Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[phan52]

They don't ask where you travelled, they look at your passport stamps.  They would really suck at their jobs if they just took a travelers word for it.  You seem defensive, are you a retired CBP agent?

I am asked every time where I am travelling to and from. I just got back from Ireland and he asked me if that had been my only destination WHILE he had my passport in his hand and was checking out my stamps. He was doing something called HIS JOB.

You are pretty insulting to people who you don't know and that includes the people who do necessary jobs. I guess you think it would be far better without them at all. And no, I never had a job like that but I trust the majority of people who have them do their job.

[Golfingdad]

Its probably not defective, you just have to know how to read it, which isn't always easy or straight forward.  Check out Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the privileges and immunities clause.  The Supreme Court has interpreted this to embody a constitutional right into and out of any state in the union.  The Supreme Court has also held that the right to travel internationally is protected by the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, as a liberty that cannot be taken without due process.

Doh.

So I guess this goes back to the comment about being right if you're gonna be smug, right David?? ;)

[David in FL]

Its probably not defective, you just have to know how to read it, which isn't always easy or straight forward.  Check out Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the privileges and immunities clause.  The Supreme Court has interpreted this to embody a constitutional right into and out of any state in the union.  The Supreme Court has also held that the right to travel internationally is protected by the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, as a liberty that cannot be taken without due process.

I didn't know that.  Thanks.

I imagine that restricting travel for reasons of national security would be considered due process, no?  Can you provide a link to the decision that you reference?  Sounds like it would make interesting reading.

We're also talking the vast majority of travel being that of non-citizens, to who have no "right" to travel to our country.....

[David in FL]

And I noticed you skipped my main question for a second time.  Hmmm

It's tough to answer a bunch of points at a time.  I'm trying to pick the one or two that are most relevant, but I'm sorry if I missed one.  What was it?

[Golfingdad]

It's tough to answer 20 little points at a time.  I'm trying to pick the one or two that are most relevant, but I'm sorry if I missed one.  What was it?

Actually, it's two.  One of them was my actual response when I also made the crack about guns, which I repeated a second time ...

Regardless, it was clearly a mistake bring that up because it allowed you to completely ignore the rest of my point.  ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

... but instead, let's talk about something even more related.  We have a certain amount of freedom here, and one of those freedoms is the ability to (idiotically) choose not to vaccinate.  There is no law or requirement for people to ensure that they or their kids won't contract malaria, or whooping cough, or measles, or the flu (which kills, or contributes to killing thousands a year, in America alone).

Why panic for Ebola when we clearly don't care enough to panic for any of the other diseases?

And the other one, which is a direct response to your insistence that restricting travel has no downside:

Again, like I said, my original "downside" argument was just me and my beliefs, no education yet.  Now that I've read a little, I have another one:  It's been said and written by quite a few (the Indian Dr. guy on CNN was one of them) that not only would restricting air travel not help the situation, it would actually make it worse.  It's not like people are going to just sit there patiently and go, "well, I can't leave by airplane so I guess I'll just hang out here and get me some Ebola to keep me company."  No, they are going to get the hell out of there by any means necessary.  So now what?  They can't come here and land at one of the airports that will document and screen them, so they are going to go somewhere else that they can and then come here.  So they'll take a flight to Mexico City or Brazil or Denmark or South Africa or any number of other airports in countries that won't restrict them, and then they'll come home.  Or, if they can't find a flight, they'll take a bus or a car or a train to whatever country they can get to that will allow them to somehow eventually get here.

Now, I'm no virologist (and neither are any of you, which goes to my next point) but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that containing or eradicating a disease is probably a teensy bit easier if it has spread to less places, wouldn't you agree?

So, there is your downside.  What say you?

[dsc123]

I didn't know that.  Thanks.

I imagine that restricting travel for reasons of national security would be considered due process, no?

We're also talking the vast majority of travel being that of non-citizens, to who have no "right" to travel to our country.....

Sort of.  Due process really just means they have to give you an opportunity to contest the action.  National security would be a reason why the government could restrict your right to travel.  So I'm not saying that the government can't restrict the right to travel, just that its a really important and protected right that is probably fairly considered to be a significant "downside" to a travel ban.

