I don’t think America should be run like a business. It should be about getting the best and brightest.

If we brought only the best and brightest I would agree with you. Sometimes a risk is worth taking. However, all this is very high speculation. Youand i both know there is no Hawking with HIV waiting out there to come here. What there is out there, are millions of unskilled illiterates with HIV who will get in to the US playing on compassion and how is is not fair this person is denied. Of course the bleeding hearts will guilt everyone into relenting. If I had any faith in our gov’t to make the right decsions and say no when they hsoudl say no, I could be had. But all that will happen is we will get thousands of people, who never paid a dime into our system nor ever will, receiving welfare and free medical care. Whatever happened to the old days where an immigrant either made it on their own or failed and went home. Today we provide safety nets (which is usually much better than anything they could have had in their home country) which means the immigrants are taking no risks or have any fear of failure. Our “come on in” attitude will bankrupt this country.

We spend a lot of money on things that are a lot less important.

Don’t forget, Rusty. We are not spending any money on it. Our good foreign friends who want to visit our fair country are.

I don’t think America should be run like a business. It should be about getting the best and brightest. Many of these people are worth the investment. We spend a lot of money on things that are a lot less important.

Would you deny Stephen Hawking American citizenship if he wanted it?

I stated very clearly, if someone has much to offer then yea, they shoudl be allowed to immigrate, as long as I know they will not burden the taxpayers. I don’t get why that is hard to understand.

Weary, I guess the difference is that I don’t see people who are sick or terminally ill. I just see people. And those people deserve the same shot as anyone else. If they’re otherwise qualified for legal immigration, I don’t care what they have.

Same shot? I hope you don’t run a business with that logic. Let’s follow it through. Let’s say there is a rhodes scholar in Africa who needs medical treatmetn that cost $20K/month to treat, and has no money. He comes here finds a good job making $10K/month working in large corporation. Of course his preexisting condition will exclude him from almost any insurance. Most likely he will need the gov’t to pay for that treatment. He will pay maybe $3-$4k per month in taxes. Not sure how that equation closes. Anyone who allows this person in is using emotion not logic for their decision. Closing your eyes does not make the facts disappear. BTW, your compassion just cost the US taxpayer $200K each year. You know how many truly starving kids around the world that would feed, but doesn’t because you wanted to be so accepting? in a world full of scarce resources, we must use those resources wisely. By caring for one sick individual you divert resources from elsewhere. Look, I could agree with a policy that takes it case by case. If someone is truly a benefit to the US and/or the world due to a great talent or brilliance, then let them in. Otherwise, we are making a bad policy decision by allowing unskilled people in who will drain vital resources. After all, how many landscapers and carpenters do we really need?

How bright can they be if they were sharing needles, or engaging in risky, unprotected sex, because if they have AIDs, that is most likely how they got it.

I hope your spouse or significant other never cheats on you and gives you an STD.

“Risky, unprotected sex” is the name of the game in some places. Africans are very wary of using condoms. That $50B should help counter that.

And in Africa, HIV is often transmitted via birth or breast milk. Those infants have such risky lifestyles!

Weary, I guess the difference is that I don’t see people who are sick or terminally ill. I just see people. And those people deserve the same shot as anyone else. If they’re otherwise qualified for legal immigration, I don’t care what they have.

Would you deny Stephen Hawking American citizenship if he wanted it?

As for people lamenting that we are soon going to allow immigrants with HIV, shame on you. The idea behind legal immigration is to take the best and brightest.

How bright can they be if they were sharing needles, or engaging in risky, unprotected sex, because if they have AIDs, that is most likely how they got it. How anyone believes it’s a good idea bringing others here to spread the disease even more is beyond me.

The HIV ban was something that brought me deep shame as an American.

Having indoor plumbing brings you deep shame as an American.

