A consultation paper by the Conservative party has suggested that all immigrants coming into the UK should be screened for infectious diseases such as Aids and TB. People entering the country as immigrants would have to pay for the screening which would be administered at the point of application.
Asylum seekers would be detained until it was clear the tests had been met.
The document says that more than 50% of tuberculosis cases in the UK now occur in people born abroad, the majority of whom arrived in Britain within the last 10 years.
Would compulsory screening help to protect public health in the UK? Or could it lead to the stigmatisation of sections of the population?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
 |  It could be used as an excuse to keep those with the most expensive conditions...out of the country  |
In principal it is actually a good idea not just for the immigrant who could have been exposed to who knows what on their travels. Unfortunately, it could be used as an excuse to keep those with the most expensive or least media friendly conditions out of the country.
Ian, UK Eminently sensible, but how on earth do you screen asylum seekers/immigrants who get into the country without stepping off planes? What about the hundreds who are smuggled in every year? How can they be screened if no-one knows they're here?
Helen, UK
Why not? When I left the UK to live & work in Bermuda I had to have a full medical & a chest X-ray to ensure I didn't have TB. I didn't find it a problem. I think it's a very good idea.
Susannah, UK
Without diagnosis there can be no treatment. Isn't that a good enough reason alone?
Peter D, UK
I am currently in the process of emigrating to Canada and my health has been screened. I don't feel that this was prejudicial or even strange.
Tony, UK
| These health checks are implemented by many other countries, and are fairly commonplace |
As a British citizen who pays the taxes that the government spends, I expect the government to protect my interests. Of course it would be nice for us to offer all asylum seekers free healthcare, but when the NHS struggles to look after the people who have contributed their taxes all their lives, it just isn't fair. These health checks are implemented by many other countries, and are fairly commonplace so surely the question is why are they already in place?
Alison, Leeds, UK I think that it is a good policy to blame asylum seekers for the country's Third World public services. The Conservative party have tried almost everything to apportion blame for the Labour government's failures on public services but that could not buy them any popularity, so who is there to be blamed? Asylum seekers. How about blaming asylum seekers for traffic congestions, train delays, education failures and so on? No wonder you are branded the 'nasty party' by your own party chairwoman.
Tom, UK
Hey let's test tourists too! We could blockade ships in quarantine, fumigate aircraft passengers en route, burn anything that comes in the post, stop all imports and feel safe in the knowledge that 'Johnny foreigner' won't be sending his bugs over here. Why don't we close the motorways and railways, introduce smart ID cards cross referencing our medical/police/financial records etc? I know; compulsory health checks for the poor! They always seem more ill than the rest of us!
Ian, UK The compulsory health checks on immigrants undoubtedly protect the whole population of any country. The screening should be physical and mental. This kind of assessment should not have ties to political, religious, economical, discriminatory or ethnic considerations but be based on compassion for our fellow humans seeking a better life.
Dr. Jose Nigrin, Guatemala
Of course they should! It's a health thing, and they should all be checked for the sake of public health. It's not offensive or racist, just common sense.
Paul Sealey, England
I think it's a practical measure. I migrated to Australia a couple of years ago and had to have a medical including blood tests and a chest x-ray as part of the visa application process. Why should asylum seekers be any different?
Richard, Australia As a British ex-pat, I have spent many years working overseas and in some cases required a full medical to obtain my visa. Name one other country that will allow immigrants to arrive without a visa, with no money and then get everything on a plate. Answer - there isn't one!
Corin, Hong Kong
What happens to genuine asylum seekers who are screened and found to have an infectious deadly disease? Are they simply abandoned to die because they cannot return to their own country? Perhaps there should be a global fund contributed to by all developed countries to cover the cost of testing and treatment in these cases.
Sadie, Switzerland
What can possibly be wrong with a paper which recommends a common sense approach to health, unless of course the government are now so terrified of the lobby groups for migrants that we are prepared to tolerate the threat such illnesses pose to our national health? I can hear the apologists screaming already
Matthew, UK
If it means that people in South Africa, denied treatments for AIDS related illnesses by the West and its control of the drugs industry, can instead come here and get treatment then fine.
