Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Telegraph attacks humane policy


    by Rumbold
    21st July, 2009 at 7:13 pm    

    The Daily Telegraph is fuming that there will now be “free health care for failed asylum seekers.” This was considered important enough to be front page news (though so was a story about speeding nuns on the previous day). The quotes selected were very telling, with Andrew Green of Migrationwatch warning that “a million foreigners could take advantage of the rethink.” Now, logically, everyone in the world shouldn’t be able to use our health service because of limited resources. However, the change happened because doctors and nurses, quite rightly, refused to act as immigration police. Nor does it appear that all treatment will be free, just emergency/urgent treatment.

    And why should we deny emergency/urgent care to a relatively small number (up to 20,000 nationwide- “those who would “otherwise be destitute”, or could not return home “through no fault of their own”) of people, just because they wanted to make a better life for themselves in this country but were rejected? Not that there aren’t bad people among those who were rejected, but we should aspire to certain standards of behaviour in this country, and that means giving emergency/urgent treatment to whoever needs it, regardless of their status. Otherwise there is not much point.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs






    66 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      New blog post: Telegraph attacks humane policy http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5230


    2. Matt Borum

      Pickled Politics » Telegraph attacks humane policy- I don’t care about reducing BNP vote share, I care about t… http://bit.ly/rW59n




    1. JuliaM — on 21st July, 2009 at 7:18 pm  

      “The Daily Telegraph is fuming that there will now be “free health care for failed asylum seekers.””

      They’ve got the ‘free’ bit wrong, though.

      It ISN’T free - we’re paying for it. And I’d rather not pay for it. You can do so if you wish.

      “..we should aspire to certain standards of behaviour in this country..”

      But the people who’ve been told ‘No, you can’t come in, please go back home’ are free to ignore that, stay here and leech off the state? Odd idea of ‘what’s right’ you have…

    2. Amrit — on 21st July, 2009 at 7:48 pm  

      Maybe MigrationWatch and those who keep banging on about evil failed asylum seekers that they don’t want to pay for, might want to read this:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/census-population-ageing-global

      I just love how JuliaM KNOWS that every failed asylum seeker is going to ‘leech off the state’ just because a few of them might receive free health care. I’m sure that’ll hurt your pocket SO MUCH MORE than all the born-here binge-drinkers who cost the NHS billions per year.

      Then again, who am I to argue with a pre-emptive mind reader?

    3. JuliaM — on 21st July, 2009 at 7:55 pm  

      “I’m sure that’ll hurt your pocket SO MUCH MORE than all the born-here binge-drinkers who cost the NHS billions per year. “

      Because it’s not like the taxes they pay contribute to that, is it?

      And it doesn’t matter how many actually take advantage of the treatment - the point is, you are rewarding bad behaviour (remaining in the country despite being told you cannot), and will get more of it.

      If we can’t secure the borders of our country, you will see a bigger vote next year for the BNP, which you always say you don’t want.

      Why, then, do you always pursue policies designed to encourage it?

    4. Edna Welthorpe — on 21st July, 2009 at 8:00 pm  

      The Petrodespots of the Gulf have pots of loose change and they’re such popular places for poor people to go that nearly a thousand Indians - mainly construction workers* - laid down their lives for the Petrodollar in the U.A.E. in 2005 alone [no figures on the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who died, unfortunately.]

      So pop these sufferers on aplane to any of the Pertrodesotisms and they’ll be taken care of in two ticks.

      Soft-Touch Britain is Full Up.

      This was a Time Online tale and the figures were collated by the Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi, the U.A.E. capital.

    5. Edna Welthorpe — on 21st July, 2009 at 8:03 pm  

      By the way, has anyone counted just how many Pakistani Christians might try getting into Britain if and when the Islamic Republic of Pakistan goes down the drain and the ongoing but low-level persecution of Christians in that wonderful country REALLY intensifies?

    6. Jennifer Smith — on 21st July, 2009 at 8:07 pm  

      I am fed up with being the worlds leading charity. We give one iota to these people and they’re queuing at Calais. Give one person asylum because she got herself pregnant by a Briton and another ten step up.

      There is NO MORE MONEY.. WE DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES.

      These are FAILED, FAILED, FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS, SEND THEM BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I am speechless.. If there were a referendum on this subject, want to bet that most taxpayers would say ENOUGH?

    7. Amrit — on 21st July, 2009 at 8:13 pm  

      Wow, that mind-reading again. So, they ALL pay taxes do they? Even the teenagers?

      And who is this ‘you’ you keep pointing like an accusatory finger? I’m not the Government. I haven’t ‘pursued policies designed to encourage’ this, nor has Rumbold - he’s simply said that it’s a humane course of action. Which it is.

      No offence, but to people who care so much about failed asylum seekers ‘getting away with it’:

      1) How come you suddenly have absolute faith in ‘the system’ when it comes to picking who gets to come in and who doesn’t? It’s a system run and implemented by humans, who make mistakes.
      2) What proposals do you have for removing failed asylum seekers in a faster and more humane fashion, so that we don’t end up ‘rewarding bad behaviour’?

      I don’t care about reducing BNP vote share, I care about there being a more honest portrayal of the benefits and downsides of immigration in our media. The Mail, for example, routinely uses figure-massaging MigrationWatch as a source.

