The latest immigration triumph

Nine illegal immigrants disappeared after they were given free train tickets by police and told to make their own way to a detention centre more than 60 miles away.

The move was described as "ludicrous", but police have defended their actions, saying they were acting on the advice of immigration authorities.

The men, who are from Afghanistan, were discovered by Cambridgeshire police under the back of a lorry in Fordham, near Newmarket.

They were apprehended by officers before being given train tickets and told by police to make their own way to an immigration facility in Croydon, Surrey.

But none of the men arrived at the centre and they have not been seen since.

Well, who would ever have thought that people who break the law in order to enter the country would be anything other than 100% keen to follow the rules once they got here? Not any of the bunglers in charge of managing (ha!) immigration, certainly.

Cambridgeshire police say they were acting under instruction from officials at the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA), a Home Office department.

But officials at the BIA denied such guidance was issued and insisted they had asked for the nine men to be held in custody so that they could be interviewed.

Frankly, I couldn't care less who screwed up this time. The fact is, that for all the efforts to pass the buck that the petty jobsworths in the police and the BIA seem to be engaging in, they are both government agencies, and specifically Home Office agencies. And it doesn't really matter to me whether Home Office Agency A was at fault, or whether the blame instead lies with Home Office Agency B - the end result is the same either way.
The fact is, that there have been far, far, far too many Home Office cock-ups over immigration already (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), with today's example just the latest in a very long line of blunders. The sheer incompetence that the government and its agencies have consistently demonstrated in their management of immigration is what really bothers me, not the question of which government agency was to blame for each specific cock-up. But, having said that, the lack of anyone willing, on this occasion or any other, to come out and admit that they got it wrong, rather than always pathetically trying to shift responsibility onto someone else, does serve to add insult to injury.

Today's illegal immigrant security breach

An illegal immigrant was able to work at the House of Commons using a fake identity pass in a serious breach of security.

The Government stands accused of a cover-up after leaked documents, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, showed that Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, was informed immediately of the case of the Brazilian woman, a cleaner, when she was arrested at Parliament 10 days ago. Yet the Home Office confirmed the security breach - one of the most serious to affect Westminster - only after being contacted by this newspaper last night.

Elaine Chaves Aparecida was detained by police after a random check on her security pass showed that it belonged to someone else. She had been working there, since December 3 last year as the employee of a ­cleaning company, Emprise Services.

Under questioning, Miss Chaves, 31, admitted that she had run away from immigration officials at Heathrow Terminal 4 in December 2004 before she could be refused entry.

The letter from Tony Smith, the regional director of the immigration agency, admits that officials still have no idea how the Brazilian came to obtain a Commons pass or even to whom it belonged.

But, crucially, it predicts that the level of controversy will be "high" and advises ministers that they should take a "reactive approach" to the scandal.

It must be said that Mr Smith's warning was somewhat unnecessary. Advising this government (and particularly the Home Office, and especially Liam Byrne) to carry out a cover-up operation is, I think, akin to advising Derek Conway to stop being so selfless and consider his own interests once in a while.

As for Miss Chaves: I'd be particularly interested to know precisely what she meant when she "admitted that she had run away from immigration officials". Did she literally outrun them? Did she point behind them, say "look over there", and make her getaway while their backs were turned? Did she evade capture in some other, more subtle, manner? Whatever it was, it doesn't reflect very well on the immigration service. But then again, what does?

There's a first time for everything. The only constant: angry Muslims

Astonishingly, the government (and, indeed, the normally particularly inept Home Office) has done something with which I agree:

The controversial Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been refused a visa to visit Britain.

The Home Office said the UK would not tolerate the presence of those who seek to justify acts of terrorist violence.

During his last visit in 2004, Dr Al-Qaradawi defended suicide attacks on Israelis as "martyrdom in the name of God", during a BBC interview.

Dr Al-Qaradawi applied for the visa eight months ago, so that he could receive medical treatment in Britain.

Reacting to the decision, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) called it deplorable, and said the government had caved in to unreasonable demands spearheaded by the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron.

Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB said the decision had "worrying implications for freedom of speech".

"Whatever one may think of some of Qaradawi's views, the way forward is surely to allow them to be aired and then, if appropriate, to challenge them openly."

You know, calls for free speech always sound so much more convincing when made by people who don't have a track record of trying to suppress the free speech of others. As I have previously noted, Bunglawala was an enthusiastic supporter of the restrictions imposed on free speech by the Religious Hatred Act, and was among those calling for the laws against "inciting racial hatred" to be expanded in scope after Nick Griffin's acquittal. Why is it that Bunglawala thinks that Qaradawi's opinions should be challenged and debated, but that Griffin's should be silenced?
Furthermore, it is almost universally accepted that the right to free speech does not extend to the right to incite others to criminality, which is what Qaradawi certainly came very close to doing, when he sought to justify acts of mass murder.

In any event, this is not really a free speech issue. Qaradawi is not having any of his human rights violated: there is no right to be granted a visa to enter the UK, and the question of a right to exercise free speech here only arises once someone has arrived here. Accordingly, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to make this decision based solely on the question of whether or not his presence would be beneficial.

