Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2014, 07:37:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 631830
  • Total Topics: 47834
  • Online Today: 293
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Travel Ban  (Read 7634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Travel Ban
« on: November 02, 2007, 02:25:59 PM »
Ozark Mountain country of northwest Arkansas (just not one of the 'dry' counties) … anyone?

OH, OK then   :'(

PS: Maybe I am the only one thinking this, but is it beyond the realms of possibility that arrangements for lifting of the ban will finally be announced on 1st December? The original commitment was timed to coincide with 1st December.  :-\

As to lifting the ban... it's my understanding that the President cannot do this, but that it will take an act of Congress to do so.  I don't know that anything required of Congress happens quickly.

From www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0296.html
Quote
Representative Barbara Lee (D-California) has said that she will introduce legislation in the 110th Congress to overturn the ban.

For more information about the current travel ban, see Global Health Council’s Policy Brief: End Restriction on Travel to theOn December 1st, World AIDS Day, President Bush issued an executive order to the Secretary of State that may ultimately change rules that prohibit HIV-positive foreigners from entering the United States unless they are granted a special waiver.  Bush’s order does not change current immigration law but initiates a rule-making process that could create a categorical waiver for business or tourist visas for up to 60 days.  The United States is one of only approximately 15 countries worldwide that place a travel ban on HIV-positive foreigners, including China, Iraq, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

From www.actupny.org/actions/Immigration.html

Quote
Non-immigrants include visitors, students, temporary workers, and others. Non-citizens who want to become lawful permanent U.S. residents must take a medical exam that includes an HIV test. Those coming to the U.S. for school, work, or tourism do not need to take an HIV test but must fill out a non-immigrant visa application that asks: "Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance?" INS can turn away anyone who answers "yes" to this question, unless the applicant requests a special waiver available to those who plan a short visit, for example, to attend a meeting, visit relatives, or receive medical treatment.

Usually, officials do not seek out short-term visitors who have HIV. Visitors who arrive in the U.S. and declare they have HIV, or are carrying antiretroviral drugs in their luggage, are usually questioned about the nature of their visit and then allowed to enter the country. Statistics are not kept on the number of visitors who are excluded, however, according to the San Francisco AIDS Foundation.
Although the exclusion law covers those entering the U.S. for both short-term and permanent residence, the law's impact is more severe for those seeking permanent residence, or those who already live in the U.S. and wish to remain here.

Is it really that much of a non-issue, or is this just not really true?  I'm not making light of the ban's impact, but rather don't really see how it should apply to those visiting for a short period ... 30 days or so, especially.    None of it really makes much sense to me.

David 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 02:27:31 PM by David_NC »
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline anniebc

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,937
  • AM member since 2003
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2007, 03:16:57 PM »
Hi David

Quote
Is it really that much of a non-issue, or is this just not really true?  I'm not making light of the ban's impact, but rather don't really see how it should apply to those visiting for a short period ... 30 days or so, especially.    None of it really makes much sense to me

I spoke to the American Embassy in Wellington yesterday asking for information on this very subject, they are going to try and find out what the policies are on short term visits for me, and will either e-mail me the information or get back to me by phone..hopefully I will know more before Wednesday.

Hugs
Jan :-*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never knock on deaths door..ring the bell and run..he really hates that.

Offline vokz

  • Member
  • Posts: 391
  • efavirenz junkie
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2007, 04:08:01 PM »
Is it really that much of a non-issue, or is this just not really true?  I'm not making light of the ban's impact, but rather don't really see how it should apply to those visiting for a short period ... 30 days or so, especially.    None of it really makes much sense to me.

It is my understanding that it takes Congress to change the law; but changing the waiver requirements doesn’t require a change to the law (the law already allows waivers to be issued) and can be handled by simple administrative procedures to change the rules for the issue of waivers (i.e. a waiver of ineligibility for short stays could be issued at port of entry for those who state on their standard I94-W waiver form that they have a communicable disease).

As for being a non-issue. It would only be a non-issue if the rules were not enforced; but they are (and the implication on the Act Up site that the rules aren't enforced is quite simply uninformed bullshit.