Andrew Riddles, UK
| People without disease should also have rights |
This is not discriminatory but helpful both to the person concerned and to the population at large. People without disease should also have rights.
Jan, England Surely if 50% of new HIV cases are from migrants then 50% are from UK residents? Education is needed to prevent the spread of HIV, not screening. However, for TB I agree screening is certainly a good idea.
A, UK
If only I could believe this was fuelled by a genuine concern for public health, rather than yet another round in the "who can appear toughest on (whatever happens to be uppermost in the public's mind)". Today's group for demonisation is asylum seekers.
Richard Gregory, UK
| Scaremongering of the worst and most dangerous kind |
This is simply scaremongering of the worst and most dangerous kind. It's pandering to the prejudices of the British people - feeding on, and giving credence to an, entirely false, perception that there are great armies of "these people", waiting to "flood" the UK, take all our jobs, destroy our communities and swamp the NHS.
Gareth, UK I don't think there is anything wrong with screening so long as the objective is to identify and treat asylum seekers in urgent need of medical assistance and to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. I don't believe they should have to pay for screening as this could mean that destitute, bona fide asylum seekers would be prevented from applying for protection.
Susan Saliba, Malta
As a relative of a GP working in an inner-city area I am only too aware of the large number of people travelling to this country on "holiday", and then presenting themselves with diseases requiring treatment such as TB. I do not believe screening is important for protecting public health, the most serious diseases would probably not be stopped anyway, but more fundamentally it is needed to stop people purposefully taking advantage of the NHS to receive treatment they would have to pay for at home.
James Wright, UK
Should migrants have compulsory health checks? Why not? I am a postgraduate student from Japan, but it is shocking that the UK government is not making such a fundamental effort for the public health. It has nothing to do with racism as far as all the would-be immigrants from any racial backgrounds are required to go through the same process.
Yoshi Katakura, Japan/UK
| Additional strains on the healthcare system cannot be tolerated |
As a Healthcare Professional I have seen how the NHS struggles to cope with the illness and disease already present in the UK. This is getting worse rather than better, additional strains on the healthcare system cannot be tolerated. Health screens take place when applying for immigration so we should screen asylum seekers. Any travel abroad requires insurance to avoid excessive costs to individuals' and countries' healthcare systems so why shouldn't the UK be more restrictive with whom they allow to enter.
Jan, England I'd be more inclined to believe this was 'humane' if it wasn't coming from the usual anti-asylum brigade who blame every social ill on immigrants. What will happen to those too poor to pay for tests? Presumably they'll be deported. Won't this deny access to all but the rich? Also, the attempt to portray immigrants as a burden on the health service ignores that a very high proportion of NHS workers are immigrants. Without them the Health Service would collapse.
Ben Drake, York, UK
As a health care professional I am aware that our Health service is unable to sustain the cost of the spread of these diseases. Indeed we are overstretched and the situation at the coal face is getting worse, not better. Not only that, as a visitor abroad I know that with out adequate insurance I would not be treated for illnesses in other countries, other than emergency treatment. Even that is not free in other countries. We are a soft touch! I'm all for screening
Lou, England
| If they arrive here requiring medical attention they should pay |
I worked abroad for most of my working life. I always had to have a thorough medical examination before leaving this country and I always had to produce documentation to prove my fitness. I am absolutely sick to my teeth with the do-gooders in this country who continually mouth on about the rights of these illegals. The majority of these people are economic refugees who would not know persecution if it jumped up and bit them on the nose. Further more if they arrive here requiring medical attention they should pay.
R Stewart, England I have worked in 10 countries on a residency basis (Immigrant) In 5 of them it was obligatory to undergo medical checks as condition to obtain residency or employment permit. I simply hated those occasions. It is not that somebody is concerned for your health. They are phobic of a foreigner bringing disease to their country. On the other hand they are not concerned about this foreigner picking up a health problem from the citizens of the host country who are not obliged to undergo health check. It cannot be called racist but it is discriminatory. I would not recommend an obligatory health check for people coming legally to seek employment.
Mikko Toivonen, Finland
As a recent immigrant to the US, I have to have a medical exam (which will cost me about $400)and I fully support this. I could not get a work visa in Egypt or in Qatar without an Aids test or a chest Xray for TB. The UK should refuse entry to anyone with infectious diseases. The UK Health system is the best in the world but is being overwhelmed with treating people who should never have been allowed in and who infect others.
