Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Click here if you want to lose the will to live.

The Home Office confirmed the bill would:

• Require temporary migrants, such as overseas students, who have only a "time-limited" immigration status, to make a contribution to the NHS. A £200 levy has been mentioned as an option.

Ok genuine question, but why shouldn't migrants have to pay an NHS contribution if it was a nominal fee of around £200? A hospital stay is likely going to cost the public purse more than that. I moved to the US and made damn sure that I had insurance for the 2-3 months before I would get on my wife's insurance.

What if they have their own private health coverage, whether their private health already covers it or they have travel insurance?

Different countries. Different process. Different prospective.

Not sure what you mean by that.

 Ouze wrote:
This mental exercise requires one to presume that an illegal alien is going to risk great and immediate harm to themselves and their families (discovery, deportation) in favor of some hypothetical future legislation which might, years after some future legislation happened and wound its way through the courts, benefit the alien's cohort in ways yet unknown.


This is a made up problem.

A made up problem? Maybe you missed the news with illegal immigrants standing outside the Senate with banners declaring that they are not in the country lawfully and demanding to be made lawful. Or a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who publishes articles about how he lives in the US illegally, and ICE makes no effort to deport him. The same group that the Democrats are actively courting?? That made up problem??

 Ouze wrote:
What if it rains ice cream? Shouldn't we be issuing everyone ice cream cones?

No politician of either party is going to introduce legislation grant blanket amnesty, and no president is going to sign such a law. Be serious.

Then you aren't aware of the current proposals. It would allow at least 10 million illegal immigrants to enter the fast track to become citizens - and that includes the right to vote

PhantomViper wrote:
Are you American or British? Because that sounds like a very American position for an European to have...

I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing human beings with human beings, just because they aren't "legal" doesn't mean that they don't have the right to the same standard of care as everyone else. Also some people that are unemployed have never contributed to the NHS, neither did children for that matter, do you plan to enforce this fee on them as well?

I'm Irish, so neither. But thank you for thinking that I should have a certain opinion because of the continent that I was born on. It makes it easier to discount the rest of your post

 motyak wrote:
Isn't this about UK immigration, not US immigration? What on earth are you an whembly on about re: US democratic party when this is a UK topic?

In case you weren't able to follow the thread which is currently less than a page long djones made a comment about immigration in general, which myself and Whembly responded too. Then easysauce also made a general comment about immigration, and I responded to both. So I was addressing UK immigration (specifically the nominal NHS fee as you can see me discussing above), giving some information about US immigration from the perspective of a recent migrant, and also commenting on immigration as a general subject.
Does that make it easier to follow?

 Krellnus wrote:
What if they have their own private health coverage, whether their private health already covers it or they have travel insurance?

I have no issue with that being an alternative

I was hoping to learn more about the issues in the U.K. considering the nature of the article in the OP but it seems my US brethren have taken this thread over.

Oh well.

YOU ESS EH! YOU ESS EH! YOU ESS EH! YOU ESS EH!

 agnosto wrote:
I was hoping to learn more about the issues in the U.K. considering the nature of the article in the OP but it seems my US brethren have taken this thread over.

Oh well.

Nothing stopping you from asking the UK readers questions about their immigration processes, perceptions, experiences, etc. and skipping over other posts. But I guess passive aggressive posting must just be easier

Considering I stated it outright, I don't think it was passive. I could have been rude and just asked you not to derail the thread but that ship has sailed since most of the posts in this thread are about US immigration issues.

A few years back, I saw a story about the camps around the Chunnel full of people from all over Europe and Africa waiting for a chance to jump on a train to England. Back in 2001, 500 or so asylum seekers stormed the Chunnel. Say what you will about conditions in the US but I've never heard tell of something that massive here.

 agnosto wrote:
Considering I stated it outright, I don't think it was passive. I could have been rude and just asked you not to derail the thread but that ship has sailed since most of the posts in this thread are about US immigration issues.

A few years back, I saw a story about the camps around the Chunnel full of people from all over Europe and Africa waiting for a chance to jump on a train to England. Back in 2001, 500 or so asylum seekers stormed the Chunnel. Say what you will about conditions in the US but I've never heard tell of something that massive here.

Seeing as you have explicitly mentioned the US does that mean that I can compare the US to the UK, or will that derail the thread further?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Considering I stated it outright, I don't think it was passive. I could have been rude and just asked you not to derail the thread but that ship has sailed since most of the posts in this thread are about US immigration issues.

