MELBOURNE, Australia - Prime Minister John Howard said Friday that Australia should bar immigrants with HIV, and his government was examining ways to make its tough restrictions even stronger.
2007-04-14 16:18:24 · 9 answers · asked by Giggly Giraffe 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_aids_immigrants;_ylt=AjTQEUnc6J3vIuOy50wIEnnMWM0F
2007-04-14 16:33:52 · update #1
To protect the people already within the country - I would say it's probably a good idea. People with HIV and AIDS require drug treatment - which can be very expensive, and most will probably need further medical assistance and care as time goes on. Is it fair to ask a country - to whom the person has absolutely no connection - to pay for all of this? I don't think that it is. There are too many desperate people out there who would be willing to take advantage of the situation. Of course there will always be those certain individual cases in which it should be allowed - but probably not for most. It's a very sad thing to say. :-/
2007-04-14 16:45:24 · answer #1 · answered by Butterscotch 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a good idea if the country has a socialist healthcare system and the individual would be a drain on the economy rather than a benefit. It's just like the UK being sticklers about allowing non-EU citizens to live there without having strong support from an employer in the country-- we have the potential to be a huge detriment to their economy (and maybe that's why we're moving there in the first place-- so we don't have to work/pay for things, for example...)
2007-04-14 18:51:13 · answer #2 · answered by Schwarma 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Medical conditions, their ability to pay the costs of them and their liklihood of spreading them are legitimate concerns of a government in immigration. If it were the bubonic plague would you say 'let them in'? Since AIDS is more controllable, it isn't an outright ban, but it is a legitimate consideration.
Immigration law is for the benefit of the host country and its citizens, not to facilitate entry to those not of the country.
2007-04-14 16:45:30 · answer #3 · answered by DAR 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think it is a good idea to ban immigrants who have HIV. Allowing them in puts others in danger and adds additional financial burden on the country for medical care.
2007-04-14 16:28:49 · answer #4 · answered by hopeful1 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
wow that is a hard one....if a person there is seaking medical help or is a good person with no intentions of spreading it then yes let em in but if they are not then no but how do you choose? so maybe banning all aids patients is the right answer but then again......
2007-04-14 16:27:44 · answer #5 · answered by undercovernudist 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, hate to say it. why should a country take a chance at being infected with ant decease?
2007-04-14 17:07:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
thats stupid yes they should be let it thats like saying should we let in white black people hating redneck idiots in our country that would just be relly hipocritic
oyea i was refrencing george bush
o my bad i though u were from us but no their cuz i dont think their is alot their i cant go out die without cin 18 people with it here
2007-04-14 16:39:50 · answer #7 · answered by johndoe 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I think it's a great idea.
2007-04-14 16:23:26 · answer #8 · answered by Akbar B 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
hell yes
2007-04-14 16:23:44 · answer #9 · answered by FOA 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