Immigration megathread part 3

[Yodameister 10]

Is the idea that if someone is infected with HIV or TB then they will be automatically refused asylum?

 

What if every "safe" country in the world had this policy. Effectively the asylum system in international law would not apply to people with those infections. This is obviously an unfeasible situation.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by Yodameister

Is the idea that if someone is infected with HIV or TB then they will be automatically refused asylum?

 

What if every "safe" country in the world had this policy. Effectively the asylum system in international law would not apply to people with those infections. This is obviously an unfeasible situation.

 

No I think the idea should be that all travellers that present an infectious disease risk upon arrival could be screened to prevent unecessary infections in this country.

 

If travellers are found to be sick, they would be treated/ cured/ immunized. To do anything else would be to fly in the face of common decency and the hippoocratic oath. You can't test people for illnesses if you aren't going to do anything about it.

[Yodameister 10]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

No I think the idea should be that all travellers that present an infectious disease risk upon arrival could be screened to prevent unecessary infections in this country.

 

If travellers are found to be sick, they would be treated/ cured/ immunized. To do anything else would be to fly in the face of common decency and the hippoocratic oath. You can't test people for illnesses if you aren't going to do anything about it.

 

Yes I totally agree.

 

However the impression that you get from the "headline policies" is that it would be to stop them coming in. I assume that if you look at the detail this is not the proposition, but you can bet that the politicians who are trumpeting this loudly want the public to form the impression that it is. (if that makes sense?!)

[Cyclone 10]

asylum seekers are different to economical migrants though.

 

an asylum seeker should be tested and offered treatment if necessary (assuming asylum is granted), treated until deportation if asylum is not granted.

 

A migrant though, who is choosing to come here could be required to have the tests in their home country before being granted a visa to come here.

A migrant from within the EU, much more difficult. Would you advocate testing people moving from London to Edinburgh, if not then I don't see how you can say that it's any different if they move from Paris or Prague.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by Yodameister

Yes I totally agree.

 

However the impression that you get from the "headline policies" is that it would be to stop them coming in. I assume that if you look at the detail this is not the proposition, but you can bet that the politicians who are trumpeting this loudly want the public to form the impression that it is. (if that makes sense?!)

 

If you mean:

 

making a reasonable, and arguably long needed, policy on disease control, and then spin it as a "draconian anti-immigration measure", suitable for domestic assuagement.

 

Then I think you are right.

[Yodameister 10]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

If you mean:

 

making a reasonable, and arguably long needed, policy on disease control, and then spin it as a "draconian anti-immigration measure", suitable for domestic assuagement.

 

Then I think you are right.

 

National Politics is going this way though isn't it.

 

We will do what we think is right, but we wont tell people our real reasoning and it doesn't matter because the end justifies the means. (cf Weapons of Mass Destruction)

 

This breeds a culture where people are free to invent facts and believe them becasue we KNOW that the government wont tell us the real facts) and in my opinion this cannot be healthy for us as a society.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by Yodameister

National Politics is going this way though isn't it.

 

We will do what we think is right, but we wont tell people our real reasoning and it doesn't matter because the end justifies the means. (cf Weapons of Mass Destruction)

 

This breeds a culture where people are free to invent facts and believe them becasue we KNOW that the government wont tell us the real facts) and in my opinion this cannot be healthy for us as a society.

 

Yes. Worthy of a thread all of its own? An interesting discussion in it's own right to be had there.

[jonsastar 11]

Originally posted by xafier

AIDS = death

personally I see it pointless to do the tests, it would be a waste of money... what purpose would it serve? we wouldn't refuse them, and it's not like we can go "you have AID's, here wear this sign!"

 

The point of screening is to make sure infected people dont enter the country, there fore if they are infected they should not be permitted entry to the UK.

 

Also the cost of screening should be payed for by the screened and in that way people who know they are infected will be put off attempting to enter the country.

 

I think in todays world we need to be carefull what we let into the country or one day there could be an adapted stronger airborn desease that gets through the open door and it could take half the country out before we even know not to leave the house.

 

Not that it would be that bad to have half the population die from a horrible disease.

 

Oh hang on,

 

yes it would

[Yodameister 10]

Originally posted by jonsastar

The point of screening is to make sure infected people dont enter the country, there fore if they are infected they should not be permitted entry to the UK.

 

Also the cost of screening should be payed for by the screened and in that way people who know they are infected will be put off attempting to enter the country.

 

I think in todays world we need to be carefull what we let into the country or one day there could be an adapted stronger airborn desease that gets through the open door and it could take half the country out before we even know not to leave the house.

 

Not that it would be that bad to have half the population die from a horrible disease.

 

Oh hang on,

 

yes it would

 

Okay, so now we've established there are such people with our views, I again ask the question:

 

Should the international laws and conventions surrounding asylum not apply to people with HIV?

 

I like to think we have moved on a little from leper colonies.

[jonsastar 11]

Originally posted by Yodameister

Okay, so now we've established there are such people with our views, I again ask the question:

 

Should the international laws and conventions surrounding asylum not apply to people with HIV?

 

I like to think we have moved on a little from leper colonies.

 

I think moraly the UK would be obliged to help out an asylum seeker infected or not, if the UK was to stick to the guidelines on asylum.

 

The leper colonies were there for a reason, and that reason was to stop the spread of communicable disease, is it realistic to let diseased people into the country on a moral ground, I am not sure, have you ever heard the fraze cut your nose off to spite your face.

 

Is the UK not morally obliged to protect her people.

[jonsastar 11]

Originally posted by Yodameister

Should the international laws and conventions surrounding asylum not apply to people with HIV?

 

So would it be right to let all infected people into the UK if the country they live in can not provide the health care we can.

 

That is on the moral ground that they would suffer more if they were not given the use of UK health care?

[Yodameister 10]

Originally posted by jonsastar

So would it be right to let all infected people into the UK if the country they live in can not provide the health care we can.

 

Thats a different issue to asylum, and could not be inferred from what I said.

 

The moral obligation of the UK is to offer asylum to those people who meet the asylum requirements regardless of what virus they may or may not be carrying (I believe that is the way it stands at the moment)

 

I am looking at this from the point of view of what our current international obligations are, and what we could actually do rather than my personal views on the issue.

 

And I am merely pointing out that we would be on very shaky ground having a blanket ban on people with HIV entering our country.