      The point the US Census Bureau made about our level of immigration helping us to stave off the deleterious effects of an ageing population for longer than other countries was thought-provoking. Perhaps we all need to think more long-term!

    8. Jennifer Smith — on 21st July, 2009 at 8:32 pm  

      A humane course of action would be to put these people out of their misery and send them back to their countries of origin. Put them on the first commercial plane (not private, like labour do) and send them packing.

      I have no faith in THIS current system about deciding who comes in. Infact, I would now shut the door…. we are full and need to offload some of the crap that has entered in the last 10 years, intending to either ponce off the system or rip the taxpayers off.

      I don’t give a crap about failed asylum seekers, but I do care about how my country is going to function if we keep on taking in charity cases.

      Don’t you lefties understand economics? We are bankrupt. Your leader has left us with billions and billions of pounds of debt. If you believe the “we are best placed rhetoric”, then you really are all morons.

      You must all be thick or brainwashed. I can’t quite make out which one.

      Migrationwatch is a CROSS PARTY ORGANISATION, you just don’t want to hear the truth.

      The ageing population story is crap, we have plenty of young who are unemployed who WOULD have a job. I would love to see some of those criminal, knife carrying, backstabbing little tykes go out everyday and earn a living, trouble is, most of them will do better on benefits selling drugs.

      The ageing population would have been no trouble at all, had your great leader not plundered their pensions.

      You’re all delusional and live in your perfectly fluffy world! GROW UP!

    9. JuliaM — on 21st July, 2009 at 8:54 pm  

      “Wow, that mind-reading again. So, they ALL pay taxes do they? Even the teenagers?”

      There’s tax on booze, isn’t there? Both VAT and duty, in fact. Unless your teenagers are brewing their own…

      “And who is this ‘you’ you keep pointing like an accusatory finger? I’m not the Government. I haven’t ‘pursued policies designed to encourage’ this…”

      The ‘you’ I’m referring to is the Left. The progressives. The bleeding heart, no borders, let everyone in crowd.

      “No offence, but to people who care so much about failed asylum seekers ‘getting away with it’:

      1) How come you suddenly have absolute faith in ‘the system’ when it comes to picking who gets to come in and who doesn’t? It’s a system run and implemented by humans, who make mistakes.
      2) What proposals do you have for removing failed asylum seekers in a faster and more humane fashion, so that we don’t end up ‘rewarding bad behaviour’?”

      1) I’m sure mistakes are made. I’m sure some people come in who shouldn’t, and some don’t come in who should. So what? The perfect is always the enemy of the good. It’s the only system we have, so it’ll have to do
      2) I’m concerned merely with ‘faster’ - the obsession with ‘humane’ has allowed them to string it out far too long. Pretty much anything would do, frankly.

    10. Edna Welthorpe — on 21st July, 2009 at 8:55 pm  

      Jennifer Smith - #9 - uses the term “… put out of their misery” in a rather alarming way.

      The Somalis - all of them - are a people who thoughly merit being put out of their misery once and for all but is so draconian a solution what the very humane Jennifer Smith has in mind?

    11. Rumbold — on 21st July, 2009 at 9:15 pm  

      Julia M (and others):

      It is not about letting everyone use the service for free for ever, it is about treating people with some basic human compassion. Even your man Tim W agreed.

    12. Jamie Sport — on 21st July, 2009 at 9:54 pm  

      Oh joy. JuliaM.

      Mind you, Jennifer ‘Put them out of their misery’ actually makes her sound rational. The use of capitals REALLY gets your POINT across eh?

      The whole thing boils down to treating a small number of people as human beings. Tabloid/Telegraph figures of how many ‘could take advantage’ are wildly inaccurate. As far as I’m concerned, giving a few people the right to life isn’t awful, do-gooding, lefty madness, it’s just decent.

    13. Jennifer Smith — on 21st July, 2009 at 10:08 pm  

      “Jennifer Smith – #9 – uses the term “… put out of their misery” in a rather alarming way”.

      Why do you always twist people’s words? It’s a figure of speech or aren’t you British enough to know that?

      It’s unfair to leave people hanging on in hope, that’s what I meant.

      “The Somalis – all of them – are a people who thoughly merit being put out of their misery once and for all but is so draconian a solution what the very humane Jennifer Smith has in mind?”

      Somalis belong in Africa, not in Britain, they have neither the skills, education or knowledge of western life to survive other than by crime.

      IF we welcome immigrants, they have to be skilled, not useless, thieving parasites. It’s not my fault these countries are in a state. I work bloody hard to keep my family going!

      I’m not prepared to give my hard earned cash to Somalis. We have our own problems, our own poor, our own uneducated, they have theirs.

      No, that’s not racist, it’s a fact… look at where they come from. for goodness sake, have some sense or are you just so full of righteous bull that you can’t see logic? If it were up to you left wingers, we’d open the door to all the poor and needy.

      Do you know what would happen then? I’ll tell you, the skilled, rich and able would leave and then you’d be left with a country full of charity cases and no-one to fund it…

      I am not a f*cking charity, as I have said. I have my own problems and my own family to take of.

