no subject

[taimatsu]

diffrentcolours sent me this link to the Independent 'executive summary' of the Independent Asylum Commissions report. I haven't got to the bottom yet but I am currently flabbergasted and horrified by one particular piece of information, part of a list enumerating shortcomings and failings of the asylum service:

That health care is not provided to detainees by the National Health Service.

Asylum seekers who are detained during the process of seeking asylum, in a detention centre in this country, which they cannot leave except occasionally on (rare) bail, who have generally committed no crime, who have made the journey to this country for pressing and often traumatic reasons, who may have been tortured or injured before or during their journey here, who may be ill, who cannot work in this country and may have almost no money - these people are not treated by the NHS? What? Rights and wrongs of their claims aside, what, in all humanity, are they supposed to *do*? They have close to no money, they have no opportunity to earn any, and they might very well be ill - how can they get care? WHAT? Are they just supposed to sweat it out behind the walls of Yarls Wood/Campsfield/wherever or what?

I shush now because I can't think of anything to say.

Comments

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Hmm, slightly tabloid in presentation if that's all it says; I am off to sleep and disinclined to check. To the best of my recollection the detention centres are responsible for putting in place a medical care system, about two thirds of them buy it from the private sector and about a third buy it from the NHS. This doesn't tell you whether it's any good or not, it very probably often isn't, but it's some way from them all being actively encouraged to die of smallpox.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

That's right -- the report makes clear in other bullet points that medical care (albeit, they think, inadequate) is provided by the facility.

[taimatsu]

*nod* Yes, that's something I missed. It's still one piece of a pretty unpleasant puzzle.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

So I keep hearing, but if we treat them so unfairly why do they go to such lengths to get here rather than one of the many countries they pass through on the way? How horrible is France, that asylum-seekers from Francophone countries in Africa camp out at Calais hoping to cling to the underneath of a lorry?

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

It's a lot easier to find illegal work in the UK -- that's the attraction.

In France, as here, asylum seekers aren't allowed to do paid work -- but there they police employment legality somewhat more actively.

[arron-shutt.livejournal.com]

We do not have free health care in this country, it is paid for through National Insurance contributions through people like myself who work for a living. I also contribute to the police force, schools, roads, unemployment benefit and many other services. Is it right that someone who hasn't any rights to any of these things as a non-citizen should get them without paying for them?

The place I work is a popular dropping off spot for illegal immigrants who are 'imported' by criminal gangs in the back of modified tankers and lorries. Given there is no shelter, no shops and two police stations within five miles and the site is covered with CCTV cameras. These people are always caught and deported.

If someone is going to resort to such measures to enter the UK, then I don't see why they should be be entitled to anything here other than a hasty removal. You don't know what these people are when they turn up here or what they will do to "game the system" in an attempt to stay. Are they criminals, murderers or thieves who would never get in any other way? The only people getting an real advantage out of this operation are the criminals getting paid to smuggle them in the first place, and any facilities they receive are a courtesy whilst they are being processed.

I noticed that on that list "That there is inadequate access to internet, phones and phone chargers for detainees". I'm stunned how such is seen as a basic human right these days.

The only two rights that anyone should expect from being detained is (1) being dealt with quickly and fairly according to the rules given that most have no legal right to be here and (2) removal from the UK is swift and without abuse.

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

Is it right that someone who hasn't any rights to any of these things as a non-citizen should get them without paying for them?

If we've detained them within our justice system?

Yes.

Regardless of the circumstances that led to them being there in the first place - having arrested & detained them, we *do* have a duty of care to ensure that their health doesn't deteriorate whilst under that detention. In the same way we have a duty to make sure they have sufficient to eat, drink, a roof over their heads, warmth, personal safety...

By arresting them, the British justice system takes on that duty - because while they're under arrest, they don't have the capability or freedom to do it for themselves.

Having been deported (I'm going to steer clear of the arguments of whether or not deportion is always right, because that's another kettle of fish), that's different - but while our justice system chooses to detain them rather than either free or deport them, it *is* responsible.

[arron-shutt.livejournal.com]

I agree that essential medical care should be provided (such as if someone was injured whilst detained and required immediate treatment) as that falls under the courtesy service I mentioned above.

But if someone comes to the UK as an illegal immigrant with some kind of chronic/terminal disease (Cancer, AIDS etc) knowing fully that (1) they cannot afford such treatment in their native country and (2) They have no intention of paying for their own care in the UK and came here knowing such and (3) once deported, the UK is not going to be able to charge them for any treatment they have received.

I don't believe that such people have a right of claim for NHS healthcare under such circumstances, otherwise the asylum system becomes a "benefit island" where people claim asylum, get cured/helped with what ails them, and get free travel back home.

