POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: Miss Philicia on March 23, 2010, 01:53:01 am
-
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/us/19sfmetro.html)
March 18, 2010
With Ban on H.I.V. Immigrants Now History, Relief and Revision
By SCOTT JAMES
John Newman fondly recalled the eight years he taught first and second grades in Vallejo public schools — he felt appreciated, and was once named “Teacher of the Year.” It was the 1990s, before he got sick and was told to leave the United States.
“I was accepted by co-workers, neighbors and employers,” Mr. Newman said. “But I was not welcome by the government.”
Mr. Newman, a Canadian, contracted H.I.V., which causes AIDS and nearly killed him. Breakthrough drugs brought back his health. Then he discovered that a law many considered cruel required him to leave his home. Sadly, he returned to Canada.
Now the stories of people like Mr. Newman are becoming public. Experts say tens of thousands shared similarly interrupted lives thanks to a 22-year United States ban on allowing foreigners with H.I.V. to live in this country.
President Obama described the ban as “rooted in fear rather than fact.” It became a dead letter in January.
“The people affected by this have lived in the shadows,” said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, a nonprofit organization working to end immigration restraints based on H.I.V. status and sexual orientation.
Mr. Ralls said the phones at his group’s legal aid headquarters in New York “started ringing off the hook and they have not stopped” since the ban was lifted. He said people were being reunited with lives — and in some cases spouses and families — they had been forced to leave behind.
The ban was imposed in 1987 when H.I.V.-positive foreigners were added to a list of inadmissible undesirables that included prostitutes and felons, said Christian Schmidt, a San Francisco immigration lawyer.
“They didn’t let you in,” Mr. Schmidt said. Those already here were tested. If results were positive, they had to leave.
The ban grouped H.I.V. — which is infectious and transmitted in blood and through sexual contact — with tuberculosis, a contagious airborne disease.
Critics said that by incorrectly inferring that H.I.V. was spread by casual contact, and equating the sick with criminals, the ban demonized those infected. “It’s really impossible to underestimate the stigma caused by this law,” Mr. Ralls said.
The ban “set a very bad precedent,” he said. “It undermined H.I.V. awareness and testing.”
Foreigners avoided testing, which Mr. Ralls said might have worsened the spread of AIDS.
The United States was the only industrialized country with such a policy; the handful of others included Iran, Iraq and Syria.
The policy took effect in the Reagan administration. Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz declined to comment when contacted recently.
Efforts to lift the ban were blocked by a 1993 Congressional amendment introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina. Those who fought the law say Mr. Helms, who died in 2008, perpetuated decades of discrimination.
But just as the ban has disappeared, the curators of Mr. Helms’s legacy are trying to touch up the relevant history. Some want him seen as a savior to those with AIDS and a defender of gay rights.
Despite Mr. Helms’s storied opposition to “a homosexual lifestyle,” the Jesse Helms Center in Wingate, N.C., is challenging the idea that he was a “homophobe” or obstructive in the AIDS fight.
According to the center’s Web site, “It was Senator Helms who worked most tirelessly to protect the very principles of freedom that homosexuals are denied in many other nations.”
John Dodd, president of the Jesse Helms Center Foundation, recently disputed an editorial in the British newspaper The Guardian that vilified Mr. Helms for his role in the ban. Mr. Dodd argued that “two million Africans were alive” because of the senator’s work fighting H.I.V.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, whose partner Tim Curbo died from AIDS, said the Helms Center sought to sanitize the record. “It’s spitting on the graves of all the people who suffered,” Mr. Ammiano said, adding, “He was truly evil and very cavalier about it. He should be in the hall of shame.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Newman is making plans to return to the United States. He e-mailed this week that he was in Kino Bay, Mexico, where “the sky is blue and the sun is hot.” Next week he plans to get behind the wheel of an R.V. and head north, feeling welcome for the first time in years.
-
Ugh.... When it came to Helms, I couldn't fathom how his constituents could support him in good conscience. I see his followers are following in his evil footsteps...
Thanks for posting that..
-
Ugh.... When it came to Helms, I couldn't fathom how his constituents could support him in good conscience. I see his followers are following in his evil footsteps...
As a North Carolinian, I couldn't fathom it either. Every one of his races was hotly contested but he was a Senator with great constituency services (for at least the white, straight, Christian segment) and he brought a lot of pork to the state. Burn in hell, Jesse.
-
I agree with you all on Helms, he was reprehensible.
As a side note, and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada discriminate against people with HIV becoming permanent residents? And for a time (maybe still ? ) Australia?
-
, but doesn't Canada discriminate against people with HIV becoming permanent residents? And for a time (maybe still ? ) Australia?
I know for certain that Australia and New Zealand doesn't discriminate against anyone with HIV wanting to live here..there was talk awhile back but I'm pretty sure we will not go the way of America..(no offence guys)..and as far as I know Canada hasn't changed and doesn't discriminate again HIV.
Hugs
Jan :-*
-
I agree with you all on Helms, he was reprehensible.
As a side note, and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada discriminate against people with HIV becoming permanent residents? And for a time (maybe still ? ) Australia?
http://www.hivtravel.org/Default.aspx?PageId=143&Mode=list&StateId=7
The countries which deport people with HIV are
Armenia
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
China
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Hungary
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea (Democratic People s Republic)
Korea (South)
Kuwait
Malaysia
Moldova
Mongolia
Oman
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Syria
Taiwan
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Uzbekistan
Yemen
-
I thought Canada declined HIV+ immigrants citizenship because they "might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services."
http://www.smith-hughes.com/papers/pdf_bin/Overview-of-Canadian-Immigration-LawPoliciesHIV.pdf
-
I thought Canada declined HIV+ immigrants citizenship because they "might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services."
http://www.smith-hughes.com/papers/pdf_bin/Overview-of-Canadian-Immigration-LawPoliciesHIV.pdf
I looked into moving there quite a while ago and that's what I recall finding.