The information given by the US Embassy in London is quite clear:

Important: Some travelers may not be eligible to enter the United States visa free under the VWP. These include people who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), certain serious communicable illnesses, those who have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed on the VWP. Such travelers must apply for special restricted visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the United States.
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new/visa/niv/vwp.html http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new/visa/niv/add_hiv.html

Anyone who applies to the US Embassy in London for a special HIV visa waiver is refused if they can’t show that “public benefit outweighs public risk” (that being defined as visits to close family, for urgent medical treatment, for business or to attend HIV /AIDS conferences .. but NOT tourism).
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 04:48:01 PM by vokz »

Offline Iggy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,435
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2007, 04:11:30 PM »

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2007, 05:17:31 PM »
Thanks for the details, guys and gal!  This sort of clearheaded info is what we need to work with.  I am a bit surprised that the ActUp site's info isn't more accurate, though.  I didn't think the ban was quite the 'non-issue' that it's made out to be on their website.  So, to make sure I'm clear, the supposed goal is to change the waiver and not the ban itself, which will take forever to do.

Iggy, I'll be looking forward to what you're able to do.  I think that these forums are the perfect method to get a large number of people to email, mail, call, whatever to push the waiver change along.

David
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Iggy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,435
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2007, 05:39:14 PM »
I am a bit surprised that the ActUp site's info isn't more accurate, though.  I didn't think the ban was quite the 'non-issue' that it's made out to be on their website.

David -  I think you completely misread their site.

I can not see anyone able to look at the ACT UP site on the issue and see them as thinking this is a non-issue or that the information isn't accurate.

Maybe you didn't realize that it was structured as a building narrative of the ban that is supposed to walk you through both their actions and the general fight against it? 



« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 06:15:44 PM by Iggy »

Offline megasept

  • Member
  • Posts: 478
  • Steven here...
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2007, 05:55:20 PM »
David/Jan: I am no expert on the Travel Ban, but have opposed it and spoke about it for many years.

HIV+ invited participants to global scientific AIDS gatherings have been turned away by US authorities in the past. The justifications for bans are 1) communicable disease 2) financial burden of costs of treatment. The first is used to keep out visitors and the second would-be immigrants. This is one reason I support gay marriage, so bi-national partners would no longer be separated by borders due to HIV status. It is grossly unfair. My HIV specialist says (for example) a Mid-Eastern patient who sero-converts will be deported. Even if she's exaggerating, the fact is I don't know that any poz could openly (not fraudulently) obtain a visa of any sort to the US. It means that many of us here could not travel to see one another. This is not the kind of world I want to see. It's something US gay and poz leadership should put on the front, not the back burner. It's a lot more important than not embarrassing Obama as he campaigns with "ex-gay" "Fundis" through So Carolina this weekend. As for Act-Up (accuracy) don't get me started...


 8) -megasept
 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 05:57:29 PM by megasept »

Offline anniebc

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,937
  • AM member since 2003
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2007, 06:11:34 PM »
Hi Guys

Thanks for all the info so far, there are a still a lot of people out there who still don't fully understand the laws...and the info you guys are giving out will help with that...thanks.

Hugs
Jan :-*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never knock on deaths door..ring the bell and run..he really hates that.

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2007, 07:58:15 PM »
David -  I think you completely misread their site.

I can not see anyone able to look at the ACT UP site on the issue and see them as thinking this is a non-issue or that the information isn't accurate.

Maybe you didn't realize that it was structured as a building narrative of the ban that is supposed to walk you through both their actions and the general fight against it? 


Whatever, Iggy.  Now, let's nit pick every frickin' thing I post once more.  From the ActUp site:

Quote
Following is a short description of how the HIV-ban affects different groups of people:

Non-Immigrants
Non-immigrants include visitors, students, temporary workers, and others. Non-citizens who want to become lawful permanent U.S. residents must take a medical exam that includes an HIV test. Those coming to the U.S. for school, work, or tourism do not need to take an HIV test but must fill out a non-immigrant visa application that asks: "Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance?" INS can turn away anyone who answers "yes" to this question, unless the applicant requests a special waiver available to those who plan a short visit, for example, to attend a meeting, visit relatives, or receive medical treatment.

Usually, officials do not seek out short-term visitors who have HIV. Visitors who arrive in the U.S. and declare they have HIV, or are carrying antiretroviral drugs in their luggage, are usually questioned about the nature of their visit and then allowed to enter the country. Statistics are not kept on the number of visitors who are excluded, however, according to the San Francisco AIDS Foundation.
Although the exclusion law covers those entering the U.S. for both short-term and permanent residence, the law's impact is more severe for those seeking permanent residence, or those who already live in the U.S. and wish to remain here.

