Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

As for the Bush thing, never heard of him enacting this, if I had I would still be against it.
Bush began the process by declassifying it as "of public health significance".

http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm]PEPFAR
President George H.W. Bush issued a measure by which HIV-positive non-citizens could receive a ten-day waiver to attend scientific meetings or special events.
In fact, the only reason Bush did not remove the ban is because he couldn't.. no President can on his own.

However, abolishing the HIV travel and immigration ban requires the HHS Secretary to promulgate a new regulation. As a result of cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and the change in presidential administrations, HHS has still not issued a revised rule and therefore HIV-positive students, tourists, business people, and foreign nationals remain barred from the US.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today called on the Department of Health and Human Services to update its regulations following the President’s (Bush) signing of legislation to reauthorize PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Included in this measure was a provision to repeal our nation’s discriminatory law barring HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.
http://www.hrc.org/12998.htm
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oChaos.Haze
Member
+90|6408
damn, checking your sources can be so hard sometimes....

wd kmarion, you never cease to surprise me...
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

As for the Bush thing, never heard of him enacting this, if I had I would still be against it.
Bush began the process by declassifying it as "of public health significance".

http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm]PEPFAR
President George H.W. Bush issued a measure by which HIV-positive non-citizens could receive a ten-day waiver to attend scientific meetings or special events.
In fact, the only reason Bush did not remove the ban is because he couldn't.. no President can on his own.

However, abolishing the HIV travel and immigration ban requires the HHS Secretary to promulgate a new regulation. As a result of cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and the change in presidential administrations, HHS has still not issued a revised rule and therefore HIV-positive students, tourists, business people, and foreign nationals remain barred from the US.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today called on the Department of Health and Human Services to update its regulations following the President’s (Bush) signing of legislation to reauthorize PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Included in this measure was a provision to repeal our nation’s discriminatory law barring HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.
http://www.hrc.org/12998.htm
From what I read, all Bush did was relieve the administration the responsibility of making that decision as to whether to keep AIDS out or let it in. He never signed anything removing the ban.

from your own link:

"In July 2008, President Bush signed into law, as part of the reauthorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a provision that removed the ban from statute and returned regulatory authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine whether HIV should remain on a list of communicable diseases that bar foreign nationals from entering the United States."

and all this action did was allow the beloved lobbyists in to buy or blackmail their way to further action.


"Since passage of the PEPFAR bill, HRC has lobbied both the Bush and Obama administrations to remove the remaining regulatory ban." <---(Bush didn't, Obama did)

"The current travel and immigration ban prohibits HIV-positive foreign nationals from entering the U.S. unless they obtain a special waiver, which is difficult to obtain and can only allow for short-term travel."

I am thinking if Bush wanted to allow unchecked passage of this disease into our country he would have lifted the ban. He didn't, this is the action of the Community Organizer Obama

So kindly reinstate the thread to its original title.

Last edited by lowing (2009-11-06 13:00:45)

DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6602|Finland

You know what scares me lowing? It's the image of you one day packing your truck with a rifle and ammunition and drive over to Penn. Ave.

Btw, if you didn't vote, you can't say shit.
I need around tree fiddy.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

DonFck wrote:

You know what scares me lowing? It's the image of you one day packing your truck with a rifle and ammunition and drive over to Penn. Ave.

Btw, if you didn't vote, you can't say shit.
Sorry if I offended by supporting my argument with his own sources, doing so does not make me a murderer DonFck.

and yeah I didn't vote on this one, was out of the country and procrastinated. I did know however, my state was going to vote Republican so, in my case I knew my vote was not going to matter.