-
I agree with you all on Helms, he was reprehensible.
As a side note, and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada discriminate against people with HIV becoming permanent residents? And for a time (maybe still ? ) Australia?
Australia reserves the right to deny permanent residency to a person if they would be a undue burden on the social security and public health systems.
We do not have endless resources and so sensible limits must be maintained. That said, humanitarian considerations do balance those limits to an extent. I understand that people seeking asylum for example can be exempted from the undue burden provisions of the Migration Act.
Note that permanent residency is not the same as the right to enter the country.
MtD
-
There are two considerations, which are getting confused here: 1) is having HIV reason enough not to allow a person to immigrate (i.e. become a resident of) into a country and 2) are people who have HIV able to visit a given country either as tourists or with temporary visas?
I think the reason bmancanfly brought this up is because it seems that the Canadian man mentioned in the OP was living in the US when he found out he had HIV and had to go back to Canada, presumably for health care. This is not unreasonable given that so many Americans are having a hard enough time getting life saving medications and he could get them for free in his native country.
His case is not exactly the best example for the Times to choose when discussing the lifting of the HIV travel ban. Although I guess he was summarily kicked out just for having HIV even before he needed meds and that was a time before ADAP and waiting lists, probably before many of the meds were available, too?
-
This is a very good example of how elections have consequences. We saw many bad consequences during the Bush years. I kinda give a pass to Clinton as his presidency was very close to the AIDS hysteria. However, by 2000, he could have done something about it. All his work with AIDS allows me to overlook this. Plus, he had to deal with Jesse Helms.
I'm glad Obama finally got it done! I'm glad dems are now moving to lift the ban on gay blood donation. They are moving--just don't know how fast.
-
So the short answer is yes. Both Canada and Australia discriminate against HIV+ people who want permanantly move to those countries.
The U.S. policy toward HIV+ people was reprehensible and wrong. But the Canadian and Australiian policy is also wrong.
Isn't it in effect the same thing? If you can't get permanent status, aren't you ultimately forced to leave? Maybe not immediately (like the US did), but ultimately, at some point, you will be forced to leave those countries. Seems like a Catch 22 with the ultimate outcome the same.
-
So the short answer is yes. Both Canada and Australia discriminate against HIV+ people who want permanantly move to those countries.
Yes, but the thing is that until very recently the US did not even allow people who have HIV to come visit, those other countries did.
The reason for limiting people with HIV from moving to a country such as Canada or countries in Western Europe is because they offer universal health care. If they opened their doors to anyone and everyone, regardless of health condition, their resources would be severely strained.
-
So the short answer is yes. Both Canada and Australia discriminate against HIV+ people who want permanantly move to those countries.
The U.S. policy toward HIV+ people was reprehensible and wrong. But the Canadian and Australiian policy is also wrong.
Our policy is not wrong, it is reasonable given the circumstances.
MtD
-
damn, bigoted Australians
-
damn, bigoted Australians
We'd kick your lipoed old ass out under the provisions of the Good Taste Act.
MtD
-
We'd kick your lipoed old ass out under the provisions of the Good Taste Act.
MtD
Queens in glass towers, Matty!
;D
-
If the gentleman sited in the article above had been in Canada or Australia he would have had to leave those countries after his travel visa had expired usually (6-12 mos). He presumably would not have been able to get permanent resident status there because he would not have passed the medical exam requirement. So he would have been forced to leave after 12 mos. max.
He got to stay in the US for 8 years.
He would have been treated more harshly in either Canada or Australia. So why the outrage at the US policy (understandable) but ok with the policies of Canada and Australia?
Am I missing something?
-
Queens in glass towers, Matty!
;D
Unless you're a Dominican top there's no point in sucking up to the Dowager Empress dear. :)
MtD
-
He would have been treated more harshly in either Canada or Australia. So why the outrage at the US policy (understandable) but ok with the policies of Canada and Australia?
Am I missing something?
The US Policy didn't even let you visit for travel. If custom inspected your luggage and found your HIV meds, they sent you back.
-
Queens in glass towers, Matty!
;D
Matilda doesn't have lipo. She barely pops her pills as it is.
-
If the gentleman sited in the article above had been in Canada or Australia he would have had to leave those countries after his travel visa had expired usually (6-12 mos). He presumably would not have been able to get permanent resident status there because he would not have passed the medical exam requirement. So he would have been forced to leave after 12 mos. max.
He got to stay in the US for 8 years.
He would have been treated more harshly in either Canada or Australia. So why the outrage at the US policy (understandable) but ok with the policies of Canada and Australia?
Am I missing something?
I couldn't give a flying fuck about the USA's fucking travel ban. Keep it, get rid of it. Doesn't fucking phase Matty the Damned.
What I'm saying is your criticism of Australia's immigration policy with regarding people with serious health problems totally fucking unfounded. We have an extensive social security and public health system all funded by the taxpayer.
We require those intending to settle here permanently to demonstrate that they have no pre-existing medical conditions which would constitute an undue burden on that system as our resources are not unlimited.
You may not like it, but fucking tough. That's the way it is.
It is certainly possible for HIV positive people to settle in Australia permanently. Just ask OzPaul.
MtD
-
“It was Senator Helms who worked most tirelessly to protect the very principles of freedom that homosexuals are denied in many other nations.”
In 1978, while going to school for Xerox Corp., I witnessed this pig getting done, (blow job) right in the bathroom of one of the very popular discos of Washington D.C. at the time.