Last week Mr Cameron called Dr Al-Qaradawi "dangerous and divisive", and called on the government not to allow him an entry visa.

Well said Cameron. Not something I say a lot, but when set against the likes of Inayat Bunglawala, even Call Me Dave comes up smelling of roses.

"This decision will send the wrong message to Muslims everywhere about the state of British society and culture", said Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council.

He said Dr Al-Qaradawi was respected as a scholar throughout the Islamic world.

Well, that tells you rather a lot about the Muslim world, doesn't it? As I wrote in my last post, there are very few shared values between them and us.

He's right about it sending the wrong message about "the state of British society and culture", though. This is, after all, an unusually tough response on the part of the government to Islamic extremists, and as such sends a rather misleading message. The more usual response to such people is to stick them on a government taskforce.

Mohammed Shafiq, from Muslim youth organisation the Ramadhan Foundation, criticised the decision.

He said: "We've had figures like Nick Griffin and the BNP operating freely and promoting violence towards ethnic minorities, and nothing is done.

"This smacks of double standards, and will isolate Muslim communities further."

So far as I am aware, there is no evidence that Nick Griffin, or the BNP as a party, has ever promoted violence towards anyone, and certainly not towards non-whites in general. Nor is it accurate to say that "nothing is done". As Shafiq might recall, Nick Griffin, and his associate Mark Collett, were twice brought to trial on charges of "inciting racial hatred" (a crime which is itself a restriction on free speech). The police and CPS have hardly shown themselves to be averse to prosecuting Mr Griffin: on the contrary, they seem all too keen to do it.

Indeed, the only cases that I can think of in which people have openly incited violence and got away with it have involved Muslims. I am thinking in particular of the police response to last year's television programme, Undercover Mosque. As readers will no doubt recall, that programme featured Islamic clerics inciting a variety of crimes, including murder. And yet the response of the police was to investigate the possibility of having the film-makers charged with "inciting racial hatred", before making a complaint about the programme to the media regulator, Ofcom (a complaint which was subsequently rejected). So, while there may well be double standards, it doesn't look like they are operating against Muslims.

It should also be noted, once again, that Qaradawi has no right to enter the UK, and, as such, cannot have a right to exercise free speech here. Nick Griffin, by contrast, is a British citizen, and does, therefore, have the right to live here, and to exercise free speech here. As, indeed, do the likes of Bunglawala, Bari, and Shafiq. Considering the above, I have to say that Shafiq's remarks, based as they are on a possibly libellous accusation, a misleading comparison, and a falsehood so severe that it completely inverts the truth, serve only to demonstrate the utter weakness of Muslim claims that they are being oppressed and discriminated against.

Anyway, Qaradawi isn't coming, and, as an added bonus, we may also be getting shot of Abu Hamza pretty soon. Now, if only we could find someone willing to take Rowan Williams...

Today's Home Office Cock-up

We've had the illegal immigrant who was employed as a security guard at the Home Office, not to mention numerous illegal immigrants who were working there as cleaners, but this story really does take the proverbial biscuit. In fact, I think it takes the whole pack:

An asylum seeker with a false passport worked for almost a year processing immigration appeals, it emerged yesterday.

Eugene Tawanda Madzima landed the job at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Service after supposedly undergoing background checks.

Officials were tricked by a faked letter from the Home Office saying the 24-year old had permission to stay in the UK.

Madzima was so well regarded at work he even gave a staff training presentation at the AITS centre in Leicester.

He was caught only when he tried to use the forged passport to open an HSBC bank account.

As Madzima was jailed for 12 months at Leicester Crown Court for holding forged documents, Judge Simon Hammond said the situation was "staggering" and "beggars belief".

He added: "Why was he able to get a fulltime job with the Appeals and Immigration Tribunal Service, of all people, who are meant to be dealing with people seeking asylum?

"No proper checks were made and yet he must have been on their records. "

Words really do fail me. Is there anyone at the Home Office who isn't an utter buffoon (apart from the apparently rather cunning asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, that is)?

Kettle, meet pot

A government campaign will warn bosses that they face large fines and prison sentences if they are caught employing illegal migrant workers.

The Home Office will run radio and print adverts ahead of a tightening of the law on illegal labour in February.

Employers could be fined up to £10,000 for every illegal worker they negligently hire, or could face up to two years in prison.

The immigration minister said firms would have no excuse to break the law.

Liam Byrne said: "Illegal working attracts illegal migrants and undercuts British wages. That's why we're determined to shut it down.

"The message is clear for employers - we will not tolerate illegal working."

Well, I certainly don't disagree with that, and I hope that the advertising campaign, and the new laws, succeed in deterring employers from employing illegal immigrants. But I do wonder whether the government in general, and the Home Office in particular, are not being a tad hypocritical. After all, not only has their repeated failure to tackle illegal immigration probably done more to "attract illegal migrants" than anything any private company - however avaricious - could do, but they have themselves been caught employing illegal immigrants!

