Conservative MEP questions USA's treatment of visitors with HIV and AIDS

A Conservative Member of the European Parliament and medical doctor, Charles Tannock has compared the United States' treatment of visitors from overseas with 
HIV and AIDS to that of repressive nations like Saudi Arabia.

At the moment, in restrictions that are twenty years old, the USA prevents all people with HIV from entering its territory under the visa waiver programme that benefits most Britons.

A new proposal from the US Department for Homeland Security suggests that HIV+ visitors will be able to stay for thirty days but they would "waive both their right to appeal and their right to change their immigration status once in the US - for example to seek work, study or be reunited permanently with family members".

Writing on his website, Dr Tannock complains:

"If the new proposal becomes law it could mean that people who are HIV-positive are denied the chance to be reunited with family members and partners, or to work or study in America.  The measures amount to an entrenchment of discrimination, in particular because they will disproportionately affect thousands of gay and bisexual people.  I've raised this issue in a written parliamentary question to the EU Commission and Council because collectively they are likely to have considerable clout with the US authorities on this particular issue.  The US is one of the only countries to place travel restrictions on people living with HIV and AIDS.  America's policy places it alongside countries such as Saudi Arabia. It's unworthy of a country like America, with which we share common values of liberty and equality."

This does seem to be an outdated restriction that stems from a time when understanding of the nature of HIV/ AIDS was in its infancy.  The USA under George W Bush has done much to tackle AIDS abroad.  It is regrettable that it has not moved further against this restriction.

Comments

[Steevo]

Good post Donal. Whether our AIDS policy for foreigners is the right way to go about it or not, it is our business.

I do hope the day comes you folks can reverse matters and detach yourselves from the EU's tentacles and be assured, that what is your business, is indeed yours.

[Tom Strasz]

Steevo, when a foreign nation's policies affect our citizens, we are entitled to speak on them. Charles Tannock should be congratulated for standing up for his constituents, particularly in a case were there seems little reason why such policies should remain in place.

[Steevo]

I think that's a self-centered stretch Tom. Nobody is forcing anyone from your country to come here. If you're saying such policymaking is not our business only and UK citizens, the French, Russians etc. have a right to affect our internal decisions because they wanna visit here, than we disagree not only the rights, but very nature and definition of national sovereignty.

[atheliing]

Ditto, Steevo.

Foreign nationals have no say regarding our domestic policies, and protecting our citizens from disease is the proper role of government in a sovereign nation.

European nations may give up their national sovereignty to the EUSSR, as the recent sneaky passage of the Lisbon Treaty demonstrates... but it is not their right to force that on the US.

[Sally Roberts]

"It would be nice if we could decide the same here in Britain but our membership of the EU increasingly precludes such control of our own borders. Maybe if our MEPs focussed on repatriating powers from Brussels rather than enjoying the fine dining in Brussels and Strasbourg we'd be better off..?"

Now come on Donal that isn't fair! Charles works very hard as our MEP and in any case, don't tell me you've never sampled the delights of a fine restaurant in London or anywhere else (and good for you - we are all entitled to if we so wish)?!

[Sally Roberts]

"The USA is alone with some Arab states in these rather draconian measures"

Quite right, Charles and surely this tells us something... after all Saudi Arabia is not noted for its enlightened approach to Gays, Women or anyone else who is not of their Religious Status Quo!

[Graeme Archer]

oryJim: which wars did the US start in the last 50 years then? Name them...

Posted by: Donal Blaney | December 19, 2007 at 07:38 PM

How about the ongoing Iraq disaster? Oh sorry, over here at neoconworld, that was a liberation, and it's a huge and growing success, isn't it.

Lemme see if I get the rules of engagement on this website right. Bigots - self-satisfied ones - get to make rude remarks; and even if they do so in that clever rightwing way of *just* staying the right side of actionable, the dog whistle they employ is quite strikingly loud. Then when normal people react in anger, the fellow travellers of the bigot come out and say 'ooh what a terrible way to talk to a fellow Conservative. Everything about the US is fantastic, but if you don't agree then let me tell you it's disgusting for a foreigner to even express a view.'

