FORUMS > HIV/AIDS Forum Rules

Hi guys, as this is a predominantly American forum, I just wanted to gather opinions on the following article and the decision made by the European Parliament:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7709.html


I'm currently trying to find out how my MEPs voted, so if anyone knows how to make their about the European Parliament's website then advice would be good!

We ban people with HIV from coming to the US? What a bunch of bullshit. Seriously, I need to get out of here and watch the country sink into the ocean...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7709.html

this will have a greater chance after the election.

"Such a law only breeds stigma and discrimination."

Good for the EU...I'm glad someone is standing up to some of our bullshit anti-human rights policies...

- David

Personally I feel that it is unfair...What about the ppl who had no choice and were born with it ...You can't blame them for trying to come to America maybe we have medical capabilities that they don't have in their country.It is simply unfair.

caslon saidhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7709.html

this will have a greater chance after the election.

Cheers for making the link clickable!

well... it's confusing, but at the same time those persons are not US citizens. The US government is only responsible to its citizens. By admitting a person infected with HIV/AIDS, they are placing their own population at more risk than it already is. Now this isn't a fair practice, but as everyone in this forum knows, life isn't fair.

On the flip side of the coin, at this point it is possible for an individual infected with HIV/AIDS to be a productive member of society, and to prevent the infection of others.

This is not a straight forward issue, and both sides need to be looked at before just jumping to the "THE US IS BEING BAD AGAIN" knee-jerk reaction. After all the government is doing it for us.

what about people who got it(hiv) in the us and then went home
they can t enter either, along with all the other bullthat they have to provide before visiting the us
even if its just for passing thru on their way to another destination

This US policy is antiquated and based off of 1980's understanding and knowledge of HIV care and pathogenosis of the virus...that knowledge has since grown...and this legislation should be reviewed/repealed...

"The heinous HIV travel and immigration ban was codified in law as part of the NIH reauthorization in 1993 (s.1/h.r 4), the NIH's reauthorization act (entitled the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993).

However, remember that well before 1993, this ban made world news when a Dutch PWA (Hans Paul Verhoff) was denied entry into the U.S. in 1989 to speak at a conference in San Francisco and this same ban was the cause of the massive boycott of the 6th International Conference on AIDS in SF in 1990.

It was on this ban that caused the '92 International AIDS Conference to be moved from Boston to Amsterdam. It was at the see aegis website Tomas Fabregas Obituary
Amsterdam AIDS Conference that activists, ACT UP chapters, and Elizabeth Taylor hosted a press conference flaunting Tomas Fabregas' re-entry into the U.S. as a resident PWA. "

http://www.actupny.org/actions/Immigration.html

- David

DCEric said The US government is only responsible to its citizens. By admitting a person infected with HIV/AIDS, they are placing their own population at more risk than it already is.

The US needs to wake up and realize that it's not alone in the world.

It is unbelieveable that countries welcome US citizens with open arms but we face the whole fingerprint, strip search, interrogation.

Guilty until you convince us and we decide otherwise

The US may be only looking out for it's own but in an age of increasingly globalism it's got no one else to blame when it's comes back to bite them in the ass.

DCEric saidwell... it's confusing, but at the same time those persons are not US citizens. The US government is only responsible to its citizens. By admitting a person infected with HIV/AIDS, they are placing their own population at more risk than it already is. Now this isn't a fair practice, but as everyone in this forum knows, life isn't fair.

On the flip side of the coin, at this point it is possible for an individual infected with HIV/AIDS to be a productive member of society, and to prevent the infection of others.

This is not a straight forward issue, and both sides need to be looked at before just jumping to the "THE US IS BEING BAD AGAIN" knee-jerk reaction. After all the government is doing it for us.

In this case the government isn't doing too much. If you take it from a public health standpoint, hepatitis is on the rise, TB is on the rise here and across the country. This antiquated regulation just needs to be done away with already because it's not exactly "containing" the spread of HIV. It just adds to a stigma... I read awhile ago about this rule being done away with. I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet.

