Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Ends AIDS/HIV Immigration Ban  
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The ban on those carrying HIV or suffering with AIDS entering the US has now been lifted, as promised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8438865.stm

The US was previously one of only a dozen countries to have such a ban.

This is a victory for common sense and human decency. Congratulations USA.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3011 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2566 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

While this is a nice step forward, I have to ask myself: what sense did that ban make in the first place, and how effective was it?

Someone who has HIV doesn't carry a sign saying so. Who would stop an HIV positive person from lying when entering the US? I have never been taken a blood sample by an immigration official...

In Switzerland you can even get anonymous HIV tests - not even your healthcare provider will be notified.



Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 1):
what sense did that ban make in the first place

You're right. In practical terms it was probably largely symbolic and not very oeffective at keeping any carriers of HIV or AIDS out of the country.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2550 times:



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 1):
In Switzerland you can even get anonymous HIV tests - not even your healthcare provider will be notified

Anonymous HIV testing is quite prevalent in the US. In fact, I don't know of any major city that doesn't have it.

I find it odd that we had this bit of legislation for 25 some odd years, after we realized how it was spread, etc.

UAL


User currently offlineTZ757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2867 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2523 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 3):

I find it odd that we had this bit of legislation for 25 some odd years, after we realized how it was spread, etc.

I still find it odd that you still cannot donate blood if you are a male and have had any kind of sexual contact with a male after 1975, just because you may get AIDS/HIV. I'd love to see that ban removed.

I wonder how many guys have donated blood who have knowingly had relations with other men and have no diseases, but lied to the Red Cross to be a good citizen and donate blood to save lives?



LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3011 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 4):
I still find it odd that you still cannot donate blood if you are a male and have had any kind of sexual contact with a male after 1975, just because you may get AIDS/HIV.

It's only a matter of statistics. Statistically, said group is more likely to have HIV than other groups. Even if it only makes me 0.000001% safer when getting a transfusion, I fully back this (odd) rule. After all, donating blood isn't a constitutional right - they may deny whoever they want.

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 4):
wonder how many guys have donated blood who have knowingly had relations with other men and have no diseases, but lied to the Red Cross to be a good citizen and donate blood to save lives?

A lot of them. And I know several personally. I tell them all that they shouldn't be doing it... of course they don't listen.



Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19505 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2437 times:



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 1):
While this is a nice step forward, I have to ask myself: what sense did that ban make in the first place, and how effective was it?

Fear. It made no sense. It made no more sense than Texas's (still standing) ban on selling sex toys "because they can transmit HIV."

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 5):

It's only a matter of statistics. Statistically, said group is more likely to have HIV than other groups. Even if it only makes me 0.000001% safer when getting a transfusion, I fully back this (odd) rule. After all, donating blood isn't a constitutional right - they may deny whoever they want.

I don't support it. A straight guy who has had unprotected sex with 40 women in his life can give blood and I, who have never once in my life had unprotected sex, can't? More people will die because of all the disqualifiers than will be saved. Yes, I've had to watch a patient die because I couldn't get blood for him.

Oh, in the U.S. you also can't give blood if you have ever since 1980 spent 6 months in England or 12 months in Europe because they worry about Mad Cow Disease. And if you've ever spent time in Africa, you're also out. Idiotic rules. Truly idiotic.

They can easily do tests on the blood. They can even run a viral genotype on the blood; it takes a few hours to do. Certainly better than living in a permanent critical blood shortage because only a tiny portion of the populace can donate.

Those of you who can give blood, please do.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
Oh, in the U.S. you also can't give blood if you have ever since 1980 spent 6 months in England or 12 months in Europe because they worry about Mad Cow Disease. And if you've ever spent time in Africa, you're also out. Idiotic rules. Truly idiotic.

They can easily do tests on the blood. They can even run a viral genotype on the blood; it takes a few hours to do. Certainly better than living in a permanent critical blood shortage because only a tiny portion of the populace can donate.

Those of you who can give blood, please do.

I agree. As long as blood is screened properly, everyone should be encouraged to give.  checkmark 



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26414 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2418 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 3):

Anonymous HIV testing is quite prevalent in the US. In fact, I don't know of any major city that doesn't have it.

Even small towns do.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 3):

I find it odd that we had this bit of legislation for 25 some odd years, after we realized how it was spread, etc.

1) It wasn't legislation. It was a rule promulgated by the Department of State that Congress didn't bother legislating away.

2) How many years did it take Reagan to even admit AIDS existed? You should be old enough to remember Ryan White and all the other sad cases.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):

Oh, in the U.S. you also can't give blood if you have ever since 1980 spent 6 months in England or 12 months in Europe because they worry about Mad Cow Disease.

