Are you thinking what we're thinking?
Well, unless you're thinking "You know, what this country really needs is more immigrants coming in and pretending to be 'asylum seekers', and then driving native people out of work", then probably not. Because I discover, via Conservative Home, that Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory's vaunted Muslim vice-chairman, has published a report, jointly with four others, calling for failed "asylum seekers" to be given the right to work. Miss Warsi's report, published by the left-liberal Quaker organisation, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, was jointly written with the left-wing lawyer Courtenay Griffiths, the former BBC journalist, Kate Adie, the former Labour mayor of Leeds, Bill Kilgallon, and the left-wing pseudo-philosopher, Julian Baggini. A veritable Hampstead dinner party, and Miss Warsi, with her 'caring', left-wing Conservatism, fits right in.
Miss Warsi attempts to justify her ridiculous stance in a Guardian article today. It says quite a lot about quite how liberal this supposed conservative is, that even a goodly proportion of the moccachino swillers are savaging her idea.
Just a few points, which have generally been raised in the comments at the Guardian or at Conservative Home. First, I have to wonder quite how anyone in Britain can claim to be a legitimate asylum seeker. While it is true that there are some people whose journeys to Britain began fleeing persecution, they have generally come through several countries en route. An asylum seeker should claim asylum at the first safe country they get to. Rather, these people have usually come halfway across Africa or Asia, then through the whole of Europe, until they reach France. Then, they wait until the time is right to smuggle themselves illegally into Britain, and receive the bounteous generosity of our government. They are not genuinely seeking asylum, they are seeking handouts. Perhaps when native Frenchmen start pouring through the channel tunnel fleeing their new Muslim overlords, then we might have some legitimate asylum seekers. Until then, we don't have any.
Secondly, it is evident that this proposed measure would simply exacerbate the problem. The reason people make such an effort to reach Britain, in particular, is that we are such a soft touch. This measure will merely reinforce that perception, since it does little less than say "Come to Britain illegally, we won't chuck you out, and we'll let you work as well". Rather, we should be aiming to make the lives of these people less, not more, pleasant, to deter future arrivals, and we should be busily deporting them as well. Ideally, they would be shipped out the moment it was concluded that they had no right to be here. But, of course, that would require the government (be it Labour or Tory) to be both competent and seeking to do what's best for Britain, when in truth it is neither.
This story again indicates just how low the Tories have sunk under Dave the Slug. We already knew they were pro-EU, pro-criminal, pro-high taxation, pro-homosexual, and pro-Muslim. Now we must add that they are, not just pro-immigrant, but striving to outdo the established parties of the left in this.
Yes, I loathe David Cameron, and all his little 'modernising' acolytes.
Update: The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust's website makes interesting reading, particularly when revealing the grants that they have given to various (overwhelmingly far-left) groups. There's £50,000 for the Migrants' Rights Network, £70,000 for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, £37,500 for the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, £105,000 for the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, plus many, many more grants to similar groups. Hardly the organisation one would look to for an impartial report on immigration. As to the decision of the Tories to ally themselves with such a group: well, the legal Latin tag noscitur a sociis (a thing is known by its associates) seems appropriate here.