I never said it was right or was working. I said what the goal was. I would rather a country that shut out HIV/AIDS victims than one that shut out aid. *cough*myanmar*cough* HIV/AIDS is a dangerous thing, it is worse than Ebola. worse than Polio. If the government makes a few missteps along the way, but means well, I find that acceptable.

worse than ebola? please, I'd like to see someone living with ebola. Or someone spreading hiv like ebola is spread.

DCEric saidI never said it was right or was working. I said what the goal was. I would rather a country that shut out HIV/AIDS victims than one that shut out aid. *cough*myanmar*cough* HIV/AIDS is a dangerous thing, it is worse than Ebola. worse than Polio. If the government makes a few missteps along the way, but means well, I find that acceptable.

um.... do you know what ebola does to the body? there's also no cure or real treatment for it aside from just treating symptoms..

back then, yeah it could have been justified. they didn't have a grasp of how it was transmitted or any meaningful treatment. fine. the policy is out of touch with how far the world has advanced though so its policies need to keep up.

i'll ignore your comment about missteps being okay as long as they mean well..

DCEric saidI never said it was right or was working. I said what the goal was. I would rather a country that shut out HIV/AIDS victims than one that shut out aid. *cough*myanmar*cough* HIV/AIDS is a dangerous thing, it is worse than Ebola. worse than Polio. If the government makes a few missteps along the way, but means well, I find that acceptable.

You do know that Ebola makes you bleed from every orifice and essentially hemorrhage and shit yourself to death within the course of a week or less? It's also highly contagious between humans and has even show the capacity for airborne transmission between lesser primates in a laboratory setting. And you think HIV is worse? People as ignorant as you need to Darwin yourselves out of our collective misery by catching Ebola to demonstrate how benign it is in comparison to HIV.

Seriously. I've heard some outstandingly ignorant things said by some amazingly ignorant people on this topic. You, however, have now been officially nominated as the dumbest person in the history of ever. If you win this round you'll go on to compete against Anna Nicole Smith for the grand prize. Even dead, I still think she might be smarter than you.

DCEric saidwell... it's confusing, but at the same time those persons are not US citizens. The US government is only responsible to its citizens. By admitting a person infected with HIV/AIDS, they are placing their own population at more risk than it already is. Now this isn't a fair practice, but as everyone in this forum knows, life isn't fair.

this ruling by US passport control is nothing but Biggotry and ignorance or do you assume every gay man is a) promiscuous or b) stupid when it comes to managing their status? A statement like that you may as well go and pay money into the coffers of Phelp's brigade!

Mind you the whole information sharing issue is enough to put me off ever coming there again. For various reasons I wont go into in public (a stupid indiscretion when I was younger) I had to get a visa last time I went to the US as was inelgible for a Visa Waiver. Yet on arriving I was still humiliated in front of everyone. Border guards in the US treat everyone like criminals, I know they have their jobs to do but they should learn manners like the rest of the world and not be up their own arses so much.

Sorry rant over

I spent some time trying to come up with any solid, objective, worthwhile justifications to the current US policy but ended up coming way short. I had no idea such a ban even existed, and while I can understand its origins at the time when information on HIV was still a bit sketchy, such times have passed and it is time for this ban to come to an end.

Hi guys,

I can see how Human Rights works in the states but I can be ignored in other countries.

The ban idea started by some middle eastern states who still run this system. they test every body applying for Labour Visa (not the Visit or Tourist!!!). and they will retest again every three years.

This process doesn't cover LOCAL ctizens as they are protected by the law.

If you feel any sense with that, let me know...hehehhe

[quote]

You do know that Ebola makes you bleed from every orifice and essentially hemorrhage and shit yourself to death within the course of a week or less? It's also highly contagious between humans and has even show the capacity for airborne transmission between lesser primates in a laboratory setting. And you think HIV is worse? People as ignorant as you need to Darwin yourselves out of our collective misery by catching Ebola to demonstrate how benign it is in comparison to HIV.

