- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The people who are legally allowed to immigrate here are usually skilled and thus knowledgeable enough to take preventative measures. As said, HIV is low risk transmission compared to influenze and tuberculosis - there is no practical need to ban HIV infected immigrants.
They really should, they won't be treated like scum in the manner of American medical patients.
Meh, the part of the population most affected does not make it severe....
What propoganda?.....
It is a deadly, infectious disease, end of story.....
When there are more people knocking on the door than we have room for, we set criteria for weeding them out.
Infection with a terminable infectious disease is an excellent rake to weed undesirables out.
The cemetaries are populated with thousands of engineers and doctors and other intelligent people who died from AIDS infections received after it became common knowledge that unprotected gay sex was a possible death sentence.
So you can quit pretending that educated immigrants with HIV are just too darn cute...er intelligent to be spreading their junk around like some illegal alien snuck across the border.
I forget how America despises academics sometimes - maybe if you imported more of them you'd have a decent healthcare system or understand why banning HIV positive legal immigrants is like trying to fireproof a burning house.
Curious, do you have any concrete evidence that HIV rates are affected by legal immigration *at all*?
It's 100% true that HIV infected immigrants who are not allowed into the United States cannot infect a person in the United States.
Unless their dick is a hundred feet long, I suppose.
We don't despise academics, unless they're retarded enough to be socialists also, and we don't despise HIV infected academics, except to note that their vaunted education gives them no excuse for having allowed themselves to get infected, and thus if they did get infected, they're clearly not the brightest people and they should immigrate to some second-rate country, not the US.
So you don't have any evidence then? Case dismissed, you can go now.
Middle America does despise academics, actually, or else you would understand the service lawyers and teachers do for society and not bitch about "the liberal elite" in reference to University culture.
Not everyone "allows" themselves to get infected, you know.
That was evidence.
How about you citing a pressing need of the US to admit these diseased individuals to support your case. There's absolutely no reason the doors to the US be thrown open to everyone, so present the case of needs the commands us to accept these people.
The fact that people who aren't allowed into the US can't infect people in the US is irrefutable and sufficient to justify denying diseased people entrance.
Explain why we need to admit diseased individuals.
Stating that we need doctors, engineers, etc is insufficient, since our need isn't that great and such a claim ignores the fact that we can simply choose skilled persons who aren't infected.
Middle America does despise academics, actually, or else you would understand the service lawyers and teachers do for society and not bitch about "the liberal elite" in reference to University culture.
Not everyone "allows" themselves to get infected, you know.
Your asking her to prove a negative......:lol:
I think it's highly likely. Now what? My unsubstantiated claim is just as valid as yours.Of course, but were they diseased immigrants?.....
Not likely.....
You mean telling the people that if they don't run around promiscuously and don't do intravenous drugs they can't get infected?
You've some objection to the truth?
Abstinence is the best prevention for HIV.
Get used to it.
Period. I never said there was a requirement nor did I ever say the USA has to allow anyone inside it's borders. I'm merely arguing that it doesn't make much sense to be discriminatory against people with HIV/AIDS.Past or present, and is this a requirement?
I've an objection to half truths.
But not the only method of prevention.
Fortunately the standards aren't set by you and the people who set those standards are a bit more open minded and and less isolationist. Should we also "slam the doors in the face of anyone" who has a genetic disease as well? We wouldn't want them spreading around their defective genes. How about we screen them for neoconservativism and corporatism as well, we know what kind of damage they can do to our country and we don't need any more of them?Hmmm.....immigrants who are not infected with HIV present a 0.00% risk of infecting others with HIV. HIV infected immigrants present a risk of transmission >0%.
Good enough for me.
Since this is a free country, we do have the freedom to slam the doors in the face of anyone not meeting our standards for admission.
Excellent responses. You've shown us you are inconsistent, morally bankrupt, exclusionary, pompus and either unintelligent or obtuse.If by "freedom" you mean the freedom to cross the US border at whim, then the answer is "what the **** do you think national borders are for?" and "of course foreigners aren't free to come and go as they please".
Duh.
Because they're not US citizens.
They can either have democracy in their own country, or their can take their disease to France.
I'm easy.
Sounds reasonable.
I will when I meet him. However, since he is a US citizen, he's not really germaine to the thread topic.
Or maybe you have difficulty grasping concepts. If you tell people that abstinence is the only or best way to prevent the spread of STDs then you are only giving them half the truth or half of the relevant information with which to make an informed decision.what half-truth?
If a person doesn't engage in promiscuous sex, if he doesn't play with someone else's needles, he's not going to catch HIV. What are the alternatives....hhhmmmm...infected transfusion/plasma....deliberate attack and/or rape.... oh! Maybe you're think HIV is transmitted by toilet seats in dirty gas stations?
Fortunately the standards aren't set by you
Or maybe you have difficulty grasping concepts. If you tell people that abstinence is the only or best way to prevent the spread of STDs then you are only giving them half the truth or half of the relevant information with which to make an informed decision.
Excellent responses. You've shown us you are inconsistent, morally bankrupt, exclusionary, pompus and either unintelligent or obtuse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?