Obama to lift HIV entry ban

Undesired Walrus · 31st October 2009, 05:00 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8334810.stm

Quote:

The US is to end its 22-year ban on people with HIV entering the country, President Barack Obama has confirmed..

Mr Obama confirmed the move as he signed the Ryan White HIV/Aids Treatment Extension Act.

He said the entry ban had been "rooted in fear rather than fact".

Thoughts?

Oliver · 31st October 2009, 05:12 AM

Well, how do you interpret the claim that recent legislation was "rooted in fear rather than fact"? Is it accurate?

Oliver · 31st October 2009, 05:24 AM

I mean why is it an issue at all? What's your stance, UW?

Undesired Walrus · 31st October 2009, 05:41 AM

It's a good thing isn't it?

Oliver · 31st October 2009, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

It's a good thing isn't it?

Well, it is in light of the misconceptions about HIV. Why is it a topic you think it's worthy to discuss? At all.

Puppycow · 31st October 2009, 05:50 AM

This is good news.

funk de fino · 31st October 2009, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Well, it is in light of the misconceptions about HIV. Why is it a topic you think it's worthy to discuss? At all.

Are you serious? Why should we discuss a decision made by the POTUS in the politics section?

Get off your high horse.

Undesired Walrus · 31st October 2009, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Well, it is in light of the misconceptions about HIV. Why is it a topic you think it's worthy to discuss? At all.

Don't make life needlessly difficult Oliver.

Professor Yaffle · 31st October 2009, 06:05 AM

Now the US will be swamped by AIDS health tourists taking advantage of their wonderful free healthcare.....

Oliver · 31st October 2009, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Are you serious? Why should we discuss a decision made by the POTUS in the politics section?

Get off your high horse.

What "High horse"? Is there anything negative to say about that policy change?

Undesired Walrus · 31st October 2009, 06:20 AM

So unless it is an issue that generates an all-out blood war between opposing members with opposing views, it is thus unworthy to report?

I doubt you could find many here who would say anything negative about the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Does that mean that it would be pointless to post?

A wise idea would be to admit you were being needlessly difficult for an unknown reason, rather than inexplicably continue with your objections to, well whatever it is.

Oliver · 31st October 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

So unless it is an issue that generates an all-out blood war between opposing members with opposing views, it is thus unworthy to report?

I doubt you could find many here who would say anything negative about the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Does that mean that it would be pointless to post?

A wise idea would be to admit you were being needlessly difficult for an unknown reason, rather than inexplicably continue with your objections to, well whatever it is.

It might not be worthless to discuss an issue nearly everyone agrees on anyway if there is an opposition to the topic at hand, my question, however, was why you personally thought that topic is worthy to discuss. Because to me it seems as if you oppose the policy or you think it's controversial in some way, right?

Undesired Walrus · 31st October 2009, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Because to me it seems as if you oppose the policy

No.

Quote:

or you think it's controversial in some way, right?

Overturning a policy that has been in place for 22 years and denies millions of people from coming to the Land of the Free? No, that's wasn't a controversial policy. Nothing worth reporting there.

Oliver · 31st October 2009, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

No.

Overturning a policy that has been in place for 22 years and denies millions of people from coming to the Land of the Free? No, that's wasn't a controversial policy. Nothing worth reporting there.

So we agree on the change of a controversial policy. Thank you.

Cain · 31st October 2009, 07:15 AM

Great, so now AIDS infected Frenchmen are going to infect our women. Smart move, Obama.

Puppycow · 31st October 2009, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

Great, so now AIDS infected Frenchmen are going to infect our women. Smart move, Obama.

Our women? Don't you mean our young boys?

FlamingMoe · 31st October 2009, 03:29 PM

I dunno. I don't like losing a ground of inadmissibility, though losing this particular tool is like losing a tiny screwdriver - you probably won't miss it that much. Really, it wasn't a hard ban on an alien with AIDS entering the US. It just meant they had to apply for a waiver. I'm not certain there exists any ground of inadmissibility for which a waiver doesn't exist. I also don't know how at what rate waivers were granted either, but all it really means is there's additional hoops to jump through if you're infected.

I'd rather it stay in place, personally, and judge each case individually before granting a visa.

Unabogie · 31st October 2009, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by FlamingMoe

I dunno. I don't like losing a ground of inadmissibility, though losing this particular tool is like losing a tiny screwdriver - you probably won't miss it that much. Really, it wasn't a hard ban on an alien with AIDS entering the US. It just meant they had to apply for a waiver. I'm not certain there exists any ground of inadmissibility for which a waiver doesn't exist. I also don't know how at what rate waivers were granted either, but all it really means is there's additional hoops to jump through if you're infected.

I'd rather it stay in place, personally, and judge each case individually before granting a visa.

Apparently blogger Andrew Sullivan was facing deportation and could not become a citizen, so it must not have been easy, even if you had money, to get a waiver.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...r-hiv-dep.html

31st October 2009, 05:00 AM	#1
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	Obama to lift HIV entry ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8334810.stm Quote: The US is to end its 22-year ban on people with HIV entering the country, President Barack Obama has confirmed.. Mr Obama confirmed the move as he signed the Ryan White HIV/Aids Treatment Extension Act. He said the entry ban had been "rooted in fear rather than fact". Thoughts?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

31st October 2009, 05:12 AM	#2
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	Well, how do you interpret the claim that recent legislation was "rooted in fear rather than fact"? Is it accurate?
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	__________________ εχΧọή MФBĪLE CǾNFĮŔMS GLФв∆L ΨĂЯMΐNĢ