If a charity/individuals wished to donate healthcare to such people I wouldn't have a problem with it as it is a compassionate act.

I should point out that although it appears that I'm being a bit unfair to asylum seekers and I agree that their are genuine cases, there are certain aspects of humanity who will manipulate a situation to get the best out of it though contributing nothing themselves. I have relatives who managed to remain long-term unemployed for twenty five years despite two economic booms and giving up good jobs they were given merely because the money per unit effort wasn't good enough for them. And they pretty well out of the welfare system. As you can probably tell, I don't like such shameless way of life.

When I was temporarily unemployed, it was the worst time of my life and I couldn't wait to start doing something useful again..

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

although it appears that I'm being a bit unfair

It does, really... you seem to be saying that all of them, even the genuine refugees from torture etc, should be treated as though they were frauds.

By the same argument, no-one who's unemployed should ever get any benefits, because they might be doing it deliberately -- which would unfairly penalize those who are doing their best to find work.

My own feeling is that it's better to presume innocent until proven guilty. If that means taht sometimes who we end up deporting has had some free treatment in the meantime, that to me is preferable to us killing genuine refugees by withholding treatment from them.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I am wincing at this, mostly because I can't believe that you are basically saying that you would happily take someone dying on your doorstep and just say "go home and die. You're not my problem".

I find that a really really brutal attitude, and quite upsetting, honestly.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

If you already had dying people in your own home, who you were struggling to find beds and treatment for, your priorities might change.

I have no particular love for our country's administration, but we don't have the resources to adequately take care of our own sick and dying citizens, let alone the rest of the world. It would be brilliant if we could, but until then, someone has to be brutal. The fact it isn't you or me who makes those decisions is a luxury which I am thankful for.

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

But if someone comes to the UK as an illegal immigrant with some kind of chronic/terminal disease (Cancer, AIDS etc) knowing fully that [...] I don't believe that such people have a right of claim.

Well, that's a fairly extreme thought experiment - for the simple reason that it's going to be a lot more difficult for a chronically ill individual to physically cope with the practicalities of surviving being smuggled into the country to start with...

However, the cost of the potential treatment really doesn't make a difference - if as a country we have determined that the correct way to handle illegal immigrants is to forcibly detain them for months while their cases are assessed, then we have a responsibility to ensure their care during that time.

If we don't want to pay for the cost of that, we need to get our house in order and process the claims fast enough that it's less of an economic issue.

Yes, we may get viewed as a "benefit island" for daring to do that - and you know what? Good.

Good, because you can't put a price on human suffering, and just because some other countries in the world may treat prisoners appallingly doesn't mean we should even contemplate doing the same. We haven't got it perfect by any means - but we don't do badly.

Good, because it means we *have* an enviable healthcare system, education system, justice system... and most of the time, it's the people who *do* have a legal right to live here (whether or not they've paid their dues to have an economic 'right' to do so) who benefit from it. I don't have the figures to back up my assumption right now - but I suspect most asylum seekers *do* want to be accepted to live and work here...they aren't allowed to do so while waiting for their cases to be processed, but that doesn't mean they're necessarally unwilling.

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm following on from your error here and muddling "illegal immigrants" and "asylum seekers" within my argument.

I don't think it actually makes a difference to what I'm arguing, since as it happens I feel the same would hold in both circumstances - but it would be more consistent to read with one phrase used throughout!

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

I utterly agree we have duty of care over foreign nationals who we detain, but to be honest, whether I agree or not is immaterial. Their rights in such a situation are governed by international law, and as such have already been decided.

You say that you can't put a price on human suffering, but someone has to, because there's much, much more suffering than there are resources to deal with it. State medical care is an extremely complex and endemically deprived mess of resource management. We, as British citizens, don't just get given a donor organ or an expensive course of antiretroviral AIDS treatment simply because we need them. We need to demonstrate that it's an effective use of NHS resources for us to receive them.

Someone, somewhere, has to make the decisions about who should live and who should die, or who should receive eye surgery and who should go blind. It's very easy for us to be armchair humanitarians and sofa economists, but until I'm prepared to make better ones, I'm going to respect those decisions.

[nickys.livejournal.com]

> Is it right that someone who hasn't any rights to any of these things as a non-citizen should get them without paying for them?

All I can say is that fair and right are only really worth having if they are tempered with a bit of humanity and compassion.

Would you really leave another human being to die when a couple of pounds' worth of antibiotics at your expense could save their lives?

[arron-shutt.livejournal.com]

A few pounds perhaps. I'd see that as being OK given the benefit of the treatment for little or no effort.