Jan, US/UK
I was screened before entering this country both in South Africa and at Heathrow Airport, and I have my documents to support this. Blood samples and a chest x-ray were taken on me and given a clean bill of health before being allowed into the country.
Kennedy Zulu, England
| To me it seems like a sound and pragmatic requirement |
A friend of mine emigrated to Australia a few months back. He was required to undergo a full medical which screened for TB, among other things. I'm led to believe this has been mandatory for all wanting to live down under for many years. To me it seems like a sound and pragmatic requirement. I wish people would get off this PC bandwagon, and take a look at the world around them. Some things need to be implemented for the good of a society as a whole, and this is when the personal misguided misgivings of a minority need to be overruled.
Andy, UK Now we really have entered catch 22 with an asylum case, if we plan to give every asylum seeker compulsory health checks then what happens to the already backlogged NHS. It's only a matter of time before the NHS buckles under the weight of it's duty to the citizens of the UK and that includes asylum seekers. Unfortunately it is a matter of fact that accepting asylum seekers into this country will add to the weight to the demise of the UK public sector enterprises, however I have to concede that if we continue to allow asylum seekers into our country then we have to take measures to ensure the health of our existing residents.
J Young, UK
Medical checks for immigrants may be a sensible policy as long as it is introduced for the right reasons: that being the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases. However, given that the issue of asylum seekers tends to evoke strong reactions, suspicions that the Conservative Party has proposed this policy in order to gain support are bound to emerge.
John Wallace, UK
| What about the millions of tourists and business travellers? |
It only takes a few seconds to pass on an infectious disease! Can someone please tell me why are the Tories limiting the testing to asylum seekers? What about the millions of tourists and business travellers arriving or transiting here every year? Or did I just see a bandwagon rolling past?
Andy, UK We should do whatever is most cost effective for the UK. The duty of the government is to do what is best for UK voters and tax payers, not for would-be migrants.
JR, UK
| Well done the Conservatives for having the guts to raise the issue |
I am not a Tory voter, but thank goodness at least one of the parties has the guts to put forward such a sensible proposal. It's called protecting the public health, if any of the PC brigade hadn't realised. Latest evidence laid before a Commons Select Committee showed that over 50% of new UK Aids cases were from migrants. Surely to identify individuals and treat accordingly is common sense. Well done the Conservatives for having the guts to raise the issue in our increasingly pathetic PC culture.
Glen, UK I think the UK needs mandatory health checks on all immigrants coming into the UK. Furthermore all health checks should be paid by the immigrant not the taxpayer. This is how it's done in the US and this is how it should be done in the UK. Ashish, U.S.
| Why is it that no new initiative in the UK can be floated without it being labelled racist? |
Here's another ex-pat who was rigorously tested on entry to the US. Whichever way you look at it, it all seems to be a very reasonable precaution. Why is it that no new initiative in the UK can be floated without it being labelled racist or a slur on asylum seekers? This seems to have become the standard knee jerk response (from all the usual suspects) to any suggestion of change, no matter what the potential cost of inaction might be.
Hamish, USA Of course; we check food stuffs, we check and quarantine animals, yet the biggest threat of disease to humans are other humans. Checks should be made on all people who have either been out of the country for a prolonged duration or who are coming to this country for a prolonged stay. Those who are ill should either be treated at their expense if they do not qualify for national health treatment, or returned to their country of origin.
Duncan, London, UK
| If the word "immigration" is mentioned then these groups automatically resort to charges of racism |
The reaction of the Liberal Democrats and the out-of-touch pressure groups is understandable and sad. If the word "immigration" is mentioned then these groups automatically resort to charges of racism. How can this policy be racist when it will apply to all immigrants wherever they come from in the world? Why is wanting to prevent the spread of disease and ensuring that the NHS is not overburdened suddenly so "racist" and "extremist"? Good on Dr Fox for highlighting this problem and proposing some sensible solutions.