      Get a grip, do your sums (if you can).. if we are a rich and bountiful land, we can afford to give to those less fortunate, if we are skint, we can’t… simple!

    14. JuliaM — on 21st July, 2009 at 10:12 pm  

      “Even your man Tim W agreed.”

      In what way is Tim Worstall ‘my man’? Because he’s on my blogroll and I comment there?

      Always amuses me how the left can never get their heads round the concept that not everyone agrees with everything all the time. Not following dogma to the letter? Unthinkable!

    15. JuliaM — on 21st July, 2009 at 10:14 pm  

      “As far as I’m concerned, giving a few people the right to life isn’t awful, do-gooding, lefty madness, it’s just decent.”

      Well, Jamie, if you want to give up your salary to pay for someone who isn’t a resident of this country, feel free.

      But don’t feel free to help yourself to MY taxes to do it, eh?

    16. Amrit — on 21st July, 2009 at 10:25 pm  

      In what way is Tim Worstall ‘my man’? Because he’s on my blogroll and I comment there?

      In what way am I ‘the Left’? Always amuses me how whingers like you can never get their heads round the concept that not everyone agrees with you all the time. Not seeing everything in terms of tax? Unthinkable!

      You went on and on about ‘my’ policies when you don’t know jackshit about me. Who said I was ‘no borders’? Maybe I simply enjoy trolling you like you enjoy trolling this site.

      The BBC profiled an illegal immigrant who had made up an NI number so that she could pay tax, but since JuliaM is a mind-reader who knows the motivations of every future failed asylum-seeker, I guess that doesn’t matter!

    17. MaidMarian — on 21st July, 2009 at 10:32 pm  

      What is actually amusing about some of the comment on here is how clearly some of these people have no idea about what actually goes on.

      Many parts of the NHS have an excellent and very sensible policy on the issue. But hey, why let the facts get in the way?

      http://www.hsj.co.uk/foreign-exchange/148489.article

      Practice is actually a bit tighter since this was written.

      Jennifer Smith ‘I have said. I have my own problems.’ No Kidding.

      And as for MigrationWatch…..

      It is almost touching the faith that the chatterati put in that organisation. What they seem to fail to understand is that it is an organisation based on spin. They will do and say anything to get their (well, Green’s, face in the media. Sure, MW don’t lie, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.

      They indulge in the Blair/Bush lawyerly type of lie, the manipulation of facts, the sin of omission. MW research for example found that the Primary Prupose Rule is inappropriate, but they won’t tell you about that sort of thing in their press release.

    18. Celtlord — on 21st July, 2009 at 10:40 pm  

      It is… I’m looking for a word to describe profound and penetrating idiocies. how people in Great Britain draw themselves into unassailable ideological and class fortresses. The leftists, or a spectrum of them claim the moral and ethical high ground defending, as Humane and Righteous, policies that spend other people’s money, that create a climate of acute disrespect for the law among migrants, and characterize those who disagree with them as uncaring assholes, beneath their humane moral betters. The Right, tend to characterize migrants as bloodsucking parasites, as the right of our political spectrum adopt political positions based solely on financial concerns. Both seem to do this on reflex, without thought or consideration. None of it is good for Great Britain, ideological shackles are so limiting for people looking for solutions to the problems we face.

      Nationalize their wealth, then deport all muslims, for those who having read the above, might think I had lost any of my anti-islamic fury. I’m not kidding about nationalizing any saudi money in British banks, or Gulf states’ money for that matter. What they going to do to us, fund traitorous organizations here, wait ….. they all ready do that.

    19. Jamie Sport — on 21st July, 2009 at 11:06 pm  

      Yes Julia, I wish to give up my entire salary and give it to failed asylum seekers. That’s what I said. That’s what all these lunatics on the left want isn’t it? They want to give all their money to bad diseased foreign people. They’re mad they are, those lefties. They hate having money. Hate it. Want to give it to bad things because they hate it so much. Commies, the lot of them.

      Jennifer ‘Somalis belong in Africa’ Smith, you’re a beautifully observed satire of delusional wingnut self-denying racism. Genius.

    20. Vikrant — on 22nd July, 2009 at 1:36 am  

      “I’m sure that’ll hurt your pocket SO MUCH MORE than all the born-here binge-drinkers who cost the NHS billions per year. “

      That is a piss poor argument Amrit! Those British born binge-drinkers are well… British, asylum seekers aren’t!

    21. Sunny — on 22nd July, 2009 at 1:47 am  

      It ISN’T free – we’re paying for it. And I’d rather not pay for it. You can do so if you wish.

      In that case - why don’t you become a doctor and personally tell someone who’s dying on you that they can’t have treatment because they don’t have the right passport.

      I guess I was under the mistaken impression that some of these right-wingers still had a bit of humanity in them. Obviously not.

      If you don’t want to finance it, then call for the end of the NHS. It’s only way.

    22. damon — on 22nd July, 2009 at 2:31 am  

      ”Telegraph attacks humane policy”.

      Did they? By putting it on the front page and quoting Migration Watch? Well I see the point, but I’d hardly call it the Telegraph ‘fuming’.
      They also quoted Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association, who said the Government should have gone further in supporting migrants.

      Maybe it’s a case of ”yeah, but you know what a reactionary segment of society the Telegraph readership are”.