I think the distinction I made was between treatment from medical situations that arose during from being detained (courtesy treatment) and providing medical care for conditions that they hoped to have treatment for whilst they were here. There are plenty of people within the UK who pay National Insurance and are already waiting for similar treatment who can't have it because we don't have the resources to give it to everyone. I work for the NHS indirectly myself, so I'm not saying this out of a sense of being some uncaring major Tory landowner or something.. :D

But are people really going to spend their own money (several thousand pounds paid to criminal gangs in some cases) to enter the country illegally to obtain a few pounds worth of antibiotics? I don't see it myself.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

If sickly foreigners have several thousand pounds to spare, we should be inviting them to come here and pay the NHS for their treatment.

Unfortunately though I think that the people who are happy to pay smuggler gangs all that money are not the same people who are in need of expensive medical treatment.

The vast majority of people who enter illegally in that way are healthy and fit young people who are looking to earn fast cash in the black economy, not wealthy invalids.

[diffrentcolours]

Nice to see you conflating asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. Have you considered a job at the Home Office?

[j4.livejournal.com]

Is it right that someone who hasn't any rights to any of these things as a non-citizen should get them without paying for them?

Actually, it makes me quite glad to think that by paying a really quite trivial amount of money in taxes I can contribute towards a system which not only looks after me when I'm ill but can provide life-saving medical care for refugees from torture.

Unfortunately, my taxes also get used to provide services for idiots who think foreigners are all criminals & should go back where they came from. But you can't win 'em all.

[taimatsu]

As <lj user="diffrentcolours" says, you are lumping together 'asylum seekers' and 'illegal immigrants' when there are often very real differences between the two groups. There is a difference between a healthy young person from China or North Africa or somewhere who wants to work illegally and earn money, and someone who has been seriously mistreated in their home country and has come here because they are terrified and cannot live there any longer. The article I mention above is to do with asylum seekers, the latter group, and does not apply to illegal immigrants who are not trying to claim asylum. Your mention of these people is therefore irrelevant. While some asylum seekers are 'bogus' in the tabloid phrase, I am not prepared to suppose that all of them are until proven otherwise. I am concerned that we should treat damaged people humanely if we detain them and it sounds like this is often not happening.

[mirabehn.livejournal.com]

Ack, I know. It's been making me furious and extremely upset for a little while now. Thank you for posting about it.

I really must talk to my brother-in-law about asylum seekers sometime - he's done a fair amount of work with them, knows what a lot of them have been through (even the ones who then end up having their claims rejected, I suspect - the home office seems to make some pretty dubious decisions sometimes...) and will I imagine be spitting with rage. Getting serious conversation out of my b-i-l is pretty difficult though. He still thinks I'm about 15. ;-)

The govt's treatment of asylum seekers, and immigrants from poor countries generally (especially when they are POC) is one of the most disgusting blights on our country that I can think of. Shades of the 1930s, when The Mail printed lies about Jewish immigrants from Germany and everyone believed them, and then the govt restricted the immigration. I need to read up more about this, but my understanding is that as a result, some Jews didn't get out of Germany and eastern Europe on time. You'd really think we'd have learned something since then. :-(

[arron-shutt.livejournal.com]

Right, first of all I like to thank everyone for their comments as they were very helpful. What I said bothered me all day today at work, which told me that there is certainly something wrong with it. It doesn't surprise me, I am frequently wrong about all manner of things. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything at 4am not having slept last night :( It is fortunate that I know many good people who can clearly show the mistake I made and where the fault lies.

It is not right that if someone comes to you desperately in need of help that you should turn him away if they are genuinely in need. I tried to put myself in the place of someone who flees a warzone stricken with disease from what had happened to me and then find that the likes of me telling them that they have no sympathy for what has happened. In reality if someone came to my doorstep beaten and bleeding I would do everything I could to help them.

I'm sorry if I upset anyone. I think that it partly the experience with my relatives that have coloured my opinions rather, then they are not directly applicable to this situation. I don't agree with what they have done, but I don't hate them for what they are, and again if they were in desperate need I would help them as well as I would anyone.

Taimatsu, you are indeed correct that I was treating people as being some generic group, when on consideration it isn't true. There are criminals and "parasites" (for want of a better word) both inside and outside of the UK. But one shouldn't assume that even a person or a group of people whom one has never met are guilty of being either of these at least without knowing whether that is the case. And I'm pretty sure that in the vast majority of cases they are aren't.

Unfortunately, my taxes also get used to provide services for idiots who think foreigners are all criminals & should go back where they came from. But you can't win 'em all.

Given that you taxes also pay my wages then I'd like to think that I do a good job for all people, and my services are provided free to the benefit to any member of the general public in the UK who requests them. And that also includes foreign visitors, asylum seekers and people through their poor choice of personal and regretable action towards other people will be in need of what I do for a living. It's ironic, that only the week before last I was taking on a hardcore BNP supporter for some rather unsavoury views, and I've managed make myself look a bit stupid here myself through not thinking..! :(