My question was, who the hell would do that, and did he have bleach in his mouth? Other more obvious questions arose that night as I tried fruitlessly to get that picture out of my mind. What a bag of wind and all out hatred.
Matty, if I were not happily married, I'd drop everything in my present world and immigrate to Australia to ask for your hand, (and of course more) at the drop of a pin. That might get me health care there. :-*
-
Matty, if I were not happily married, I'd drop everything in my present world and immigrate to Australia to ask for your hand, (and of course more) at the drop of a pin. That might get me health care there. :-*
Heh. We could have an antipodean gay Big Love thang going on, Papi T. :D
MtD
-
Unless you're a Dominican top there's no point in sucking up to the Dowager Empress dear. :)
MtD
Her immigration policies have expanded to allow Cubans up/into her territory these days. She is going cosmo.
-
You devilish Man, Matty, you made me look. Shit, I never heard of antipodean, but the word fit perfectly.
It just might be true, mighten it?
-
Her immigration policies have expanded to allow Cubans up/into her territory these days. She is going cosmo.
Cubans eh? So she's become a human walk-in humidor?
MtD
-
You devilish Man, Matty, you made me look. Shit, I never heard of antipodean, but the word fit perfectly.
It just might be true, mighten it?
There's a more than even chance, Daddy T. ;D
MtD
-
And I think its discrimination. Oh sorry, fucking discrimination.
It's just a backhanded way to keep the diseased homos out of the country. 75% of all Americans either have gov't healthcare or a private group plan (with no upcharge borne by the individual) so there is virtually the same "social burden" for HIV+ people moving to the US as Australia.
If the US had dropped it's former policy in exchange for the Australian policy there would still be an ongoing outrage. Seems hypocritical
-
*sigh*
-
And I think its discrimination. Oh sorry, fucking discrimination.
It's just a backhanded way to keep the diseased homos out of the country. 75% of all Americans either have gov't healthcare or a private group plan (with no upcharge borne by the individual) so there is virtually the same "social burden" for HIV+ people moving to the US as Australia.
If the US had dropped it's former policy in exchange for the Australian policy there would still be an ongoing outrage. Seems hypocritical
Yeah, well that would be the case if it only applied to diseased fucking homos but it doesn't. The undue burden provision applies to all serious fucking health conditions, not just HIV. Cancer, schizophrenia, malaria, TB, elephantiasis, galloping fucking dandruff amongst others are all covered by the undue burden provisions.
So it applies to the fucking halt and the lame no matter what they have.
MtD
-
Damn, schizophrenia too !!
I'm out. :-X
-
Damn, schizophrenia too !!
I'm out. :-X
And now the penny drops! :)
The purpose of undue burden provisions in Australian migration law is to protect the integrity of the Australian social welfare and public health system not to exclude undesirables.
MtD
-
*delicately steering thread back on topic*
I'd like to piss on Helms' grave with my HIV riddled uirne.
-
In 1978, while going to school for Xerox Corp., I witnessed this pig getting done, (blow job) right in the bathroom of one of the very popular discos of Washington D.C. at the time.
My question was, who the hell would do that, and did he have bleach in his mouth? Other more obvious questions arose that night as I tried fruitlessly to get that picture out of my mind. What a bag of wind and all out hatred.
Dude, wait what? You witnessed the Senator copping a gobby in DC Disco? :o
MtD
-
And now the penny drops! :)
The purpose of undue burden provisions in Australian migration law is to protect the integrity of the Australian social welfare and public health system not to exclude undesirables.
MtD
Did I mention that I was a 6' 2" Dominican pitcher?
-
Did I mention that I was a 6' 2" Dominican pitcher?
Baseball isn't very popular in Australia. We're more of a cricketing nation.
MtD
-
(http://www.khurak.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/chinas-elephant-man-before-surgery1.jpg)
This guy and the lady with the hat on (Alzheimer's disease) would not be allowed to reside in Australia.
-
75% of all Americans either have gov't healthcare or a private group plan
Where do you get your statistics from??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
You can't immigrate to Australia, the UK, Canada, or the US if you have HIV. You can however visit all 4 countries. Formerly the US would not even let you visit.
So I'm not sure exactly what you guys are all arguing about as the regulations are the same for all of these nations.
-
You can't immigrate to Australia, the UK, Canada, or the US if you have HIV. You can however visit all 4 countries. Formerly the US would not even let you visit.
So I'm not sure exactly what you guys are all arguing about as the regulations are the same for all of these nations.
You can emigrate to Australia if you have HIV. You have to satisfy the undue burden provisions of our migration laws, that's all. There's an American member of these forums who has done just that.
MtD
-
Dude, wait what? You witnessed the Senator copping a gobby in DC Disco? :o
MtD
Yes my dear Matty. Still all these years later, I still have to work to get that picture out of my mind, even today. Usually I just don't think about it. All the people that were shot, mutilated, EXPORTED and loads of other indiscretions done to our brothers and sisters; all because of this unadulterated closet queen. What an ass!!!
P.S. It was a very well known GAY disco also!!
-
You can't immigrate to Australia, the UK, Canada, or the US if you have HIV. You can however visit all 4 countries. Formerly the US would not even let you visit.
So I'm not sure exactly what you guys are all arguing about as the regulations are the same for all of these nations.
What about the political commentator, Andrew Sullivan? He has visited and lived in the U.S. for years as someone open about his HIV status. I've seen him on many shows for years including "Real Time with Bill Maher". He got into a "scandal" after it was revealed he was posting ads for bareback sex--albeit with other HIVers. He was criticized for criticizing Bill Clinton for having unprotected sex.
