"11, 000 failed asylum seekers could win right to free NHS care" (claim)

Britannist · 11-04-2008, 04:12 AM

More than 11,000 failed asylum seekers could win right to free NHS care | the Daily Mail

The Bear · 11-04-2008, 07:33 AM

And why not?

If they can not return to where they are fleeing from then they should not be failed asylum seekers

If they can return then they should be returned post haste, but should be provided with health care in the intervening period.

The question remains what the hell the New Labour government were up to by not returning all asylum seekers to the last safe country that they passed through when such was the case.

Since they have not and still do not then we are lumbered with the consequences.

TannyD · 11-04-2008, 03:13 PM

So for me to get proper dental treatment I should become one of them? Instead of being stuck on a waiting list of which I have no idea how long it will take and no-one wants to answer my questions at the building regarding it?

Westcountryman · 11-04-2008, 03:40 PM

Hang on Bear, why should I be forking out for foreigners to get free healthcare?

In my opinion, if you're not a UK citizen (or here legally to work/asylum) you should have to pay for treatment. That should include tourists too.

a swansong 4 europe · 11-04-2008, 05:54 PM

Since when was is it not possible to return an asylum seeker? If they got out, then they can be put back. All other considerations are an irrelevance.

More importantly, they should be in the first safe country they crossed to get here (Britain is an island is it not , and it is, is it not, surrounded and separated by the sea by Germany, France, Irish Republic, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, from the rest or the world) so it is they who should be providing them with health care, etc, not the people of this island.

The word "asylum" is the most screwed-up political definition to date.

Northumbrian · 11-04-2008, 08:27 PM

'Last night, critics warned the bill for the care could be the "straw that broke the back'" of an NHS struggling to cope with demand from British citizens.'

More like the straw that broke the back of the Labour government.

The Bear · 12-04-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote]

”So for me to get proper dental treatment I should become one of them? Instead of being stuck on a waiting list of which I have no idea how long it will take and no-one wants to answer my questions at the building regarding it?”

Looks like it.

But this is 100% down to New Labour maladministration.

Quote

”Hang on Bear, why should I be forking out for foreigners to get free healthcare?”

In the case of those seeking what used to be called Political Asylum but was changed to Asylum by Blair and Co. the convention that all nations have signed up to provides people granted asylum or who are being considered asylum certain rights including health care as appropriate.

Where it has gone terribly wrong is the failure to stick to the “first safe country” provisions and the failure to get those not meeting the definition of political refugees expelled from Britain, again down to New Labour and their quest for votes in marginal and usually predominantly immigrant constituencies.

Quote]

”In my opinion, if you're not a UK citizen (or here legally to work/asylum) you should have to pay for treatment. That should include tourists too.”

The easy one first, Tourists DO have to pay for other than emergency medical treatment.

In theory.

Often the hospitals and GP’s simply don’t bother to press for payment as the hassle is more than it’s worth for them.

For those who have been refused asylum and who await deportation then what do you do? Let them die for want of treatment?

Where there IS an issue is the number who have turned up and who have managed to bamboozle their way through the asylum process who are really here for our health service.

It should come as no surprise that the recently reported huge increase in reported HIV/ AIDS infections are as a result of immigrants coming here already infected.

Quote

”Since when was is it not possible to return an asylum seeker? If they got out, then they can be put back. All other considerations are an irrelevance.”

Mostly since Blair signed us up to the ECHR. That along with other “conventions” prohibit the return of a person to a country in which his “human rights” would be at risk.

Quote

”More importantly, they should be in the first safe country they crossed to get here (Britain is an island is it not , and it is, is it not, surrounded and separated by the sea by Germany, France, Irish Republic, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, from the rest or the world) so it is they who should be providing them with health care, etc, not the people of this island.

If an “asylum seeker” can be shown to have passed through a safe country or European state in order to reach Britain in my opinion, and in law, he should be returned to the last safe nation or state that he traversed or to the first if that can be established.

But for some bizarre reason Britain under New Labour decide not to do so.

Quote]

”The word "asylum" is the most screwed-up political definition to date. 'Last night, critics warned the bill for the care could be the "straw that broke the back'" of an NHS struggling to cope with demand from British citizens.'

More like the straw that broke the back of the Labour government.”

I absolutely agree that the corruption of the meaning and interpretation of the word “asylum” is terrible and wrong.

The whole sorry mess can be laid at the door of New Labour.

ranter · 12-04-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe

Since when was is it not possible to return an asylum seeker? If they got out, then they can be put back. All other considerations are an irrelevance.

More importantly, they should be in the first safe country they crossed to get here (Britain is an island is it not , and it is, is it not, surrounded and separated by the sea by Germany, France, Irish Republic, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, from the rest or the world) so it is they who should be providing them with health care, etc, not the people of this island.

The word "asylum" is the most screwed-up political definition to date.

Spot on Swansong the only Asylum seekers this country should entertain are those flying in (preferably first class) from countries they are seeking asylum from.Any other mode of transport and they are illeagle immigrants and should be sent back from where they came.

HighlandFP · 13-04-2008, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist

Hang on Bear, why should I be forking out for foreigners to get free healthcare?

In my opinion, if you're not a UK citizen (or here legally to work/asylum) you should have to pay for treatment. That should include tourists too.