"Donkeys led by Donkeys"

On Wednesday, I wrote that "the government likes to have several cock-ups over illegal immigration on the go at any one time". As I now realise, "several" was something of an underestimate, as two stories over the last two days serve to demonstrate. Yesterday, it was revealed that the Border and Immigration Agency is refusing to deport any of the estimated 4,000 foreign criminals serving sentences of under one year in Britain's jails. Apparently, staff at the agency simply have "no interest" in doing so. Would that we could all avoid doing our jobs whenever we decided that we had "no interest" in them!

And today, it was revealed that since 1999 the government has granted indefinite leave to remain in Britain to approximately 100,000 illegal immigrants. This follows Tuesday's revelation that a further 165,000 illegals look set to be granted a de facto amnesty over the next few years, after Home Office staff lost their files. So, by the time our leaders have finished, over a quarter of a million illegal immigrants will have been granted the right to live in Britain. They will also have the right to bring their families over here - what will that swell the numbers to?

Admittedly, the figures will still be dwarfed by the number of immigrants (over one million in the last two years) that Labour is letting into the country legally...

The present government is useless in most respects; many and varied are its defects. But its complete inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to deal with immigration must surely rank as the most colossal of its many failures. As for the staff at the Home Office, their general incompetence is a fitting partner to Labour's inadequacy and mendacity: as a commenter (Michael Murphy) at the Daily Mail so aptly put it, they are "Donkeys led by Donkeys".

Deport Jacqui Smith!

"Illegal immigrant at Home Office", was a headline on the 'politics' section of the BBC News website this evening, and for one ghastly moment I thought that Peter Hain had been made Home Secretary. But then I remembered: Hain may be an undesirable immigrant, but, sadly, he's not an illegal.

No, the headline just referred to the latest embarrassing revelation in the story of the government's ongoing cock-up over illegal immigration. Sorry, I should have been more explicit: as the post immediately prior to this one shows, the government likes to have several cock-ups over illegal immigration on the go at any one time - the one I refer to in this instance, however, is the one involving illegal immigrants (approximately 11,000 of them, according to the latest estimate) being cleared to work in the security sector . Now, I see that among those organisations finding themselves being guarded by an illegal immigrant, was the Home Office itself:

An illegal immigrant was employed as a security guard at the Home Office, the government has admitted.

The man worked at the front desk of the department's headquarters in Westminster checking people's passes.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said problems were identified with one of the sub-contractors providing services to the Home Office.

His job would have involved checking the passes of people visiting Ms Smith, ministers and senior civil servants.

Deportation proceedings have now begun against the guard.

Maybe they should make him Home Secretary. He couldn't possibly be more useless than the current one, or any of her recent predecessors, or likely successors. Yes, make him Home Secretary, and deport Jacqui Smith (and Liam Byrne, for good measure).

Idiotic Proposal of the Day

Immigration officers should wear pastel-coloured clothing when attempting to deport families, so that they are less intimidating to children, Home Office officials have recommended.

The proposal to dress officers in clothing that is less like a uniform came in a government review of attempts to remove families from Britain. It urged a change of clothing for those involved in trying to deport families, to make the process less frightening.

The review by the Border and Immigration Agency said: “Consideration should be given to providing standard-issued clothing in softer colours (currently issued in navy) for enforcement officers involved in family work to reduce the appearance of a ‘uniform’ and be less intimidating to children.”

Obviously it's not the fault of the children if their parents choose to enter the UK illegally, and they should suffer as little as possible for their parents' crime. But how on Earth is dressing immigration officers up like participants in a gay pride parade going to help anything? I would imagine that most of the fear and intimidation comes from the fact that they are being forcibly removed from the country. This won't change just because the people doing it are dressed in a very tasteful shade of mauve, rather than in navy blue.

Also, it has to be pointed out, that the process would probably be a lot less stressful for all concerned if the parents complied with the immigration officials at all stages. After all, the immigration officials only need to start using strong-arm tactics if the immigrants aren't prepared to go peacefully.

It also suggested that if a child was close to school examinations it would be a factor in determining whether a family was removed.

I would have thought that being deported would be bad enough without having to sit a bloody exam immediately beforehand! Particularly when the result of that exam is likely to be completely irrelevant to them in their home countries.

The proposal to clothe immigration officers in pastel colours came as ministers abandoned a controversial policy of removing welfare benefits from failed asylum-seeker families in the hope that it would encourage them to leave. The Government dropped the blanket operation of the policy after a pilot project found that it led to no significant increase in voluntary returns or removals from Britain.

Of course, the thought that the British taxpayer shouldn't have to give his money to criminals who entered this country illegally and have absolutely no right to be here doesn't seem to have crossed the government's collective mind.

Anyway, having seen this proposal, I've come up with my own idea for a uniform which could be worn by the Home Office officials who had the "pastel colours" idea. It consists of a piece of headgear to be worn by them at all times, and it looks like this: