gas stations?
 
Hmmm.....immigrants who are not infected with HIV present a 0.00% risk of infecting others with HIV. HIV infected immigrants present a risk of transmission >0%.

Good enough for me.

Since this is a free country, we do have the freedom to slam the doors in the face of anyone not meeting our standards for admission.
Fortunately the standards aren't set by you and the people who set those standards are a bit more open minded and and less isolationist. Should we also "slam the doors in the face of anyone" who has a genetic disease as well? We wouldn't want them spreading around their defective genes. How about we screen them for neoconservativism and corporatism as well, we know what kind of damage they can do to our country and we don't need any more of them?
 
A post-issue musing:

Ironic that people with AIDS were banned yet all other contageous and highly infectuous diseases were walking free and easily spread.
 
If by "freedom" you mean the freedom to cross the US border at whim, then the answer is "what the **** do you think national borders are for?" and "of course foreigners aren't free to come and go as they please".

Duh.



Because they're not US citizens.



They can either have democracy in their own country, or their can take their disease to France.

I'm easy.



Sounds reasonable.



I will when I meet him. However, since he is a US citizen, he's not really germaine to the thread topic.
Excellent responses. You've shown us you are inconsistent, morally bankrupt, exclusionary, pompus and either unintelligent or obtuse.
 
what half-truth?

If a person doesn't engage in promiscuous sex, if he doesn't play with someone else's needles, he's not going to catch HIV. What are the alternatives....hhhmmmm...infected transfusion/plasma....deliberate attack and/or rape.... oh! Maybe you're think HIV is transmitted by toilet seats in dirty gas stations?
Or maybe you have difficulty grasping concepts. If you tell people that abstinence is the only or best way to prevent the spread of STDs then you are only giving them half the truth or half of the relevant information with which to make an informed decision.
 
Or maybe you have difficulty grasping concepts. If you tell people that abstinence is the only or best way to prevent the spread of STDs then you are only giving them half the truth or half of the relevant information with which to make an informed decision.

You mean if I tell them that the best way to avoid getting HIV is the best way to avoid, I'm not telling them the truth? Are you suggesting that I tell them an inferior method is better?
 
Excellent responses. You've shown us you are inconsistent, morally bankrupt, exclusionary, pompus and either unintelligent or obtuse.

What's a "pompus"?

What you've shown us is that you can't win arguments, you resort to ad hominem attacks when you lose, and you can't spell.
 
Back
Top Bottom