      As for falling about laughing at Migration Watch’s figures like The Daily Quail did, I’d be interested to know how far out (wrong) those figures might be. Or maybe the IPPR report that said this same amnesty would net the government 1 billion a year is right.

      I think on issues like this, it’s not just the ‘antis’ who spin. I think everyone’s at it.

      But I agree that you can’t be turning people down for medical treatment if they are actually here.

    23. BenSix — on 22nd July, 2009 at 3:15 am  

      “In what way is Tim Worstall ‘my man’? Because he’s on my blogroll and I comment there?”

      Faulty generalisations are silly, aren’t they JuliaM. It’s good to have something to agr…

      “The ‘you’ I’m referring to is the Left. The progressives. The bleeding heart, no borders, let everyone in crowd.”

      …r’oh, never mind.

    24. Edna Welthorpe — on 22nd July, 2009 at 4:40 am  

      A DIGRESSION:

      It is interesting to do a crude calculation of how much dosh the late, and greatly missed, Dr Harold Shipman saved the taxpayer - i.e. the NHS.

      Two hundred oldies reached the end of their earthly journies, at a saving of - say - five thousand quid a skull. Not less than a million quid right there!

      I am sad to see that no readers ran after the red herring about the death rate of South Asian workers in the Petrodespotisms of the Gulf. Brown-on-brown crime is shrugged off; white-on-brown crimes make lovely AREN’T-WE-AWFUL white-masochistic headlines.

    25. Cauldron — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:14 am  

      This is a depressing article of precisely the sort that plays into fascist hands.

      Fundamentally, illegal immigrants are cheats and queue-jumpers. I’m sure there are some genuine hardship cases, but the majority are not admitted precisely because they do not even pass the not-particularly-hard hurdles (income, education, language skills, crime record) that a government might legitimately erect.

      This site needs to be more rigourous in distinguishing between the differing opinions (and interests) of legal immigrants, descendants of immigrants and queue-jumpers. These groups are not all part of one happy, Left-led, rainbow coalition. By associating an ethnic-minority website with an illegal activity (migration queue-jumping), all this article does is perpetuate the fascist memes that all ethnics are the same and all of them got here by cheating hapless indigenes out of their taxes.

    26. JuliaM — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:41 am  

      “In what way am I ‘the Left’?”

      Well, let’s see. You’re on a predominently lefty site, arguing lefty issues. I’m firmly of the ‘if it walks like a duck, etc’ opinion.

      “The BBC profiled an illegal immigrant who had made up an NI number so that she could pay tax…”

      Hmm, isn’t that a crime too? Forging an NI number? After all, it’s not like that NI number would give her anything else, is it?

      “They’re mad they are, those lefties. They hate having money. Hate it. Want to give it to bad things because they hate it so much. Commies, the lot of them.”

      I wouldn’t have put it as strongly as that, but… ;)

    27. JuliaM — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:46 am  

      “In that case – why don’t you become a doctor and personally tell someone who’s dying on you that they can’t have treatment because they don’t have the right passport.”
      e
      Rather that than tell a pensioner who has paid taxs all their life that they can’t have treatment for their age related macular degeneration because the NHS is skint, but by the way, we are providing free treatment to anyone who can climb in the back of a lorry and refuse to leave…

      “If you don’t want to finance it, then call for the end of the NHS.”

      Yes, because it’s an either/or option, of course. That’s a pretty dumb retort, even by YOUR standards…

    28. Vikrant — on 22nd July, 2009 at 6:45 am  

      This site needs to be more rigourous in distinguishing between the differing opinions (and interests) of legal immigrants, descendants of immigrants and queue-jumpers.

      Exactly! I was raised by a work permit holding single mum who paid her taxes and never took recourse to any public money. To put my accountant mum in the same boat as some illegal immigrant is just disingenious…

    29. Cauldron — on 22nd July, 2009 at 9:58 am  

      Vikrant, the Left is not in the least bit interested in your experiences as an individual. From Karl M. onwards, the fundamental unit of analysis in leftist thought has been the group. Individuals are lumped into whatever unit is deemed fashionable (class, gender, race) and manipulated for ulterior ideological ends.

      Your experience as an individual matters not one jot to the Left, and if your life is made more miserable by the manufacture of identity-politics controversy and grievance then you are just collateral damage.

    30. Rumbold — on 22nd July, 2009 at 10:23 am  

      This is not about welcoming everyone ever who wants to use the NHS- I tried to make that clear. This is about treating people who need medical help urgently without having to produce ninety six different forms of ID. Now, if anyone who opposes this wants to be forced to carry round an ID card that is fine by me, but personally I already think that there is too much state interference in our lives already.

    31. Amrit — on 22nd July, 2009 at 11:08 am  

      we are providing free treatment to anyone who can climb in the back of a lorry and refuse to leave

      Aaaand, here comes the bullshit!

      Sorry, did you not read the article?

      Nor does it appear that all treatment will be free, just emergency/urgent treatment.

      Since you’re a right-whinger though, I’ll just assume that you’re an inhumane, bile-frothing, selfish, hypocrite. You’ve certainly proved that last one true already.

      What was it you said?

      Well, let’s see. You’re on a predominently lefty site, arguing lefty issues. I’m firmly of the ‘if it walks like a duck, etc’ opinion.

