Author Topic: Bush does something right for once (Read 8113 times)

ChaplinGuy · « **on:** December 05, 2006, 10:03:44 am »

It is often hard to admit it when common sense strikes this White House, but thought this was worth sharing:

From Andrew Sullivan's blog (www.andrewsullivan.com)

Bush and the Stigma of AIDS

05 Dec 2006 06:47 am

There are few more symbolic ways in which a country can demonstrate its own desire to stigmatize people with HIV and AIDS than in its immigration policies. Until last week, the Bush administration made it technically illegal for any HIV-positive non-American to even enter the country. Yep, you couldn't attend an AIDS conference in the US if you were HIV-positive, without a special waiver. When the First Lady recently sat down with African women dealing with HIV for a photo-op, the press did not tell you that the White House had first to secure that waiver to even allow those women into the country, let alone the White House. We spend billions on AIDS drugs for Africa, but the survivors are barred from ever entering America. How does that make any sense?

This policy, mind you, was initiated under president Clinton, a man now devoted to doing out of office on HIV/AIDS what he refused to do while in office. And it is to the Bush administration's credit - and to the great credit of the new Global AIDS coordinator, Mark Dybul - that Bush has now issued an executive order making it unnecessary for HIV-positive visitors and tourists to seek a special waiver to enter America. Dybul said: "This administration is very serious about fighting discrimination on AIDS." Well, if it is, the Bush administration now has a chance to prove it beyond this tiny, if welcome, gesture. A legislative effort to remove HIV as a barrier to American citizenship and residence is long overdue. HIV is not a communicable disease like malaria or TB. It poses no similar public health threat and no other civilized country treats it the way the U.S. does. The law was passed at a time when ignorance of HIV and deep sigmatization of it were common. But the panic and fear of the 1980s and early 1990s has no place in a sane policy for the 21st century. We have come a long way, and this administration deserves kudos for helping remove some of the stigma. Just not far enough.

aztecan · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2006, 10:10:35 am »

Immigration issues aside, this is a big thing for many. Does this mean that travelers to the U.S. no longer need worry about a search and deportation should their meds be spotted?

I am surprised more isn't being heard about this.

HUGS,

Mark

BassMan · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2006, 10:33:30 am »

As someone who is planning a trip to the US in the Spring, I'm watching this one like a hawk. I've yet to see any details as to how this statement will translate into practice, or any kind of timescale for its implementation.

Here in the UK we have what I think is called the "visa waiver" programme. My understanding is that although technically UK citizens are required to have a visa to travel to the US, there is an "understanding" that allows this requirement to be waived as long as the visit is going to be for less than 90 days, so in practice we don't have to apply for one.

If this proposed "category waiver" for poz folk works the same way, I'm assuming this means we won't have to actually apply for the HIV waiver, and that we won't be arrested and deported at US Immigration control if we're found with our meds. But let's wait and see.

Carl
Manchester, UK

*Edited to correct 60 days to 90 days.

Boo Radley · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2006, 10:41:27 am »

Has Bush actually issued the Executive Order? Is the change automatic or will it begin sometime in the future?

Boo

RapidRod · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2006, 10:43:49 am »

New Transportation Laws

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/76752.htm

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html

jack · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2006, 11:20:13 am »

chaplin,
the HIV immigration was not done by this Bush,so his administration did not make it illegal,either his father or Waskally Willy did it. I find it amazing that Clinton could have been responsible for this law. Just too funny.
Clinton did nothing on HIV while President, now he is out there gladhanding hivers on his way to mutli million dollar speaking engagements. I will never forget the shit the libs and dems gave Reagan for accepting 2million from the Japanese for speaking engagement. I have heard estimates that Clinton may make upwards of 50 mill this year in speaking engagements but not a word of protest from libs and dems or weak kneed republicans. I have no problem with Clinton making a $100 million in speaking engagements,just dont wanna hear the shit hit the fan when a republican does it. Does anyone remember the crap Newt G took for writing a book while speaker,yet we heard nothing when Hillary did same thing.
Still we hear nothing on the millions Clinton got for his library for pardoning arch criminal oil trader Marc Rich cause he is cheerleading HIV when he has no power. What a scumbag.
What did you expect Reagan to do,with out the Japs we would be stuck driving the garbage Detroit produces and we did hose them on a lot of real estate. Who can forget the liberal howls during the 80s that the Japs were taking over the world and buying all of our real estate(at the very top of the market).

pozguy75 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2006, 11:26:31 am »

Okay...ignoring Jack for the moment...

