Actually no. Of the 107,800 people estimated by Public Health England to be HIV positive an astonishing 59,300 are originally from Africa The fact is we do not know if they contracted the virus here OR not! Many cultural differences to sex and contraception explain this far better than assuming that all ethnic minorities turn up on our shores infected with HIV. Using a valid concern of healthcare expenditure to demonize immigrants and people living with the HIV they must prove they are not HIV-positive and not suffering Hepatitis B Not as easy as you think it is. A HIV test (Accurate one) requires a 3 month window between tests and is only accurate if there is a 3 month period of zero risk. New instant tests exisit, but they are not accurate and require a confirmation test/ So does that mean locking all applicants up for 3 months? not suffering Hepatitis B – an equally devastating illness that is also incredibly costly to treat. The same demand that Nigel Farage made and George Osborne refused “to dignify with a response“. Again your source shows that it is not worthy of a response when peddling fear based on nonsense. Since when did Paracetamol become expensive. Take a look below at the NHS link for hep B Your source would be more credible if it stated the correct illness. HEP C is the one that is incredibly hard to treat. HEP B has a vaccine that is inexpensive and available to all ages. However unfortunately statistics show that the majority of HEP C incidents are a result risky drug taking. Most of which I suspect happens whilst inside this country. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Hepatitis-B/Pages/Treatment.aspx The NHS budget is not yet part of the foreign aid budget, nor should it be. Agreed, but we are yet to see proof that the majority of HIV infected individuals get infected beyond our boarders. The United States used to operate a HIV = no entry to the country. EVEN they have now dropped that policy. Therefore to say our NHS budget is being used as an extension of the foreign aid budget is unsupported scare mongering. Canada is also another one that removed its restrictions. Also have a read here http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2009/20091001_jc1738_entry_denied_en.pdf It raises a number of points including those that show that only 7 countries bar entry to HIV individuals. Also the fact that to turn someone away purely on the basis of their HIV status violates the Human Rights Act. Then lets throw in the problem of illegal immigrants. These will not be tested, will not receive treatment or education, remain infectious and continue to create new infections, including among legal immigrants that tested negative upon arrival. Considering homosexuality is a sin and illegal in many Nations abroad, it helps keep their activities underground and therefore increases infections in areas of Public Sex Environments where the legality of their residence is unchecked and behavior more risky. The only point that is of some merit is that all immigrants should be tested. In fact, everyone should be tested in my opinion. Early testing and Early treatment and early education prevents infections and reduces further infections. The high cost now, is an investment on reducing new cases and future infection. Costs for the drugs will drop. In all, both NF and your source are good at putting basic figures to a scare story and even confusing BASIC facts. Before listening to the music, one should maybe investigate their credibility.