A few years back, I saw a story about the camps around the Chunnel full of people from all over Europe and Africa waiting for a chance to jump on a train to England. Back in 2001, 500 or so asylum seekers stormed the Chunnel. Say what you will about conditions in the US but I've never heard tell of something that massive here.

Seeing as you have explicitly mentioned the US does that mean that I can compare the US to the UK, or will that derail the thread further?

lol. Dude. Like I said, that ship has sailed. It is interesting that the folks across the pond are wrestling with the same issues that we are.

 agnosto wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Considering I stated it outright, I don't think it was passive. I could have been rude and just asked you not to derail the thread but that ship has sailed since most of the posts in this thread are about US immigration issues.

A few years back, I saw a story about the camps around the Chunnel full of people from all over Europe and Africa waiting for a chance to jump on a train to England. Back in 2001, 500 or so asylum seekers stormed the Chunnel. Say what you will about conditions in the US but I've never heard tell of something that massive here.

Seeing as you have explicitly mentioned the US does that mean that I can compare the US to the UK, or will that derail the thread further?

lol. Dude. Like I said, that ship has sailed. It is interesting that the folks across the pond are wrestling with the same issues that we are.

The big difference is that immigrants coming to the UK have to pass through several other EU Member States that have signed the same conventions to help refugees (yet they don't settle down in the first available country for some reason), and GB is an island surrounded by water - the US has a large and not entirely protected border. So there are some practical differences

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:
What if they have their own private health coverage, whether their private health already covers it or they have travel insurance?

I have no issue with that being an alternative

Ok, it just wasn't immediatley apparent from your post whether you would blanket everybody coming in with this or not, thanks for clearing that up.

The only problem I can see is implementation, how do you make sure the people pay for this? Do you just hit them up when they pass through customs or perhaps have them pay when they are accepted for a visa? If they don't go to hospital, would you refund them the 200 quid when they leave or would you keep it as an 'entry fee' of sorts?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This mental exercise requires one to presume that an illegal alien is going to risk great and immediate harm to themselves and their families (discovery, deportation) in favor of some hypothetical future legislation which might, years after some future legislation happened and wound its way through the courts, benefit the alien's cohort in ways yet unknown.


This is a made up problem.

A made up problem? Maybe you missed the news with illegal immigrants standing outside the Senate with banners declaring that they are not in the country lawfully and demanding to be made lawful. Or a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who publishes articles about how he lives in the US illegally, and ICE makes no effort to deport him. The same group that the Democrats are actively courting?? That made up problem??

You're moving the goalposts to a completely different argument. I didn't deny illegal aliens are in the country. I said that the overwhelming majority of them are not illegally voting in US elections, to rebut Whembley's idea that they are "primary voters for democrats".

Which isn't even relevant since this is about the UK, anyway - we should have this argument again when we have a US based thread, which is probably in less that a week.

 Krellnus wrote:
The only problem I can see is implementation, how do you make sure the people pay for this? Do you just hit them up when they pass through customs or perhaps have them pay when they are accepted for a visa? If they don't go to hospital, would you refund them the 200 quid when they leave or would you keep it as an 'entry fee' of sorts?

The 200 GBP fee? Have it as part of the initial paperwork and fees when they apply for the visa. As far as a refund goes, I hadn't considered that but likely no. UK citizens don't get a refund of their NHS contributions if their lifetime care does not exceed the cost of treatment

 Ouze wrote:
You're moving the goalposts to a completely different argument. I didn't deny illegal aliens are in the country. I said that the overwhelming majority of them are not illegally voting in US elections, to rebut Whembley's idea that they are "primary voters for democrats".

Which isn't even relevant since this is about the UK, anyway - we should have this argument again when we have a US based thread, which is probably in less that a week.

To paraphrase an earlier response to another community member;
In case you weren't able to follow the thread djones made a comment about immigration in general, which myself and Whembly responded too. Then easysauce also made a general comment about immigration, and I responded to both. So I was addressing UK immigration (specifically the nominal NHS fee as you can see me discussing above), giving some information about US immigration from the perspective of a recent migrant, and also commenting on immigration as a general subject.
So in short the US position on immigration was brought up to compare and contrast, so obviously there will be some discussion on it. Again, if you wish to discuss UK immigration no one here is preventing you - although I will point out the irony in you only commenting on the US immigration side and not the UK side and then complaining that the UK side isn't being discussed

And there is no goal post moving. I responded to your concerns with the facts of the immigration debate in the US (a topic that you were quite happy to discuss at the time), and the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are likely to vote a particular way. Just because the facts do not support your position does not mean that the goalposts have been shifted.

