Wtf. Who is the MP to lobby in this situation?

You should have said she was sent here to get free NHS treatment whilst those on minimum wage struggle to pay their own bills.

@2

Do you have one single ounce of humanity, at all?

How much humanity will be enough? Every sick child in the world? If not, how many? To the nearest million will do.

Good to see Clegg’s ‘restraining’ influence on the Tories in full effect. Unless he thinks this is fair play.

Mr S Pill: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-deportion-of-five-year-old-rania.html That petition is going to Theresa May,

@4

That’s not what this story is about though, is it. It’s about a severely disabled 5 year old being deported depsite by all accounts settling in well in British society (and the orgininal news story suggests that her Aunt & Uncle wish to adopt her). I know you may have an instinctive dislike of forgeiners, females, and the disabled but why not try removing your extremist blinkers for once in your life.

@6

Thanks for that. I’ll try and get as many folks as possible to sign it.

@8: Brilliant. Thank you.

Nobody would want to turn away an ill child but the point that is being missed is that the child was brought here under false pretences to use services that are – even if this were a socialist paradise – necessarily limited. The child is not to blame: the state is for encouraging abuse of the NHS and so are the parents 9although they acted entirely rationally in trying to do the best for their child). Now the child is here it is pointless and barbaric deporting her.

However, her parents should be made taxed more heavily than normal to provide restitution and for the improvement in her condition.

Alternatively, rather than moralising, left wingers should volunteer to pay for the care of all and sundry themselves, rather than forcing others to pay for their moral crusades. If they are so righteous let us see them pay for it.

Let’s not let Holburn pretend he has any more empathy for minimum wage workers than he does for disabled children. In a moral vacuum, any justification will do; a good one isn’t necessary.

@10

“left wingers should volunteer to pay for the care of all and sundry themselves”

OK cool, can I therefore opt out of paying for nuclear bombs, tax breaks for the rich, paying for Cameron’s security, paying for bankers bonuses (hi, Fred “not a banker” Goodwin) then? If we’re picking and choosing what to pay for then it should reasonably work both ways?

You guys have a whip round, enough to pay for her medical insurance and private schooling for life and I don’t care where she lives. I’m sure a Union could fund it, rather than demanding a pensioner does on your behalf.

Thought not…Nice to see the old Fabian doctrine of “getting other people to finance our vision, whether they like it or not” is still alive and kicking Labour in the face.

Best of luck at the next election!

@12. As a Libertarian, that’s EXACTLY what I’m asking for. Why should others be forced to pay for what YOU want? Right or Left does not enter the argument.

Whilst this appears morally reprehensible, there is a slight problem here. Can anyone see any legal reason why this child should not be deported – Algeria is not without medical care, and it appears the child is not anyway dependent on such care (she would not be in a mainstream school at 5 if she were). The child is not entitled to stay in Britain legally, and an adoption attempt by the aunt and uncle seems to be after the fact (and to ignore the fact the child has parents).

As it stands, the law exists to allow asylum to those in danger, not those in medical need. This may or may not be acceptable morally, but it is what the courts have to work with. Immigration law is much more clearly cut than privacy laws, so there is clearly no wrangling room here.

Protests and petitions aside, you need a legal angle here, and I honestly don’t think there is one (unless you want to believe the one-sided (nobody not from the family is quoted) report in The Bolton News).

[4] “How much humanity will be enough? Every sick child in the world? If not, how many? To the nearest million will do” – that is a horrible question, but still one that cannot be ignored.

Many children will be failed by the health system in those countries entrenched in poverty.
Who are we obliged to help – those who are fortunate enough to be transported to the UK (presumably by slightly more affluent families) or do we extend the net to other children who are dying, or suffering appalling diseases for want of better health resources.

It’s all very depressing once you start to think about it.

In this case I think it is a moral outrage to withdraw treatment once begun, and this seems like an incredibly vindictive act by the British authorities.

@14

“As a Libertarian…”

Oh dear, you just lost the internet. As a “libertarian” you have a philosophy based on nothing more than selfishness and greed wrapped up with some fancy linguistic (and Sophist) tricks that no-one in the real world subscribes to. “Libertarianism”, at least as professed by trolls online, is an invention by a few fruitcakes and solely exists in the digital sphere. I have heard many arguments in the real world for various philosophies (including but not limited to fascism, nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism) but not once have a met anyone who subscribes to the nihilistic hate-fest that is “libertarianism”.
As a side note, shouldn’t a “libertarian” be against boarder controls? Just askin’.
Good day.