By the way, just because I missed the vote does not mean I forfeit all my rights as an American. Not even really sure where you got that notion from

Last edited by lowing (2009-11-05 02:44:24)

Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

I still don't believe we should have ended an immigration ban on people with AIDS. It is an incurable disease. Why would you want someone with an incurable disease coming to live in this country? There are only so few immigration slots and we should make sure healthy people are given them.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

So your neighbors to the left and right both sell their homes and some recently arrived immigrants come in. Would you rather the immigrants be HIV positive South Africans or educated engineer Chinese or Indians? You have small children too. The U.S. government only gives out so many visas a year so for every AIDS stricken person they let into the country some educated non disease carrier gets denied a chance at living here. Is it too much to ask for some healthy not infected with a deadly disease immigrants?
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4224
jesus what's your problem with people who have HIV? and why can't people who are HIV positive be engineers? you have some weird hang-ups.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5148|Sydney
AIDS has recently said to be curable, or close to being curable. HIV is still not, but it is no longer the death sentence it once was and with proper treatment people can now live normal, healthy lives.

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-02-17 15:39:21)

Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6593|Little Bentcock
It's manageable. I wouldn't want it, but it's no where like it was 20 years ago.
jord
Member
+2,382|6648|The North, beyond the wall.

Jaekus wrote:

AIDS has recently said to be curable, or close to being curable. HIV is still not, but it is no longer the death sentence it once was and with proper treatment people can now live normal, healthy lives.
Wouldn't it be the other way around?
-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|6624

jord wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

AIDS has recently said to be curable, or close to being curable. HIV is still not, but it is no longer the death sentence it once was and with proper treatment people can now live normal, healthy lives.
Wouldn't it be the other way around?
I believe so. You develop HIV, it progresses, once your CD4 count is low enough you have full-blown AIDS.

I have a feeling both cancers(or the vast majority of them) and AIDS will effectively be "cured" in our lifetimes, in that if they are caught early enough they will be completely curable, but once they progress past a certain point of no return there is still nothing for modern medicine to do. As of right now, we are getting to that point with some types of cancer, and HIV/AIDS treatments are lightyears beyond what they were 10+ years ago.

Someone with such a condition may not appear to be the "best choice" for an immigration slot, but if they are in fact a potentially successful professional, why would we deny them? They may well be able to afford the necessary treatments once they immigrate and land a better paying job than they had back home.

I can understand not wanting to "waste" slots on deathly ill applicants who simply may want better medical care to see them through to the end (essentially seeking hospice in a better environment), but I see no reason why HIV/AIDS would be an automatic rejection. That said, two applicants being equal in all other ways, I would take the one without the life-threatening condition.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5148|Sydney

jord wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

AIDS has recently said to be curable, or close to being curable. HIV is still not, but it is no longer the death sentence it once was and with proper treatment people can now live normal, healthy lives.
Wouldn't it be the other way around?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 … 43921.html

Harrich himself notes that his research is not an HIV cure. "You would still be infected with HIV," he said, according to the Queensland Institute's statement. "But the virus would stay latent, it wouldn't wake up, so it wouldn't develop into AIDS. With a treatment like this, you would maintain a healthy immune system."

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-02-17 22:44:36)

-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|6624
AIDS is 'cured' by keeping HIV from progressing to AIDS...the AIDS never happens, but the person will still have some degree of HIV infection.

Which is somewhat different than being able to cure someone with AIDS already.


You're not wrong, I just sort of viewed it from a different standpoint.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Thats a pretty huge piece of progress, I think I could accept having a god-hating-HIV-ridden-faggot as a neighbour in those circumstances.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

Gotta love the wisdom that lowing brought to the forum.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6294|Graz, Austria
Ehrm, what?

HIV = human immunodeficiency virus
AIDS = acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

The former is a virus, which you could only "cured" by completely removing it from the body below detection thresholds, and even then you couldn't be sure if that nasty thing isn't still dormant in some cells.
The latter is, as the name implies, a syndrome with a multitude of different symptoms caused by the virus.
AIDS patients commonly die by some different disease like pneumonia in the end, because their immune system is totally fucked.

What good is it to call AIDS "cured" just because you can suppress the virus well enough not cause all symptoms?
It's still in the body and can be spread to other people.

IMO, a cure implies a vaccine that is effective enough to be used for a wide enough vaccination coverage and immunize large parts of the population.
In the optimum case, the virus would be completely eradicated in humans (e.g. small pox) , which doesn't help here, as HIV came from primates, and you'd have a hard time vaccinating enough gorillas and chimps in the jungle.
Or some antiviral drug that can achieve the same.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard