Jump to content

Proposed regulations for those with HIV


Unicorn
This topic is 5537 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

From http://www.immigrationequality.org, here's some info on proposed changes. As a physician who treats a number of immigrants with some pretty expensive ailments (diabetes, cancer, etc), I find regulations singling out those with HIV as rather mean-spirited. If you agree, there's another week left for public comments.

 

Action Alert: Tell DHS To Ease Restrictions for HIV-Positive Visitors

Quick Links

 

Fact Sheet

Press Coverage

 

 

Your support makes equality possible

Help make equality possible

 

Under current law, any foreign national who is HIV-positive cannot enter the U.S. On November 5, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed new regulations that claim to "streamline" the waiver application process for short-term visa applicants who are HIV-positive. Instead of streamlining the process, however, the new regulations will make it harder to get a waiver. These changes will further restrict the rights of HIV-positive individuals who enter the U.S.

 

 

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! These new regulations are not law yet. It is essential that we get as many comments as possible submitted opposing the regulations.

 

Anyone can submit comments on the proposed changes (see below for instructions)

Sample Comments: you can paste these in or write your own

 

I oppose the proposed regulations and believe that the United States should move forward and lift the ban on HIV travel and immigration, or, at least establish a waiver for travelers which actually makes it easier to enter the United States.

 

Last year President Bush directed DHS to "streamline" the waiver process for short term travelers. While using the word "streamlining" DHS is actually making it more difficult for travelers to get a waiver to the United States.

 

The new regulations would be terrible for HIV-positive travelers because:

 

* They require absurdly invasive documentation about the state of the traveler's health which is not required for travelers with any other medical condition.

* They require short-term travelers to have insurance for any medical problem which could arise while they're in the U.S.

* They strip HIV-positive travelers of the option of applying for a "green card" while in the U.S., meaning that asylees could never get a "green card" here, even if their HIV-status was the basis for their asylum grant.

* They limit HIV-positive visitors to a 30 day stay for no reason.

* They require HIV-positive travelers to carry all medication they would need for their entire stay, which undoubtedly subject travelers to invasive questioning about their medical condition by Customs and Border Protection officials.

 

How to submit comments online:

 

Comments can be submitted online, but getting to the proper webpage takes several steps.

 

1) Go to http://www.regulations.gov

 

2) Click on All Documents with an Open Public Comment Period

 

3) In the little box that says "page," type in "39". [Note: this page number may change as comment periods for other regulations close, if this is not the right page, look for the docket number alphabetically, it should be a page or two in front of or behind this one.]

 

4) Scroll down to Docket USCBP -2007-0084. (The dockets are listed alphabetically.) The subheading is Issuance of a Visa and Authorization for Temporary Admission Into the United States for Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens Infected With HIV.

 

5) Click on the folder icon in the column all the way on the right to submit comments.

 

Comments may also be submitted via snailmail to Border Security Regulations Branch, Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229 and must include the docket, USCBP -2007-0084.

 

All comments must be received by December 6, 2007.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I dont see how its so bad...

Yea, its invasive, yes its borderline not right...

 

But for fucks sake, are you really that mad to allow being politically correct to risk the health of our nation?

 

"Sure mr Suki, we know you have a highly contagious disease, but in order to make the bleeding heart idiots in this country happy, we MUST let you in."

 

please.

 

MOST of the time, the disease is contracted from irresponsible parties, so why the hell would you expect the same people to be responsible while they are here?

 

jesus man, this fucking PC bullshit is getting WAY out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I dont see how its so bad...

>Yea, its invasive, yes its borderline not right...

>

>But for fucks sake, are you really that mad to allow being

>politically correct to risk the health of our nation?

>

>"Sure mr Suki, we know you have a highly contagious disease,

>but in order to make the bleeding heart idiots in this country

>happy, we MUST let you in."

>

>please.

>

>MOST of the time, the disease is contracted from irresponsible

>parties, so why the hell would you expect the same people to

>be responsible while they are here?

>

 

Most of the time, around the world, HIV is passed in utero, in marital sex and in rape. That is for all new cases. If you want to make the case that adult men contracting HIV do so largely by unprotected sex that is so. I assume then you believe unprotected sex to be irresponsible. Of course the Catholic Church thinks protected sex is irresponsible so I am not sure who is doing the judging for whether these people have been irresponsible or not.

