Comments on: Misrepresenting the HIV Ban Repeal

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:00:12 +0000

Oh, I see. So, it exists for sure, you’re just worried about permanent residents being able to wave the requirement once they become PRs. Here I am, searching high and low, for a more official source to prove my point better. Yes, I know a blog isn’t the best source to go by. I should have verified that first.

If this is the case, don’t make becoming a PR an excuse for it, I say. I’d support that. Just like PRs can be deported for committing a crime (under certain conditions), I say amend the law that PRs must be continue being able to afford health insurance, for however long they have left. That way you don’t have people coming in and waiting until they can wave the requirement.

Then it becomes a thing of immigration enforcement, which is, like I said in my entry, an entirely different matter.

By: RRRocks

RRRocks — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:42:27 +0000

In an alarmingly pointed written statement Obama signed his named to the personal promise of greater advance against the institution of marriage of any candidate to ever run for the highest office. Pointedly so he gave his full pledge to overturn, or repeal, the federal Defense of Marriage Act. "I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."
As further evidence that the die is cast, Barak Obama and this ruling has laid the groundwork for people from all over the world to begin flooding into this nation and potentially creating an epidemic of aids. Let us not forget that those with aids are not usually some sickly, weaken person who can barely hold their heads up and if this nation turns to allowing gay marriage then many who have refused to move here in the past that are gay and MIGHT have aids have or are in the process of having ALL barriers removed.

By: Selin

Selin — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:34:56 +0000

RRRocks, I understand that. But once you’re in the U.S. and IF you are being sponsored by someone (relative or through work), you become eligible for Permanent Residency. It takes about five years (maybe less maybe more) to get Permanent Residency and another five to get citizenship. Thus, the 10 year rule is a moot point for all practical purposes.

By: wj

wj — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:57:49 +0000

The argument about not letting in people with communicable diseases would be more convincing if the restriction was applied across the board to those who have much more easily transmitted diseases. Which it isn’t, and never has been.

By: RRRocks

RRRocks — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:23:14 +0000

Foreigners traveling into the United States must sign a waiver which states they will keep up private insurance for 10 years. In addition the US is in no way obligated to pay for the health care of these individuals.

By: Chuck Norton

Chuck Norton — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:26:24 +0000

"Let me break it to you this way: Forget about public insurance. When private insurance has to spend the exorbitant amounts of money per year on HIV positive patients, it’s a cost on business. Which gets reflected in higher insurance premiums for everyone else."

QFT

By: Selin

Selin — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:27:50 +0000

Your post title is very appropriate, but in the opposite way.

Talk about misrepresenting immigration policies on the part of Andrew Sullivan. You shouldn’t take the blog of guy who has a vested personal interest in this matter as truth, my friend. You did mention that you are 22 years old which makes you significantly younger than myself, so I’ll just say this: NOT everything you read on the web is reliable nor should you present it as such.

I myself have gone through the whole immigration process and while my sponsor had to show some financial capability and health coverage during the application process, there is no guarantee that the employer will not fire the sponsored person after this person gets the Permanent Residency. In fact, it happens. Same thing with family sponsorships: The sponsoring relative may have health coverage and may provide it to the relative at the time of application but there’s no guarantee that this financial support will continue once the person gets admitted for Permanent Residency. In fact, that happens a lot as well. Perhaps a divorce, or a sheer declaration that this legal resident is no longer a dependent of the sponsor. Also the sponsoring person could always lose the job, hence the health coverage.

Of course, I don’t remember having to show 10 years of health care capabilities when I applied for Permanent Residency and Citizenship. In fact, when I attended my Citizenship ceremony, there was a Hispanic guy who went around the room first in Spanish then in English about the "great" Health Care Plan in New York that would cover people making little money. This was Medicaid coverage done in conjunction with the State of New York. This was 2005. The year two-thousand-and-five. So unless there has been new draconian measures that prohibit Permanent Residents or new Citizens from applying for Medicaid, which I believe is not a possibility, the Michelle Malkin crowd makes a very good argument purely on the financial front. In fact, I was going to write similar things yesterday as a commentary to your earlier post, but then decided not to because it is oh-so-not moral and politically correct to point out that healthy people ARE subsidizing HIV positive people both in terms of public AND private insurance.

Let me break it to you this way: Forget about public insurance. When private insurance has to spend the exorbitant amounts of money per year on HIV positive patients, it’s a cost on business. Which gets reflected in higher insurance premiums for everyone else.

This is not even considering the health risk that HIV positive people present to society at large. So no, I don’t believe that the liberal crowd is covering this issue realistically OR objectively.

By: Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief

Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:58:15 +0000

I agree with the above comment, at least to a degree. ‘Rights’ are all too often made up. Something is a ‘right’ when it has been legally established. You can say that something should be a right, but not that it is a right already if the law disagrees with you (and it does).

By: Chuck Norton

Chuck Norton — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:28:52 +0000

Not allowing people with communicable diseases isn’t bigotry. It is amazing that anything some leftist wants is automatically morphed into some "right" - and everything they are denied is the fault of someone they call a bigot or a hatemonger. It is tiresome and anti-intellectual. Rational people should call out such flawed thinking aggressively.