It looks like Bush issued the EO on December 1...WAD. It says it will cover all short term tourists and business travel. So, maybe there is hope that this discrimenatory ban will be lifted completely...maybe Australia and a few other countries will take note!

ChaplinGuy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2006, 11:39:30 am »

Jack, your post had nothing to do with the issue of immigration/U.S. visitation. Stop hijacking posts with off message rants.

Thanks to pozguy for ignoring and moving on to the issue at hand.

ACinKC · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2006, 11:49:20 am »

Here I was thinking he had resigned in disgrace.....

But I have to say, this is pretty damn good.

Miss Philicia · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2006, 12:51:23 pm »

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Bill Clinton for those travel restrictions. Seems they were a hold over from the administration before him, though he shouldn't have signed them for the NIH reauthorization. Still, a quick glance shows it has the "R" for Republican stamped all over it, but also has more to do with the Haiti paranoia in the early 90's when they were floating over daily on rafts.

Color me SHOCKED that Jesse Helms name appears in this link!

http://www.actupny.org/actions/Immigration.html

J.R.E. · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2006, 02:38:40 pm »

Hello,

As I understand it, the entry ban for people with HIV was put into place in 1987 !!

"According to a statement from the White House, “President Bush is dedicated to ending discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS” and has therefore issued instructions to make it easier for people with HIV to visit the country.

At the moment, the US has severe restrictions that effectively ban routine entry for people with HIV. The White House statement says that these restrictions will be “eased” and applications for short-term tourist or business visits “streamlined.”

It is currently possible for people with HIV to obtain a special “visa waiver” to enter the US, but they have to be interviewed at the US embassy, and also have to provide extensive documentation about their health and finances. The visa waiver given to people with HIV is placed in a person’s passport and effectively discloses a person’s HIV status to immigration officers around the world.

The entry ban for people with HIV has been in place since 1987, but members of the recently elected US Congress have vowed to introduce legislation to over turn it.

Many people with HIV travel to the US and simply ignore the ban. However, there have been cases of people being deported after customs officers found their HIV medication. Some people with HIV take unofficial breaks from their treatment in the hope that this will make it easier to enter the US, but this could involve health risks, such as a rebound in viral load, illness or drug resistance."

Ray

J.R.E. · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2006, 08:09:05 am »

After a little more research, I found the following:

The ban on HIV-positive visitors and immigrants came into effect in July 1987, as part of Republican Senator Jesse Helms' infamous ‘Helms amendment’. Although the main – and devastating – focus of this right-wing fundamentalist Christian's politician’s amendment was to prevent the US government from paying for any AIDS education or prevention materials that would "promote or encourage, directly or indirectly, homosexual sexual activities," it also added HIV infection to the Public Health Service (PHS) list of "dangerous and contagious diseases," for excluding persons from entering the United States for public health reasons. President Reagan had already added AIDS – but not HIV – to the list a month earlier.

The exclusion was widely publicised following a mass boycott of the Sixth International AIDS Conference in San Francisco in 1990. In 1992 the International AIDS Conference moved from Boston to Amsterdam, and the US has not hosted an International AIDS Conference since then.

Although President Clinton promised to end to the ban by executive order during his 1992 election campaign, he ultimately enshrined the policy in the law when he signed the 1993 NIH Reauthorization Act – which included an amendment that permanently added HIV to the PHS list.

Since then, US HIV/AIDS immigration policy has been widely condemned by civil society groups, which argue that it discourages HIV testing and treatment of migrants who may be in the US illegally. At a round table discussion held last month by the Global Health Council, GMHC’s Nancy Ordover said that the US policy is a "violation to human rights and a threat to public health in the United States and abroad."

Several UK studies have highlighted the adverse effects of this policy on even short-term visitors’ anti-HIV drug adherence and mental health. Results from a 2004 Brighton study, as well as 2005 studies from London and Manchester have found that travelling to the US was often a “negative practical and emotional experience”.

Reactions to the White House statement have been muted. Dr Donald Abrams, one of the organisers of Sixth International AIDS Conference told the San Francisco Chronicle that it was "a step that will serve to bring us in line with the rest of the civilised world,'' but wasn't sure if it was enough to persuade International AIDS Conference organisers to hold future conferences on US soil.

"It's a step away from a terribly discriminatory and inappropriate policy, but it doesn't go far enough,'' added Leonard Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights. "This is a treatable disease. If you want to remove stigma from AIDS, you have to go the whole distance, and eliminate all restrictions on entry to the United States for people with HIV.''