Coming to live in the UK on a short term visa doesn’t mean permission to stay permanently. If that was the case then w should a cruise liner to the African continent and just keep shipping over all the kids they have. It’s not really possible is it?

Mr Spill,

I am against all borders but until the “free” milk and honey is removed, all you will get here is wasps whilst the state demands the poor feed, house and clothe them all via taxation and threatens them with prison if you refuse to fund it.

Personally, I can’t think of anything MORE selfish than demanding someone on minimum wage pay the bills of others more wealthy than them. Exactly what is being requested in the post above, by a Socialist.

Obviously you have much to learn about Libertarianism. It is simply freedom from the greed of the collective or the corporation. One reason the left (and indeed the right) hate it so much.

Always fun to wander in here occassionally (yes, I wiped my feet on the way out)

“OK cool, can I therefore opt out of paying for nuclear bombs, tax breaks for the rich, paying for Cameron’s security, paying for bankers bonuses (hi, Fred “not a banker” Goodwin) then? If we’re picking and choosing what to pay for then it should reasonably work both ways?”

Where did I say I wanted to pay for tax breaks for the rich, bankers bonuses etc? In my view taxation is morally reprehensible and the fact it gets misused so much is no surprise to me: that’s what states do. But you lot here love tax and the state so much why are you complaining?

Bombing the crap out of Libyans, Iraqis or other brown skinned people for the benefit of big oil, or paying for the medical treatment of others are simply two sides of the same coin.

If we abandoned the state the Algerian girl would be free to come here and rely on the goodwill of people like you who care. You could pay for her medical treatment direct without worrying that some was being siphoned off to pay for war or bankers’ bonuses. Perhaps your reason for loving the state is that your moral inclinations are not as strong as you think and your craven attitude means you need government to force you to help the needy. I hope not.

The poison of politics is not a humane way to organise society.

@20

Uhuh. Unfortunately we live in neither your utopia nor mine, and have to make do with what we’ve got. Which is why we should, morally, within the parameters of the society that we inhabit, let this child stay in this country being looked after by her future-adoptive parents.

Why?

@22

I thought you’d left?

To answer your question: because deporting a 5 year old disabled child who has made a home in this country for the past three years and is settled at a school is morally repugnant, extremely ridiculous and totally heavy-handed even if it weren’t for the other factors regarding her health and its likely deterioration in Algeria. If you can’t see this very simple point then I assume you’re either anti-humans or willfully stupid.

Not that I want the ‘libertarian’ to keep de-railing the thread or anything, but why do ‘libertarians’ who supposedly hate both state and corporate abuse have a lot more to say about the state than they do corporations? Would anything actually limit corporate power in a world without nation states?

The only thing I could think of is legalising various violent acts, but then all start to look a bit like Somalia.

23. Mr S. Pill – “To answer your question: because deporting a 5 year old disabled child who has made a home in this country for the past three years and is settled at a school is morally repugnant, extremely ridiculous and totally heavy-handed even if it weren’t for the other factors regarding her health and its likely deterioration in Algeria. If you can’t see this very simple point then I assume you’re either anti-humans or willfully stupid.”

You will have to explain it slowly to me I am afraid. Why is it morally repugnant? We have no obligation to this child. We never had any obligation to this child. The mistake was to let her into the country in the first place, admittedly, but our kindness and generosity cannot and should not be used as an excuse to exploit us even more.

We have no responsibility for this child’s health. We have no good reason even to think her health will suffer all that much if she is deported.

We ought to send her back and investigate the uncle and aunt for possible violations of immigration law. And the system needs to be changed so that health tourists are prevented from exploiting the system in the future.

14. Old Holborn

” As a Libertarian, that’s EXACTLY what I’m asking for. Why should others be forced to pay for what YOU want? Right or Left does not enter the argument. ”

You would have a point if the UK applied exit restrictions on you leaving the UK. However, there is nothing preventing you leaving and going to live somewhere else. The UK will not even charge you a fee for holding a UK passport and living overseas. Although, they should charge a fee. Therefore, it is just self-indulgent whining on your part about your invented victimhood. Someone could constantly complain about the prices that they were charged in a bar and whine how unfair it all is. Alternatively, they could leave and go to another bar just like people can go to other countries. Revealed preferences and all that. If some other country will not accept you then you are self-evidently not much of a potential asset to them.