Seriously. I've heard some outstandingly ignorant things said by some amazingly ignorant people on this topic. You, however, have now been officially nominated as the dumbest person in the history of ever. If you win this round you'll go on to compete against Anna Nicole Smith for the grand prize. Even dead, I still think she might be smarter than you. [/quote]

Actually Ebola is only dangerous to the individual... not the species. It burns itself out so quickly only a handful are ever impacted. Ultimately it kills faster than it can spread, killing a concentrated group of people. A village, 200-300 die in an outbreak. HIV/AIDS has only had one known outbreak, and it isn't over yet. HIV/AIDS is far more dangerous because the host has time to transfer it.

I know very well what Ebola does to the body. Clearly none of you were in the DC area when our outbreak happened. luckily only three people were infected, and none died. The Hot Zone. Read it.

Once again, I did not say it was right. I did not say it was reasonable. I said it was an attempt to protect the citizens. I never said anything about homosexuality. I never said anything about frequency of the chance of sexual partners. I only said the US government has a responsibility to its people to protect us. That doesn't always lead to the best, or most fair solution, or even one I agree with. I made the argument that this was an attempt at a way of protecting lives. It has unquestionably failed. It was unquestionably unfair to the victims of HIV/AIDS. But to the person at the CDC and Immigration Control it probably once made sense. If someone has a life threatening disease that is easily spread they should not be allowed the chance to spread it within the United States.

DCEric said[quote]

Actually Ebola is only dangerous to the individual... not the species. It burns itself out so quickly only a handful are ever impacted. Ultimately it kills faster than it can spread, killing a concentrated group of people. A village, 200-300 die in an outbreak. HIV/AIDS has only had one known outbreak, and it isn't over yet. HIV/AIDS is far more dangerous because the host has time to transfer it.

I know very well what Ebola does to the body. Clearly none of you were in the DC area when our outbreak happened. luckily only three people were infected, and none died. The Hot Zone. Read it.

Once again, I did not say it was right. I did not say it was reasonable. I said it was an attempt to protect the citizens. I never said anything about homosexuality. I never said anything about frequency of the chance of sexual partners. I only said the US government has a responsibility to its people to protect us. That doesn't always lead to the best, or most fair solution, or even one I agree with. I made the argument that this was an attempt at a way of protecting lives. It has unquestionably failed. It was unquestionably unfair to the victims of HIV/AIDS. But to the person at the CDC and Immigration Control it probably once made sense. If someone has a life threatening disease that is easily spread they should not be allowed the chance to spread it within the United States.

ebola-reston, the strain that infected a couple monkeys in virginia and three or four handlers, isn't fatal to humans. if ebola-zaire were to be introduced into the DC area, it would be a different story.

HIV is dangerous but, for lack of a better word, it's manageable. there can also be an active decision made on the part of the carrier to not engage in high risk behavior that would lead to further infection. ebola carriers don't have that choice.

We didn't know that at the time, and we learned more than we wanted to about Ebola-Zaire, Ebola-Sudan and Marburg. That was a terrifying week before anyone had a clue what was going on, and I don't need to explain what the media were doing with their broadcasts of people "crashing and bleeding out".

Manageable and HIV/AIDS should never be used in the same sentence.

My work is in Africa, South and Southeast Asia. The words HIV/AIDS and manageable have many years left before they are connected. The AIDS Highway continues to decimate more and more people. Truck drivers in India continue to shop for prostitutes in remote villages along the golden quadrangle and in Southeast Asia, the trade in human beings -infected and not- continues to boom.

Within the borders of Washington DC as many as 1 in 10 residence are infected. That is projected to grow in the next decade.