Mark, UK As a world travelled English person, I am amazed at the small-minded bigots who assume that health screening is racist. I believe this is not for public debate. Governments and the World Heath Organisation make a common sense decision and protect the very people that you govern. After all those shouting racist would not shout so loudly if they or a loved one contracted a disease because of a lack of health screening. So all government parties, this needs to be on your agenda to ensure a safe and healthy Britain/Europe in the future.
Sue, UK ex- pat
I think that this screening would add to the already present stigmatisation of foreign nationals. As a health worker, I feel that this screening would be contravening the rights of the human being concerned. As it stands at present, for any one to be tested for Aids, they should be given adequate counselling and their consent gained. So will this testing be done according to these regulations or will people be held at a ransom because they want to visit this country. I think the Conservative Party should look closer to home and deal with the unemployed and drug addicts that are resident in this country.
Christine, UK
| What is wrong with trying to protect a failing National Health Service |
If I want to live in another country - in my case within the EU because of my age (55) I am expected to be in good health - and to prove it! What is wrong with trying to protect a failing National Health Service.
Valerie Newman, England Where will it stop? What about if an asylum seeker who has been tortured needs medical attention for that reason? Will we send them back because they have been tortured and we don't want to treat them? It's all a very slippery slope.
Stuart, London, UK
Some people don't seem to know that "racist" means "discrimination on grounds of race". Unless "migrants" are a new classification of race, then it is not any more racist than requiring all workers have a NI number. As to the policy, if I get heath insurance, it excludes pre-existing complaints for obvious reasons. Why should we as a country not do the same?
Martin, England, UK
In 2000 I applied for a job in Qatar. In order to obtain a visa to enter that country (once British ruled) it was necessary for me to have full medical clearance which involved comprehensive blood tests (including HIV and hepatitis), chest X-rays and a full physical examination. I did not consider this an infringement of my rights. All immigrants or asylum seekers to Britain should be required to submit to similar tests and non-compliance should result in the refusal of entry.
J Fromson, France
| I suggest it checks its own citizens after returning from holidays abroad |
And shall we also keep them in quarantine for six months? If the government is worried about infectious diseases especially sexually transmitted ones, I suggest it checks its own citizens after returning from holidays abroad. I am sure that all of us are aware of the high levels of promiscuity and the lack on inhibitions that Britons seem to aquire when on holiday.
Jeremy Cedenio, UK Many countries have such policies in place and seeing as illnesses such as TB are rapidly rising in our cities, it's the safest course to take. Other members of the European community will not treat migrants if they have not been in Europe for a set period of time. When the UK tried to change its laws to match those of Europe we were blocked - why? This is probably one of the only ways this country can control the flood of migrants adding pressure to our already strained NHS.
Gill, UK
I entirely agree with the suggestion that all immigrants are tested for Aids, TB and other communicable diseases, when arriving in the Country. I am fortunate enough to have lived in the UAE, where it is absolutely compulsory for any new resident, who wishes to work and reside in the UAE to have a full medical test, and why not? The cost of care and medication for Aids patients is huge, when asylum seekers are ill and have to be hospitalised, taking beds and resources away from taxpaying residents. I am surprised that this hasn't been done before now. By the way, if anyone tests positive in the UAE, you have approximately 24 hours to leave - something to think about!
Katrina, UAE
Who is responsible for this not happening and why haven't they been sacked?
Robert Alexander, UK
I am surprised that this suggestion hasn't been put into practice before now. It is all very well allowing people with all kinds of diseases to settle here but what about our hospitals? They are already almost at breaking point. To introduce more sick people into a country that cannot cope with its own sick residents is foolhardy to say the least.
S. Cohen, UK
Sure, go ahead and check all 'immigrants'. Also, make sure you check all British nationals who have been abroad for over 3 months - why exempt them?
RSS, Kenya
Racist? What rubbish! - Testing someone to see if they have a contractible disease has nothing to do with racism. White people are just as likely to have a disease as black, brown and yellow people. I am sure that if it is introduced (which is unlikely because it is a Tory policy!) it will apply to all arrivals from high risk countries, including Britons returning home.
Tim Nicholson, United Kingdom How tragic that people's lives may well be lost because people would be far happier to see people's health go unchecked, rather than to dare do anything that could be construed as being racist. Such logic will surely kill more people from ethnic minorities than it will protect from perceived racism.