Please show Vokz, who says
Quote
As for being a non-issue. It would only be a non-issue if the rules were not enforced; but they are (and the implication on the Act Up site that the rules aren't enforced is quite simply uninformed bullshit.
and I, who appear to both have 'misread' this.  Show me, and any other feeble-minded readers, where this is walking one through anything.  Show me how this is not general background info on the ban, because obviously I'm not up to comprehending much these days. 

David

Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,302
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2007, 08:16:23 PM »
Yeah...I also kinda gotta ask, Iggy:  What's up with all that?  I saw David's post above that was all "great!  thanks for the information, guys!  this forum is perfect for this kind of teamwork, etc"...

followed by that "david, you've got to be kidding me" business in your post.

what's up with all that??

clearly - CLEARLY - you should be the official forum "go to" guy for all things having to do with taking action against these restrictions since you quite obviously understand all this far better than any of the rest of us and are somewhat irritated when we don't immediately grasp everything you see of it.  and you also seem to have the time at your disposal to really delve into this, so i think you should have at it.

i'm really not trying to be mean or anything, but i have to say:  it seems a bit...much.  i mean, just a few months ago you were wiping out every post you had ever made on here and decrying that this place had fallen so far into disrepair that you simply had to go.  the sad clock on the wall was clanging, ya know?  and now all of the sudden, you seem to be on some sort of mission...not just against these restrictions but against some of the other members here.

i'm just not getting it.

sorry if this post sucks.  i'm just getting extremely fatigued with this unending stream of snippiness that's been going on all around here.  in the GATHERINGS forums, no less. 

kumbaya, ya'll.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 08:21:56 PM by thunter34 »
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline anniebc

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,937
  • AM member since 2003
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2007, 12:16:40 AM »
Iggy

A quote from David

Quote
Iggy, I'll be looking forward to what you're able to do.  I think that these forums are the perfect method to get a large number of people to email, mail, call, whatever to push the waiver change along

Very polite responce, and from what I can see a way of saying thank you for your help..the you come back at him and pick holes in his post...enough for god sake..everyone here is trying to help those of us who don't completly understand the laws...and responding the way you are Iggy is not helping...either help us understand or don't it's up to you...but stop pulling posts apart.

Jan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never knock on deaths door..ring the bell and run..he really hates that.

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2007, 01:12:00 AM »
I honestly don't think this nonsensical ban will be lifted soon. It is just not the kind of thing Bust II will do before his term expires though he did make a "promise" to look at it in an AIDS conference. Now it's getting close to an election, this ban I dare say is simply not something that your average Americans care about.

Just want to put this in perspective for our American brothers and sisters - going through the US immigration and the whole business of applying for a tourist visa (required for residents from most Asian countries) were troublesome, stressful in some cases and in very few humiliating even for non-HIV folks before 911. After 911, the whole thing has turned nightmarish and I am not kidding. Now any one from, say, Hong Kong that needs a tourist visa has to be individually interviewed by staffers from the Embassy. It's completely arbitrary and if luck would have it one could end up with an abusive interviewer.

My former secretary was turned down recently and now there's a prominent record on her passport (probably cos she's single, in her late 20s and she's good looking - they probably thought she was a mail order bride or prostitute). She needed then to get a new passport so it won't be such an embarrassment going through other countries. Even with a visa, it won't necessary mean smooth sailing - a friend of mind was detained for hours also recently cos his english is not so good and gave a wrong answer to the question "Are you coming to work in the US?". He was on business so he answered "Yes", as "working" and "for business" are the same in Chinese. He was immediately taken away for questioning.

In general, most locals now avoid the US as a holidays destination.