However, a spokesperson for Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee – who co-authored the bills that created PEPFAR and the Global Fund – told the Global Health Council meeting last month that she plans to introduce legislation during the 110th Congress that would totally overturn the ban for both immigrants and short-term visitors.

Ray

jack · « **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2006, 08:29:12 am »

I have no idea who started the ban,but it is clear Clinton could have vetoed the bill if he thought it was wrong.
I think you also have to go back to the time period in which this ban was instituted. Dont any of you remember the fear mongering and hiv hysteria by many groups on aids? Both sides had their own reasons, people with hiv wanted more attention and better and faster treatments,pharma wanted to make money and bring new drugs to market, and others were genuinely worried that this could spread to the whole population quickly ,are just a few of the reasons to spread fear. There was an overreaction to this fear. Its human nature.
People with HIV wanting to come to the US are not the only victims of this fearmongering. I still believe many of the debilitating side effects and disfiguring lipodystrophy some of us have suffered are the result of drugs being rushed to markets because of this hysteria without proper testing.
The problem with any government regulation like this hiv ban is it takes forever for it to be revoked by the bureaucracy. There are thousands of laws dumber than this one on the books.
This is the first time I have heard any politician mention this ban or for that matter the first time I have heard anything about it except on this message board.
I apologize for the Clinton rant,but my point was simply when Clinton had the power he did nothing. I think I was wired out on some hydrocodone from my dentist.

Dachshund · « **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2006, 09:13:55 am »

Jake if you could take off your Clinton blinders for just a second...do a little research...you wouldn't have to eat your words, again!

I am not going into the details of the legislation...let's just say your ol' uncle Jesse Helms made sure to attach the ban on to veto proof legislation. The restrictions were set to expire until your crazy Uncle Jesse stepped in.

Did you know that Bill and Hillary were responsible for the Tsunami and Katrina? They are watching you Jake!

jack · « **Reply #14 on:** December 08, 2006, 09:42:10 am »

I never said Clinton was responsible for the legislation. I said he could have changed it or vetoed it,but he didnt.
I have never said that Clinton was responsible for katrina or other acts of mother nature,but I have read many posts here blaming them on Bush.
i have said many times Clintons appeasement of terrorists during his time in office was only a continuation of US policy that started with Reagan. Guess who the architect was? James Baker. Jimmy is very nice guy,very rich,and very powerful and a master politician deal doer. Did you know that one of the biggest clients of his law firm is Saudi Arabia, who are presently the subject of an enormous lawsuit by US citizens dealing with 911. Anyways you have led me to go off topic again.

Dachshund · « **Reply #15 on:** December 08, 2006, 09:55:02 am »

ummmm...what part of veto proof do you not understand? Sorry to confuse you with the facts Jake. You are slipping...you forgot to work Charlie Wilson and Vince Foster into the mix.

I bet you sob like ol' man Bush every time you realize the Republican reign of terror is over. boo hoo hoo.

jack · « **Reply #16 on:** December 08, 2006, 12:09:25 pm »

Veto proof doesn't mean he couldn't veto it ,it just means congress could over ride the veto. Veto proof is an excuse any president can use to save him from taking a position on record. If it was something he really cared about, a veto would have brought the issue front and center. The greatest spender of taxpayer money in the history of the world,W, has not used the veto once. What a pussy.

Dachshund · « **Reply #17 on:** December 08, 2006, 12:32:46 pm »

Since you refuse to do any research about the particulars of this law and how it was enacted I will leave you to your fantasies. You can't make up stuff if you have the facts.

Talk about a pussy...ol' George sobbing like a little girl ranks right up there with Mark Foley and Ted Haggard and the rest of those crying conservatives. For tough guys, Republicans sure turn on the waterworks whenever they get busted. Boo hoo hoo...I'm Duke Cunningham.

Two press conferences today Jake concerning your boys Mark and Ted...tune in.

jack · « **Reply #18 on:** December 08, 2006, 05:18:24 pm »

There is no such thing as a law called veto proof. Veto proof is just a term when there are enough votes in senate to override the veto. President can still veto the bill make a point or bring something to the forefront of public discussion
No wrong doing found on the part of anyone in congress in handling of Marc Foley dirty IMs. As of this date we still dont know if he had physical contact with any of the pages and there is no proof that he ever had physical contact with the page. But it worked, the Dems won. We will never hear anything about this again.
Sorry to disappoint you.