      Ah, yes.

      Thanks for showing your white privilege, it’s been vastly entertaining to learn that forced marriage and the media treatment of Muslims are ‘lefty issues’! :-D

    32. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 22nd July, 2009 at 12:43 pm  

      Fucking hell there are some bigoted idiots here and there is JuliaM again, like an obsessive Daily Mail reader returning to ‘not-watch’ the antichrist and to whinge about every single post.

    33. Sunny — on 22nd July, 2009 at 1:32 pm  

      Rather that than tell a pensioner who has paid taxs all their life that they can’t have treatment for their age related macular degeneration because the NHS is skint, but by the way, we are providing free treatment to anyone who can climb in the back of a lorry and refuse to leave…

      NHS waiting times have shrunk drastically in the last 12 years that your hated Labour party has been in power and these dirty immigrants have come into the country to work in the NHS.

      It must be a harsh life being so stupid JuliaM.

    34. hantsboy — on 22nd July, 2009 at 1:34 pm  

      NHS waiting times have shrunk drastically in the last 12 years that your hated Labour party has been in power and these dirty immigrants have come into the country to work in the NHS.

      Ah but what about MSRA ?

    35. MaidMarian — on 22nd July, 2009 at 2:05 pm  

      hantsboy - The Department of Health has actually been keeping figures on MRSA since the 1960s. It is interesting to see how something that has long been acknowledged as a risk has been blown up in recent years. MRSA is nothing new.

      Rumbold (30) - See the link I put up earlier. I think you are confusing liberty with rights. Rights, such as access to the NHS do indeed need things like a state to administer them, eligibility criteria and the like. Anyone has the liberty not to use the NHS and go to the private sector.

      There are reasonable arguments against ID cards, but this seriously is not one of them.

    36. MaidMarian — on 22nd July, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

      Edna Welthorpe - ‘Brown-on-brown crime is shrugged off; white-on-brown crimes make lovely AREN’T-WE-AWFUL white-masochistic headlines.’

      Well go and take it up with the editors then - I would hazard a guess that editorial decisions are not taken on the basis of PP comments.

    37. Don — on 22nd July, 2009 at 2:35 pm  

      Interesting how Migration Watch framed this.

      Migrationwatch, the pressure group, said that over time, as many as a million foreigners could take advantage of the rethink.

      over time How much time, years? decades?

      as many as a million Let’s think of a big number but not flat out claim we know this.

      could Most anything could happen.

      So basically they have no actual information but get to talk about a million foreigners by using tired weasel words.

    38. Shamit — on 22nd July, 2009 at 3:20 pm  

      Doctors have an ethical responsibility to treat patients in front of them - and most doctors take that responsibility very seriously.

      Anyone who is brought to a hospital needing medical attention have to be treated. This is not and cannot be optional under any circumstances.

      However, on the other hand, if the NHS support staff cannot verify the patient’s NHS number or GP and cannot ascertain the eligibility of the patient — it is prudent to develop and implement a policy to inform UK Border Force and the police.

      And, if the person is genuinely not eligible, after treatment, take him into custody and deport them to their country of origin and charge the country of origin repatriation fees. This is standard practice and if an airline brings them over — then it becomes the airlines responsibility to take them back and hand them to the authorities in the country of origin.

      This is not a left right argument or at least should not be in my opinion. This is about prudence and being fair. Especially considering our current budget deficit is over £32BN pounds and the taxman takes about 50% every 100 pounds that an employee is paid from the employer — we need to be prudent.

    39. Sofia — on 22nd July, 2009 at 4:02 pm  

      “free health care for failed asylum seekers.” - are some of you right wing nut jobs unable to read English properly? Asylum seekers are those people who come to this country to claim asylum. Only through due process are those who are lying found out…whilst awaiting deportation, what should these people do if they fall critically ill? Do you want them to die? There are lots of reasons why people come to this country illegally…I cannot believe some of you are so inhumane and blinkered that all you can think of is that these people are parasites…you people disgust me…everything that makes people different from animals has obviously passed you by

    40. Sofia — on 22nd July, 2009 at 4:04 pm  

      And the next time you bnp freaks are ill and have to visit an asian doctor..please show the nice brown doctor your racist credentials…you’ll still get treated…because unlike you, they will have integrity.

    41. Don — on 22nd July, 2009 at 4:39 pm  

      Shamit,

      Doctors have an ethical responsibility to treat patients in front of them – and most doctors take that responsibility very seriously.

      Anyone who is brought to a hospital needing medical attention has to be treated. This is not and cannot be optional under any circumstances.

      Yes, you’d think that would hardly need saying, wouldn’t you? Apparently those belly-aching about their taxes think it appropriate for an ambulance to leave a casualty at the roadside, or for an A&E department to refuse to treat a coronary victim if their papers are not in order.

      Trouble is, someone is going to have to pick up the body and dispose of it. Perhaps they’d be happier if their tax money were spent on that.

      Here’s a thought, this policy is aimed at the 5% or so of failed asylum seekers who are children, destitute or unable to return home. How about next time a destitute kid in that group gets hit by a car we say, ‘Yes, we’ll pick you off the roadside and repair the shattered femur, but we’ll help ourselves to a kidney and a cornea while we’re at it and call it even.’ Would that keep you happy? You’d see that as a return to good old British values? The kind of country we’d all want to live in, eh?