Shaun
Aug 07 Diagnosed
Oct 07 CD4=446(19%) Feb 08 CD4=421(19%)
Jun 08 CD4=325(22%) Jul 08 CD4=301(18%)
Sep 08 CD4=257/VL=75,000 Oct 08 CD4=347(16%)
Dec 08 CD4=270(16%)
Jan 09 CD4=246(13%)/VL=10,000
Feb 09 CD4=233(15%)/VL=13,000
Started meds Sustiva/Epzicom
May 09 CD4=333(24%)/VL=650
Aug 09 CD4=346(24%)/VL=UD
Nov 09 CD4=437(26%)/VL=UD
Feb 10 CD4=471(31%)/VL=UD
June 10 CD4=517 (28%)/VL=UD
Sept 10 CD4=687 (31%)/VL=UD
Jan 11 CD4=557 (30%)/VL=UD
April 11 CD4=569 (32%)/VL=UD
Switched to Epizcom, Reyataz and Norvir
(Interrupted for 2 months with only Epizcom & Reyataz)
July 11 CD=520 (28%)/VL=UD
Oct 11 CD=771 (31%)/VL=UD(<30)
April 12 CD=609 (28%)/VL=UD(<20)
Aug 12 CD=657 (29%)/VL=UD(<20)
Dec 12 CD=532 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
May 13 CD=567 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
Jan 14 CD=521 (21%)/VL=UD(<50)

Offline vokz

  • Member
  • Posts: 391
  • efavirenz junkie
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2007, 02:06:17 AM »
As a general note, anyone who finds themselves in the same position that Shaun’s secretary was in, will normally find that national passport authorities will be more than happy to issue a second ‘sanitised’ passport where such unhelpful endorsements are removed (this includes removing any evidence of travel to Cuba or certain middle eastern countries).

In the case of the UK, they will even do this in advance of travel (I have two UK passports. One that I use for muslim countries .. and one that I use for the rest of the world).

Also, if you do apply to the US Embassy for a waiver of ineligibility, you can ask for it to be issued on a separate document (i.e. that your passport isn’t endorsed in such a way that your HIV status, or the need for a special visa, creates problems for you elsewhere) .. BUT you have to ask for this and supply an extra photograph, because that isn’t how it is done as a matter of routine (but they are more than happy to do it, because there is no rule that says that the visa has to be in your passport).

David,

Whilst changing the waiver issue would help most non-US users of this forum (as far as I can see, that covers all those who are objecting to US locations for AMG), it wouldn’t ultimately help those people who are citizens of countries from which the US always requires a visa.

Mark
« Last Edit: November 03, 2007, 02:48:56 AM by vokz »

Offline Ric Wilke

  • Member
  • Posts: 573
  • I joined AIDSmed.com 10/2002.
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2007, 02:18:46 AM »
If this post stirs even more tail feathers, so be it.  I suggest the the UK and EU foes just stay on the eastside of the Pond.  You don't like us and that is a shame.

Now I know why my ancestors left for the US in the late 19th and 20th centuries.  I'm a proud descendant of those very folks.

This is not World War III.  But this is one of the most uncivilized battles I have ever seen.

I have spoken my last on this subject other than to say that I am so ashamed that a disease that should have bounded us all together has driven us so far apart.

If you don't like my attitude, then stop talking to me.

Respectfully, Ric

Offline vokz

  • Member
  • Posts: 391
  • efavirenz junkie
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2007, 02:32:57 AM »
Well, Ric, I suspect that comment reveals more about your own problems than it does anyone else’s; because I really am at a total loss to understand how a hatred for a noxious institutional prejudice against people who are HIV-positive can be interpreted as a hatred for US citizens (or their country) generally.

In case you hadn’t realised, close to 5% of the population of the UK visits the US every year. Do you not think that this is about the fact that those living with HIV would like the same freedom? (freedoms that is given to HIV-positive US citizens who wish to visit the EU) .. or do you just think that our time would be more usefully spent campaigning to have American pozzers denied entry to our countries?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2007, 04:01:56 AM by vokz »

Offline vokz

  • Member
  • Posts: 391
  • efavirenz junkie
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2007, 06:49:28 AM »
A few of links to commentary on the, as yet unimplemented, changes that George Bush promised last December (the ones that don’t actually need a change to the law, but would allow people to attend an AMG in the US without fear of the repercussions .. and the changes I was speculating could just, with a bit of luck, possibly be finally announced on 1st December).

AIDSmap: US promises ‘streamlined’ process for HIV-positive tourist visas (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/5FAF6B5F-A486-4E50-A0A6-7C3AFD0530F5.asp)

Pink News: US eases travel restrictions on HIV+ people (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3185.html)

Pink News: Gay Republicans welcome HIV law change (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/view.php?id=3187)

Please note that this is entirely separate from the wholesale changes to the law being proposed by Barbara Lee (which were mentioned by Iggy, but have more to do with immigration than travel and tourism).
« Last Edit: November 03, 2007, 07:12:44 AM by vokz »

Offline manchesteruk

  • Member
  • Posts: 630
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2007, 07:27:35 AM »
If this post stirs even more tail feathers, so be it.  I suggest the the UK and EU foes just stay on the eastside of the Pond.  You don't like us and that is a shame.