This is someone from England who has been visiting here and living here for years with HIV. He was even having unprotected sex and he was never deported. Was the ban not enforced for everyone? Below is a profile of Sullivan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan
-
What about the political commentator, Andrew Sullivan? He has visited and lived in the U.S. for years as someone open about his HIV status. I've seen him on many shows for years including "Real Time with Bill Maher". He got into a "scandal" after it was revealed he was posting ads for bareback sex--albeit with other HIVers. He was criticized for criticizing Bill Clinton for having unprotected sex.
This is someone from England who has been visiting here and living here for years with HIV. He was even having unprotected sex and he was never deported. Was the ban not enforced for everyone? Below is a profile of Sullivan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan
Jesus Ted, Andrew Sullivan? Ugh.
Andrew Sullivan should be suffocated with Rush Limbaugh's left tit.
MtD
-
Jesus Ted, Andrew Sullivan? Ugh.
Andrew Sullivan should be suffocated with Rush Limbaugh's left tit.
MtD
Too funny!! This gave me a good laugh before bed.
-
Andrew Sullivan has written about being afraid of being deported. He was already here when he got HIV and I guess he probably had insurance from his job so I doubt that he was using any public funds but you're right, the policy wasn't enforced with him. Could be connections?
I came across this vitriolically funny blog. Matty did you write this? :
Why hasn’t Andrew Sullivan been deported yet?
The irksome positoid bottom, who, in a previous incarnation he’d like you to forget about, posted an ad on a bareback site soliciting unsafe sex (“no such thing as too hairy”), whined last year that somebody as special as him was faced with having to comply with the laws of the country he loves. In this case, it’s a ban against positoid visitors and immigrants, a ban that is obviously unfair because it impedes his own life. (Well, he’s the one who took loads up asses.) Sully was faced with leaving the United States in March.
Now it’s March. Why is he still there? Don’t the rules apply even to a clearly exceptional, truly important visitor with an O visa?
Sullivan held a private audience with Obama, which remains off the record but surely involved a direct entreaty to end a policy that affects Sully personally. The only news that RawMuslGlutes can manage to report is that a repeal of the ban is “in the works.” Does he really think his President will sign an executive order just for him personally within the next dozen days?
LINK:
http://blog.fawny.org/2009/03/19/frogmarch-rawmuslglutes/
He has a profile on a barebacking website under RawMuslGlutes.
-
Nu, I didn't pen that. Should be fucking obvious. Insufficient profanity.
Agree with it though. Bookmarked that little blahg. :)
MtD
-
RawMuslGlutes is likes bi scenes? Sully, say it ain't so!
http://web.archive.org/web/20010606105110/milkyloads.tripod.com/bareback/index.html
-
RawMuslGlutes is only 195 lbs (http://web.archive.org/web/20010606105110/milkyloads.tripod.com/bareback/index.html) so it's definitely not Matty. Oh, and he likes bi scenes.
Have you considered having your blood test results history tattooed on the vast expanse of your glistening head? I suspect they'd fit with room left over for the next couple of years.
MtD
-
Have you considered having your blood test results history tattooed on the vast expanse of your glistening head? I suspect they'd fit with room left over for the next couple of years.
MtD
faked you out with the edit buttom, beyatch
-
Heh. My Parkeresque riposte stands. :)
MtD
-
I know I'm dating myself but you two are like Alexis and Krystle Carrington. I guess MtD is like an Aussie Joan Collins and Miss P can be Crystal, um, I mean Krystle.
-
Andrew Sullivan has written about being afraid of being deported. He was already here when he got HIV and I guess he probably had insurance from his job so I doubt that he was using any public funds but you're right, the policy wasn't enforced with him. Could be connections?
I came across this vitriolically funny blog. Matty did you write this? :
Why hasn’t Andrew Sullivan been deported yet?
The irksome positoid bottom, who, in a previous incarnation he’d like you to forget about, posted an ad on a bareback site soliciting unsafe sex (“no such thing as too hairy”), whined last year that somebody as special as him was faced with having to comply with the laws of the country he loves. In this case, it’s a ban against positoid visitors and immigrants, a ban that is obviously unfair because it impedes his own life. (Well, he’s the one who took loads up asses.) Sully was faced with leaving the United States in March.
Now it’s March. Why is he still there? Don’t the rules apply even to a clearly exceptional, truly important visitor with an O visa?
Sullivan held a private audience with Obama, which remains off the record but surely involved a direct entreaty to end a policy that affects Sully personally. The only news that RawMuslGlutes can manage to report is that a repeal of the ban is “in the works.” Does he really think his President will sign an executive order just for him personally within the next dozen days?
LINK:
http://blog.fawny.org/2009/03/19/frogmarch-rawmuslglutes/
He has a profile on a barebacking website under RawMuslGlutes.
I'm sorry I do not find this funny. When you have lived in a place for years that place becomes your home. To be thrown out of your home is a traumatic event. Someone having that hanging over his head deserves some sympathy (even if the person in question is the irritating Sullivan.) That vile little paragraph that you find "vitriolically" funny implies that people who have HIV deserve what they get ("Well, he's the one who....") and that kicking them out of the countries where they live is reasonable behavior. Decent people, too, do not use the word "whine" to describe someone's reaction to possible tragedy. When I read about Jesse Helms getting a blow job I thought I'd heard the most unpleasant thing possible, and then there was the picture of the poor guy with the swollen head, but this nasty paragraph beats both.
And by the way, Sullivan's case is hardly unique. I have a friend who has lived here for many, many years and has had HIV for years too. He is not a citizen of this country. I do not know the details, but he was not kicked out of the country. According to him, that is not done here. We do not--did not--permit people with HIV to enter the country, but if they were already here we did not kick them out--unlike the country where I was living when I found out I had HIV, where policemen showed up at my doorstep, a few days after I got the test results, telling me I had one week to leave the country. I cannot say what is generally done but my friend's case added to Sullivan's suggests something different.