Sniff sniff, oh the shame, the SHAME, wahhhh haaah haah haaaah haaaah, sniff sniff, waaahhh haaaaah haaaah haaaah……

If you’re not willing to admit cancer patients either, points for consistency but deductions for bad policy

I don’t unerstand the “bad policy” comment? How is it bad policy to deny admittance to someone who is highly likely to become a burden on the American taxpayer? Who benefits from such a policy? The immigrants themselves, not me. Now, if you want to argue on humanitarian grounds, that’s a different story. But I then refer to my statemetns above about decisions based solely on emotions, not common sense. Therefore, your “bad policy” statement is misguided. It is just a policy, not a good policy based on facts and reasoning. Now, if the immigrant is the next Einstein and agrees and signs a contract that the US taxpayer will never have to pay for their treatments (or the company that employs them agrees to cover all costs), then I could be had, maybe. But, even then frankly, I don’t find it wise to have a blanket policy that allows people with communicable diseases to enter. And yes, I fully understand how HIV is spread. Gay has nothing to do with my position as some of the best people I have known in my life were gay. I don’t understand being gay, but it is their choice, and as nothign to do with me. Cancer is a totally different game.

I do appreciate your cordiality and not resorting to the name calling others wnat to do.

HIV is no longer a death sentence and although it’s still expensive to treat, that shouldn’t stop people from pursuing their American dream legally.

If you’re not willing to admit cancer patients either, points for consistency but deductions for bad policy.

As for people lamenting that we are soon going to allow immigrants with HIV, shame on you. The idea behind legal immigration is to take the best and brightest.

Since when? That romantic notion of immigration died along with kennedy’s family reunification in the 1965 immigraiton act, which is the driving force behind the mjority of immigration today. And few would be considered the best and brightest.

You better watch it, Irish Rose will be along any minute to call you a biggot. Whne I proposed we base our immigration system on the “best and brightest” she rambled on and on about my racism and biggotry.

Anyone who is saying that HIV patients are expensive is being disingenuous. Why not ban people genetically predisposed to cancer while we’re at it?

Total nonsense. HIV treatment is very expensive and can last decades. So how is the immigrant going to cover those costs? Either the taxpayer wil pick up the tab, or if he is employed, the insurance company of the employer will be forced to pick up the tab. So either I pay through taxes or higher premiums so the insurance company can offset the cost (you don’t seriously thing insurance companies are running a charity do you). The ONLY way that ensure it is no expense to Americans is if the immigrant pays out of their own pocket. Fat chance. As for the “cancer” statement. If a person has cancer and will obviously become a cost to Americans, then no admittance in my book. But nobody said anything about “predisposition” and it is disingenous for you to even equate the two.

Now, that said, I agree that it is silly to call it a “gay” disease. And we should strive to erradicate this horrible disease. However, I see no benefit to the american public of bringing in people with obvious diseases which we will have to treat and pay for. That makes no sense and anyone proposing such a stupid policy is not using logic. Rather they are making an emotional decision. Emotions are a poor substitute for logic and common sense.

As for people lamenting that we are soon going to allow immigrants with HIV, shame on you. The idea behind legal immigration is to take the best and brightest. Where HIV works in to that equation is beyond me. Anyone who is saying that HIV patients are expensive is being disingenuous. Why not ban people genetically predisposed to cancer while we’re at it?

The HIV ban was something that brought me deep shame as an American. Thank God for Senators Kerry and Smith for their work.

Hey, what’s your opinion of the bill’s price tag as a whole?

I think that AIDS and Bush’s policy toward Africa is one of the very few things on which he can hang his hat and say he made a positive difference.

But I respect anyone who says we should not become the “world’s AIDS policeman.” The notion of taking care of our own first is not unreasonable.

I was not discussing, nor have given any opinion of the bill as a whole. I was speaking only to the lift of the travel restriction, which is revenue positive. So I am not sure what your point is there.

Oh, my bad.

Hey, what’s your opinion of the bill’s price tag as a whole?

Me? I don’t believe we should become the world’s AIDS policeman.