Lucille, England
Even before I was allowed to obtain a visa, to immigrate to the USA, I had to have health checks including chest x-rays. I don't feel I was discriminated against, as everyone had to go through this process.
Andrew T, USA
Yes there should be some kind of medical checks for infectious disease of any immigrants entering the UK. This should be done across the board. This is not a racial issue, it's a health issue. TB is making a big comeback and also we can't forget about SARS.
Mark, Swindon, UK
This is another example of racism. So what if the incidence of TB is rising in the UK. We have medical facilities to treat any disease. It is all just a ploy to keep asylum seekers out of the UK.
McKane, UK
McKane, UK - "We have medical facilities to deal with any disease" Rubbish! Our NHS is failing and pensioners have to wait years to get operations. Just because you don't use it very much (or you'd know the state of it) doesn't mean in can handle infinite problems.
Anon, UK
I moved to the US 4yrs ago and underwent stringent testing. I was surprised at the expense and the fact that even though I'm English and inoculated they tested for everything they could. Why is it only in Britain these tests are considered racist? As for 'prejudicial' policies, I'm white, middle class and educated. It seems common sense will be ignored again. If one life threatening disease is passed on, that's one too many, especially when it could be prevented.
Gareth Dean, US/UK-ex-pat I don't see why people are complaining. Diseases that were almost completely gone from Western Europe not so long ago are now on the increase. All countries should do this. It's not to stop immigration or be racist, it's so that highly infectious diseases are caught before they have a chance to spread even further. With the NHS in the state it's in, it must make more sense to stop this problem at the root, rather than having to treat all the people it spreads to.
Christine, UK
I am surprised that these tests are not routinely being carried out. I had taken it for granted that like most countries the UK required this too. Public Health and safety should take precedence over other issues even if it leads to stigmatisation of sections of population.
Arif Sayed, Dubai, UAE
What about the millions of tourists who come to the UK from foreign countries? What about returning UK citizens who have spent a holiday at an exotic location known to be affected by infectious diseases? This proposal suggests that only immigrants bring infectious diseases.
Cesar Izzat, UK
Everybody should be checked, but there is a difference between asylum seekers and normal immigrants. Asylum seekers are fleeing, and should get our care, normal immigrants should have something to contribute to the country - and TB shouldn't be it.
Catherine, UK
| I believe we should all take precautions in preventing the unnecessary spread of disease |
I'm a South African now living in the UK. I arrived two years ago having paid a lot of money to be x-rayed for tuberculosis, as I understood this was a requirement for entrance into the UK. The x-rays are still in my suitcase, unopened. I find it discriminatory to want to subject people to testing, but at the same time I believe we should all take precautions in preventing the unnecessary spread of disease. Are asylum seekers not provided with general medical examinations before they're placed in shelter? This would give them peace of mind as well as providing the government with the opportunity to monitor the health of immigrants.
Jason Miles, UK The only people who complain about this very sensible idea are the usual collection of muddle-headed liberals and those who would criticise anything the Tories proposed on anything. It is a disgrace that TB, which was eradicated in the UK, is back because no new entrants are screened. This is not racist in any shape or form, just common sense.
Malcolm, UK
There may be some merit in the scheme but isn't it strange how the Tories come up with these highly contentious schemes when another Government has to put them into practice. They had 18 years in government and never dared introduce such schemes.
G.G.Heathcote, England
Yes, migrants definitely should have compulsory health checks. So should all poor people. It is scientifically proven that the poorest in society carry much higher incidences of communicable diseases. Therefore, anyone below a government set 'certified healthy by class, status and income' benchmark should be routinely put into quarantine until proven disease free. Naturally, the extra cost of this system must be borne by those whose very poverty is the root cause of their illnesses. This is necessary to protect public health in the UK. Also, anyone caught sneezing should be shot, or put on an offshore floating isolation gulag.
Darrim Daoud, UK
It should be a matter of course that all nationals have a check up every five years or so and every person entering this country with a view or desire to stay should also have one.