On a side note, Mr Not Escorting Now, judging from your posts, it seems you see things in black and white. In the posts, you come across as a man lacking subtlety and nuance and you represent yourself in a way that is brutish and boorish. You don't leave room for the free exchange of ideas. Still as the ACLU attests, there is a constitutional right to freedom of speech (those founding fathers what group of liberal thinking bleeding hearts) even yours.

You might say, though I envision it being spewed, if you don't like what I write, don't read it. I find your postings necessary to read. They reinforce my gratitude that I don't know any people as misguided and misinformed as you are as evidenced by these posts.

 

I have never seen a purplekow;

I never hope to see one;

I can tell you anyhow;

I'd rather see than be one

 

Help there is a purplekow in my mirror

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually quite teh contrary. NEW cases of HIV are predominate amongst our population. And overall, AIDS is on the rise amongst gay BLACK men.

Irresponsibility is the word here. Its really hard to contact HIV through any other way excluding sharing needles etc....

 

You make too many assumptions man, and you say I see black and white. What else is there, grey? No thanks. I like my colors.

You guys are all caught up because zipper called me a racist "woo hoo!"...and because I said a few things that go against popular belief.

 

 

But make no mistake, I have STATISTICS and REALITY behind me and my statements, you have shifting opinons and feel good bullshit behind yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.natap.org/2006/CROI/CROI_18.htm

 

 

Here are the high points....

 

 

 

 

1."Just over half of new infections with the AIDS virus in the United States are in blacks, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

 

A study of detailed data from 33 states shows that of 156,000 new cases of HIV infection between 2001 and 2004, 51 percent were in non-Hispanic blacks -- although blacks made up just 13 percent of the population in those states.

 

"The rates are extremely high for African-Americans," Tonji Durant of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who led the study, told a news conference.

 

The rate of new infections declined in black women and in many black men -- with the exception of men having sex with other men, Durant's team reported."

 

 

 

 

 

2. Blacks still had a substantially higher infection rate than other ethnic groups, the CDC team told the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections being held in Denver.

 

"For African-American men, it is seven times the rate of white men and for African-American women it is 21 times the rate of whites," Dr. Kevin Fenton, director of the National Center for HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis, said in an interview.

 

 

 

3.The CDC estimates that 40,000 Americans become infected with HIV each year. A second study presented at the same conference found that 32 percent of black men in Baltimore who had sex with other men, which includes homosexual and bisexual activity, were infected with HIV.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, you go tell me that I am racist....ignorant....

But there you have it, that is just one of MANY respected and knowledgeable groups saying so.

 

But I guess these days, in order to love other races and let them walk all over us, we have to ignore the fact that most of them are AIDS ridden criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest josephga

this came out today

 

FRIDAY, Nov. 30 (HealthDay News) -- In the 26 years since scientists first spotted AIDS in America, millions of dollars have been poured into outreach efforts aimed at keeping young people clear of HIV, the virus that causes the disease

 

But on the eve of World AIDS Day, a disturbing statistical fact has emerged in this country:

The number of newly infected teens and young adults is suddenly on the rise.

And the question is, why?

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2001 to 2005 (the latest years available), the number of new cases of HIV infection diagnosed among 15-to-19-year-olds in the United States rose from 1,010 in 2001, held steady for the next three years, then jumped 20 percent in 2005, to 1,213 cases.

For young people aged 20 to 24, cases of new infection have climbed steadily, from 3,184 in 2001 to 3,876 in 2005.

Experts say a number of factors may be at play, including the fact that many HIV-infected patients are now being kept healthy with powerful drugs -- making AIDS seem like less of a threat to young people than it did in the past.

"Certainly the 'scare factor' isn't there anymore," said Rowena Johnston, vice president of research at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) in New York City.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the ravages of AIDS were apparent to most Americans -- either on their TV screens as high-profile celebrities succumbed to the disease, or as individuals lost friends or family members to HIV.

"To see people looking gaunt, skinny and skeletal, and to know that they were going to be dead soon," Johnston said. "It had a sobering effect."

The advent of antiretroviral drugs in the mid-1990s changed all that, however. "These days, for the most part, you can look at a person and not know that they even have AIDS," Johnston said.

That's making HIV seem like less of a threat to young people, said Martha Chono-Helsley. She's executive director of REACH LA, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that helps disadvantaged youth understand and defend against threats like poverty, drug abuse and HIV.

"They're in this age group that feels they are invincible -- that it's never going to happen to them," she said. "Yes, they're getting all these messages from public schools on HIV and AIDS, but they've never actually seen what HIV has done, up close and personal."

Chris Blades, one of REACH LA's young, black "peer educators," said he's seen a kind of nonchalance towards HIV among the gay or bisexual men of color that he counsels.

"On a daily basis, they don't see their friends suffering from it, so it's not a major threat to them," said Blades, 21. "They're in that whole mindset of 'Oh, it can't happen to me, it will never happen to me.'"

But there has been a recent, troubling spike in new infections among gay men, young and old alike. According to the CDC, the rate of new cases of HIV infection linked to male-male sex held steady at around 16,000 cases between 2001-2004, then suddenly jumped to 18,296 in 2005.

Johnston and Chono-Helsley both point to advertisements for HIV-suppressing medicines as one possible contributing factor.

"In gay magazines, you now see [ads with] buff, handsome men climbing mountains, with some kind of quote about how 'I'm not letting HIV get in my way,'" Johnston said. "It sends the message that you, too, can be hot, buff and handsome, even with HIV."

Chono-Helsley agreed. "It's always these bright, healthy vibrant young men in these ads," she said. That could spur young gay men to relax their guard and take more risks, thinking that if they do contract HIV, "I only have to take a pill," she said.

The reality of living with HIV in America is much different, however, even when medication is working. According to Johnston, the side effects of powerful HIV-suppressing drug cocktails include fat redistribution (including unsightly "humps"), insulin resistance, higher cholesterol, increased risks for heart disease, and dangerous liver toxicities.

There's also the fear that, someday, HIV will develop mutations that render these drugs useless, triggering the re-emergence of AIDS, she said.

HIV continues to cut a wide swath through young men and women in the black community, too. According to the CDC, the number of new infections actually dipped slightly for black Americans between 2001 (20,868 cases) and 2005 (18,121 cases). However, black men are still six times more likely than white men to contract HIV, and black women are 20 times more likely to acquire the virus compared to white women.

The answers to that disparity lie mainly in economics, experts say.

"The young men that we work with are predominantly African-American, and HIV is not their No. 1 priority," said Chono-Helsley. "Often survival is their main priority -- where they are going to sleep tonight. They're kicked out of the house; they have substance abuse issues, they're in recovery."

Young black women can easily get caught up in similar problems, or are coerced into unsafe sex by their partners, she added.

Another trend -- soaring rates of methamphetamine use over the past five years -- may also be fueling HIV infection rates for both blacks and young gay men, the experts noted.

Too often, marginalized young people develop "a 'whatever' attitude -- whatever happens, happens," Chono-Helsey said.

Outreach aimed at HIV prevention remains important, of course. But one expert believes too much state and federal money is being funneled away from community outreach programs and toward "HIV Stops With Me" campaigns that focus on individuals already living with the virus.

"The message there is that, if I don't have HIV right now, then all I have got to do is avoid those people who have got it," said Carrie Davis, director of adult services at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Community Center in New York City.

She believes those types of messages allow uninfected people to shift the burden of responsibility from themselves to the HIV-positive, or to people they deem at high risk, such as gay men or drug abusers.

"I think it affects straight people, too, in that they absorb this 'magical thinking' -- that this is someone else's problem," Davis said.

So what doeswork to change attitudes and behaviors? That's a tough question, Chono-Helsley said, and the answer usually depends on particular contexts and communities.

"You really have to evaluate what methods you're using and think about the person as a whole, not just the infection," she said. "Because they've all heard 'use a condom, use a condom.'"

The right approach is key, Blades added. "If you deliver the message to them in a way that's not preachy or looking down on them, I think that's more effective," he said. "That's what we try to do - deliver HIV information in a way that will click in with them, so that they'll take home something that they didn't know the night before."

"One thing is for sure, we can't just shake our finger at young people and say, 'You're bad,'" Chono-Helsley said. "We have to be supportive. They're young, we've all been there, remember. You can save some, but you can't save them all."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of singling out one disease from all of the other illnesses that travelers could bring to the country is ridiculous. We all know why the rule was passed and I can't imagine it lasting much past 1-20-09 anyway, but in the meantime, I think Unicorn makes a good point. It seems that if we have the time to write a post here, we can certainly cut and paste a letter to send!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The idea of singling out one disease from all of the other

>illnesses that travelers could bring to the country is

>ridiculous. We all know why the rule was passed and I can't

>imagine it lasting much past 1-20-09 anyway, but in the

>meantime, I think Unicorn makes a good point. It seems that if

>we have the time to write a post here, we can certainly cut

>and paste a letter to send!

 

 

No, you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with it. We dont need MORE infected people coming in the states, and allowing them to do so under the name of "racial equality" is bullshit.

 

I dont care if you are white, black, spanish or purple, if you are infected, you are not allowed in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>I dont care if you are white, black, spanish or purple, if you

>are infected, you are not allowed in this country.

 

Your whole ugly personna is "infected" with hate and bigotry. And - just for the record, I was not the first one to declare you a racist. I just bring it up from time to time, lest we forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do you propose we do with those of us that are citizens aleady and who are hiv positive 2hard? Also is it possible for you to make one post without swearing?

seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6707/lebec084a9ad147f620acd5ps8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>I dont care if you are white, black, spanish or purple, if

>you

>>are infected, you are not allowed in this country.

>

>Your whole ugly personna is "infected" with hate and bigotry.

>And - just for the record, I was not the first one to declare

>you a racist. I just bring it up from time to time, lest we

>forget.

 

 

Opinion.

And yes, you were.

WHen have I ever said "I hate all blacks" or "i hate niggers".

 

I have never said that. Honestly, just shut the fuck up already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>So what do you propose we do with those of us that are

>citizens aleady and who are hiv positive 2hard? Also is it

>possible for you to make one post without swearing?

>seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

>http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

>http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

>http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6707/lebec084a9ad147f620acd5ps8.jpg

 

 

 

Personal note. My own mother is HIV poz.

*note she contracted it about 10 years ago, and it was due to her just not being careful and being stupid about sex.

This discussion doesnt have to do with people that are already citizens, it has to do with people from outside the US who arent taxpayers, they arent CITIZENS.

 

 

I dont know your history, or how you contracted it, but most of the time its due to drug use or just not being careful or not using protection.

And for those who will ask the obvious but stupid question, those who are victims of rape are of course a different category. Along with those who are born with it because their mother had it.

 

 

You are a taxpayer, a citizen and you should and are protected by the US. What the hell does your status have to do with this, greg?

 

And no, I swear. Alot. Blame the military, blame whoever. fuck it, I cuss. big fucking deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow!

I am so grateful that i live in a country that protects me from hiv

if i thought for one minute that a visitor from another country might come over here and infect the USA with their HIV illnuss id have to get my gun and my family and go up about a mile from my home (in the middle of nowhere) and pick um off as they tried to get in. and dont you dare drink from that faucet.

well shoot we all can count on 2hard2tame and G.W. Bush to spread the word of higher learning and good choices i mean what would we be as a country if we didnt tell everyone what we believe to be true because we read a couple articles and because we formed a opinion and feel passionate about it.

 

gentlemen ..........

 

the problem with a formed opinion thats full of bullshit unrelated facts

that have nothing to do with the original topic is the lack of ability

the change your perception in case YOU MIGHT BE WRONG!.

facts about hiv transmission in the usa have no weight in the facts about hiv transmission elsewhere if we used the usa as a measure for the way we should be

we would be fucked badly .....

oh yeah i almost forgot

WE ARE FUCKED BADLY!!!! gee i am in so much denial and ignorance just by responding to 2hard2tames creepy posts

i just want to ignore him and kindly wish him the best but i cant sorry so here goes my rant

btw i always regret it but

i make blanket statements like that about other issues and i really dont have room to be on my high horse i just am a little shocked at the amount of insane data out there and how many people believe just like 2hard2tame & thats how we ended up with this president for 8 years

screwing us badly ..... badly ...... badly

x( :-( please forgive my opinion its just that an opinion i mean no harm to you 2hard2tame its just so sensational and thought provoking

it really gets my goat i think it raises awareness about matters that are important sometimes our best teachers are the people that make us the most angry keep preaching i mean teaching buddy it got me going

and i have the flu right now and i am bored to tears i got it from a client from Paris who said he was HIV poz as if i cared i always protect myself and my clients best interests HIV or No hiv

it is an individuals responsibility to assume everyone is hiv poz hep c poz gonerehea poz syphilis poz not the usa goverment they already have their hands full in airport bathrooms and in other countries with oil they dont give a shit about hiv unless a pharmaceutical company is lining their pockets with money

with sincere love and kindness to you David/sf

i will submit my opinion today the insructions are a bit lengthy and my attention is now shot

back to bed

with my dog and thats a true abomination he stinks today no bath for 2weeks bad news