Eurosceptic Atlanticist you are not very human.

Westcountryman · 13-04-2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighlandFP

Eurosceptic Atlanticist you are not very human.

According to some I'm a green lizard.

In all seriousness, the NHS is not a bottomless pit of money, and it's priority should be treating UK citizens, not the rest of the world.

11-04-2008, 04:12 AM	#1 (permalink)
Britannist Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 22,896	"11, 000 failed asylum seekers could win right to free NHS care" (claim) More than 11,000 failed asylum seekers could win right to free NHS care \| the Daily Mail

11-04-2008, 03:13 PM	#3 (permalink)
TannyD Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Gloucester-Land of the Gulls!!! Posts: 705	So for me to get proper dental treatment I should become one of them? Instead of being stuck on a waiting list of which I have no idea how long it will take and no-one wants to answer my questions at the building regarding it? __________________ TannyD, like Sunny D only better!! http://www.nationstates.net/01838/pa...n=mutantfreaks: http://gloucesterr.myminicity.com http://www.answerbag.com

11-04-2008, 03:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,693 Party: Libertarian Party	Hang on Bear, why should I be forking out for foreigners to get free healthcare? In my opinion, if you're not a UK citizen (or here legally to work/asylum) you should have to pay for treatment. That should include tourists too. __________________ Anyone who supports 42 days pre-charge detention should read this: 42-day detention: the threat to our liberty \| John Major - Times Online and this: Why David Davis is right to make a stand \| Mail Online

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-04-2008, 07:33 AM	#2 (permalink)
The Bear Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 1,692	And why not? If they can not return to where they are fleeing from then they should not be failed asylum seekers If they can return then they should be returned post haste, but should be provided with health care in the intervening period. The question remains what the hell the New Labour government were up to by not returning all asylum seekers to the last safe country that they passed through when such was the case. Since they have not and still do not then we are lumbered with the consequences.

11-04-2008, 05:54 PM	#5 (permalink)
a swansong 4 europe Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 295	Since when was is it not possible to return an asylum seeker? If they got out, then they can be put back. All other considerations are an irrelevance. More importantly, they should be in the first safe country they crossed to get here (Britain is an island is it not , and it is, is it not, surrounded and separated by the sea by Germany, France, Irish Republic, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, from the rest or the world) so it is they who should be providing them with health care, etc, not the people of this island. The word "asylum" is the most screwed-up political definition to date.

11-04-2008, 08:27 PM	#6 (permalink)
Northumbrian Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, England Posts: 787	'Last night, critics warned the bill for the care could be the "straw that broke the back'" of an NHS struggling to cope with demand from British citizens.' More like the straw that broke the back of the Labour government.

12-04-2008, 08:08 AM	#7 (permalink)
The Bear Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 1,692	Quote] ”So for me to get proper dental treatment I should become one of them? Instead of being stuck on a waiting list of which I have no idea how long it will take and no-one wants to answer my questions at the building regarding it?” Looks like it. But this is 100% down to New Labour maladministration. Quote ”Hang on Bear, why should I be forking out for foreigners to get free healthcare?” In the case of those seeking what used to be called Political Asylum but was changed to Asylum by Blair and Co. the convention that all nations have signed up to provides people granted asylum or who are being considered asylum certain rights including health care as appropriate. Where it has gone terribly wrong is the failure to stick to the “first safe country” provisions and the failure to get those not meeting the definition of political refugees expelled from Britain, again down to New Labour and their quest for votes in marginal and usually predominantly immigrant constituencies. Quote] ”In my opinion, if you're not a UK citizen (or here legally to work/asylum) you should have to pay for treatment. That should include tourists too.” The easy one first, Tourists DO have to pay for other than emergency medical treatment. In theory. Often the hospitals and GP’s simply don’t bother to press for payment as the hassle is more than it’s worth for them. For those who have been refused asylum and who await deportation then what do you do? Let them die for want of treatment? Where there IS an issue is the number who have turned up and who have managed to bamboozle their way through the asylum process who are really here for our health service. It should come as no surprise that the recently reported huge increase in reported HIV/ AIDS infections are as a result of immigrants coming here already infected. Quote ”Since when was is it not possible to return an asylum seeker? If they got out, then they can be put back. All other considerations are an irrelevance.” Mostly since Blair signed us up to the ECHR. That along with other “conventions” prohibit the return of a person to a country in which his “human rights” would be at risk. Quote ”More importantly, they should be in the first safe country they crossed to get here (Britain is an island is it not , and it is, is it not, surrounded and separated by the sea by Germany, France, Irish Republic, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, from the rest or the world) so it is they who should be providing them with health care, etc, not the people of this island. If an “asylum seeker” can be shown to have passed through a safe country or European state in order to reach Britain in my opinion, and in law, he should be returned to the last safe nation or state that he traversed or to the first if that can be established. But for some bizarre reason Britain under New Labour decide not to do so. Quote] ”The word "asylum" is the most screwed-up political definition to date. 'Last night, critics warned the bill for the care could be the "straw that broke the back'" of an NHS struggling to cope with demand from British citizens.' More like the straw that broke the back of the Labour government.” I absolutely agree that the corruption of the meaning and interpretation of the word “asylum” is terrible and wrong. The whole sorry mess can be laid at the door of New Labour.