Now I know why my ancestors left for the US in the late 19th and 20th centuries.  I'm a proud descendant of those very folks.

This is not World War III.  But this is one of the most uncivilized battles I have ever seen.

I have spoken my last on this subject other than to say that I am so ashamed that a disease that should have bounded us all together has driven us so far apart.

If you don't like my attitude, then stop talking to me.

Respectfully, Ric


Ric you've misjudged this whole discussion if you think we don't like Americans.  What an absolutely ridiculous comment.  Did you forget that we all attended AMG just over a month ago? Personally it one was of the most amazing experiences of my life and I made some good friends most of which were American.

Now I know why my ancestors left for the US in the late 19th and 20th centuries.

This in particular is totally totally uncalled for.
Diagnosed 11/05

"Life is too important to be taken seriously" Oscar Wilde

Offline englishgirl

  • Member
  • Posts: 387
  • ACT NOW TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE TRAVEL BAN
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2007, 08:11:30 AM »
oh dear
so while i was bawling my eyes out for hours last night thinking that basically anyone who didnt see where i was coming from on the travel ban is basically saying they dont give a shit about me, ric is reading everything about the travel ban as anti-american.

for the moment im gonna choose to ignore the comments on the first 2 lines of the post, in the hope that when you wake up ric you will feel a bit calmer and see things a bit more clearly. through my puffy eyes this morning im trying to. 

memo to self and to ric and anyone else who is taking this personally:
the issue being discussed here (i think) is whether a group of positive people should hold their international meeting in a country which currently discriminates against positive foreign visitors.

the discussion is NOT a reflection of wider views on the country being discussed or the inhabitants of that country.
the discussion is NOT a reflection on whether anyone cares about the positive non-US members of these boards.
the discussion is NOT personal and should not be taken that way or aimed that way.

memo to self and to ric:
let's pic up our rattles and place them back in the pram and try to resolve this without getting any more upset.

I am so ashamed that a disease that should have bonded us all together has driven us so far apart.
well at least we agree on that!
ACT NOW TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE TRAVEL BAN:
http://campaigning.tht.org.uk/cms/cmsloader?WfJVLp&view=11,301,1385,0,-html

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=17352.0


"I'm not keen on the idea of the afterlife - not without knowing who else will be there and what the entertainment will be. Personally I'd rather just take a rest." Oscar Berger, PWA: Looking AIDS in the Face, 1996. RIP.

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2007, 10:16:48 AM »
And now, let's get back to the discussion at hand...minus the drama, personal attacks, and emotions.  Thanks.

David
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Iggy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,435
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2007, 10:23:05 AM »

Whatever, Iggy.  Now, let's nit pick every frickin' thing I post once more. 

David - I don't see me disagreeing with you on your take on ACT-up's site as nitpicking everything you wrote.  I think you misread their site and I disagree with your take that they think it is a non-issue.   I will apologize however if you feel that was the case.

Iggy

Very polite response, and from what I can see a way of saying thank you for your help..the you come back at him and pick holes in his post...enough for god sake..everyone here is trying to help those of us who don't completly understand the laws...and responding the way you are Iggy is not helping...either help us understand or don't it's up to you...but stop pulling posts apart.

Jan,

I apologize if you see it that way and I hope this isn't seen as questioning of you, but I don't see how me disagreeing with his take on Act-up's site is  pulling his post apart. However like I said to David, I do apologize if it was perceived as that.
[/quote]

Yeah...I also kinda gotta ask, Iggy:  What's up with all that?  I saw David's post above that was all "great!  thanks for the information, guys!  this forum is perfect for this kind of teamwork, etc"...

followed by that "david, you've got to be kidding me" business in your post.

what's up with all that??

clearly - CLEARLY - you should be the official forum "go to" guy for all things having to do with taking action against these restrictions since you quite obviously understand all this far better than any of the rest of us and are somewhat irritated when we don't immediately grasp everything you see of it.  and you also seem to have the time at your disposal to really delve into this, so i think you should have at it.

i'm really not trying to be mean or anything, but i have to say:  it seems a bit...much.  i mean, just a few months ago you were wiping out every post you had ever made on here and decrying that this place had fallen so far into disrepair that you simply had to go.  the sad clock on the wall was clanging, ya know?  and now all of the sudden, you seem to be on some sort of mission...not just against these restrictions but against some of the other members here.

i'm just not getting it.

sorry if this post sucks.  i'm just getting extremely fatigued with this unending stream of snippiness that's been going on all around here.  in the GATHERINGS forums, no less. 

kumbaya, ya'll.

