meauxna

The comment has been removed. No point insulting other nationalities here, either.

meauxna

While I appreciate a bit of creative thinking when it comes to immigration solutions, I wonder seriously where the applicant's 'feelings' are taken into consideration for this sort of determination.

Unfortunately, there are a handful of medical conditions which make a person inadmissible, period, and it doesn't have much to do with how they interpret their medical condition, same as their view of the importance of certain arrests.
Since you normally give very sane answers, I'd just say: proceed with caution.

Rete

Meauxna beat me to it.

That is what we are here to, JC. One of our functions is to try and keep the insults to a "minimum" and clean up the crap left by people of dubious mental capacity.

Folinskyinla

J:

Off topic -- remind one day to find that law review article Howard Hom gave me regarding the use of Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass in legal opinions.

Of course, I much prefer J.M. Barrie as used in Low v Attorney General, 479 F.2nd 820. Of course, this is one of the case CIS ignored this year in finding that a person not even in the United States can depart from the United States. Sigh.

JCraigFong

Dear Otter: A rage against the machine is understandable. Being an immigration lawyer, I spend more time than I like to think about screaming, grinding my teeth, and punching pillows because of things USCIS has done.

Having said that, and based on MY OWN experience as a Canadian resident -- I can tell you that you need not feel as if you were setting your sights "a bit lower" to go to Québec, South Africa, or New Zealand. These are GREAT places.

Unless, you meant "lower" as in "further South!"

Best of luck.

--J

crg

Maybe we should have a HowToLieYourWayIntoTheUS.com Forum. You could be the moderator. Your post is borderline criminal. Allowing such posts to be in this forum makes the rest of us look bad by association.

md95065

brightonotter

well to be honest i'm feeling a bit down in the dumps: being HIV+ i cannot go to: a) america b) canada for any extended period of time c) australia for any extended period of time and d) new zealand either....

the authorities think im going to cut myself and run around bleeding into peoples open mouths? Sexually speaking we HIV+ people should use condoms... but so should the damn american citizens! How exactly am i being a risk? I know this forum cant answer me... but it just makes me rather peeved.

hiv bans are a relic from the 80s and a way of making a population feel secure by alienating an illness that is prevalent in their own country; yet a ban makes it seem like 'a problem for those foreign people'.
As far as my detriment to the national healthcare system goes... i don't see them barring entry to obese people that will end up with diabetic problem, cardiovascular disease, etc.

I'm going to keep my head down in Europe: enough diversity here to keep me interested, i just didnt fancy spending time yearning YET ANOTHER language!

Thanks for the advice though guys.

ash_ak

otter,
<political rant deleted>
..good luck with your endeavors!

ian-mstm

I understand your frustration (and your need to vent), but since the US government can't do anything about US citizens and they can do something about those who wish to enter the US... that is where they focus their efforts.

Ian

crg

I understand the frustration too. The US is not alone, nor the most draconian though. For example, Russia requires anyone seeking a visa for a visit of more than 3 months to provide a health certificate stating they do not have HIV.

http://www.russianvisa.org/www/russianvisaorg.nsf/e7d6175f95c1d6d0c3256d0c00238b44/fad77621fb0d065ac3256d170044d3b4/$FILE/HIV%20Certificate.pdf

JCraigFong

I'd like to correct myself here. Or at least elucidate a bit.

In my review of the 2009 version of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)-- thank you Stuart Folinsky -- I belatedly noticed that INA §212(a)(1)(A)(i) now no longer contains the language excluding persons who have an "infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome." The Bush administration had talked about removing this, and it had slipped my mind that the actual legislation had been signed.

However, the Public Health Service still considers HIV a disease of public health significance, and admission of an alien with any disease so defined is subject to immigration regulations. In other words, the STATUTE no longer specifically excludes HIV+ aliens, but the regulations still contain restrictions on entry, availability of waivers, and such. Alas, until such regulations are also amended, HIV positive aliens are going to have a rough road coming to the USA.

I am making this explanation because I would not want it said that I misstated the facts or misled anyone.

--J

MsElui

I dont think about whether you use a condom or not - its about whether you had an accident through no fault of your own and had no/limited insurance and ended up hospitalised - who would pay for your care/treatment? They dont want anyone to become a public charge - so even those without aids often have to provide a finacial sponsor who will cover those costs.

Folinskyinla

To everyone:

J and I had been discussing this. I'm old fashioned and order the West's copy of "Immigration Laws and Regulations" which comes every May [just as my old copy is about to fall apart]. My 2009 copy arrived just last week. So, in looking at this, we were both pleasantly surprised. This has happened to me before -- an amendment sneaks "under the radar." That is why I tend to glance at the statute or regulations every time I do something.

J and I live and breath "immigration" to a certain extent -- and no one, repeat no one, can know it all.

Jerseygirl

Exactly. There was a family a year or so ago who were rejected by Canada because their daughter was being prescribed human growth hormones. Countries don't want immigrants who may need healthcare at taxpayers expense.