31st October 2009, 05:24 AM	#3
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	I mean why is it an issue at all? What's your stance, UW?
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	__________________ εχΧọή MФBĪLE CǾNFĮŔMS GLФв∆L ΨĂЯMΐNĢ

31st October 2009, 05:41 AM	#4
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	It's a good thing isn't it?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

31st October 2009, 05:46 AM	#5
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus It's a good thing isn't it? Well, it is in light of the misconceptions about HIV. Why is it a topic you think it's worthy to discuss? At all.
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	__________________ εχΧọή MФBĪLE CǾNFĮŔMS GLФв∆L ΨĂЯMΐNĢ

31st October 2009, 05:50 AM	#6
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	This is good news.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

31st October 2009, 06:01 AM	#7
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 6,070	Originally Posted by Oliver Well, it is in light of the misconceptions about HIV. Why is it a topic you think it's worthy to discuss? At all. Are you serious? Why should we discuss a decision made by the POTUS in the politics section? Get off your high horse.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

31st October 2009, 06:02 AM	#8
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	Originally Posted by Oliver Well, it is in light of the misconceptions about HIV. Why is it a topic you think it's worthy to discuss? At all. Don't make life needlessly difficult Oliver.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945 Last edited by Undesired Walrus; 31st October 2009 at 06:12 AM.

31st October 2009, 06:05 AM	#9
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 7,132	Now the US will be swamped by AIDS health tourists taking advantage of their wonderful free healthcare.....
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that.

31st October 2009, 06:12 AM	#10
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	Originally Posted by funk de fino Are you serious? Why should we discuss a decision made by the POTUS in the politics section? Get off your high horse. What "High horse"? Is there anything negative to say about that policy change?
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	__________________ εχΧọή MФBĪLE CǾNFĮŔMS GLФв∆L ΨĂЯMΐNĢ

31st October 2009, 06:20 AM	#11
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	So unless it is an issue that generates an all-out blood war between opposing members with opposing views, it is thus unworthy to report? I doubt you could find many here who would say anything negative about the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Does that mean that it would be pointless to post? A wise idea would be to admit you were being needlessly difficult for an unknown reason, rather than inexplicably continue with your objections to, well whatever it is.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

31st October 2009, 06:25 AM	#12
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus So unless it is an issue that generates an all-out blood war between opposing members with opposing views, it is thus unworthy to report? I doubt you could find many here who would say anything negative about the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Does that mean that it would be pointless to post? A wise idea would be to admit you were being needlessly difficult for an unknown reason, rather than inexplicably continue with your objections to, well whatever it is. It might not be worthless to discuss an issue nearly everyone agrees on anyway if there is an opposition to the topic at hand, my question, however, was why you personally thought that topic is worthy to discuss. Because to me it seems as if you oppose the policy or you think it's controversial in some way, right?
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	__________________ εχΧọή MФBĪLE CǾNFĮŔMS GLФв∆L ΨĂЯMΐNĢ

31st October 2009, 06:52 AM	#13
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	Originally Posted by Oliver Because to me it seems as if you oppose the policy No. Quote: or you think it's controversial in some way, right? Overturning a policy that has been in place for 22 years and denies millions of people from coming to the Land of the Free? No, that's wasn't a controversial policy. Nothing worth reporting there.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

31st October 2009, 06:57 AM	#14
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus No. Overturning a policy that has been in place for 22 years and denies millions of people from coming to the Land of the Free? No, that's wasn't a controversial policy. Nothing worth reporting there. So we agree on the change of a controversial policy. Thank you.
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	__________________ εχΧọή MФBĪLE CǾNFĮŔMS GLФв∆L ΨĂЯMΐNĢ

31st October 2009, 07:15 AM	#15
Cain Contrarian Join Date: May 2002 Location: S. California Posts: 3,958	Great, so now AIDS infected Frenchmen are going to infect our women. Smart move, Obama.
	__________________ Well, well, well. If it ain't the serious, elusive Leroy Green. I've been waitin' a long time for this, Leroy. I am sick of hearin' these ***** Superman stories about the "wassah" legendary Bruce Leroy catchin' bullets with his teeth. Catches bullets with his teeth?! ***** pleeze.

31st October 2009, 08:22 AM	#16
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by Cain Great, so now AIDS infected Frenchmen are going to infect our women. Smart move, Obama. Our women? Don't you mean our young boys?
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

31st October 2009, 03:29 PM	#17
FlamingMoe Muse Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Your mom's house. Posts: 721	I dunno. I don't like losing a ground of inadmissibility, though losing this particular tool is like losing a tiny screwdriver - you probably won't miss it that much. Really, it wasn't a hard ban on an alien with AIDS entering the US. It just meant they had to apply for a waiver. I'm not certain there exists any ground of inadmissibility for which a waiver doesn't exist. I also don't know how at what rate waivers were granted either, but all it really means is there's additional hoops to jump through if you're infected. I'd rather it stay in place, personally, and judge each case individually before granting a visa.

31st October 2009, 04:27 PM	#18
Unabogie Muse Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 660	Originally Posted by FlamingMoe I dunno. I don't like losing a ground of inadmissibility, though losing this particular tool is like losing a tiny screwdriver - you probably won't miss it that much. Really, it wasn't a hard ban on an alien with AIDS entering the US. It just meant they had to apply for a waiver. I'm not certain there exists any ground of inadmissibility for which a waiver doesn't exist. I also don't know how at what rate waivers were granted either, but all it really means is there's additional hoops to jump through if you're infected. I'd rather it stay in place, personally, and judge each case individually before granting a visa. Apparently blogger Andrew Sullivan was facing deportation and could not become a citizen, so it must not have been easy, even if you had money, to get a waiver. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...r-hiv-dep.html
Unabogie Muse Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 660