-
I'm sorry I do not find this funny. When you have lived in a place for years that place becomes your home. To be thrown out of your home is a traumatic event. Someone having that hanging over his head deserves some sympathy (even if the person in question is the irritating Sullivan.) That vile little paragraph that you find "vitriolically" funny implies that people who have HIV deserve what they get ("Well, he's the one who....") and that kicking them out of the countries where they live is reasonable behavior. Decent people, too, do not use the word "whine" to describe someone's reaction to possible tragedy. When I read about Jesse Helms getting a blow job I thought I'd heard the most unpleasant thing possible, and then there was the picture of the poor guy with the swollen head, but this nasty paragraph beats both.
And by the way, Sullivan's case is hardly unique. I have a friend who has lived here for many, many years and has had HIV for years too. He is not a citizen of this country. I do not know the details, but he was not kicked out of the country. According to him, that is not done here. We do not--did not--permit people with HIV to enter the country, but if they were already here we did not kick them out--unlike the country where I was living when I found out I had HIV, where policemen showed up at my doorstep, a few days after I got the test results, telling me I had one week to leave the country. I cannot say what is generally done but my friend's case added to Sullivan's suggests something different.
I find it enormously funny.
Andrew Sullivan is a smug self-absorbed sack of shit and there is something particularly satisfying in watching him reap the bitter fucking harvest of the right-wing row he's hoed for so fucking long.
MtD
-
I'm sorry I do not find this funny. When you have lived in a place for years that place becomes your home. To be thrown out of your home is a traumatic event. Someone having that hanging over his head deserves some sympathy (even if the person in question is the irritating Sullivan.) That vile little paragraph that you find "vitriolically" funny implies that people who have HIV deserve what they get ("Well, he's the one who....") and that kicking them out of the countries where they live is reasonable behavior. Decent people, too, do not use the word "whine" to describe someone's reaction to possible tragedy. When I read about Jesse Helms getting a blow job I thought I'd heard the most unpleasant thing possible, and then there was the picture of the poor guy with the swollen head, but this nasty paragraph beats both.
And by the way, Sullivan's case is hardly unique. I have a friend who has lived here for many, many years and has had HIV for years too. He is not a citizen of this country. I do not know the details, but he was not kicked out of the country. According to him, that is not done here. We do not--did not--permit people with HIV to enter the country, but if they were already here we did not kick them out--unlike the country where I was living when I found out I had HIV, where policemen showed up at my doorstep, a few days after I got the test results, telling me I had one week to leave the country. I cannot say what is generally done but my friend's case added to Sullivan's suggests something different.
Andrew Sullivan is here on an O-1 Visa, which is a temporary visa, he knew from day one that the US could not be his permanent home. If there was a law in which others with HIV were being deported, the friend you cite nothwithstanding, then Sullivan should not receive any special treatment when it comes to any considerations over deportation. All moot now anyway.
Not to mention that he would be deported to the UK, not exactly what anyone would call tragic, lol. I sure wish I could be deported to the UK where a person can get free excellent health care.
As an aside, IMHO, he's more than just "irritating," are you familiar with his track record? He's crosses the line from being merely irritating to being outright harmful.
There's a recent thread from a forum member in the UK who is being deported to Zimbabwe, now that's not funny at all.
LINK:
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=31895.0
PS: Your friend who was not deported might be a legal resident or what's called a "resident alien," which is different from being here on a visa.
The O-1 classification is a type of employment visa under United States immigration law that applies to aliens who have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and who are coming temporarily to the U.S. to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability.
LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-1_visa
-
Not to mention that he would be deported to the UK, not exactly what anyone would call tragic, lol. I sure wish I could be deported to the UK where a person can get free excellent health care.
As an aside, IMHO, he's more than just "irritating," are you familiar with his track record? He's crosses the line from being merely irritating to being outright harmful.
There's a recent thread from a forum member in the UK who is being deported to Zimbabwe, now that's not funny at all.
A-fucking-men, Inchling. Couldn't have put it better meself.
MtD
-
So the prospect of someone being deported from his home of nine years because he has HIV is being applauded, by people with HIV, on an HIV-related forum, simply because they happen to dislike the individual HIVer who is involved. Nice.
-
So the prospect of someone being deported from his home of nine years because he has HIV is being applauded, by people with HIV, on an HIV-related forum, simply because they happen to dislike the individual HIVer who is involved. Nice.
Sully will live. It's not like he's being sent to the fucking Levant or something. As Inchling notes if he is booted, it's back to Blighty with him where he has access to a first world standard of care.
So really Nestor, cry me the fucking Isis.
Moreover it's richly deserved. Sullivan is an odious hypocrite. Lending his considerable intellectual weight to a political movement which denies health care for ordinary folks, rejects harm minimisation and fosters Christian lunatics in the mainstream against his own fucking interest.
Hoist on his own fucking petard, methinks.
MtD
-
So the prospect of someone being deported from his home of nine years because he has HIV is being applauded, by people with HIV, on an HIV-related forum, simply because they happen to dislike the individual HIVer who is involved. Nice.
No ...-- now that the issue of deportation is moot they are having some fun -- if the deportation was still allowable there'd be more people sticking up for him....
:-*
-
I'd never even heard of this guy, seems like a pretty smart guy politically, but then you analyze his politics...
The obsession with Palin was kinda cute too.
-
wat... you've never heard of Sullygirl? srsly?
-
No ...-- now that the issue of deportation is moot they are having some fun -- if the deportation was still allowable there'd be more people sticking up for him....
:-*
I dunno about that. There's more than one Fiver who'd cheerfully see Sully beaten to death with back issues of The Spectator.
I'd never even heard of this guy, seems like a pretty smart guy politically, but then you analyze his politics...
