Printable View
this is for the debate on immigration to continue out with the london bombing thread.
psychotic the UN does not have any power over asylum seekers at all. and TB is a naturally occuring disease anyway. the big problkem rigth now is badgers passing it onto cattle. asylum seekers didn't bring it into the country it was already there. and it was far from dead, my dad is a health visitor and deals with TB cases and has done all his career.
I feel honoured.
If you remember the TV debates at the General Election in May 2005, Michael Howard said "We would only take asylum seekers from the UN." I went on their site just to be sure of this, and I found this article: The third paragraph mentions this. The relevant quote is "and take in genuine refugees from the United Nations - rather than simply accepting those who are smuggled in." The Conservatives would not risk a campaign on something that could be easily disproved. Futhermore, I did a search on the UN website for asylum seerks (link) and to me it certainly looks like the UN takes responsibility for a lot of asylum seekers.
As for TB, perhaps it was not wiped out completely, but immigrants are a key factor in its recent rise. I searched for some statistics, and the most recent I could find (Link) in the UK was that in 1998, 56% of reported cases of TB were in people born outside the U.K and the incidence was highest in first few years after entry to the U.K. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that the population of those born outside the UK who are living in the UK is about 5%. To me, it seems obvious as to where the increasing tubercolosis in Britain's inner cities has come from.
Cloud - Left Wing
Psy - Right Wing
There can be no winner.
I consider myself more of a moderate than right wing on this issue. If I was right wing I would demand a stop to all immigration, instead of just a stop to illegal immigration and the introduction screening immigrants for diseases like TB. :p
psychotic the thing with tb. other poorer countries do not vaccinate against it. so they catch it either here or over there. it maks no difference. that is why there is a high incidence of asylum seekers with tb. that however does not prove that it increases the risk of british citizens. tb exists anyway, these people who aren't immigrants possibly would have caught tb anyway since they weren't vaccinated whether it be from animals, a vaccinated carrier, or an infected person.
of course the incidence of tb will be higher in the unprotected immirants. and so if there are more of them there will be more overall tb. this however does not link it to higher tb in the native population. all it means is that there are more unprotected people catching tb.
the conservative thing. what they meant was to take asylum seekers from countries which the un designates as having serious problems where there is famine, war, genocide or danger to these people. thus it means that people from countries which are relatively stable will not be able to immigrate. it isn't meant that they will take the people from the un merely the list of countries which the un deems to be dangerous.
this though fails as we have seen with the recent problems in zimbabwe and the asylum seekers we wat to send back. and prevents economic migrants who may be off benefit to the country. british people do the same, we move to america, canada, australia, etc. not through fear of violence but because it seems like a nice place to live.
also the recent government report on illegal immigrants is valuable. why? because it gouped in the 3 classes if illegal immigrants, the failed asylum seeker, the overstayer, and the smuggled ones. the biggest group? the overstayer. the students that stay past their dates and tourists which stay on. and the biggets group among these? americans.
it shatters the whole view of immigrants being arab or eastern european and unable to speak english.
that was the governments own finding.
People do not get TB from animals in Britain, as the only source would be from unpasteurised milk, and unless they are drinking directly from the cow, which is very unlikely, they won't get it. As for getting the disease from vaccinated carriers, I have researched into this and apparently you can only get it from someone who has active TB rather than just carrying it. This means that only infected people can pass on the disease, and so with more immigrants who actively have TB, the more at risk are those who are not vaccinated are.Quote:
psychotic the thing with tb. other poorer countries do not vaccinate against it. so they catch it either here or over there. it maks no difference. that is why there is a high incidence of asylum seekers with tb. that however does not prove that it increases the risk of british citizens. tb exists anyway, these people who aren't immigrants possibly would have caught tb anyway since they weren't vaccinated whether it be from animals, a vaccinated carrier, or an infected person.
of course the incidence of tb will be higher in the unprotected immirants. and so if there are more of them there will be more overall tb. this however does not link it to higher tb in the native population. all it means is that there are more unprotected people catching tb.
