"Prime Minister John Howard has canvassed changing the law to prevent HIV positive people from being able to migrate to Australia."
....That will do nicely!
We can't believe Howard is making an issue out of this - it just CAN'T actually be an issue of any significance to Australia.
Think about it:
Australia took 131,539 permanent migrants in 2005-2006.
94,382 of these were under the migration program, 60,000 skilled migrants, 34,000 family based migrants, 12,113 humanitarian migrants, and 25,098 "nonprogram" arrivals.
If we consider that the hot spots for HIV are Africa and South Asia, we have an annual pool of less than 25,000 migrants who are from these regions (98% of the humanitarian class are from Africa/Middle East; 12% of the migrant class are from South Asia).
We can't believe Howard is making an issue out of this - it just CAN'T actually be an issue of any significance to Australia.
Think about it:
Australia took 131,539 permanent migrants in 2005-2006.
94,382 of these were under the migration program, 60,000 skilled migrants, 34,000 family based migrants, 12,113 humanitarian migrants, and 25,098 "nonprogram" arrivals.
If we consider that the hot spots for HIV are Africa and South Asia, we have an annual pool of less than 25,000 migrants who are from these regions (98% of the humanitarian class are from Africa/Middle East; 12% of the migrant class are from South Asia).
However, it is probably a fair assumption that educated and skilled migrants are unlikely to have a high % of HIV positive people. So the HIV rate of these migrants will not be representative of the average HIV rate of their home country and will instead be lower (probably vastly lower).
So the small number of people with HIV who will be coming to Australia are likely to be family members of skilled migrants or people we are accepting for humanitarian reasons. Assuming that there are limited grounds for objecting to families bringing infected loved ones to live with them and care for them, we can perhaps fairly focus upon the humanitarian migrants.
In 2005-2006 the major migrant-source regions were the Middle East and Africa, with the majority of migrants arriving from the Sudan and Egypt. The HIV prevalence ratio for the Sudan and the Middle East are around 2% and 0.1% respectively. Call it an average of 1%. This makes the total number of HIV positive migrants from these regions about 12 people a year, assuming that migrants are representative of demographics of the country (for instance, almost all HIV infections in the Sudan are believed to be associated with prostitutes and their clients).
The costs for anti-retroviral therapy range from 2-20,000 dollars a year, with a typical 3-drug therapy pegged at around $11,000 a year. So a worst "typical" case would result a cost of $240,000 per year.
Sure, there is a case to be made that the Australian tax payers should not have to face that cost burden... however this burden is less than a cent per tax payer per year! We are meant to be accepting these people for humanitarian reasons! Goddammit, it should be mandatory to take some folks with HIV. Call it a compulsory donation towards alleviating the horror of life for the unfortunate in the world.
On this basis, we could assume that Howard is once again targeting the most vulnerable of the migration categories, those brought in under the humanitarian program, most of which are from Africa and the middle east, purely for political reasons. He is playing the politics of division again knowing that a) Kevin Rudd won't have thought about this particular issue; b) the old "wowser xenophobes" who still think you can catch HIV by thinking about it will be completely supportive; c) that if he exaggerates the extent of HIV-carrying migrants who're entering the country, many a tax-payer will say "hey, they can't migrate here to take my money! I had better vote for Howard!" Perhaps he is also trying to divert the public's attention from other problems he is facing, such as his governments gross inaction over climate change.
In 2005-2006 the major migrant-source regions were the Middle East and Africa, with the majority of migrants arriving from the Sudan and Egypt. The HIV prevalence ratio for the Sudan and the Middle East are around 2% and 0.1% respectively. Call it an average of 1%. This makes the total number of HIV positive migrants from these regions about 12 people a year, assuming that migrants are representative of demographics of the country (for instance, almost all HIV infections in the Sudan are believed to be associated with prostitutes and their clients).
The costs for anti-retroviral therapy range from 2-20,000 dollars a year, with a typical 3-drug therapy pegged at around $11,000 a year. So a worst "typical" case would result a cost of $240,000 per year.
Sure, there is a case to be made that the Australian tax payers should not have to face that cost burden... however this burden is less than a cent per tax payer per year! We are meant to be accepting these people for humanitarian reasons! Goddammit, it should be mandatory to take some folks with HIV. Call it a compulsory donation towards alleviating the horror of life for the unfortunate in the world.
On this basis, we could assume that Howard is once again targeting the most vulnerable of the migration categories, those brought in under the humanitarian program, most of which are from Africa and the middle east, purely for political reasons. He is playing the politics of division again knowing that a) Kevin Rudd won't have thought about this particular issue; b) the old "wowser xenophobes" who still think you can catch HIV by thinking about it will be completely supportive; c) that if he exaggerates the extent of HIV-carrying migrants who're entering the country, many a tax-payer will say "hey, they can't migrate here to take my money! I had better vote for Howard!" Perhaps he is also trying to divert the public's attention from other problems he is facing, such as his governments gross inaction over climate change.
Dear Australia, please tell us you are not stupid enough to fall for this!