    42. JuliaM — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:02 pm  

      “Since you’re a right-whinger though, I’ll just assume that you’re an inhumane, bile-frothing, selfish, hypocrite.”

      Anything that saves you having to think. Wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself… ;)

      “And the next time you bnp freaks are ill and have to visit an asian doctor…”

      That would be an Asian doctor who, if not born in this country and therefore as British as I am (and a taxpayer to boot), has immigrated the right way, the hard way, above all, the legal way, and is now lumped in the same boat as those to whom we do not owe entry?

      Why don’t you ask them how they feel, instead of always assuming that those not in favour of uncontrolled illegal immigration must be BNP supporters?

      Because the way you are going, there’s going to be a hell of a lot more BNP supporters, and it won’t be the ‘right wing’ who will be to blame. It’ll be the left.

    43. Don — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:07 pm  

      Sofia,

      I think you may be right about Dashenka. Her writing style is not that of a native speaker with poor literacy skills, different errors and even the rhythm is not what one would expect. Not many spelling errors, she even spells ‘hypocrisy’ correctly, which is frequently a problem for some reason despite it being one of the favourite words of the semi-literate shouty-commentor. It’s locutions such as …why people should help those… and country which sacrifice its citizens .

      Dashenka, are you an immigrant yourself? Not that it’s any of my business of course, just curious.

    44. Edna Welthorpe — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:07 pm  

      Don needs to get his brain running well before switching on his emotions.

      He refers to the “5% or so of failed asylum seekers who are children, destitute or unable to return home” and this neat encapsulation of the dilemma is - while a Disney-worthy tear-jerker in and of itself - makes it obvious to me, and others, that the gullible Brits are being played for sap-headed suckers, as are the Dutch and the Scandinavians.

      CHILDREN
      These male children of fourteen or so were sent on their travels by kith and kin in Afghanistan and Africa; their journey to Calais was expensive by any standard and drastically expensive by Afghan or African standards. They live in justified terror of robbery and anal rape by other Afghans in the squalid filth of the malodorous encampments at Calais.

      Is their presence in Calais somehow my fault? If so, how?

      DESTITUTION
      They had cash when they left West Africa, Eritrea or Afghanistan. They ran through it before reaching the El Dorado of London. Is that, in some way, our responsibility?

      We simply CANNOT be the Welfare State for the entire planet!

      THEY ARE UNABLE TO RETURN HOME
      This is a straightforward lie more often than not. Somalis and Eritreans obtain the right of residence in a First World country on the grounds that their homelands are wracked by war and return to their “”dangerous” homeland for a family visit.

      Mullah Krekar, the Kurdish Mullah of Norway, is the most famous example.

      Dyad Abou Jahja, the Lebanese extremest who sought refuge in Begium, is another: “Most asylum seekers tell lies,” he said frankly. “Mine was that I was a fugitive from Hezbollah.”

    45. Sunny — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:10 pm  

      We simply CANNOT be the Welfare State for the entire planet!

      We’re not. Most refugees and asyluim seekers end up in neighbouring countries.

    46. Edna Welthorpe — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:24 pm  

      MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY had two fine tales about asylum-seekers in Norway.

      One bunch of Afghans [!] announced that they had colloectively converted to the Faith of Christ and faced death by stoning if returned to Kabul.

      Another, larger, group of Afghans claimed to be unswerving and committed homosexuals who faced an equally dire fate if sent home.

      Finland, known as a gullible and sapheaded country on the asylum-shopper information grapevine, let it be known that Iranian homosexuals fleeing homophobic persecution were welcome.

      In next to no time, young males from such countries as Iran and Kurdistan arrived in droves. One young man, once successfully possessed of his Finnish papers, reportedly returned home to get married!

      The very ungoodthinkful website vdare.com is full of similar tales; my own favourite concerns boys from an elite Nairobi school who bribed locally-hired U.N. staffers to acquire the necessary documents and flew off to the U.S.A. as Sudanese-refugee “lost boys.”

      In Australia, the hundredth Sudanese “lost boy” was unpacking at about the same time that the first few “lost boys” were trying their skills as street criminals.

    47. Rumbold — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:34 pm  

      I think that a few people here are in danger of missing the wider point. This policy isn’t about letting anyone in the world have treatment anytime for free. It is about providing emergency/urgent care for other human beings. This shouldn’t be controversal. Yes, we don’t want a situation where anyone can use a GP anytime, but no one is proposing that. Nor will it provoke a ‘flood’ of immigrants. As Shamit says, it is quite possible to give illegal immigrants treatment and then deport them.

    48. Don — on 22nd July, 2009 at 5:56 pm  

      Edna,

      Brain running, emotions? Dunno, never located the on/off switch. Ain’t I the sentimental fool?

      But is referring to the article in question any more emotive than anal rape by other Afghans in the squalid filth… Sexual exploitation of the vulnerable crosses ethnicity and nationality, wouldn’t you say?

      We all use the odd emotive turn of phrase, I am not Spock. I think the form that takes is revealing. I mentioned injured kids because the policy specifically refers to them. You mentioned sodomy because…?

