There are inherent differences between the immigration system in the UK, and the one in Canada. The laissez-faire attitude of the UK is why we originally lived there - I paid a small fee, and was automatically granted access to healthcare and, upon marriage, permission to work. From the moment I - or anyone else - set foot in the UK, I could be hospitalized, have surgery performed, or have a prolonged course of subsidized prescription medication. As a matter of fact, within weeks of landing there, I contracted pneumonia, which required three weeks of antibiotics.

In my husband's case, things are very different. We purchased travel health insurance to bring him into the country. One of the most important parts of his immigration process was the physical (including blood tests and screening for HIV), which we had to pay for ourselves. Only now is he eligible to use our Ontario healthcare system, after being in the country for nine months.

Now the UK Tories are considering implementing a similar system of immigration health screening.

Tory leader Michael Howard said foreigners from outside the EU will be tested for tuberculosis if they are coming for more than 6 months.

Those who want to settle for the long-term will be required to undergo testing for other conditions such as HIV/Aids.

The usual suspects are complaining:

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National Aids Trust, said screening was unlikely to have an impact.

"There is no evidence of HIV health tourism. These proposals are going to be expensive and rather than solving public health problems they could cause them by forcing HIV underground and increasing stigma association with it."


And she said people with HIV were not just a burden on society.

"They bring a lot to the economy. It is very simplistic to say these people will cost a lot and contribute nothing."

Lisa Power, of the Terence Higgins Trust, accused the Tories of "pandering to prejudice".

I agree with Mr. Howard that testing should be mandatory. It is my understanding that even if my husband had been HIV positive, he could not be denied access to Canada, as it would have infringed on his... well, you know. Anyway, I believe that in the case of HIV/AIDS, the government needs to know simply for recording and budgeting purposes. I'm not saying that some immigration official might not use their discretion to put someone on the bottom of the pile, but they do that now, anyway.

Let's say a country like the UK has 1,000 immigrants come in from a particular part of the world - say Africa - and that 800 are infected with HIV. The next time there's a G8 or UN summit, and countries are paying lip service to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, who do you think will then step up to the plate with help? The UK will have statistical evidence that the African AIDS problem affects us all. They will point out that if we don't pay to solve the problem at the source, we will be paying in our home countries for healthcare, because people will continue to migrate away from countries where they are being raped by AIDS-infected soldiers. Wouldn't you?

Tuberculosis is a completely different issue, and I'm astonished to find out that they don't already check for it in people coming from less than sanitary countries. TB is highly infectious, unlike HIV/AIDS, where sexual interaction is the main way to contract it. I would like to know, personally, if I have been sitting on a plane, breathing recycled air, with someone who tests positive for TB. But how can the airline contact me with that information, if people are not properly screened. Yes, they do basic testing at the airports, but is it enough? If someone comes to settle in the UK and they have TB, they are not the only potential drain on the NHS. Every person they speak to is at risk. But if this one immigrant with TB could be identified, then those around them could take the necessary precautions, they can get the treatment they need, and the healthcare burden is lower because they will be the only one requiring treatment. It's simple math - something that Tories understand, but special interest groups choose to ignore.

In the end, if the UK only has to pay for that one immigrant to be treated, insted of her, her daughter, her daughter's teacher, a neighboor, the lady at the job centre, and the bag-boy at Asda - that's money saved, isn't it?