There is no way around it, at best the wealthy governments of the word have brought HIV/AIDS to a draw within their borders, the developing and undeveloped world are loosing ground. The majority of people that are spreading HIV/AIDS don't know they carry it, so they cannot choose to prevent its spread. Again, more dangerous than Ebola. (Well, like you said other than Ebola-Reston.)

I repeat my previous statement: The US government has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

WOW. Really makes you wonder about the country one lives in, huh?

I believe we (Americans) are at greater risk from our open borders to the north and south compared to those with HIV coming from Europe -- even considering the 'public health' scope. Undocumented aliens are just coming through and they could be bringing anything with them, HIV included. The US government does have a responsibility to protect its citizens, but I fail to see how this is done effectively considering such an incomplete plan of defense that leaves the most dangerous routes open.

DCEric saidWe didn't know that at the time, and we learned more than we wanted to about Ebola-Zaire, Ebola-Sudan and Marburg. That was a terrifying week before anyone had a clue what was going on, and I don't need to explain what the media were doing with their broadcasts of people "crashing and bleeding out".

Manageable and HIV/AIDS should never be used in the same sentence.

My work is in Africa, South and Southeast Asia. The words HIV/AIDS and manageable have many years left before they are connected. The AIDS Highway continues to decimate more and more people. Truck drivers in India continue to shop for prostitutes in remote villages along the golden quadrangle and in Southeast Asia, the trade in human beings -infected and not- continues to boom.

Within the borders of Washington DC as many as 1 in 10 residence are infected. That is projected to grow in the next decade.

There is no way around it, at best the wealthy governments of the word have brought HIV/AIDS to a draw within their borders, the developing and undeveloped world are loosing ground.

I repeat my previous statement: The US government has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

I'm not quite sure what you think the US government is still protecting us from though. The number of people living with HIV isn't growing because of foreigners coming over and infecting us. also the bush administrations stance on sex ed sure isn't helping. tack on an emerging generation of gays who think that hiv is curable or not a big deal. it is manageable though (i do use that term cautiously) because people can do pretty well on the meds. theres definitely issues with drug resistance, side effects and compliance but overall quality of life has improved. given all of that, i stand by my previous statement that this policy is outdated and needs to be done away with. the CDC and institute of health have bigger things to worry about.

Agreed, but the government needs to be doing something... and I will take one that makes a move to protect me over one that refuses to give out aid. The policy is outdated, while the threat continues from the outside, if (and that is a huge if) things are gotten under control again within the US, do we at that point bring back those currently outdated controls? In that ideal situation, the US comes up with a way to cure people before the rest of the world. Comes up with a way to diagnose HIV/AIDS quickly AND manages to get the meds into the hands of the people who need them... would those controls make sense again? Does it make sense that we block people who had SARS? Polio? Yellow Fever? These diseases have no cure also.

relokou saidI believe we (Americans) are at greater risk from our open borders to the north and south compared to those with HIV coming from Europe -- even considering the 'public health' scope. Undocumented aliens are just coming through and they could be bringing anything with them, HIV included. The US government does have a responsibility to protect its citizens, but I fail to see how this is done effectively considering such an incomplete plan of defense that leaves the most dangerous routes open.

Good grief calm down, most people with HIV who enter the USA are responsible adults not "aliens" trying to infect "innocent" Americans. Whether somebody is from North or South, East or West, or within the USA, the same rules about safer sex apply. Assume the person you are having sex with is HIV+ and you will greatly increase your chances of not contracting the disease.

HereNBoston said[quote][cite]DCEric said[/cite][quote]

Actually Ebola is only dangerous to the individual... not the species. It burns itself out so quickly only a handful are ever impacted. Ultimately it kills faster than it can spread, killing a concentrated group of people. A village, 200-300 die in an outbreak. HIV/AIDS has only had one known outbreak, and it isn't over yet. HIV/AIDS is far more dangerous because the host has time to transfer it.

I know very well what Ebola does to the body. Clearly none of you were in the DC area when our outbreak happened. luckily only three people were infected, and none died. The Hot Zone. Read it.

Once again, I did not say it was right. I did not say it was reasonable. I said it was an attempt to protect the citizens. I never said anything about homosexuality. I never said anything about frequency of the chance of sexual partners. I only said the US government has a responsibility to its people to protect us. That doesn't always lead to the best, or most fair solution, or even one I agree with. I made the argument that this was an attempt at a way of protecting lives. It has unquestionably failed. It was unquestionably unfair to the victims of HIV/AIDS. But to the person at the CDC and Immigration Control it probably once made sense. If someone has a life threatening disease that is easily spread they should not be allowed the chance to spread it within the United States.

ebola-reston, the strain that infected a couple monkeys in virginia and three or four handlers, isn't fatal to humans. if ebola-zaire were to be introduced into the DC area, it would be a different story.

HIV is dangerous but, for lack of a better word, it's manageable. there can also be an active decision made on the part of the carrier to not engage in high risk behavior that would lead to further infection. ebola carriers don't have that choice.
[/quote]

But that is exactly it. Although quite archaic, parts of that policy are intentionally extended to cover everyone b/c we cannot control individual behavior. With the understanding this understanding, it is best to implement a policy that minimizes introducing added "risk" to a population.

orthojock said[quote][cite]HereNBoston said[/cite][quote][cite]DCEric said[/cite][quote]

Actually Ebola is only dangerous to the individual... not the species. It burns itself out so quickly only a handful are ever impacted. Ultimately it kills faster than it can spread, killing a concentrated group of people. A village, 200-300 die in an outbreak. HIV/AIDS has only had one known outbreak, and it isn't over yet. HIV/AIDS is far more dangerous because the host has time to transfer it.

I know very well what Ebola does to the body. Clearly none of you were in the DC area when our outbreak happened. luckily only three people were infected, and none died. The Hot Zone. Read it.

Once again, I did not say it was right. I did not say it was reasonable. I said it was an attempt to protect the citizens. I never said anything about homosexuality. I never said anything about frequency of the chance of sexual partners. I only said the US government has a responsibility to its people to protect us. That doesn't always lead to the best, or most fair solution, or even one I agree with. I made the argument that this was an attempt at a way of protecting lives. It has unquestionably failed. It was unquestionably unfair to the victims of HIV/AIDS. But to the person at the CDC and Immigration Control it probably once made sense. If someone has a life threatening disease that is easily spread they should not be allowed the chance to spread it within the United States.

ebola-reston, the strain that infected a couple monkeys in virginia and three or four handlers, isn't fatal to humans. if ebola-zaire were to be introduced into the DC area, it would be a different story.

HIV is dangerous but, for lack of a better word, it's manageable. there can also be an active decision made on the part of the carrier to not engage in high risk behavior that would lead to further infection. ebola carriers don't have that choice.
[/quote]

But that is exactly it. Although quite archaic, parts of that policy are intentionally extended to cover everyone b/c we cannot control individual behavior. With the understanding this understanding, it is best to implement a policy that minimizes introducing added "risk" to a population.

[/quote]


but you can't restrict someone on the assumption that they MIGHT do something... that's like pre-crime. it's penalizing a population based on a condition that some had no control over. sorry, but this nanny nation bs needs to come to an end and people need to take responsibility for their actions. people form other countries aren't giving us AIDS... we're doing a fine job at it regardless.

QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREbut you can't restrict someone on the assumption that they MIGHT do something... that's like pre-crime. it's penalizing a population based on a condition that some had no control over. sorry, but this nanny nation bs needs to come to an end and people need to take responsibility for their actions. people form other countries aren't giving us AIDS... we're doing a fine job at it regardless.

And that is why double standards exist in the sense that a standard cannot always be applied universally without establishing guidlines for its usage. While it is true what the US has instituted can be essentially interpreted as an unethical policy (according to our own justice system standards), we must clearly define the difference between the two issues to recognize that, indeed, they are not comparable.