      But address the actual point (brain running yet?) What exactly do you propose should be the policy towards those in this very specific group in the event that they need emergency treatment?

      That is, after all, the topic. Yes, we have gathered that you are upset about the wrong people coming here, but on the question itself? Are you of the ‘Leave ‘em by the roadside.’ school of thought? Or do you favour my modest organ-harvesting proposal? Or perhaps you have a suggestion of your own?

      This is a straightforward lie more often than not. You are asserting that as a fact, or is it just an emotional response? If the former I assume you have data to back it up. And data is not the plural of anecdote. Your opinions and emotional responses are your own, but around here we’re quite evidence based when it comes to asserting something as a fact.

    49. MaidMarian — on 22nd July, 2009 at 6:02 pm  

      Shamit (38) - Well said.

    50. Sunny — on 22nd July, 2009 at 6:06 pm  

      Don - dashenka is banned from here. Any comments by him or her will be automaticallu deleted.

    51. Don — on 22nd July, 2009 at 6:22 pm  

      Sunny, well at least I now know what ))) means.

      That really actually annoys me. If you were in a serious face to face discussion and your interlocuter leaned forward and laughed in your face har-har-har it would be a egregious vulgarity. But this LOL stuff just goes by. I believe I have mentioned this before. LOL as a recognition of someone else’s wit is a lazy but harmless meme. As a celebration of one’s own wit it is seriously grating. It isn’t for you to decide that you have been hilarious.

      That’s probably just me. Rant over.

    52. Edna Welthorpe — on 22nd July, 2009 at 6:46 pm  

      Treat illegals who need treatment and then deport them! Fine by me!

      This site is the resort of people who mean well and who are obviously decent people and probably fine neighbours but who do little real lateral reading and web-surfing.

      Just as I recommend others to PP, may I recommend American Renaissance and vdare.com for opinionated but well-informed discussion of the mass immigation issue.

      The latest BNP website smugly refers to countries like Mauritius, Malaysia and the Czech Republic booting out illegals, just as Saudi Arabia does with no apologies at all. The aftermath of the Hajj season is marked by the sight of wire cages crammed with illegals mounted on the beds of flatbed trucks and heading for Jeddah Port.

      I ought to add that my snobbery precludes me from BNP membership. So there.

    53. munir — on 22nd July, 2009 at 6:50 pm  

      Edna Welthorpe
      “The latest BNP website smugly refers to countries like Mauritius, Malaysia and the Czech Republic booting out illegals, just as Saudi Arabia does with no apologies at all. The aftermath of the Hajj season is marked by the sight of wire cages crammed with illegals mounted on the beds of flatbed trucks and heading for Jeddah Port.”

      Why is the BNP model for everything Saudi Arabia?

    54. Don — on 22nd July, 2009 at 7:00 pm  

      Don’t know about Mauritius, but I do recall the Malaysian and Thai response to the Boat People of the 80′s. Brutal and inhuman. Saw some of the consequences up close. As for KSA…

      That is pretty much how I don’t want to see my country doing things.

    55. Don — on 22nd July, 2009 at 7:21 pm  

      Treat illegals who need treatment and then deport them! Fine by me!

      I’m assuming that ‘subject to legal procedures’ is a given. So what was your problem? That is all that was proposed.

      Oh, and while dictionaries do apparently count ‘illegal’ as a noun (usage, y’know) I personally see it as an adjective. You don’t see a problem with defining someone’s primary identity as ‘illegal’?

    56. Edna Welthorpe — on 22nd July, 2009 at 9:42 pm  

      Don’s memory is slightly at fault.

      The Republic of Vietnam fell to the Communists in 1975 and it was soon after the fall that the ‘boat people’ were doing all they could to escape, which often included bribery IN GOLD for permission even to leave.
      Many, but not all, were Sino-Vietnamese and the new regime held an especial hatred for them.

      The Malaysian Minister of Home Affairs let it be known that he had given orders to “shoot them” if they tried to land on Malaysian shores.

      He was taken to task on this and, realising that he had been so quoted in the Western media, insisted that he had said - or had meant to say - “shoo them away.”

      The fisherfolk/pirates of the Thai island of Ko Chang did well in those years; to this day houses in Ko Chang are rather grander than one might reasonably expect.

      To her undying credit, Joan Baez prevailed on Jimmy Carter to persuade Gerald Ford to send the U.S. Navy to rescue as many of the wretched ‘boat people’ as possible.

      In Australia, some of the union leaders opposed the influx of Vietnamese on the grounds that they were liable to be “American puppets” and “Saigon regime torturers” and “brothel owners.”

      As for the noun ‘an illegal’ it is in widespread use in the U.S.A. The politically-correct prefer the term ‘undocumented workers’ and the unpaid volunteers who keep an eye on the border readily add true and detailed anecdotes about undocumented robbers, rapists and killers.

      Go to the ungoodthinkful American Renaissance for more on the grim reality which illegals have brought to the border States.

    57. Dan Dare — on 22nd July, 2009 at 11:31 pm  

      Don #41: “… Here’s a thought, this policy is aimed at the 5% or so of failed asylum seekers who are children, destitute or unable to return home.”