Richard, UK
Screening people for TB from the subcontinent is a standard immigration procedure, and is paid for by the person who is applying for an UK visa. People who think otherwise are talking from a position of appalling ignorance. A great many people from subcontinent have to undergo treatment even where there is no clear evidence of the disease. Treatment of TB is dangerous when one does not have the disease (one can be blinded by the cocktail of antibiotics). And to talk of a very treatable disease like TB in terms of "public health hazard" only plays into the hands of right-wing fanatics. Also, the thinking that diseases like TB and Aids have no British origin is deeply flawed. The number of prominent Britons who have died have TB (who never travelled to the subcontinent or had any contact with people from that part of the world) runs into hundreds, if not thousands. Therefore any talk of TB as a disease that occurs elsewhere is prejudiced.
Debanjan Chakrabarti, Indian student in UK
I'm immediately suspicious of the motives. Perhaps to prevent abuse of the results, the checks and the asylum processing should be done in parallel - that way we can guarantee that we aren't turning anyone away on health grounds.
JS, UK
I don't see what the big deal is. When I emigrated to the US, I had to have a medical, including an AIDS test, TB test and had to show proof that a long list of vaccinations were up to date. It's the price of entry, and you accept that when you decide to move to another country.
Ruth, USA (ex-UK)
Trying to justify this policy by quoting the fact that there are stringent health checks to get into both the US or Australia is bogus as these countries have notoriously prejudicial immigration policies. I for one do not want to live in a country where we make judgements on a person's suitability to be here on the basis of their health. Where will it all end? Will we start deporting ill people out of the country to lessen the burden? Once again the two very separate issues of asylum/refuge seekers and immigration have been confused by everyone.
Stuart Fenton, UK
Stuart Fenton: Screening would-be migrants for infectious diseases is simply sensible public health planning. And Australia does not have 'notoriously prejudicial immigration policies'. Oz is the only place I know with a truly multicultural society where immigrants from all four corners of the earth are welcomed into the wider community and have made Australia what it is today.
Nick Johnson, UK
| We are letting everyone down if we allow infectious diseases to go undetected. |
I find the reaction of the Lib Dem spokesman extraordinary. How can this sensible suggestion be branded 'extremist'? We live on a small island with densely crowded metropolitan areas. We are letting everyone down if we allow infectious diseases to go undetected. Elected politicians are public servants who are responsible for the well being of the population and the greater good of the nation. Shame on you Mr Harris.
Duncan, UK Typically, the only people to disagree with this proposal thus far both cite racism. The proposal intends to screen all immigrants, how can that be racist? It's not a selective policy. Wake up! Don't you realise your ridiculous objections to anything reasonable or sensible is fuelling the growth in far right extremism.
Andy Coombes, England
I recently applied for and obtained a 1 year visa to live in Thailand. As a part of that process I had to have both a criminal record check and also a medical from my GP to certify that I was free from 5 serious illnesses including, T.B. Syphilis and Drug Addiction. I wanted to go to Thailand so that was what I had to do to obtain the Visa. So what's all the fuss about? Are we so worried that as a nation we might be seen as protecting ourselves from serious disease? It's about time these silly people started considering protecting the health interests of the British public and also looked at the immigration and health requirements of other nations before getting on their self-righteous, politically correct, high horses! Yes, of course we should screen.
Peter Smith, England
I find it disgusting that the Tories are making such proposals and making such as big issue out of it. Talk about jumping on the bandwagon of the right wing press! What they should be saying is "we would introduce detailed health check-ups for all asylum seekers". After travelling in the most difficult conditions, refugees deserve our care, not to be treated like animals! If the Tories really want to rebrand themselves as compassionate, they will have to cut out policies of this kind!
Chris Williams, UK (Solihull)
We must remember that they true asylum seekers are coming from war torn countries with poor facilities. I think that we should have been screening them from the start - not as a barrier to entry but to ensure that they can receive the right medical attention. Migration should be treated in the same way as part of the immigration process they should be screened for everything not only for our safety but their own too. I think this policy is good as long as all the 'What ifs?' have been answered before it becomes a part of the immigration policy.
Helen, UK
Health checks. Another gimmick from our glorious political leaders. I would prefer it if they were doing something to secure the UK's borders (from illegal immigrants and terrorists), but yet again someone chooses to score political points rather than address the real issue - lack of mainland security.
Roger Morgan Freedlan, England
As a South African I had to provide x-rays at Heathrow as part of my Working Visa requirements to prove I did not have TB - if it is compulsory for us, it should be compulsory for everyone - I was not offended to be asked, as I know I come from a country with a high TB infection rate, and the UK has every right to make sure I am not carrying the disease
Peter, UK
| It's got to be applied to all entering the country or not at all |
Another attempt by the Tories to make their racist policies appear rational but the real reason is to put more fear into the population - "let's blame illness on immigrants as well as crime". Why pick only on immigrants? What about returning ex-pats who may have been based abroad for several years? What about holidaymakers returning from high-risk areas? It's got to be applied to all entering the country or not at all.
Ken, Scotland Yes, absolutely. A friend of mine recently took a teaching job in Saudi Arabia, and before being allowed in she had to take tests for HIV, TB and Hepatitis. Quite rightly, the Saudis want to keep their people free of disease. Why don't we do this? Could it be pressure from the loony-lefties who smear everything like this as 'racist'? There's nothing racist about it, it's a matter of public health.
Andrew Howlett, England
The fact that asylum seekers do not already have these health checks just shows how behind the UK is once again. This is clearly beneficial for the person having the check, as it is for all other UK residents. This has nothing to do with racism either, these checks should be administered to anyone wishing to reside in the UK, as they are in Australia and America already. Its a sensible solution to protect our nation & give help to people that need it - maybe that's why our government are again dragging their feet
Kirsty, UK
I agree that all immigrants should have health checks, but shouldn't we sort out the whole immigration procedure first, without adding further issues to slow things up?
Isabelle, UK
| Any such undertaking is likely to cost a lot of money |
At first glance, the idea sounds good. However, any such undertaking is likely to cost a lot of money and take a lot of resources from the already strained health system. I'm not sure taxpayers are willing to empty their pockets unless there is a just cause to suspect screening needs to be done. Then again, immigration as we know it changes all the time, so maybe in a near future, health screening of immigrants will be as natural as checking their passports upon arrival.
Kerstin Carlsson, Sweden Take away the emotion for a minute. There are stringent checks on animals before they can be moved, in order to protect the livestock they come into contact with in their new location. Why should human beings in the UK or anywhere else for that matter, deserve any less protection?
Kathy, UK
Absolutely. I teach refugees and it can be worrying when you are working at close quarters with people who may have only been in the country for a matter of weeks and knowing that in their own countries' health services or access to health care would have been minimal. Surely it would be a good idea as it benefits refugees as well as the local population.
Pat, UK
As Brits living/working in the USA, to get our green card we had to have a stringent medical, including Aids test, TB X-rays and compulsory vaccinations, all at our own expense. Why should the British economy be drained by immigrants coming to the UK who need ongoing medical attention? It's time Britain looked after its own first!
Linda, USA
When I emigrated to the UK from New Zealand in 1995 I had to be X-rayed for TB when I arrived at Heathrow airport. It was a condition of my visa, notwithstanding that in NZ people are vaccinated against TB at the same age as kids in Britain. When did this policy stop? It seemed eminently sensible to me, and I had no problem with it. It wasn't "racist" either - I am white.
Freya James, UK
I have just returned to the UK after spending 3 years out in Kuwait working as an ex-pat. Before flying out to the Middle East to start work I had to have a full and comprehensive health check (including Hepatitis and HIV tests) in the UK as a pre-condition of getting an entry visa from the Kuwaiti Embassy in London. This was in addition to getting official certification that I wasn't diabetic or had any serious heart problems. A few days after arriving in Kuwait I then had to have a chest X-ray (to test for TB) and yet another HIV test. This medical was mandatory and I would have been deported if I had refused to comply. If it's OK for the Kuwaitis to insist on such health checks for all immigrants, then it's OK for the UK Government to do likewise.
Arnold Robbins, London, UK It is clearly necessary and common sense. This means there is absolutely no chance of it happening.
Richard White, London, UK
In America they have health checks and anyone found with TB is turned away, regardless. So long as the health checks are not used as a barrier to entry for legitimate asylum seekers I don't have a problem.