Clearly, Britain cannot care for all the sick children of the world. However, we are not being asked to do that as it would be wholly unrealistic. It is one sick child. We will cross the bridge of all the sick children of the world turning up at our borders if the unlikely scenario ever arises. We in the UK have a laudable reputation for historically being a refuge for those in need. We did not have a reputation of being mean-spirited enough to refuse care to five year old girls.

26. Richard W – “Clearly, Britain cannot care for all the sick children of the world. However, we are not being asked to do that as it would be wholly unrealistic. It is one sick child.”

Except we are being asked to do that. One sick child at a time. This is just salami tactics. We care for every sick child in the world who can afford a plane ticket to London. Why should we?

“We in the UK have a laudable reputation for historically being a refuge for those in need.”

I don’t think we do and even if we do it is irrelevant. There is a difference between being generous and being a sucker.

“We did not have a reputation of being mean-spirited enough to refuse care to five year old girls.”

Alas. Then we might not be faced with this situation. And it is not mean spirited. Either we have the backbone to defend our laws and way of life or we don’t. If you want to vote for open borders, do so openly. Not spinelessly, one sick child at a time.

So how long in your estimation would it take for all the sick children of the world to end up in Britain in the ‘ salami tactics ‘ of one at a time, SMFS?

“…defend our laws and way of life…”

Defend our laws against five year old sick girls? Good grief is there anything worth defending if you feel threatened by five year old girls?

A substantial proportion of senior figures in the contemporary Conservative party are descendants of refugees who found refuge in the UK. So, their ancestors would agree with me that the UK was a ‘laudable’ place of refuge even if SMFS disagrees. They clearly thrived in the UK, even though Conservative MPs of the day likened them to ” diseased cattle arriving in a boat from Canada. “

28. Richard W – “So how long in your estimation would it take for all the sick children of the world to end up in Britain in the ‘ salami tactics ‘ of one at a time, SMFS?”

Depends how cheap airline tickets get. But given we have added a couple of million people over the last decade, not too long.

“Defend our laws against five year old sick girls? Good grief is there anything worth defending if you feel threatened by five year old girls?”

No. Defend it against bankruptcy.

“A substantial proportion of senior figures in the contemporary Conservative party are descendants of refugees who found refuge in the UK. So, their ancestors would agree with me that the UK was a ‘laudable’ place of refuge even if SMFS disagrees. They clearly thrived in the UK, even though Conservative MPs of the day likened them to ” diseased cattle arriving in a boat from Canada. “”

So they are. Their ancestors might well think that. But British history is long and complex. There have been times when Britain has been a haven. There have been times when it hasn’t. British history is not so simple.

Maybe her doctors might be able to make a “duty of care” argument?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law

Libertarians. Got to love an ideology that consists of whining about paying for the privilege of not living in Somalia and wanking over Mad Max-Beyond the Thuderdrome.

And herein is the morally bankruptcy of those on the left and right who would preach that libertarians are selfish:

“Uhuh. Unfortunately we live in neither your utopia nor mine, and have to make do with what we’ve got. Which is why we should, morally, within the parameters of the society that we inhabit, let this child stay in this country being looked after by her future-adoptive parents.”

Who is talking about utopia? Why is living without the corruption of the state so alien to so many people? Are you slaves? Do you think yourselves so useless and incompetent that you need to be cared for and guided by the likes of Brown, Cameron, Milliband, Hague and Blair?

The truth is that both the left and right are intellectually and morally bankrupt. The politics you all love is so nasty and hate filled that you can only view a world in which men and women freely cooperate with each other, without the need for state, as some distant utopia. I don’t know who to pit more, the victims of your hatred or you yourselves.

“The? mark of an economy and the mark of a society, surely, is how successfully it can help the advantaged in times of uncontrolled avarice”

<>

What a perfect slave you make Sean. Only the state will save us from madness. How British people have died at the behest of the state, let’s have a see: Iraq, the Falklands, Libya, World War One, Malaya, Northern Ireland, Boer War, Irish War of Independence, Urabi Revolt, Boxer Rebellion, Crimean War… I could go on.

As for the critique of Libertarians based on Somalia, it is simply horse shit. Somalia is ruled by tribal warlords, there is no rule of law or respect of human or property rights. There is nothing Libertarian about that situation at all.

