US may lift ban..

[wifetobe 2]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-decade ban on people with HIV visiting or immigrating to the United States may end soon through a Senate bill aimed at fighting AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas of the world.

The U.S. is one of a dozen countries — including Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Russia — that ban travel and immigration for HIV-positive people.

Even China, said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., recently changed that policy, deciding it was "time to move beyond an antiquated, knee-jerk reaction" to people with HIV.

"There's no excuse for a law that stigmatizes a particular disease," Kerry said Tuesday at a speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies HIV/AIDS Task Force. Even people with avian flu or the Ebola virus have an easier time than those with HIV when it come to applying for visas, he said.

Kerry and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., are trying to repeal the ban, first implemented in 1987 and confirmed by Congress in 1993. The two have attached their measure to legislation — which the Senate may pass this week — that would provide $50 billion over the next five years to fight AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas.

Foreign citizens, students and tourists can apply for a difficult-to-obtain special waiver for short-term visits, but an HIV-positive person has little chance of obtaining permanent residency.

Under current law, HIV is the only medical condition explicitly listed under immigration law. The Kerry-Smith provision would make HIV equivalent to other communicable diseases where medical and public health experts at the Health and Human Services Department — not consular officials at U.S. embassies — determine eligibility for admission.

Those with HIV seeking legal permanent residency would still have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in this country and would not become a "public charge."

The HIV ban was "adopted during a time of widespread fear and ignorance about the HIV virus," said Allison Herwitt, legislative director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian civil rights group.

Among the consequences, experts on HIV and AIDS who are themselves infected have been unable to attend conferences in the U.S. Students and refugees in the country who may be at risk of infection have been reluctant to seek testing or treatment.

"Health care professionals, researchers and other exceptionally talented people have been blocked from the United States," some 160 health and AIDS groups said recently in a letter urging Congress to end the current policy. "Since 1993, the International Conference on AIDS has not been held on U.S. soil due to this policy."

Herwitt said some HIV-positive people seeking visas lie on their applications and then don't bring their medications. "It's not only wrongheaded and discriminatory, but can also cause people to not tell the truth."

Both President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton sought to ease the policy and in 2006 the current President Bush asked the Homeland Security Department to streamline the waiver process. Congress so far has not gone along.

There's still opposition.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., may offer an amendment to eliminate the Kerry-Smith provision from the Senate bill. Sessions cited Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new immigrants coming in under the relaxed policy could cost the government more than $80 million over a 10-year period. "Most people just don't want to talk about that."

Sessions said the Health and Human Services Department already has considerable flexibility to grant entry visas.

The measure would offset the costs of new immigrants by raising the price of applying for a visitor's visa by $1 for three years and then $2 for the next five years.

[almaty 19]

no!!! hiv is the devil's mark on the uncleaned./..don't let them in here....

sheesh, america should never have banned them.....

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

seems like one of those bans that base soley on prejudice and ignorance, it needs to go! It would make more sense if there was a general policy about infectious diseases, and was part of a set of wider measures, but as it is, it makes no sense.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Next, we will let in gays with the disease they created...

*note the sarcasm*

Edited July 17, 2008 by Jack and Barbara

[Nessa 23]

and those sick polygamists

[Jenn! 918]

Those with HIV seeking legal permanent residency would still have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in this country and would not become a "public charge."

That might be difficult, no?

I don't know much about how health insurance and HIV works.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Those with HIV seeking legal permanent residency would still have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in this country and would not become a "public charge."

That might be difficult, no?

Yes, but fair is fair.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

seems like one of those bans that base soley on prejudice and ignorance, it needs to go! It would make more sense if there was a general policy about infectious diseases, and was part of a set of wider measures, but as it is, it makes no sense.

Actually, it was, historically: the US was also known in 1960's and prior to specifically check for TB (it still does "officially"--this is why for consular interviews, the chest x-ray is required).

Admittedly, it makes no sense to ban entry to those suffering from a disease already present in the country--but that's government 101 for you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I get the idea of banning contagious diseases like TB, but HIV is a bit of an odd one as transmission rates really are statistically fairly low. You're also not likely to get it from someone sneezing on you in a line, sitting next to you on a plane or spitting in your eye.

[Jenn! 918]

Those with HIV seeking legal permanent residency would still have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in this country and would not become a "public charge."

That might be difficult, no?

Yes, but fair is fair.

