Barring HIV+ Immigrants

[InfiniteNow]

Then check out the following information presented by people more knowledgable than myself on the subject...

 

Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO)

[Monomer]

Okay, as an Aussie, I'm going to weigh in.

 

I understand that people would want to prevent HIV+ immigrants because they'll put a strain on our healthcare system, and they might infect an Aussie etc. But maybe it's time we start acting like a community - a global community.

 

If we're going to bar HIV+ people, then bar anyone with any contagious/transmittable disease, and bar criminals too. And also people with a mental illness who might snap one day and go on a murderous rampage. They're all putting Aussies at risk of something, aren't they...

 

If each of the potential HIV+ immigrants stayed in their own country, they'll put a strain on that country's health care system. From what InfiniteNow posted, that burden is a small percentage, so perhaps we can afford to show some care towards a fellow human being.

 

 

23% of new cases in Victoria Australia are a direct result of immigrants harboring the disease.

 

Okay, but those most at risk of contracting HIV will do so anyway from an HIV+ native if they're not careful. Adding more HIV+ people won't necessarily increase their risk.

 

 

Priorities. Best use of resources. Deny a few (hiv carriers) to help many (healthy immigrants).

 

Healthy immigrants can still get sick and can still put pressure on the health care system. Healthy immigrants can contract HIV!

 

Maybe Australia should kick out all the HIV+ people just to be on the safe side. That'll really ease up the health care system... :cocktail:

[Cedars]

That’s less than 5 one-hundredths of 1% of annual healthcare spend and less than 3 one-thousandths of 1% of annual GDP.

 

This is best case calculations. Every dollar has to come from somewhere to pay for the infected, so what you propose will take money from another issue. 1250 x 2000 per month is real money. $2.5 million per month in additional costs on top of every other temporary cost involved with immigrants. We have current health care issues that need resolution before adding additional burdens on the taxpayers, the medical systems, the social services, the job market, etc.

 

It is convinent to be able to minimize the cost by declaring its insignificant because we spend so much more elsewhere, but the real numbers are $2.5 million per month, that we can avoid spending with the existing immigration policy we have. And that (the estimated numbers) are a best case scenario. We are cutting funding to programs all over this country due to a lack of real money to support them. Simply put there is no additional 5 one-hundreths of 1% to spend. There is no logical reason to increase dollars spent when there is no doubt that is what will happen under the HIV in immigrants scenario.

 

Once we begin to allow HIV infected persons into this country, the number of applicants will increase expoentially. And we wont be able to ship them back if they violate the rules of immigration and commit crimes, spread the infection, etc, because their countries of origin wont take them back.

 

We are the third most populated country in the world now. We dont need to increase the numbers via this particular burden. Zero increase in HIV infection rates in the USA is a worthy goal, a stated goal, and that includes immigrants.

 

Based on that percentage, [are you willing to] support yet another source of physical and ideological division among the inhabitants of our planet?

Yep!! I dont want to support yet another source of taxpayer waste. I didnt infect these people in other countries with HIV and I feel no obligation to fund their emmigration to this country with any of my tax dollars. There is no shortage of people wanting to come here; people who are healthy now and do not carry the added burden of an HIV infection.

[Cedars]

If we're going to bar HIV+ people, then bar anyone with any contagious/transmittable disease, and bar criminals too. And also people with a mental illness who might snap one day and go on a murderous rampage. They're all putting Aussies at risk of something, aren't they...

 

I dont know aussie rules, but in the US, all the above is grounds to deny immigration already.

 

 

If each of the potential HIV+ immigrants stayed in their own country, they'll put a strain on that country's health care system.

 

Okay, but those most at risk of contracting HIV will do so anyway from an HIV+ native if they're not careful. Adding more HIV+ people won't necessarily increase their risk.

 

Shifting the burden isnt an answer to the issue. While looking good on paper, controling the spread of HIV via protected sex (*not failsafe) risk management, education, etc is all shiny, happy, the reality is people do have unprotected sex, people ignore their risk factors and HIV continues to increase, worldwide, including in Minnesota, Sweden, Germany, and Australia.

 

REGIERUNGonline - HIV infection rates on the rise worldwide

 

In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 270,000 people became infected with HIV in 2006, according to UNAIDS. This is a 70 percent rise as compared to 2004.