Liam @ 34

As for the critique of Libertarians based on Somalia, it is simply horse shit. Somalia is ruled by tribal warlords

But it must be far easier to shape a Country like that into a ‘Libertarian’ paradise than this one. You know all the rules restricting you, all the Welfare States of Europe and the endless health and safety diktats?

It is surely far easier to move from a No State to a minimum State than to move from a completely overwhelming State to a minimum state? No? Why not? Could it possibily be that despite all the European State stifling, you people that you are still safe and far richer here than you would be anywhere else on the planet, but just too thick to join the dots?

Everyone of you has made a comfortable living from us, I have no objection too that, but you all of a sudden that you don’t want to play anymore. Fine, leave, find a Country with no Government and shape your own lands. That is what the people who formed the US of A did all those years ago.

You feel you could go it alone, fine!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK IS STOPPING YOU?

Instead of whinning, leave, but leave your passport as well.

Liam,

Anarchism based on selfishness is likely to lead where? Utopia? You recon? Give us a prescedent? Can’t? Never been properly tried? An argument wearily reminiscent of the unrepentant SWP Marxist excusing the USSR. Besides, your worthy compatriot Holborn seems to think that “freedom” equates to the freedom to watch the less fortunate starve at the same time as sanctimoniously clasping hands and bewailing the fate of the poor. “Why should office cleaners pay for this?”, he cries, unable to recognise the dissonance between this exercise in crocodile crying and her stalwart defence of Philip Green’s right to pay fuck all for anyone, ever.

Better have Mummy do a gas check. There are fumes in your basement that are causing cognitive problems. Then ponder the idea that the rule of law is the foundation of all civilisation, and the state is the foundation of the rule of law. Try a bit of Rouseau or Plato. You can hide it inside an underwear catalogue or a copy of Atlas Shrugged

Better the perfect slave than the perfect libertarian arsehole.

Liam @ 34

Somalia is ruled by tribal warlords, there is no rule of law or respect of human or property rights. There is nothing Libertarian about that situation at all.

And it never occurs to you that is the default position of a Stateless society? It never occurs to you that your entire ‘dream’ is a rather uncomfortable reality?

You could shape that Country quite quickly into a great Nation if you had the ability, the early pioneers did with the Americas, but most of you cunts wouldn’t last ten minutes without the state and most of you people even know it and use the internet to posture. Again fine, if you are into that type of thing, but many of us and a few of your fellow Libertarians think that most of you are sad wankers.

Here is a little rule of thumb. If you have the skills that were needed to get by in medevil Europe and the Middle East, you could just about get by, but if your ‘job’ is graphic designer, ‘blogger’, ‘Nail bar owner’, ‘wedding planner, events co-ordinator or anything else that owes its existence to the modern World that the morden State ha heralded, then you are chapping. If you think people will pay for a ‘brand manager’ or ‘personal trainer’ when most people are working 18 hours a day to survive, then you need your fucking head looked at mate.

Quote ”Alternatively, rather than moralising, left wingers should volunteer to pay for the care of all and sundry themselves, rather than forcing others to pay for their moral crusades. If they are so righteous let us see them pay for ”

Isn’t it funny I was banned from commenting on stories on Con Home, that bastion of tolerance, however the little Englanders seem to be allowed to speak on here.

Good for liberal conspiracy, I am one anyway.

However to your point, its one child and given all I here about is this is a Christian country from the right perhaps they should practice what they preach

Jim,

Your list should include parental leach, semi professional masturbator and Ayn Rand memorabilia collector. All libertarians would perish in the social darwinistic hell they espouse. Makes you almost want their wishes to come true, doesn’t it?

Old Holborn is literally in favour of killing children, grinding their bones to make his bread, and drinking their blood to stay young. Just like anyone. Typical of the loony left to try to bring morals into this. Speaking of morals, we’d have to starve all of our pensioners and let Our Brave Boys fight without bullets in order to accomodate this scrounging thief – does that sound moral to you? Makes you think!

………or perhaps get our heroic tycoons to cointribute a tad. No. Wait. THAT would be tyrany.

Quick point to anti-libertarians. Libertarians (generally) allow for the existence of a justice system to enforce minimal laws (effectively, ‘do no harm’). Somalia is (generally – there are locally stable areas) characterised by the lack of a justice system, and clear benefits to those who do harm – I’d call in anarchy, if that was not an insult to another political thought system.