Only if you actually consumed beef  Silly



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

I think this has alot to do with the HIV/AIDS screening that is done on persons who have been approved for a Green Card. I assume such screening may not be done, and if it is, it won't be a determining factor as is the case presently.


There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5240 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

It's about time!!! What a ridiculous law this was.

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 4):
I wonder how many guys have donated blood who have knowingly had relations with other men and have no diseases, but lied to the Red Cross to be a good citizen and donate blood to save lives?

I'm sure there are several who do. However, since blood is tested it really shouldn't be an issue.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
It made no more sense than Texas's (still standing) ban on selling sex toys "because they can transmit HIV."

LOL I had no idea about this. It's 2009 you'd think they would get their heads out of the sand by now.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
2) How many years did it take Reagan to even admit AIDS existed? You should be old enough to remember Ryan White and all the other sad cases.

25,000 Americans had died before he even used the word AIDS in public. Reagan's record on AIDS is shameful to say the least.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3011 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2362 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
A straight guy who has had unprotected sex with 40 women in his life can give blood and I, who have never once in my life had unprotected sex, can't?

I know, and I am discriminated just the way you are. Still, I support the discrimination because apparently, statistics (if we count big numbers, not only you and me) are against us.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
They can easily do tests on the blood. They can even run a viral genotype on the blood; it takes a few hours to do.

This changes everything. At this point I ask myself: what tests are begin done? Aren't they good enough to beat the statistics? Are cheaper tests done so that some donors need to be excluded "just to make sure"? At the end, if I understand this correctly, it's only a matter of cost - and because of money, people die for lack of blood. Correct?



Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26414 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2357 times:



Quoting Captaink (Reply 9):
I think this has alot to do with the HIV/AIDS screening that is done on persons who have been approved for a Green Card. I assume such screening may not be done, and if it is, it won't be a determining factor as is the case presently.

Do they require HIV tests of those who want Green Cards?

Quoting OA412 (Reply 10):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
It made no more sense than Texas's (still standing) ban on selling sex toys "because they can transmit HIV."

LOL I had no idea about this. It's 2009 you'd think they would get their heads out of the sand by now.

Oh that's not the reason, its just a really sloppy excuse.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 10):

I'm sure there are several who do. However, since blood is tested it really shouldn't be an issue.

Don't they also sterilize the blood with some sort of laser treatment anyway?



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19505 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2352 times:



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 11):

This changes everything. At this point I ask myself: what tests are begin done?

At this point, the test is for HIV antibody. The problem is that 30 days after HIV infection about 75% of people have the antibody and by 90 days it is 99+%. So someone who just got infected could have virus without antibody.

The antibody test is the oldest, cheapest, and fastest test. It can be done in as little as 20 minutes with the pre-made kits.

Viral genotyping is more technically demanding because it requires preparation to isolate the nucleic acids, then amplification by RT-PCR and then sequencing. It can be done, but it takes several hours even if done at maximum speed. If the genotype yields no typeable virus, then it is very unlikely that the sample is infected.

There is also viral load testing, which is similar but might miss someone who is infected but has a very low ("undetectable") viral load. A viral load gives you different information than a genotype, which not only can tell you whether there is virus present, but also what its drug resistance patterns are. A load just tells you how many copies of virus there are per milliliter of blood.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 10):

LOL I had no idea about this. It's 2009 you'd think they would get their heads out of the sand by now.

We're talking about Texas and sex here.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):

Only if you actually consumed beef Silly

Nope. Anyone. Doesn't matter if they're vegetarian. I'm, just the messenger; don't shoot me!


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5240 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2349 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):
Don't they also sterilize the blood with some sort of laser treatment anyway?

I'm not sure about that but I know that blood banks now have a nucleic acid test at their disposal which is able to identify the DNA of HIV and Hepatitis virus in a donor's blood making it that much less likely that infected blood will be transfused into a recipient.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26414 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2328 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):

Nope. Anyone. Doesn't matter if they're vegetarian. I'm, just the messenger; don't shoot me!

Well, I hate needles anyway, and I lived in England for longer than 6 months.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):

Viral genotyping is more technically demanding because it requires preparation to isolate the nucleic acids, then amplification by RT-PCR and then sequencing. It can be done, but it takes several hours even if done at maximum speed. If the genotype yields no typeable virus, then it is very unlikely that the sample is infected.

PCR = Porn Career Requirement. This is how they do such a good job keeping the porn industry clean.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJER757 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2325 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
The ban on those carrying HIV or suffering with AIDS entering the US has now been lifted, as promised.