The obsession with Palin was kinda cute too.
Oh that was sickening. Sully wringing his pudgy hands and departing the ranks of the Rethuglicans over Carribou Barbie?
Let's be clear on this, right wing political drain clogs like Andrew sat silently for years as the Jesus freaks populated the caucuses of the Republican Party. Why? Coz they needed, nay wanted the votes that the mega churches have for sale.
Problem is of course that you can't sell your soul to Pat Robertson without taking the inevitable ideological nipple-gripple that comes with it. And now the christo-taliban has the Party by the nuts douchebags like Andy and that superannuated hack Arlen Specter have to play in someone else's backyard.
MtD
-
So the prospect of someone being deported from his home of nine years because he has HIV is being applauded, by people with HIV, on an HIV-related forum, simply because they happen to dislike the individual HIVer who is involved. Nice.
Agreed. While Sullivan is indeed detestable and loathsome, there is a double-standard here. :-[
-
I repeat, for the benefit of Nestor and Blackwingbear, who seem to be reading selectively:
"If there was a law in which others with HIV were being deported, the friend you cite nothwithstanding, then Sullivan should not receive any special treatment when it comes to any considerations over deportation. All moot now anyway."
It's rude to mischaracterize a person's statement. I don't do it to others and appreciate the same in return.
Matty: You're on a roll, "Rethuglicans," "Caribou Barbie," "nipple-gripple." I love it. it's a veritable poetry slam. You go, Ntozake Shange.
-
Inchling,
I was not reading "selectively"--I just didn't respond to everything point by point. Here goes.
To say "Sullivan should not receive any special treatment" or "no exceptions should be made" is both irrelevent and wrong. Irrelevent because he never said that he should receive special treatment and wrong because when a law is unjust sane people want there to be as many exceptions made as possible--every exception made to an unjust law is one injustice fewer.
You state that deportation to the UK is "not what anyone would exactly call tragic lol". That suggests a curiously limited view of the human condition. I personally would rejoice at deportation to the UK, but that's me. This country happens to the place where the person in question a. has lived for years, b. has his job, and c. has a husband, a home, dogs. To be uprooted from such things, by force, all because of a managable illness, is indeed traumatic. Is there something about that that is not clear to you? Life is not just about good health care. To love a place and be forced to leave it against one's will is tragic--and I don't care if it's a case of someone being deported FROM Zimbabwe.
Now, here is some context. In late July 2008 Congress passed, and President Bush signed (on my birthday!) a resolution to drop the HIV travel ban. Two months later, however, nothing had really changed, due to some beaurocratic red tape involving the DHHS. The following editorial appeared in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092503604.html
and the person whom you loathe wrote the following post in his blog:
The Bush administration has not yet lifted the regulation barring people with HIV from entering the United States, despite the law lifting the ban overwhelmingly passed by the Congress and signed by president Bush last July. Yesterday, they simply reiterated their previous plans to "streamline" the process, which, in fact, does nothing but make it more bureaucratically cumbersome for temporary visitors with HIV to enter the country as tourists or for conferences. They have done nothing to end the ban as the law clearly asked for.
As it currently stands, I will still be required to leave the US for good next March. And many more are in much worse straits. They say they will change the regs. And that it takes time. My guess is that it will take until after the election. But does anyone believe a Palin administration would make life any easier for people with HIV? For people with HIV, the Palin nomination should be terrifying.
That is the context for the vile little piece that you found so funny. Let us see if it has any relevance. It reads, with my comments in bold:
"The irksome positoid bottom......, whined last year [first offense--not only because there was no whining--read it for yourself--but because someone facing deportation from the country where he's lived for years has the right to complain about the fact without being accused of "whining"]that somebody as special as him [where does he say that?]was faced with having to comply with the laws of the country he loves. [So, when a law is unjust--even as outrageously unjust as this one, we should not only comply with it in all cases, but not even protest or complain before doing so?]In this case, it’s a ban against positoid visitors and immigrants, a ban that is obviously unfair[Does this author think it was not obviously unfair?] because it impedes his own life.[No, it's obviously unfair because it's obviously unfair. And Sullivan, in two paragraghs on the subject, devoted exactly half a line to his own particular case.] (Well, he’s the one who took loads up asses.) ..."
That last line: "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses"--is the point where it, and various posts in this thread, went beyond annoying into "offensive enough for me to write here complaining about it." "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses?"? Seriously? Do you need a translation of that? It means: "Don't complain! You made your bed, now lie in it! It's your own fault you have HIV, how dare you complain about any of the consequences---or even mention them! I'll say you're whining if you do!"
Tell me, Inchling and others, against which other possible consequences of having HIV would a protest seem to you to deserve such a reply? If someone with HIV were living in a place where there was HIV hysteria, and nobody was willing to come near him, and he complained about it in his blog, would you find "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses" to be a decent reply? If a government were to revoke ADAP in a fiscal crisis, and someone faced with not being able to afford medicine were to mention his possible fate on a blog, and someone else replied "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses"--would that seem appropriate to you? Or is it only in situations which you cannot ever imagine touching yourself that you approve of such callousness? To say "it's your own fault you have HIV so don't whine about anything we do to you as a result" ought to be THE single most offensive thing to the ears of someone with HIV. I never thought I would see a group of people on a forum for HIVers laughing at such a statement, which I suppose means that I underestimated what bigotry and bile could do.
-
Inchling,
I was not reading "selectively"--I just didn't respond to everything point by point. Here goes.
To say "Sullivan should not receive any special treatment" or "no exceptions should be made" is both irrelevent and wrong. Irrelevent because he never said that he should receive special treatment and wrong because when a law is unjust sane people want there to be as many exceptions made as possible--every exception made to an unjust law is one injustice fewer.