Also, complaining about a thread being off-topic on Dakka? Come on, you're a community member who has been here longer than I. You must know by now that it's just par for the course

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Again, if you wish to discuss UK immigration no one here is preventing you - although I will point out the irony in you only commenting on the US immigration side and not the UK side and then complaining that the UK side isn't being discussed

At the time it was salient, and by the time I posted that it was OT I felt it no longer was, as such: The thread was started about the UK, and Whembly posted the US based comment I rebutted. After we briefly discussed that - i.e I responded to Whembly, he posted:

 whembly wrote:
Eh... I re-read the thread from the beginning... sorry for the de-rail ya'll.

Which, in combination with:

 motyak wrote:
Isn't this about UK immigration, not US immigration? What on earth are you an whembly on about re: US democratic party when this is a UK topic?

I took as my cue that the US based digression had ended. It's not like I decided "hey, this US discussion is now OT now that I feel like I'm losing the argument, or something". Especially because, of course, I didn't and don't feel like I was wrong but was asked to stop so I did.

3 OT posts in 2 pages, once again Dakka reveals itself to be the place to go for quality discussion. It seems all you need to do is utter certain key phrases and the usual suspects come out of the wood work.

 Yodhrin wrote:

This isn't about quelling some mythical tide of illegal migration, it is about a government making policy designed explicitly to appeal to the sort of voter who isn't just "anti illegal immigration", but rather just plain old anti-foreigner, and who would rather there be less of "them" around. To that mindset, an onerous and costly immigration regime which makes legitimate migrants feel unwelcome in this country is desirable for exactly that reason, which is why you won't see them get into their usual fevered hysteria about the cost of government programmes.

There is unfortunately nothing new there, newspaper editors have far too much power in modern democracy given that all the political parties seem hell bent on chasing the populist vote rather than actually governing the country.

When I was in the UK, the kids in my school would always complain bitterly about immigrants. I used to enjoy getting them to lay out all the problems, and then point out that I and the (much more well liked) australian teacher were both immigrants, and had come over to make up a shortfall in available science teachers since the UK is not producing enough graduates in those fields to fill the needs of the schools- or at least, UK science graduates don't take teaching jobs in enough numbers.

It was hilarious watching them trying to back track about how we weren't "real" immigrants. Yeah, it's mostly the brown people with the funny accents that are disliked.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Click here if you want to lose the will to live.

The Home Office confirmed the bill would:

• Require temporary migrants, such as overseas students, who have only a "time-limited" immigration status, to make a contribution to the NHS. A £200 levy has been mentioned as an option.

Ok genuine question, but why shouldn't migrants have to pay an NHS contribution if it was a nominal fee of around £200? A hospital stay is likely going to cost the public purse more than that. I moved to the US and made damn sure that I had insurance for the 2-3 months before I would get on my wife's insurance.

Overseas students already have to pay vastly inflated tuition fees in order to study here which more than cover the taxes most people pay to cover the NHS. Making them pay another £200 and declaring it an "NHS Levy" is just a roundabout way of trying to make yet more money off of them.

 Da Boss wrote:
When I was in the UK, the kids in my school would always complain bitterly about immigrants. I used to enjoy getting them to lay out all the problems, and then point out that I and the (much more well liked) australian teacher were both immigrants, and had come over to make up a shortfall in available science teachers since the UK is not producing enough graduates in those fields to fill the needs of the schools- or at least, UK science graduates don't take teaching jobs in enough numbers.

It was hilarious watching them trying to back track about how we weren't "real" immigrants. Yeah, it's mostly the brown people with the funny accents that are disliked.

Oh don't worry, thanks to the Daily Mail & Co and UKIP, European migrants -even highly skilled migrants we really desperately need to counteract our aging population and despicable low-skill low-wage low-opportunity economy- are well on the way to being just as reviled by the average punter down south as all the brown people with funny accents. The latest ridiculous lie being peddled by the Europhobic press is that apparently the EU are going to force Her Majesty's Great and Sovereign Government of the United Kingdom to appoint gypsy MPs, and that's not the worst of it; they have to be female gypsies! You can almost hear the monocles sploshing into teacups from clear across the country. I'd say "you couldn't make it up", except that's exactly what they're doing

One of the major catalysts in my decision to become pro-Scottish independence was the vile anti-foreigner anti-immigration cesspool that Westminster is happily wallowing in, and the very real danger they'd drag us down with them right out of the EU.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:
The only problem I can see is implementation, how do you make sure the people pay for this? Do you just hit them up when they pass through customs or perhaps have them pay when they are accepted for a visa? If they don't go to hospital, would you refund them the 200 quid when they leave or would you keep it as an 'entry fee' of sorts?

