Immigration

[Flatlander]

The Globe and Mail is a Canadian national newspaper, published daily, dealing with a wide variety of issues, both national and international. Their website, www.theglobeandmail.com , runs a reader's poll every day. Today's poll question is "Should Canada accept immigrants who are HIV positive?" I was quite surprised to see, after voting, that 80% of the 10,000 respondents had voted no.

Canadians generally tend to pride themselves on their temperance, moderation, and views on equality. This surprising poll result has caused me to question why so many would have such a strong exclusionary stand.

In Canada, we have a universal health care program wherein all Canadians have access to free health care, and prescription drugs are subsidized once you have reached a certain dollar value in annual purchases. So perhaps people are feeling a little protectionist regarding the economic implications of HIV sufferers coming to Canada to take advantage of our health care programs.

The general question that has arisen for me is, would a country that espouses freedom and equality be contradicting its core values by setting this type of exclusionary immigration policy? As long as an immigrant is deemed to be a law abiding person, why should any other matter influence their ability to gain immigrant status, and ultimately citizenship? Does this type of policy conflict with our views of non-discrimination?

 

[Lisa]

Canadians generally tend to pride themselves on their temperance, moderation, and views on equality. This surprising poll result has caused me to question why so many would have such a strong exclusionary stand.

In Canada, we have a universal health care program wherein all Canadians have access to free health care, and prescription drugs are subsidized once you have reached a certain dollar value in annual purchases. So perhaps people are feeling a little protectionist regarding the economic implications of HIV sufferers coming to Canada to take advantage of our health care programs.

The general question that has arisen for me is, would a country that espouses freedom and equality be contradicting its core values by setting this type of exclusionary immigration policy? As long as an immigrant is deemed to be a law abiding person, why should any other matter influence their ability to gain immigrant status, and ultimately citizenship? Does this type of policy conflict with our views of non-discrimination?

So many years of hallway medicine and bed shortages has put our temperance, moderation and views on a thin line. For years we have watched loved ones suffer needlessly, waiting, waiting and waiting some more for diagnostic tests, surgeries and interventions to save their lives or improve quality of life. We have been taxed to death only to see our universal health care system stressed beyond belief. We have day surgery sending patients home that are not ready to go. We schedule bipass surgeries to have them cancelled time and time again. The poll does not surprise me. I used to nurse. I became one in a time of cut backs and bed closures. When getting a nursing job was almost impossible. There were too many of us and not enough jobs. Many of my school mates went to greener pastures in the states. Now, that seems completely different. We are screaming for nurses and for doctors. Our physicians train here and leave for better environments to work in with less stress, less of a patient load and more money.

Would we be contradicting ourselves... i guess one could look at it that way. Times are a changing and Canadians are tired of more taxes and less benefits and long bouts of hallway medicine.

Truthfully, Flatlander, I thought a good bill of health for the immigrant was always a necessity. My cousin and his wife are adopting out of the country and the children have to be seen and given a clean bill of health before they can leave the Ukraine and become Canadian Citizens. hhmmm.. I guess you really do learn something everyday