 

This is current info released from the MN Dept of Health, Monday, April 16, 2007.

 

Special Populations: New HIV Infections among Foreign-born Persons

 

The number of new HIV infections diagnosed among foreign-born persons in Minnesota has steadily increased from 19 cases in 1990 to 71 cases in 2006. This increase has been largely driven by the increase of cases among African-born persons from 7 cases in 1990 to 36 cases in 2006, as well as, persons from Mexico, Central and South America from 6 cases in 1990 to 29 cases in 2006. Among new HIV infections diagnosed in 2006, 22% were among foreign-born persons. Based on U.S. Census 2000 data, foreign-born persons make up 5% of the total Minnesota population and are, therefore, disproportionately affected by HIV (9).Among African-born this disparity is even more evident, while African-born persons make up less that 1% of the Minnesota population they accounted for 11% of new HIV infections in 2006.

 

Minnesota HIV Surveillance Report Text - Minnesota Dept. of Health

 

 

No one has suggested anywheres that those currently within the borders of their respective countries should be kicked out.

[InfiniteNow]

Cedars,

 

Your argument actually defeats your own position. If available funding for other programs and overall cost impact were the true motivators underlying this issue, then Australia would block immigrants who are smokers or those older than 50, since those two groups account for the greatest percentage of healthcare spend. They are not doing this. They are focusing on those contributing to an infinitesimal percentage… 0.047% of annual healthcare spend. It’s like saying you want to improve the greenhouse emissions of your car by cleaning the windshield. It will have no practical impact.

 

Why is focus put on HIV positive immigrants in this way? Because they are an easy and emotionally laden scapegoat that politicians can use to arouse ignorance based hatred in the populace.

 

Once we begin to allow HIV infected persons into this country, the number of applicants will increase exponentially. And we wont be able to ship them back if they violate the rules of immigration and commit crimes, spread the infection, etc, because their countries of origin wont take them back.

See the link I added to Post #35. They are already allowed, but only after tremendous restrictions have been overcome.

 

The act being discussed, as opened in this thread by Racoon, is the proposal to Fully Eliminate even the Possibility of Immigration to those HIV positive. It’s not like HIV positive immigrants are currently flowing across the border, not by any means. It’s already next to impossible, so think what is underlying this proposal for outright ban.

 

Considering the points presented (and I don’t mean to single out Cedars by any means, as he is very intelligent, but I’m hoping just misguided), I suggest that only those most entrenched in ignorant thinking will continue to support the prospect that outright ban is okay.

[Cedars]

Cedars,

 

Your argument actually defeats your own position.

 

I dont know how you come to this conclusion, unless you skip over much of my post. My post to you was in direct answer to your own posts, under the conditions that you outlined regarding cost. I try very hard not to drag in other unrelated baggage to a topic (admittedly not always successfully), but that doesnt mean I have only one arguement.

 

 

The act being discussed, as opened in this thread by Racoon, is the proposal to Fully Eliminate even the Possibility of Immigration to those HIV positive. It’s not like HIV positive immigrants are currently flowing across the border, not by any means. It’s already next to impossible, so think what is underlying this proposal for outright ban.

They are not overflowing Australian borders because AU has much tighter than America restrictions on who gets to immigrate (as I understand it). Australia is begining to rethink its position in direct relation to the increased HIV positive results in the immigrant community.

 

Considering the points presented, I suggest that only those most entrenched in ignorant thinking will continue to support the prospect that outright ban is okay.

 

And I believe it is the supporters of Open the Borders to HIV Positive Immigrants position that is misguided. I dont think they are ignorant, I think they are in denial of the reality of HIV and its cost to any society it impacts. Tends to be an emotional issue for both sides, but in my opinion the logic behind the ban is the valid argument.

 

There is no logical reason to increase dollars spent when there is no doubt that is what will happen under the HIV in immigrants scenario; the contrary position is entirely an emotional appeal based on subjective values held by individuals on a personal level.

 

Immigration policy has always regarded the ability of the immigrant to contribute to this society. Huddled masses, wretched refuse, etc is a different statement than "infected with transmittable, deadly, costly disease".