When it comes to non citizens, I'd make two points.  First,  I'm not sure that the vast majority of people on a plane to the US from West Africa are not citizens.  I guess the US might be a more popular desitination but there are also way more of us and on average we have more money to spend on international travel.  But I certainly can't say you're wrong because I don't know.  But either way, they are screening people, and I think you've said you only object to people with ebola coming over, so isn't that good enough?

Second, while I'd have to think harder than I'm willing to do at the moment to consider an alien's right to travel under US law, there are international covenants that purport to guarantee the right to travel to other countries.  The US agrees to those, but I think you can get into tangles over whether they are legally binding here.

[Slice of Life]

This thread is giving me ebola.

[dsc123]

This thread is giving me ebola.

Right under the "start a new thread" button there is one that says "subscribed".  If you click it, you don't get updates when people post here and then become immune from the electronically transmitted version of ebola.

[jusanothajoe]

This thread is giving me ebola.

Can't be, it is impossible to catch in this country

[Dave2512]

Soon something else will be the hot topic and ebola will slide down the media fear mongering list. I'll put $20 on the next big thing being a shooting. I know, obvious.

[jusanothajoe]

Soon something else will be the hot topic and ebola will slide down the media fear mongering list. I'll put $20 on the next big thing being a shooting. I know, obvious.

No chance of mass shootings in this country. The government sees to that. What we need is a good mass drug overdose to take our minds off this

[jusanothajoe]

Bottom line, she should never have got on a plane for a couple of weeks, even if she wasn't symptomatic, after treating Duncan. It is obviously better to be safe than sorry, but I will still be shocked if anybody on that plane contracted Ebola or if either one of these nurses passed it on to anybody else. considering the fact that they were self monitoring and caught it with just a mild fever. Duncan himself didn't pass it on to anybody until he had full blown symptoms with body fluids pouring out everywhere.

Again, we are not going to have an Ebola outbreak in this country.

I know this will put every ones mind at ease.

[Slice of Life]

Right under the "start a new thread" button there is one that says "subscribed".  If you click it, you don't get updates when people post here and then become immune from the electronically transmitted version of ebola.

I know...but it's a trainwreck here...I can't look away.

Can't be, it is impossible to catch in this country

Yeah, but my IP packets were probably sent to a router somewhere in West Africa. We're all now doomed and at risk for e-bola.

[Dave2512]

Bird flu part deux electric boogaloo.

[David in FL]

Regardless, it was clearly a mistake bring that up because it allowed you to completely ignore the rest of my point.  ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

... but instead, let's talk about something even more related.  We have a certain amount of freedom here, and one of those freedoms is the ability to (idiotically) choose not to vaccinate.  There is no law or requirement for people to ensure that they or their kids won't contract malaria, or whooping cough, or measles, or the flu (which kills, or contributes to killing thousands a year, in America alone).

Why panic for Ebola when we clearly don't care enough to panic for any of the other diseases?

I've said many times, no panic at all.  Simple prudence.  The biggest difference that I see is that we're not talking about protecting people from a disease that's already here.  We're talking about reasonable measures to help ensure that it doesn't get here in the first place.  You said it earlier, and I agreed with you.....that "containing or eradicating a disease is probably a teensy bit easier if it has spread to less places"...... I add to that, keeping our citizens free of the disease is our first priority, and doing that is probably a teensy bit easier if we do everything in our power to see that it's not allowed into the country in the first place.

Also, thank goodness that in this country we don't force inoculations, medicine, or medical procedures on our citizens.  That's not the type of country I'd want to live in.....

Again, like I said, my original "downside" argument was just me and my beliefs, no education yet.  Now that I've read a little, I have another one:  It's been said and written by quite a few (the Indian Dr. guy on CNN was one of them) that not only would restricting air travel not help the situation, it would actually make it worse.  It's not like people are going to just sit there patiently and go, "well, I can't leave by airplane so I guess I'll just hang out here and get me some Ebola to keep me company."  No, they are going to get the hell out of there by any means necessary.  So now what?  They can't come here and land at one of the airports that will document and screen them, so they are going to go somewhere else that they can and then come here.  So they'll take a flight to Mexico City or Brazil or Denmark or South Africa or any number of other airports in countries that won't restrict them, and then they'll come home.  Or, if they can't find a flight, they'll take a bus or a car or a train to whatever country they can get to that will allow them to somehow eventually get here.

Now, I'm no virologist (and neither are any of you, which goes to my next point) but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that containing or eradicating a disease is probably a teensy bit easier if it has spread to less places, wouldn't you agree?

