Should people with HIV/AIDS be allowed to become Canadian citizens?

[FascistLibertarian]

I would say that we should not let people with HIV or AIDS become Canadians.

I have nothing against Canadians with HIV or AIDS. I think their rights should be fully protected.

But I dont think we should let people we KNOW have a fatal diease immigrate.

Does anyone have a good reason why we should?

The government has not been nearly agressive in tackling AIDS!

[M.Dancer]

I would say that we should not let people with HIV or AIDS become Canadians.

I have nothing against Canadians with HIV or AIDS. I think their rights should be fully protected.

But I dont think we should let people we KNOW have a fatal diease immigrate.

Does anyone have a good reason why we should?

The government has not been nearly agressive in tackling AIDS!

What if they got the disease here?

Now thereb is no question that HIV is fatal....life is fatal too....but when the life expectancy of an HIV patient starts to push the quarter century mark?

An American diagnosed with the AIDS virus can expect to live for about 24 years on average, and the cost of health care over those two-plus decades is more than $600,000, new research indicates.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/11/13/4

[Renegade]

I would say that we should not let people with HIV or AIDS become Canadians.

I somewhat agree. Anyone we let immigrate to Canada should be on balance a benefit to Canada. If despite having HIV there are deemed a net benefit then by all means allow them to immigrate, if however they would be a net burden, I would deny them immigration.

What if they got the disease here?

It is irrelevant where they got the disease. Unless you can somehow show that the Canadian government was responsible for deliberately infecting them, the government is under no obligation to provide them anything.

Now thereb is no question that HIV is fatal....life is fatal too....but when the life expectancy of an HIV patient starts to push the quarter century mark?

It really doesn't matter if it is fatal or not. What if it were simply a chronic condition which cost $1m per year to treat?

[ScottSA]

Now thereb is no question that HIV is fatal....life is fatal too....but when the life expectancy of an HIV patient starts to push the quarter century mark?

At what cost to Canadians? At what benefit to Canadians?

[guyser]

But I dont think we should let people we KNOW have a fatal diease immigrate.

Generally we dont. Medical admissability depends on 1) likely to be a danger to public health 2)danger to public safety and 3) reasonably expected to place excessive demands on health or social services.

There are exceptions.

Does anyone have a good reason why we should?

If they are not on ARV then let 'em in.

The government has not been nearly agressive in tackling AIDS!

Separate issue from immigration, not that you are wrong.

http://www.smith-hughes.com/papers/pdf_bin...PoliciesHIV.pdf

[guyser]

I somewhat agree. Anyone we let immigrate to Canada should be on balance a benefit to Canada. If despite having HIV there are deemed a net benefit then by all means allow them to immigrate, if however they would be a net burden, I would deny them immigration.

and that is the criteria used .

It is irrelevant where they got the disease. Unless you can somehow show that the Canadian government was responsible for deliberately infecting them, the government is under no obligation to provide them anything.

I dont agree with that at all. If they contracted the disease in Canada, it should not factor into the decision to allow residency, all other things being equal. IOW, if they were about to be granted PR, and then got HIV, they should stay.

[betsy]

I would say that we should not let people with HIV or AIDS become Canadians.

I have nothing against Canadians with HIV or AIDS. I think their rights should be fully protected.

But I dont think we should let people we KNOW have a fatal diease immigrate.

Does anyone have a good reason why we should?

The government has not been nearly agressive in tackling AIDS!

As applicants for immigration...I say yes. I had a physical test before getting approved to come here. I assume that if I had any serious contagious disease, it would've affected my application. It's only sensible...especially with our healthcare system. In other words, don't approve anyone to come here unless they've passed a medical test.

But once they're already accepted and relocated here as immigrants, I don't think it fair to revoke their papers just because they've contracted the disease.

[Renegade]

I dont agree with that at all. If they contracted the disease in Canada, it should not factor into the decision to allow residency, all other things being equal. IOW, if they were about to be granted PR, and then got HIV, they should stay.

It would appear that you and I have interpreted the scenario differently. My response was meant to address the situation of where a potential immigrant contracted the virus while in Canada prior to applying for immigration. (for example someone visiting Canada or on a work permit). I fully agree that once they have been granted residency, it shouldn't be revoked because they acquired the virus.

[guyser]

It would appear that you and I have interpreted the scenario differently. My response was meant to address the situation of where a potential immigrant contracted the virus while in Canada prior to applying for immigration. (for example someone visiting Canada or on a work permit). I fully agree that once they have been granted residency, it shouldn't be revoked because they acquired the virus.

You could be right.

Someone on a work permit, less than 6 months is not required to get a medical test, unless in sensitive positions , ie school, care giver, agriculteral workers from designated countries etc.

And I believe that once that permit expires , they must leave to apply to stay except for refugee or other hardship cases in which case they then do need to get a med/HIV test which may make them ineligible.