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r133/dpwichman/8cda.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his original post, Unicorn compares HIV to other expensive ailments like diabetes and cancer, but those conditions are not contagious, while HIV, under certain circumstances, is transmissible to others. It may not be a popular or politically-correct view, but I would think the US government is under an obligation to be aware of and monitor non-citizens crossing its borders while carrying transmissible diseases.

 

Having said that, I do believe that the proposed restrictions seem unduly harsh and invasive. I say 'seem' because I do not know what requirements there are for people with other transmissible conditions. But instead of encouraging immigrants and travelers to be open about their medical condition, it seems likely that such regulations, if implemented, would only serve to drive them further underground. That would lead to a deepening cycle of more invasive monitoring and requirements by government to 'catch them' giving the state and its agencies more power and more control leading to a virtual police state. So much for the era of big government being over...

 

Moreover, putting an iron curtain around your borders isn't going to help slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in the US. The problem is already inside and trying the modern equivalent of the old medieval practice of closing the city gates when there's plague and stationing archers on the wall to shoot anyone who tries to enter won't work now any better than it did back then.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>and you people claim I am ignorant?

>Did he just compare HIV and AIDS to a cold?

>

>Maybe he should think about removing 8inch from his name and

>just leave it "TOOL".

 

No, I think it was pretty clear that he was saying that one can take precautions against becoming infected with HIV that one can't take against other transmissible conditions like the 'flu. And if you don't think the 'flu can't be serious, you should do a little reading on the influenza epidemics that killed millions in the early twentieth century and with hundreds of 'flu strains and their ability to mutate, there's nothing to show it couldn't happen again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>

>>and you people claim I am ignorant?

>>Did he just compare HIV and AIDS to a cold?

>>

>>Maybe he should think about removing 8inch from his name and

>>just leave it "TOOL".

>

>No, I think it was pretty clear that he was saying that one

>can take precautions against becoming infected with HIV that

>one can't take against other transmissible conditions like the

>'flu. And if you don't think the 'flu can't be serious, you

>should do a little reading on the influenza epidemics that

>killed millions in the early twentieth century and with

>hundreds of 'flu strains and their ability to mutate, there's

>nothing to show it couldn't happen again...

 

 

UH....flu shot...antibiotics?

How old are you again? *wink

 

and nothing he said was very clear. Between the run on sentences, and the shit grammar, and the tons of spelling mess up's, I barely understood anything he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>In his original post, Unicorn compares HIV to other expensive

>ailments like diabetes and cancer, but those conditions are

>not contagious, while HIV, under certain circumstances, is

>transmissible to others. It may not be a popular or

>politically-correct view, but I would think the US government

>is under an obligation to be aware of and monitor non-citizens

>crossing its borders while carrying transmissible diseases.

>

>Having said that, I do believe that the proposed restrictions

>seem unduly harsh and invasive. I say 'seem' because I do not

>know what requirements there are for people with other

>transmissible conditions. But instead of encouraging

>immigrants and travelers to be open about their medical

>condition, it seems likely that such regulations, if

>implemented, would only serve to drive them further

>underground. That would lead to a deepening cycle of more

>invasive monitoring and requirements by government to 'catch

>them' giving the state and its agencies more power and more

>control leading to a virtual police state. So much for the

>era of big government being over...

>

>Moreover, putting an iron curtain around your borders isn't

>going to help slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in the US. The

>problem is already inside and trying the modern equivalent of

>the old medieval practice of closing the city gates when

>there's plague and stationing archers on the wall to shoot

>anyone who tries to enter won't work now any better than it

>did back then.

>

>Alan

 

 

Jesus, why are people so fucking extreme?

Its either massive government control, or no control at all.

How about an happy middle ground?

 

It would be hugely wrong to allow HIV infested people into this country especially if they wont be contributing to the whole as a tax paying citizen does.

 

Not to mention the added financial burden of caring for those...

We cant even take care of our own at home, why the fuck should we let more in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>UH....flu shot...antibiotics?

>How old are you again? *wink

>

 

They are viruses. Antibiotics are designed to fight bacterial infections and are about as useful against a virus as Mom's chicken soup. The most current medical science can do against a virus is vaccinate against a strain once it's been identified and even then the vaccine is a preventative measure and is no good to people already infected. As for the 'flu shot, it's a vaccine against what doctors believe will be the most infectious 2-3 strains that year. With some 400 strains already identified and new ones appearing (mutating) every year, multiply that by 300+ million doses for the US alone and you have the potential for a very serious epidemic if a new deadly strain arises before it's identified early enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Jesus, why are people so fucking extreme?

>Its either massive government control, or no control at all.

>How about an happy middle ground?

I agree I'd like to see a happy middle ground too. You'll note that I agreed with the concept that the US government has the obligation to monitor those who enter your country with medical conditions. But these regulations single out people with a specific condition and I think what will happen if these regs are implemented is that people will lie about their HIV condition, which leaves the government either a) ignorant about HIV positive people entering the country or b) forced to use even more invasive methods and have greater powers to catch them.

 

>It would be hugely wrong to allow HIV infested people into

>this country especially if they wont be contributing to the

>whole as a tax paying citizen does.

>Not to mention the added financial burden of caring for

>those...

By that logic, you should ban everyone with a medical condition from entering your country, which you don't. Instead only one condition seems to require this additional scrutiny and regulation. And let's say the US decides to extend this to all medical conditions? Well, for one thing it won't be long before if other countries take the same steps against US citizens who want to visit their countries, with all the implications for trade and commerce that entails. Remember, these regulations aren't just about immigration here, but also short-term visitors as well like tourists and family members who live in countries like the UK or Canada.

 

>We cant even take care of our own at home, why the fuck should

>we let more in?

>

The US (or Canada or other countries built on immigrants) has never in it's history been ever able to 'take care' of everyone at home before allowing immigration. Are you trying to tell me there we no poor or sick people in the US when the Statue of Liberty was raised with the words "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," etc.? Because if that was the standard the US used in it's history before allowing immigration then the only people living there now would be descended from those living there in the 1780s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Jesus, why are people so fucking extreme?

>>Its either massive government control, or no control at all.

>>How about an happy middle ground?

>I agree I'd like to see a happy middle ground too. You'll

>note that I agreed with the concept that the US government has

>the obligation to monitor those who enter your country with

>medical conditions. But these regulations single out people

>with a specific condition and I think what will happen if

>these regs are implemented is that people will lie about their

>HIV condition, which leaves the government either a) ignorant

>about HIV positive people entering the country or b) forced to

>use even more invasive methods and have greater powers to

>catch them.

>

>>It would be hugely wrong to allow HIV infested people into

>>this country especially if they wont be contributing to the

>>whole as a tax paying citizen does.

>>Not to mention the added financial burden of caring for

>>those...

>By that logic, you should ban everyone with a medical

>condition from entering your country, which you don't.

>Instead only one condition seems to require this additional

>scrutiny and regulation. And let's say the US decides to

>extend this to all medical conditions? Well, for one thing it

>won't be long before if other countries take the same steps

>against US citizens who want to visit their countries, with

>all the implications for trade and commerce that entails.

>Remember, these regulations aren't just about immigration

>here, but also short-term visitors as well like tourists and

>family members who live in countries like the UK or Canada.

>

>>We cant even take care of our own at home, why the fuck

>should

>>we let more in?

>>

>The US (or Canada or other countries built on immigrants) has

>never in it's history been ever able to 'take care' of

>everyone at home before allowing immigration. Are you trying

>to tell me there we no poor or sick people in the US when the

>Statue of Liberty was raised with the words "Give me your

>tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe

>free," etc.? Because if that was the standard the US used in

>it's history before allowing immigration then the only people

>living there now would be descended from those living there in

>the 1780s.

>

 

 

 

Suuure. So if you had your way, every "poor, huddled masses yearning to breath free" would be able to waltz in and just rape this country for all its worth?