To the heartless wankers asking ‘why shouldn’t we send this girl to her death, what’s it to us, what obligation do we have’ etc:

The simple answer is because she is a human being, a child, who will die without the assistance of the British state. She is already in the country so the only act of assistance required is to refrain from deporting her. It is nothing but common human decency- indeed, it would once have been called Christian kindness.

Our obligation is the basic obligation to treat other human beings with kindness. It is a moral obligation which most people do not find hard to understand.

But you lot would deny her a life in order to save a few pence off your tax. So you can make your comfortable lifestyle slightly more comfortable. While people like her die of preventable and treatable conditions.

You are despicable people- it is as simple as that.

I think you collective numbskulls will find Ayn Rand was an Objectivist and a bit of a twat. She hated libertarians.

The point is most of you on here are clueless menks. Hilarity from the slightly read cravens on here:

“All libertarians would perish in the social darwinistic hell ”

“you cunts wouldn’t last ten minutes without the state”

“WHAT THE FUCK IS STOPPING YOU? Instead of whinning, leave, but leave your passport as well”

And there’s loads more. Guess what, they reveal the violence always apparent in the left. You are bad people. Your comments betray your true natures: it is you who would not survive in a free society because you cannot think like a free person only one who thinks anger, violence and threats are the way to make you fellow men see your point of view.

You are the type of people who happily go along with murdering the Kulaks, who love bombing the crap out of Persians and Arabs, who fight war at the drop of a hat then pretend to be caring just because you support the NHS and dole for all.

The reason a free society based on cooperation between free men and women is so difficult to achieve is that people like you lot on here will happily do the state’s bidding. Give you a gun and a uniform and you’d be rounding up the dissenters and shoving them in camps if you could. Like generations of statists before you your human spirit has been debased by anger and hatred of your fellow man.

So forget your crocodile tears over the plight of a poor girl, you have no real feeling for humanity.

And as for the state being the foundation of the rule of law, go read a book about what our legal system used to be like, the private courts and mediations that served generations well. Or look at the Tuaths, or Iceland. But you will not do that because you prefer your prejudices to rule how you feel rather than reason.

Private Courts? Absolutely Liam. Private justice as an absolute impartial arbiter between those who can afford it and those who can’t. If a bit of minor name calling constotutes violence in your rarified little libertarian basement wankworld, then you really should get out more.

Dummies strike again. Private courts are not the only option in the modern world. Ever heard of arbitration, mediation. It goes on every day especially in family cases usually operated at little cost or for free by charities.

And like the courts aren’t the preserve of those who can afford them now…ever here of say a footballer gagging the press?

It’s those same independent state run courts that swear allegiance to the Crown, routinely lock up animal rights/student/union/[insert name here] protestors, imprison countless young black men, allowed the police to stop flying pickets during the miners’ strike, tried to lynch Clive Ponting (it was lay jurors who got him off, so much for the state), did for the Birmingham Six, connived in internment and the Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland.

Justice, from the state’s courts….you are having a laugh.

The risk of death will need to be proved, but if it is, then it is probably the case that she has a case to remain here.

The difficulty with this story is that the immigration system appears to be being us to allow a severely disabled child to benefit from the health service in circumstances where the health service I her own country is not able to cope … And there a real questions about the wisdom of allowing people to send their sick and disabled to us to treat, presumably at our expense and using the facilities that are provided for us …

It is not immoral to point out that difficulty, nor to point to the finite nature of the resources that we have to treat people, or to recognise that the is a duty to ensure that people who are here are not deported to places where there is a real risk that they will suffer directly as a result of their deportation.

These are the difficult cases that show the need for some limited discretion on the part of the judges who consider such applications. But govenment does need the power to deport in the cases where the system is being deliberately abused.

Oh and another thing for you lot who think us wimpy, wanky libertarians would not survive in our brave new world: we already do, anarchy is all around us every day and we all manage just fine. At the moment the state’s reach is not as great as you think and most of us live quite happily without it.

The problem with ultras like Liam is they assume everyone who is not an ultra like him must be on the left or a statist. There is no balance or conception of different scales of statism. It’s either libertarian utopia or slavery with nothing in between. Liam can’t point to examples where people have actually voted for his libertarian utopia so it would have to be imposed by wise souls like Liam. Moreover, no sign of the libertarian diaspora actually moving to an uninhabited area of the world and building their own libertarian society. They clearly prefer to leech off the statist societies. Actually limiting the power of the state is held back by the black and white libertarian ultras who pretty much only flourish on the internet.