I think that the ban on PWA is just another one of those things which turns putative US friends into foes. Unlike the pro-bigots, I don't need to bend over backwards on the head of a needle in order to squeeze out some politically decent justification for this opinion. It's just the action of a shit to pick on people living with AIDS in order to make their lives more difficult; end of.

[Matt Wright]

It does seem outdated. The restriction on HIV+ entrants to the US was presumably brought in when people didn't know what the disease was. Now we do know it seems outdated, so I would tend to agree with Charles.

[S Baker]

Well it is 2007 so lets go back 50 yrs and name all of the wars the US Started:

1. Korea 1950-53 technically more than 50 yrs - but I'll spot you a few yrs. Hmmm, North crossed the 38th parallel - nope, US didn't start it.

2. Vietnam 1950-54 France not the US, and then of course 1963-1975 Vietnamese Communists infiltrate South Vietnam and the South and the US resist, hardly starting a war.

3. Various Arab Israeli wars - nope no US there

4. Iraq invades Kuwait - 1990 Iraq looses signs a cease fire agreement (note this is important, since if you don't follow through with your agreements war starts again)

5. Afghanistan - Hmm, terrorists use Afghanistan to Attack US embassies and the US well you knew what came next.

5. Iraq II - Sodamn Insane decided not to follow through on the cease fire agreement, bluffs and then looses. Oh well..

And you were saying? We didn't start them, but we will definitely finish them!

[S Baker]

Of course I didn't include the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Rhodesia, Chechneya, etc... USA? Nope, nope, nope, and nope

[Denise]

Thank you for making those points, S. Baker.

As for the issue of HIV-AIDS, just because most people with the disease may be gay, many are also heterosexual. Therefore, the cry of discrimination against gays is unfounded. Secondly, diseases like cancer are not contagious. HIV is. The US has every right to protect it's citizens from contagious diseases that any foreigner can bring in and spread to others. It's enough to have a number of our own citizens with the disease. One other thing. While there is an exception of some people who may have gotten the disease because they were a child born with it, or their spouse cheated on them and gave it to them, or they had a blood transfusion before much was known about the disease or got it from a cut, usually the disease is spread by irresponsible sexual behavior, gay or straight. I know that no one likes to hear that but it's a fact. People should consider consequences before they act. And consequences exist regardless of anyone's beliefs or lact there of.

And abstinence IS better than a condom, thank you very much. If you want sex, find one partner and stay with them!

[Denise]

Sorry, I meant to say in the second paragraph, "while most people with the disease may be gay, ..." not, "just because".

[Denise]

Oh, goodness. I can't type today. I also meant to say lack instead of lact.

[Mary Fernandez]

What is so outdated about controlling immigrants with communicable diseases?! The influx of African immigrants (mostly straight) has caused an increase in HIV in Europe. Asian immigrants have caused a rise of Tuberculosis in the U.S.

I'm terribly sorry if you have contracted (by whatever means) a communicable, fatal disease; however, that does not give you the right to enter another nation just because you 'want' to. You don't have that right even if you're perfectly healthy!!!

Perhaps fixing Britain's immigration policies should be a higher priority than criticizing America's.

[Mary Fernandez]

BTW, unlike tuberculosis or cancer, the vast majority of HIV/AIDs is caused by irresponsible, unprotected behavior (sex and/or drug-use). These are precisely the type of people who should be denied admission to protect the general population.

That's what immigration and border control policies are all about.

[atheliing]

Agree with Mary and Denise....

Seems like common sense has fled politicians in their desire to pander to the Left.

[Anna]

Merry Christmas to all of you!

I do wish we could open up the discussion and talk about Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism.

As long as the Brits feel the never-ending necessity to criticize everything we do, every breath we take, I think we should have the opportunity to give back.

Afterall, it is the "giving" season, isn't it? ;))

[Ami]

Please, Mr. Tannock, keep your advice to yourself. This is a sovereign nation, and our people and our government make the decisions and rules here. As for your "friendship?" Keep that too.

[Steevo]

The American conservative ladies in this forum rock.

[Fernandez]

:-)

Thanks Steevo.

May I recommend to all here 'Anti-Americanism' by Jean-Francois Revel (a Frenchmen, no less!)? It's been out for a few years (I read it in 2003) but I'm rereading it now. It talks about the delusions and inconsistencies of people who criticize everything American (and also the Europrean Right's constant chasing [unrequited] of the Left).

[francis]

as a sovereign nation,america has a full right to impose rules on its foreign policies and as a democratic nation foreigners have a right to voice concerns regarding the u.s.a foreign policies.the u.s doesnt not have to listen to the concerns or change it regulations if it doesnt want to .Denise and Mary are a bit lost on this issue,as a health professional i have seen a lot of young white british people coming to health clinics and most of them leave with an std or hiv diagnosis because they have been carelessless sleeping around and have the impression that aids is only found in africans and asians, which is a sad state of affairs.
America has been generous in many ways to nations with hiv/aids epidemics no doubt.but what CHARLES IS SAYING IS ;THE IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS ARE BIT OUT TOUCH WITH THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WITH REGARDS TO THE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE ABOUT HIV TRANSMISSION.WHEN CONGRESS MADE IT INTO LAW ,THEY BELIEVED THAT HIV COULD BE TRANSMITTED CASUALLY AS DENISE STILL BELIEVES.THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE U.S IMPOSED THESE RULES.
BUT NOW WE KNOW THAT IT IS NOT TRUE, SO CHARLES WAS JUST KINDLY MENTIONING THAT MAYBE IT'S ABOUT TIME THEY SHOULD CONSIDER REPEALING THIS BAN, THAT'S IT REALLY!!!!!!!!AS FOR U MARY AND DENISE AND THE OTHERS ,THERE ARE LOTS UPPER MIDDLE CLASS WHITE MEN AND WOMEN THAT ARE HIV+IN OUR COUNTRY AND THEY NEVER HAD RELATIONSHIPS WITH BLACK MAN FROM AFRICA OR WHEREEVER YOU THINK AIDS COMES FROM.ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY DESERVE TO HAVE HIV, OR YOU TWO ARE JUST TRYING TO PLAY IGNORANT?.FOR YOUR OWN INFORMATION U.S HIV /AIDS FIGURES HAVE BEEN RISING RAPIDLY SINCE THIS BAN WAS PUT INTO PLACE BECAUSE THE U.S GOVT REALLY THOUGHT THAT BY CLOSING THE BORDERS ON HIV SUFFERERS THE COUNTRY WAS SAFE.
YOU DONT HAVE TO SLEEP WITH DIFFERENT PARTNERS ON A DAILY BASIS TO CATCH HIV .YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE INCIDENT OF UNPROTECTED SEX AND BANG YOU ARE POSITIVE!!WE SHOULD NOT LOOK AT HIV PERSONS AND JUST ASSUME THAT THEY ARE PROMISCOUS.AIDS HAS BEEN AROUND FOR MORE THAN 25YEARS.THERE ARE YOUNG 20+YR OLD AFRICAN MEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE BORN WITH HIV.IS IT REALLY FAIR TO TELL THEM TO GO BACK TO THEIR COUNTRIES JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MANAGEABLE DISEASE DESPITE THAT THEY HAVE JOBS IN THE U.S.A.BEING CONSERVATIVES DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO BE MEAN JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT.
THE USA HAS DONE A LOT OF WONDERFUL DEEDS TO HUMANITY ,THE U.S HAS ALSO MADE HUGE BLUNDERS AT A VERY HIGH COST TO THE WORLDWIDE COMMUNITY AND AMERICA HAS ALSO SUFFERED A GREAT DEAL BECAUSE OF ITS POSITIONON AS A SUPERPOWER .WITH REGARDS TO THIS HIV INADMISSIBILITY LAW ,AMERICA HAS MADE A MISTAKE AND IM VERY HOPEFUL THAT THE U.S GOVT IS WILLING TO LISTEN TO THIS ISSUE AS EVIDENCED BY GEORGE BUSH'S PROPOSAL IN 2006, BARBARA LEE ' H.R3337 AND JOHN KERRY'S S.2486
AN AMERICAN WHO IS ENGAGING IN UNPROTECTED SEX WITH EITHER AN ALIEN OR AMERICAN IS A DANGER TO HER OR HIS FELLOW CITIZENS SO THIS BAN DOES NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE AT ALL, NOT IN 2008 ANYWAY.