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.
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.
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.
This is from a memorandum submitted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.