You state that deportation to the UK is "not what anyone would exactly call tragic lol". That suggests a curiously limited view of the human condition. I personally would rejoice at deportation to the UK, but that's me. This country happens to the place where the person in question a. has lived for years, b. has his job, and c. has a husband, a home, dogs. To be uprooted from such things, by force, all because of a managable illness, is indeed traumatic. Is there something about that that is not clear to you? Life is not just about good health care. To love a place and be forced to leave it against one's will is tragic--and I don't care if it's a case of someone being deported FROM Zimbabwe.
Now, here is some context. In late July 2008 Congress passed, and President Bush signed (on my birthday!) a resolution to drop the HIV travel ban. Two months later, however, nothing had really changed, due to some beaurocratic red tape involving the DHHS. The following editorial appeared in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092503604.html
and the person whom you loathe wrote the following post in his blog:
The Bush administration has not yet lifted the regulation barring people with HIV from entering the United States, despite the law lifting the ban overwhelmingly passed by the Congress and signed by president Bush last July. Yesterday, they simply reiterated their previous plans to "streamline" the process, which, in fact, does nothing but make it more bureaucratically cumbersome for temporary visitors with HIV to enter the country as tourists or for conferences. They have done nothing to end the ban as the law clearly asked for.
As it currently stands, I will still be required to leave the US for good next March. And many more are in much worse straits. They say they will change the regs. And that it takes time. My guess is that it will take until after the election. But does anyone believe a Palin administration would make life any easier for people with HIV? For people with HIV, the Palin nomination should be terrifying.
That is the context for the vile little piece that you found so funny. Let us see if it has any relevance. It reads, with my comments in bold:
"The irksome positoid bottom......, whined last year [first offense--not only because there was no whining--read it for yourself--but because someone facing deportation from the country where he's lived for years has the right to complain about the fact without being accused of "whining"]that somebody as special as him [where does he say that?]was faced with having to comply with the laws of the country he loves. [So, when a law is unjust--even as outrageously unjust as this one, we should not only comply with it in all cases, but not even protest or complain before doing so?]In this case, it’s a ban against positoid visitors and immigrants, a ban that is obviously unfair[Does this author think it was not obviously unfair?] because it impedes his own life.[No, it's obviously unfair because it's obviously unfair. And Sullivan, in two paragraghs on the subject, devoted exactly half a line to his own particular case.] (Well, he’s the one who took loads up asses.) ..."
That last line: "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses"--is the point where it, and various posts in this thread, went beyond annoying into "offensive enough for me to write here complaining about it." "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses?"? Seriously? Do you need a translation of that? It means: "Don't complain! You made your bed, now lie in it! It's your own fault you have HIV, how dare you complain about any of the consequences---or even mention them! I'll say you're whining if you do!"
Tell me, Inchling and others, against which other possible consequences of having HIV would a protest seem to you to deserve such a reply? If someone with HIV were living in a place where there was HIV hysteria, and nobody was willing to come near him, and he complained about it in his blog, would you find "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses" to be a decent reply? If a government were to revoke ADAP in a fiscal crisis, and someone faced with not being able to afford medicine were to mention his possible fate on a blog, and someone else replied "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses"--would that seem appropriate to you? Or is it only in situations which you cannot ever imagine touching yourself that you approve of such callousness? To say "it's your own fault you have HIV so don't whine about anything we do to you as a result" ought to be THE single most offensive thing to the ears of someone with HIV. I never thought I would see a group of people on a forum for HIVers laughing at such a statement, which I suppose means that I underestimated what bigotry and bile could do.
Nestor, this is really not as big of a deal as you're perceiving it to be. Take a deep breath. Relax.
If in writing that very long response you got some things off your chest then I'm happy you were able to vent on here (and to do so at my expense, as it were) but you might want to channel your considerable energies to a more worthwhile cause and in future consider some sage advice penned long ago by a very wise man: brevity is the soul of wit.
-
So I write in brief and you say I'm reading you selectively; I write in full and it's too long. And vicious bigotry is "not such a big deal" and I should relax about it. Here's a brief statement for you: pathetic.
-
Nestor,
I think you may be misunderstanding the context of the "loads up his ass" thing. It's meant to be ironic, not literal. To start applying that phrase in that particular article to anyone who has hiv is to take it out of context.
Go back to Matty's post where he says:
Moreover it's richly deserved. Sullivan is an odious hypocrite. Lending his considerable intellectual weight to a political movement which denies health care for ordinary folks, rejects harm minimisation and fosters Christian lunatics in the mainstream against his own fucking interest.
Hoist on his own fucking petard, methinks.
To "hoist his own petard" means to be injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others. "Petard" is what rudimentary bombs were called back in Shakespeare's day.
What's being laughed at here is that Sullivan was being penalised by laws beloved by the political party he supports. That's it in a nutshell.
-
Inchling,
I was not reading "selectively"--I just didn't respond to everything point by point. Here goes.
To say "Sullivan should not receive any special treatment" or "no exceptions should be made" is both irrelevent and wrong. Irrelevent because he never said that he should receive special treatment and wrong because when a law is unjust sane people want there to be as many exceptions made as possible--every exception made to an unjust law is one injustice fewer.
You state that deportation to the UK is "not what anyone would exactly call tragic lol". That suggests a curiously limited view of the human condition. I personally would rejoice at deportation to the UK, but that's me. This country happens to the place where the person in question a. has lived for years, b. has his job, and c. has a husband, a home, dogs. To be uprooted from such things, by force, all because of a managable illness, is indeed traumatic. Is there something about that that is not clear to you? Life is not just about good health care. To love a place and be forced to leave it against one's will is tragic--and I don't care if it's a case of someone being deported FROM Zimbabwe.