So, there is your downside.  What say you?

Again, I agree that we're better off keeping them out of our country, but I disagree that just because they might then go elsewhere that that changes our responsibility to our own citizens .  I also think that the "Indian Dr. guy on CNN" or whoever, should probably stick to medicine if he doesn't understand that restricting direct access will dramatically lower the influx of people to the U.S.  Will people find a way to get here (maybe illegally) if they're desperate?  Sure.  But we don't fail to take prudent security steps just because some people may find a way around them.  And we sure as hell don't put our country at greater risk in order to prevent a wider spread to other countries.  That's their responsibility to their citizenry.

[dsc123]

I've said many times, no panic at all.  Simple prudence.  The biggest difference that I see is that we're not talking about protecting people from a disease that's already here.  We're talking about reasonable measures to help ensure that it doesn't get here in the first place.  You said it earlier, and I agreed with you.....that "containing or eradicating a disease is probably a teensy bit easier if it has spread to less places"......  I add to that, keeping our citizens free of the disease is our first priority, and doing that is probably a teensy bit easier if we do everything in our power to see that it's not allowed into the country in the first place.

Also, thank goodness that in this country we don't force inoculations, medicine, or medical procedures on our citizens.  That's not the type of country I'd want to live in.....

How do you reconcile the two bold parts?  Not to open up a discussion about vaccinations--I'm libertarian-lite and probably agree with you there--but I'd like to understand why you think that protecting us from disease should trump liberty to travel but not liberty to not take medicine.  To me, the later seems directly related to the goal and less likely to have effects other than those intended.

edit: Upon further reflection I suppose you'd say that forced vaccinations are more invasive.  And I suppose that would make sense.

[Golfingdad]

I've said many times, no panic at all.  Simple prudence.  The biggest difference that I see is that we're not talking about protecting people from a disease that's already here.  We're talking about reasonable measures to help ensure that it doesn't get here in the first place.  You said it earlier, and I agreed with you.....that "containing or eradicating a disease is probably a teensy bit easier if it has spread to less places"......  I add to that, keeping our citizens free of the disease is our first priority, and doing that is probably a teensy bit easier if we do everything in our power to see that it's not allowed into the country in the first place.

Also, thank goodness that in this country we don't force inoculations, medicine, or medical procedures on our citizens.  That's not the type of country I'd want to live in.....

Again, I agree that we're better off keeping them out of our country, but I disagree that just because they might then go elsewhere that that changes our responsibility to our own citizens.  I also think that the "Indian Dr. guy on CNN" or whoever, should probably stick to medicine if he doesn't understand that restricting direct access will dramatically lower the influx of people to the U.S.  Will people find a way to get here (maybe illegally) if they're desperate?  Sure.  But we don't fail to take prudent security steps just because some people may find a way around them.  And we sure as hell don't put our country at greater risk in order to prevent a wider spread to other countries.  That's their responsibility to their citizenry.

Two things:

You're misunderstanding the fact that according to these experts spreading it to other countries DOES PUT OUR COUNTRY AT GREATER RISK!!!!

Further, I'm clearly not as "Patriotic" as you because I don't differentiate between a random stranger in Texas and a random stranger in Canada or France.  To me, their lives are all equally valuable.  If not restricting travel means two Americans die, but restricting travel means that zero Americans die but 2 French, 2 Mexicans, 2 English, and 2 Brazilians die, then I'm going to side with the simple Jack V. Tiger argument that non-restriction is a winner because 2<8.

Regardless, that's still not a relevant argument because like I said above:  according to these experts spreading it to other countries DOES PUT OUR COUNTRY AT GREATER RISK!!!!

[MS256]

How do you reconcile the two bold parts?  Not to open up a discussion about vaccinations--I'm libertarian-lite and probably agree with you there--but I'd like to understand why you think that protecting us from disease should trump liberty to travel but not liberty to not take medicine.  To me, the later seems directly related to the goal and less likely to have effects other than those intended.

I'm not on either side of most of this debate but there is a difference between forcing somebody to inject something into their body and keeping people with a deadly disease away from other people.

As much of a red herring as that it takes normal commercial flights to transport aid, U.S. citizens (or others) in and out of dangerous areas.

I'm not even necessarily for banning non-citizens from affected areas (yet). I just think they should be on special flights where more qualified people are screening and monitoring them.