[CraigD]

The act being discussed, as opened in this thread by Racoon, is the proposal to Fully Eliminate even the Possibility of Immigration to those HIV positive.

From the msnbc article linked to in post #1, it’s clear that Howard is proposing to “tighten up”, existing immigration restrictions on HIV-positive people, not an exception-less ban. Nowhere in the article can I find any reference to an act of parliament, or any other sort of legislation – it appears to based on a radio statement about intended policy made by PM Howard.

 

Precisely what this “tightening” would be, I don’t think is made clear. I get the impression that some people believe it would amount to a total ban, others just a more rigorous application of existing regulations. Lacking as I do much understanding of how Australian immigration regulations are made and enforced, I’m at a loss to form much of an opinion.

[InfiniteNow]

While I disagree with Cedars, bleeding-heart optimistic hippy black belt that I am, I want to publicly thank him for presenting his points with a “real world” perspective and consistency.

 

Thank you, Cedars. ;)

 

Also, thanks to CraigD for clarifying the article, and it retrospect, it appears that I was mistaken by stating this proposal centered around a total ban of the immigration of HIV positive human beings.

 

And what the heck, thank all of the posters in this thread, and the readers of it, and Racoon for opening it. I’m feeling gratitudinous today. :)

 

 

I will summarize my motivating thrust here. Sometimes the bottom line gets in the way of true progress. I understand the economics and finance issues quite well, but see a greater cost to humanity as a whole which, in my mind, outweighs any and all budgetary issues.

 

All too often, we allow our focus on finance to get in the way of our focus on society as a whole and our humanitarian motivations. To truly evolve and improve ourselves as a planet, I think we need to let go of much of our concern for dollars and increase our concern, cooperation, and compassion for life.

 

You may say that there are too many problems in the world for us to try to offer comfort and solice to yet another group, but I say that’s exactly the reason we must try harder to do so.

 

 

Cheers. :)

[Tormod]

This thread is both good, in that certain evidence is being posted, but it is also deplorable, in that it displays open argumentational fallacies and some rather surprising views on human rights.

 

1. Barring a person entry because of HIV is the question. The nature of how HIV was contracted is ignored. Thus if I contract HIV through a blood transfusion at a hospital, I should be banned from entering the US. On what grounds? That I have a virus that may develop into AIDS and kill me?

 

2. I was ridiculed for comparing HIV and asthma. But the comparison is not a joke. Asthma is in many ways a deadly disease (not a virus) and health care costs can become extremely high (even here). Should then families with kids who have strong asthma problems be banned, too, since they stand a risk of causing strain on the healthcare system?

 

Slightly off topic: For those who think health care is free in Norway, you are very wrong. We pay for that health care through extreme tax rates (and lots of people have private insurance). We also pay for visiting the doctor and for our medicines, in most cases. However, being treated at a public hospital is free.

 

Being sick in Norway is not cheap, but it is probably putting less strain on a person's private economy than, say, in the US.

 

Maybe there are other solutions than simply barring access. Like Sanctus pointed out, there are many reasons for moving to a country. A blanket denial to all HIV+ immigrants is short-minded and is segregation at a very low level.

[Tormod]

One other point (clarification): This thread was not about barring people who immigrate to get treatment for HIV+, but to bar all immigrants who have contracted the virus. There is a big difference between those two.

 

Most HIV+ carriers do not develop the disease, AFAIK.

[Cedars]

This thread is both good, in that certain evidence is being posted, but it is also deplorable, in that it displays open argumentational fallacies and some rather surprising views on human rights.

 

 

 

Immigration to any country is not a right, its a priviledge. A priviledge that can be denied for a number of reasons, not just HIV infection. I think your confusing the right to leave a country and change nationalities (as described in the human rights declaration) which has no guarentee that every country is obligated to accept immigrants .

 

As far as the rest of the post, HIV is treated equally regardless of source of infection. There is no comparison with asthma; asthma is not a disease that can be spread person to person. Apples and Oranges.

[Zythryn]

Tormod,

 

I think you are reading a little too much into the motivation for any such restrictions or bans. Where the HIV came from doesn't matter.