This is from a memorandum submitted by the United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesQuote:
the conservative thing. what they meant was to take asylum seekers from countries which the un designates as having serious problems where there is famine, war, genocide or danger to these people. thus it means that people from countries which are relatively stable will not be able to immigrate. it isn'lt meant that they will take the people from the un merely the list of countries which the un deems to be dangerous.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is a non-political humanitarian organisation charged with leading international efforts to protect and assist refugees. It seeks durable solutions for refugees, including voluntary repatriation, local integration in their country of asylum, and resettlement to third countries. The UN refugee agency currently looks after some 20 million people worldwide, including refugees, asylum seekers, recent returnees and other persons of concern.
To me, that seems like the UN actively look after and seek new countries for refugees. I think that is what the Conservatives were referring to.It does not prevent economic migrants if they are LEGALLY allowed into the country. I can't see a problem with those with legal access to the country being allowed in whatsoever, but if people want to start a new life in Britain, then they should at least show the decency of following its laws.Quote:
this though fails as we have seen with the recent problems in zimbabwe and the asylum seekers we wat to send back. and prevents economic migrants who may be off benefit to the country. british people do the same, we move to america, canada, australia, etc. not through fear of violence but because it seems like a nice place to live.
This is the relevant part of the report to which you were referring, I believe. It says "In the United Kingdom, as in most EU countries, there are no statistics of overstaying.[para 20]" The statistics to which you refer are Australian, and Australia has approximately 70,000 illegal immigrants. Recent reports suggest Britain has 500,000 illegal immigrants. I think due to the number differences and cultural differences the statistics would be very different for Britain, but they do not exist so I cannot comment on them.Quote:
also the recent government report on illegal immigrants is valuable. why? because it gouped in the 3 classes if illegal immigrants, the failed asylum seeker, the overstayer, and the smuggled ones. the biggest group? the overstayer. the students that stay past their dates and tourists which stay on. and the biggets group among these? americans.
it shatters the whole view of immigrants being arab or eastern european and unable to speak english.
that was the governments own finding.
But maybe you meant a different report, as this is from the House of Lords and not the government, although I would trust the House of Lords a lot more than I would the Home Office.
Ok, from what I understand of this, Psy merely wants to crack down on illegal immigration(it's called "illegal" for a reason), while screening legal immigrants for deadly diseases. Is that unreasonable?
If I misunderstood things, I apologize.
I don't understand the argument against screening legal immigrants. It would cost more, yes, but then you would have happy, healthy people coming into your country. Yay happy, healthy people!
Happy, healthy people are sooooo passé. :D
I don't see anything wrong with not allowing illegal immigrants (Like Raistlin said, they're illegal for a reason), and screening legal ones.
As the system stands, I see no problem with demanding the system be revised, and we actually kick out illegal immigrants. The main problem with the various stances being taken is that I don't think either of the major parties claimed they would allow asylum seekers to stay no matter what. I do believe having a system with other nations that can handle them is wiser, but as it is there's no justification for sending people back to places like Zimbabwe, where reports have emerged of returned asylum seekers being tortured and killed.
I am, for my part, a supporter of pretty much entirely open borders between all nations. Security checks for wanted criminals/terrorists would be my only criteria. And, unless we want to ban not only immigration but also tourism, there is no validity in an argument such as 'Open borders let terrorists in', because they can get in anyway. Open borders would allow a free movement of people - something I believe to be a fundamental right - it would improve overseas relations, it would increase the flow of wealth from rich nations to poor.
Example: Few immigrants actually want to emigrate. Those I refer to as 'cultural' immgrants - though this is not an offiial term - are the only ones who would move simply because they desire to. Asylum seekers want exactly that, usually because their lives are in danger in their home country. Economic migrants usually desire to circulate, which means they want to go to another country, get a job for a few months, and send the money home. This is a Very Good Thing (tm), because it's an excellent way to help a nation grow richer - these people can return and live in comfort, which increases purchasing for one, and they can also possibly start their own businesses, leading to more jobs and more wealth.
Cultural immigrants on the other hand should arguably be welcomed with the most open arms of all, as they have decided to leave behind everything they know for a foreign nation; they're unlikely to be wishing anything but good, and they're unlikely to be any sort of danger unless they're outright lying, which is hardly a phenomena exclusive to them.
Oh, also no problem with people being checked for diseases and the like. By the by, I would also possibly advocate a system whereby an immigrant cannot claim welfare of any kind (Except schooling for their children, and healthcare if lives are in danger) for a few years after entering a country.