Miss Philicia · « **Reply #19 on:** December 08, 2006, 05:21:15 pm »

BILL CLINTON INVENTED HIV!!!

Dachshund · « **Reply #20 on:** December 08, 2006, 05:30:38 pm »

Quote from: jack on December 08, 2006, 05:18:24 pm

There is no such thing as a law called veto proof. Veto proof is just a term when there are enough votes in senate to override the veto. President can still veto the bill make a point or bring something to the forefront of public discussion
No wrong doing found on the part of anyone in congress in handling of Marc Foley dirty IMs. As of this date we still dont know if he had physical contact with any of the pages and there is no proof that he ever had physical contact with the page. But it worked, the Dems won. We will never hear anything about this again.
Sorry to disappoint you.

Never said there was a law named veto proof. I said some laws are veto proof and that is a fact.

As for the gang of pervs...the ethics committee did find them negligent in not protecting pages. I am not disappointed...there are enough closet cases and pedophiles in the Republican party to be outed for a long, long time. If you want to hitch your wagon to that star so be it.

AtomicA · « **Reply #21 on:** December 08, 2006, 05:50:45 pm »

As much fun as the last few posts have been... any new info on the travel ban? As much as I dislike to US politically, I really do have fun when I go there and would sure love to go again...

oh, and pozguy, i know that when I lived in australia for a year (preHIV) I had to declare that if I was HIV+/- on my visa application. Do you know if they have a similar tourist ban as well? I went there again last christmas, before I was on meds and no one asked me...

jack · « **Reply #22 on:** December 08, 2006, 05:51:17 pm »

I am going to throw the towell in on this on. Veto proof only means there are enough votes in senate to overturn it. Presidents have vetoed bills in past knowing it wouldnt fly.

Eldon · « **Reply #23 on:** December 09, 2006, 12:34:45 am »

Hey Chaplin,

It is good that the current administration has moved to lift this ban on travel. Please DO keep us posted.

Happy Holidays!

randym431 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 09, 2006, 02:37:24 am »

A lot of what is done is just plain politics.
Clinton may have given in on this one for getting something else from Republicans, like Helms.
I'd have to hear his own words on this before I would call Clinton a pussy.

But I know in reality Bush could probably care less about the 'rights" agenda. Or care less if gays married
in the U.S.

I guess thats the way it works (or doesnt work) in politics.

Despite it all, sometimes the right thing does get done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAz5JAAIppc

northernguy · « **Reply #25 on:** December 09, 2006, 02:42:22 am »

Quote from: AtomicA on December 08, 2006, 05:50:45 pm

As much fun as the last few posts have been... any new info on the travel ban? As much as I dislike to US politically, I really do have fun when I go there and would sure love to go again...

oh, and pozguy, i know that when I lived in australia for a year (preHIV) I had to declare that if I was HIV+/- on my visa application. Do you know if they have a similar tourist ban as well? I went there again last christmas, before I was on meds and no one asked me...

Interestingly, Australia is the only country I've been to where they asked if I was carrying any medication and what it was for. I'm "pre-med" so I only declared my blood-pressure pills. Were they trying to see if i had HIV meds? (it was during Mardi Gras)

heartforyou · « **Reply #26 on:** December 10, 2006, 05:29:59 am »

Marc,

Never let the word HIV flow out of a pen onto official papers for entry into the US.
That is until further notice.
You simply don't mention it whe you travel to the US.

Hermie

Esquare · « **Reply #27 on:** December 10, 2006, 04:40:59 pm »

If the US could do this it would really pave the way for the rest of the world. I'd like to add Korea to the list of countries with terrible policy regarding HIV+ travelers.

BassMan · « **Reply #28 on:** January 12, 2007, 04:18:17 am »

Sorry to drag this one back into the spotlight, but has *anyone* heard any more about this? I've been scanning the websites of the US Embassies and visa services but can find no mention of it.

Has it sunk without a trace, or have I missed some important announcement somewhere?

Carl
Manchester (UK)

lydgate · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2007, 12:00:08 pm »

I'm going to check with some State Department (Foreign Service) friends and get back to you on this. It is a pretty fucking big deal; I'd like to know more as well. Jay

dixieman · « **Reply #30 on:** January 12, 2007, 05:05:00 pm »

mmm I've traveled all over the world with my meds and I've never had a problem... but, I was aware of people residing in other countries who were on meds (hiv+) not alowed into the USA... also I know new passports will soon have your medical history in place... and in the near future... microchip implantations for your good... Right?

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: Bush does something right for once (Read 8113 times)