I have to agree, but I had thought this was the whole reason behind the ban in the first place. The lifting of the ban probably won't have much effect, practically speaking.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Those with HIV seeking legal permanent residency would still have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in this country and would not become a "public charge."

That might be difficult, no?

Yes, but fair is fair.

I have to agree, but I had thought this was the whole reason behind the ban in the first place. The lifting of the ban probably won't have much effect, practically speaking.

Well, you may have been PARTLY right on the reason for the ban (the rationale behind banning entrants with communicable, fatal diseases--even when these were endemically present).

Another detail to add: in this case, the rationale had already failed as "Patient 0" Gaetan Dugas had entered and departed the country numerous times (through his work as an AC flight purser) before the ban was imposed--"bolting door after horse already miles away".

[zqt3344 21]

The ban will stay in place it is not going to be lifted and rightfully so! IT is African problem and should be quarantined and dealt with there, and I do not know one person on here that would open their doors up or want to share and live with that disease without not knowing about it at first! And would you not know it the liberal loser John Kerry is charging ahead for this bill, and he wondered why he got beat in 04 by GW Bush!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-decade ban on people with HIV visiting or immigrating to the United States may end soon through a Senate bill aimed at fighting AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas of the world.

The U.S. is one of a dozen countries — including Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Russia — that ban travel and immigration for HIV-positive people.

Even China, said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., recently changed that policy, deciding it was "time to move beyond an antiquated, knee-jerk reaction" to people with HIV.

"There's no excuse for a law that stigmatizes a particular disease," Kerry said Tuesday at a speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies HIV/AIDS Task Force. Even people with avian flu or the Ebola virus have an easier time than those with HIV when it come to applying for visas, he said.

Kerry and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., are trying to repeal the ban, first implemented in 1987 and confirmed by Congress in 1993. The two have attached their measure to legislation — which the Senate may pass this week — that would provide $50 billion over the next five years to fight AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas.

Foreign citizens, students and tourists can apply for a difficult-to-obtain special waiver for short-term visits, but an HIV-positive person has little chance of obtaining permanent residency.

Under current law, HIV is the only medical condition explicitly listed under immigration law. The Kerry-Smith provision would make HIV equivalent to other communicable diseases where medical and public health experts at the Health and Human Services Department — not consular officials at U.S. embassies — determine eligibility for admission.

Those with HIV seeking legal permanent residency would still have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in this country and would not become a "public charge."

The HIV ban was "adopted during a time of widespread fear and ignorance about the HIV virus," said Allison Herwitt, legislative director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian civil rights group.

Among the consequences, experts on HIV and AIDS who are themselves infected have been unable to attend conferences in the U.S. Students and refugees in the country who may be at risk of infection have been reluctant to seek testing or treatment.

"Health care professionals, researchers and other exceptionally talented people have been blocked from the United States," some 160 health and AIDS groups said recently in a letter urging Congress to end the current policy. "Since 1993, the International Conference on AIDS has not been held on U.S. soil due to this policy."

Herwitt said some HIV-positive people seeking visas lie on their applications and then don't bring their medications. "It's not only wrongheaded and discriminatory, but can also cause people to not tell the truth."

Both President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton sought to ease the policy and in 2006 the current President Bush asked the Homeland Security Department to streamline the waiver process. Congress so far has not gone along.

There's still opposition.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., may offer an amendment to eliminate the Kerry-Smith provision from the Senate bill. Sessions cited Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new immigrants coming in under the relaxed policy could cost the government more than $80 million over a 10-year period. "Most people just don't want to talk about that."

Sessions said the Health and Human Services Department already has considerable flexibility to grant entry visas.

The measure would offset the costs of new immigrants by raising the price of applying for a visitor's visa by $1 for three years and then $2 for the next five years.

[Jenn! 918]

An African problem? While there may be a greater concentration of people infected with HIV in Africa, it seems to be everyone's problem:

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

An African problem? While there may be a greater concentration of people infected with HIV in Africa, it seems to be everyone's problem:

I think this is why he called it an African problem.

From the original article:

A two-decade ban on people with HIV visiting or immigrating to the United States may end soon through a Senate bill aimed at fighting AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas of the world.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The ban will stay in place it is not going to be lifted and rightfully so! IT is African problem and should be quarantined and dealt with there, and I do not know one person on here that would open their doors up or want to share and live with that disease without not knowing about it at first! And would you not know it the liberal loser John Kerry is charging ahead for this bill, and he wondered why he got beat in 04 by GW Bush!

Another insightful comment from our resident expert - the maestro