Well that's one less thing the TSA have to look out for at the minute  duck 

No, seriously, that's excellent news. As mentioned above it is more symbolic than anything else, but it does represent a major step forward in the destigmatisation and understanding of the disease.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
I don't support it. A straight guy who has had unprotected sex with 40 women in his life can give blood and I, who have never once in my life had unprotected sex, can't? More people will die because of all the disqualifiers than will be saved. Yes, I've had to watch a patient die because I couldn't get blood for him.

I'm going to present this from a similar point of view (although mainly UK based)

Its all about the epidemiology, as should the vast majority of medicine. As a gay man (or if we're being pedantic; a man who has sex with men (MSM)), you (and I) are more likely to have HIV than a straight man. No its not fair, and its a broad brush to use.

In general we have an adequate amount of blood to use as required. There are times where we may run a little low, but very rarely are we 'critical'. So surely it makes sense to take blood from the lowest risk members of the population?

A study published, admittedly a few years ago (Soldan & Sinka,Vox Sanguinis, 2003;84(4):265-273), estimated that there was a five-fold increase in risk of HIV entering the blood stream should MSM's be allowed to donate. For the National Blood Service which operates on the principle that 'one blood-borne disease transmission is one too many', I think it makes sense that the ban is enforced.

The evidence is up for review over the coming few months; I think since the above paper was published we will see a significant reduction in risk; tests have become more reliable, the disease is being caught earlier and treated more effectively for example. However the risk will still be higher. Whether this is significant, and whether the NBS (and the public) are willing to accept this risk, is up for debate.

PS I am a gay man, and would love to donate blood. I also have a medical background and am used to looking at evidence critically. The restrictions, at least until the new evidence is published, make sense.



Gale force fog... don't you love it?
User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2313 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):

Do they require HIV tests of those who want Green Cards?

Yeh currently it is part of the medical work up.



There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5240 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2311 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
Quoting OA412 (Reply 10):
LOL I had no idea about this. It's 2009 you'd think they would get their heads out of the sand by now.
We're talking about Texas and sex here.

Yeah really. What the hell was I thinking?  laughing 



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19505 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2291 times:



Quoting JER757 (Reply 16):

In general we have an adequate amount of blood to use as required. There are times where we may run a little low, but very rarely are we 'critical'. So surely it makes sense to take blood from the lowest risk members of the population?

The situation in the UK might be better than here, but here it's very often critical.


User currently offlineComorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

Many people of Indian origin can't donate blood either: getting Hep A (Jaundice) is a rite of passage growing up there.

User currently offlineJER757 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2273 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
The situation in the UK might be better than here, but here it's very often critical.

In which case, it may be worth taking the risk to gain the extra blood supply, its a decision to be taken on a country by country basis. As you say, you've seen a patient die through lack of available blood; over here I doubt many doctors could say that.



Gale force fog... don't you love it?
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11429 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2207 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 1):
Someone who has HIV doesn't carry a sign saying so. Who would stop an HIV positive person from lying when entering the US? I have never been taken a blood sample by an immigration official...

I believe it's more linked to residents. I got my Resident Card ("Green Card") recently and one of the tests was HIV. Without HIV negative you wouldn't got your green card.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2195 times:



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 22):
I believe it's more linked to residents. I got my Resident Card ("Green Card") recently and one of the tests was HIV. Without HIV negative you wouldn't got your green card.

Yeh I mentioned that. So with this new law, it is not necessary to do an HIV test as part of the medical work up for a Green Card?



There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2143 times:



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 1):
In Switzerland you can even get anonymous HIV tests - not even your healthcare provider will be notified.

However, in Switzerland you are not allowed to donate blood if you ever had a voluntary HIV test - so happened to a friend of mine. Go figure the sense behind that one out...