In the case of banning the legal immigration of people with HIV/AIDS: While the punishment is denial of entry and, in essence, a pre-crime judgment, it is a necessary evil. In this case the gov't has the knowledge that people are infected with an incurable virus/syndrome. However, you cannot clearly determine when someone is going to committ a crime.

If everyone took responsibility for their actions we could utilize a social infrustructure predicated solely on honesty. Such an ideal principle would never function in a non-ideal society.



Hmmm...i wish I could convey my thoughts a bit better...lol...damn I'm drunk right now

I think what you are trying to say is (and I disagree) the following:

"No one has committed a crime that they are being blamed on. It is not illegal to unintentionally infect another person. However, because the United States does have a responsibility to its people, and not the people entering the US on visas, a person need not commit a crime to be denied entry."

Was that it?

wow ,ive heard a lott of bull but this takes the cake
what about all those people who (dont know)they carry the hiv virus
how is the us going to stop them?

us Canadians are working on trying to get the travel Ban repelled:

I cannot believe that with all the HIV education that is out there people can still be so stupid.

education is one thing
changing laws and regulations is something diffr altogether

jasonrme saidI cannot believe that with all the HIV education that is out there people can still be so stupid.

Really? You cant believe it? Obviously you dont look at how the real world operates. Sure there is lots of educational material on almost everything you can imagine how ever most of the population doesnt work to better themselves or educate themselves outside of school. If they dont add it to "reality" or other tv shows the general population isnt going to be educated on it and they go by hearsay. We all should know how well that *or more likely not* works.

In terms of the ban the US revised it in 2007 and allow them to come in, but there are restrictions. IE it must be in a controlled state(not needing medical care), they must bring with them enough ARVs to last their stay and of course the expertise authority which allows them to deny anyone they want. In 2008 they looked to repeal it but didnt. What they basically want is full open travel that doesnt even require visas. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

The reason this wont change and may get even stricter is because of what is currently taking place now. Foreigners have been flying in go to the local hospital's ER with what ever illness get treated and fly out wo paying. This leaves the tax payers to foot the bill. Then you may say but it can be that big of a deal can it? 1 of 2 hospitals in my town lost 2mil dollars to transient foreigners who flew in to a NY and sometimes CT airport drove 3miles to the hospital sat in the ER and got treated. Federal Law mandates that the hospital has to care for them too. So guess what your taxes are going to pay for it.

DCEric saidI think what you are trying to say is (and I disagree) the following:

"No one has committed a crime that they are being blamed on. It is not illegal to unintentionally infect another person. However, because the United States does have a responsibility to its people, and not the people entering the US on visas, a person need not commit a crime to be denied entry."

Was that it?

Kind of...but the key point is the govt is aware of the fact that "X" person is a carrier for a disease for which there is no cure.

thorn27 saidwow ,ive heard a lott of bull but this takes the cake
what about all those people who (dont know)they carry the hiv virus
how is the us going to stop them?

not quite sure to whose post you are refering, but you have pointed out a simple hole in the system. That still does not make what I said invalid.

jasonrme saidI cannot believe that with all the HIV education that is out there people can still be so stupid.

Well yeah...that's unfortunate...but right now that's not the issue we are discussing...at least last time i checked it was not...but then again i did not bother to read the actual attachment at the top of the thread

holland and the usa are 2 diffr country,s altogether
this much we know
however if/when people enter holland they dont get asked all these anoying questions
after all if their coming for a vacation /short stay , whats the problem

if they get ill/have an accident they get treated
i,m sure its the same in the us,ofcourse they get checked for insurance

if they just happen not to have any they get taken care of anyway
thats the good part about compolsury national healthcare
and yes hospitals can send the bill to the government
its the gevernments responibility to provide healthcare to all in the country

now i know there are a few diffrences between holland and the us in that respect
and yes its affordable
quite diffr to the us where you have to fund it totaly yourself

i can see where it would make sence for the us to keep foreingers out if they need meds or care and they cant pay for it by way of insurance or cash
its a drain on the country

however what about all those just visiting or passing through
unless there is a record in the us, it cant be controlled

should all these persons with hiv or something diffr be kept out?


update just on the news
the us is going to set up a website where one has to fill in all immigration info 72 hours before departing for the us
this way you dont have to use the paper form anymore(outdated), and they can let you know whether you are welcome or not
opens a new can of worms doesn,t it?