 

Please. The only reason why liberals and their crowd push is because you have never had to live amongst the lower class. Most of the people pushing to allow the illegals, the HIV ridden masses, and all of the undesirables into our country, haven't a clue what they are asking for. No, I am not for overbearing government control, but I am firmly against standing by and watching people rape this country. And honestly....I actually LIKE this proposal. If my mother were to travel and Germany did the same thing, I wouldnt have an issue with it, because she does in fact pose a health risk to people in Germany, wherever she goes.

 

Im cool with people judging me, insulting me, and hounding me. I expect it. But dont come crying to me when you realize your fuck ups have cost you more than you originally thought.

 

I am tired of people speaking out against the war, when they have never been there. It sickens me to have seen what I have seen, to have done what I have done, then to come home and see people like alot of you in here speak the way you do.

 

 

Im getting off topic, and on a tangent...but shit its hard not too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note on Immigrants and our Country.

 

I am not against immigrants. Hell, I am Spanish and Israeli, I am the definition of Immigrant. The only true Americans are the Indians.

 

But I am against the drugs, the ones who speak no English, who make no attempt to, and do nothing to contribute. The ones who are here ILLEGALLY. The ones who take advantage of the system, who dont do shit for the greater good, who only take take take, and then send it out of country.

 

 

If you are going to come to America, fine. Please do. We want you. But work, learn the language(which is English btw) and pitch in and help out.

 

heres a thought...Want a GreenCard? Want citizenship? Spend a 4 year term in our Armed Forces. Doesnt have to be combat, or front line, but SOMETHING. What it will do, is make each person respect and appreciate it more. Giving shit away has never been a good option. Make people work for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Suuure. So if you had your way, every "poor, huddled masses

>yearning to breath free" would be able to waltz in and just

>rape this country for all its worth?

I never said that. In fact I said "I would think the US government is under an obligation to be aware of and monitor non-citizens crossing its borders while carrying transmissible diseases." (post 14) And again on post 19 - "I agreed with the concept that the US government has the obligation to monitor those who enter your country with medical conditions." What I said and still maintain is that it's wrong to single out HIV as the only medical condition warranting this special treatment that is proposed.

 

>Please. The only reason why liberals and their crowd push is

>because you have never had to live amongst the lower class.

>Most of the people pushing to allow the illegals, the HIV

>ridden masses, and all of the undesirables into our country,

>haven't a clue what they are asking for.

Again I never stated support for illegal immigration or anything but that the same standards should be applied to all and not have those with a specific medical condition singled out for special treatment.

 

>Im cool with people judging me, insulting me, and hounding me.

>I expect it.

Obviously, because it appears you enjoy provoking such responses and you're more than quick to dish out the same treatment.

 

>But dont come crying to me when you realize your

>fuck ups have cost you more than you originally thought.

I can assure you not to worry, I won't. :)

 

>I am tired of people speaking out against the war, when they

>have never been there.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand unless you were speaking of "fuck ups have cost you more than you originally thought"? But if you're going to restrict discussion on a topic to those with direct experience with it, then only doctors should be allowed to post on this topic, one should only discuss racial issues if you're black, etc. You don't need to have direct experience on a subject in order to have an informed opinion about it.

 

>It sickens me to have seen what I have

>seen, to have done what I have done, then to come home and see

>people like alot of you in here speak the way you do.

The feeling's mutual, I suspect.

 

Speaking about going off tangents, although I've never called you a racist or a bigot or insulted you in any fashion, you seem determined to lump me in with those who have. While I have disagreed and do disagree with your viewpoint, I've done so without prejudice. On the other hand, you've put words in my mouth that weren't there, made assumptions about my broader opinions and background that aren't true, and responded to my comments with sweeping generalizations that often have had little to do with the points I was making. So be it. At this point, I'm perfectly satisfied with this record of my views on the subject for those who are interested to see.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen. I was re reading over what I wrote, and I owe you an apology. Having to deal with dolts like Zipperzone, I tend to get a wee bit defensive.

 

I also apologize for lumping you in with said dolts, and I wont make that mistake again. Please forgive me.

 

 

And also, sigh...I do go off on tangents a bit too easily. Thank you for responding, and being the older and mature man and giving the reply you did. Some, would never do that.

 

Oddly enough, you have elicited an apology from a man who has a hard time doing so, so that is a feat in itself.

 

 

Anyways, for what its worth, again, my apologies.

 

+10 respect points for you, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...