Now, here is some context. In late July 2008 Congress passed, and President Bush signed (on my birthday!) a resolution to drop the HIV travel ban. Two months later, however, nothing had really changed, due to some beaurocratic red tape involving the DHHS. The following editorial appeared in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092503604.html
and the person whom you loathe wrote the following post in his blog:
The Bush administration has not yet lifted the regulation barring people with HIV from entering the United States, despite the law lifting the ban overwhelmingly passed by the Congress and signed by president Bush last July. Yesterday, they simply reiterated their previous plans to "streamline" the process, which, in fact, does nothing but make it more bureaucratically cumbersome for temporary visitors with HIV to enter the country as tourists or for conferences. They have done nothing to end the ban as the law clearly asked for.
As it currently stands, I will still be required to leave the US for good next March. And many more are in much worse straits. They say they will change the regs. And that it takes time. My guess is that it will take until after the election. But does anyone believe a Palin administration would make life any easier for people with HIV? For people with HIV, the Palin nomination should be terrifying.
That is the context for the vile little piece that you found so funny. Let us see if it has any relevance. It reads, with my comments in bold:
"The irksome positoid bottom......, whined last year [first offense--not only because there was no whining--read it for yourself--but because someone facing deportation from the country where he's lived for years has the right to complain about the fact without being accused of "whining"]that somebody as special as him [where does he say that?]was faced with having to comply with the laws of the country he loves. [So, when a law is unjust--even as outrageously unjust as this one, we should not only comply with it in all cases, but not even protest or complain before doing so?]In this case, it’s a ban against positoid visitors and immigrants, a ban that is obviously unfair[Does this author think it was not obviously unfair?] because it impedes his own life.[No, it's obviously unfair because it's obviously unfair. And Sullivan, in two paragraghs on the subject, devoted exactly half a line to his own particular case.] (Well, he’s the one who took loads up asses.) ..."
That last line: "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses"--is the point where it, and various posts in this thread, went beyond annoying into "offensive enough for me to write here complaining about it." "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses?"? Seriously? Do you need a translation of that? It means: "Don't complain! You made your bed, now lie in it! It's your own fault you have HIV, how dare you complain about any of the consequences---or even mention them! I'll say you're whining if you do!"
Tell me, Inchling and others, against which other possible consequences of having HIV would a protest seem to you to deserve such a reply? If someone with HIV were living in a place where there was HIV hysteria, and nobody was willing to come near him, and he complained about it in his blog, would you find "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses" to be a decent reply? If a government were to revoke ADAP in a fiscal crisis, and someone faced with not being able to afford medicine were to mention his possible fate on a blog, and someone else replied "Well, he's the one who took loads up asses"--would that seem appropriate to you? Or is it only in situations which you cannot ever imagine touching yourself that you approve of such callousness? To say "it's your own fault you have HIV so don't whine about anything we do to you as a result" ought to be THE single most offensive thing to the ears of someone with HIV. I never thought I would see a group of people on a forum for HIVers laughing at such a statement, which I suppose means that I underestimated what bigotry and bile could do.
He's got a point
-
Nestor,
I think you may be misunderstanding the context of the "loads up his ass" thing. It's meant to be ironic, not literal. To start applying that phrase in that particular article to anyone who has hiv is to take it out of context.
Go back to Matty's post where he says:
Moreover it's richly deserved. Sullivan is an odious hypocrite. Lending his considerable intellectual weight to a political movement which denies health care for ordinary folks, rejects harm minimisation and fosters Christian lunatics in the mainstream against his own fucking interest.
Hoist on his own fucking petard, methinks.
To "hoist his own petard" means to be injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others. "Petard" is what rudimentary bombs were called back in Shakespeare's day.
What's being laughed at here is that Sullivan was being penalised by laws beloved by the political party he supports. That's it in a nutshell.
I want to clarify something I wrote above. When I said the "loads up his ass" thing was meant to be ironic, here's why. The political party Sullivan supports has many politicians who DO have exactly that attitude towards PLWA.
They'd love to see any and all hiv related funding cut. They support abstinence only and are against sex education being taught. They're against needle-exchange programs etc etc etc.
They are precisely the people who DO use that "he took it up the ass" argument. In this case, it was being used against him in an ironic fashion because this represents the sentiments of the political party HE has staunchly supported.
And if you still don't get it, I give up.
Ann
-
So I write in brief and you say I'm reading you selectively; I write in full and it's too long. And vicious bigotry is "not such a big deal" and I should relax about it. Here's a brief statement for you: pathetic.
I do appreciate that you took the time to respond more in depth but even in that post you were still mischaracterizing where I'm coming from, putting words in my mouth and even throwing insults my way.
I think you have a lot of passion and empathy but I think it's misplaced in this instance. If you don't agree, then let's just agree to disagree but without any venom or anger?
Ann: Thanks for providing more context.
-
If the gentleman sited in the article above had been in Canada or Australia he would have had to leave those countries after his travel visa had expired usually (6-12 mos). He presumably would not have been able to get permanent resident status there because he would not have passed the medical exam requirement. So he would have been forced to leave after 12 mos. max.
He got to stay in the US for 8 years.
He would have been treated more harshly in either Canada or Australia. So why the outrage at the US policy (understandable) but ok with the policies of Canada and Australia?
Am I missing something?
I am living in Australia on visa and was diagnosed positive here I wasnt kicked out of the country I renewed my visa last August without any problems. Im in the process of applying for my residence when I went thru the paper work for residence it clearly states that if you are diagnosed here your HIV status does not affect
your application in any way. My tax contribution is enough to offset the cost of my treatments and drugs I will post the outcome of my residence application. I am very positive I will be granted residency