Tim,

I think its a little strange that you posted something that I edited out before you were even in this thread. I agree the comment was wrong and that's why I took it out...but then you (who was not in this thread the entire time I posted and edited that comment) suddenly comes up and quotes it after the fact?  As you would say, "what's up with that?"

I also think you are going out of your way to stir the pot by resurrecting a thread several months old and bringing up a non related question to this topic of why I deleted my posts in the past all the while saying this shouldn't be happening in gatherings forum.  That was pure flamebaiting.

The answer btw to that question of the deleting of my posts  has long been explained in my bio, and I sent a pm to Peter and Ann about that when I returned to the boards. For the record, I deeply regret doing that as I realized it was unfair to the board, if an apology is required here for all - then I apologize (as I did in my bio), but I think it is telling of your intentions to have bring this up as if you weren't aware of the background after I have seen you reading my bio more than once (through the Who's online) feature and then argue that I'm causing trouble in this discussion.

To all:

I admit that this is a heated discussion on the travel ban and I regret if it is seen that my intentions are anything but the travel ban and the unfairness to our non-U.S. members.  As my presence in these discussions in this specific forum (the Gatherings) is seen as divisive on the issue and since I believe I have outlined my reasons well enough for why I feel I do about the issue,  and since I have set up the information in the Aids Activism Forum (what steps must be taken, who needs to be lobbied, a sample letter) I will refrain from further participation of this issue in this thread.


Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2007, 10:31:35 AM »
As my presence in these discussions in this specific forum (the Gatherings) is seen as divisive on the issue and since I believe I have outlined my reasons well enough for why I feel I do about the issue,  and since I have set up the information in the Aids Activism Forum (what steps must be taken, who needs to be lobbied, a sample letter) I will refrain from further participation of this issue in this thread.

Thank you!!   

And Jan, you're right.  I was thanking Iggy for his help... at that point,anyway.

David
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline gerry

  • Member
  • Posts: 522
  • Joined AM Feb 2003
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2007, 10:44:47 AM »
oh dear
so while i was bawling my eyes out for hours last night thinking that basically anyone who didnt see where i was coming from on the travel ban is basically saying they dont give a shit about me

I wish you could have seen the discussions that happened for the 2005 and 2006 gatherings.  They were just as impassioned as they are now, including responses from many folks in the US.  That's why Toronto and Montreal won pretty easily.  After the first one in Toronto, there were a group of folks who organized a mini-gathering in the US (was it Nashville?) which was attended by several US folks who were unable to attend the Toronto gathering (there were a few who attended both, including an international traveler) and that was a success as well. 

I don't think people aren't seeing where you are coming from.  In my mind, it's simply difficult to figure out what to do about it in relation to decisions about AMG locations.  If some people in the US are simply not going to be able to make a trip outside of the US for an AMG, and it's looking at this point like the location will be outside of the US, then they may not even participate in these discussions at all.  That's their reality and we have to respect that as well.  It doesn't mean nor imply that they are not empathizing with non-US travelers' plight when they need to enter the US should a US location be chosen.  The fact that many are allowing the voting to proceed without casting a lot more for US locations in my mind speaks a lot regarding their empathy toward this issue.  Compare that to last years' voting in which the Russian River and San Francisco won by a landslide (before people realize that the Russian River was not really doable logistics-wise), even though Vancouver was also in the running.  Having said that, if someone casts a vote for a location in the US, please don't take that as evidence of the person not seeing where you are coming from; it may just be a reflection of their reality as well.

Montreal was an example of a gathering that was done successfully, including assisting folks through the Grants Committee.  There were 40+ participants.  So it can be done even if it's outside the US.  The onus then fell on the local folks who were familiar with the location to make the gathering a success and they stepped up to the plate.

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2007, 11:32:06 AM »
Hi Everyone...

With respect to the information on the ACT-UP site, a source of contention here might be that the otherwise well-written summary of the U.S. HIV immigration ban mixes established facts with unreferenced perceptions, which can certainly lead to a lot of confusion.