I would love to see how Liam would handle people without violence or coercion in his free cooperative utopia who said ” fuck you and your property rights, I do not recognise your property rights ” No violence or coercion allowed in establishing your property rights in such a scenario.

As someone mentioned we do not owe this girl anything. However, that is precisely why we we should help. Contrary, to how some people see humanity we are not just cold contract calculating creatures who are only interested in our personal property rights. There is such a thing when it comes to 5yr old kids as common humanity that goes much deeper than the property rights obsessed will ever recognise.

I don’t see any of the people on this thread who support her deportation on cost groups complaining about the £3.5 million pissed away on reopening the Madeline McCann enquiry, the bottomless pit that is the Olympic Games or the amount of child benefit paid to the middle and upper middle class.

Selective outrage?

Also, the aunt and uncle work here, buy goods here and pay taxes here. It’s not like they don’t make some contribution to the economy.

And Old Holborn – your website appears to be down.

@34. Liam: “As for the critique of Libertarians based on Somalia, it is simply horse shit. Somalia is ruled by tribal warlords, there is no rule of law or respect of human or property rights.”

Err, Somalia is a country of 9.5 million people who are not starving or fleeing war in the same way as, say, Darfur. Which is not to say that many people want to get away or that the UK should deny refugee status. The international press have correspondents in Mogadishu, and whilst they are protected by armed guards, they can travel around the capital and report stories. The official government does run a bit of Somalia (most of the capital city) and they don’t censor the press or persecute their citizens. Some of the homelands have informal government (bodies that are not internationally recognised but which provide some protection to the population). Only a small portion of the country is run by warlords.

I am not arguing that Somalia is not a fucked up country. GDP per capita is $600, which is pitiful given the country’s strategic location for trade, abundant fisheries and more. But it is a fascinating (and distressing) example of how people survive in the absence of effective government. And while it isn’t an example of a Libertarian society, it provides a few clues.

Amidst the chaos and violence, people are getting on with their lives. There is a telephone system (landline and cellular), at least two international airports, networks for distributing food and fuel, even internet service providers. And these facilities are available in the areas where there is no government, official or unrecognised. So there are property rights; if you have property of value, you have a private army to protect it.

I’ll say again that Somalia is not an example of a Libertarian society. Even the ultras accept that the state has to have some power to prevent the need for private armies.

But Somalia gives us clues about benefits of government. Somalia GDP per capita is $600; in Tanzania to the north, the figure is $1,400.

Do you live in Stockwell, Liam?

Aw,Liam called me a bad person.

Can we have a safe word, Liam?

Why be surprised by what this Coalition of Evil and misery are doing because they have already started giving the British Sick, Disabled and vulnerable a right good kicking whilst they are already down !

Loving the hatred. More please.

Old Holburn,

Loving the hatred. More please.

You do realize that you are bat shit insane? Here is an address that will let you break out of your mental disorder and become a human being again:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-deportion-of-five-year-old-rania.html

Alternatively you can continue to spout pish and pretend that Ayn Rand wasn’t actually mad…..

43. ADS – “The simple answer is because she is a human being, a child, who will die without the assistance of the British state. She is already in the country so the only act of assistance required is to refrain from deporting her. It is nothing but common human decency- indeed, it would once have been called Christian kindness.”

We don’t know that she will die. What is the evidence? A massive act of assistance is required. What is demanded is that we tear up our existing immigration laws and cease enforcing the border. That is a big change. What common human decency do we owe to a stranger? Someone who came to this country to exploit our generosity and continues to remain here trying to do so indefinitely? How many seconds does some dying African child with HIV have to be in Heathrow for before we are liable for all their medical bills?

“Our obligation is the basic obligation to treat other human beings with kindness. It is a moral obligation which most people do not find hard to understand.”

By all means, we should treat other human beings with kindness. Don’t let them in the country in the first place. That would have been kind. But either we have an immigration policy or we don’t. Either we have a system run for the benefit of British people or we don’t. We can’t have a welfare state and unlimited immigration of the sick.

“But you lot would deny her a life in order to save a few pence off your tax. So you can make your comfortable lifestyle slightly more comfortable. While people like her die of preventable and treatable conditions.”

No. I would deny her the chance to exploit the NHS to save Britain. A lot of people like her die of preventable and treatable conditions. An airplane ticket to Britain only costs a thousand quid or so. How many sick children in the Third World have parents who would be happy to borrow that much to give their children a chance at life? God knows I would. So do you want us to treat them all? If not what is the criteria you are selecting?