Wendy, UK
I think the question comes with what happens when the tests are finished. The debate will be not what whether tests should be administered but what happens to the immigrants who test positive for infectious diseases. Are the Tories proposing they should be treated or turned away? Do they face criticism of putting strain on the NHS or criticism of turning ill immigrants back into the world to die? A very tricky policy to administer for the Tories I think.
Andrew Davies, UK
| ALL immigrants should be screened |
I absolutely agree with the Shadow Health Secretary. ALL immigrants should be screened, whether they're from rich countries or poor. Our nation's health is too important to be hijacked by civil liberties groups.
Lou, UK Absolutely! I am moving to Australia soon (as a skilled migrant) and had to undergo TB and HIV tests as part of my emigration application. This was no great hardship as I knew I was clear. Had I been positive, I would not be emigrating, as I would be a burden on the heath service. Fair enough if you ask me. Asylum seekers should also be tested, but the results of these tests should not be a deciding factor in giving asylum. They should be used to ensure proper medical treatment can be provided if required.
Mel, Scotland
For once, this is an immigration policy that I don't find objectionable, as it is based on a positive idea: that of ensuring disease is not spread around the world. After all, similar checks have to be done for animals under the "pets' passport" scheme. Why not for humans, who are, after all, the most migratory animals of all?
David Hazel, UK
As ever, the Conservative party tries to hide its innate racism behind a facade of apparently sensible precaution. This is a revoltingly simple method of trying to ensure that immigrants are wealthy and healthy, for which read white and/or professional. What about those who never had a chance, who will die if denied compassion and assistance?
Tom, UK
Of course all migrants should have compulsory health checks, but what happens when they fail these checks? What do we do with them? Send them back? To where? Most migrants come through other countries first; they of course do not want them. We need a clear plan of what to do with them if we introduce this, otherwise other countries will simply refuse to have them back. We the British public want real solutions to the migration problem not the Conservatives' political opportunism.
Barry, UK
| I see nothing wrong with this at all |
A couple of friends of mine recently went to live in Australia. The health checks they had to go through were astonishing. In fact, they nearly were rejected because one of them had a tiny scar on one lung left over for a childhood illness (from which he completely recovered). I see nothing wrong with this at all. If people want to come and live in the UK it should be because they want to contribute to the country, not use its resources paid for by British tax payers.
Paul, Essex, UK I agree that people should have compulsory health checks upon entering the country, as in the end, it is for their own good. If I was sick, I would like to know that I am and be able to do something about it, regardless if I am an asylum seeker or not. I however believe that it is wrong to not give people asylum because they are ill. Whether you are ill or not, is irrelevant to the asylum issue. If you are persecuted, it is more than likely that you are not in 100% good health. After all, torture, persecution and fleeing one's homeland is not equivalent to a weekend at a health spa.
Tanja, UK
Health checks for anyone entering the UK should be the norm. Why does our government continue to put us all at risk when it could easily have put checks in place long ago?
Roger, England
| The whole thing smacks of racism |
The whole idea is stupid! What about tourists? Should they have health checks too? If not then the thing would fail. The whole thing smacks of racism.
Gary Gatter, UK Thank you Gary for a proper debate. Just play the racism card as usual. So Kuwait is racist then? Or are they just not full of the politically corect 'elite'! We need proper discussion on these issues.
Graham, UK
To Garry, who thinks its racist. When my white South African family moved to Australia, we were required to have full chest x-rays and medicals. We weren't worried about the "racist overtones" of that request, we were just grateful to be allowed in. If someone is genuine about wanting to settle here, then I can't see them protesting. After all, it may catch health problems in the early stages, which would be beneficial for the migrant as well as the entire community!
Francesca, UK
It would create less stigmatisation as you would be sure (for the most part) that at least they had been screened, as long as those found with infectious diseases were detained and or sent back. If we don't have to pay for it, do it now.
Fraser Heath, Aberdeen, UK
Yes of course they should and it should have been done years ago.
James, England
Of course all immigrants should have health checks. They are beneficial for everyone, as I can see there are no losers. If immigrants are clear, all well and good. If they have infectious diseases then they can get the correct treatment, which is better for them and for people already in the country. What is the problem?
Joanne, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