The 200 GBP fee? Have it as part of the initial paperwork and fees when they apply for the visa. As far as a refund goes, I hadn't considered that but likely no. UK citizens don't get a refund of their NHS contributions if their lifetime care does not exceed the cost of treatment
...
...

My wife and I have to pay over £2,500 to get her legalised in the UK, and she has lived, worked and paid tax here for nearly 20 years. This proposed £200 NHS fee is a red herring.

Good. Emigrating to the UK illegally is as difficult as booking a plane ticket, it'd be nice if the laws we had in place were actually enforced.

xruslanx wrote:
Good. Emigrating to the UK illegally is as difficult as booking a plane ticket, it'd be nice if the laws we had in place were actually enforced.

Care to back that assertion up?

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Good. Emigrating to the UK illegally is as difficult as booking a plane ticket, it'd be nice if the laws we had in place were actually enforced.

Care to back that assertion up?

He could, but that would be like having sex with animals, and he will have none of that!

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Good. Emigrating to the UK illegally is as difficult as booking a plane ticket, it'd be nice if the laws we had in place were actually enforced.

Care to back that assertion up?

There's nothing to back up really. If you want to illegally emigrate here from Pakistan all you do is get a plane to the UK and rent a house from your cousin once you're here.

 Goliath wrote:
Overseas students already have to pay vastly inflated tuition fees in order to study here which more than cover the taxes most people pay to cover the NHS. Making them pay another £200 and declaring it an "NHS Levy" is just a roundabout way of trying to make yet more money off of them.

Your argument doesn't follow. Paying fees for an education (which is subsidised by the UK tax payer) does not mean that a contribution cannot be made to the NHS. Its like saying that you won't pay road tax because you already pay VAT on goods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I took as my cue that the US based digression had ended. It's not like I decided "hey, this US discussion is now OT now that I feel like I'm losing the argument, or something". Especially because, of course, I didn't and don't feel like I was wrong but was asked to stop so I did.

You didn't feel like you were losing, you just stopped attempting to counter my points, and tried to claim that I was shifting the goal posts because that's a perfectly legitimate way to ensure that any off topic comments stop


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My wife and I have to pay over £2,500 to get her legalised in the UK, and she has lived, worked and paid tax here for nearly 20 years. This proposed £200 NHS fee is a red herring.

I live in the US, my wife and I have paid thousands already just to get me here, it'll cost more for me to get citizenship. I work and pay taxes here too, and I get no public assistance for the next 9 years. I have insurance through my work but if that wasn't the case I'd have to enroll in the ACA or be fined - all of which is a damn sight more than a one time £200 for the duration of a visa.

Also the proposed NHS fee doesn't cover your wife as it is for "temporary migrants, such as overseas students, who have only a "time-limited" immigration status" so I'm not certain what the bearing is on your wife's position.

xruslanx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Good. Emigrating to the UK illegally is as difficult as booking a plane ticket, it'd be nice if the laws we had in place were actually enforced.

Care to back that assertion up?

There's nothing to back up really. If you want to illegally emigrate here from Pakistan all you do is get a plane to the UK and rent a house from your cousin once you're here.

See, again, you're going to have to back that up. You can't just make an assertion, then when asked to support that assertion with some evidence, make another assertion.

First you have to provide a convincing argument that what you claim is actually happening, then you have to provide a convincing argument that it's happening on a large enough scale to justify this hugely intrusive vacantly-populist drek of a law.


And Dreadclaw69, as for the NHS; most people on temporary visas already have to pay for their care/provide EU insurance/travel insurance details, this policy specifically only refers to people who receive extended "limited leave to remain", ie students and the handful of other non-"Visitor"(ie tourist) temporary migrants, which is supposed to confer on such people almost all the privileges and responsibilities of a permanent resident. That includes access to healthcare. As a policy, it also ignores the fact that many foreign students who come here end up working part-time jobs like many students do, in which case they will be paying National Insurance and are already contributing to the NHS - are they going to be made to pay twice over, or should the policy have yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy added to divide people into "pays NI" and "doesn't pay NI"? Should there be more qualifiers than that? What if a student gets a job in the first two years of their degree, but relies on other income in the last two years because the workload on the course is higher - are those two years of NI contributions enough, or should they be charged the £200 fee during years 3 and 4 of the degree?