Fact:

Non-immigrants include visitors, students, temporary workers, and others. Non-citizens who want to become lawful permanent U.S. residents must take a medical exam that includes an HIV test. Those coming to the U.S. for school, work, or tourism do not need to take an HIV test but must fill out a non-immigrant visa application that asks: "Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance?" INS can turn away anyone who answers "yes" to this question, unless the applicant requests a special waiver available to those who plan a short visit, for example, to attend a meeting, visit relatives, or receive medical treatment.

As long as their are "communicable disease" restrictions written into U.S. law -- and that such restrictions include foreigners living with HIV -- U.S. immigration officials have the right to refuse entry to any person who meets this exclusion criterion, as they see fit. Disclosure of HIV infection or the discovery of identifying antiretroviral medication -- in the absence of a U.S. government-approved waiver -- are grounds for deportation.

Perception:

"Usually, officials do not seek out short-term visitors who have HIV. Visitors who arrive in the U.S. and declare they have HIV, or are carrying antiretroviral drugs in their luggage, are usually questioned about the nature of their visit and then allowed to enter the country. Statistics are not kept on the number of visitors who are excluded, however, according to the San Francisco AIDS Foundation."

While the San Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF) reports that data are not kept on the number of HIV-positive foreigners who are refused entry into the United States, there's simply no source provided for the pertinent second sentence here. SFAF doesn't make this claim anywhere in its HIV immigration information -- at least not that I can find on its website. Maybe this is the author's understanding of things, but it's a tad-bit irresponsible to make such a potentially misleading claim without providing a solid reference to support it. Perhaps this is the author's perception of what's really going on... but, without referencing and a source for the information, I really don't think that this should be argued as "fact."

In effect, I think everyone's right here... the ACT-UP article does a good job summarizing the facts regarding HIV and resident and non-resident immigration -- it's a big risk, period -- but the unsupported statements such as the one quoted above certainly confuses matters.

Vokz, with all due respect, the visa argument seems to be splitting hairs to me. Fact is, all of the countries being considered for the next AMG have visa requirement. Fact of the matter is, the U.S. doesn't require a visa for passport holders from 27 countries, and I'm under the impression that precious few AIDSmeds Forums members are passport holders from countries that do require the procurement of a visa before entering the U.S. And let's not forget -- Canada and European Union countries also have visa requirements, with their list of requirements frequently overlapping with the one maintained by the U.S.

Ric, I'm still trying to wrap my head around your post. I'm not reading any overtly anti-American sentiments here. Yes, these do arise from time-to-time... but this says more about the closed-mindedness (and ignorance) of the person saying such things. But with articles like this being published, I do think it's important for U.S. citizens to ponder the effects of its own policies when it comes to foreign travel. But let's not make generalizations here -- criticism of U.S. policies, especially as it applies to foreigners wanting to visit this country, isn't the same as anti-Americanism.  

With that, like David says, "let's get back to the discussion at hand...minus the drama, personal attacks, and emotions."

Tim Horn
  

Offline vokz

  • Member
  • Posts: 391
  • efavirenz junkie
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2007, 11:42:46 AM »
Tim,

Well I am sorry,  but yet again you completely – and I suspect quite deliberately - misunderstand the situation. The whole point is that people who are HIV-positive are specifically excluded from the Visa Waiver scheme under which residents of 27 countries can enter the USA without a visa.

As for the rest of what you are defending, I really don’t know where you are getting that bee in your bonnet about, because no-one has said there is anything wrong with visas in general.

I regret to say that I think it is you who is yet again trying to split totallyt nonexistent hairs.

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2007, 12:43:30 PM »
Then I apologize profusely.

I read your mention of U.S. visa requirements above -- unrelated to the HIV waiver -- to highlight another U.S. immigration barrier that, I felt compelled to point out, applies to other countries as well. 

I apologize for misreading your intention,

Tim Horn     

Offline vokz

  • Member
  • Posts: 391
  • efavirenz junkie
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2007, 12:57:58 PM »
No need for apologies, Tim .. I probably expressed myself badly.

I was simply trying to point out that two related issues are being confused .. and that the whole big law change issue doesn’t need to be resolved in order to address the immediate problem with AMG (which only needs the administrative changes to the waiver scheme, announced in last year’s World AIDS Day Fact Sheet from the White House, to be implemented).

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Travel Ban
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2007, 12:14:39 PM »

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.