Banning HIV pos people from entering the country is like banning a homosexual from entering a gay bar...what's the point???

TO DC ERic and orthojock and all the rest of you that think the government is doing something pro-active...."let's see how you feel when you are sick, need medical attention and can not get to it because the people guarding the gates are too stupid and too afraid to let you in....this ban on immigrants is nothing more than a stupid government (which in my research clearly assisted in the creation of the hiv virus) policy adopted by ignorant politicians who think that if they isolate us all we will put an end to the virus....but basically you would have to keep everyone currently in the country... in.... and everyone out of the country... out.... until the last person with the virus on the planet died. So how many of you are willing to give up ALL your travel and yoru friends and families travel until that happens? Oh btw people with HIV/AIDS are living well over 30 years now after diagnosis so I suggest you all stock up on some canned goods....

ZIad saidHi guys,

I can see how Human Rights works in the states but I can be ignored in other countries.

The ban idea started by some middle eastern states who still run this system. they test every body applying for Labour Visa (not the Visit or Tourist!!!). and they will retest again every three years.

This process doesn't cover LOCAL ctizens as they are protected by the law.

If you feel any sense with that, let me know...hehehhe

Ok, I don't understand how it started from some Middle Eastern states?

As with all things "gay," drama has to follow. There has been a long standing in most counties to ban immigration to people with communicable diseases. No body gets their panties in a wad over that one, but if it's associated with homosexuality, then everyone goes into a tizzy.

While I don't think that we should equate HIV/AIDS to say tuberculosis, based on current knowledge, it is not surprising that laws created in the 80's ( and 90's under Clinton, and a Democratically controlled congress remember) would.

Now, while the laws exist, there is not strict control on visiting the US, one simple has to sign a declaration that they do not possess a “communicable disease of public health significance,” which is left up to the person signing to define.

As far as immigration is concerned, a person can be deported if it is determined that they were HIV/AID positive upon entry. This has more to do with the added financial burden health care. Which is why Cuba has an even stricter policy on HIV/AIDS. So don't think about going to Michael Moore favorite health care destination. Even the most liberal of countries, like Sweden and Norway, it appears that immigrants that are HIV/AIDS go under strict medical supervision in order to enter.

Here's an interesting link.
[url]“communicable disease of public health significance”[/url]

Back to the US, as with all medical issues, laws evolve as science advances, but at a much slower pace than anyone wants. Sometimes to the better good, sometimes not, that's open to discussion and debate. But even the immigration issue of HIV/AIDS will evolve. McCain has said that he would look into dropping the official ban.

justjonsf saidTO DC ERic and orthojock and all the rest of you that think the government is doing something pro-active...."let's see how you feel when you are sick, need medical attention and can not get to it because the people guarding the gates are too stupid and too afraid to let you in....this ban on immigrants is nothing more than a stupid government (which in my research clearly assisted in the creation of the hiv virus) policy adopted by ignorant politicians who think that if they isolate us all we will put an end to the virus....but basically you would have to keep everyone currently in the country... in.... and everyone out of the country... out.... until the last person with the virus on the planet died. So how many of you are willing to give up ALL your travel and yoru friends and families travel until that happens? Oh btw people with HIV/AIDS are living well over 30 years now after diagnosis so I suggest you all stock up on some canned goods....

Again, I am being misunderstood. I applaud the government for TRYING to do SOMETHING. I do not believe that it has done the right thing, but I do believe that it has a responsibility to combat contagious diseases.