“You are despicable people- it is as simple as that.”

And yet we are realistic, know what the real world looks like and will not cause the destruction of the UK.

50. Richard – “I don’t see any of the people on this thread who support her deportation on cost groups complaining about the £3.5 million pissed away on reopening the Madeline McCann enquiry, the bottomless pit that is the Olympic Games or the amount of child benefit paid to the middle and upper middle class.”

No one has asked me. As it happens I am outraged by those too. You petition for that funding and I will object as well.

“Also, the aunt and uncle work here, buy goods here and pay taxes here. It’s not like they don’t make some contribution to the economy.”

Except, like most immigrants, it is likely they are in the lower quartiles of income and hence net recipients of government money. That is what a welfare state is supposed to do isn’t? Take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Which Britain’s still does. This is not a good argument either way.

So Much For Subtlety,

You say:

By all means, we should treat other human beings with kindness. Don’t let them in the country in the first place. That would have been kind. But either we have an immigration policy or we don’t. Either we have a system run for the benefit of British people or we don’t. We can’t have a welfare state and unlimited immigration of the sick.

Huh? That paragraph of yours is a piece of pish. We should treat children with kindness, but then we shouldn’t let them into the country in the first place? Where is the kindness in that? We should just let the die, is that your idea of kindness?

Fuck you.

Really not hatred, Old H. More bewildered contempt at the preschool “can’t share/won’t share” level of pseudo politics that libertarians display. Genuinely thought that “let the child die” was something that most people would be ashamed to broadcast. Source of pride for you lot, apparently. Did you have a particulalry miserable childhood? Was potty training savage and brutal?

Given that the child _will_ be leaving the UK, I expect those in this thread bemoaning the lack of humanity of the Home Office et al will be dipping into their own pockets to fund any further medical treatment, airfares etc.

Or is this poor child just a convenient stick to bash libertarians with, and once that point is made, the supposedly universal and binding obligation to help her is conveniently forgotten by all and sundry?

As a certain Prime Minister once said, socialism is fine until you run out of other people’s money. The likes of Douglas Clark and AbuF are very loud when it comes to demanding other people pay for this girl’s medical treatment but not so eager to shell out themselves. Curious, that.

Scooby,

The likes of Douglas Clark and AbuF are very loud when it comes to demanding other people pay for this girl’s medical treatment but not so eager to shell out themselves. Curious, that.

Not really scooby. I already pay taxes and where they go and what we spend them on is as much a cause for my concern as yours. Your utterly corrupt notion – libertarianism – is just an internet joke. No-one with an ounce of sense could take it as anything other than an April fool.

You really are a bit sad. Go away and cry about the complete and utter collapse of LPUK. What a shower of tossers!

Not really scooby. I already pay taxes …

Your taxes cover the cost of treating British people in need. If you want foreigners to be treated as well, you should be prepared to pay extra.

It’s only what you are demanding others do. But what a surprise — when it’s a question of putting your own hand in your pocket, you suddenly sound like the Taxpayers Alliance.

Here’s a tip. Don’t preen yourself as a supposedly more moral person than others, when all you are doing is demanding others take up a burden you aren’t prepared to take up yourself. That doesn’t make you more moral. It just makes you a loudmouth… and a hypocrite.

Charlieman @ 51

I’ll say again that Somalia is not an example of a Libertarian society.

Perhaps it is, but then again, perhaps not, but the real point is, it could be. It must be far easier to convert a No State Country into a minimum State Country than a Fabian State into a minimum State Country?

Surely it would be easier to go to a Country when the people thre already have little expectations of what a Government ‘can’ do and shape those people and that Country into their own image? It is exactly what you want, surely? A clean slate.

Given the premise that you can build anything with a free market, it would take you, what ten years to build that Country from dust, if you really had the talent. Of course, 95% of LPUKers were paper tigers who wouldn’t last ten minutes outside of the First World.

I et a bloke who truly believed he hadlived in the wilderness because he had spent a fortnight in ‘the African Bush’. It turns out he had been to the Kruger National Park where you get locked into your resort and have a bar and a cavery everynight,but he thought it was just like the Voretreckers!

I wonder if the internet existed in 1607, I wonder if the Pilgram fathers would have merely posted on each other bloggs how shit everything was instead of setting sail in the mayflower?