Further, what's £200 if they need actual serious treatment? I mean fine, if you charge them £200 and all they need over the duration of their stay is a couple of visits to the GP and a prescription for antibiotics, you're sorted, but what happens if they break a leg and need surgery, or develop mental health issues, or contract a serious illness - are we going to have to extend the policy and have UK Border Agency goons hovering over "foreigners" in the hospital like Bailiffs, to make sure they pay extra?

And further, Goliath's argument in fact does follow, because the NHS is not funded exclusively through National Insurance, its budget is also contributed to out of general taxation, so in effect everyone who pays any sort of tax is, in fact, contributing to the NHS, including student migrants with no job. Those tuition fees mean more money in the government's coffers, the rent they pay to landlords means more money in the government's coffers, they pay 20% VAT on almost everything they buy just like the rest of us - they're contributing every bit as much to the NHS as a disabled person, while putting far less burden on the service itself, but I doubt there's many who'd advocate putting a cash-levy on the disabled.

So the only reason left to advocate this policy is, as I originally stated; "because foreign". Because someone doesn't like foreigners, or someone is a politician seeking to appeal to such people.

 Yodhrin wrote:
And Dreadclaw69, as for the NHS; most people on temporary visas already have to pay for their care/provide EU insurance/travel insurance details, this policy specifically only refers to people who receive extended "limited leave to remain", ie students and the handful of other non-"Visitor"(ie tourist) temporary migrants, which is supposed to confer on such people almost all the privileges and responsibilities of a permanent resident. That includes access to healthcare

I was not aware of that requirement, thanks for the clarification

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Good. Emigrating to the UK illegally is as difficult as booking a plane ticket, it'd be nice if the laws we had in place were actually enforced.

Care to back that assertion up?

There's nothing to back up really. If you want to illegally emigrate here from Pakistan all you do is get a plane to the UK and rent a house from your cousin once you're here.

See, again, you're going to have to back that up. You can't just make an assertion, then when asked to support that assertion with some evidence, make another assertion.

This is why arguing with people on the internet is stupid. You are insisting that I take a plane journey from pakistan to england just to prove a point.

To be fair it's not as bad as on another forum where i was asked to examine every single year of history from the 14th century to the 19th.

xruslanx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Good. Emigrating to the UK illegally is as difficult as booking a plane ticket, it'd be nice if the laws we had in place were actually enforced.

Care to back that assertion up?

There's nothing to back up really. If you want to illegally emigrate here from Pakistan all you do is get a plane to the UK and rent a house from your cousin once you're here.

See, again, you're going to have to back that up. You can't just make an assertion, then when asked to support that assertion with some evidence, make another assertion.

This is why arguing with people on the internet is stupid. You are insisting that I take a plane journey from pakistan to england just to prove a point.

To be fair it's not as bad as on another forum where i was asked to examine every single year of history from the 14th century to the 19th.

It sounded like he wanted you to provide some sort of statistical evidence actually, about how that is a common way for illegal immigrants to arrive. I can't see anywhere he told you to take a plane trip etc. But providing stats and actually trying to honestly counter his argument is probably like having sex with animals.

 motyak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Good. Emigrating to the UK illegally is as difficult as booking a plane ticket, it'd be nice if the laws we had in place were actually enforced.

Care to back that assertion up?

There's nothing to back up really. If you want to illegally emigrate here from Pakistan all you do is get a plane to the UK and rent a house from your cousin once you're here.

See, again, you're going to have to back that up. You can't just make an assertion, then when asked to support that assertion with some evidence, make another assertion.

This is why arguing with people on the internet is stupid. You are insisting that I take a plane journey from pakistan to england just to prove a point.

To be fair it's not as bad as on another forum where i was asked to examine every single year of history from the 14th century to the 19th.

It sounded like he wanted you to provide some sort of statistical evidence actually, about how that is a common way for illegal immigrants to arrive. I can't see anywhere he told you to take a plane trip etc. But providing stats and actually trying to honestly counter his argument is probably like having sex with animals.

Oh okay. He was only asking me for data on illegal immigrants.

Data...on illegal immigrants.



For what it's worth I work with dozens of guys who just got on a plane over here and don't know or care what a visa is. But personal experience is irrelevent in the face of (deep breath) EVIDENCE. No, I have no data on illegal immigrants. If I did, they wouldn't be illegal...