      Since one of the principal reasons for this policy about-turn is said to be to preclude GPs and NHS staff from having to take on the role of immigration inspector, how do you suppose they will be able to distinguish between the 5% of failed asylum seekers who are now entitled and the 95% who are not? Will the lucky 5% be provided with some certificate of entitlement, and will doctors then be obliged to ask to see it? If so, it would tend to defeat the object of the exercise, wouldn’t it?

    58. Edna Welthorpe — on 22nd July, 2009 at 11:38 pm  

      It was my memory, not that of Don, which was at fault.

      While it is certainly true that the ‘boat people’ exodus started at the same time that Saigon fell, it continued well into the 1980s; in fact, the harsh and totally unjustified treatment of the Sino-Vietnamese was probably the largest single cause of the Sino-Vietnamese War and this in turn led to a renewed exodus, again mainly an exodus of Sino-Vietnamese.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_people

      Uncle Ho and his closest associates had taken refuge with the KMT in the years before 1945 and later relied greatly on the CCP and the PRC to win successive victories against Bao Dai, then the French and - if we simplify matters greatly - the Americans, but Ho was bitterly anti-Chinese at heart:

      “I would rather smell French shit for five years than smell Chinese shit for a lifetime. The last time the Chinese came, they stayed for a thousand years.”

    59. Edna Welthorpe — on 22nd July, 2009 at 11:52 pm  

      And Munir at #53 seems to be comparing BNP policy with the actuality of KSA, which welcomes migrant labour but which - these days - admits very few immigrants or confers citizenship on all but a few applicants.

      The migrant workers in KSA have their rights very well safeguarded in legal theory; the problem comes in enforcing the law.

      Given better enforcement of existing laws, the KSA model would actually be a good one to follow. Far better anyway than the bloody awful mess in Kuwait, where the Kuwait-born ‘bidoon*’ exist within the country but are barred from citizenship and the benefits conferred by citizenship.

      Literally, ‘without’r ‘lacking’ or ‘deprived of’

    60. damon — on 23rd July, 2009 at 12:07 am  

      So what happens to someone who wants healtcare but says that they don’t want to disclose their identity?
      And surely there are people on the left who are going to object to this idea of arresting and deporting people after they sought health care. (As this will deter people from going to hospital).
      My neighbour had some Vietnamese labourers doing work for him last year when one of them hurt himself quite badly. We said that he should to go to hospital, but his friends just took him home. Probably didn’t want to come to attention of the authorities.

      Also, I don’t really get this just being for up to 20,000 people. What about the rest?

      Yes we can laugh at Migration Watch. But how in tune are they to mainstream opinion in the UK? So are we laughing at Britain then?

      Anyone have any idea what proportion of the population uses healthcare services in a year? If you knew that then you might be able to see if the Migration Watch figure of ”a million” had any substance to it at all. Of course it was plucked out of the air, and perhaps makes them look foolish. But if there’s over 650,000 undocumented people in Britian (or whatever the figure is), then it wouldn’t take too long to add up.

    61. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 5:48 am  

      Damon at #60 raises a couple of issues well-understod in the issues.

      Emergency room access for illegals? Of course. At, say, 600,000 illegals in the U.K>, many of them working in callings in which accidents are more likely than in sift jobs, a million hospital visits is a low and modest figure.

      How about driving licenses for illegal residents? Is that a more difficult issue?

      The issues are chewed over incessantly on AMERICAN RENAISSANCE and vdare.com.

    62. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 5:52 am  

      ERRATUM

      … issues well-understood in those parts of the U.S.A. where these issues have been discussed for years, mainly in those States where the local and national capitalist class stands to gain - and gain a lot - from having a pool of cheap few-questions-asked labour.

    63. damon — on 23rd July, 2009 at 10:03 am  

      I’ve read vdare, and while it raises things that I may not have heard of before, it’s too hateful to be taken seriously. The world changes, and to fight change too hard (when it’s going to happen anyway) is not good for the karma.

      It’s not just emergency care that was being discussed here was it? Millions and millions of people pass through the UK every year, or are here on student visas and the like. Are they to get free health care too?

      I was supposed to have some wisdom teeth out a few years ago, but as this was going to involve a hospital visit and sounded pretty gory, I’ve never gotten around to having it done.

      Is it the case that an undocumented person could go to a doctor (or dentist) complaining of pains in the jaw, have x rays done and be booked in for the (same) procedure to have them taken out? Free on the NHS?

      I don’t know (and I don’t really care). If someone doesn’t have the money for something and needs medical attention, then needs trump every other consideration IMO.

      The USA with it’s 12 million undocumented workers is trying to tackle this problem too. (And so they should)
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1R2RNTN_enGB336&q=american+illegals+health+services&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=

      But you can understand why the right squeal about it.

    64. NielsC — on 23rd July, 2009 at 7:25 pm  

      Sorry to say, but discussion is important, because it will pop up again and again. And if the economic crisis is prolonged, it will be rougher. Because the problem is basically, should the ‘rich’ countries continue to borrow money to feed immigrants with no change of getting a job.
      But for another perspective read the discussion in
      http://www.slate.com/id/2223110/entry/2223273/ between
      Sudhir Venkatesh and Patrick Radden Keefe about immigration, underground economy, it’s terrific.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.