Both the reason for the restrictions/ban and the reason the Asthma comparison doesn't hold is the same. HIV is contagious and may be transmitted to many others. The 'epidemic' is not spread as quickly as an ebola virus, but it still spreads.

 

Please note, my personal question is 'how valid is the epidemic label to AIDS'. I am not sure that it is, but where is the line?

 

As for Asthma, to my knowledge it is not communicable and so that is where the comparison fails.

 

While I am on the fence on this issue, I most certainly feel that there are better ways to combat HIV/AIDS then this option.

[gribbon]

This is probably the only time I am ever going to ally with Infinite Now, but here I just have to agree.

 

May I just remind everyone that most HIV+ people are migrating from countries that are far too poor to provide health care, and will not have the scientific resources to do so for around a century.

 

At least in the U.K./Australia etc they can be treated. Otherwise, countries like Zambia and Botswana are going to be crushed by this disease.

[Racoon]

This thread is both good, in that certain evidence is being posted, but it is also deplorable, in that it displays open argumentational fallacies and some rather surprising views on human rights.

 

1. Barring a person entry because of HIV is the question. The nature of how HIV was contracted is ignored. Thus if I contract HIV through a blood transfusion at a hospital, I should be banned from entering the US. On what grounds

 

 

1. How many people actually contract the disease from blood transfusions anymore?

 

2. Why shouldn't HIV+ patients go to Norway Instead? Better Health Care System. :hihi:

[CraigD]

How many people actually contract the disease from blood transfusions anymore?

According to this 8/2003 paper, whole blood transfusions account for 80,000 – 100,000 new HIV infections annually, 2-4% of the total cases.

 

In the US and other wealthy nations, a combination of effective antibody blood screening tests, pre-collection interview, and post-collection voluntary recall procedures have reduced the infection rate for HIV, Hepatitis B and C, and other pathogens to very low rates (less than 1 in 1,000,000), from which it can be calculated that only about 10 HIV infections due to whole blood transfusions occur annually – effectively a zero transmission rate.

 

Worldwide, only 43% of 191 WHO member states have routine HIV testing of their blood supply. Only about 20% of the blood supply is safe for about 80% of the world population.

 

According to this UN report, A much larger means of infection, again especially in less wealthy nations, is from mother to child, accounting for about 700,000 new HIV infections, about 28% of the total.

 

The primary means of HIV transmission worldwide is sex. As I’m nearly certain he know this, I’m uneasily suspicious of the reason for Racoon’s question: he seems to me to be implying that people who contract HIV from sex are less deserving of treatment than those who acquire it from blood transfusions.

[Racoon]

According to this 8/2003 paper, whole blood transfusions account for 80,000 – 100,000 new HIV infections annually, 2-4% of the total cases.

 

In the US and other wealthy nations, a combination of effective antibody blood screening tests, pre-collection interview, and post-collection voluntary recall procedures have reduced the infection rate for HIV, Hepatitis B and C, and other pathogens to very low rates (less than 1 in 1,000,000), from which it can be calculated that only about 10 HIV infections due to whole blood transfusions occur annually – effectively a zero transmission rate.

 

Worldwide, only 43% of 191 WHO member states have routine HIV testing of their blood supply. Only about 20% of the blood supply is safe for about 80% of the world population.

 

According to this UN report, A much larger means of infection, again especially in less wealthy nations, is from mother to child, accounting for about 700,000 new HIV infections, about 28% of the total.

 

The primary means of HIV transmission worldwide is sex. As I’m nearly certain he know this, I’m uneasily suspicious of the reason for Racoon’s question: he seems to me to be implying that people who contract HIV from sex are less deserving of treatment than those who acquire it from blood transfusions.

 

You Never stated that How Many!?

That many?

So you advocate letting them all in?

 

Lets pay for all their drug cocktails...

Let them get secure section 8 housing, and get on Medicare/medicade..

 

Where are they from again?

 

Ok cool :eek_big: .

They are people Just like You! :D

[Racoon]

According to this 8/2003 paper, whole blood transfusions account for 80,000 – 100,000 new HIV infections annually, 2-4% of the total cases.

 

 

20003??

I thought it was 20007?

 

Which year an country is it Craig D ?

How Many Islamic Radicalists do you support becuz' Its the right thing to do?