Comments on: Welcoming the HIV-positive

By: drewbie

drewbie — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:38:01 +0000

Your “in other words” after your second quote is wrong. The quote says that health costs can’t be considered a factor since there are numerous other unpredictable health costs like (adult onset) diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.You put words in their mouth when you say “other costs will be lower,” since HIV+ people can still get diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.That said, I had no idea that this restriction existed, so I’m indifferent that it’s been lifted.

By: Viyada York

Viyada York — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:19:09 +0000

Taxpayers in America already gave $700 billion of their hard-earned money to bail out corrupt banks with lousy management. Taxpayers in America already gave $1 trillion their hard-earned money to support the 7 million people who live in Israel. People who shouldn’t have purchased homes in the first place get special adjustments and people who shouldn’t be living in the West Bank get free money to be there. Of course we should definitely let anyone with a fatal disease immigrate to the USA and receive free medical treatment compliments of the Taxpayers. While we are at it, let’s bring back Ebonics in the public schools and require all new immigrants to learn Ebonics as part of the U.S. citizenship requirement.

By: Lance Baker

Lance Baker — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:00:38 +0000

You should have seen what the Philippine immigration put me through just so I could be a resident. It was chest xrays (TB), stool tests, urine tests, blood tests, HIV tests, health tests (including mental health), police clearances both state and federal, finger prints state and federal, just so I can live in the Philippines. If I had one small trace of any disease or sickness I would have been refused. This is very common throughout the world. So why is it that a western country is frowned upon when it applies the same rules as other countries do?

By: Dew

Dew — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:32:56 +0000

Every HIV person deserve to live like others. i disagree with any restrictions imposed on them.

By: CN

CN — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:35:20 +0000

We do not neeed additional burden. In reality they should remain in their home countries where thier families is, Where they might get better caring.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:26:12 +0000

The CDC report says that HIV reduces one’s chances of getting “certain types of cancer, diabetes, heart disease.” Because they’re going to die sooner? Not to be too technical, but that’s nuts. Those with HIV are living longer all the time thanks to medical advances.Personally, I find the “anti-immigration and pro-deportation” types much more sensible than the “pro-immigration and anti-deportation” crowd.

By: joycewallace

joycewallace — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:52:23 +0000

Political correctness has gone too far in the Unitied States. Why would we give Green Cards to anyone with HIV. Do we not have enough problems in this country.

By: Steven

Steven — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:35:50 +0000

Without prejudice, i would insist that if communicable diseases, or is it costly diseases, be consistent with anti-HIV admittance of aliens to the USA. Meaning, if communicable, then a blanket shutout of this population. If cost is the issue, then throw out any cancer(thats a few, but you knew that),diabetes, sickle cell, asthmatic, etc(geez this is going to be a long list). Include any ‘possibility of cost’ to eliminate even more expensive aliens entering(dont forget any special diseases more prone to specific ethnic groups, keep it fun and discriminate) Now my opinion. Hurray for USA being removed from this list of pro-discrimination based on health, or more accurately, economic ‘health’ status((many hiv pos. people are healthy))). How absolutely civil and industrial! That pesky ethical and moral ‘thing’ gets in my way all the time. I consider myself fiscally republican but morally liberal. Human beings have equal rights, USA being(okay ‘reclaiming’ is better)THE role model for the world with human rights and all that jibberish. Gotta love the ivory towers. One final comment:I dont really like some of that list that we shared. Very last season, don’tcha think?

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:08:10 +0000

Why not have Salmon and other Jews pay for the sick immigrants they want to see here?

By: Felix Salmon

Felix Salmon — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:53:58 +0000

tc, yes, you do need to take an HIV test to get a green card. And 24Ahead, “pro-immigrant, low-immigration” is code for “much less immigration, much more deportation”. Which is anti-immigration in my book.

By: 24AheadDotCom

24AheadDotCom — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:27:54 +0000

Felix Salmon is, of course, lying. CIS isn’t “anti-immigration”. From their site (cis.org/aboutcis.html): “The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.”

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:48:33 +0000

This is a great moment in US immigration law. The cost seems to require someone to actually take healthcare, without insurance, which is a bit weird on a holiday?

By: tc

tc — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:45:57 +0000

How did they enforce this law anyway? Do you have to take an HIV test to get a green card? I think lots of HIV+ men come to this country from Europe, Australia and other parts of the world for the stupid circuit parties in SF, NY, Chicago, Miami, etc, at least as tourists. What a dumb law.

By: Skippy

Skippy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:43:15 +0000

I’m sorry…I don’t see what the problem is keeping a known lethal disease carrying population out of the country. Why is it a positive thing to permit infected individuals to come to this country and possibly add more possible exposure to the populace?

By: Pete Cann

Pete Cann — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:16:05 +0000

But they’ll still have to swear a monotheist religious oath to get in.