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
25 DocLightning : Which is even more absurd because people who get regularly tested are less likely to be infected than people who have similar risk factors, but don't
26 JRDC930 : For good reason; this is a contagous disease. And a victory for ignorance in my opinion. In most medical cases dealing with contageous diseases, one
27 OA412 : Thank God people with your attitude were not the ones charged with making this decision.
28 JRDC930 : What, you mean COMMON SENSE? We need to worry about OUR population first, before we start taking in additional burdens. This will place heavier burde
29 OA412 : Your post is the very antithesis of common sense. It's just a little bit more difficult to be infected with HIV than that. Perhaps a little education
30 JRDC930 : Well it looks like i read the OP wrong; i thought it was lifting the ban on immigration; my apologies. Oh wait im not allowed to make a mistake... I s
31 Springbok747 : Well..you should have read the OP's thread or clicked on the BBC link The ONLY way to make sure this doesn't happen is to kill every single HIV+ve pe
32 N1120A : What is this, 1988?
33 LipeGIG : That's right, i talked with my family doctor and he confirmed (he's authorized by immigration to condutct all the tests) that the HIV is not anymore
34 ManuCH : Although it's the first time I hear this one, I think the rationale behind it is "if someone gets tested for HIV, it's because he's had some risky be
35 JCS17 : Excuse my language, but this is fucking asinine. If someone wants to a visa to visit the US, fine. People with HIV/AIDS shouldn't be excluded. If the
36 Ajd1992 : Here you can't give blood if you've ever done ANYTHING sexual with a man (if you're male), if you've had a tattoo within 6 months (understandable), i
37 Captaink : Isn't HIV in the heterosexual community getting up to rates like those in the homosexual community? HIV and Homosexuality in the same sentence was a
38 Airstud : They had a blood drive at my high school when I was 17. They said you had to be at least 17 to give, and also your systolic had to be 100 or greater.
39 Ajd1992 : That's why I specifically didn't put unprotected gay sex, because I know straight sex is just as risky. Apparently straight white women are most at r
40 Captaink : It's amazing that these uninformed double standards exist in 2010 huh.. :S
41 JRDC930 : Agreed. I can see a bit more leniency when it comes to just visits, but under no circumstances should they be allowed to immigrate; let their native
42 OA412 : Excluding those who are HIV positive from immigrating to any given country made sense in 1985 when the routes of transmission were still not complete
43 ManuCH : Unfortunately, HIV is still more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals, according to statistics.
44 RussianJet : I suggest you read up on how HIV is transmitted. I suppose you think that AIDS can be acquired from sharing toilet seats or breathing the same air? W
45 JRDC930 : Not to nit pick but the way you worded this implies youd prefer to see HIV become more common in heterosexuals. Am i correct in assuming that is not
46 DocLightning : I hope that you never get infected. You think you're immune because you're a good Catholic, but it just takes that one tainted blood transfusion. I w
47 JRDC930 : I have no problem with the people who aquired HIV through no fault of their own, you know blood transfusions, or stuff like that. I just dont sympath
48 OA412 : Right because people are out there actively trying to get infected.
49 DocLightning : Do you sympathize with a quadruplegic who became that way because they were skiing?
50 JRDC930 : Yes, because skiing isnt immoral; promiscuity is.
51 OA412 : According to you. According to someone else, it is not. Just because you think it's immoral doesn't make it so.
52 JRDC930 : Im sorry but i dont subscribe to moral relativism; somethings are always immoral; period. Thats my opinion on the issue. According to pedophiles, the
53 Superfly : What about a faithful wife that gets infected from an unfaithful husband?
54 OA412 : You have shown time and again that you subscribe to moral relativism whenever doing so suits your argument. Again, just because you think promiscuity
55 JRDC930 : Again, to me it is. YOU are not going to convince me otherwise. For me it does. pretending that your and only your opinion is fact doesnt make it so.
56 Mir : But they still shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to the country, right? You find certain things immoral that others don't. How is that not moral rela
57 Pilotsmoe : The blood gets tested with the antibody and the nucleic acid test, so it's getting checked twice. Anyways, doesn't FDA stand for fuck dat ass? The sa
58 OA412 : Let's add another dimension to this debate. What about the person who is promiscuous and always practices safe sex and who was infected due to a condo
59 ManuCH : Of course that's not the way I meant it. That's what happens when typing too quickly What I meant is that it's a pity that HIV transmission is still
60 JRDC930 : This is not a debate, and i am not debating anyone. this is a DISCUSSION. There is a difference. Look, that doesnt happen that often, and well then m
61 Andaman : Quoting ManuCH (Reply 43): Relatively yes, but thinking sub Saharan Africa (where the most cases are) and parts of Asia HIV is very much a heterosexua
62 Post contains links Mir : What a good suggestion: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ Moral relativism has the unusual distinction—both within philosophy and
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pope - Condoms Increase The Problem Of HIV/AIDS posted Tue Mar 17 2009 06:58:05 by BlueShamu330s
Think Illegal Immigration Doesn't Cost Us All posted Tue Aug 5 2008 16:14:21 by Stratosphere
US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case posted Tue Nov 20 2007 12:45:12 by D L X
HIV Came To The US From Haiti posted Tue Oct 30 2007 08:55:45 by SKYSERVICE_330
Stupid Immigration Questions In The US posted Fri Apr 6 2007 03:15:49 by Tonytifao
Need Help On US Immigration Policy... posted Sun Oct 15 2006 02:49:03 by Boeinglover24
HIV, AIDS, And Bayer posted Wed Jul 12 2006 19:37:25 by MD80fanatic
US Immigration Question posted Sat Jun 10 2006 00:02:00 by AirxLiban
25 Years Of HIV/AIDS posted Sun Jun 4 2006 23:11:47 by Greasespot
Question About US Immigration Stamps posted Sat Mar 4 2006 19:07:54 by Sabena332