"HIV Patients Not Welcome in Australia" John Howard (1 Viewer)

[BritneySpears]

HIV-positive people should be denied entry to Australia as migrants or refugees, Prime Minister John Howard said today.
In an apparent echoing of comments late last year from Pauline Hanson, Mr Howard has said HIV-positive people should not be allowed to migrate to Australia.
"My initial reaction is no (they should not be allowed in)," he said on Southern Cross radio.
"There may be some humanitarian considerations that could temper that in certain cases but prima facie - no." He went on to say he would like "more counsel" on the issue.
HIV legal campaigners have said Mr Howard is wrong both medically and legally and should be investigated for possibly vilifying people with the virus.
The current rules, according to the Immigration department's website, require permanent visa residents aged 15 or older to have an HIV/AIDS test.

"A positive HIV or other test result will not necessarily lead to a visa being denied," the department says.

"The main factor to be taken into account is the cost of the condition to Australia's health care and community services."
But Mr Howard has said he will look at changing that: "I think we should have the most stringent possible conditions in relation to that nationwide ... and I know the Health Minister (Tony Abbott) ... is examining ways of tightening things up.
"I think people are entitled to be concerned."
Tuberculosis
Mr Howard has said Australia already stopped people with tuberculosis coming in and this was why he supported stopping HIV-positive people as well.
The HIV/AIDS legal centre has said Mr Howard is wrong to link the conditions, as TB is much more easily passed on than HIV. The centre also said HIV patients were already blocked from entry in "the vast majority" of cases.
"Although immigration law is not subject to discrimination legislation, Mr Howard’s comments are. Mr Howard should be investigated as making comments capable of amounting to vilification," the centre said.
The Immigration department's website suggests that it is not always the case that TB sufferers are barred from living in Australia.
"TB is mentioned in legislation as precluding the issue of a visa, but opportunity is given to enable an applicant to undergo treatment in most cases," its guidance says.
If the treatment is successul or if tests suggest it is "non-active", patients are allowed to stay. "Your visa is not at risk, once in Australia, no matter what status of tuberculosis is diagnosed" as a result of ongoing medical monitoring, the guidance says.
Mr Howard was commenting in response to new Victorian health department figures showing the number of HIV-positive people moving to the state had quadrupled in the past two years.
Last December Ms Hanson, who is contemplating a political comeback, said: "We're bringing in people from south Africa at the moment, there's a huge amount coming into Australia, who have diseases, they've got AIDS.
"They are of no benefit to this country whatsoever, they'll never be able to work ... yet no-one is saying or doing anything about it."
- with AAP

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21549751-2,00.html

 

[aussiechica7]

Maybe we shouldn't let anyone with illness or high risk factors into the country. Including obese people. (Please note my sarcasm. I'm totally opposed to this kind of discrimination).

 

[S1M0]

There's no need for this. He probably just enforced the rule so that a considerable amount of africian immigrants won't be able to get into australia.

Discrimination and racism, all in one.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

i understand the logic behind it but i don't agree. i personally dont think your health status is a valid criteria for letting or not letting someone into the country. unless there was some insane pandemic or something and everyone was dropping dead from it here, which is clearly not the case.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Seems a bit much, Mr. Howard.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I don't particularly support it but I don't think it's completely unreasonable either.

 

[Sparcod]

See the blog.
http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,21549751-2,00.html

 

[withoutaface]

People rejecting purely on the basis that "Pauline suggested something similar" are morons.

i understand the logic behind it but i don't agree. i personally dont think your health status is a valid criteria for letting or not letting someone into the country. unless there was some insane pandemic or something and everyone was dropping dead from it here, which is clearly not the case.

The idea is to prevent a pandemic.

My stance is that Australia shouldn't take any immigrants who are, or will be in the very near future, unproductive and as such will leach off our welfare and public health systems.

 

[the leader]

People rejecting purely on the basis that "Pauline suggested something similar" are morons.

The idea is to prevent a pandemic.

My stance is that Australia shouldn't take any immigrants who are, or will be in the very near future, unproductive and as such will leach off our welfare and public health systems.

Well in that case we should kick out everyone who can't afford private health insurance - everyone 'leeches' off the welfare and public health systems and whatnot that is in that income bracket; thats what they're there for. Why have a welfare and health system if there's noone to use it?

And then why limit restictin migration to HIV-positive people? Lets block the ones with a history of breast cancer, the mentally ill, the hypertensive... they all drain the health and welfare systems - its hardly balanced to focus on the HIV-positive, is it?

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Well in that case we should kick out everyone who can't afford private health insurance - everyone 'leeches' off the welfare and public health systems and whatnot that is in that income bracket; thats what they're there for. Why have a welfare and health system if there's noone to use it?

And then why limit restictin migration to HIV-positive people? Lets block the ones with a history of breast cancer, the mentally ill, the hypertensive... they all drain the health and welfare systems - its hardly balanced to focus on the HIV-positive, is it?

There is a big difference between not accepting any new people and kicking people out.

We have a welfare and health system so that people can use if it they need it not so that we can unnecessarily fill it up with sick and poor people. The fewer people using it the better.

There is a big difference between people who actually have HIV and people who have a history of breast cancer. I wouldn't disagree with restrictions for people with other serious diseases.

 

[aussiechica7]

We wouldn't kick out ppl from Aus who need the health system because that would be unjust.

Can it be similarly argued that we shouldn't exclude ppl from coming to Aus who need the health system because that would be unjust?

I.e. what type of healthcare can they hope for in their home countries? The sense of justice that would want the public to fund health care in Aus should be the same sense of justice that would want to provide adequate healthcare outside of Aus.

Or we could just fund more hospitals and medical workers overseas

 

[withoutaface]

1. The bulk of such people to which you refer have contributed taxes to the public health and welfare systems in the past.
2. When did I ever say that I wanted to keep it narrowly about HIV positive people?

 

[YankeeChica]

Australia already stopped people with TB which is actually curable but very contagious disease and very difficult to cure.. I do not think its unfair since people are already barred on the basis of another disease. His opinion might have been fuelled by notorious HIV people who tried to infect other people.

You cannot compare Cancer and HIV. You cannot spread breast cancer and you cannot infect other people with cancer.

Keeping Australia safe is what a responsible leader should do.

 

[_dhj_]

I'd imagine that most HIV positive applicants would be denied entry on health criteria. But Howard does seem to be reinforcing his "Fortress Australia" (we decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come) ideology rather than actually stating some policy stance. I don't think there are many HIV positive migrants anyway.

 

[withoutaface]

I'll clarify my statement by saying that I only support denying them entry under the current system (i.e. one distinctly anti-liberty stance is necessitated by the presence of certain authoritarian constraints), but under a system with no socialised healthcare and no welfare state I would support complete open borders with the exception of some convicted criminals.

 

[brows]

I don't particularly support it but I don't think it's completely unreasonable either.

Same.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

What's the bet that WAF's opinion would change if he has any kind of debilitating disease. Amiright?

 

[_dhj_]

I just think he always insists on digging himself into a libertarian ideological hole, while frequently making references to some libertarian utopia. It's not going to happen just as perfect communism never happened.

 

[withoutaface]

What's the bet that WAF's opinion would change if he has any kind of debilitating disease. Amiright?

Nice tu quoque.

dhj: I'm making a statement based on the current circumstance, and then another provided certain other conditions were met, because I believe this is a good way to illustrate the reasoning behind my position. I fail to see the inconsistency.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Nice tu quoque.

Thaannks. It's true though...