It must be far easier to convert a No State Country into a minimum State Country than a Fabian State into a minimum State Country?

You’ve clearly failed to understand even the basics of libertarianism if you believe that. What’s missing from your “reasoning” is the key role of civil society and the rule of law. Both of which are in a far more parlous state in Somalia than in your hypothetical “Fabian State”.

I wonder if the internet existed in 1607, I wonder if the Pilgram fathers would have merely posted on each other bloggs how shit everything was instead of setting sail in the mayflower?

You’d benefit from reading a few history books and broadening your range beyond moonbat websites. If you did, you’d know that the original American colonies were founded upon the idealistic principle of common ownership but soon abandoned it in favour of the free market and private property after their nascent socialist economy collapsed and they nearly starved. It’s a lesson that Americans took to heart over the decades and centuries, as they constructed the richest and most powerful economy in world history.

Scooby,

Here’s a tip. Don’t preen yourself as a supposedly more moral person than others, when all you are doing is demanding others take up a burden you aren’t prepared to take up yourself. That doesn’t make you more moral. It just makes you a loudmouth… and a hypocrite.

How wrong do you want to be? My taxes include provisions for foreign aid, foreign interventions, etc, etc.

If I would like us to care about a five year old then I am already paying for it. I don’t need to pay ‘extra’. Your argument is frankly ridiculous.

Preening? That comes with the territory for Libertarians. The rest of us just use our sense of judgement. Which, rather obviously, Libertarians lack. Along with any sense whatsoever.

The hypocisy is entirely yours scooby. It comes with the territory of being a Libertarian. Libertarians are, frankly, up themselves and children of the Thatcherite notion that ‘there is no society’. Well scooby, if you buy that then I have a bridge to sell you.

hypocrisy even. When is this site going to get a decent edit function?

Scooby @ 65

You’ve clearly failed to understand even the basics of libertarianism if you believe that. What’s missing from your “reasoning” is the key role of civil society and the rule of law. Both of which are in a far more parlous state in Somalia than in your hypothetical “Fabian State”.

Yes and you entirely fail to understand your own ideology because you people assume that if you dismantle this State that civil society and the rule of law would remain in place. It appears that you believe that we stumbled across both of these by accident then built a stifling State around it, snuffing out the life-force of freedom in the process. It is almost as if you believe that the State was invented in 1997, when all the oppressive instruments were placed into being by Tony Blair.

However, you should try and understand how and why we got here in the first place, which is about far more than ‘taxes are slavery’. If you people genuinely believe taxes are slavery then you are sadly deluded.

I would contend that if our State was to collaspe or be brought down, then civil society and the rule of law would follow quite quickly.

You’d benefit from reading a few history books and broadening your range beyond moonbat websites.

I genuinely think you misunderstand the point I was making. I was not drawing comparisons between political systems. I was drawing comparisons between different groups of disaffected people have reacted. Pilgrim fathers went out to tame new lands, and Libertarians whine on websites. The former found the oppression intolerable and sailed out to a new land, broke ground and started again from scratch. The latter whine about how shit everything is and had a look round…
…And either remained here, or moved to other more or less large State Countries.

As I said, there are dozens of small State Countries around the globe any one which you could happily live in, what is stopping you?

59. douglas clark – “Huh? That paragraph of yours is a piece of pish. We should treat children with kindness, but then we shouldn’t let them into the country in the first place? Where is the kindness in that? We should just let the die, is that your idea of kindness?”

Thousands of Third World babies die of easily preventable diseases every week. Hundreds each day. We are letting them die as we speak. You, douglas, are doing this right now. Unless of course you follow Peter Singer’s advice and live on the bare minimum and give all the rest of your income to the Third World. Do you?

So what is different here except we have given this girl false hope. We have allowed her family to abuse the system in the expectation that we will be too gutless to enforce our laws. A reasonable expectation. Thus giving hope to thousands of other children who cannot afford decent health care in whatever country they live.

The humane solution is not to give false hope.

In the meantime babies are dying and you’re not doing anything are you? Why not if it is such a moral imperative? Why this one and not the hundreds of children that will die of AIDS today?

So much for Sublety,

You are a very mean spirited person to even attempt to make the case that you do. Children are put at risk of death and you use that as part of some sort of intellectually bankrupt argument?

I doubt your philosophy will catch on. It would be a sad day indeed if it did.

An update on the case… good news for those who wanted her to stay http://samedifference1.com/2011/08/28/an-update-on-rania/